Mr. Speaker, after the debate on the Railway Budget has been disposed of this morning, to which the hon. the Minister will furnish his final reply on Monday, we shall proceed with, legislation. On Tuesday the Post Office Budget will be presented and the debate on it adjourned until Wednesday. In the meantime we shall proceed with the legislation as it appears on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Now that we have reached the Third Reading of this particular Bill, I should like to make a few remarks, in the first place on the nature of the debate which has been conducted up to now, and in the second place, on particular matters which have been referred to by the hon. the Minister. The first thing I want to do, is to thank the hon. the Minister and express my appreciation for the fact that he has succeeded in keeping the Railway debate as it has been conducted on a reasonably cool note up to this point. It is quite clear to me that the hon. gentleman applied the old adage that a soft answer turneth away wrath, and to that extent, I believe, he has been successful. Then I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are grateful to him for the fact that he gave serious consideration to the question of concessions for scholars, a matter which was raised last session and again during this session. It is quite clear to me that the hon. gentleman underestimated the seriousness of the matter last year, and now I want to express my gratitude to him, certainly also on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, for the fact that he has now tackled the matter with the necessary earnestness in an attempt to rectify the position. We trust that he will be successful in this regard.

Sir, at the Third Reading I may perhaps point out that the Railways as an organization is generally accepted as having a monopoly in the field of transportation in South Africa, a monopoly which is based on the Constitution Act of South Africa. This being the case, I believe that the organization is duty bound to demonstrate that it is not abusing this monopoly, but, on the contrary, is fulfilling its duty precisely because it derives these important monopolistic rights from the Constitution Act. And to my mind it should prove this more particularly in respect of its efficiency as an organization. In my humble opinion its efficiency is controlled by two bodies. On the one hand we have the Management of the Railways and, on the other hand, we have this House, of which the hon. the Minister forms part. These two bodies should, from time to time, consider the Railways to see to what extent it maintains efficiency, which, in my humble opinion, constitutes one of its major obligations. As far as the Management is concerned, I want to say at once that the Railways is fortunate to have men in charge who deserve the gratitude of concerned in South Africa for the particular role they are playing. Then I come, in the second places to this House and its obligation in respect of efficiency. I want to put it this way: We in this House and also the hon. the Minister, are only able to speak in this House, and are not really in a position to take any active steps as far as the Railways is concerned, but it is most essential that this House should subject the organization of the Railways to close scrutiny to make quite sure that it is efficient in all respects. Unless we succeed in subjecting this efficiency to a close scrutiny it would seem to me that there will be an imbalance between these two elements which have to control the position of the Railways. Therefore we have a specific duty to fulfil in this regard, and I hope that the hon. the Minister and the House will regard our specific standpoint in this light whenever we level criticism at the Railways. It is in this light that I want to raise a few matters.

The first matter concerns rates. I want to say at once how glad I am that we were fortunate enough, not to have any increase in rates this year. But I want to add immediately that if I may refer to the increase in Railway rates as the right-hand of the hon. the Minister, we have had a heavy blow from his left hand by way of an increase in third party insurance. Mr. Speaker, I know this is a matter I cannot deal with any further now, but I just want to point out that we are aware …

Order! This has no bearing on the Railways.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall confine myself to the Railways but I just want to point out that this matter will receive attention at a later stage. As far as the rates are concerned, we have heard what the standpoint of the hon. the Minister is. However, we believe that there is something radically wrong with the rate system. The hon. the Minister said last session, and this session again, that the Railways was not meant to render socio-economic services. He also said that the Railways was not meant to render welfare services. He said so for only one reason, i.e. that such a socio-economic service or a welfare service does not square with the business principles according to which the Railways must try to conduct its affairs. We all agree with that. We have no problem as far as that is concerned. But, Sir, what do we find? In spite of this belief of the hon. the Minister we nevertheless find today—and this is a state of affairs which has been going on for many years—that the Railways are still conveying large volumes of traffic at uneconomic rates and millions of people at a loss of R100 million per annum. This state of affairs continues in spite of the fact that the hon. gentleman made known to us his particular beliefs, as has already been said. The hon. gentleman allows this state of affairs to continue because he knows that he is not in a position to increase the rates at this stage because the people cannot afford it.

Now, the matter is quite clear as far as I am concerned. The Railways continues in this manner and the longer it continues with this state of affairs the more they contribute to this enormous amount which accrues to the Railways on the part of the State in order to compensate for the difference between an economic rate on the one hand and a socio-economic service rate on the other. My argument is quite simple. If the State were to fulfil its duty in this state of affairs, it would have to find the money to compensate for this difference and would have to tax the entire nation in order to be able to do this. This is the only way in which it can find the money. But this the State does not do. The State sits back and the Railways continues to bear this enormous cost on behalf of the State. What does it really amount to? It amounts to the State, instead of imposing a tax on the population as a whole, allows the Railways to be used as a taxing machine in South Africa. This is the case to a large extent, and I believe this state of affairs should not continue. The State ought to do its duty in this regard. This is not good enough for South. Africa, and I think it is time the hon. the Minister put his foot down and said that there is an account to be settled between the Railways as a business organization on the one hand and the State on the other. If we are unable to settle this account, we should at least know how much it is. We on this side of the House will not be satisfied until such time as we know how much the account is.

There is a second matter I wish to raise. In this case I want to say again that I think the hon. the Minister has not furnished us with a complete reply. No one in this House will differ from me when I say that we are faced with enormous problems as far as urban transport is concerned. If hon. members read Prof. Verburgh’s publication entitled “Die Stad en sy Verkeer”—this is a relatively new work—they would see that he states that the movement of millions of people through buildings, through urban activities and, what he calls topological obstructions, is such a vast problem that it is at least equal to a journey through space. Nevertheless, he says, the scientific and financial resources of South Africa have not yet been utilized in order to find a solution to this vast problem. The hon. the Minister said that this matter was not really his responsibility and that he feels that it should be undertaken by other bodies. What are the facts of the matter? According to Prof. Verburgh the South African Railways transports, even at this stage, 50% of the total number of passengers making use of transport, and there is a tendency which shows that the share of the Railways in this transportation is increasing all the time. In this atmosphere the hon. the Minister comes to us and says that this is not really a role he has to fulfil. I say again that, in our humble opinion, this is not good enough. We really think that the hon. the Minister should come forward and play a leading role in order to solve this problem, a problem which is going to catch up with him in the end. This problem demands the closest co-operation between not only the State and the hon. the Minister, but also between the State, local authorities and private bodies. They will have to try to do something tangible about this problem during the following ten or 15 years. If this is not done, the Minister of Transport will, in my opinion, have to bear much of the blame. The hon. the Minister cannot get away from the fact that the Railways has for half a century been playing a leading role in this matter and that it cannot shun its responsibilities now. The organization of urban transport is one of the most extensive projects any body could be burdened with. After all, we know that our local bodies cannot possibly carry this financial burden. Only when the Railways utilizes money from public funds for this project would it be in a position to do what to us in South Africa is of real importance. One only has to visit our cities, one only has to read what is happening in overseas countries. Here in South Africa we have the opportunity of doing something about the matter now while the position can still bt dealt with. For that reason I want to reiterate what I have said to the hon. the Minister, i.e. that we really cannot continue with the position as is at present. He should not try to evade the responsibilities in this connection by telling us that this is an obligation other bodies would have to carry.

In the third instance I want to say something about the staff. I want to refer to pensioners in the first place. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the fact that the information he gave us in regard to this matter yesterday was reasonably complete. I have learned a great deal from what he said, and I am also aware of the problems he pointed out. I have to say immediately that we appreciate the nature of his problems but we, who are dealing with the man in the street, have one problem to which we do not have an answer, try as we may. Whatever I have to say about the Superannuation Fund and whatever I have to say about financial arrangements, the problem is how to explain to a pensioner who has retired at the age of 65 years, after 30 years’ service, why he has to receive a smaller pension than the person who, say, retired yesterday. He simply does not understand this, because he rendered just as many years’ service and he worked just as hard. As a matter of fact, in many cases he worked even harder and under even more difficult circumstances than the person who retired after he had. Now he wants to know from me why his pension is smaller than that of a person who has had fewer years’ service than he did and who is going to retire now. It is a fact that certain problems do exist and this we appreciate, but I have no reply to give to such a person. He was an equally loyal official, and what is there one can say to such a person? I wonder whether it is not time for us to try to link the pension system to staff positions instead of to individuals. In terms of such a system a pension could be paid according to the particular position the pensioner held. This would solve the problem and help us to furnish these people with a plausible reply. Working in this Parliamentary building are people who tell me how they had to stoke and drive the old steam locomotives in previous years, and of the inconvenience they had to suffer. They had to endure far more inconvenience than the drivers who are doing their job today under modern circumstances. I have no answer to give to that person when he puts his case to me and then asks me how it is possible that he receives a much smaller pension at a time when the cost of living is as high for him as it is for the other man. The fact that he made a smaller contribution, makes no sense to him. Statistics mean nothing to him because, after all, he cannot buy food with statistics. That is why I believe that we have to do something about this matter.

It is a pity the hon. member for Witwatersberg is not here. I want to say at once that it makes no difference to me what the hon. member wants to ascribe to me as far as salaries, the staff and overtime are concerned. Witwatersberg is a fine name for a constituency, but now the hon. member is trying to make Black propaganda out of this matter. Once again I want to make the standpoint of this side of the House quite plain. This is not a standpoint which was put for the first time today, yesterday or last week; this is a standpoint which has been entertained for many years. This standpoint is that every staff member should receive a decent and livable wage or salary. No Railway official should be placed in the position where he has to work overtime, not only to maintain his standard of living, but also to increase it. Such a state of affairs cannot be defended.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Has there ever been a time during the regime of any government when no overtime was worked?

I shall reply to the question of the hon. member in a moment. I want to repeat that every staff member of the Railways should receive a decent and livable wage. In the second place, I just want to say that no staff member, from the highest to the lowest rank, should be placed in a position where he is compelled to work overtime to maintain and develop his standard of living. I now come to the hon. the Minister …

Reply to my question.

I now tell the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Carletonville that there are two kinds of overtime on the Railways. The first kind is what I call essential overtime which exists in any organization such as the Railways. One will always have this kind of overtime. Therefore I do not want to elaborate on this. One has to be totally uninformed and ignorant to believe, as the hon. member for Witwatersberg does, that all overtime can be done away with. One will always have this essential overtime. We can do nothing about it; the organization of the Railways will remain as it is. But there is a second kind of overtime, and I want the hon. member for Carletonville to listen very carefully now. This is a kind of overtime which is created as a result of one fact only, i.e. that there is a labour shortage in South Africa, that we do not have sufficient people to man the Railways properly. It is in respect of this kind of overtime that we are experiencing some problems. This is the kind of overtime I told the hon. the Minister he should reduce to a minimum. He knows this is the most expensive kind of overtime the Railways can pay for. He can find no better example of this than what is happening in Durban. When overtime was abolished as a factor there, productivity increased by 35%. I say again that the only reason for the second kind of overtime is the fact that there is a labour shortage. The hon. the Minister may tell me that he is unable to do away with it because the White worker cannot afford it. Then I say to him that it is a disgrace that a Railway employee has to work overtime on the Railways of South Africa simply because he cannot afford to work for his ordinary wage. That is the point. And does the hon. member for Carletonville not regret the fact, as I do, that such a state of affairs prevails in an organization which is the largest employer in South Africa?

Would you sit down so that I could reply to you?

No. Of course this is a fact. The hon. the Minister may furnish me with yet another reply. He may tell me that there is not sufficient labour. The hon. the Minister would be wrong in that respect as well, because there is sufficient labour in South Africa.

More than enough.

Everyone knows that we do not have a labour shortage. What we do have, is an artificial shortage which is created by looking at the matter through colour-tinted spectacles. If I believed in the philosophy of the hon. the Minister, I would say that we should forget about the colour-tinted spectacles and that there is no labour shortage. Therefore, it is our point of view that the hon. the Minister should reduce to a minimum the second kind of overtime, which is being created by an artificial labour shortage, and that this should be done without the ordinary Railway worker having to lose one single cent. If he does lose he would only lose because he is compelled to work overtime because he is unable to maintain his standard of living without working overtime, and that is a disgrace.

The final point I wish to make in the few minutes left to me, is the fact that we are grateful because there is a surplus of R30 million. I just want to point out that the surplus will not amount to R30 million, but that it will possibly be between R35 million and R40 million. This is the indication we had from the hon. the Minister in his Budget speech. It was explained to us how the cargo in Durban follows a particular cycle, i.e. upwards and downwards, and that there is a fluctuation, upwards or downwards, every two years. We also have such a cycle as far as the Railways surplus is concerned. It follows more or less the same cycle as the cargo in the docks does. Every two years it is high and then follows a downward trend. We should not take delight in the fact that we have a surplus of R30 million. For very sound reasons I can foresee —in particular under the policy of the Government and the hon. the Minister— that the staff will have to ask again for salary increases in the near future. They cannot make ends meet under the burden of inflation South Africa is struggling with. They will have to ask for salary increases and the moment they do so this R30 million will disappear like the morning mist before the sun. We would then find, as we did three years ago, that we suddenly had to drain the Rates Equalization Fund dry in an attempt not to increase the rates. I now want to say to the hon. the Minister with all due respect that I think that this is not good enough. I do not think South Africa should receive this rate shock every two or three years—no one is able to say when. This was the crux of my contention in regard to the report of the Schumann Commission. I asked for a situation to be created in South Africa and on the Railways where one would have a gradual increase which would not make itself felt like a sickening shock throughout the economy of South Africa. If the hon. gentleman could do this —he says this is theoretical—then I say to him that he would also succeed very quickly in reaching the situation where he would find that there are certain goods in South Africa in respect of which he could no longer increase the rates in order to reach a cost factor, even if he wanted to. He would find that he would be unable to increase the fares in respect of passengers, because the people would not be able to afford it. This would force him into a situation where he would have to go and see the hon. the Minister of Finance and tell him that he either abides by the report of the Schumann Commission and implements it, in which case the hon. the Minister of Finance would have to pay, or that he would continue to serve as the taxation machine of the State and imposes a sectional taxation on the Railway user instead of the State imposing a tax on the people as a whole, a situation which, to me, is totally indefensible in an organization such as the Railways.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat touched on a number of matters which have already been discussed ad nauseam in the course of the discussions of the past few days. Owing to lack of time, I find it difficult to reply to all those aspects. The only remark I want to make in this regard is that the hon. member started by attacking the Railways and making it out to be an organization that derives benefit from a monopolistic situation. However, he suggested no solution to this problem. He did the same with regard to urban transport and his solution for problems in this regard was: “It is now time for something to be done.” This, then, is the kind of solution we have had from the hon. member. As far as the position of pensioners is concerned, he also described a condition for which he had no solution whatsoever. He knows that this is a very real problem that is being tackled in the same way throughout the world.

He says that he will have a solution within ten to 15 years.

I believe that there is no group of people in this country that is more sympathetically dealt with by this side of the House than these same pensioners. The National Party and the Railways have the interests of the pensioners very much at heart and we are all sympathetic towards them. We always do as much for them as our financial condition permits. Nor can it be expected that more than that should be done.

Since time is limited, I want to make haste. Looking at the discussion of the Budget as conducted over the past week, it is very clear to me that on the one side we have a strong Government and a strong party. On the other side we have a weakened United Party and two small splinter parties suffering from innumerable frustrations. Because they suffer these frustrations, they are sometimes capable of making reckless and irresponsible statements precisely as a wilful, naughty child does. After all, they know that they will never have the opportunity of being accountable for the irresponsible things they say. In general, there is only one thing that the two new parties have eyes for, and that is colour, and they come back to that issue time and again. We have heard nothing positive from them in this debate.

But colour issues are important. [Interjections.]

The hon. member must not be angry with us now; it is not our fault that they find themselves in their present situation.

What have we had from the National Party? The outstanding characteristics of the National Party, and also of the Railways, are these very characteristics of purposefulness, determination, responsibility and a confidence in the future of South Africa that is displayed every day. More than anything else, this Railway Budget is a confirmation of this. This Budget is nothing but a success story. It is the success story of an hon. Minister who, through his presentation and his attitude in this House, has yet again inspired confidence in South Africa. It is the success story of a General Manager and his top officials who are on the ball, because they have all situations under control. They have answers to every problem and they are ready to act. This Budget is also the success story of the thousands of Railway officials scattered across the length and breadth of South Africa. It is a success story precisely because it attests to the efficiency and productivity that results from thorough planning.

The major attack on the Budget was made in the sphere of planning. But the Railway Budget is in itself a proof of the soundness of the planning done and of the far-sightedness and entrepreneuring spirit displayed here. These achievements have only been possible because the staff has been willing to do the work. In reply to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I want to say this. If it is necessary to work longer, to work extra hours, then these are the very people who are willing to do so. They do it, not only in their own interests, but also in the interests of South Africa, because they see further than merely their own personal interests. In addition, success has been made possible because various scientific methods were employed, particularly in the selection of staff. It is the primary aim of the Railways to ensure that every man occupies the right job. Far-reaching steps have been taken to ensure that the staff are properly trained to do the work. The training and appointment of non-Whites to certain costs has also been crowned with great success owing to the fact that we in South Africa have been able to maintain a level of productivity of 2,25% over a period of 15 years, and that takes some doing. There has been a constant striving for efficiency and productivity in order to combat the high rate of inflation. We see this in the fact that the top management has ensured that work procedures have been simplified and improved in order to answer to their purpose. They have also utilized the computer on a very large scale to do this important work. They have automated and mechanized the labour-intensive functions. They have improved railroad facilities and traffic handling facilities. I think it is the duty of an opposition to criticize, but I think that to criticize a budget like this one has been an extremely difficult task. Actually, I have sympathy for hon. members opposite. The criticism we have had here has been empty, it has been hollow and lacking in substance. I really pity them. I have here before me a document entitled Barclays National Review of June 1974. The heading concerned is: “The Infrastructure: An Investment in Expansion”. I should like to read one short paragraph from this. It reads as follows—

I want to stress the words “that is taken for granted today”. The history of the true part played by the S.A. Railways in the development and unfolding of South Africa, has not yet been written. I think it would be a very interesting subject of study for a university student, to determine the true part played by the S.A. Railways in the development of our country. This document goes on as follows—

Sir, if this is not a feather in the Railways’ cap from an impartial source, then I do not know what it is. Sir, let me quote another paragraph just to show you where we stand in this respect. South Africa is not blessed with the best harbours in the world; on the contrary, we have very poor harbours.

They are natural harbours.

We do not have good natural harbours. Geologically speaking. South Africa is a young country and consequently we do not have the rivers one finds in other parts of the world. In addition we are blessed with long distances. When I think about these aspects, then the following facts are important to me—

Sir, is costs R1 000 more in Hamburg. If that is not an achievement for South Africa, then I do not know what an achievement is.

Sir, I want to make haste because there is another aspect which interests me greatly and concerning which I should very much like to say a few words, and this is the S.A. Airways. In contrast with the recession conditions and the economic uncertainty being experienced by many international airways today, to such an extent that some of them are prepared to sell their air services, our South African Airways is in an exceptionally unique and favourable position. I think that we have every reason to be very proud of the S.A. Airways. I should very much have liked to have the opportunity to dwell on the broader aspects of this today, but unfortunately, there is no time for this now. The growth and the development of the S.A. Airways has been truly fantastic. I just want to dwell a little on another achievement by the S.A. Airways today. Sir, the S.A.A. has succeeded in putting the transportation of air freight on an economic basis. This is an achievement that has been arrived at by, once again, very thorough planning. The Management spotted their opportunity and took it, and by making the necessary adjustments, succeeded in making the transportation of freight a very important part of the service. Enormous quantities of fresh vegetables and fruit, flowers, crayfish, karakul pelts, photographic equipment, jewellery and many other commodities are regularly conveyed by our Airways. Air freight traffic is a steadily growing industry and necessitates special procedures. As early as the second half of 1971, the S.A.A. initiated a containerization programme. It made certain containers available to its freight agents with the aim of putting packets in bigger units so as to facilitate transportation and handling. They were not standard containers. At present they are using approved I.A.T.A. containers which are registered. These containers are now being used on a large scale and this has very definite advantages. The most important benefit of this containerization project is that it enables us to use the available space economically. Containerization eliminates unnecessary and time-consuming handling and reduces the risk of damage. The public does not come into close contact with them, because sometimes there are dangerous and injurious items that are isolated in this way. Damage caused to such a container consequently does not influence the whole cargo, but is limited to the one specific container only. There is less opportunity for people to tamper with such containers. They promote efficiency. Subject to certain conditions, for example, a discount is granted to people who forward their freight in proper containers. A standard container is designed to hold the maximum mass, and if the agents comply with those requirements, they receive this incentive bonus and if they do not, it lapses. Provision is also made for the return of these containers if they are damaged. Our actual freight-only service was introduced on 1 October 1974. This is one of the milestones in the field of the transportation of freight. An aeroplane flying from Johannesburg to Port Elizabeth and Durban and then back to Johannesburg, and then flying the same route in the opposite direction, is used for this purpose. The wide fuselage Lockheed 100, with a freight capacity of 20 000 kg, is used for this purpose. To encourage large freights, a special discount is granted for freights of at least 2 000 kg at a time. The agents of consumers of this very important service are in fact requested and encouraged to contact the Railways or their agents timeously so that no time is lost. This highspeed service and the attractive tariffs charged may lead to increasing use being made of airfreight, instead of overland transport. The speed with which freight is transported is of great importance for overseas freight, in other words, how fast it is transported from the coastal cities and from Jan Smuts. Airfreight is one of the great challenges of our time, and this challenge the S.A. Airways has accepted. In the past, airfreight was the Cinderella of the air services and passenger transport received all the attention, but this situation is changing very rapidly. Experts are of the opinion that in the near future airfreight will be the No. I revenue earner. This occurrence in October 1974 must therefore be regarded as a very important milestone. Our own S.A. Airways spotted and identified this tendency in time. In fact, we are far ahead of many other airways in this sphere. Over the past few months, about R18 million has been spent on airfreight depots. For example, one has been built at Jan Smuts at a cost of R10,5 million. It was occupied last year. In Cape Town there is one costing R2,5 million, in Durban, one costing R2 million and in Port Elizabeth, one costing R1,75 million. All these depots are equipped with all the necessary customs facilities and are capable of clearing goods entering and leaving the country. There are facilities for refrigeration, for safe custody and for the temporary accommodation of pets and other smaller animals, pending collection. The demand for space for perishable products to the United Kingdom and Europe still exceeds the available supply. The heavy passenger traffic has in fact aggravated this situation. Furthermore, on the international routes we also have the services provided in a pool agreement with other Airways. I do not want to dwell on that at length now. Over the past three years, airfreight has progressed by leaps and bounds. Interestingly enough, in 1934-’35 we only transported 10 tons. In 1931-’72 this had risen to 21 714 tons. In 1972-’73 the figure was 27 570 tons. In 1973-’74 it had risen to 36 595 tons. The growth rate was in fact so high that in times of pressure the S.A.A. was unable to handle all the transport. The economic benefits involved, bearing in mind the shorter transit period, are so great that one wonders whether we will not be able to earn even more in this field. It can take months to transport goods by ship from Europe to South Africa, while, if one makes use of the Airways, one can have freight in Johannesburg within a week. In this regard I have in mind, in the first place, the major saving in insurance expenses that can be effected as a result of the shorter period. Then, too, there is the saving in respect of interest on a capital investment that lies fallow for a long period. One sometimes has to keep a large quantity of supplies in stock because one does not know when one will be able to stock up again. By means of airfreight this can be done much faster and it is consequently unnecessary to stock such large supplies. Then, too, there is the matter of interest on capital that is invested in cargo that takes a long time to be transported here. Sir, the Vaal Triangle absorbs about 50% of our imports of about R5 000 million. About R2 500 million of this is for the Vaal Triangle. This is in fact a situation which we can exploit further. I do not know whether investigations have been carried out in this regard, but it appears to me that we could save an enormous amount for our country in this regard. If we can continue in this way. I am convinced that although South Africa has already made a major breakthrough in the field of airfreight, there are still going to be a number of opportunities to earn even more in this regard. I want to conclude by availing myself of this opportunity to convey our thanks to the hon. the Minister, the General Manager and his staff for the work they have done and for the work which the S.A. Railways is doing in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that in the Railway debate the official Opposition have failed to make any dents whatsoever in the armour of the Government. I believe that they failed to do so because they attempted to attack the Government on the technical performance and the management of the Railways. Undoubtedly there are many ways in which planning, management and performance of the Railways could be improved, but by and large the performance of the Railways is impressive, and I think that anybody who has studied the reports relating to the performance of the Railways and who has listened to the debate will agree that this is so and that as South Africans we are all very proud of the Railways. But there was one opportunity the official Opposition had to take an unequivocal stand, and that was in respect of the suggestions that were made with regard to the removal of discrimination in the employment practices of the Railways and in the remuneration policies that are applied in the Railways. I must prefer to deal with the unequivocal stand taken by the National Party in respect of these matters than with the equivocal stand whjch is taken by the official Opposition. The National Party says that this is White South Africa, that the Whites in South. Africa must have preference and that the Whites in South Africa should be dealt with first in terms of employment in the Railways and in other Government departments. That is their policy and they state it honestly and clearly and although I am totally opposed to it and although I criticize them for it because it is discriminatory and part of White baasskap, at least I know where I stand with them. [Interjections.] In the official Opposition there is a different position. There are people there who agree with the Nationalist Party but who are not prepared to say so, and then there are people there who disagree with the Nationalist Party but who are not prepared to say so either.

