I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, some years ago a very well-known committee on broadcasting, the Beveridge Committee, reported fully on broadcasting in Great Britain. The following paragraph appeared in its report which I fully endorse and which I should like to read to the House—

Sir, these words of the Beveridge Committee apply to broadcasting in all nations and in all its aspects. They also apply to our own broadcasting service here in South Africa. It is the sincere wish of all of us on this side of the House that the South African Broadcasting Corporation should indeed conform to those rules of the Beveridge Committee, and we do not wish to see this great organization become part or wholly a tool of the Government and its propaganda. As we do not wish it to be an organization which may become discredited in the eyes of many people—but rather since we wish it to be a truly independent organization in the service of truth, universal truth, and as we wish it to be an organization of which South Africans can be proud—I intend moving a motion to-day calling for a commission of inquiry into all the aspects of broadcasting and asking that commission to report to Parliament. The motion that I move, Sir, reads as follows—

1. (a) the spending and allocation of its funds and parliamentary supervision thereof;
2. (b) the appointment, promotion and excessive resignations of staff;
3. (c) bias in news reports and political talks;
4. (d) the use of the radio for political propaganda and indoctrination;
5. (e) licence fees;
6. (f) the work of the Bantu Programme Control Board; and
7. (g) the delay in introducing television,

and resolves further that such commission of inquiry be requested to suggest such amendments to the Broadcasting Act, 1936, as may be necessary to give effect to its recommendations.

I intend dealing with most of these points in my motion. Those that I do not deal with will be dealt with by other speakers on this side. In this motion I first of all call for an inquiry into the fact that full and sufficient information on the activities of the South African Broadcasting Corporation is not given to Parliament. Let me say that in making that statement there is no desire on the part of this side of the House to dictate to the South African Broadcasting Corporation. In fact our point of view is the entire opposite. We do not wish Parliament to dictate to the S.A.B.C. What we do wish is that certain clear lines should be recognized in regard to the policy of the S.A.B.C. and that Parliament should be fully informed on them.

May I read to the hon. the Minister a very mature statement made in the report of the Committee on Broadcasting of 1960 in Great Britain where the attitude of a responsible broadcasting corporation towards parliamentary criticism is set out. The hon. the Minister will find it on page 118 of the report. It says—

Then this committee continues—

Sir, I submit that that is a mature attitude which I very well commend to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs instead of his present method of refusing to reply to questions in regard to the S.A.B.C.

After all, Sir, Section 24 of the Broadcasting Act does lay down that full information must be given to Parliament in the annual report of the S.A.B.C. I shall not read the whole section; I shall only mention a few of the matters in respect of which full information is demanded by a law of this Parliament. Full information should be given, and particulars given—the word “particulars” appear here—on the extent and value of any classes of property, on the amount of security for loans still outstanding, on the expenses of management and administration, on the erection and construction of any plant, equipment or building, the name—this is quite interesting—of every member of a political party by whom any political speech was broadcast, the time allowed and the hour at which the broadcast took place. Now, Sir, anybody reading the reports of the S.A.B.C. over the past years will notice that the S.A.B.C. is not complying with the law of the land. The person who is responsible for bringing it to the attention of the S.A.B.C. is the hon. the Minister himself. It is laid down in this Act that if the S.A.B.C. does not comply with the law, it is the duty of the hon. the Minister to draw that fact to the attention of the South African Broadcasting Corporation itself.

Last year there were some interesting developments in regard to this particular section and the duty of the S.A.B.C. as far as the particulars in its report were concerned. I put a question to the hon. the Minister asking him about the lack of information in the S.A.B.C.’s report. He told me that he had referred the matter to legal advisers, first of all to the legal adviser of the S.A.B.C. who stated that there was nothing wrong at all in the report. He submitted it at the same time to the Government law adviser who did say that there were certain matters in the report in regard to which the S.A.B.C. had not complied with the provisions of the Act itself. The hon. Minister then took a further step. He asked a third legal adviser—and I should like to know who he is—to go into the whole matter and he reported the following—

In other words, we were right last year when we maintained that the S.A.B.C. was not complying fully with the law in regard to the reports that it was giving to the country. I wish to draw the attention of the House to i the remarks made by the hon. the Minister against myself last year when he accused me of being ridiculous in bringing this charge against the S.A.B.C., when he accused me of distortion in the charges that I had made against the South African Broadcasting Corporation. It has now been proved that we were right and that indeed the S.A.B.C. had not given full particulars. It is a pity, Sir, that we do not have the latest report before us. The hon. the Minister would have done the House a great service if he could have laid the report on the Table and not on 30 April so that we could have judged whether there are material improvements in regard to the contents of the report. I warn him that we shall continue to watch that report intently, and if we are not satisfied on this side of the House with the particulars given in it we shall certainly take the necessary further steps.

Another matter in regard to which we really feel there can be a vast improvement is the replies to questions on the S.A.B.C. put by members on this side of the House. We had two instances this very morning when the hon. the Minister refused to reply to questions dealing with specific matters affecting the S.A.B.C. After all, Sir, as I have read from the 1960 report, what a broadcasting corporation does is a matter of public concern. After all, over 1,000,000 people pay licence fees every year. After all, Sir, millions and millions of public money through capital are invested in the S.A.B.C. We are entitled to know what happens to the public’s money.

The hon. the Minister will remember that the 1948 commission, which was appointed by the United Party, gave as one of its recommendations that the finances of the South African Broadcasting Corporation should be subject to regular annual scrutiny by the Auditor-General. I again wish to recommend that recommendation to the hon. the Minister. I assure him that if we knew that the Public Accounts Committee, which is a body of the whole of this Parliament, regularly scrutinized the accounts of the S.A.B.C. it might not be necessary at all for much of the criticism in this House to take place. The hon. the Minister knows that the Public Accounts Committee is a responsible body where matters can be thrashed out by means of questions and answers and that very often matters which appear to be irregular are shown to be not, and that often matters which are wrong can be improved by an ordinary resolution passed by the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

I have gone through the British Hansard and although the B.B.C. is as independent a corporation as ours—some say it is more independent because they have not got a Broadcasting Act in Britain—certain questions are allowed on the B.B.C. and on the activities of the Corporation itself. The Postmaster-General is a member of the Cabinet in Britain and he replies to those questions. As my hon. friend (Mr. Moore) says, these replies are very full.

The hon. the Minister tells us that he has no powers whatsoever to interfere with the policy of the S.A.B.C. If he has no power how is it that he is continually telling us that the matter of television is a matter for the Government to decide and not for the S.A.B.C.? Is that not proof that he has the power in certain respects, in certain important respects, to say what the S.A.B.C. should do and what they should not do? After all it was he who indirectly referred to the S.A.B.C. in his speech last year as a nationalized industry when he stated that any body constituted by law and of which the Government appointed the Board of Control was a nationalized industry. We get information concerning nationalized industries such as Sasol, Iscor, the Industrial Development Corporation, information which is much fuller than the information we have been getting concerning the South African Broadcasting Corporation. It is wrong that we cannot get the same information from the S.A.B.C.

Last year during the debate on the Vote itself it was indicated that we in Parliament not only did not have the right to speak about the S.A.B.C. but that if we spoke about the S.A.B.C. and criticized it we were committing a crime, that we were committing something akin to an act of sabotage. Imagine, Sir, how the hands of any person trying to defend South Africa and trying to defend the existence of freedom of speech in South Africa will be tried through that statement.

Who said that?