Who are they?

Let me just tell hon. members about the response of the United Party to the suggestions I made. The suggestion that discrimination must be removed in employment practices was described by the United Party’s speaker on Railway matters as pie in the sky and unrealistic. He said one must not call for it and one must not make attempts to achieve it. My call to pay the rate for the job, in other words my call that there should be no discrimination between races as regards remuneration, is pie in the sky and unrealistic according to that hon. member. The call that the Railways must announce their plans now on their future relationships with railway systems in the Bantu homelands, that there should be proper consolidation and proper planning, that provision should be made now that there will not be any discrimination, and that offence should not be given to the citizens of those homelands, is pie in the sky and unrealistic. The call that all the racial communities in South Africa should be represented in the top management of the Railways is also pie in the sky and unrealistic. I shall tell hon. members why that happens. It happens because the basic philosophy of the United Party is so vague and unclear that they are not prepared to take an unequivocal stand in respect of racial matters in South Africa. The situation is as follows. The Nationalist Government has a clear point of view in respect of the S.A. Railways. They say that this is South Africa and in terms of all the employment practices and the remuneration practices the White man’s interests must be dealt with first. I disagree with them and I say that this is discrimination and baasskap, but it is a clear point of view so one can deal with it. The official Opposition, however, has an entirely different attitude. Their attitude was expressed by the hon. member for Maitland who made many good suggestions in his address. He is not prepared to lay down an unequivocal line; it is always a “ja, maar”-approach.

Like what?

The hon. members of the United Party’s “ja, maar”-approach is certainly from our point of view pie in the sky and unrealistic … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must stop interjecting.

Mr. Speaker, I have made the point that if the official Opposition were to take a clear stand in respect of the matters raised here, it would be possible to make the debate in the White politics of South, Africa a realistic, fundamental and meaningful one.

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the hon. member who has just sat down that discrimination in employment practices in the Railways must be rooted out of the Railways and we would like to see it go. I do not want to talk about that in this speech. I want to raise a matter which has already been raised this morning by the hon. member for Maitland. I want to say that I was very disappointed indeed with the answer given to me by the hon. the Minister during the course of this debate when I questioned him on the possibility of a fast monorail system between the cities of Pretoria and Johannesburg. The hon. the Minister said that he did not consider this sort of system to be the responsibility of the Railways but that of the local authorities concerned. I believe that this is the responsibility of the Government and my authority for that belief is the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, Act No. 32 of 1961, which states quite clearly that the Railways among other things shall promote —and I quote from section 103(1):

It seems to me that providing our industrial and city population with cheap transport is very clearly a Railway responsibility. I should like to take Johannesburg as an example. A rapid transit system of some kind is desperately needed there, but the financing of such an enormous operation is clearly completely beyond the financial capabilities of the Johannesburg City Council. They cannot possibly finance such an undertaking from municipal rates. For over 30 years, or closer to 40 years, the Johannesburg city council has attempted to get some sort of scheme off the ground but with absolutely no success. I believe the Railways must accept its responsibilities and come to the aid of local authorities in this matter. It is logical to suppose that the Railways has the knowledge, the expertise and the general know-how to tackle projects of this nature. It is also sensible to suppose that they are the only body which could introduce a measure of standardization which must be an advantage as far as general economy is concerned. The facts of the matter are that Johannesburg is being slowly strangled through, lack of a rapid transit system of some kind. Such a system is very sorely needed. The Railways are responsible for cheap transport for our industrial population and I believe something has to be done and be done very soon. I am now talking about capital expenditure. I think it should be remembered that something like 80% of our White population and a huge percentage of our Black population are urban dwellers; and this percentage is increasing all the time. It is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister to see to it that the interests of all urban dwellers are looked after. This responsibility must include adequate transportation. This just cannot be handled by local authorities alone because they just do not have the capital resources. Bus services are a different matter, because normal municipal finances can cope, but at present only the central Government can deal with the developing crisis situation which is taking place in our cities. The longer the Government leaves it, the worse it is going to become and the more costly it is going to become to introduce any sort of system at all. I believe it is incumbent upon the hon. the Minister to arrange, as soon as is practical, a meeting with representatives of all the large municipalities in South Africa to discuss this matter in depth. The hon. the Minister just cannot close his eyes to this. If he is not going to do anything about it, could he please suggest where local authorities are going to get the money with urban ratepayers already overloaded and with rates going up all the time. The bulk of our taxation comes from the urban and industrial areas of South Africa. Town dwellers are entitled to their fair share of that taxation for their needs. I would ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider his attitude or at the very least, to discuss this question with his Cabinet colleagues so that local authorities can receive some assurance from the Government that they will be assisted financially to take action which is very urgently necessary.

Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to participate in the unsavoury quarrels between the United Party and its defectors, I am not going to reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Bryanston.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “unsavoury”.

I withdraw it, Sir. I am going to come back to the hon. member for Orange Grove at a later stage in my speech. Before making my actual speech, I should first like to make a request to the hon. the Minister. I think this is a reasonable request. I want to ask him whether he could not consider the possibility of allowing the Blue Train, which runs between Pretoria and Cape Town, to run via Bloemfontein as well. My request amounts to the Blue Train running via Kimberley and via Bloemfontein alternatively. As a new route could be considered Pretoria / Vereeniging/ Kroonstad / Bloemfontein / Springfontein / Noupoort/ De Aar, or whatever route is deemed advisable. This would mean that this popular train, the pride of our country, would be able to serve a new area over a distance of more than 600 km and would pass through three provinces without really making a detour. An increasing number of tourists and foreign visitors, among whom there are some prominent visitors, use the Blue Train. This would afford them the opportunity of seeing other parts of our beautiful country. The new route would take them through the heart of the Free State, past the Free State gold-fields and past the picturesque Verwoerd Dam, which is fast becoming a popular tourist attraction. With respect, Mr. Speaker, this would also enable you to travel to Cape Town on the Blue Train for the Parliamentary session. We are also aware of the fact that the Drakensberg, also called the Green Train, passes through the Orange Free State. The hon. the Minister may now tell us that we already have a luxury train. We are greatly appreciative of this fact, but we want to point out that the Drakensberg also runs via Kimberley. I do not begrudge my colleagues from Kimberley the fact that they will be able to use both the Blue Train and the Green Train, and they would perhaps not begrudge us the fact that we have the Blue Train as well.

While listening to the speeches made by the Opposition during the past few days, I could not help gaining the impression that the Opposition has missed the train in South Africa. They were unable to get their train moving because their hon. shadow Minister was not even able to get up steam. One Opposition stoker after another climbed on to the footplate—as the firemen say—in order to stoke up the fire. All we have had, was the stoker’s nightmare, black smoke. We had a great deal of black smoke in this debate. At the end of the debate their train is standing at the same point, whistling, hissing and steaming, while the National train has disappeared over the hills in the distance. Why is their train still standing? Because they have employed too many coalmen and too few stokers. I want to suggest that they board Faan’s train instead. The criticism levelled in this debate, was not even able to make a dent in this fine Budget. As a matter of fact, the criticism had no more effect than a few troublesome fleas have on the back of a dog. At the end of the marathon debate in which everything was laid bare to the bone, one realizes what a fine Budget we have here. This Budget redounds to the credit of the South African Railways. It reflects the activities of an undertaking which has grown in the service of South Africa to a transport colossus. The Railways has become the heart of the infrastructure of South Africa, with its soundly co-ordinated network of road, railway and air communication, of pipelines and harbours, all of which are combined into one vital entity. While listening to the Budget speech and the speeches which followed it, I was impressed by the dynamic and vital nature of the Railways. This is a transport organization of which many countries would be proud. I could not believe my eyes when the hon. member for Durban Point moved his amendment in which he made the astonishing statement that the role the Government affords the Railways is not a dynamic one. This Government is not only waking up now, like the hon. member for Durban Point. For many years the National Party Government, with great single-mindedness has been turning the Railways into a dynamic and highly modernized undertaking so that it can be in the forefront of a rapidly expanding country. South Africa is on the threshold of a period of renewed economic revival, something which is going to make major demands on the Railways. The hon. member for Durban Point may accept that preparing the Railways are going to be prepared to meet these demands, because it has been preparing itself for a long time to be able to play a key role in the development of a greater Africa. The Railways is always prepared, because it is continually adjusting itself to and modernizing itself for the new, changed pattern of transport for the new, greater South Africa. South Africa has experienced spectacular industrial growth and agricultural development in the past years, and we all know that the Railways not only succeeded in keeping pace with this spectacular growth, but also succeeded in being one step ahead. The Railways was not a step or two behind as was suggested by the hon. member for Orange Grove.

The hon. members on the opposite side of the House suddenly see a major role for the Railways in Southern Africa. They have suddenly jumped on to the detente wagon. However, the Railways has been fulfilling this role for many years. Through the years it has assisted to provide in the needs of our neighbours and, when there was an emergency as is now the case in Mozambique, it lends a helping hand and sends its people there to render assistance. The Railways is prepared to do even more than that. It is even prepared to take the lead, to be in the forefront of the transportation network which may be established in a new, peaceful Southern Africa. There were times when hon. members on that side were not so considerate towards South. Africa as they have been in this debate.

Which times?

Were those the times when you were supporting the enemies of South Africa?

The economy of our country, and with that the Railways, has gone through difficult times. I shall tell hon. members in a moment what I am referring to. The Railways has now been made part and parcel of the economy of South Africa. There were times when the doomsayers among the hon. members on that side of the House rose to paint one sombre picture after the other of the economy of South Africa. Why did they do that? They did so because they wanted to discredit the Government, and they often did so for their own political gain at the expense of South Africa. There were times when they shamefully referred to bankruptcy in this House and suggested that South Africa was on the brink of an abyss. They also made similar statements in the Railway debates.

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point must withdraw the statement “when you were supporting the enemies of South Africa”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

While they were saying these things it was the National Party Government which displayed courage and confidence in the future of South Africa and in the future of the Railways. It was the National Party Government who thought big and did great things. The National Party also foresaw a major and important and dynamic role for the Railways in South Africa. They came forward with vision, enterprise and imagination and devised great plans for the Railways. The result was the phenomenal Railway expansion in the country such as we have today. Today we have a whole series of expansions and modifications which are going to be proceeded with during the next few years to the tune of more than R1 000 million, but we do not even refer to those any more. Imaginative projects are being carried out and are being planned, projects which are going to render the Railways even more efficient and dynamic. To deal with all these projects would take up a great deal of the time of the House, but I have said enough about them. Can hon. members see how inappropriate the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point is?

The Budget of the hon. the Minister displays a particular insight into the economy of our country and economic tendencies. South Africa is fortunate in that she has a practical economist in the person of the hon. the Minister of Transport, who is able to interpret the local and overseas economic tendencies in time and prepare the Railways accordingly. This is only the Second Budget of the hon. the Minister, but in this Budget we already notice the hand of a master. The Railways is in good hands. The labour corps of the Railways and of South Africa as a whole can rest assured.

Let us consider what was revealed in this debate. There are certain aspects which are very prominent. In the first place, it was revealed that the finances of the Railways are quite sound. What more do we want than that? It is a compliment for South Africa that the finances of her Railways are quite sound while the Railways of numerous Western countries are very much in the red with deficits of several millions. In the second place, what better criterion than efficiency is there in terms of which such a service could be measured? The basic object of the Railways is an efficient transport system. Name me one transport service of the size of the South African Railways which renders a more efficient service—we shall have to go a long way to find one. As a matter of fact, the Opposition admitted here that the Railways is being run efficiently in all its facets. What other criterion is there in terms of which the Railways could be measured? It could be measured in terms of productivity, in terms of the work that is being done. The Railways and its loyal staff have set an example to the country by making productivity their watchword and by increasing it from year to year as we have heard in this debate. It is a fact that the Railways has achieved a level of productivity which is unequalled anywhere in South Africa. Year after year the Opposition comes up against this crushing fact when it wants to criticize the Railways on the basis of the level of productivity of the railway worker. The finances of the Railways are quite sound; the Railways is efficient and the Railways is productive. What more can they ask for?

I want to raise one final point. During this debate we have had numerous pleas on the part of the Opposition to the effect that greater use should be made of the services of non-Whites on the Railways. However, I did not hear them say one word with regard to the protection of the position of the Whites in the service of the Railways. The hon. member for Durban Point came along and revived old disputes by presenting us with a pamphlet from former years and quoting from it. I have also gone back a little into the murky past of the United Party. What did I discover there? I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point whether he still shares the standpoint of his fe11ow-party members who pleaded in Parliament that Whites should be replaced on the Railways.

But this happens every day.

They are not being replaced. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point whether he agrees with what was said by the hon. Senator Barrel in the Senate in 1951. He said—

He had Whites in mind, as appears from the following quotation. The following was said in the Senate by Senator Hosking—

The one point was the political aspect which nine out of ten people believe exists on the Railways. The other point was that there are too many White labourers on the Railways.

Is this what hon. members here have in mind again? We want to tell the railway workers: Be warned if the United Party should ever come into power—although we know that they will never come into power—they would throw open the doors of the Railways to non-White labour. The railway worker should take cognizance of that. The Railway policy of the United Party would mean the downfall of the White railway worker in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North apparently could no longer find a place for himself in the Senate. They probably thought they could lose him much more easily on the back benches of this House where he would not be so noticeable. He has answered a question that has been puzzling me for the past five days. That question is: Is it satisfying or is it frustrating to be a member of the Nationalist Party during a Railway debate? [Interjections.]

It is nice.

I thought so, Sir. The hon. member has shown that the answer is, “It is nice”.

*It is nice, because all they need do is to lay their hands on the annual report of the General Manager, the Budget Speech and the various other speeches and reports and to page through them, and then they are able to compose a dozen or 30 speeches simply from those reports.

To say thank you.

They can say thank you for the Railways, the Airways and the Harbours; they can thank the Minister, although they can no longer thank the Deputy Minister, and they can thank the staff. As far as they are concerned, Sir, this is the alpha and omega of their ambition; it satisfies them. It is nice if one is able to satisfy one’s whole ambition simply by repeating the contents of the Annual Reports of the Railways and the Budget Speeches of the Minister. It is quite clear, Sir, that the hon. member who just spoken, falls into that category. That satisfies him completely. I must say that if I were to be in that position, I would have found that utterly frustrating. I would have been utterly frustrated by knowing that there are things which should be said and which I may not say as my loyalty to the party does not allow me to do so. But, Sir, to be frustrated, one must at least have the intelligence to know what ought to be said and may not be said, and I can see that that hon. member has no frustration whatsoever. I also want to say this to him and I say it in all seriousness.

†I need no lecture from that hon. member on patriotism to South Africa. I need no lecture from him on my loyalty to this country. When we ran the Railways of South Africa, we ran it with the knowledge that people were dynamiting railway lines endangering the lives of their fellow-South Africans. We ran it with the knowledge that we were fighting sabotage; that we were fighting a fifth column in our own country that was endangering the lives of our own citizens—men, women and children—and then that hon. member wants to lecture me on patriotism! I throw it back at him with contempt, Sir.

The hon. member makes the accusation against this side of the House that its policy will lead to the “ondergang van die Blanke in die Spoorwegdiens”. A few minutes ago, Sir, the missing member for Bryanston accused us of not caring about the non-Whites, but that hon. member says we have let the White man down. Sir, I am going to deal with that in a little more detail. I suggest to the hon. member for Bloemfontein North that he should not consult so much with the hon. member for Waterberg before he talks of non-Whites in the Railway Service; he should rather consult with the hon. the Minister. Of course I stand by the statement that in the Railway Service non-Whites should have a place and an opportunity and should play their part in the service of South Africa. Of course it will mean that there will be cases where non-Whites will replace Whites in the Railway Service as they are doing now. But that does not mean that the White man has been put on to the street. He has moved to another grade, to another job. In nearly every case he has received promotion. In fact I would say that in every case he has received some advantage from the fact that he has been replaced by a non-White. But that hon. member tries to play politics so that he can say: “Die Sappe wil die Blanke in die Spoorwegdiens onderploeg”. I reject it with contempt, with the contempt it deserves.

With equal contempt, Sir, I want to return to the hon. member for Bryanston who has now returned to the House. The hon. member for Bryanston, the self-apappointed leader in the Transvaal of the Reformatory Party, the self-opinionated leader of the Reformatory Party in the Transvaal, with his one-track mind, made statements here which I am not going to allow to pass unchallenged. [Interjections.] As the hon. member here says, he has a black-track mind as well as a one-track mind. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members can do their in-fighting outside the House.

He accused the United Party, the official Opposition, of having failed in this debate because it had concentrated on Railway matters. The fact that there is a Budget of some R6 000 million, approximately, which we are dealing with does not mean a thing to him. It does not mean a thing to the Reformatory. They are not interested in R6 000 million. They attack us for wasting our …

Order! The hon. member must stop using the word “Reformatory”.

I am sorry. I believe it is called the Reform Party. I will call them the Schwarz group because I do not regard them as a political party. [Interjections.] Sir, they are not concerned with the running of the Railways. In fact they attack and criticize us because we dealt with it. But the Progressive Party dealt with the running of the Railways as well. They are very quiet about that because what the hon. member for Brayanston wanted to do was to get across a phrase so that it could get into the newspapers, and the phrase was “Ja, maar”.

But that is your policy and your whole history.

He accused the hon. member for Maitland, but when we challenged him to quote one example he could not name one and he then sat down. We challenged them to give us an example, but he could not give us one and he sat down because there was no example that he could give. We on this side of the House have a very clear and unequivocal approach to the reality of discrimination. We have set as our objective the elimination of discrimination.

Lip-service!

When we talked of “pie in the sky”, when I talked of “pie in the sky”, I talked of this ridiculous nonsense of the hon. member, the suggestion that one set out a time-table for the future and say that on 1 August 1975 one will do this; on 1 September 1999 one will remove this notice-board and on 1 April— and that probably will be the date when that party will disappear—we will remove this notice-board. Sir, it is unbelievable that a party that calls itself a political party can demand a time-table, detailed timetable, to change a way of life. We have set an objective. [Interjections.]

Order!

We have set a goal and we move step by step realistically to wards that goal. We push the Government, debate by debate and step by step, along that road to try to get them to move to wards that goal. I reject with contempt the charge of the garrulous member for Yeoville, the non-stop gramophone for Yeoville, who has not stopped running the needle in the groove since I started talking— I reject with contempt his suggestion of lip-service. Sir, he was in this party. Was he paying lip-service? Did he sit here paying lip-service to an ideal? [Interjections.] He sat quite happily in this party until he was expelled. Was that lip-service? Now that he is out of it, he says it is lip-service. [Interjections].

Order! Would the hon. member please return to the Railway debate.

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to. I was saying that this party concentrated its attack on the reality of running the Railways. We set out clearly our attitude in regard to the removal of discrimination, the bringing in of Non-Whites in to the Railway service and the removal of discrimination in regard to their pay. [Interjections.]

… smears and lies.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is an hon. member al lowed to describe as “smears and lies” what another hon. member has said?

Did the hon. member for Yeoville use those words?

Mr. Speaker, I use the words “smears and lies” in a discussion with the hon. member for Durban Central.

Against whom were the words directed?

Against the hon. member for Durban Central.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we come now to the end of a debate where the Minister, with his usual courtesy … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. members around the hon. member for Yeoville must act in a grown-up fashion.

Mr. Speaker, the statement has been made that I used the words “smears and lies” referring to the United Party. That is also true. If I am required to withdraw those words, I with draw them as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that we have not had a few more points of order. I am used to hearing “my problem is”, and “on a point of order”. My only point of order is in connection with this Railway Budget, which I am trying to debate. I am saying that the hon. the Minister, in his courteous way, dealt with many problems, but some he has not dealt with. One which he barely dealt with was the question of the Sishen-Saldanha line. He has been asked a number of direct and pertinent questions by me, by the hon. member for Walmer and by other hon. members. There was the question of the training of staff, the question of the poaching of staff from the Railways and the question of wage scales. We have not yet got clarity on the question of who will build and control the branch lines and the question of tariffs on the conveyance of private traffic on that line. The hon. the Minister evaded any detailed replies. He said that we would have to see how this developed. That was his sole reference to this matter. I believe that the House is entitled to more information on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal about efficiency. The one test of Railway efficiency which we have not debated in this debate—and despite the hon. the Minister’s rejection of it last year, it still remains a test—is the turn-around time of trucks and the average distance covered. Once again the turn-around time has increased. It used to be five days, then seven days, and it has now gone up to 11,03 days, whilst the average length of haul has once more been reduced. We shall of course hear all the excuses to the effect that this is not the fault of the Railways, but I have the figures here. It has been said that in three months a quarter of a million trucks were standing idle in sidelines and in stations. That adds up to a million trucks standing idle in a year, and in terms of that test, we have not attained the level of efficiency we should be aiming at and which we can achieve.

In the one minute I have left, I want to refer to one other matter and that is the question of the pensioner who has not benefited by any of the examples the Minister has quoted. He is the man below the minimum level, who gets a special allowance. He is the man who is suffering because when he gets a 2% increase, the special allowance simply decreases because his ceiling remains fixed. He does not therefore benefit by regular increases. He is the man who is the hardest hit and whom I hope the Minister will look at. Event if he cannot look at the whole picture, I hope that he will look at the position of the man below the minimum who is brought up to that minimum by means of a special allowance.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we started by asking the Government to look at the Railways in the broader role of the developer, the dynamic, of South Africa. We accept that much that is good has been done and that improvements have been brought about, but we end still believing that the Railways can play a bigger role as the dynamic in the development of South and Southern Africa.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30(2).

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

My contention is a straightforward one. It simply is that under its present direction the SABC has misconceived its function by turning itself into an arm of the Government and, therefore, an arm of the ruling party, and that in consequence of this its service has become defective and untrustworthy and I believe that its credibility has been battered. This is a wide-ranging indictment, but I hope to be able to substantiate it. I think it is an incontrovertible fact that the SABC is the only broadcasting system in the non-communist, non-totalitarian world that has unashamedly become the mouthpiece and apologist of the Government. We know that this kind of subservience is a feature of all dictatorships and of any underdeveloped country in the world, but this has happened in no country which claims to be democracy.

It ought really not to be necessary for me to prove that in its comment and its news selection the SABC is biased and tendentious. It ought not to be, but I am afraid that in the circumstances and the climate of today it is necessary. I am going to try to do so. I rely primarily, but not exclusively, on that daily five-minute agony which is variously known as “Current Affairs” or “Editorial Comment”. I should like to quote a few examples to prove my contention that this feature sets out to defend and to justify every act of the Government, no matter how controversial it may be, and that in a sense and as a result of this it stamps its whole character on the entire SABC service. Perhaps the best and at the same time worst example goes back a little bit to September 1969 when “Current Affairs” discovered that the election for the Coloured Representative Council which had been held a few days previously had in fact been a defeat for the parties that stood for apartheid “but was a notable victory for apartheid itself”. Hon. members will recall that in the CRC elections of that year the three pro-apartheid parties between them won 11 seats while the anti-apartheid Labourites won 26. Yet “Current Affairs” hailed the outcome as a “notable victory for apartheid”.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am afraid my time is limited. We can deal with it later on. In November last year the Ghost Voice which is “Current Affairs” said that people who refused to see any merit in the Government’s view that separate development and multi-national development are the only means of securing harmony in South Africa are “acting with criminal disregard for the interests” of the subcontinent. It added—

This is the undisguised policy of the ruling party. I have no covenant with that but what right does the SABC have to proclaim this to the public? In February 1975 “Current Affairs” informed its million or more listeners “that the yield of the policy of separation is today visible for all to see. Our Black nations have become self-governing. Security for each of our communities, White, Black, and Brown has been established and that is making possible the dismantling of discriminatory measures”. This is undisguised Nationalist propaganda. The hon. member for Sunnyside could not do better than that. A week later we were told that a statement made by the Prime Minister “is yet another illustration of the step-by-step development of separatism”. After lyricizing about “the foundation of the race structure” and how the “ground floor is nearing completion”, “Current Affairs”, as usual, contributed its own little piece of embellishment: “But it (the superstructure) does not provide for a supra-national body with legislative powers. That would be totally at variance with, the overall design now firmly in being and bring the collapse of the whole edifice”. Again I am sorry to say that this is unadulterated Nationalist propaganda. No non-Nationalist could possibly agree with it under any circumstances. So bad did this kind of bias become that even Die Vaderland, which I can assure the House is no slouch when it comes to “treeing” in the “bres” for whoever needs to be “tree-d” in the “bres” for—which is usually the Government, of course—protested about the one-sidedness of “Current Affairs” and—this is the bitter irony of it— for failing in its duty to alert listeners to forces which seek the downfall of White South Africa. From Die Vaderland’s editor, Dirk Richard, came this complaint: “The SABC places a protective sheet over what the listeners want and decides what is good for them”.

Nothing, I believe, illustrates the bias of the SABC in its news handling and in its comment better than its handling of the Nico Malan shut-opening that took place recently. I would like to give a very quick account of what happened. This House need not be reminded of the amount of interest and comment that this raised, more than perhaps any other domestic event in recent months. What did the SABC do? Between Thursday afternoon, February 20, and Friday evening, February 21, it broadcast precisely three items on that matter. All that Friday when well-nigh every single newspaper, English and Afrikaans, in the country made this its main news item of the day reflecting dismay and anger and the far-reaching repercussions of the incident, the first mention of it that day on the SABC news was at 7 o’clock that night. Not a word at 7 a.m., 8 a.m., 1.15 p.m., 6 p.m., 9 p.m., or 11 p.m. Only one solitary mention when the country was sizzling about this whole incident. Why? There is an obvious explanation for it, viz. because the Nationalist Party leadership had clearly been deeply distressed by the Cape Executive Committee’s original decision and its subsequent somersault, which had been made under pressure from the upper echelons of the Nationalist Party. So the SABC was not going to say a word that would further embarrass its political masters. That is objectivity!

What was the date you mentioned?

I said from Thursday afternoon, February 20, to the Friday evening, February 21, and that it broadcast precisely three items. I am now talking about the English service and not about all the subsidiary services. This is information that comes from the SABC. I would say that apart from the political implications of this incident, I believe this is bad broadcasting. It is unfair to the listening public and to professional newsmen in the SABC whose integrity is affected by this kind of thing. As if that was not shocking enough …

Who wrote that speech for you?

Apart from that which I believe anybody with a sense of fairness will agree is shocking enough, we then, of course, had this unctuous Ghost Voice which had to justify it all. Of course, it waited for the weekend. On Monday night, February 24, when the furore was all but over, we were given one of those tortuous explanations to underwrite what the SABC’s masters had not and had done. It included inevitably—which is always the case in these instances—a little homily on separatism. In this case it was called “The A B C of Race Relations”. We heard how the post-war uncertainty—yes, it went back as far as all that—about diversity had been removed by the policy of apartheid. That is nice. Then it went on to say: “The Parliament in Cape Town was made safe for the White people”. This is the Ghost Voice. Why it thought that people of colour were suddenly going to be admitted to Parliament, it did not bother to explain; it did not have time. Then it went on to say: “This movement towards community security—that is apartheid—gathered momentum and was seen to be irreversible; then the prejudice receded and areas of contact could safely be expanded.” That, you will be interested to learn, is why the Nico Malan could now be safely opened. It stated further: “The confusion that followed the war has been converted into confidence; and out of a shapeless mass of people, eleven secure communities have been established”. There you have the pure and unadulterated gospel from inside the Nationalist Party spoken in accents and sibilant intonation which “Current Affairs” has made its precious own. Anyone who can claim after this astonishing affair that “Current Affairs” and the news selectors—I am not talking about the other people, I am talking of the news selectors of the SABC; I do not know who they are—of the SABC are not politically prejudiced and that their products are not tendentious, has not the faintest idea of what objective broadcasting is—not the faintest.

The point that I want to make—the point that I think ought to be made about all this—is that the SABC has absolutely no right to campaign for or against anything whatsoever; that is not its function.

It is not there to defend anybody; it is there, if it is doing its professional job properly, to reflect and to mirror what goes on in South Africa and the world beyond. It has no conceivable right to attack individuals or individual newspapers—as it does periodically—nor has it the right to provide what it calls “balance” to anything newspapers do. “Balance” in the mouth of the SABC? My mind boggles at the thought of it! It claimed this obligation recently. I repeat that it has no right to campaign against the South African Council of Churches, or against English-language students or universities. This is not its function because in doing so it is attacking the very people who keep it in being or a part of those people who keep it in being. The SABC is financed with public money so that, in the words of one critic: “When it attacks and smears the people and ideals they believe in, it is grossly, shamefully and wickedly abusing the public trust that is being reposed in it.”

Nothing shows the SABC’s bias and subservience to Government ideology better than the following incident which is not generally known and which I got from the person concerned. When the S.A. open golf championships were played in Durban in 1964, the SABC staff announcer, whose name I have, received specific instructions that Papwa Sewgolum’s name was not to be mentioned except to give his score at the end of each round. Why? Because his participation was against Government policy. Can you believe it! The instruction was a trifle difficult to follow because Papwa happend to come second in the competition, but that was by the way. You will remember, Sir, that it was just a few weeks earlier that he had stood in the rain to receive a prize for having won the Natal Open. I presume it was also against Government policy that he did that.

Speaking of the choice and emphasis of news items in areas of political sensitivity, let us have a look at two of these instances, one a very recent one and one a little less recent. A week or two ago—I think it was the morning after the arrest of the Rev. Ndabaningi Sithole in Salisbury—when every newspaper in the land was full of the news and the implications for Rhodesia and for detente—this was a real crisis situation—the SABC, believe it or not, did not on its 7 or 8 a.m. news services that day have a single word about it. Die Burger had a banner headline and every newspaper of any consequence had a banner headline, but on the SABC’s News services that morning there was not a word. Why was this the case? The SABC was playing it safe: it did not know what line HMV would take, so it pretended that nothing had happened. This is an old tactic. It is only fair to say—I say it with pleasure— that “Radio Today” at any rate must have realized what was going on because they made some effort to get hold of what was happening in Salisbury and tell us a couple of hours later. That was one incident and then there was the incident that has been mentioned before when the Agliotti affair blew up. Again every newspaper in the country had it in its main news item, but the SABC was, in the words of my hon. friend from Houghton, “tjoepstil”—not a word about that. Why? It was embarrassing for the Establishment. We know all that. So what did the SABC do instead? It spent its time dealing with Israel’s decision to donate money to the OAU—much less embarrassing.

I am afraid I have no time to deal with the so-called news commentaries, but I just want to say that too often they are a kind of bywoner’s “Current Affairs”, [Interjections.] This tendency to explain, to protect and to justify Government policy and action, is only too plain to see. This became so bad that in April last year the Bishop Suffrogan of Natal wrote—

That is the gravamen of the charge against this sickeningly subservient stance the SABC has chosen to assume vis-á-vis its political masters. It is unfair to listeners and it is unfair to the country and it is thoroughly bad broadcasting.

The question which really bothers one is to know what is going to happen when TV comes. Are we going to be saddled with this slavish mentality? When I asked the hon. the Minister of National Education earlier this session whether a directive had been issued to television producers about the policy to be followed in their programmes, he answered “No”. I unreservedly accept that. Yet, it was only a couple of weeks ago that the head of the magazine programmes for the English TV service, Mr. Donald Briscoe, told producers in writing that they must remember to “follow Government policy”. Attempts were inevitably made to explain this away, but nobody was impressed because words have a tendency to have a rather specific meaning and their meaning in this case was clear.

The lesson of this incident I believe is instructive to us: that after a generation or more of undisguised and concentrated indoctrination, we have now reached the stage at the SABC where people in responsible positions do not have to be told to toe the Government line any longer. They do it automatically. So conditioned and so brainwashed have many of the staff become that they just act spontaneously. This, I suggest, is a far worse state of affairs than if they had to be given instructions morning, noon and night. My friends on my left will ask why. I will tell them why. Let me deal with some of the by-products of this general attitude and its tendentious image. This is what is going to be dangerous about it, viz. that top South African writers, Afrikaans as well as English-speaking, are now saying that they will either shun TV entirely or will approach it with suspicion and caution. [Interjections.] Wait a minute; do not get a fright.

Order! I have here a long list of Government speakers who will be given the opportunity to state their case.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to proceed. I quote “Star Vision” of January 14—

Let me quote one or two of these people. Athol Fugard has this to say—

I won’t even quote Alan Paton because hon. members opposite will get a fright. André Brink has this to say—

Jan Rabie says this—

Barto Smit has this to say—

Etienne Leroux says this—

This is what Stephen Gray who writes regularly for an Afrikaans Sunday newspaper has to say—

There we have it, Mr. Speaker. The SABC’s political commitment threatens the very artistic lifeblood of TV. That is what we have to face. I suggest, Sir, that South Africa simply cannot afford this. What is to be done about a state of affairs which I believe is culturally deplorable, politically indefensible if not amoral and which produces thoroughly unprofessional broadcasting? The obvious remedy lies here. It is for the responsible Minister to issue a simple instruction to the Board of Governors to conduct the affairs of the Corporation in the spirit of the 1936 Act which certainly contains no injunction about the Corporation acting as the apologist of the Government of the day.

If the hon. the Minister feels unable— and I have a faint feeling that this may happen—to do this or is not prepared to take any action to give us what I would hope would be an objective and fair comment, discussion and news service on radio as well as TV, then we have to fall back on the Board of Governors. Here we really move on to stony ground. The Board consists of nine men who collectively are paid R39 000 a year for their services. I do not object to that. Their full-time Chairman, who is probably the most powerful single individual in the broadcasting set-up in South Africa, is not only a former chairman of the Broederbond, but he is a man who for years had been at the heart of verkrampte politics.

Hear, Hear! [Interjections.]

I want to quote Beaumont Schoeman who is a spokesman for verkramptheid. He tells a great deal about Dr. Meyer in his book Vorster se 1 000 dae, and he includes this phrase—

This was Dr. Meyer—

I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that I am not comforted by Mr. Schoeman’s report that Dr. Meyer said in 1967—

This does not necessarily give me any comfort. When Dr. Meyer talked recently about the role of TV in “protecting the Afrikaner identity”—shades of what we are in for!—the Afrikaans writer, Jan Rabie, complained that the views smacked—

And he added—

Well, Sir, whether we like it or not, we are apparently going to be saddled with a bronze ox-wagon outlook and “Current Affairs” in brilliant technicolor, unless we can persuade the hon. the Minister and/or the Board of Governors to change their approach. The fact of the matter is that the Board of Governors is unrepresentative of the community as a whole. To begin with, it does not contain a single woman, which is almost unbelievable. Nor are any of its members anything but Establishment-minded. I believe, Sir, that a really liberal mind on that Board of Governors would stand out like a Prog at a Broederbond executive meeting and that he would probably be just as welcome.

The Board of Governors, furthermore, is all White, even though the SABC has countless Brown and Black licence-holders. What is even stranger, however, is that the Bantu Control Board consists of five White men, not a single Black. This is no doubt in the best traditions of ethnic diversity, but I assure you, Sir, that it makes no sense in any other context. What we need, clearly, is a more representative Board of Governors, one that comes somewhere near reflecting the diversity of people and views in this land. What we want is more public involvement in broadcasting on a non-partisan basis. Listeners should elect members to the board. Why should the staff not have a representative on it? If we are to get away from the bias and tendentiousness of the present service and policy, there should be an open and publicized complaints procedure, as there is for the Press, and there should be a firm rule that genuinely aggrieved people will have the right to reply. I need hardly remind hon. members of how South Africa House in London recently got the BBC to screen a television film reply to its own Last Grave at Dimbaza. Can you imagine the SABC doing it? No, Sir, it is a law unto itself. Its attitude to criticism is best summed up in the words of a very senior Public Relations official, Mr. Theo Greyling, who said: “Geen kommentaar, en spel dit met hoofletters”. Dr. W. J. van Tonder, who can hardly be suspected of anti-Establishment views, recently complained about “die neiging by die gesagvoerders van die radio om oormoedig, voortvarend en beterweterig te wees”.

Mr. Speaker, in the minute or two that I have left I would plead for a differently constituted Board of Governors who could try to ensure a better distribution of senior posts in the SABC between the two language groups. They might be able to bring this about. The English Academy of Southern Africa recently pointed out that every top post in the SABC at present was held by Afrikaans-speaking people. It said—

Sir, I have not seen the reply from the SABC, but the facts speak for themselves: All the top posts in the corporation are held by Afrikaans-speaking officials.

*Sir, just in case someone thinks that it is only the English-speaking listeners who are dissatisfied with the SABC, I just want to remind you of the recent violent argument about the language allocation on Springbok Radio and the injustice which was supposed to have been done to Afrikaans. Once again we had the situation that the critics were unable to achieve anything; the mighty State monopoly is a law unto itself. It is always right and we, the poor devils who are the listeners, simply have to grin and bear it.

†Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Minister of National Education to help give South Africa the radio and television service it deserves. There is a great deal on radio that is splendid. Some of it can hold its own with the best in the world. And there are services, like the daily reports from this House, which are fair and balanced, in the best tradition of straight reporting. But the SABC’s image and reputation, I am afraid, has been ruined by control which sees its primary loyalty and obligation as being to the party in power and not to the people of South Africa. I ask the Minister to take this sectionalism and the bias out of the corporation’s approach and to restore broadcasting to the people, to all the people, because that is where it belongs.

Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly read through the motion introduced by the hon. member for Parktown, and I wondered what he was aiming at in the wording he employed. It is clear to me, not only from the motion, but from his delivery now as well, that for the most part it is an accusation of partiality on the part of the SABC. He asks for fairness and for objectivity. Sir, it is no sin to ask for fairness and for objectivity. Still less is it politically unethical to make a plea for these qualities in this House. But when one asks it, I think one should be able to substantiate one’s standpoint and back one’s arguments with facts. Hon. members must remember that the motion concerns contemporary affairs. After all, it does not only concern the odd news broadcast or the programme “Current Affairs”. Surely this is not all that is going on in the country. That is why I think that the hon. member did not succeed in proving his case. I say this on the basis of the incorrect choice of the single concept “contemporary affairs” which the hon. member made. If he had said in his motion that it concerned “Current Affairs” we could have debated that programme. Then we could have been fair towards the persons who are awaiting a reply to this motion.

However, it is contemporary affairs that are at issue here. I want to remind the hon. member and the House of two contemporary affairs that one calls to mind which were general knowledge in the not-so-distant past, and how the SABC handled those affairs at the time. In the first instance I want to refer to the contemporary events at the time of the last World War. How we, as anti-belligerents, simply had to swallow everything in those times! [Interjections.] I knew the hon. member would become angry. I want to tell the hon. member something else, too. In those times the Afrikaans-speaking person and the Nationalistically inclined person had to swallow everything broadcast by the SABC under the guidance of the United Party Government. I want to mention another contemporary affair, namely the fantastic ox-wagon trek just before the war. The SABC gave extensive coverage to this matter. The well-known radio announcer, the late John van der Bergh, referred to that ox-wagon trek on occasion as the opportunity for “awakened, awakening, surging passion of Afrikaner cultural consciousness”. Van der Bergh told us how every evening, at that time, virtually uniform and similar programmes were broadcast and that even this was not enough to satisfy the people. In regard to the role played by the SABC in telling the people what was really happening. John van der Bergh said something that must really have given one goose flesh. Summing up the programmes devoted to those evenings, those celebrations, he said (translation)—

Talk about an “ox-wagon mentality” now! Here we had contemporary events given to the people of South Africa, and not even all the war efforts that followed upon this during the war years, when the SABC was misused by the United Party Government of the time, were able to undo what John van der Bergh had said.

We could go through the Hansard debates of the forties. In the few minutes at my disposal, I do not have time to quote everything. However, one finds that in those debates there were three central ideas which were advanced in defence against the attack by the Opposition at the time concerning the misuse of the SABC. Please note, this was not misuse by the SABC, but misuse of the SABC by the Government of the time. There is a difference. In this motion, the hon. member is accusing the SABC. At that time the Government of the day was accused of misusing the SABC.

Sir, my summing up of the debate at the time, is the following: When General Smuts talks, then it is of course news. Of course it is news when a Prime Minister talks. When a Minister talks—this is what I read in the Hansard of those days—then this, after all, is news. But naturally, it is news. Today it is still news when a Minister speaks. There we read that the Government is certainly responsible towards the people, and the people should know what the Government is doing. Of course, today that is still true. Why, then, does the hon. member for Parktown complain when we come up with these things. Mr. Reith, the man who advised the Government on the introduction of the SABC in 1936 had the following to say (translation)—

Sir, the United Party realized this in those days, and in these times we realize what a mighty role the radio can play, and television is still going to play. On the basis of these historic events, an authority on the SABC said—and now I am not using his own words, but only his line of thought— that it could almost be said that the SABC has gone through four stages. The first stage was in the forties when it had to regain prestige owing to the misuse that had been made of it. The second stage was in the fifties when it was the task of the SABC to serve the entire people. The third stage was in the sixties when it made use of the opportunity to come up with positive standards. The fourth stage is in the seventies, in which it is broadcasting a South African philosophy to the world. But why does this person say that the SABC had to regain its prestige in the eyes of the public? This was as a result of discrimination. I had expected that the hon. member would use this word, too, together with all the other words he used. I expected him to say that there is discrimination at present. I see the hon. member for Orange Grove nodding his head. Does the hon. member know how much discrimination there was in 1946? The discrimination was of such a nature that whereas the transmission strength of the English programme was 33 KW, the transmission strength of the Afrikaans service was 11 kW.

Sir, let us have a look at what has happened since then. The most important thing that has occurred as far as the nature of the SABC is concerned, was when this Nationalist Government came up with the natural point of departure that we are a multinational country, and when it decided that we had to provide a service for all the people.

Sir, my time is almost up, but I just want to mention the following facts very briefly: Today the SABC has 19 programme services, over which 2 007½ hours are broadcast every week. Analysing this, we find that the Afrikaans service utilizes 120 hours, the English service 120 hours, and what, for the sake of time, I want to call specialized services—Radio Highveld, Radio Good Hope, Radio Port Natal and Springbok Radio—each utilizes 132 hours. Then there is the Lourenço Marques transmitter that broadcasts for 168 hours per week, and the all-night service that broadcasts for 35 hours per week. This gives us a total of 731 hours. If we add the Afrikaans service and the English service to this, it gives us a total of 971 broadcasting hours per week. Radio Bantu broadcasts for 707 hours to a variety of Bantu peoples in various Bantu languages. There are 173 hours of broadcasting for the inhabitants of South West Africa. This gives us a total of 880 hours as far as the Bantu services are concerned. If we add to that 156½ hours for the foreign services of Radio RSA, then we find that there are 2 007½ hours of broadcasting per week.

But now the hon. member for Parktown comes along and complains bitterly about “five minutes of agony”. Is this fair towards the SABC? Could we not have expected the hon. member to have stood up here today and told us about the totality of the services provided? Sir, if I were to sum up in four words everything embraced by these services offered by the SABC then I should put it the following way: The SABC offers information, education, edification—by which I mean Christian, spiritual concepts—and pleasure. That embraces everything. I repeat: Information, education, edification and pleasure. Apparently that hon. member is only dissatisfied with the information section, and of that, only those few minutes of information which he calls “five minutes of agony”. The hon. member has omitted to give us the other side of the picture.

Let us take a look at the news services and the news bulletins. 145 news services are broadcast weekly over the Afrikaans transmitter, while 160 news services are broadcast in English. In other words, there is discrimination, but never mind, that is not the argument. 59 services per week are broadcast on Springbok Radio while 120 news services each per week are broadcast by Radio Highveld. Radio Good Hope and Radio Port Natal. The Bantu has 132 news services per week, while the inhabitants of South West have 85 news services per week. The foreign service broadcast 275 news bulletins per week. I should have liked to analyse the percentage of party politics contained in those news bulletins. The hon. member played party politics with the SABC, which cannot defend itself here. The hon. the Minister will speak on its behalf. The attack is directed at the Prime Minister. At the start I said that the hon. member simply went ahead and reprimanded the commentators, the reporters and, in fact, everyone who had a hand in the programme.

I did not say that.

He reprimands them all as if they were ramming half-baked propaganda down the throats of the listeners.

I said the opposite.

What the hon. member tried to do here in half an hour, was to seek a needle in a hay stack, but he did not find it. He would perhaps have been able to find it, if he had only wanted to be a little more positive and appreciative. For that reason I should like to move the following amendment—

In referring to managers and staff I want to mention two things. In the first instance I want to extend my appreciation and the appreciation of this side of the House—I think that this should also come from the other side of the House—for the outstanding service provided daily by the staff in respect of the events in Parliament. They are impartial …

I, too, said that.

In the second instance I want to convey a word of special thanks to a man who has retired and who has probably done more than any other person to instil impartiality and objectivity in our broadcasting service. I refer to Mr. Douglas Fuchs, about whom we shall have more to say when the appropriate Vote is discussed. At this stage I just want to say that we have great appreciation for his services.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, one was impressed, listening to the hon. member for Westdene, by the fact that his whole approach to this motion seemed to be one of tu quoque, and if I might mis quote something which is quite well known in the history of South Africa, I would say his attitude was to recall from the past what you think is objectionable to justify what is objectionable today. That was apparently his whole approach to the motion which is before this House. The hon. member for Parktown adequately illustrated, I think, to the House what is referred to in the motion as the present biased and tendentious approach of the SABC. Both the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Westdene quite correctly cited as exemplary the programme “Today in Parliament”, which is presented each day of the proceedings of this House. Sir, I agree entirely with what they have said and I believe that this should be the yardstick of objectivity in all news coverage by the SABC. But the motion also calls for effective steps to ensure objective programmes. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that this is a responsibility that rests on his shoulders and not on the shoulders of anybody else. He cannot give the Board of Governors of the SABC carte blanche to run the radio service and the TV services as they wish. He has an inescapable responsibility for all the acts of omission and of commission in so far as the radio in South Africa is concerned.

Do you trust the Minister?

It is not a question of trusting the Minister. I am just saying that there is no escape from this responsibility. Sir, I want to mention to you the fact that the SABC operates in terms of the 1936 Act, “at the request of the Minister, and subject to such conditions as he prescribes” to quote from the Act. That is their function. The SABC also has to have a licence, and in terms of this statute the conditions of the licence are determined by the hon. the Minister. I understand that the licence which is issued to the SABC contains certain conditions. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether my information is correct or not. I believe there is a specific stipulation in the licence that the news service and political news must be presented in an impartial manner.

Is that so!

I would be indebted to the hon. the Minister if he could confirm that I am correct and that that is a condition which is stipulated in the licence issued to the SABC. Sir, the hon. the Minister remains silent and does not in dicate whether or not I am correct.

He does not know.