I shall tell the hon. member who said it. It was not an ordinary back-bencher of the Government who said that; it was made by a prominent member of the Government, by a front-bencher who is in the House to-day, a front-bencher who is also chairman of the Posts and Telegraphs group of the Nationalist Party. In other words. Sir, he is, next to the Minister, the most responsible person to make pronouncements on policy in regard to the S.A.B.C. May I quote what the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel), who is chairman of the Posts and Telegraphs Group, said last year—

There has been talk about the South African Broadcasting Corporation emerging as the knight-errant, the young Lochinvar, of South Africa against attacks by other overseas broadcasting corporations. How are their hands going to be tied by this fact that the chairman of the Posts and Telegraphs Group of the Nationalist Party has said that in South Africa it should be made a crime to criticize the S.A.B.C., that it should be made akin to an act of sabotage?

I come to the next point in my motion and that is the question of staff. On past occasions I have mentioned in the House that the turn-over of staff was far too large in the South African Broadcasting Corporation. There have been exceptional years. The immediate post-war years come to mind when one can understand that there had to be a large turn-over of staff. I notice that in 1961, through illness, death and resignations, there was a turn-over of 12 per cent. In 1962, instead of there being an improvement, there was a turn-over of 15.8 per cent. I submit that that is far too large a turn-over in a body in which we hope to have some continuity of policy and continuity of action.

In the past I have mentioned the names of prominent people who have resigned from the S.A.B.C. in protest against its policies or because they simply could not tolerate what was going on. I shall not mention their names again. I shall not again give you the long list, Sir, beginning with Mr. Gideon Roos. But I want to mention that last year, during the latter half of last year, there were again several important resignations. Many top men left the S.A.B.C.; some for political reasons and others because they were offered better salaries and conditions of service elsewhere. Among the top men who left were the Corporation’s chief translator, two senior journalists, the head of the S.A.B.C. record library after a service of some 20 years, two qualified news readers and the head of the division of publications. In fact, over a period of two months no less than 30 top people left the S.A.B.C. and all this happened during the latter half of last year. At the beginning of this year the position was so serious in the English news section of the Corporation that at one stage they were left with only four English-speaking journalists and the news staff was threatened with the possibility of becoming 50 per cent under strength. I repeat that all the resignations were probably not due to political considerations or dissatisfaction with political pressure being put on the S.A.B.C. news services. The resignations might have been due to staff conditions not being good enough and which could certainly have been improved. But these are reasons which are well within the power of the S.A.B.C. to remedy.

In view of all this I cannot understand how Dr. Meyer, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C., could tell the Afrikaanse Sakekamer in May last year that—

If your top men are leaving at this rate, Sir, and you tell the world that you are experiencing no resignation problems then either the chairman of your board does not know what is going on or else he is talking utter nonsense.

I am not suggesting that all the staff movements have not been improvements. Indeed, Sir, in all fairness, I think I should mention one which took place last year. You will remember that early last year or the year before the S.A.B.C. appointed a gentleman to be known as a Cultural Adviser of the S.A.B.C. He was a former editor of the Transvaler. His appointment was immediately followed by such cultural activities as an increase in political broadcasts, political talks and an increase in what we regard as Nationalist propaganda. I believe that this person who was the head of one of the sub-departments of the S.A.B.C. has been transferred to somewhere in Holland for some reason or other and, best of all, that the post of cultural adviser has been abolished. I commend the S.A.B.C. for that one step.

In my motion I mention the question of bias in news reports and in political talks. Let me say at once that it is not the task of us of the United Party or the task of the Government side for that matter, to judge on the quality of ordinary commercial programmes, on the quality of music and the cultural broadcasts which are given to the country, except in so far as they impinge on the rights of any particular section and except in so far as they impinge on certain recognized legal standards. Our chief concern with the S.A.B.C. is those broadcasts and those talks which have a political content. In fact, Sir, many and very many of the ordinary cultural broadcasts of the S.A.B.C. are of—and this is my personal opinion—an extremely high standard. I should like to congratulate the South African Broadcasting Corporation on that. We realize that in a case such as this the French saying applies “chacun à son goût” (Everyone has his own taste) and we on this side of the House, or hon. members opposite for that matter, are not arbiters of taste in regard to programmes. Good broadcasting, Sir, is a practice; it is not a prescription. It is more in the nature of an art than an exact science and I do not believe that one can lay down exact standards to be complied with.

However, Sir, when it does come to news reports and political broadcasts and political talks there are three criteria. The first is: Are the news sources adequate? Secondly: Are the criteria for selection right? And thirdly: Is the representation of news and talks such as to avoid distortion? Unfortunately, Sir, my reply to each one of these three questions is a qualified—not an unqualified—“ no”; but still a very definite “no”. I ask first of all: Are the news sources of the S.A.B.C. adequate? May I point out the following: The S.A.B.C. now has its own news service and that the coverage of that news service is by no means adequate; that the S.A.B.C. went further and actually spurned Sapa and has relegated Sapa to a most inferior position in regard to its news services. The hon. the Minister will remember that he himself made an entirely uncalled for attack on Sapa some months ago, such an unfair, such a bitter, such an unsubstantiated attack that his own paper had to take him to task. May I read to the hon. the Minister from the Burger. They attacked the hon. the Minister in a leading article for his attack on Sapa. It says this—

Then the Burger continues and says—

That was said many many months ago in a leading article in the Burger, Sir, and we are still waiting for an apology to Sapa by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Not only was Sapa relegated to an inferior position, Sir, but the Springbok news service which showed a great degree of independence in the past was placed directly under the control of the S.A.B.C.’s news services. In the past the Springbok news service made use, I believe, of the United Press News Service. That is not longer the case to-day. To-day the Springbok news service is as tied to the S.A.B.C.’s Board of Directors as the ordinary S.A.B.C. news services. This is another instance of where the sources of news have been cut down and made inadequate. I made a test of the adequacy of these sources. This is a test which was suggested in a report on the British Broadcasting Corporation. It was suggested in that report that the B.B.C. should see to it that it had every morning in its news service at least the three main news stories which appeared in the London Times, the Daily Telegraph and the Manchester Guardian. That was regarded as a fair and objective test of what a good broadcasting organization should give in its news. I have taken the trouble on several occasions during the past year to test the S.A.B.C.’s news services in the mornings and I found that not only one but sometimes two and sometimes even three of the major news stories which appeared in the Burger and the Cape Times of that same morning did not appear in the S.A.B.C.’s own report. A clear indication, Sir, of the inadequacy of the news reports themselves.

My second question in connection with news reports is whether the criteria for the selection of these news reports is right and again my reply is “no Do you know, Sir, that there is a directive to the S.A.B.C. news service which says—

In other words, Sir, a Minister can come with a statement in which he makes any sort of political allegation yet the S.A.B.C. is, by a directive, compelled to broadcast that particular statement, no matter how biased politically it is.

I have mentioned it before that we all remember the bitter New Year messages we have every year from the hon. the Prime Minister, when in a season of goodwill we are treated with messages containing veiled political attacks on political opponents. Instead of giving messages which should sound like messages of good cheer for the festive season we get from the hon. the Prime Minister messages which sound more like curses on Walpurgis night.

I cannot understand how in those circumstances the chairman of the Board of Governors could tell the Electrical Appliances Association last year in November at a luncheon in his honour that—

The secret appears in the next phrase in which Dr. Meyer said—

Now, Sir, what does that mean? Surely that is begging the question. One does not ask for any news broadcasts which contain treason. Surely our ordinary laws, our laws in regard to censorship (this new Bill) are sufficient to ensure that nothing appears over the news services which can be looked upon as treasonable. But why say that the news must have a South African character without clearly defining what you mean by that? Is there such a thing as a particular South African truth as opposed to universal truth, Sir? Surely it is begging the question coming with such a directive.