If the conditions are ignored, then the hon. the Minister is answerable to Parliament. Now, the charge that this condition has not been observed and that complete impartiality is absent has, I think, been adequately proved this morning in the time at the disposal of the hon. member for Parktown and by the illustrations he gave to the House. For that reason I support the motion which is be fore the House. Sir, with the advent of television, even greater precautions than are necessary for radio broadcasts will have to be taken to ensure that there is objectivity and precautions against simple methods of distortion which are available on TV will have to be taken. Let me give an example. I think hon. members of this House have had experience on their overseas tours of how easy it is to distort a speech, and contemporaneously with that speech being televized. Let us take, for example, a speech that is delivered or recorded by the City Engineer of Cape Town, in which he gives a survey of what is done in respect of sub-economic housing and in which he claims that great strides are being made and indicates the number of houses which have been constructed. If that is broadcast over the radio only, there can be no distortion of what he says, because his words are transmitted and received at the other end by the listener. But when it comes to television, the credibility of that statement can be attacked simultaneously with its being televised. Credibility can be given to the City Engineer’s statement by screening, while he is speaking and reporting, scenes of new housing schemes to show what is being done and what has been done. But, Sir, the whole speech can be completely distorted by screening scenes of still existing slums or pondoks or squatter houses while the speech is being broadcast, and this would immediately debunk his claims as to what in fact has been done. Sir, that is the additional danger that we face in television in the future, and it will be the responsibility of the Minister to see that this sort of thing does not happen. Sir, I believe that the balance of objectivity must be established when television is introduced. We cannot when television is introduced, continue with the present broadcasting methods, if Radio South Africa is to have any credibility as a news and entertainment medium in the future. Sir, I hope that the hon. the Minister will take steps to correct what I believe was a very unwise step taken by the SABC. I refer to the introduction of their daily editorial comment, which has aroused a good deal of resentment and justifiable complaint from the listening public. One knows that the SABC broadcasts something like 243 news services a day over the various systems. The SABC claims that it is entitled to have what is the equivalent of editorial comment which appears in a newspaper. [In terjections.] It claims the right to editorial comment. Sir, newspaper editorial comment which appears in any paper sets the policy and the attitude of that particular newspaper, and a newspaper is entitled to say what its view is on political matters. It is privately owned. It is not entitled to a monopolistic approach to the dissemination of news, but in the case of radio—and this will also apply to television—you have a monopolistic news medium; it will be the only one that will be available to the listening or viewing public of South Africa. It will be financed by public funds. Its function will be to present news and where there are opposing public attitudes, both such attitudes must be presented to the listening or viewing public. It must have no sectional or partisan function and it certainly cannot be regarded as a propaganda machine for any particular view or any particular policy. That is the difference and the distinction between the right of a newspaper to have editorial comment, which nobody will deny that newspaper, and the assumption by Radio South Africa that it is entitled to broadcast editorial comment.

Sir, the 1973 report of the SABC claimed that the SABC tried to promote values which are based on the South African way of life. But that way of life in political matters, judging by what one hears over Radio South Africa, is restricted entirely to the multi-national philosophy of the National Party; that is regarded as the South African way of life. But, Sir, that is not the South African way of life. It is only a political philosophy and a political approach to how South Africa should be governed.

It is the approach of over 60%.

No member can tell me that time has been given by the SABC to present also the South African way of life which is the view of a vast number of the population who view us not as a multi-national nation but as a multiracial country.

Who is to blame for that?

The hon. member asks who is to blame. I say that the person who is to blame is the Minister, because he does not see that both views are adequately presented. I believe that when a broadcasting organization identifies itself with a philosophy tied to a particular political party, there can be no question of objectivity in the presentation of news. Let me give an example. One has, one can almost say, queues of hon. Ministers from this House waiting for the opportunity to come on to the radio after the 9 o’clock news on a Sunday night. It is quite a relief when one hears somebody discussing something which is not connected with the policies or the philosophies of this particular Government on Sunday evenings. I believe that that also is wrong: it is in conflict with the licence which the hon. the Minister has issued to the S.A. Broad casting Corporation.

I have already mentioned that one can only have the highest regard for the broadcasts “Parliament Today”. I want to say that there are also other features handled by Radio South Africa which deserve nothing but commendation. I want to refer to the introduction, quite recently, of what is technically termed “audio news”. I refer to the short broadcasts or rebroadcasts from overseas, when one has the opportunity of listening to statesmen from other countries expressing their views on current matters. I believe that that programme, which is broadcast over the English service in the mornings between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m., is a most interesting and absorbing innovation, because there are merely presented statements by figures of world stature on matters of general interest. Controversial matters have been broadcast in the mornings, but then the SABC has applied what I believe should be applied throughout all the programmes. When there is a controversial issue in the field of commerce, industry, etc., there are a series of talks in which the views of both sides are presented, without our having to listen to what the almighty Board of the SABC has decided is the correct answer and the correct approach to the particular problem.

I believe that South Africa can only benefit if the hon. the Minister uses the statutory powers which he has to ensure that objectivity and impartiality become a hall-mark of the South African television news service. If the hon. the Minister does that— and it is his responsibility—he will be doing a great service to South Africa. We shall all be listening to see whether those standards and those conditions of his are being observed. It is just a pity, if I may say so, Mr. Speaker, that it is going to cost us individually something like R1 000 in capital outlay or R35 a month, to be able to view television and to be able to judge for ourselves. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we shall watch this innovation with great care, and I trust that we shall find the impartiality which is lacking now and has been lacking in the past. I believe that such a lack of impartiality should not exist in terms of the conditions which the Minister himself has imposed on the licence which the SABC holds.

Mr. Speaker, following upon the comments of my colleague, the hon. member for Green Point, I should like to say that this motion before us this afternoon is worthy of the support that we are giving it. It deals with fairness and objectivity. I look upon these two words as being very important in the content of the motion. Sir, I certainly did not find much objectivity in the remarks of the hon. member for Westdene. I shall attempt to be a little more objective than he was. I see that he is not listening to me, so apparently it makes no difference to him.

The hon. member for Green Point touched on television. It is my intention to deal purely and simply with television. This is a new medium that South Africa has been waiting for many, many years. It is an exciting medium, as all those who have travelled and who have seen television abroad will know. It is something that can be of tremendous advantage. It can be a wonderful thing to have in the home and it can be a wonderful thing particularly for the aged. Suffice to say that it is something the whole of South Africa is waiting for and has great expectations for. I want to repeat what I said in this House last year, and that is that I have great faith in the fact that I expect the quality of presentation, that is to say the technical qualities of presentation, to be of the highest order. I am sure that this is what we will get from the SABC. I said last year that my family and I were fortunate enough to see our first SABC television broadcast televised over the BBC whilst we were on a trip to the United Kingdom. It was of the highest order. But—and this is the big “but”— can we have faith that the quality of the content is going to be of the same order? I sincerely hope so, Sir. If, however, we are going to rely on the “Current Affairs” type of broadcast …

Very good.

… our lot is going to be a sorry one. The hon. member over there says “very good”. I agree; very good for nothing. I want to say that if we wish to attain the fairness and objectivity that is required, we are going to have to look very closely at television. I believe that in order to be popular and to be acceptable, television has, to some measure, got to be controversial …

Oh!

… not in the sense that there has got to be mud-slinging or slanging matches, but in the sense that interest can be maintained when there is sensible and logical argument. Topical programmes that want to have interest maintained should contain such arguments, such controversy, if you want to call it that. I have heard it said in conversation: “My friend, there are three sides to every story; there is yours, there is mine and there is the truth.” This is what the SABC must put across. By putting across the “yours” and the “mine” we will arrive at the truth. Arguments or points of controversy expressed by people in a round-table discussion, people who are considered to be knowledgeable or expert in the field of the subject before them, will lead to only one conclusion, and that is one that is fair and objective. That is what the hon. member for Parktown is seeking in this motion this afternoon. That is what this motion is all about. I am firmly convinced that the popularity of the TV service will be assured if the programmes presented to the viewers are at all times fair, that fairness will ensure viewer interest, and that viewer interest is going to be the “make or break” of a successful and popular television service. The SABC and its Board of Governors should be aware, and must be aware, of the tremendous responsibility that they have towards the country in this regard. I think they may do well to consider a few suggestions I would like to make.

I feel firstly that comment should always emanate from those who are best equipped to pass comment on the subject under review. Any man will accept and listen attentively to another man’s views as long as he knows and is satisfied that the other man knows his subject and knows what he is talking about, even though the views may be in direct conflict with his own. I am not suggesting that the SABC should not comment on anything, but I am asking that comment should reflect all views and shades of opinion. I am asking that the “Current Affairs” type of programme should be barred completely from the television service. If you have comment of this type to be put across on television, it should be done on the panel system. It does not have to be a stereotyped panel sitting around a table, but there can be recorded interviews with people who know what they are talking about and who are knowledgeable on the subject under review, instead of one gravelly-voiced individual with a “treurige stem” that will bore us to death each and every day. This sort of thing can only lead to the individual feeling that he is being told what to think. I believe that the South African wants to have a choice of thought. He does not want to be told what he must think.

In reply to question No. 21 this morning, which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout put to him, the hon. the Minister of Information said that the film made by his department on Parliament was going to be distributed through schools and television. Here we go! I challenge that side of the House to tell me that that film, which many of us viewed in Kine 500 here in Cape Town a couple of weeks ago, was not slanted.

In what way?

It was slanted in its presentation of the political parties represented in this House.

But that is not our fault.

Oh, it is not your fault. But it was made by the Department of Information and the Ministry of Information is how telling the SABC that they must put it across the nation’s television.

There is nothing wrong with that film.

Not in that hon. member’s opinion, of course not, because his hon. leader was held up as a wonderful example …

But he is.

… whereas my hon. leader was not. The hon. the leader of the Progressive Party was not even featured. I am not going to talk about the Schwarz gang—I mean the Schwarz group. This is deliberate propaganda and already we are being told this is what is going to be put across television. It is a deliberate move on the part of the Government to impose its will on the SABC and on the South African public. I do not see any reason why we should have to put up with it.

If ever we are to be treated to party political broadcasts using television as a medium, then I make this appeal to the hon. the Minister; Please let us follow the principle which is recognized in the United Kingdom. A party is allocated a specific time and all other parties are allocated the same time.

Aikôna.

The hon. member says “Aikona”. At the moment the time for the broadcast arrives it becomes apparent that the BBC withdraws from the scene. They are not there. There is no fanfare, blaring of trumpets, or scenes in the Johannesburg city hall to represent one party and no audience to represent another as we find in the Ministry of Information film, which the hon. member tells us is so wonderful. The politician is on his own and he makes his speech. He gets on with it and he puts across the point of view which he wishes to put across without any embellishment of any description whatsoever.

They do not like being alone.

No, obviously they do not. That is why it is done. I wish to conclude by asking the hon. the Minister to take a deep, hard look at the situation and if it is ever considered that party political broadcasts ought to become a way of life in South Africa, it should be along these lines.

Mr. Speaker, it must be fairly clear to any objective observer in this House, while the word “objective” has been flung so lustily across the floor of this House, that the attack from that side of the House has fallen completely flat. It ended at Umhlanga and landed on the rocks there. The hon. member for Parktown began with great eloquence, but that eloquence was limited to the flowing style in which he delivered his argument, actually a tirade. Its consent was almost like that of a doctoral thesis of the sort of which it is said, “It is more and more about less and less.” It reminded one of the man who wrote a thesis about the tail feathers of a cross-feathered fowl. I think it was extremely disappointing to listen to such a tirade here. To begin with, it was a case of outrageous generalizations. A handful of details were picked out and with that the whole subject was virtually exhausted. It was a total disparagement of the enormous, positive service which the SABC readers to the whole of South Africa. When I say “the whole of South Africa”, I have the whole of South Africa in mind as it can be broken down into its variety of national groups and groupings. The SABC does justice to everyone of them. A terrible attack was launched here on the so-called “sectionalism” in South Africa. This must supposedly be removed. The hon. member for Green Point alleged that the South African society was a multi-racial one, but I think he must consult the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. member for Durban Point entertained us with an exposition of his party’s view of South Africa. He said the “hard facts” of South Africa were, inter alia, that there were a variety of peoples and groupings here, that each of those different groupings attached value to an identity of its own and to the protection of what was its own. He even went as far as to advocate discrimination between the different groupings. The hon. members for Durban Point and Green. Point must still decide this matter between themselves, because they are obviously in conflict with each other in their views of what South African society is. I gained the impression that the hon. member for Parktown occupied himself in his speech with the sifting out of trivialities. His real objection is to “Current Affairs”. The hon. members for Green Point and Umhlanga adopted similar standpoins. However, have hon. members noticed—I have already said this was a grotesque disparagement of the positive service of the SABC—that there are approximately 17 hours of broadcasting time for the English or the Afrikaans service every day and that of that broadcasting time only five minutes are devoted to “Sake van die Dag” or “Current Affairs”? That amounts to 1/204th of every day’s broadcasting time.

One rotten apple spoils the barrel.

The hon. member for Maitland will do well to listen. The criticism does not relate to every broadcast of “Sake van die Dag” or “Current Affairs”, but at the most to a few in which a subject is touched upon with which hon. members on the opposite side do not agree. In other words, if one were to investigate the percentage of cases in which those hon. members think they have justified criticism, I think it would be one thousandth of the broadcasting time. Therefore hon. members are sifting out trivialities. The whole attitude of hon. members on the other side is that of one who is sour. Their criticism is criticism from a specific view of the South African scene and that is what is at issue in this debate. What is at stake is that that side of the House wants a certain view to be proclaimed by the SABC, a view which is theirs and does not correspond with the view of this side of the House. They speak of objectivity. The hon. member makes me think of what Joseph Leighton said to Bosanquet in the latter’s Objective Thinking. He said to Bosanquet—

There is no objective thinking, especially on that side of the House. In as far as there is talk of objectivity, I want to say that I should like to see what a SABC programme will be like in one day’s time if those hon. members’ philosophy were to succeed in South Africa and if that side of the House were to come into power. If the Progressive Party were to come into power —of course that is a total impossibility— and the SABC were to be loaded with Progressives who were to unload their notions, consciously or unconsciously, on to South Africa, we would have a dangerous philosophy, one which would not correspond with the reality in South Africa at all. The reality in South Africa is not that for which the hon. members on the Progressive Party side of this House stand. They see a total South Africa with vaguely differentiated and different groups. If they were to apply their philosophy in South Africa, we would have discrimination of the most serious degree. This is no new thing which I am now saying in this House. Dr. Verwoerd spelled it out for those people across the floor of this House. If one were to proceed from a general view of South Africa and make that kind of policy generally applicable, it would mean that the rights and the liberties of communities which are minorities in South Africa, would be dominated, would be outvoted, and in that process, subjected to the most serious discrimination. That would be discrimination. This side of the House has a sound philosophy which is recognized everywhere, viz. the right of existence of every people to maintain that which is its own and the privilege to be zealous also for the rights and the liberties of the people co-existing with one. I am not even speaking of the hon. members of the United Party, because they have not yet decided what they want to understand under discrimination. They have not yet decided for themselves what the South African scene is like. Of course the Progressives want to stir us all into one mixture and then they want to subject the minorities to the majority.

Nonsense.

Surely this is obvious from the hon. member’s philosophy. Then one will have discrimination against the various population groups. The National Party’s view is a sound philosophy which is basically recognized; even in the UN’s manifesto it is recognized in the following words, “The right of self-determination of various peoples, even small nations.” This is recognized in South Africa. Now this is the basic philosophy which those hon. gentlemen criticize as having allegedly filtered through in some of the programmes of the SABC on some days for a short time. The view which those hon. gentlemen want to have disseminated in South Africa is precisely a very dangerous view. In addition it is actually nothing new. The appearance of the Progressive Party on the South African scene is, after all, not something new as far as its philosophy or its way of thinking is concerned. It is obsolete 19th century Liberalism which they are dishing up here as if it were the greatest imaginativeness in the world. It is that obsolete 19th century Liberalism which formed the basis for the rise of Socialism and Communism. After all, this is the history of political philosophy of the 19th century, and this is what those hon. members want to dish up for us. Now, with the greatest eloquence, they come and plead in this House for objectivity and they cause this to have a ripple effect against the SABC while they fail to appreciate the whole great positive service which this enterprise renders to South Africa.

Not the SABC, but the way you interfere with it.

You have heard from the hon. member for Westdene how you interfered with people—if the hon. member wants to use this word—in the war years and how you forced things down our throats. You are the last ones to talk. May I suggest that the hon. speaker should start at page 2 since page 1 does not suit him.

The hon. member for Parktown also referred to student broadcasts. I think that he had the broadcasts about student activism at the back of his mind. A great fuss was made about these in newspapers and elsewhere, but what the people do not tell us, but what did happen, is that those students were given a chance of expressing an opinion. It was put to them that their opinions would be stated as against the opinions of other students, that these would be weighed up against each other. It was put to them that there would be people who would oppose each other. In the programme “Rekenskap”, for example, a variety of opinions are given. There are people who debate a point. There we find the proof of impartiality. In this programme on student activism, parallels were drawn between phenomena amongst overseas students and certain phenomena in South Africa, but that did not suit the gentlemen and the lady of the Progressive Party, because those parallels were unfavourable for the spiritual climate, or should I say for the interpretation of the spiritual climate, which that party is trying to create in South Africa. It was information which was given to South Africa. That information was put into perspective against the background of world currents, world currents in which South Africa has to find its place and within which it must play a role. The hon. member for Parktown listed a whole lot of names. He started with André Pierre Brink, he quoted Jan Rabie and reached Beaumont Schoeman. He even went to look for help from the HNP. If one always keep left, one eventually reaches the right. That is almost what happened here. He grabbed at everything in attempting to make a case, but the case was not made, because above all this the great service which the SABC renders to South Africa shines out clearly, and in the light thereof it is a privilege for me to give my support to the amendment of the hon. member for Westdene.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterberg has made a very interesting speech here today I thought that to start with I should remind him of what we are discussing seeing he spent a great deal of his time trying to justify his rather difficult position in the bench where he sits. It is rather interesting to find that he accuses us of asking assistance from the Herstigtes when the Nationalists have a very good “herstigte” in the member who has just sat down. We can only imagine that he has had a very difficult time in the caucus lately judging as a result of the fact that their sports policy does a somersault every week. Consequently the hon. member decided to attack the Progressive Party although there is no mention of the Progressive Party in the motion. I am surprised that there were at the most one or two glancing references in his speech to the SABC, but we were very grateful for those.

The hon. member for Waterberg of course came back to what the hon. member for Westdene said right at the outset, namely that because there was some expression of opinion during the war years …

“Some” expression of opinion?

Yes, we have only heard from two so far. It was claimed that there was discrimination against those who felt they could not participate in the war. I may remind hon. members that that was a time of war, a time of emergency, and therefore can hardly be likened to the present situation. However, let us assume for the moment that for purposes of this debate the arguments raised by the hon. members are valid—something which I do not accept. They argued that there was discrimination against a section of the people in the years 1939 to 1945 or, if you like, right up to 1948. But in my reading of the history of South Africa there can be no doubt that there was discrimination against the Afrikaner in this country.

Hear, hear!

However, does it follow that, in response to that discrimination, there must now be discrimination against other groups in this country? It just does not add up. Therefore, what we are pleading for is not that the Progressive Party should take over the SABC, although that would be a very good idea, but rather that the reporting by the SABC should be objective. That is all we are asking for. We are asking for a fair deal for all the peoples of this country, who actually pay to enable the SABC to keep going. There fore they have every right to make that kind of request. It is not a special favour or a special privilege we are asking for; it is the right of the group of people who make it possible for the SABC to continue with its work, to come with such a request. The fact that the SABC is a monopoly should, I think, cause all of us to take a fresh look at this medium, because it is a very important fact that it is a monopoly. That is why I am grateful that the hon. member for Parktown has introduced this private member’s motion. It gives us an opportunity to take stock again of the position with regard to the SABC.

It has been suggested that the hon. member for Parktown has only referred to “Sake van die Dag”, or “Current Affairs”, or whatever it is called these days. It is certainly true that a large part of his speech drew on selections from that specific programme, but one cannot in a mere half hour refer to programme after programme. Of course, there is much that is good in the SABC. Naturally there is good entertainment and bad entertainment.

Children’s hour.

Right. Let us focus for a moment on another programme, the programme on student activism which was broadcast last year. I said then, and I say now, that if ever there was a blatant exercise in propaganda, it was summed up in those four programmes on so-called student activism. At that time it was also seen very clearly, by anyone who cared to listen or read the transcripts, that the people who compiled that programme used highly selective excerpts from speeches and writings by banned students, completely out of context. The Government gave the SABC permission to quote banned persons, something which is normally against the law. The SABC, I assume, is of course above the law, because in that programme it was allowed to quote banned persons. Do the hon. members on that side of the House agree that this was right? Does the hon. the Minister believe that this is the right approach? We ourselves, as legislators, are not allowed to quote banned persons, yet the SABC can do so when it suits them in order to illustrate the point which they are trying to get across. Prof. Bozzoli described this programme as “distasteful” and as “a most vicious thing.” A Johannesburg radio critic also described those same programmes as a “desperate smear of generous proportions”. Those are not comments from the Progressive Party, but from other critics, listening to the radio, watching and observing. That programme on student activism, which is a highly controversial subject in South Africa, was totally one-sided. No mention whatsoever was made of the good that groups of students are doing in this country. I want to say here and now that students are doing a great deal of good. However, very seldom are they given credit for their actions. One programme ended with, these words:

What an exaggeration! In the very next programme a deliberate attempt was made to ally the students of this country with this international conspiracy. This sort of tactic does irreparable harm to this country.

Let us now look at another area entirely, quite different from student activism and “Current Affairs”. Let us take a glance at religious broadcasting in South Africa. There are a number of restrictive clauses governing the broadcast services from churches on Sundays. I shall restrict my remarks for the moment to the programmes on the English service. These restrictive clauses go all the way back to 1936, and read as follows:

1. (a) of a contentious or controversial nature,
2. (b) likely to cause offence to any section of the community,
3. (c) political,
4. (d) likely to offend followers of any creed or religion,
5. (e) in any way relevant to discussion in Parliament,
6. (f) in the nature of direct propaganda for a particular belief, or
7. (g) an appeal for support to any kind of institution or movement unless specificially authorized by the Corporation.

With reference to (e) above, one is tempted to ask whether any discussion here, apart from what is going on now, is ever relevant to what is going on in the world. I want to make two points about these restrictive clauses. These were drawn up as far back as 1936 and it therefore seems to me, at least, that a review is long overdue.

Secondly, when one reads the New Testament one finds that the founder of the Christian religion caused a great deal of offence and was in many ways contentious and controversial. The result was that His own contemporaries had him executed on a political charge. It seems to me that it is arguable that, if a preacher is never contentious or controversial, he is actually being untrue to the One whom he says he is following. To be controversial is almost essential if you are going to get to the very heart of what the Christian faith is all about. It is nothing comfortable, nothing clear-cut, but a direct challenge to the heart and the life of a community and of the individual. It is a question of interpretation. If a preacher speaks a word for the voiceless, should he be commended or should he be criticized? Should he be told that he is no longer welcome to speak on the radio because he does this or should it be said that there, at last, is a man who stands for something and who is prepared to stick his neck out and say something?

The organizer for English religious programmes, Mr. Bill Chalmers—and I refer to an article in The Star of 28 January 1975—stated—

I would certainly suggest that the SABC is at least equally grateful to Mr. Chalmers for the part he plays as their organizer of the English religious programmes because he has been on record many times both on the radio and in the newspapers, and I suppose he will be on record on television in future, as being 100% committed to the policy of separate development.

Do you think that is why they gave him the job?

I am not sure. I want to try to be objective. He goes on to say—

This is very close to blasphemy and it is regrettable in the extreme that a man could be in such a powerful position and adopt such a negative attitude regarding the interpretation of English religious programmes; so much so that when he wants a quotation for a comment on some issue which is facing South, Africa, who does he ask? The leader of a particular denomination or perhaps someone who has made a contribution or who has written an essay or book on the subject or who knows a great deal about it? Not at all. He phones or goes to Middelburg. In Middelburg, which I assume must be a very large and important centre of South Africa, there is a man called the Rev. Fred Shaw. Because Mr. Shaw has also again and again gone on record as stating his support for the Government, it seems that, in news comments and from Mr. Chalmers of the English, religious programmes, if there is going to be some comment, it is going to be Mr. Shaw and no one else.

Are you “shaw”?

Absolutely sure, so much so that I think we have far too much of “Shaw”. I do not think they are “sure” at all, and that is why they have to take what can only be described, with great respect, as some kind of ventriloquist’s dummy. If the SABC wants somebody to jump or to speak for them, this is, of course, the kind of person they can get.