The criteria for the selection of news is unfortunately being influenced to-day by too much direct Government interference, and in particular Government interference through the Department of Information. The Department of Information is directly concerned with the activities of the South African Broadcasting Corporation and also with much that appears over its news services or in its political talks. The Department of Information is even represented on the Bantu Programme Control Board. That is an indication of how close the liaison and the alliance between the Department of Information and the S.A.B.C. is. In fact I believe that the Secretary for Information, Mr. Wennie du Plessis, is an unofficial link between the Cabinet and the S.A.B.C. for laying down general policy.

My third question in regard to news reports and political broadcasts is whether the representation of news and talks is such as to avoid distortion. Again my reply is “no”. There are far too many examples of where news has been distorted and, I believe on occasions, deliberately distorted for Nationalist Party political ends over the news services of the S.A.B.C. I do not wish to mention all instances. You will remember this instance, Sir, for example, that when English newspapers are criticized in this House the S.A.B.C. will in nearly all cases mention the criticism and the name of the paper. Yet we had an instance last year when the Vaderland Sondagnuus, a paper of which the hon. the Minister himself is the head, was criticized by the Minister of Justice in this House for a false report in regard to an alleged case of bribery affecting a liquor licence. The hon. Minister of Justice used very strong words against that particular newspaper, the Vaderland Sondagnuus. Yet the S.A.B.C. news release on that only referred to criticism of a “Johannesburg Sunday newspaper”, which might just as well be the Sunday Times. I do not in any way wish to accuse the Minister of being responsible for the S.A.B.C. in this particular instance not having criticized his paper, but I am sure that it may have influenced the news service of the S.A.B.C. to know that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, the parliamentary head of the S.A.B.C., was also chairman of the Board of Directors of this particular newspaper whose name they refused to mention in regard to criticism. It points, incidentally, to a very undesirable state of affairs, and that is that a head of a great newspaper in South Africa, a large newspaper company, or rather a member of the Board of Directors of a large newspaper company should also be closely associated with another news producing and news supplying service, namely the Broadcasting Corporation itself. I sincerely believe that the hon. the Minister if he wishes to be Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and if he wishes to continue his association with the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation should resign his directorship on the newspapers of which he is now a director.

And the other Minister as well.

We have heard the hon. Minister for instance in criticizing television saying that television would take away a large amount of revenue from newspapers in South Africa. Now I would like criticism of that nature coming from an hon. Minister who is entirely dissociated from the newspaper industry in this country.

Mr. Speaker, we all know how often we have been dissatisfied when we have heard what we regard as untrue slanting in the news services, and particularly in the political talks, some of these Friday-night talks and some of the talks in the news at nine o’clock at night. I asked the S.A.B.C. for a transcript of a report or a talk they had on the Transkei once, and I must thank them for having made it available so promptly to me. In the introductory paragraph of that talk on the Transkei it was Stated—

I submit that there are three slanted, and I go further and say, untrue statements. This is not the time or the place to prove these statements untrue, but they are opinions which are given here which are based on insufficient facts, which are untrue and which I submit are slanted. I mention that as one instance only.

We heard a talk a couple of days ago on how the Republic is getting on to-day after what I assume were dire predictions two years ago before the referendum, and the S.A.B.C. tried to contrast certain things which were said in the English newspapers about what would happen to South Africa as opposed to what has actually happened in this country. But, Sir, I could very well have drawn up a talk, too, in which I could have pointed out many dire predictions which were made before 1961 which are now becoming true in this country. Yet not a word was said of what we predicted then. It is an instance of the slanting of news.

I think of the stupid decision some time ago to refuse to broadcast the result of the Natal open golf championship simply because an Indian, Papwa Segolum, had won it.

I think of criticism which is coming not from United Party circles but from other circles which are very often closer to the Government than we are. I draw to your attention, Sir, to criticism given by an independent organization, but a very important organization, “Georganiseerde Landbou”. This paper is published, I believe, by the South African Agricultural Union, and I believe that the majority of its directors are Nationalists themselves. Do you know, Sir, that in the past “Georganiseerde Landbou” prepared talks on agriculture for the S.A.B.C., but that these talks were deliberately altered, deliberately changed by the S.A.B.C. news service, and that it became so bad that “Georganiseerde Landbou” went to the S.A.B.C. and told them “We refuse any longer to give those talks on agriculture over the S.A.B.C.” Here I have the cutting from “Georganiseerde Landbou” which says—

The South African Agricultural Union has refused to continue these broadcasts. The deputy director of the Agricultural Union said this—

Consequently this radio talk was discontinued. But allow me to read what Dagbreek, which certainly is not a paper supporting this side of the House, but is a paper very intimately associated with the hon. Prime Minister himself, wrote last year, as reported on 1 October 1962—

Here you have criticism from a large Sunday weekly supported by the hon. the Prime Minister, owned by the hon. Prime Minister, and in which the S.A.B.C. is actually accused of unjust emphasis in its news reports, and in which they call on the S.A.B.C. to stop that unjust emphasis.

On what date was that?

The date here is 1 October on my cutting, but it is a reference to the article itself, and it was on the nearest Sunday before that, I believe. I wonder sometimes, Sir, whether the S.A.B.C. does not take after its chairman of its board of directors, Dr. Meyer, because I have been going through the speeches made by that gentleman during the past year, and I can accuse him here of having made some wildly unaccurate statements in his speeches. It could be that the S.A.B.C. is emulating him. Let me take two small instances. Last year Dr. Meyer said—

Now, Sir, we have a large F.M. network in South Africa, and a good one, may I say, but it is nowhere near the largest in the world. A very quick check shows me that in the United States alone there are 1,200 frequency modulation transmitters, and in Italy alone there are 800. How can Dr. Meyer tell us that we have the largest F.M. network in the whole world? He made another statement—

Now it is not a bad thing to be able to do so in nine different languages, but a very quick check showed me the following.

He said “waarskynlik”.

I admit the word “waarskynlik” is used there. But does the hon. member realize that Great Britain alone broadcasts in 18 languages?

Not continuous programmes.

They are daily broadcasts. India broadcasts daily in 15 different languages.

Different dialects.

They are all languages in India, 15 different languages in which there are daily broadcasts. Japan broadcasts daily in 19 languages, China in 27, and the Vatican Radio in no less than 30 languages every day. So it was a misstatement, an irresponsible statement.

He said “waarskynlik”.

I wonder what would happen to the veracity attached to statements of Members of Parliament if we were to be excused of any misstatement we make by only adding the word “waarskynlik”.

The hon. Minister has often told us that he cannot interfere in these matters, that the S.A.B.C. must maintain its independence. I shall tell him how it is possible not to interfere, but to ensure to a larger extent the independence of the S.A.B.C. It can be done and it is done in Great Britain. I think it could be considered as a possibility, under the Broadcasting Act that we have at the moment. Under the Broadcasting Act the Minister is empowered to grant a licence to the S.A.B.C. to conduct a broadcasting service. That licence has been issued. The position is the same in Great (Britain where the Postmaster-General grants a licence to the B.B.C. to broadcast. In that licence certain conditions can be laid down without interfering with the independence of the S.A.B.C. In the licence that was granted to the B.B.C. it is laid down as one of the conditions that there is a prohibition of political broadcasts of a controversial kind. The only exception is those political broadcasts on which there is agreement between the political parties during election time. Secondly, there is a prohibition laid down in the licence to the B.B.C. against broadcasts by the B.B.C. of its own opinions of current affairs and public policy. I shall have no objection to the licence to the S.A.B.C. which is granted by the hon. the Minister containing those conditions, and there should be a third condition that all its news services should be objective and impartial. It would at the same time afford us here in Parliament the opportunity of a closer scrutiny of whether the S.A.B.C. was complying with the conditions of that particular licence. Furthermore, I do wish to suggest that the S.A.B.C. should consider voluntarily making its news service subject to the Code of Conduct of the Press Board of the Newspaper Press Union. I believe that arrangements can be made which would make it possible for the S.A.B.C. to say “We voluntarily subscribe to that Code of Conduct and we voluntarily are prepared to have our news services tested against that Code of Conduct”. If the S.A.B.C. says no, I should like to know why not.

In my motion I mentioned the question of licence fees. I believe, Sir, that the poor listeners in South Africa last year, and now this year, have been, if I may put it like that, sold a pup by the S.A.B.C. in regard to licence fees. The S.A.B.C. has come with a provision saying that licence fees can be increased to a new very high fee of R5.50 a year from 1 January of any particular year in which the new F.M. service is introduced. We found that in Cape Town the poor listeners, when F.M. was introduced during the latter half of the year, had to pay, long before F.M. actually came over the ether, this increased licence fee. Now I find that the same thing is happening with regard to the Eastern Province and in regard to Bloemfontein. I wonder whether hon. members realize that in Port Elizabeth, in Grahamstown, in King William’s Town, in East London, in Port Shepstone, and also in Bloemfontein and Welkom, listeners will have to pay the new high R5.50 licence this year even though F.M. will only be introduced much later this year. The service they get in East London at the present moment is the same as it is in Kimberley or Pietermaritzburg which do not have F.M.; yet they have to pay almost double the licence fee.

It is a swindle.

And then we find the chairman of the Broadcasting Corporation saying that the money for licences in proportion to the number of services we represent, our population and the size of the area, is one of the cheapest in the world. I say that the licence fees are amongst the highest in the world. And since I assume that there will be certain licence fees quoted here to-day during the debate, let me make it quite clear that when I say that our fees are amongst the highest in the world, I am dealing with sound broadcast fees and not with licences for television. An hon. member came here last year and said that in Switzerland they pay £8 a year for the annual licence. But that, Sir, was the radio licence for sound broadcasting, plus the radio licence for television. Here I have the figures for some European countries of the licence fees for sound broadcasts only, and that is all we have in this country. Ours is £2 15s. a year; Austria £1 7s.; Switzerland £2 3s.; Sweden £2 Is.; Finland £1 13s.; Italy £1 8s.; Germany £2 Is.; Belgium £1; France £1 8s.; Norway £1 10s.; Denmark £1 5s.; Holland £1 2s.; the United Kingdom £1 (I believe it has now been increased to £1 10s.). But here we have clear indications that our licence fees are inordinately high, and I do reiterate that they are under the highest in the world in proportion to the services we are getting. We are not getting television and so it is quite unfair to compare the licence fees paid for sound broadcasts plus television in other countries with our position here.

I only want to touch upon one other matter and I leave it to one of my colleagues to deal more fully with it, and that is television. Why is there this delay in television which is making of our country, almost one might say, the laughing stock of the world? Why is there this delay when there are at the present moment no less than 81 countries in the rest of the world which have their own television service? Nearly every major country in the world has its own television service, but not South Africa. In Europe even Albania, Bulgaria, Gibraltar, Malta and Monaco have their own television service. In Asia, even Hong Kong, Iraq, Kuwait and a place called the Ryukyu Islands and Thailand have it; in Africa even Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, all these have television service. Do hon. members wish Ghana to be more advanced and civilized in this respect than we are? In America there are services even in Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatamala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Trinidad, Columbia, Ecuador, Uruguay and Paraguay. I do want to know when we can expect television. The hon. Minister himself said, “As far as I can see South Africa will never have television at all”. Dr. Meyer, however, speaking before the Afrikaanse Sakekamer, said that we could not expect television during the next five years, and its installation after 1966 was far from definite. In other words, here is a possibility that in 1966 or in 1967 we may have television in South Africa. I should like to know whether the hon. Minister has now changed his point of view that there will never be television in this country. If he continues with that original point of view, I want to ask him why is it then that Dr. Meyer has stated that South Africa is keeping abreast of all developments in the field of radio, including television? Why is the S.A.B.C. keeping abreast of developments in regard to television if it is not the intention of the hon. Minister to introduce television at some stage? Why did Mr. Gideon Roos, when he gave evidence before the Select Committee on the Publications and Entertainments Bill, say not “if” but “when” television is introduced in South Africa, it will be necessary for the S.A.B.C. to ask for special exemption in regard to the censorship of its films.

I have spoken longer than I intended. I do believe that our remedy is to appoint a wide commission of inquiry into all aspects of the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation. Not so much that we wish to criticize the Corporation, but because we wish to have this great instrument as an instrument of good for our country. We do not wish to see this powerful yet delicate instrument in the hands, the hamhanded fumbling hands of a Nationalist Government. We therefore in this motion of mine ask for the appointment of this commission of inquiry and we ask for its appointment now.

I second the motion. I quote from Hansard 1962 the following statement—

I make no apology for quoting this. I said this last year in this House, and I say it again for the simple reason that to this day we have not had an answer to this question.

Probably you will quote it again next year.

I hope I can quote something more to the point—what you will say to-day—after I have sat down. I hope so, for I would rather quote you than myself on the subject, if the National Party in the House will be constructive on this matter. I was about to say that many of us have tried to put questions to the Minister in order to obtain an explanation from the one man who should know, the one man who does know, and the one man who can give the answer— and that is the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs—but as the hon. mover of the motion has said: It is almost a waste of time to put these questions. I am not going to read any of the questions that I have asked that show the kind of answer the Minister gives. He says “Yes”, or “No, no”. [Quorum.] I was referring to the futility of putting questions to the hon. the Minister because they simply elicit no answer or the sort of answer which amounts to yes, or maybe, or go and look for your information elsewhere. That is in fact the substance of the answers one gets from the Minister, putting it as politely as possible. Therefore, one must of necessity probe for oneself into this situation, without the help, and in fact in the face of, the obstruction of the hon. the Minister.

Order!

I said obstruction. I do not think I am accusing the Minister of anything when I say that when I seek information from him, he does not give it to me.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “obstruction”.

Certainly, I withdraw it. Then may I say instead: in the face of the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Minister in answering questions, one must of necessity probe the situation for oneself, which we on this side have done and will continue to do until there is a better state of affairs as far as the broadcasting monopoly in this country is concerned.

It is the best in the country.

Does the hon. member not know that it is the only one in the country? That reveals the state of mind of that side of the House far better than I could do by talking for 40 minutes.

It is the best we have ever had in this country.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) has now varied his statement. I am not going to hold it against him. I am sure he is going to come into this debate, and I am sure he is well qualified to speak on the subject. He must have listened to the radio at least once! But the point I wanted to make was this that in making this investigation, which necessarily we on this side of the House must do because hon. members opposite refuse to go into the question at all, beyond saying that it is the best in the world or the best in the country, or the best we have ever had here—I want to say that in doing so, I for my part, do not intend to attack any person in the S.A.B.C., or outside it. As a matter of fact, I have for years had dealings with highly placed persons in the S.A.B.C. and I have no desire or intention of attacking anyone—but the facts must be stated and will be stated.