Mr. Speaker, I must conclude. There is much in the SABC which is worthy of commendation. We have tried to make that point. But we have focused attention on the fact that very often in its news coverage and in dealing with matters of a controversial nature, it is ill-informed and becomes subjective to a regrettable degree, and therefore I have great pleasure in strongly supporting this motion.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party, I would like to associate this party with the motion which is being discussed in the House and to endorse all the suggestions which have been made by various speakers on this side of the House. Sir, it is not my intention to give further examples of the way in which the SABC has abused radio programmes in order to promote the interests of the Government. I think enough examples have been given, in my opinion at any rate, to prove this beyond any doubt. It is quite clear that there are two factors involved here. The one is that hon. members opposite seem to approve of the programmes. I have not heard from any of them or from the Minister that they do not approve of the tone of these programmes, whereas we on this side of the House feel that they are very contentious. Sir, I do not believe that any of us is naïve enough to think that these programmes just sort of happen; they are too one-sided for that to be the case. I think we must accept that it is the plan of the Government to use agencies of the Government like the SABC in order to propagate their own policy. Sir, it is not only the SABC which is used for this purpose. The Government use all the agencies which they have at their disposal and all the powers which they have for this purpose. It starts with the power of being able to give people jobs and to use various agencies for particular purposes. I am surprised at the hon. member for Waterberg taking the line of defending the Government when he, better than anybody else, should know the power of government. Here we have a gentleman who was very closely associated with a certain ideological wing of the party, so much so that when the split with the HNP was imminent, he was quoted as saying that when the scrum-half takes the break, the centre must be there. What happened was that the scrum-half took the break, but the centre is sitting over there. It is very easy to understand. The HNP is not in a position to offer any jobs, while the Government is in a position to do so, and so the hon. member sits here with the Government and not with the HNP. Sir, the same applies to the board which directs all these various agencies in the SABC. The people who decide the broadcasting policy are dependent on the hon. the Minister for their jobs, so they do exactly the same thing as the hon. member for Waterberg does. They listen to what the hon. member for Parktown called “His master’s voice”. This is in fact what is happening. If, therefore, the hon. the Minister wants to bring about a situation of fairness, then there is only one thing for him to do, and that is to see that the way in which the board is elected will in itself ensure that there is no biased reporting. Hon. members on the Government side have said: “Look at the wonderful work that the SABC does; only five or 10 or 15 minutes is spent on propgrammes of this kind”. Sir, if the Nationalist Party had to pay for national advertising time for all the good work that is being done for them by the SABC in these odd five minutes here and 10 minutes there, the cost of it would be enormous. It would cost them a tremendous amount of money. Now we come to the real crux of the matter.

Shall we have a Pegasus poll on that?

Why not? The hon. the Minister would be surprised at the answer. Now we come to the question of television. I think all of us know that television is a most potent and a most dangerous weapon in unscrupulous hands. It is something where the truth can be twisted; it is something which could be used to get over a difficult situation with the greatest of ease. This tool is now to be placed in the hands of the Government, and I am not naive enough to think that the Government has not got far-reaching plans as to how this new tool is going to be used to propagate their own points of view. I am absolutely convinced of it. I feel that the only thing we can do is to put certain questions to the Minister to try and get some response from him so that we can get some idea of what rights we on the opposition side will have with this new propaganda machine of the Government. There must be something for us so that it does not totally lose credibility. The first question I should like to ask is: What is the policy going to be with regard to the promoting of political personalities on television? Secondly, is there any decision yet in respect of the time to be given to political parties and, if so, what is the decision and can he elaborate on what the attitude of the television authorities is going to be? Thirdly, is there going to be some form of body where, if people feel that they have been aggrieved, they can appeal to that body to get their own situation redressed in the same form as that in which the aggrievement took place? I think all these things are important and I think the hon. the Minister could perhaps give us his ideas on these matters.

The last point I should like to put to the Minister is this. Is it the intention of television, when it comes, to portray South Africa as it is, or is it the intention to portray South Africa as the Nationalist Party would like to see it? In other words, if you get a situation in reality which is in conflict with what the Nationalist Party believes it should be, will that be portrayed on television? To give an example, I believe that on the radio, if a Black priest gives a sermon to a White audience, that cannot be broadcast. If a Black priest gives a sermon to a White audience, will that be able to be seen on television? And if you have mixed pop groups, for instance, would that be able to be seen on television? If you have mixed situations which the Government did not think were in line with its policies, would those things be seen on television? Perhaps the Minister can give us some idea of what he feels should be the attitude of television in regard to these matters.

Sir, I think we have had so many things today to which we have to reply that I really want to refer to a few matters only. I think we should continue with this ding-dong game under the Vote when it comes up for discussion. However, I cannot resist the temptation of referring to a few matters which the hon. member for Parktown raised. He spoke about the question of Sithole. Sir, as an ex-journalist, he should surely know that a story becomes boring eventually and that the time the newspapers pick it up, the radio has already covered it exhaustively. Here is a telex which he may have for perusal to correct the facts which he wrongly gave to this House. I come to other matters. Everyone on the Opposition side made a great point of mentioning the few wonderful SABC journalists who sit on the gallery here to report on parliamentary matters, and these reports are ostensibly objective, but all the other SABC journalists who report on other matters, are supposed to be so slanted. There has been talk of a “built-in slant”, etc. Sir, I think it is a bit foolish to make this sort of comparison. The hon. member for Parktown shakes his head. He spoke of “news selectors”. That news report which is written about the parliamentary proceedings goes directly from here to the microphone. It does not go to some magical ghostly figure in a dark room who sits with a torch and then selects, together with all the others, which items of news are suitable for the listeners and which are not. Sir, he says “the mind boggles to think of the balance”, and yet he calls the reports on Parliament “balanced”. I just want to present two facts as background and then I want to proceed to the part which I prepared for him. I should like to ask this hon. House to judge what I am going to say against the background of what the hon. member said in terms of two matters. He said, “This South African Broadcasting Corporation is the only broadcasting system in the free world which has unashamedly become the mouthpiece of the Government”, or words to that effect. The second thing which he said, was, “It has absolutely no right whatsoever to have a point of view” or words to that effect, and he spoke of “grossly abusing public trust”. He went on to speak of “not trusted or believed”, and then still more about the right of the other party to reply, etc. Let us consider the situation. Has the SABC the right to interpret news, the right which every newspaper quite rightly claims for itself? That is the crux of the matter, because from the moment when one decides that the SABC does have that right or does not have that right, one has to argue further about objectivity, impartiality, etc. Is objectivity as such possible in any event? The hon. member for Waterberg rejected summarily that there was in fact any such thing as absolute objectivity. Today particularly, with the mass of information exploding around us, every person puts his own stamp on every news report which he drafts from the available facts. As this is done by individuals, so a specific body or authority also has a standpoint which it superimposes on its selection of facts. He as journalist must surely know that a half truth is also a truth, and that many half truths together form a picture which can differ completely from the real truth.

They have much experience of that. [Interjections.]

If it is indeed the case that there is no such thing as absolute objectivity—we shall come back to that in a moment, because I want to prove by means of listener figures that the listeners in South Africa are not interested in factual data over the radio to the same extent that they are interested in news accompanied by interpretations and comments—I ask myself whether there is any need in South Africa for the SABC to give news commentaries and news interpretations. Where does this custom come from, because they have been doing it since 1960, and why are they continuing with it? The fact that they do give their comment, is an historical fact which we must accept for the purposes of this debate if we want to investigate further whether this should take place or not.

Last year I told the House where this has its origin. It Originated from 1960 onwards with Sharpeville, with the attempt on the life of the late Dr. Verwoerd, with the tremendous intensification of attacks of the mass media of the world on South Africa. Up to that stage, the SABC merely reflected news. Is it fair to expect of a broadcasting organization, which is in fact the property of the people, a statutory body, to remain a channel for distorted statements and interpretations of the news media inside and outside of the country? Is it acceptable to such an organization to be a channel for such news? From then on the SABC decided: No, it is not acceptable; we shall deal selectively with this series of distorted images which are stampeding us and we shall put them in perspective for our listeners. Then they began to interpret and to give their comment. Every man in the street does not have the ability and, with all respect to hon. members of this House, we do not always have the ability to interpret trends abroad correctly, as they affect us. Therefore the SABC decided for itself that it has a task in this connection.

Now that it has such a task, from what point of view does it approach it? There are two standpoints at issue in this connection, viz. the standpoint from which the SABC comments and the standpoint from which it ought to comment. These two matters must be weighed up against each other if we want to investigate what is right and what is not.

I think we can summarize—it has been said over and over again today—by saying that should a national news medium such as the SABC take the liberty of commenting —that is the crux of the matter—it must do so in terms of the principles of the general will of the people. That is the absolute essence of the matter: It must keep to the general will of the people. It is this which these hon. Opposition members do not like, because it is the general will of the people which has caused them to be sitting here today in such small numbers. [Interjections.]

The will of which people?

I want to reply to that merely by referring to three areas which are representative of the general will of the people and then I want to indicate how the hon. Opposition in fact differs from the general will of the people. The hon. member for Waterberg spoke of the concept and the fact of separatism. Seperatism is the historical way of life of our people, whether hon. members want to accept this or not. If they continue to kick against the pricks, they will continue to sit in those benches. The day that they realize that a political party must also keep pace with the will of the people, they will perhaps be able to begin planning for growth. Separatism was recognized by all our previous leaders. The irony of the matter is that it was also embodied in the legislation of Cecil John Rhodes. That is something which hon. members on the opposite side forget for the sake of convenience. From that time onwards it has been the traditional way of life, the evolution of peaceful co-existence in South Africa, and whether hon. members want to know it or not, it is the traditional way of life in South Africa.

A second matter is the balance between freedom and authority, the endeavour of the people to maintain law and order. That is another matter against which hon. members kick. The treatment which the report of the Schlebusch Commission received, is proof of the free thinking of these people. Our people do not want this sort of resistance to authority. Therefore those hon. members are in fact out of step with the will of the people and with the standpoint of the SABC as far as the balance between freedom and authority is concerned. One final matter which I want to touch upon, is the honouring of tried and tested ethical and moral codes which have come from the melting pot of time. That is another thing on which the SABC focuses its attention so as to make its contribution to the preservation of those codes. The Abortion and Sterilization Act which was discussed in this hon. House, elicited arguments from the opposite side of the House for abortion on demand without any reference at all to the ethical and moral aspects of that matter. Once again that is telling proof for us of how out of step they are with the will of the people. Now I ask myself the question: If the SABC is a proponent of these things and if it steps into the breach for the things which I have mentioned, is it stepping into the breach for the National Party or is it stepping into the breach for the accepted general will of the people in South Africa? As far as I am concerned personally, I say unequivocally that I stand by the SABC in its defence of that which is peculiar to the people and our way of life in South Africa.

We always test ourselves in the light of what happens abroad. Let us look at Britain, the mother of democracy, of the free Press, the radio and also one of the pioneers of television. The same applies to Germany as well. The broad news policy of the national television organization in both Germany and England is laid down by statute. The Television Act of 1954 in England makes great play of good taste and matters which must be handled with the necessary accuracy, such as disorder, impartiality, etc. The BBC says that in terms of its licence, it is obliged “to broadcast day by day an impartial account prepared by professional reporters of the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament and to broadcast official announcements whenever requested to do so by a Minister of Her Majesty’s Government”. I just want to point out that quoting a Minister in South Africa also happens to be something which affects the listener. It is not propaganda for the National Party. Furthermore, the so-called “prescribing memoranda” of the BBC is a binding instruction from the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and an appendix to the manifesto. These memoranda determine that the BBC may express no judgment of their own on topical or public matters of policy, that it must handle polemic subjects with impartiality, etc. It is described so beautifully in the Act that it is actually completely unreal that such beautiful instructions are still possible today. However, we come now to the practice and the application of these principles. It so happens that the BBC’s former director-general was instrumental in the writing of the SABC’s manifesto. On the practical level. The BBC says the following in its handbook for 1973—

This is something, the interpretation of which differs from country to country—

and so on. Further on, it is said—

The handbook quotes a statement of a former director-general who said—

So much for the right to reply. I conclude with what the BBC says in its handbook about news bulletins—

And now, what are the norms according to which they work? With this I want to conclude. They interpret this as a free pass to choose sides against Fascism, racial intolerance, etc., in the “Current Affairs” type of programme. Thus the writer Swallow says in his book Factual Television—

It is the ambition of many, perhaps most current affairs programmes, to widen even further the territory where partiality is permitted, for the best Current Affairs producer is certainly a man who himself holds some political convictions. If he has no convictions of this sort it means that he cares little for the material prosperity of mankind, and if he cares little about that, he should turn his attention to matters that require less personal involvement, like horticulture.

Mr. Speaker, this debate has revealed two interesting things in particular. In the first place I think there has been a definite attempt on the part of hon. members opposite to run away from the programme “Current Affairs”. For this reason I shall return to it later in my speech. Secondly, we had a speech here by the hon. member for Florida in which he actually told us in no uncertain terms that the interpretation of events by the commentator of the SABC was simply something which coincided with the will of the people. The case he tried to put to us here, was that they were justified in doing that. What I find strange, is that hon. members on the other side of this House hold a view that was held by a man like Louis XIV. When he was asked who the State was, he said, “I am the State”. This, basically is the attitude reflected on the opposite side. They see themselves not as Government members, they see themselves not as people with that responsibility, but they always see themselves in the first and in the last instance only as Nationalists and as representatives of a certain political party and regard that which they believe, as representative of the so-called will of the people. Secondly, no distinction is drawn between the State and the Nationalist Party, and here we come to the argument of the hon. member for Florida. They will say the SABC is merely an instrument of the State, and as such it is the right of the Nationalist Party to use the SABC as an exclusive instrument of the Nationalist Party.

Nonsense!

I say that the State has a right to make use of the radio as an instrument, for example when it wants to put the case of the State at an international level. Then the State may be expected to counteract by means of the SABC the slanted and false representations made about South Africa at an international level. In that case it is possible that a certain degree of objectivity will be abandoned.

†But when we come to the matter from which the hon. members opposite are trying to run away, i.e. the talks on “Current Affairs”, we find that it is, of course, blatant Nationalist Party propaganda. The point is that it is aimed primarily at the domestic listener—in other words, for domestic and internal consumption. It is not used to put the case of South Africa on international level. Hon. members say: “Oh, it is only five minutes a day.” It is however, repeated three times a day. At five past six in the evening it is broadcast on the English service and on the following day at five to seven the same talk follows. Then, at twenty-five minutes to eight the same talk is heard on Springbok Radio. It is thus repeated three times. Why is it broadcast over Radio Port Natal or Radio Good Hope? This is entirely a domestic transmission. I have made an analysis of the first 36 broadcasts this year of the programme “Current Affairs”. I must say that I am very grateful for the SABC for sending me the transcripts. I have found that out of 36 only about five or six cannot be said to be blatant Nationalist Party political propaganda even though there still is subtle politics in it. It is not like what the hon. member for Waterberg said, i.e. that it was only a matter of one out of a thousand. It is in actual fact in excess of 80% to 90% of talks that one can find blatant Nationalist Party propaganda. It can be divided into various groups.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am sorry, but I only have three or four minutes left. If one looks at this, one finds that in the first place there is a definite attempt not so much to attack other South African political parties by name—it refrains from doing so—but constantly to attack the basic philosophy of those political parties. Then it tries to discredit that philosophy by comparing it and associating it with what is going on overseas. In other words, although there are examples of successful federations in the world, “Current Affairs” never …

Where?

There are successful federations in the United States of America, Australia, Switzerland, Canada and West Germany but “Current Affairs” never mentions that.

Tell us of race federations.

Then the hon. member comes here and says, “Yes, but sometimes a story becomes boring and in that case it is not repeated.” Yet one finds—and I am going to prove it—that one gets a repetition of the same propaganda over and over again. It is repeated as often as three times. Virtually every week one hears references to Ulster, India, Cyprus and the Central African Federation in order to discredit power sharing and the concept of federation. Let me quote an example:

A few days earlier the following was said:

The only change is that instead of saying “post-war” they said “since the war” in the first one. That was on 28 January. Let us have a look at what was said on 21 January:

[Interjections.] As the hon. member for Parktown indicated, it also steps in and tries to justify changes in the Nationalist Party policy such, as happened in the case of the Nico Malan Theatre. Even in such instances they cannot resist the temptation to refer to Cyprus, Ulster and Ethiopia. Let me read it to you. It is the one in which they explained that the heavens held firm because of the success of separate development. They said that that is why they could allow the Nico Malan Theatre to be opened to all races. Let me quote part of what they said:

This in blatant propaganda! If one repeats the lie often enough, people will believe it. I have analysed this and discovered that apart from the pro-Vorster fan letters 90% of the rest aims to justify the policies of the Nationalist Party or to associate the policies of other parties with those places in the world where riots etc. occur. It is for this reason that I have no hesitation in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Parktown.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to this debate. I was struck by the negative, critical approach, of the introducer of this motion, the hon. member for Parktown, and of all the hon. members on that side of the House who supported his motion. When I compare that negative attitude to the positive and appreciative attitude on my side of the House, I am impressed by the chasm which is between us in this matter. The hon. member for Westdene pointed out the tremendous scope and the nature of the service which the SABC renders. He was supported by various of my hon. colleagues in this, inter alia, the hon. member for Waterberg. He said that the SABC offered a comprehensive service, an important service and a good service which broadcasted for 2 000 hours per week in 19 programme services. In spite of this, the hon. member for Parktown preferred to focus his attention on less than one-eighth of that. He confined himself to news commentary and “Current Affairs”. That was actually the pivot on which the whole attack against the SABC hinged, as we have also just heard in the tirade of the hon. member for Durban Central.

While the hon. member for Parktown was talking, I thought of what Langenhoven had said about the man who saw one hole in the sieve and made fun of it. This is precisely what he did and he did this in ornate language, because, as a journalist, he is eloquent. Seen from his standpoint, he did it excellently. However, it was the language of a frustrated person, a man who has lost. That is why he spoke like that. We all know how a child throws himself down on the ground in his despair and screams and kicks with his feet. That is precisely what the hon. member for Parktown did today. I do not want to offend him personally. Why then do I say this— The hon. member has devoted his life to guiding English-speaking citizens of South Africa in their opinion-forming. When he came to the end of his journalistic career, he must have hoped that he had achieved a degree of success. However, what success has he achieved? In the year of the inauguration of the monument in honour of the 1820 Settlers the English-speaking people in our country held an opinion poll. Inter alia, they found the following—

A second finding was—

Only 34%! Those are the testimonials which that hon. member gets for his life-work! That is why I say he is frustrated. Now he comes and attacks the SABC, which is performing a great and important task, in this way. What else does he do? What is his judgment of his own people whom he has been trying to educate all these years? He says they are naive and gullible. He still insults his own people on whom he has been working for so many years in vain.

It is for that reason that they have so few seats.

I do not understand his logic either. On the one hand he attacked Dr. Meyer. He said that the SABC had become the mouthpiece of the National Party under Dr. Meyer. Many of his fellow-speakers on the opposite side also sang that tune. In the same speech, he quoted a great “expert”, Mr. Beaumont Shoeman, and said that Dr. Meyer had said that the time had arrived for us to get rid of the Prime Minister. I ask you, what logic is there in making one’s whole machine a mouthpiece of the Government on the one hand, and saying, on the other hand, that the only hope left for us is to get rid of the leader of the National Party? I do not understand his logic.

I told the hon. member that I would reply to the allegations he made in connection with throwing open the Nico Malan Theatre. He said there were only three news bulletins on the English programme about the Nico Malan Theatre. That is completely correct and I assume that this is the sort of objectivity which one also found in his newspaper when he was still the editor. Why did he not add—h.e has all this at his disposal—that the SABC in fact broadcasted 27 different news bulletins in the different programmes, of which eight were in English, on this matter, viz. throwing open the Nico Malan Theatre to all races? However, that did not suit him. He made a statement which was factually completely correct, viz. that in the English cultural programme there were only three broadcasts about this. The hon. member shakes his head, but I challenge him to bring the proof during the discussion of my Vote if he doubts my statement. He has the same data at hand as I have here and I challenge him to take the matter up again with me in the discussion of my Vote.

I did not say that.

Another allegation which the hon. member made, was that the SABC was financed with the money of the taxpayer. The hon. member for Green Point, who apologized for having to leave earlier, made the same allegation as well as various others. The hon, members are obviously not aware that the SABC is not financed with taxpayers’ money. The SABC is empowered to raise loans and has to pay interest on those loans. The only service in respect of which it is financed, is the foreign service and this was not at all at issue today, because it is above all suspicion and I think that we should be grateful for what the SABC is doing in this regard.

I welcome the amendment of the hon. member for Westdene wholeheartedly, because the SABC does in fact perform a great and important task in this country, not for the National Party, but for the whole South Africa, for all the population groups in South Africa. The formative and ennobling influence which emanates from the SABC’s programmes, can never be sufficiently emphasized and appreciated. I think that we owe it to the SABC to say that this afternoon in this House. It is extremely difficult to satisfy all tastes and all critics and I accept that there will always be a difference of opinion about certain programmes of the SABC; that we must accept; also as far as the television programmes in the future are concerned, there will always be reason to differ because tastes differ. The hon. member for Parktown asked a question here in the House. He wanted to know what the qualifications of the members of the Board of Governors were. I am surprised that he did not use the information. I think that his eyes popped out when he saw what the qualifications of those persons were.

Don’t worry, there is enough time.

The hon. member made an attack on the chairman of the SABC. I want to ask him whether he knows that it is the prerogative of the State President to appoint whom he wants to the Control Board of the SABC. The hon. member does not seem to know that. The hon. member went further and dragged in a letter which the English Academy had written to the SABC. He made the same mistake as the English Academy made by not distinguishing between the cultural English programme where the heads and most co-workers are English-speaking, and the management of the SABC on the other hand. I want to say this to the hon. member and, through him, to the English Academy as well. If they think that any official should de appointed to the top management of the SABC just because he is English-speaking, then they are making a great mistake. If he qualifies on grounds of merit, his application can be considered, but not purely because he is English-speaking. Sir, I want to say that this motion quite surprises me in certain respects, because I think it has actually been addressed to the wrong party. The hon. member for Green Point laid great emphasis on the fact that certain provisions are laid down in the licence which authorizes the SABC to broadcast. He assumed, and based his argument on this, that it is the Minister of National Education who must act. He obviously does not know, nor do hon. members on that side, that the licence which the SABC gets is issued in terms of the Radio Act and not in terms of the Broadcasting Act. If our friend Etienne Malan had been here, he would have been able to tell you. But forget about that, Sir; it is only a small technical point. What surprises me is that on the one hand the hon. member says— and the hon. member for Umhlanga also emphasized this—that television is a dangerous medium in the hands of unscru pulous people, in other words, that the SABC, and by implication probably I, as Minister, too, might act unscrupulously in connection with this dangerous medium, while, on the other hand, he advocates that I should intervene as Minister and see that there are objective programmes. Sir, I want to quote now from a legal opinion expressed by a senior advocate on the grounds of the Act under which the SABC functions—

I want to quote a second paragraph from this legal opinion—

Sir, that is the legal position.

Are they a law unto themselves?

I want to suggest that the hon. member go and study the Act before he introduces another motion in this House.

It is more serious than we thought.

You are now reflecting on an Act of Parliament.

Obviously the SABC does work according to certain programme guide-lines which are laid down, inter alia, in the conditions of the licence which the SABC holds under the Radio Act. The hon. member said that he takes my word for it that the SABC has not instructed its officials to follow Government policy. Sir, this has to do with these programme guidelines to which one of the officials called the attention of his subordinates in this connection. What are those provisions, inter alia? Paragraph 13 reads—

But, Sir, let us forget about these additional points. What are the real control mechanisms which enable the licence holder, the listener, to exercise control over the programmes of the SABC? In the first place, of course, there is the Control Board of the SABC, which consists of responsible people and which must manage and control the SABC as a business undertaking. There are also the programme heads who can be called to account. They are responsible for everything which is broadcast and presented in their programmes. They are also responsible people. But the hon. members know that there are 12 local advisory committees in the large cities of our country who give advice on matters relating to programmes, and I want to recommend to the hon. members who have so much criticism to level, that they should take more interest in the overall set-up of the SABC’s programme services and that they should offer their suggestions and criticism to those local committees so that they can be brought to the attention of the SABC. In the third place I want to mention Parliament, which affords an opportunity, during a motion as we have been discussing here today and also under my Vote, of discussing the SABC. I do not want to go into this any further, because we are acquainted with this mechanism. The most able and the most effective control mechanism is, however, the listening public itself. Sir, it is a fact, whether we want to know it or not, that the listener is able to make his voice heard. He is an indication to the SABC Control Board of the extent to which its programmes are meeting with approval or disapproval. Now, certain programmes were singled out here today, and criticism was levelled at them. I just want to return to a few of these quickly.

I want to tell you that more than nine out of every 10 letters received are from English-speaking people. It is not fan mail for the Government because the SABC is Government-controlled, as hon. members would like to suggest, and most of these letters support the standpoint of “Current Affairs” by an overwhelming majority. In the few minutes which are left, I should like to furnish you with certain facts.