The first question that arises in this probe is whether in fact the S.A.B.C. is the independent and impartial body which it is supposed to be by virtue of its constitution under the Broadcasting Act, and which from time to time spokesmen for the corporation hold it out to be. We know that it is autonomous, and autonomous in this sense means, “I can please myself about what I do”. But of course we also know that it is in fact a very limited and well-qualified autonomy by virtue of one simple fact, and that is that in terms of the Act it is the Government, it is the Cabinet, and I say in this case it is the Prime Minister, and not the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who appoints the chairman of the Board of Governors and those who govern with him. And from my own knowledge of the situation, I say that a strong man in the position of the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the corporation simply requires the other gentlemen to attend those meetings in order to comply with the requirements of the Act— but he is no more answerable to that board as such than is the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling). He is answerable in fact to one person only, and that is the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] I do not want to dilate on the reference which the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) made, in moving his motion, to what is recorded in Hansard. Col. 7379, of 1962, in quoting the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I do, however, want to refer to a Press report dealing with the same matter which was dealt with by the Minister in this column of Hansard. In the last issue of the Sunday Times, 24 March, the head of the Public Relations of the S.A.B.C., Mr. Pierre Louw, referred to this very same statement and denied the statement made by one Mr. Garry Allighan in the same paper, the Sunday Times, of 16 December 1962—denied that the Minister had ever announced that the S.A.B.C. had become “nationalized and in order to prove that he refers to the Minister’s quotation which appears here in Hansard, he goes on to say that a member of the House interjected to say, “nationalized industries”, which is perfectly correct. But that is where, with great respect to Mr. Pierre Louw, whom I happen to know, he stops. He does not go on to quote what the Minister actually said, and which was brought to his notice by the editor of the Sunday Times in a footnote. He does not go on to say that after the interjection by the hon. member, “nationalized industries”, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs went on to make the statement quoted by the hon. member for Orange Grove, which reads as follows—

And there you have the whole story in a nutshell. This is, as far as the National Party is concerned, a Nationalist industry, and not a nationalized industry, because it is that party, through its Prime Minister, who determines who shall govern the S.A.B.C. in the person—primarily and almost exclusively—in the person of the chairman of the Board of Governors, who is answerable, with great respect to the Minister of Posts, not to him—although he is mentioned in the Act—but to the Prime Minister. One has to face this fact in order to make some sort of assessment of the position of the autonomy of the S.A.B.C.

I want to give two points of view about this autonomy of the S.A.B.C., which obviously is the most important aspect of the question as to whether this body has the right to do certain things or not under the Act. I have here a statement made, according to the Cape Times, of 8 August 1957, by the then Director-General, Mr. Gideon Roos, in which he says—

In other words, its listeners constitute the entire body of shareholders of that company. That was in 1957, when the Board of Governors advised on policy, but the Director-General occupied the same position of influence that at present the chairman of the Board of Governors does. But now the position has changed, according to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, in a statement which he made at the naming of the FM Tower in Johannesburg, as the Albert Hertzog Tower; he said amongst other things that he compared this structure with a woman, elegant, slender, beautiful and pure. Well, that is fine. The Minister has a fine appreciation of the pulchritude of womanhood. It was not entirely relevant, but he was trying to prove something. He said this tower had earned for us the admiration of the world. But I want to tell him that I have seen television towers all over Germany, even in smaller places like Dortmund, where they have a restaurant at the top of the tower, and it revolves slowly all the time, so that you see a panorama with a radius of about 100 miles. But that is commonplace in Western Germany to-day. Then why say this is the greatest thing of its kind in the world? It reflects, of course, that gift for hyperbole which the Corporation seems to have acquired recently. He says it is a symbol of everything pure that the S.A.B.C. stands for.

It is a fine thing if the S.A.B.C. stands for everything pure. Then he says—

That is also fine, but I would like to ask, in what lies this idealism and this spiritual strength the Minister refers to? The Minister does not explain that, and merely says, “It is also the symbol of strength and rock-like immovability”. Of course, in that case it should have been built of granite! He says that it is “built to withstand the onslaughts of the most violent storms and the fiercest attacks of the enemies of the S.A.B.C.”. Here we again have that harping on the “enemies” of the SA.B.C. There are certain people in South Africa who say, perhaps rightly or perhaps wrongly, but honestly: “we do not think the policies of the SA.B.C. are right, but we are not the enemies of the S.A.B.C.” I am sorry that I may appear to the hon. members over there as an enemy of the S.A.B.C., but that is not so by any stretch of the imagination.

Anything we say on this side of the House is designed to help the S.A.B.C. to live that life of spiritual strength which its autonomy can endow it with, but which by political skulduggery it has been prevented from living. Then the Minister said—

That, of course, is an arguable point. I do not want to say I agree with the Minister, or disagree with him, but there is a body of opinion which does agree with him; then he went on to make certain points which were summarized in this report. He said—

Well, I do not know whether it has or has not. I can only judge the Corporation by its deeds, and not by the Minister’s words. Then, having said that the S-A.B.C. is an autonomous institution, he goes on to say that the S.A.B.C. belongs to the people who pay the fees that support it, to which extent he agrees entirely with the views expressed by the former Director-General, who said in 1957 that the S.A.B.C. had no shareholders except its listeners. But the Minister then went on to say that it—the S.A.B.C.—can never belong to the listeners, just as the newspaper can never belong to the reader. I want to ask the Minister with great deference whether in his reply he will please explain that piece of home-spun philosophy, that analogy which says in effect that if you buy a newspaper for 3c that does not make you the owner of the newspaper. We all know that, because we are not the proprietors of the newspaper; it is a privately-owned undertaking like the shop on the corner, or the chain-store, or the mine. But he seeks to draw that analogy with the corporation when it is common cause that it is a State-owned utility corporation which belongs to the people of South Africa. He tells every South African taxpayer, and certainly every licence-holder: You do not own it at all, any more than you own the Burger or the Rand Daily Mail. Since I personally am a slow thinker, I hope the Minister will explain just why he draws that analogy.

Regarding this question of autonomy, the S.A.B.C. is not at all shy in explaining it from time to time—I hold that to its credit— and it does so again in its latest report. Unfortunately, as the hon. mover has pointed out, it is the report for 1961, and on page 6, referring to certain matters under the heading of “Broadcasts on Contentious Matters”, the S.A.B.C. states its case, and says that in respect of broadcasts on contentious matters, the Board of Governors has laid down the policy that Radio South Africa should constantly supply exhaustive, balanced and truthful information to the best of its ability. My first question is: what is meant by “balanced information?” What can they expect the reader, who reads with the intention of finding the meaning of words, to understand? Is it that the people who write those news reports—not the people who read them—have done a sort of tight-rope balancing act? On which side, then, are they going to fall off? Which point of view are they going to stress, and which point of view will they suppress? In other words, I say with great respect that out of their own mouths, in this report the S.A.B.C. stands, not condemned, but self-confessed as a tight-rope walker in regard to the presentation of news, because obviously you cannot truthfully “balance” the news. You receive a piece of information. You were not there to see for yourself, say, a flood in Iraq. You get a cable. You either give it to the listener or you do not, but you cannot monkey with it, and that is the point, the monkeying with it, the balancing of it, the slanting of it, which is a word hon. members opposite do not like. But then they must explain to me what is meant by this balanced information. Furthermore, it says that the S.A.B.C. should give truthful information to the best of its ability and “discretion”. I say the same thing, but what right is there for anyone who purports to disseminate news as such to exercise any “discretion” in the matter? Either they suppress the news—and that, as the hon. the mover has said does happen; you can read a newspaper any morning and see the important stories, but you hear not a word about it on the radio—1 say you either suppress the news by refraining from disseminating it over the radio, or you give it as it is given to you, and therefore there can be, in a proper and autonomous and independent and truthful news service—all the things the S.A.B.C. should be entitled to claim for itself and does claim for itself—neither “balancing” nor the use of “discretion”. I would like that to be rebutted, possibly by the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe), who shows a real interest in the matter, but I must not be told that in the interest of South Africa certain things must be pruned and changed a bit. I am trying to deal with this matter objectively and philosophically, but not politically, and that is the kind of explanation I want.

It was further decided, according to this report, that Radio South Africa should by means of positive contributions in its own sphere, do certain things. Now remember, Sir, that in its own sphere it is the monarch of all its surveys. There is no other broadcasting system in this country, not an official one, anyway. There used to be a “Freedom Radio”, but we know what happened to that! This is a tremendously interesting statement, that in its own sphere, which means in its own monopoly, it can promote the survival and the bounteous heritage of the White people of the Republic of South Africa. Now, that is a very important statement to make. We know that it is the credo of one political party in this country that the means, in so far as the survival of the White people in this country are concerned, justify the end at all material times. How can you, being a person who is vested by Parliament with the control of an independent, autonomous public utility, and a very important monopoly, arrogate to yourself the right to equate your activities with the policy of a particular political party which says that the survival of the White man in South Africa is all that matters? I am not saying that all that is not important, and that those who hold that belief are not entitled to it. I am merely coming back to the point that the S.A.B.C. as such, which is supposed to be impartial, autonomous, independent and non-political, may not cloak itself in the political garment of any political party, yours or mine. I would like that rebutted by the hon. member for Middelland, but I am afraid I will only get one answer!

Again, in one sentence which is called by some novelists a “pregnant” sentence, it goes on to say: “… to promote the survival of the bounteous heritage of the White people of the Republic of South Africa, whilst at the same time encouraging the development and self-realization of the non-White population groups in their own sphere”. Now, in case I did not make my point in regard to the survival of the White people, surely I have made my point in regard to the simple fact, as I have pointed out in this House from time to time, that it is part and parcel of the Nationalist Party jargon to use certain words and phrases to convince people of the rightness of its policy, something which I am not examining now. I pointed out quite recently that apartheid was called self-development or autogenous development or self-realization but all those things stemmed back to the policy of the Nationalist Party. What earthly right, then, has this Corporation, which is autonomous, independent, impartial, publicly-owned—not owned by a political party …

It is in the interest of the public welfare, and I am right.

Any man who says he is right, of course loves himself, and Benjamin Franklin once said that any man in love with himself has no fear of any rivals. The point I make is this. How can a Corporation claiming for itself all these virtues, at the same time say in its report that it must promote the development and self-realization of the non-White population groups? Surely they are preaching and practising the policy of a political party? They know it. and hon. members over there know it, and the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) does not seek to deny it; he merely says it is right and it is in the public interest. I am not concerned with that, with whether it is right or wrong in the political sense; I am merely concerned with whether or not this corporation is doing what it is entitled to do in terms of the Act, or what it is expected to do by the bulk of the population, and not by any one political party. So let us examine it from that point of view.

There is also on this page the statement: “The Board is aware of the great responsibilities which accompany the wider contacts entailed by the increasing activities of the S.A.B.C. It is the object of its policy and management to take the public into its confidence and thereby to increase confidence in a sincere endeavour to serve all sections of the people by taking cognizance of their wants and by respecting the convictions and ideals which are dear to them”. That brings me to a very interesting consideration. How has the S.A.B.C. respected the ideals of certain people or groups of people in this country? There are examples which prove conclusively that in regard to at least one group of the people of South Africa, the so-called—and I use that word advisedly—Afrikaans-speaking people, in the sense that the so-called Afrikaans-speaking people are always people who support the National Party—there is evidence that they have been satisfied with the activities of the S.A.B.C. The Afrikaans culture has undoubtedly flourished, and the Afrikaans language has undoubtedly advanced. Therefore, to that extent, it may well be said that the Afrikaans-speaking people are entitled to believe that the S.A.B.C. has done a good job of advancing their culture and interests. But what about the others?

I want to examine, e.g., the position of the Bantu very briefly, because it is a new departure as far as the Corporation is concerned. In fact, it is too new to bear close scrutiny, for one thing, and for another we know that the policy of the Government is eventually to separate the Blacks from the Whites, and I do not know what will happen to their radio service. Ostensibly in the Bantustan of the Transkei they will have their own radio service, and in the near future they will have television, and we will have the privilege of looking at the T.V. programmes of the Transkei.

Utter nonsense.

When that hon. member tells me I am talking nonsense, I am convinced that I am on the right track.

I want to investigate briefly the position of the English-speaking people in this country, and again I use the word “so-called”, referring of course to the people who have a respect and a liking for and an affinity with English. Sec. 14 of the Broadcasting Act lays down that the Corporation shall frame and carry out its broadcasting programmes with due regard to the interests of the English, the Afrikaans and the Bantu cultures. The Bantu culture was added by way of an amendment quite recently. First of all, before I embark upon my argument, I would like to define the meaning of “culture”, because it is such a wide term. Before you can say what the Corporation owes the English culture, what duties it has undertaken and what duties it may have failed in, we must first define “culture”, and there are so many definitions that I am obliged to take the two which are most relevant, e.g. culture: “the cultivating or development of the mind, faculties, manners, etc.” I take that from the Oxford Dictionary published in 1893. More closely it means “the intellectual side of civilization”—not the political side—and perhaps even more closely culture is “a particular form or type of intellectual development”—and that is, of course, what I think we are talking about in this Act. Now there is such a thing as the English form or type of intellectual development. It is well known and defined, because we know from time to time how heavily it is criticized in this country. It is therefore something which can be singled out and fairly well defined. I want to ask the Minister and hon. members opposite to answer this question. If they agree that the English philosophy (and therefore culture) of democratic political reform, and unprejudiced intellectual development is what we are talking about in regard to English culture—because remember, Sir, that hon. members opposite will give a completely different definition of Afrikaans culture—is it not correct to say that the English culture is and has been deliberately and consistently assaulted by the S.A.B.C.? Is it not true? [Interjection.] I will not have the time to do so, but if that hon. member will give me a receipt for it, he can go through this bag full of evidence which I have here, and then tell me whether it is true or false. I say categorically that if you approach any English-speaking person as such, or any English institution in this country, of course they will agree that there is and has been a consistent assault on their English culture by the S.A.B.C.

For that they will splash you to-morrow.

I go for a swim every morning, and I do my own splashing. I was going to say that whereas Section 24 of the Broadcasting Act has often been canvassed—it was referred to again this morning and I do not propose to deal with it again except to say that the Minister has the power, but he is like a horse that you can lead to water but you cannot make it drink—under Section 14 I submit that on legal grounds a very different position arises, and the Corporation must not be surprised if in the very near future a person or a group of individuals who set some store by the maintenance, the preservation, the survival of the so-called English culture in this country which the S.A.B.C. has undertaken to maintain, seeks—with some success, I think—an interdict from the courts restraining the S.A.B.C. from this constant assault on English culture in this country. I do not want to develop that, but I think it is something which the Corporation should bear in mind.