A survey was made during the period March 1974 to February 1975, specifically of programmes which are broadcast in “Current Affairs”. A total of 113 Afrikaans letters and 476 English letters were received during that period, dealing solely with “Current Affairs”. There was favourable comment in 101 Afrikaans and in 446 English letters. [Interjections.] Now these hon. members are pretending that there is a seething dissatisfaction among the listening public, that they are being exploited and deceived. Sir, I just want to round off those figures. Unfavourable comment was expressed in 12 Afrikaans letters and 30 English letters. Now what were the contents of those letters? What did the people actually write about? In September 1974 they wrote about the matter to which the hon. member for Pinelands referred, viz. the programme “Focus on Student Activism”. More than 90% of the letters were from English-speaking people, and of these there were six letters of appreciation for every one which contained criticism. That is the pattern which we have had from the English-speaking letter-writers. The hon. member for Pinelands received a letter himself, for he wrote on behalf of his party and obtained a full explanation, but obviously he was not satisfied with that. I want to tell him that he is completely in the minority. Here we have the proof—six letters of appreciation for every one containing criticism. I also want to emphasize that the foreign service of the SABC receives the greatest appreciation from different countries, and I just want to mention one figure to you. Do you know that in February this year the SABC received 5 150 letters, of which 2 221 originated from 37 African countries. I do not have the time to quote more than a few extracts to you. The first letter comes from Morocco and it can surely not be a Nationalist who wrote this. The writer said—

Then there is another one from Zaire—

[Interjections.] In the light of the criticism which has been raised by the hon. members and which radiates from this motion which the hon. member for Parktown proposed, I say that these figures and the comments which I have quoted, and this I have done very briefly, are to my mind exclusive proof that we reject this motion of his and that we far rather give our support to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Westdene.

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

Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (a) collecting and providing basic geological information;
2. (b) providing metallurgical services;
3. (c) encouraging the local refinement and processing of minerals;
4. (d) promoting the marketing and export of minerals; and
5. (e) conserving minerals of strategic importance.

Colleagues on this side of the House will elaborate in their speeches on the points mentioned in the motion, and in the short time available to me I shall confine myself to just a few points in connection with this matter, which I consider to be of great importance.

In my opinion the Republic’s mineral industry revolves around three basic issues. The first, I believe, is the importance of our mineral potential in respect of certain facets to which I shall come back in a minute. The second is the extent and variety of our mineral resources. The third is the importance of conserving our minerals of strategic importance.

I shall now deal with the first point, namely the importance of our mineral potential within the Republic. The wealth with which the Republic of South Africa is endowed in this regard is of very great importance, as I shall indicate, and because it is of great importance, it is vitally important that a sound and dynamic policy be implemented. I want to submit that it is in fact being implemented by the Government. As far as the importance itself is concerned, it is common knowledge, to begin with, that our mineral production has contributed considerably to South Africa’s prosperity over the past decade or so. In this regard we need only think of the contribution made by gold in particular last year in enabling the Republic to maintain that high growth rate of approximately 7%, as against the growth rates in the rest of the world.

With this in mind, one must subscribe wholeheartedly to the standpoint of the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister that South Africa will have to continue—this is very important—to increase its mineral exports at a more rapid pace. It is of more than passing interest that our present mineral production of approximately R4 000 million a year will have to be increased considerably over the next 25 years to approximately R9 000 million a year, as some projections would have it. This highlights very strongly the question of local refinement and processing. Although I am not concerned with this matter at the moment, I must praise the Government in this respect too for its foresight in accepting the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council by appointing a committee to investigate the possibility of further stimulating the mineral industry and to make recommendations in this connection.

There is another reason why our mineral wealth is of great importance to the Republic of South Africa. In my opinion this great importance lies in the fact that it is the contribution which we in South Africa can make in this particular field to the future happiness and the well-being of mankind in general. The world population at the moment is approximately 3 800 million, but we are told that in 25 years’ time this 3 800 million will have increased to almost or even more than 7 000 million people. This growth, together with a constant rise in man’s standard of living, will make ever greater demands on the minerals available to man. For that reason it is important that we accept even at this early stage that South Africa has a most important part to play in that regard as well in the years that lie ahead.

Finally, as far as the importance of minerals is concerned, there is another matter which is of great concern to me, namely that there are many people in this country who are dependent for their livelihood, not only on the mining, but also on the processing of minerals. Bearing in mind those people, and those who in turn are dependent on them, we can discuss a dynamic policy which should be adopted in regard to the whole question of the mining and processing of minerals in the Republic of South Africa.

I have tried to indicate that it is important that South Africa possesses certain minerals. Later in my speech I shall come to the extent of South Africa’s reserves. In the first place there must be growth, and to make this growth possible, it is the more important to collect and provide basic geological information, for these particular services are precisely the ones which contribute to the creation of the necessary infrastructure for mining as well as other essential development.

In the light of this it is commendable that State expenditure in respect of this service has been increased considerably since 1970. In 1970 the expenditure on this particular service amounted to only R1 315 000. That expenditure has increased to R3 214 000 in the current year. It is likely to increase even further. Bearing in mind the importance of the matter, I want to say that I am very grateful to the Government for having had the foresight to incur this expenditure in respect of a matter which in turn can make a contribution to the further development of an industry which, as I have said, is very important for various reasons.

In this regard we must not forget the contributions of the metallurgical services available to South Africa. In this respect, too, we must express sincere appreciation to the Government for having developed this particular department, which is essential and allied to the mining industry. As a result of its development in recent years, our own National Institute for Metallurgy is internationally recognized today. The Institute’s programme covers all aspects of mineral utilization, from reduction methods in problematic deposits to methods for processing minerals to yield the most economic product. The task of the Institute may be described as, firstly, the investigations conducted on behalf of or in co-operation with the mining industry, and, secondly, the investigations undertaken by the Institute itself on the grounds of economic importance. If one examines the contribution made by the Institute in recent times, one sees that 387 projects were undertaken by the Institute in 1974, of which 119 have been completed. 173 new projects were initiated. 380 technical reports were published, of which 352 were meant only for the mineral industry in South Africa. 28 of these highly technical reports were meant for world-wide distribution as well. A total of 40 scientific articles were published in journals. We could go on like this, but time does not allow me to go into very great detail.

The main thing is that as far as the Government is concerned, a sound policy is being followed in lending active support to the mining industry on various levels in South Africa in order to enable it to maintain the high growth rate which is required. In respect of the Metallurgical Institute I want to say, too, that I should like to endorse what has been said by the hon. the Minister of Mines on various occasions. He has appealed to young people in South Africa to devote their energies to this very interesting but also essential service. It may not be a service which receives spectacular publicity in the outside world, but it is a service which is essential for the prosperity of South Africa and its people.

In discussing the importance of the mining industry in South Africa and for all humanity—for this is one of the things which South Africa does not wish to hoard selfishly, but which it is prepared to share with the people of the world—we have every right to ask ourselves whether the extent and the variety of the minerals found in South Africa are such that one may speak of the possibilities which this industry offers South Africa and the world. For that reason I should like, in the second place, to say a few words about the extent and variety of the mineral potential of South Africa. Hon. members will realize that one can only touch on these aspects in passing.

It is common knowledge that South Africa produces approximately 79% of the world’s gold and 41% of the world’s gem diamonds. Forty-one per cent of the Western world’s manganese reserves are found in South Africa. I just want to say in passing that this is of strategic importance to the free world, particularly if one considers that Russia comes next on the list. South Africa possesses 4% of the world’s iron ore reserves with an iron content of more than 60% and 60% of the world’s platinum. In fact, the world depends mainly on South Africa for its platinum requirements. Although we have only 0,4% of the world’s coal reserves, coal is nevertheless of great importance, not only for South Africa, but for the whole world, in respect of its energy requirements. I shall say more about this shortly. Thirty per cent of the world’s uranium is to be found in South Africa, as is 20% of the world’s vanadium. Russia, on the other hand, has 60% of the world’s vanadium; in other words, the rest of the world has only 20%. This emphasizes once again the strategic importance of South Africa for the Western world. South Africa has 3% of the world’s asbestos, 5% of the world’s nickel and 8% of the world’s antimony. As against this, China has 50% of the world’s antimony reserves. This again points to South Africa as a country with special potential. In addition, South Africa has 11½% of the world’s lead, 4% of the world’s tin and 74% of the world’s chromium ore. One could go on in this vein, highlighting South Africa’s true potential. Accordingly, one should be sincerely grateful for the strong position in which South Africa finds itself. Although I have touched on all these things, I have not even referred yet to other minerals found in South Africa, for example phosphates. On these, too, we could elaborate indefinitely. South Africa possesses this wealth, and consequently one may rightly say that since South Africa has this potential, its importance should be highlighted from time to time.

There is also the possibility of new discoveries. I shall not have time to go into this in detail, but in the December 1974 edition of Coal, Gold and Base Minerals there was a very interesting article, for example, about the triangle in the North-Western Cape, the triangle which is bounded by Gamsberg, Aggeneys and Putsberg, and the mineral potential of that area which is still waiting to be discovered. In other words, the fact remains that South Africa has what the world would like to have. For that reason the importance of this cannot be over-estimated, but at the same time I want to emphasize again that as I have tried to indicate, thanks to the positive guidance provided by the Government and the policy which is being adopted, this potential can be converted into value, not only for South Africa, but for the whole world.

Because this is the position, I want to conclude by referring briefly to the necessity for conserving those minerals that are of strategic importance. We shall all agree that mineral resources are not renewable. Once the minerals have been removed, they are gone for good. The minerals cannot be returned to the soil. For that reason it is essential—and I have no hesitation in saying this, for I know how far-sighted the Government is in this regard—that the minerals be utilized in such a way as to derive other benefits from them, over and above their monetary value. For this reason no mineral which is taken from the soil must be injudiciously applied or exhausted.

I want to refer in particular to those minerals which play a part in the generation of energy. In this connection as well we have a Government which appointed a commission as far back as 1970 to investigate our total coal resources and how they may best be utilized. I wonder whether we may not ask the hon. the Minister when the report of this commission will be available and whether the hon. the Minister will be prepared either to table the report or to make the information concerned available to members in some form. I need not tell you, Mr. Speaker, that many people are deeply concerned about the present exportation of coal. I want to make a plea here for the exportation of coal to be reconsidered very carefully. On the other hand I freely accept that the Government has in fact considered it very carefully and that what is taking place at the moment is in the best interests of South Africa.

I want to refer, too, to the Energy Policy Committee and the important part it has to play. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would be so kind as to take the House into his confidence in that respect as well as to tell us more about it. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, in respect of our uranium potential, he could give us a little more information about the future of uranium as an energy source. I am thinking especially of the erection of uranium power stations, etc. In addition, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied with the progress that is being made in the search for petroleum, particularly as regards the high costs this entails.

Finally I just want to refer to the establishment of a mineral bureau. I should be glad if the hon. the Minister would say something in this regard. It cannot be said of this Government that it does not have a positive and purposeful policy in respect of this very essential matter, the exploitation of minerals in South Africa. This being the case, I have no hesitation whatever in moving this motion in which appreciation is expressed to the Government for what it has done in this connection. I must also pay tribute to the hon. the Minister who is responsible for this department, to his officials who assist him so loyally, and the many people all over South Africa who are engaged every day in exploiting the mineral wealth which South Africa possesses.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that we on this side of the House have a great deal in common with the hon. member for Springs as far as the purpose of his motion is concerned. We share his pride in the mining achievements in this country and in the mineral wealth at our disposal in South Africa. We share his expectations of the part these riches will play in the development of our country I find a little difficulty, though, in going along entirely with his motion because I find that the words place an undue and unreasonable emphasis, to my mind, on the contribution made by the Government and far too little emphasis on the outstanding achievements of private enterprise in the development of our mining industry. A great contribution has been made to the South African economy by private initiative, by private capital and by the endeavours of ordinary men who have, over the years, built up this magnificent industry into one of the greatest in the world. The essential purpose of the motion seems to me to be to praise the Government for all these aspects. We are, in fact, willing to praise the Government where praise is due. However, we believe that the essential purpose of a motion such as this in the discussion of which we enthusiastically participate, should be to lay the emphasis on the better utilization of our mineral resources, and to consider whether or not the Government has played a valuable part in this—and I would be only too happy to pay tribute to the Government for what it has done. I believe that there is a misplaced emphasis in this motion and that we should, in fact, look very seriously at the state of our mining and mineral industries and consider what needs to be done so that these industries may play their part in the critical times which lie ahead, with the rapid economic development which South Africa has to achieve in order to succeed in carrying out those other social, economic and political projects that will make this the country we all hope to see.

I therefore move the following amendment to the motion—

Having drawn this essential distinction, I believe we should proceed to look at the economic development of South Africa and the part the mining industry must play in this development. The new economic development plan for the period 1974 to 1979 has recently been published. This shows that there should be a net expansion of the gross domestic product in South Africa of 6,4% per annum from now up to the year 1979. The contribution of mining has in fact decreased. Over the 10-year period 1960-’61 to 1970-’71 the mining industry’s contribution to the gross domestic product has decreased from 13,7% to 10,2%. There was in fact an upsurge in 1973 to 13,4 %, largely due to the increased price of gold and the stimulus that it gave to the gold mining industry. However, the projection of the economic development programme is that there will be a further decline back to 12% by the year 1979. Or, to look at it in other terms—these are the last statistics I am going to use; they are merely designed to give us some idea of the scale of the operations—the gross fixed investment of the mining industry is predicted to grow from now on by something like 5,9% per annum, while the average growth, rate of the mining industry is predicted to be only 4.4%. This means that proportionately we shall be investing more in fixed capital in the mining industry and getting less out of it. One recognizes, of course, that South Africa cannot indefinitely draw the benefits from the rich resources that were originally discovered and developed, and that we have to look increasingly to minerals of a lower grade and to exploit these. It may, therefore, well be that the capital investments will be greater and the yield less. Nevertheless, while one would hesitate to quarrel with such eminent people as those on the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, some of us who are keenly interested in the mining industry are inclined to believe that mining may have a greater potential, a greater rate of growth, a greater return, than these rather cautious figures seem to indicate. We say this because we know that there is a potential for the mining industry in this country which is still only partly tapped. One thinks, for example, of the fairly recent discoveries in the northwest Cape and the research, development and exploration steps which are now being taken and which may, in fact, prove that this mineral-rich, area has a greater potential than has yet been realized.

The hon. member for Springs has rightly pointed to South Africa’s pre-eminence in respect of a number of strategic minerals. This is entirely right but, of course, the return that may be received from these minerals depends very much on market conditions and the kind of prices we maintain. The economic advantage is not always reflected by the importance of this country’s share in that particular industry. It is a fact that in this country many of the new mineral resources which are being looked at and which will in fact constitute the basis of our further expansion, are of a comparatively low grade and very often refractory in nature. This simply means that we have to try harder in order to get the same results. Refractory minerals requite special process for their extraction. Low grades require a high degree of concentration so that the extraction may become economical. I would say, speaking generally, that in order to reap advantage from these particular types of low-grade minerals, as in the case of high-grade minerals, three essential qualities are necessary in our mining endeavours in this country. The first—it goes without saying —is capital. One needs a great deal of capital to develop and exploit these enormous deposits, particularly when they are of low grade. The second, Sir, is cheap energy. One needs power in order to develop and beneficiate these minerals, particularly when they are of low grade. The third is plain human skill, because there are very special problems in South Africa that need to be resolved in order that we may draw the benefit from the particular types of minerals which we have in this country, and we can only succeed if we are able to resolve these problems and exploit these minerals at an economic level. Sir, the mining industry in this country has proved its ability to mobilize capital. It has a highly sophisticated capital-mobilizing machinery, and if the opportunities are there, if the economics are proved, I believe that in general the mining industry in this country will prove capable of mobilizing the vast capital resources which are essential to the development of this type of industry.

Secondly, as regards energy, we have great reserves of coal. We have considerable reserves of uranium and while—I say this in answer to the hon. member for Springs—uranium of atomic energy is not yet competitive with coal except in very special conditions in this country, the time will undoubtedly come when nuclear energy will play its part, not as a replacement for coal but side by side with coal as part of the general spectrum of our energy development in South Africa. Sir, we have to the north of South Africa vast hydro-electrical resources which have already been partly exploited, but only very partly, through the Cabora Bassa scheme. There are further reserves of energy to be obtained from the great rivers to the north of us, which have been calculated by experts like Dr. Olivier to be of the extent of 40 000 megawatts of potential energy to the north of South Africa’s borders. There is thus a great deal of energy which can become available as cheap energy once the capital investments have been completed. This holds enormous potential for the future development of South Africa and for the whole of the Southern African region. It is an essential attribute if we are going to contemplate the development of these vast mineral resources as a means of making our contribution to the world through the field of minerals.

Sir, I come back to the question of skill. I believe we can meet the demands of capital and that we can meet the demands of energy. The big question-mark is whether we can meet the demands on our skills. We have at this moment only two universities which are actually able to offer degrees in metallurgy. Metallurgy, Sir, is that science which relates to the development of the methods for extracting minerals from the ores in which they are found. A great deal of skill is needed, particularly in South Africa, as I have demonstrated, because of the refractory and low grade of some of the minerals which we have available in this country. We require very special skills and very special techniques. Sir, for a long time in past years we have seen something like 10 or 12 graduates a year becoming available for the development of this highly specialized, highly important skill in South Africa. One must pay tribute to certain efforts which have been made in recent years with a view to increasing the output of our universities, with a view to increasing the number of metallurgical experts available to us, but the numbers are still pathetically low.

I believe that the two universities together, Pretoria and the Witwatersrand, can now produce at most something like 40 to 43 metallurgical scientists a year. It is true that there are other universities which are providing courses, degree courses, in such things as geology and the other allied skills which apply to the mining industry. Mining engineers are qualifying in quite substantial numbers now. But the bottleneck in the situation is the methods, the skills and the techniques of processing our ores, which are often of a particular South African nature with very special problems relating to South African conditions. I believe it is right at this stage to pay a special tribute to the National Institute of Metallurgy, which is, as the hon. member for Springs has pointed out, of world class. It has an international reputation. There can be no doubting the high quality of the work done by the Institute and the enormous contribution it has made to mining in South Africa. But despite its high quality, it is a very small institute. It is very small in numbers and it is very small in resources. It is perfectly true, and we strongly commend it, that the Government has recently substantially improved the budget of the National Institute of Metallurgy, but there is still a long way to go.

We believe that there are essentially two things that might be done now. We believe that the first thing is to ensure that the allocation of funds which is made to the various institutes and boards and corporations in South Africa which have scientific or research work to do should in fact be reviewed and perhaps put on a slightly different basis from what has been the case in the past. It used to be the case in the past that there was a kind of competition, which one might almost describe as an administrative semi-political competition, by these various institutes competing for the available funds and all trying to get a bigger slice of the cake for themselves. More recently, and more wisely, the matter has to some extent been adjudicated by the Scientific Advisory Council. This certainly is an improvement. I myself would like to see a greater interest taken in these matters by Parliament itself. I would like to see a Standing Committee on Scientific and Technical Development in South Africa. I should like to see Members of Parliament as actively interested in this as they are in other matters such as Railways and Public Accounts. I believe this is a vital area and it would be good for this country if Members of Parliament took a more active and lively interest in this key feature of the future development of South Africa. This does not seem possible at the present time but I would urge the Minister in considering the case for metallurgical development in South Africa to have particular regard to the small share of the cake enjoyed by the Institute of Metallurgy which has a key role to play and a vital part in the economic development of this country.

Lastly, there is one other suggestion. I believe that an institute of this kind depends very largely on the contributions of the allied and associated sciences. Here the universities of South Africa have an enormous role to play. It is true that the Institute of Metallurgy has associations with the universities of the Witwatersrand, Pretoria, Natal, Cape Town and so forth, but these are still very limited in content. The reason why they are limited in content is not through any lack of enthusiasm on the part of the universities or of the Institute of Metallurgy but because our universities in South Africa, generally speaking, are broke. They have not enough money for the kind of development we are talking about. There are not enough facilities; there are not enough work benches; there are not enough laboratories for the development of the kind of facilities I have been talking about here this afternoon. I believe that our universities must be allowed to play a far greater part, make a far greater contribution and show far greater collaboration with the scientific institutes in this country to produce the young men we need in South Africa for development, and this can only be done if they get a fair share of the funds. I believe we must look to our universities and encourage them by financial contributions to be able to make this important contribution to South Africa which they are so eager to make.

Mr. Speaker. I find it a pity that the hon. member for Von Brandis should have moved an amendment. He made a very good speech, and I have nothing against what he said, but to me it is a pity that he was not prepared to give credit to the State where credit was due. I find nothing wrong with the motion introduced by the hon. member for Springs. On the contrary. It is an exceptionally fine motion, an important motion. The motion was moved at a late stage of this Friday afternoon in a calm atmosphere and I do not want to disturb this calm atmosphere.

I nevertheless believe that the hon. member for Von Brandis will lose nothing by giving recognition. On the contrary. More important figures in the mining world than he have already given recognition to this Government. I experienced this last year on the occasion of a very big function at which the Chairman of Impala Mine, which is now linked to Union Corporation, gave recognition in large measure to the hon. the Minister of Mines for what the department, the Minister and the Government had done to develop and activate the mining industry in South Africa.

But I, too, gave recognition.

Yes, but to me it is a pity that the hon. member should have added what he said this afternoon to what would otherwise have been a tasty morsel for a Friday afternoon.

This recognition is important, because what is being achieved through the mining industry in South Africa is enormously significant for South Africa. It is of vital importance that this industry should be developed and activated. South Africa is in an exceptional position in that it has enormous natural resources, but it is my honest opinion that South Africa’s most important resource is its mineral wealth. Gold has played an enormous role in the development of South Africa.

It is interesting to note that with the development that is taking place in the world today, and with the world population standing today at about 3 800 million people, and expected to be 7 000 million people by the year 2000, there is no one in the world who does not use minerals in one way or another. Owing to a higher standard of living, minerals are being used to an ever increasing extent. If we look at America, we find that over the past 30 years they have almost used more minerals than has the rest of the world put together. This is true because America is a country that is developing rapidly and at a tremendous pace. However, it is also true that there are various minerals which cannot be mined in America and which must, therefore, be imported. South Africa is going to play an extremely important role in the mineral development of the world in the future. It is important that this resource, South Africa’s mineral wealth, should be utilized to the full to enable us to accept the challenge awaiting us in this country and in Africa. Consequently it is interesting to read the following in the January edition of the publication Kernaktief under the heading “Minerals other than gold”, written by the editor (translation)—

Do hon. members realize what that means? This is a tremendous challenge facing the mining industry and the Government, to be able to earn this gigantic amount of R4 000 million in foreign currency by the end of the century, excluding earnings from gold—

What is the Government’s contribution in this regard? There has been a doubling of staff in the Geological Survey section. The work done by this section is of fundamental importance for the development of the industry. We need only consider the Karoo and the enormous mineral deposits now being discovered there, such as uranium, copper, nickel, etc. Right across the country, this section is collecting clear proof of very rich mineral deposits in South Africa. The Prime Minister has also announced the establishment of a Minerals Bureau, a Bureau that will be established with the resources of the department and will deal with these matters. It will be concerned with the production, sale and enrichment of minerals. In other words, it will see to this entire question of mineral development. In South Africa, where we possess mineral wealth, it is of major importance that we should concentrate on enrichment processes and the refining of these minerals. We have proved that we have people who are up to the task of, for example, enriching uranium. I believe that in the years that lie ahead, uranium enrichment in South Africa will contribute enormously towards the earning of foreign exchange for our country. The process we are utilizing, through which uranium is enriched far more cheaply than by any other process in the world, will be of the greatest importance for South Africa in the years ahead. Other countries in the world will come and learn from us in respect of what we are able to achieve with uranium.

In this whole framework of mineral development, we must realize certain things. I am pleased that the hon. member for Von Brandis said it would be a challenge and that our young people would have to get their priorities straight as far as their academic training is concerned. However, I differ with the hon. member’s statement that the universities do not receive enough aid from the State. I believe that the universities in South Africa can be very happy and satisfied with what the Government means to them and the contributions made to the various universities in South Africa. Our priorities as far as the student himself is concerned, and our information to students to enable them to get their priorities straight, is a very important aspect. Our students are inclined to study in certain fields only. I do not say this in a derogatory way, because I put spiritual strength first. In other words, if a student wants to be a clergyman I believe that that is in order. The same goes for a student who wants to become a doctor or study science. However, with all respect to many students, I feel that there are too many students taking the B.A. course, which, at this stage in South Africa’s history, does not have the value of a scientific training for the future of South Africa. Here we have in mind geologists, physicists and people who make a study of minerals and their economic impact on a competitive world. There are a number of fields in which young people can make a contribution to the development of this specific industry. One of the biggest problems as far as minerals are concerned, is the matter of demand and supply. This remains a real problem in any industry. As far as the mineral industry is concerned, it is very closely linked to the international economic situation. One finds this repeatedly every time there is a recession in the world economy. Minerals are directly affected. When one thinks back to the days when the price of gold was pegged, we can still remember what the State did to afford relief to the low-grade gold mines. We are aware of the efforts made by the State in this regard. As far as minerals are concerned, the fundamental problem is that the exploitation thereof is closely linked to international economic tendencies. At present there is an economic recession throughout the world. America, too, has been affected by it. We now find that there is a recession in the platinum industry. At the moment there is instability in the industry, notwithstanding the fact that there had to be major capital formation in order to develop the mines, and notwithstanding large-scale expenditure on water pumping plant, housing and various aspects with which the State is closely involved. This international economic weakness, if I may put it in those terms, has given rise to a situation in which the demand for platinum is not what it should be at the moment. However, I have full confidence that the international economy will recover in the years ahead and that the platinum industry will once again come into full operation. At the moment this causes a problem because it disrupts people and causes instability. It causes problems for individuals working on these mines. However, I believe that if we were to train our people and if the private sector were also to emply economists to concentrate on the mineral industry, a greater degree of stability could be achieved. The stability that is absolutely necessary in any industry is closely connected with the marketing of the product. In Rustenburg, my own constituency, I have seen that one company is in a much stronger contractual position than the other. As a result, when there is a recession—this affects all platinum producers—the one company experiences fewer problems because it has a contractual link with the people overseas who purchase the platinum. That is why I say that it is essential for us to accept in full the challenge for the future which the mineral wealth of South Africa offers us. We must get people to work on the marketing of minerals, the economic aspects of the enrichment of minerals and the control of the production of minerals. In agriculture we sometimes find that over-production of a certain product takes place. In the mineral industry we must regulate things in such a way that over-production never takes place. Consequently there must be a scientific economic basis for the exploitation of our minerals.

I want to content myself by thanking the hon. member for Springs for this motion. This motion is in the interests of South Africa. The exploitation and enrichment of our minerals affords South Africa a stable growth rate which is essential for the planning of the future of the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, since I used to be a Department of Mines official under the previous United Party regime, and subsequently an official of a mining company, I think that I am perhaps able to hold a balanced opinion on the motion of the hon. member for Springs. It is of course true that mining companies, as the hon. member for Von Brandis stated in his amendment, are also making a special contribution. The fact of the matter is that if any aspect of the national economy does not have the sympathy of the Government, such sector suffers harm. The National Party Government has, since its accession to power and also at the time of its 1924 to 1931, term of office, proved that it was attuned to our industrial problems in so far as the mining industry was concerned.

I have been asked to say something about the few points which were stated in the motion of the hon. member for Springs. I should like to elaborate a little on certain aspects of the activities of geological research in South Africa. There is a division to which all information and all activities in regard to the mining industry are canalized, viz. Geological Survey. Actually we regard this as the archives of the mining industry. In this respect it is of course important that there should be a certain measure of regimentation, which can be conveyed through the Department of Mines to the mining companies concerned. One finds that in all the universities throughout South Africa today the same research work is being done which is being done by mining companies, research work in regard to major exploration projects in particular. I also want to refer to the other institutes that are co-operating with our universities and concentrating on the mining industry. In this way there is the Economic Unit attached to the University of the Witwatersrand, a unit which is in fact being financed by the Chamber of Mines. That unit is doing very valuable work in regard to gold deposits in South Africa. At the University of Cape Town there is the Pre-Cambrian Unit which is doing exceptional work in regard to the Arehaean complexes, which include South West Africa, Namaqualand, the North-West Cape, etc. What I find to be quite strange in this connection—and this affects South West Africa as well—is the question of the releasing of data. I find it strange that Geological Survey is in fact being blocked as far as the publishing of data is concerned while the Pre-Cambrian Unit attached to the University of Cape Town publishes data to its heart’s content on the research work which it is doing in South West Africa, Namaqualand and elsewhere. In my opinion the State is doing itself an injustice by allowing this kind of embargo. There is a special reason for this, which was given to me, but I must say that I did not find it acceptable. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to put a stop to this kind of embargo in the department itself. In addition there is the Geological Unit at the University of Pretoria for research into the Bushveld complex, a unit which is also doing exceptionally valuable work in regard to the mineral wealth of the Bushvled complex, which has already enjoyed so much international attention. Then, too, there are of course other institutions such as the Bernard Price Geophysical Institute attached to the University of the Witwatersrand, which concentrates to a greater extent on geophysics. And there is also a division of the CSIR which deals with the field of geochronolog/. All data in regard to the determination of the age of mineral deposits, which is of course a very important aspect, is sent to them so that they may determine the age of the rock. Other institutions which are also doing valuable work in this sphere are the Bantu Mining Corporation and the Atomic Energy Board. All the information which they acquire, and the progress which is made by them, is of course channelled to Geological Survey, which then makes this information further available.

I want to make haste and come to Geological Survey itself, because this is in fact a division of the Department of Mines which advises the Minister on various development projects. One of the most important things which came to my attention recently was the excellent work which is being done under the guidance of Geological Survey in regard to the aero-magnetic and radiometric maps published by the Department of Information I am also referring to the uranium discoveries made by the Union Carbide Company. In the Karoo, between Fraserburg and Beaufort West, a major aerial survey was carried out. All the data was made available on sheet maps at 60 cents each. If one thinks of the work and cost involved in such aero-magnetic and radiometric surveys, it is a tremendous achievement to make the information available on maps costing 60 cents each. This work has brought about a great deal of progress, and has in turn been a tremendous boost to the mining industry. Of course there are quite a number of other obligations which are accepted by Geological Survey. International conferences are attended at which an exchange of ideas takes place, and discussions are conducted on the progress which is being made in various fields of geological research. The exchange of information in this regard is to everyone’s advantage. In addition there are regional studies and mapping. There is also the open file system which makes it possible to make information immediately available. There is, as I have already said, geochronological research, in regard to which there is co-operation with other institutions. Palaeontological research is also being carried out.

I come now to an aspect which is of very great importance, namely the question of minerals A very interesting part of the work of Geological Survey is the initial work in tracing potentially economic mineralized areas. The most important part of this work is the tracing of the Witwatersrand gold-bearing formation under a blanket of younger formations, for example the Pretoria series and the Karoo systems. Consequently this enables private companies inter alia to determine the further extensions of the Witwatersrand formation. There are various terrains which have the same formation as the Witwatersrand. Here we distinguish the Central, West, Far West the East Rand and Evander areas, and to which the Free State goldfields may also be added. Another area which is being investigated by Geological Survey is the Swartruggens-Rustenburg vicinity. If such a now goldfield were to be discovered, one could imagine what a tremendous impact this would have on the economy of South Africa. I am thinking here of the work which is being done by Geological Survey in regard to the compilation of sheet maps. As far as the radiometric, geologic and magnetometric maps are concerned, there has been a tremendous expansion in this sphere during the past number of years. It astonishes one that they are able to do such an extensive amount of work. Apart from that one also finds all kinds of other aspects which are being investigated, for example the field work which is being done in regard to non-organic substances, nuclear substances, coal, oil, gas, and ground water; there is the progress being made in the sphere of geophysics, construction geology and the question of sink holes and the stabilization of dolomite; and there is geological research even so far south as the South Pole, which includes a determination of the gravitation and density of icelayers, barometric altitude measurements, and even aspects of glaciology. All this is to the advantage of South Africa, because it is possible to see in practice what happened at an earlier stage in the prehistoric geological periods here in Southern Africa. Then one also finds, to the advantage of the public in South Africa, the laboratories which do the routine and identification work.

The hon. member for Von Brandis pointed out the work which is being done by the mining companies. It is true that the mining companies are dealing with a particular aspect of the mining industry, but if it were not for the work which is being done on the part of the authorities; frequently to channel development into a sound direction—for example the research being done by the State into the potential Witwatersrand and the Swartruggens-Rustenburg area—matters would otherwise have been very difficult for any company. There, however, the State is doing the spade work. I should like to felicitate the department in question on the initiative it is taking here, particularly in view of all the restrictions and the problems which there are in regard to the acquisition of options, etc., before private companies can enter upon such an area. This work is truly pioneering work, to the benefit of the mining industry.

There are of course similar directions in which the mining companies in the southern Free State are working today, as indicated in Press reports. I should like to quote here a report which appeared in Rapport of 9 February of this year on the great gold search in the OFS. Thousands of options have been taken. Here lies the problem with which the companies have to contend. First they have to obtain the mineral and surface rights from the owners before they can enter upon those areas.

Do you think there is something wrong?

This will still be seen. According to this report, General Mining is of the opinion that there is still a chance of the Witwatersrand formation continuing under the banket of the Karoo layers. A long explanation is furnished, and then this newspaper report goes on to state (translation)—

Sir, I am sorry that this newspaper is disseminating such news in South Africa, for if it had not been for the foreign companies in the mining industry we would most certainly not have had the White civilization here at the southernmost point of Africa which we have here today, and which has enabled us to maintain ourselves against Africa as such, if I may put it in that way, and against the world. We would not have been able to do this if it had not been for the original spadework of foreign mining companies which are today all South African companies. There is no doubt that it is advantageous to the South African economy to have foreign companies here to act as a stimulus to our mining industry. If one does not want foreign companies and foreigners in one’s country to stimulate one’s economy and if one does not enable oneself to compete with them, then I say one is suffering from an inferiority complex. This report states that the foreign companies have been given short shrift in countries such as Australia, in South, America and even certain of the African countries. Sir, these countries have socialists-communist tendencies, and the sooner we get away from the idea of discouraging the investment of foreign capital in our mining industry in South Africa, the better. I just want to refer here to the opinion of someone who is an authority on economy, viz. the well-known Hjalmar Schacht, an outstanding economist, who in his book My First Seventy-six Years had the following to say in regard to foreign capital—

He also states in regard to his observations in Indonesia—

He goes on to point out the advantages which this has entailed for established Western countries.

Sir, the best form of conservation of our natural resources is to expand the energy and brain power of one’s scientists and to help them prepare themselves for any emergency. It is of no avail conserving and stockpiling ores, or anything else for that matter, for it only costs more and more money. Just think of the work being done by Geological Survey in this regard. I think here of the question of alumina ores for South Africa, which are today being exported from Australia to be smelted here. Because it is cheaper—in comparison with local ores—to bring bauxite to South, Africa from Australia, it is being smelted in Richards Bay. We ourselves have inexhaustible supplies of alumina ores, but because, in view of the economic aspect of the bauxite from Australia it pays us better to smelt those ores at Richards Bay, we are not smelting the feldspars from the syenites of Phalaborwa or even the alumina from the shales of the Free State or Karoo flats, the alunite of Keetmanshoop, the nepheline-bearing rock of Spitskop in Sekukuniland. The research work being done by Geological Survey into this alumina-containing rock available in their offices, and when an emergency arises, one has all that data at one’s disposal, and one can utilize it to the advantage of our country; thus eliminating the imported bauxite.

There must be very few aspects of the geology and mining in South Africa that the hon. member who has just sat down, has not dealt with very well and interestingly indeed in his speech this afternoon. We look forward to having a speech of that nature particularly recorded in Hansard to serve as a source of reference, it being a record of very valuable information. The hon. member for Rustenburg said he was disappointed with the approach of the hon. member for Von Brandis in that the hon. member for Von Brandis had spoiled the praise which was due to the Government. I believe that one thing one cannot accuse the hon. member for Von Brandis of is that he does not provide praise where praise is due, and listening to his speech. I thought that he had given generous enough praise to the Government in this field. But I do not think the Government can expect only to receive praise, because it is obviously the responsibility and the duty of the Opposition also to voice criticism of a constructive nature where they feel that that is necessary.

Sir, this is a debate on a technical subject and we have listened so far to speeches which are interesting in many respects, dealing with the mineral resources of South Africa, the exploration of those mineral resources and their exploitation, the mining and the metallurgy of the minerals involved. It is one of the most important aspects of the South African economy in that one could say that the major part of the South African economy is primarily based on mining and the exploitation of our mineral resources, certainly the developing secondary and tertiary activities which although based largely on the iron and steel industry of South Africa, also derive from the primary mineral resources of the country. So we have listened this afternoon to some very interesting speeches on our mineral resources, their nature, their exploration, the gathering of information by means of the Geological Survey and the recording of that information, the mining of these resources and the metallurgy in order to produce the primary metals and minerals. The entire debate was in fact on the theme, that we must discover more and more of our mineral resources in order to exploit more and more of them in order to achieve certain targets in South Africa, inter alia an ever-increasing growth rate in order to provide an ever-increasing standard of living for all the peoples of South Africa. Whilst I go along with the general theme of the debate, I believe that not only South Africa but the whole world will have to take another look at the primary objectives and priorities of the development of their mineral resources and the exploitation of those resources, because there are a few absolute facts which I believe we should start taking a very serious look at. Those are that irrespective of how well endowed South Africa is in regard to mineral resources, irrespective of the mineral resources which have been discovered in the past and which are being developed at this stage, and irrespective of our expectations of future discoveries of mineral resources, we must take very serious cognizance of the fact that every one of these resources is limited. In other words, they are not unlimited and we cannot go on exploiting these resources for ever and ever. The resources—they are described as nonrenewable—are in every case the basic minerals which are required to maintain our economy—It has been the mode of the entire capitalistic world to date where one speaks in terms of exploitation to achieve the objectives of growth, to achieve the objectives of large profits, of improved standards of living and of improved exports. However, the whole world is starting to realize and with something of a shock that resources are limited, that they cannot be replaced and that far better management of their exploitation and application will have to take place in the future. I believe that a future debate of this nature should always be based on the considerations of how the resources can be applied in the most economical manner to maintain the standards that we have and, at the same time, how to avoid their exhaustion at an early stage. What steps can be taken to avoid wastage of resources? What are the steps that can be taken to try to find alternatives for these resources? What are the steps that can be taken to recycle as far as possible the metals and other products which are used?

Yes, but there is always a substitute.

I should like to say something in regard to these considerations. A lot of research is done in South Africa. A lot of money is spent on research and many research establishments in South Africa have been developed to a very high standard. It is absolutely true, as hon. members on the other side said, that our National Institute of Metallurgy, our technical departments at the universities and many of the other establishments, particularly the CSIR, are among the best in the world and have quite rightly achieved recognition throughout the world. They are in contact with similar institutions throughout the world, they contribute to the general pool of knowledge and they also draw on the pool of knowledge which is available throughout the world. It is quite true that this is so. However, we feel that possibly not sufficient money is being made available at this stage to the various institutions. It is also true, I believe, that as far as these institutions and departments at universities are concerned insufficient funds are available in order to employ sufficient manpower to carry out all the research that should be carried out.

I should like to suggest that future research should have different objectives. Instead of having the objectives which I set out as being the objectives of the moment, future research should have as objective to establish accurately the exact lifespan of all the mineral resources that are vital in South Africa. All the institutions involved, the universities, the technical institutions and the Government departments involved should in a combined effort have this as their primary aim. When they establish the lifespan of these resources it is important that they do not establish it only on the basis of a constant exploitation of those resources. It is also important that they do not take into consideration just a straightforward linear exploitation of those resources. I believe it must be done by calculating an exponential rate of exploitation. The reason why that should be done is that if you do not calculate it on the basis of an exponential exploitation you can be taken by surprise very suddenly when it is too late to do anything about it by the sudden exhaustion of a very important resource. Therefore, in calculating the lifespan of these resources, it is absolutely essential that their exponential rate of exploitation, which will be the actual and factual rate of exploitation, should be the one which is calculated.

Let us just have a quick look at figures for the rest of the world. I do not have the figures for South Africa. By way of a question last year I tried to probe this very matter, but the hon. the Minister told me then that it would not be in the interests of South Africa to in fact divulge these figures. I do not necessarily agree with his answer but I respect his reply and will not probe the matter further at this particular stage. I believe it is vital for the department concerned to have that information even if it is not made generally available But let us look at the position in the rest of the world. I have factual figures here which have been calculated on scientific information.

If one looks at just a few of the most important metals and minerals, one sees, for example, that in the case of aluminium its lifespan—this was a year or two ago— based on an exponential rate of consumption, was 31 years. If five times the quantity of known reserves two or three years ago should be discovered in the next few years, the lifespan of this metal can be extended to 55 years. For chromium the figures are respectively 95 years and 154 years. In respect of coal the figures are respectively 111 years and 150 years; for copper they are 21 years and 48 years; for iron they are 93 years and 173 years; for lead they are 21 years and 64 years; for nickel 53 years and 96 years; for petroleum products 20 years and 50 years; for tin 15 years and 61 years and for zinc 18 years and 50 years. The significance of these figures, I believe, should be spinechilling to the leaders of the world. Let us just take some of the more important ones as an example. According to these figures, even if five times the existing coal reserves should be discovered in the future—geologists all over the world agree that there is no possibility that that can happen—on an exponential rate of the exploitation of coal these reserves of coal will last for only 150 years from now. In the lifespan of humanity this is an extremely short period. In fact, coal is at this stage a unique fossil fuel, not only in respect of its thermal value, but in respect of its many other components which are vital to the fertilizing industry, the chemical industry and many other industries. South Africa will say that we have coal reserves to last us for 500 years, but I would like to point out that no reserves which South Africa has will extend very much beyond the date of exhaustion of similar reserves in other parts of the world. The simple reason for this is that we must accept that if the world should run out of a vital mineral reserve, and if we have large quantities of that mineral reserve, it will easily fall prey to a world which happens to be hungry for and desirous of that particular reserve. When we say that we have coal reserves for 500 years we must not think that we will have coal beyond the stage at which the world reserves will be exhausted. Our coal reserves will obviously fall prey to a coal-hungry world.

Let us look at a metal like copper. Copper is one of the most important metals in the world. It forms the basis of the electrical industry and is the metal most suitable for the conduction of electrical current although reinforced aluminium can also be used. If five times the present known reserves of copper are discovered, the exponential date of exploitation or the exhaustion date is 48 years in the future. For iron the figure is 173 years. The point is that South Africa also has vast iron reserves. We are now starting to export our iron ore in very large quantities. I have my doubts about the wisdom ultimately of South Africa’s exporting vast quantities of such a vital resource for the next 30 to 40 years. Would it not be in our interests to develop the technology to process the ore into iron and steel and preferably to export the metal at very much higher prices? Would it also not be better to take the fact into consideration that we must not be prepared to exhaust our natural and mineral resources just because of our desire for foreign exchange and because we want to increase our exports?

I want to mention one other mineral, viz. petroleum. Even if five times the present known petroleum reserves are discovered —once again the international geologists have said that that is not possible—the date of exhaustion is only 50 years in the future. Based on known reserves and based on reserves which are expected to be discovered during the next 30 years, the optimum period is 30 years. I believe that a country like South Africa and the whole world should take a very good look at this prospect. I believe money should be invested in research to establish what is going to happen when the petroleum resources of the world become exhausted and should plan for that date so that it does not take us by surprise and so that it does not disrupt our economy, the balance of power in the world and the security of the world. One of the things which one should also take into consideration when one discusses these matters is the fact that as resources become depleted one has to depend on resources which are far more expensive to exploit. The costs then increase dramatically. It becomes far more difficult to do it. There are many things which can be done in this very unfortunate situation. Firstly, there has to be a radical re-assessment and re-evaluation of our attitude to growth, to exports and to development. If the attitude is to have a short-term, wealthy existence, a country will by all means exploit its resources as fast as it can. Then it must take the consequences as well. If the policy and the philosophy is to provide a reasonable standard of living for one’s people for as long and for as many centuries as possible into the future, then there has to be a radical re-assessment and re-evaluation of the attitudes of the Government and of the people to the exploitation of resources and to growth and development. It also means that alternatives must be found and they must be used even if it is more expensive to use them. It means that valuable materials such as oil, scrap metals, plastics and other materials must be recycled even if it is more expensive to do so at this early stage. It means that funds, money, manpower and energy must be pumped into the development of recycling methods in order to save the tremendous amount of scrap materials which are being destroyed or lost today because it is not economically feasible to re-use them. It must be made economically feasible to do so. That is where funds and money should be invested.

Another very important point is that the public must be prepared for the problems of the future. The public must be prepared in order to get them to co-operate effectively in what is needed to be done in respect of these matters. There are two or three aspects which the public should be acquainted with. Firstly, the public must be educated not to waste resources. Secondly, the public must be educated to save scrap materials and to recycle them. Thirdly, and this is very important, the public must be educated to prevent the pollution of the environment and the life-support systems of the world.

I should like to make this appeal to the Government. Television is coming to South Africa and it is the most powerful tool that the Government can use for the positive and effective education of the public. The education of the public in the fields that I have just mentioned will be well worth while in the interests of our country.

Mr. Speaker, if I am to make any comment on the statements made by the hon. member for Bryanston, I want to say that he made an entirely dispassionate speech today. He said that we should have to use caution in the future as far as our mineral resources were concerned and that we should be thrifty with them. In this regard I can give him the assurance that this side of the House will in fact act cautiously and that the Government will only act in the interests of its people and their descendants. I can give him the assurance that this side of the House will not act recklessly by placing all its minerals on the market in a day.

Today I want to make a plea that I have also made in the past, but before I come to that I just want to thank the hon. member for Springs for having placed this motion on the Order Paper. In my opinion the discussions that took place here today were fruitful. I am also pleased that we have been given the time to discuss these matters, and this motion in particular, for a short time today. Because the time allowed for the discussion of the Mining Voge in the Budget is limited, we do not always have the opportunity to discuss this important subject in such broad detail.

I believe that in the future our minerals will be one of our major sources of income. It is estimated that approximately during the period 1980 to 1985, the revenue from our minerals placed on the world market will amount to more than R8 000 million. This is an enormous figure. It is a substantial amount of revenue to look forward to for the future. However, if we are to achieve this, we shall have to have the necessary manpower and we shall have to put everything into the struggle to train people in order that this country may utilize the wealth that lies below the surface of the earth, wealth with which this country has been richly endowed, in the best interests of this country. How can we obtain that manpower?

I cannot but address the invitation this afternoon to the young boys of this country to qualify in the field of mining, where possible and if they are intellectually capable of doing so. The Minister answered a question here this morning concerning the number of geologists studying at our universities and the number of students being trained there as mining engineers. I regret to say that of the 11 universities in South Africa, only two have faculties at which one can qualify as a mining engineer, namely the University of the Witwatersrand and the University of Pretoria. The reason for those particular universities having a faculty of this kind is probably the fact that the mining complex is in that area and that consequently it is convenient for those students to enrol, at one of those two universities. According to the latest figures, 91 students enrolled to be trained as mining engineers. If half of them complete their studies, it means that 45 of them will qualify in this field. As far as geologists are concerned, the position is much better. There are 523 students enrolled to study geology and there are students studying in this field in almost all the universities. Perhaps 50 students per annum will complete their studies in this important field, mining engineering. In our country there is an enormous area lying fallow that must be discovered, planned, worked and exploited. If we want to see that fine amount of R8 000 million as a beacon in the future, we shall have to make an earnest appeal to our young men to study, because 50 new mining engineers per annum will not be sufficient. An appeal will not of itself achieve anything. The State, too, will have to set an example, as it has done in the past. The State will have to help to enable us to get those students. However, I also want to make a plea to the various mining bodies. I have in mind the Chamber of Mines, which is the umbrella body. They are already providing assistance, but a great deal more must be done. I also want to make an appeal to students with exemption to launch a campaign in this country. This matter will have to be put to our schools and our universities. If the existing two universities become inadequate, there are two other universities situated in that complex, namely the University of the Orange Free State and the University of Potchefstroom. I hope that the Northern Cape is also going to develop in the future. In my mind’s eye I can see the mineral resources of the Northern Cape being developed in such a way that in the distant future, there will be a university there, too, with a faculty of mining. I also want to thank the Government for the assisting the low-grade mines. It was essential that they should be subsidized, to enable them to continue production. These are things which the Government has done to help, and we thank the Government for this. I wonder whether it is not time now to make use of those subsidies to attract more students to our universities. The price of gold being what it is at present, I think that many of those mines would now be able to cope on their own, even though it might be difficult. I think that we should utilize the money that has been released to attract our students to the universities. This country is probably one of the most privileged countries in the world owing to the large quantities of minerals to be found here. There is virtually no valuable or usable mineral that is not to be found in this country. We have heard so much about the unknown Bushveld complex. In that complex which, up to now, has only been developed to a minor extent, we need manpower. Labourers, to do the ordinary work, one can always attract in large numbers. The man who does the planning and who can take the mine through all its stages from start to finish is the trained person, the person for whom I am making a plea. Take the Bushveld complex, where platinum is already being mined. The beautiful town of Rustenburg, that is not only known for its oranges, but has also grown because of its mining industry. [Interjections.] Platinum, chrome, nickel, iron ore, fluorspar, manganese, lead, asbestors, etc., are mined at that complex. There is probably a great deal more that is still to be discovered. I want to tell the member for Bryanston that we must sell abroad what we have. We can do so, but we must not do so in a reckless way. If, at this stage, there is sufficient coal to supply South Africa for the next 500 years, why then should we hoard the coal and not sell it to the world? I am very sure that within the next few decades there will be other sources of energy that will perhaps replace oil and coal. If there is a market for coal, then we allow it to be sold. However, we shall not act recklessly and exploit and sell it all. The same goes for iron ore.

In this way South Africa can earn the millions needed by this people and this country. Each of its population groups can have a share in this. I should be very pleased and proud today if minerals were to be discovered in the homelands. If we were to discover rich deposits there, it would also greatly relieve the burden of the Whites if the inhabitants themselves could exploit the deposits. However, those people, too, will have to be trained to enable them to manage and run their own mines one day.

Here I want to stress what I said at the outset, viz. that gold, coal, iron ore and related substances that lie beneath the surface of the earth are not like potatoes that rot, or like wool that gets too long, or like maize that can be flattened by hail. If this generation is unable to exploit the minerals, the next generation will do so. The statement has been made that minerals are a diminishing asset. This is also true. For the past 30 years they have been telling me, ever since I started work on the mines: “Gold will be finished one of these days.” When I came to Stilfontein, I was told that gold would only be produced for a further five years. Now, however, we are producing gold more than ever before. We are now discovering new seams every day. The hon. Whip is signalling to me that I should conclude now, but I want to tell him that my time is not yet up. As a result of these new seams that are being discovered, we are in a position to produce progressively more. It will be pointless for us to keep all that coal while we know that the world is trying to find new sources of energy through research. We must be prepared to make the coal available to other countries. I am grateful when the Government is able to conclude major contracts for the export of coal. If the Government wants to have a pipeline to the coast built to facilitate the transportation of coal, then let it do so. It could mean a great deal for South Africa.

I want to conclude by telling the hon. member for Springs: “Thank you for this motion.” Mining is not such an unimportant Vote and I hope that the Whips will give us five hours instead of 2½ hours next year to discuss this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the terms of the motion have a very self-evident objective. I am quite sure it is nothing unique as a policy of the Government. All the parties represented in this House will be able to support a policy of that nature. There may be some companies that would not be able to support a policy of this nature because it has been evident in the past that certain companies exploited the mineral resources; they mined out the rich ore-bodies and left the rest in order to make maximum profits. The problem is that Government members have not told us what they mean when they speak about the maximum utilization of our resources in South Africa. Their view of maximum utilization might be completely different to mine or to that of some other hon. members who have spoken during this debate. That is the problem. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give us some clarity in regard to their particular approach to this question of the maximum utilization of resources. There are many matters such as the training of labour for skilled work in the metallurgical industry which affect the entire mining industry. There are such things as price controls and ceilings on minerals produced which affect production. There are such things as the export of minerals to finance further development which affect the question of maximum and efficient utilization. There are many other aspects of this nature. The saving of our strategic mineral resources might be resorted to very effectively at a very good profit at the moment. It is quite possible that in 20 or 30 years’ time these selfsame strategic minerals might be completely obsolete in terms of the requirements of future times. At the moment we are concentrating on conserving them for some future date when they may have become obsolete. I should also like to know what the policy of the Government is in regard to this particular point.

There is also the question of the exploitation of our rich resources by foreign companies. They might be large companies with many shareholders and they bring their capital to this country. All their profits go back overseas and there is very, very little South African participation in a venture of this nature. What is the policy of the Government in relation to matters of this nature as far as the maximum utilization of our mineral resources is concerned? These are some of the problems that we are faced with and we should like to have answers to these problems. The policy of the Government is not very clear on these issures and many others. I believe that this is not the time for complacency or, what is worse, selfsatisfaction in relation to a motion of this nature which expresses appreciation for one’s own policy. There are many important challenges that South Africa should be facing and which we should be meeting here by means of discussion and in regard to which open criticism should be the order of the day. There should even be self-criticism on the part of hon. members on the opposite side. The Government has had a very poor record of bungling and making mistakes in the past as well as in the present and some of these mistakes will only become obvious in possibly a few years time. We might not be aware of them at the moment. I feel that it is essential that we should raise these issues.

I remember how a certain private company was allowed to prospect for phosphates. It was even allowed to mine the phosphates initially in a Bantu homeland. This appeared to me to be quite contrary to the policy of the Government at the time. When appeals were made by various other private bodies and companies the activities of this mining company were immediately halted. I should like to know what the policy of the Government is in regard to permitting the prospecting for minerals in Bantu homelands as well as the exploitation and mining of those minerals by White investors from the Republic of South Africa. I believe that the Government should tell us whether it is their policy that White private capital will be allowed to develop those mines. Use of such capital could provide an enormous amount of employment in those areas. I would also like to know what kind of assistance the Government would be prepared to give to homelands, particularly when they become independent. In addition, what is the position at the moment in neighbouring territories like Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland? Would the Government be prepared to assist those territories with their exploration and in development of their mining industry without having an investment stake in those mines? We would certainly like more clarity on some of these issues. What is the Government’s policy on collecting and providing geological information for the benefit of our neighbouring states, and on providing expertise, especially as far strategic minerals and materials are concerned? We would like to hear more about the Government’s policy in regard to these matters. There are also examples where foreign companies in South Africa were allowed to exploit proved, rich mineral resources with all the profits going overseas. We on this side of the House would like to see a greater South African shareholding and participation in ventures of that nature, perhaps on a partnership basis. But what is the Government’s policy at the moment in regard to issues of that nature? There was even one such company which was going to be allowed to mine out the central core of rich copper deposits and to leave behind the low-grade deposits, giving it a higher profit margin, but once again private interests objected to this kind of policy and the company concerned was compelled to mine both the rich ore and the low-grade ore together. It still remained an economic proposition. This is the kind of thing in respect of which we would like to see policy laid down.

Another example of bad planning was in connection with the discovery of highgrade iron ore with a metal content of over 64% in the Northern Cape at Lelieveld and Sishen. With all the surrounding veld and countryside where the town could have been situated, this Government allowed the town to be built on top of this rich iron deposit, almost at its centre. As the town developed, it would cover more and more of this rich iron ore deposit at Sishen, thus restricting the further development and optimal utilization of the deposit. It became a very serious matter when further exploration proved that high-grade iron ore deposits surrounded the deposit that was initially discovered. Consequently, they had to build a second town at Kathu. This does not look like efficient planning and utilization of resources to me. I think we should recognize some of these mistakes of the past and accept them and make sure that things like these do not happen again in the future.

The mining of coal, I believe, is another example of wasteful measures being applied as far as our valuable resources are concerned. For a long time our coal mining industry was allowed to be neglected. It operated under the skimp, crimp and constriction of a low price ceiling imposed by this Government so that the coal could be used to produce cheap electricity. Profitable exports were severely restricted in the past by poor transport and loading facilities and also by Government policy. Wastage of the so-called low-grade coal became essential in order for the coal industry to survive, particularly in the Witbank area which, with the Northern Natal coalfields, is one of our major coalfields. In the Witbank area there were two important coal deposits, viz. the No. 2 and the No. 4 coal seams. The No. 2 seam pro duces very high-grade steam coal of about 26 megajoules which is used by Iscor mainly for steam-raising purposes. The No. 4 seam produces low-grade coal of about 22 megajoules, which is still sufficient for steam-raising, especially by Escom and other utility undertakings of that nature. Everyone, however, concentrated on the high-grade No. 2 coal seam because of its high grade and higher profitability. Iscor, as a Government-controlled public utility company, was one of the worst offenders utilizing only the high-grade coal at the expense of the lower-grade coal. The lower-grade No. 4 seam was simply abandoned at many places. Now it is sealed in and almost impossible to extract; it cannot be touched because this would be much too dangerous once it has been under-mined. Iscor could have used the No. 4-seam coal and there are many other possible applications. South Africa has particularly low reserves of coking coal and the loss of coal at Witbank in the last 10 years is estimated to be approximately 20 million tons in total. We have lost about 500 million tons of coal in the Witbank area alone. Iscor and other iron and steel foundries will be faced with a crisis situation in the near future as far as coking coal is concerned. It is not unlikely that we shall have to import coking coal at a landed cost of between R60 and R100 per ton. This could mean a cost of something like R100 million per year to import this type of coal. In fact, the situation could be exacerbated because of the poor harbour facilities we have for the unloading of coal boats. It was the Japanese who really showed us how to use and conserve our coal. They blended our No. 2-seam coal with their other coal and used it in their iron and steel foundries. We could have done that as well.

The Government’s approach appeared to be to allow the mining of the cheapest coal per unit value and to discard the rest, which we shall now never be able to extract. Particularly with the gloomy 1969 Van Rensburg Report in mind which predicted that we should only have sealeable coal reserves until the year 2020, I think we could be in serious trouble. I know that we are all awaiting Dr. Petrick’s report which may present a less gloomy picture. Nevertheless I believe that no country can tolerate wasteful methods of this nature.

Better mining systems which have been developed, now allow the long-wall system to be used instead of the wasteful pillar system. The long-wall system reduces wastage enormously. Mining should not just be an activity of exploitation, but it should also be an industry which applies conservation measures. With that I wish to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Von Brandis.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a good debate here on an important matter. I want to express my thanks to the hon. member for Springs for this motion. Nevertheless I think the hon. member who has just resumed his seat sounded a somewhat false note, which I cannot allow to go unanswered. I must therefore react to this briefly. The hon. member referred inter alia to “foreign countries picking out the eyes of South Africa”, and laid the blame for this on the Government. He accused the Government of having a poor record in matters of this kind. With that statement the hon. member merely demonstrated clearly that his knowledge of these matters will still have to be greatly supplemented before he will be able to speak on them with authority.

†The fact of the matter is that all the cases which he mentioned in this debate refer to base minerals and that the State does not control the granting of mining rights in respect of base minerals which are privately owned. To lay the blame on the Government for the cases he used in his argument is therefore absolutely wrong. It is indicative of the fact that the hon. member did not know what he was talking about. The Government has in fact made the necessary provisions in terms of legislation which I introduced very recently, to exercise the necessary control in this regard.

*In a debate such as this, which has proceeded so peacefully, it is not necessary for the hon. member to sound such a false note when we are discussing such important matters. On the other hand, I do want to refer to something positive which the hon. member did say, namely: “That this is not a time for complacency; it is a time of important challenge.” In this regard I am in complete agreement with the hon. member. In the field of mining and minerals this is most certainly the case.

I am also in agreement with the hon. member for Bryanston, who referred to the position of minerals in the world and who furnished the dates when specific mineral reserves will have been depleted. Recently, in December 1974, an article appeared in America—which. I think is a very important one—under the caption “Life-boat ethic suggested for the U.S.”, the entire concept of which is simply that the United States is at this early stage already been compelled to an increasing extent to adopt a so-called “life-boat ethic” in its policy owing to the fact that certain world mineral reserves will have become depleted by the year 2000 and in some cases even before that date, with the resultant problem that all the people in the world will simply be unable to live according to the standards of living to which they have been accustomed. Prof. Edwards G. Rietz, said, for example, “I believe that those of us who will make our exit in the next decade or so may say ‘I lived in the most satisfying period in human history, the period from 1900 to the 1980s’ ”. This is a school of thought which is becoming more prominent among scientists. I am not referring now to the “Club of Rome”, but to other, responsible scientists.

Therefore we, as the responsible body, are called upon in South Africa to scrutinize this matter very carefully, for the fact of the matter is, as the hon. member for Springs also said, that the world population will within 20 years probably increase to 7 000 million people, an increase of approximately 70%, for the world population at present totals 3 800 million people. Naturally the mineral reserves of the world are not inexhaustible. If certain minerals are no longer at the disposal of an ever-growing world population, the people who are putting forward this hypothesis, of a so-called “life-boat ethic”, are correct and will be proved to be correct. It will then be impossible for such a large world population to maintain the living standards which the generation of people between 1900 and 1975 had been able to maintain. This brilliant article to which I have referred, ends with the words—this is where I am in agreement with the hon. member for Benoni who said: “It is a time for challenge and not for complacency”—

It is in this spirit that the National Party Government, at the southernmost point of Africa, is considering this matter, in other words, to accept the challenges as Columbus and Copernicus accepted theirs, and in these times to take the best from our soil which is available for the Republic and for the world.

Because this is the case, it gives me great pleasure on this occasion to refer to the fact that I said on a previous occasion that, in consultation with the hon. the Prime Minister, it had been decided to establish a Minerals Bureau as a branch of the Department of Mines. This bureau will accumulate, update and process all possible information concerning our country’s mineral resources with regard to reserves, production, local consumption, export, utilization locally as well as internationally, utilization tendencies, mineral prices, mineral supply and demand, etc., and to Undertake project studies with regard to future utilization tendencies of minerals and the exchangeability of minerals. In short: The establishment of this Minerals Bureau has as its object the consideration of the kind of problems which emerged this afternoon in the discussion of this subject, and which have to emerge in every discussion of this subject in future. For that reason the activities of the Minerals Bureau will cover the entire field of mineral economy. It gives me very great pleasure to announce on this occasion that such great progress has been made with the complicated research work which has to precede the establishment of this Minerals Bureau that the bureau will come into being within 14 days, in other words, on 1 April 1975. The Minerals Bureau will initially be housed in Queensbridge Building, in Braamfontein, Johannesburg, where suitable accommodation has been obtained. I should like to convey my gratitude to the Public Service Commission for the able assistance which we received from them in respect of the establishment of the organizational structure of the bureau. I also want to thank the Department of Public Works for their much-appreciated help in obtaining suitable accommodation at relatively short notice. This in fact stresses the urgency of the entire matter. I should also like to convey my gratitude to all the officers of my own department for their sustained and very hard work in making the Minerals Bureau a reality within such a short space of time.

At the head of the Minerals Bureau there will be a director, and he will be assisted by a deputy director, a mineral economist and by some of the most skilful people available in this field in the Republic. The post of director and deputy director of this Minerals Bureau were advertised within and outside the Public Service, in South Africa and also internationally, and applications for these posts were received from excellent, eminently-qualified candidates. The applications were considered by the Technical Advisory Committee, which will control the work programme of the Minerals Bureau, and after the recommendations of the committee had been very thoroughly considered by the Public Service Commission, which made a recommendation, and by the Cabinet, the Cabinet decided that Dr. D. C. Neethling, at present of our mining office in London, shall be appointed as the first director of the Minerals Bureau.

Dr. Neethling, who is 41 years old, is, as has already been said, at present the foreign representative of the Department of Mines in London. He has the necessary academic qualifications and other abilities, which make him eminently suitable for the post of director of the Minerals Bureau. There is no doubt in my mind that he will make an enormous success of the Minerals Bureau. He has participated in various expeditions, among others to the Antarctic, and has also participated in international symposiums and has built up a very wide range of scientific and other contacts. I am personally aware of the fact that in America and in other countries he is regarded very highly as a man of exceptional calibre.

The work programme of the Minerals Bureau will be controlled by a technical committee, which will consist of the Government Mining Engineer, a senior officer of the head office of the Department of Mines, a senior officer of the Department of Planning and the Environment, the Director-General of the National Institute for Metallurgy, a representative of the Atomic Energy Board and the Director of Geological Survey. I therefore want to say that we expect a great deal of the Minerals Bureau, and I am convinced that the bureau, which will co-ordinate all these matters, will in future play a major role in bringing about the optimum utilization of our extensive mineral resources in the Republic of South Africa.

Will its reports be tabled?

The reports will most certainly be tabled. We are looking forward very keenly to the first report, which we hope will be tabled here within 12 months.

There are further aspects of this motion which I want to discuss. Reference was made to the releasing of basic geological information, the rendering of metallurgical services, the encouragement of local refinement, the promotion of mineral marketing and export, and the conservation of minerals of strategic importance. In regard to each one of these aspects I want to present to this House the factual position as it exists at present in the Republic of South Africa.

I shall begin with Geological Survey by saying that, within the framework of the problems and its means, the Republic has in recent years made excellent progress. As far as the furnishing of basic geological information is concerned, the appropriation for that purpose has been more than doubled, from R1,3 million to R3,2 million during the period 1971 to 1975, while the object is to increase this amount by a further R750 000 in the 1975-’76 Estimates. To accelerate the release of basic information, which is our greatest problem, the Department of Mines has inter alia launched a programme in terms of which post-graduate students and lecturing staff at our universities are involved in the activities of Geological Survey to assist, on contract, with the geological mapping programme. Secondly, the department is seeking to introduce and accelerate a programme of aero-magnetic and radiometric surveys in promising areas and, thirdly, to introduce an open file system to make available to the public available information which has not yet been finalized and published. I want to say that such rapid progress has been made with this project at the universities that in 1974 the universities were responsible for the mapping of 16 700 square km as against the 28 500 square km done by Geological Survey itself, which, as you can see is a brilliant achievement. Last year a total area of 45 000 sq km was mapped jointly by the universities and Geological Survey. As far as the aero-magnetic and radiometric surveys are concerned, these are being done on a contract basis and for this year, 1975-’76, an amount of R500 000 is being appropriated, which, under the circumstances is a large amount. If that amount is voted, it will enable us to cover approximately 27% of the surface area of the Republic. These will inter alia cover the Northern Cape, which is at present receiving special attention as well. I also want to say that we are at present considering appropriating an amount of R3 million, spread over three years beginning in 1975-’76, to make a survey of the strategic mineral resources in the Karoo area because the discoveries made in that area are very important. I hope that this plan will have a favourable outcome because, as hon. members will understand, if we will, during the next three years have R3 million for such aero-magnetic and radiometric surveys in the Karoo, it will bring about a very important development in this regard. Just to give you an idea of how favourable the outcome of the open file system, to which the hon. member for Etosha referred, was, and how popular this service is, I want to say that up to now 146 photo-geological maps, 66 geological maps and ten aero-magnetic and aerial radiometric maps have been published by means of this system through notice in the Press. To indicate the interest which was aroused it could be mentioned that up to the end of last year a total of 2 766 maps and 670 coloured slides had already been made available to interested parties. An important fact in regard to Geological Survey which is not generally known is that this division is, in conjunction with the University of Cape Town, at present undertaking a marine geophysical programme to determine the possible mineral resources in the ocean along the west coast of the Republic. I can say that considerable potential phosphate reserves have already been discovered as a result of this co-operation. We are in addition, in co-operation with Prof. Ahrens of the University of Cape Town, engaged in a geochemical programme to discover possible mineral occurrences in South Africa, by way of geochemical prospecting. I can also say that excellent progress is being made in this regard.

The fact of the matter is that, as the hon. member for Rustenburg said, the staff of Geological Survey is being doubled. I can also add that the employment rate at Geological Survey indicates that a great improvement may be expected in the rendering of professional services.

Perhaps I should reply straightaway to what the hon. member for Etosha said in regard to the blocking of information which has already been collected. I think this House is interested in this matter. Geological Survey, of course, receives a great deal of information from various quarters. Inter alia they receive borehole results from mining companies which are not always prepared to make this information available to other mining companies. At present, however, talks in this regard are taking place between Geological Survey and the Chamber of Mines. Possibly there is going to be greater obligingness soon as regards the availability of information from Geological Survey. The Mining Rights Act of 1967 will probably be amended. This Act places certain restrictions on the publishing of borehole results. We shall amend this Act to make it possible for more information in this regard to be made available, as the hon. member for Etosha requested. We believe that this has to happen, in the interests of the country.

Metallurgical services are vested in the Institute for Metallurgy. It can really be stated with pride that the National Institute for Metallurgy has become world-famous and is regarded as a world authority in this sphere. It is imperative that South Africa should expand this service further, not only to maintain its competitive position in the mineral market, but also and in particular to ensure that ever-increasing quantities of our minerals may be processed locally. One speaker after the other spoke with great praise of the National Institute for Metallurgy and its activities, sentiments with which I associate myself wholeheartedly.

†Some high-lights of the research work and the successes achieved by NIM during the previous year, 1974, were, for instance, the successful pilot plant demonstration of a novel process for the refining of the platinum group metals. This new process offers significant advantages over the conventional method. Secondly, there was the successful demonstration of a hydro-metallurgical process for the treatment of copper, nickel and zink scrap which has led to the construction of a full-scale plant which will produce products to the value of R200 000, and at the same time solve a major pollution problem. Many of the processing techniques used in this plant are those which are being investigated for the treatment of copper, zinc and lead ores that are being discovered in the North-Western Cape area which has become of such paramount importance to South Africa. The successful demonstration of the feasibility of a new type of ion exchange process known as the CCIX—counter-current ion exchange which has many applications in hydro-metallurgical processing of base metals and uranium. It might interest the House to know that license agreements have been negotiated with major contracting companies in the United Kingdom and the USA, and a full-scale plant, the first in the world, was erected in South Africa for zinc recovery, while one of the more important applications of this process is in the recovery of uranium from low-grade materials, and the process has been demonstrated to be economically feasible in South African uranium mines. Great interest in the use of this process has been shown in the USA in relation to the treatment of low-grade uranium materials. I also wish to mention the development of several new processes for the production of different varieties or grades of ferro-alloys. I wish to mention the establishment of a pilot plant for the treatment of ores from deposits in the North-Western Cape.

The abovementioned achievements by the National Institute for Metallurgy relate mainly to developments of applied industrial importance. However, on the longer range scientific front, many contributions have been made in the fields of mineralogy where for example four new minerals were discovered and given official recognition by the International Mineralogical Association. Major advances in the understanding of the chemistry of mineral processing techniques have been made, and new advances have been made in the basic engineering design fundamentals of mineral processing equipment.

*I also wish to refer to the fact that last year the first international congress on ferroalloys ever held in the world was organized here in South Africa by the National Institute for Metallurgy. I was present there in person, and opened the congress. There were 350 delegates from 21 countries in the world. It was a brilliant success. It was decided that this would be continued. South Africa is a founder member and it was decided that every third world congress would be held in South Africa.

Looking at the future programme for the National Institute for Metallurgy, the position is inter alia as follows—

In this way important things are being accomplished in this sphere by the National Institute for Metallurgy, of which I have only been able to mention a few examples. We could therefore refer with gratitude to the great work which they are doing in this regard.

In regard to the encouragement of the local refinement of minerals, the position in a nutshell is simply this: It is certainly our ideal to process the maximum quantity of local refinement of minerals in South Africa ourselves. Here I must point out a misunderstanding, which is that a very large percentage of our minerals are already being processed in South Africa.

In regard to the promotion of mineral marketing, the position is that the Department of Mines has people in London and in South America. We are now sending a representative to Japan. He will commence his duties in May 1975. At present we are considering sending a Department of Mines representative to Europe, and even one to the Middle East. Consequently excellent progress is being made in this regard as well. In regard to the conservation of our strategic mineral resources it is expected that the Petrick Commission on coal will submit its report to the Government within 14 days. This is a very important matter, which will enable us to utilize a strategic mineral such as coal to best effect in the interests of South Africa. Surely this requires no arguing. The Energy Policy Committee meets regularly and gives attention to our strategic mineral resources. In regard to uranium, I can only tell you that we have reason for optimism in view of the new discoveries which have now been made in the Karoo and the further prospecting work which is being done there. In regard to petroleum I want to tell you that we need not be pessimistic. If we consider what is happening in other countries, we can say that in view of the funds which we have appropriated thus far and the time we have spent thus far on the search for petroleum, there is reason to be optimistic that petroleum will in fact be discovered in South Africa.

If we consider this entire situation in regard to minerals, then I think that I have made out a case in this House that this Government has fully accepted the challenge presented to us by mining and the position of minerals. I say thank you once again for the good discussion we have had in this regard.

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