Dealing with this question of autonomy which to me is inherently the most important aspect of the matter, I want to contrast it as the hon. member for Orange Grove has done, with the B.B.C. Of course, I hold no brief for the B.B.C.; I will refer to it in quite a different context. The B.B.C. has a Royal Charter. It is completely independent and under its Royal Charter it may broadcast what it pleases, and those who have been to Britain recently will know that they are no respecters of persons. They rip people to shreds. The highest in the land, including the Queen of England, suffer under the lash of their programmes, so it is in fact an autonomous body. The same kind of autonomy is enjoyed by the B.B.C. that the S.A.B.C. claims for itself, and yet when the S.A.B.C. finds that the B.B.C. in exercising its autonomy is going to screen for television viewers a film called “Sabotage in South Africa”, to which many people in South Africa object, perhaps because the B.B.C. in the exercise of its autonomy has decided to do so, the S.A.B.C., according to the Press, must now indulge in a sort of radio war with the B.B.C. That is the information that we have been given. It has been said here in the House. There has been talk of breaking off radio diplomatic relations, that we are not going to buy any programmes from them and that we are going to put somebody on the air (which has been done this week) to tell the public of South Africa what a rotten institution, as far as South Africa is concerned, the B.B.C. is. Sir, that amazes me, because that side of the House so often produces speakers who say, “that which I ask for myself, I will see that the other man gets”. This refers, of course, to the political aspect of the self-realization of the Bantu. But the autonomy which the S.A.B.C. wants for itself must not be conceded to the B.B.C.; it must not have the right to broadcast a television film that we do not like. I cannot understand it. Sir, simply by changing two letters in an editorial quoted by the Cape Times on 27 March 1963 which appeared in the Burger, you will see what I am trying to get at—

That is what the Burger said, and the only change I have made is to delete from “B.B.C.” the letter “B” and substitute “S.A.” Obviously the same thing can be said about the S.A.B.C.: An enormous force for good in those matters dealt with by men of integrity, in other words, men dedicated to this ideal of impartiality, objectivity, etc., etc., not politically inspired or controlled, “but an equally great evil when bad people handle the machine.” I would like hon. members on that side not to take my word for it, but to remember that that which they concede to the S.A.B.C. they should also be prepared to concede to other similar bodies regardless of the fact that they may be critical of us. This “tit for tat”, in my humble submission, is not going to get us anywhere at all.

In regard to the point I made on the question of English culture as treated by the S.A.B.C. under its present policy, as I have said before, there is a mass of evidence, but we cannot get away from the fact that the usage of English has deteriorated in South Africa. Even Afrikaans-speaking authorities have made that statement.

Who else made that statement? Leading English-speaking people have said that. Why blame us?

I said that that statement had been made even by Afrikaans-speaking authorities, and I will give you an immediate example. I refer to Mrs. Adele de Jager, the head mistress of Eunice Girls High School, Bloemfontein. Is that a good school? This is what she said—

I did not say it; I only hear these things myself when I speak to a State Department, for example, or when I phone somebody. I can hear what is happening to the English language. Sometimes when I listen to the radio, too, I can hear what is happening to the English language.

Why blame the S.A.B.C.

Because my contention is that whereas it has in fact done its job in regard to Afrikaans culture, which has flourished as a result of the positive assistance given to it by the S.A.B.C., it has neglected, whether by design or unintentionally, its duty to the English culture, with the net result that you have this constant deterioration.

Do you want the S.A.B.C. to foster English culture?

Why not?

What about yourself?

The Act says that in fact the S.A.B.C. is obliged to do so, so why should I not want the S.A.B.C. a State-owned Corporation, to do its duty? Is there anything wrong with it?

It belongs to South Africa.

There is no evidence to support what you say.

All right, I will just give the hon. member one more piece out of my collection—

This comes from the University of the Wit-watersrand. Sir, I want to use my last few minutes to deal with television very superficially. I want to ask the Minister whether he has been out of South Africa in the last 15 years. It will save me quite a bit of my two minutes. [Time limit.]

Both the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) and his seconder raised a great number of matters here to which we on this side of the House will try to reply, and we shall try to convince this House that the proposal moved by the hon. member is quite unnecessary. I should like therefore to move the following amendment immediately—

While it is still fresh in my memory I just want to reply to the last argument advanced by the hon. member for Orange Grove, and I should like him to listen. He made an attack here upon the Broadcasting Corporation and accused the Broadcasting Corporation of neglecting English culture, and he then read out certain quotations. I do not know what he really wanted to prove against the Broadcasting Corporation by doing so. I do not think that he quoted Mrs. A. de Jager, the head mistress of Eunice, and the principal of the University of the Witwatersrand in order to prove that the Broadcasting Corporation is committing a crime against English culture. What he was really doing was to level that accusation against the English-speaking section of South Africa, and I am glad that he raised this matter. I think the time has come when the English-speaking people of South Africa should take a little more interest in their own language and their own culture. We have two languages and two cultures in this country. Those two languages are recognized in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, and we should not like to see the English language and English culture disappearing in South Africa. But I want to issue a warning to the English-speaking section, and I want to make an appeal to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) in particular, who is an English-speaking ex-teacher. I think the time has come when the English-speaking people of South Africa should give their serious attention to this matter. The position is so bad that we cannot get English teachers in our schools whose home language is English. At the moment the vast majority of the English teachers in this country are Afrikaans-speaking.

I want to deal at once with the first argument advanced by the hon. member for Orange Grove. He came forward again with the old argument that the Minister refuses to furnish information to this House with regard to the Broadcasting Corporation. Although hon. members opposite know that the Act specifically forbids him to do so, they contravene the Act time and again by putting questions to ithe Minister with regard to the Broadcasting Corporation. The Act provides that the Broadcasting Corporation shall furnish an annual report. In that annual report it has to give a full account of its activities. I shall come back to this later on. Sir, after all the hundreds of questions which the hon. member for Orange Grove and the Opposition have put to the Minister with regard to the S.A.B.C. one can almost compare them with a fowl scratching about in a huge haystack. After having scratched for years, they have at last found one tiny grain of wheat; they have discovered that the Broadcasting Act provides that a fuller report has to be furnished. The Minister told the hon. member that he had sought legal advice and that he would see to it that full particulars were furnished so as to comply with the requirements of the Act. I take it that the report will be presented in the near future and that we shall then find that it does furnish the necessary particulars which have to be furnished in terms of the Act. However, in the course of his speech the hon. member alleged in all innocence that the Minister was refusing to furnish the necessary information; that he ought to be able to give it, whether the Aot permits it or not. The hon. member asked all sorts of questions here. On Friday, the 13th, he raised this trivial little matter; he wanted to know what the circulation was of the S.A.U.K. Radio Bulletin and of the S.A.B.C. Radio Bulletin. There the hon. member again has hold of the wrong end of the stick, just as he has hold of the wrong end of the stick in alleging that English culture is being neglected as against Afrikaans culture. The hon. the Minister informed him very courteously and politely that he was unable to furnish that information because the Act did not permit it. But the hon. member persisted in asking these questions; it was not long afterwards that he came along with another question in which he wanted to know whether it was true that there was a kink in the Hertzog Tower. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that there is a more suitable person to ask such a question on that side of the House than the hon. member, because I do not think there is a member who has more kinks than the hon. member who put that question. Again the Minister replied in all civility that he would not give him this information; he said that he was sorry but he was unable to do so.

But he denied it later on.

In any event, there is no kink in the Tower. The hon. member said that the Tower was leaning over. It does not lean over. I think it depends on what time of the day one looks at the Tower. I do not know what time of the day the hon. member looked at the Tower. Sir, if the hon. member was really interested in the Broadcasting Corporation then I could understand his putting these questions, but the way in which the hon. member puts his questions is not cricket. I think that he sometimes carries on in a mean way.

Order!

Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, I shall not used the word “mean”, but the hon. member does sometimes make use of methods which are not according to the rules, methods which are not quite proper. In his speech on 7 June last year he said this—

That was on 7 June and I should like you, Sir, to note the date carefully. But on 27 February last year the hon. member had put this question to the Minister—

1. (a) How many F.M. masts and transmitters it is proposed to erect during the next five years;
2. (b) where each will be situated;
3. (c) what the estimated cost is;
4. (d) what the approximate cost will be in converting these installations for television broadcasting.

On 7 June he stated that the Minister had refused to reply, but here we have the hon. the Minister’s reply; the Minister replied—

1. (a) The erection of the V.H.F.M. system is planned on an annual basis. It is therefore not possible to furnish details for the next five years. This year a total of seven masts and 35 transmitters will be completed.

In reply to (b) the Minister said—

The Minister further replied—

1. (c) R4,622,000.

That is in connection with the question of costs. In reply to (d) the Minister said—

Sir, one actually admires the Minister’s patience. We know the hon. the Minister is a very courteous person but I think the time will come when his patience will come to an end. I want to mention another case where the hon. member once again showed how suspicious he is and how anxious he is to find something against the Broadcasting Corporation, something that is illegal or suspicious. The hon. member read out just now what I had said last year, but this whole motion moved by the hon. member substantiates what I said last year. I honestly believe that we are committing a crime against the Broadcasting Corporation when we continually sow suspicion and come along with the allegation that English culture is being neglected; that news is being slanted and that we are trying to bring the whole of the Broadcasting Corporation under the control of the National Party Government. That is the sort of accusation that is made here. Last year the hon. member also put a question to the Minister in connection with speeches made over the radio during the election campaign. He asked—

The Minister gave a very courteous reply to this question; he said that political speeches had been broadcast in 1953 and he went on to give details, but I do not want to take up the time of the House by reading out his reply. But on Tuesday, 17 April 1962 the hon. member asked a further question which I would like to quote here—

Sir. I just want to show you that if I had been the Minister I would have reached the end of my patience lone ago and if the hon. member had been the Minister I think he too would have reached the end of his patience long ago. The Minister gave the following courteous reply—

Mr. Sneaker, I think if I were a hunter and needed a hunting dog, I would pay a great deal for a hunting dog with the qualities of that hon. member.

He would never catch anything; he has legs to run but no teeth to bite.

There is one little matter that I want to rectify here. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) has referred here to a report which appeared in the Sunday Times and in which Mr. Pierre Louw, head of the Public Relations Division of the S.A.B.C., Johannesburg, gave an explanation of what the hon. the Minister had said when he allegedly stated, according to the hon. member for Hospital, that the S.A.B.C. was a nationalized industry. Sir, when one reads through that debate, one sees that time and again the Minister tried to emphasize that the S.A.B.C. is an autonomous body; that the Minister merely appoints the Board of Governors and that that Board of Governors lays down its own policy. I do not propose to quote the whole of the Minister’s speech here; I just want to quote two small extracts in support of what I say here. After he had answered the questions put to him, the hon. the Minister said—

What is an independent body other than an autonomous body, a body which is practically not called upon to give an account of its actions to the State? And then, after having dealt with what had been said by Sir Hugh Carlton-Green of the B.B.C in England, he used these words—

I think that every normal person who has a clear brain and who follows the trend of the whole debate, will admit that what the Minister meant there is that the S.A.B.C. is an independent, autonomous body and that the State has no say over it; that the S.A.B.C. has the right to determine its own policy. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to speak for himself when he replies to this debate. I am convinced that he will admit that that is what he meant and nothing else. I want to emphasize once again that the S.A.B.C. is a corporation just like Iscor and Escom and Foscor and others; that the State, as I have already said, appoints the Board of Governors and that for the rest the board lays down the policy. It is not a nationalized industry.

The Minister says so.

We do have nationalized industries in this country. I think we can regard the Railways as a nationalized industry that is controlled by the State. We also have the State diggings which are absolutely controlled by the State, and hon. members on that side have the fullest right to ask questions with regard to that industry and with regard to the Railways. Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree with me that the hon. member for Orange Grove certainly misuses the privilege to ask questions. He asks questions about the Railways every day.

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

I withdraw it then and say that he makes excessive use of that privilege. What I find remarkable about the hon. member is that when he has to do his duty on the Railways and Harbours Select Committee, where he should act as watch-dog over the interests of the Railways, he is conspicuous by his absence.

I was in Johannesburg.

He is always in Johannesburg. He is a member of that Select Committee and he is never there. I want to give the hon. member a little advice: On that committee he has an opportunity to make good use of his talents for research when things go wrong.

I do not want to repeat the facts which the hon. the Minister gave the House in connection with the S.A.B.C. when the S.A.B.C. was under the control of the United Party Government in 1947 and when the then Minister pestered the S.A.B.C. to such an extent that they did not know which way to turn later on and decided to obtain legal advice from an advocate. The advocate concerned was the previous Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Strauss, a very capable person, a very capable advocate, so capable that he became Leader of the Opposition. This is all recorded in Hansard; hon. members can look it up for themselves. The Minister gave the House a full report last year. Hon. members will find it in Hansard of 7 June 1962 in Columns 7673 to 7674 (Afrikaans text). I do feel that it will have a salutary effect on hon. members of the Opposition, particularly the hon. member for Orange Grove, if they study the Minister’s reply. It will be a good thing if the hon. member for Orange Grove cuts out the reply and hangs it above his bed so that he can look at it every morning. I do feel that he will then be cured of this habit of his.

The hon. member asks in his motion that the House should urgently ask the Government to consider the advisability of appointing a commission of inquiry to investigate the policies of the S.A.B.C., with particular reference to (a), (b), (c), (d), etc. I do not see the necessity for an inquiry. It seems to me that the hon. member for Orange Grove, who continually makes a fuss about the annual reports of the S.A.B.C. not being complete, is simply looking for points of criticism without making a proper study of the reports. May I say to him that he will find the full policy of the Board of the S.A.B.C. set out on page 29. I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is the Board of Governors that lays down the policy.

I just want to mention one thing that shocked me. The hon. member for Hospital has pointed out that the board consists of nine members—the chairman and eight members. He goes on to say that the eight members are “nincompoops”.

I did not say that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has created the impression here that it is only the opinion of the chairman that counts; that whatever he decides becomes the decision of the board. In other words, they are more or less in the same position that he is in the Opposition; where Mrs. Suzman says “vote”, he votes blindly; he is just a rubber-stamp. I feel that I must record my serious objection to that statement; it is a gross insult to the members of the board. It is a gross insult particularly to the English-speaking members of the board. There are four English-speaking members on the Board of Governors. They are men who are prepared to give up their time to render this very essential service to our nation. They are not remunerated very well. Their remuneration is a good deal less than that of the hon. member for Hospital. They are constantly criticized here. I want to congratulate them on the good work that they are doing. On behalf of this side of the House and on behalf of the vast majority of the listeners in South Africa I want to thank them very much for this service that they are rendering to us. I am surprised that they still have the courage to continue with their work. Their attitude is, “Let the dogs bark, the caravan moves on.” We appreciate the fact that they are rendering that service.

Now I come back to the “canker” to which the member for Orange Grove has the greatest objection really, namely the chairman of the S.A.B.C. Mr. Speaker, I have said before and I repeat that I think that South Africa is very fortunate that a capable person such as Dr. Piet Meyer with his academic background, practical experience and knowledge which are so essential to the Broadcasting Corporation, is prepared to serve as chairman. I am convinced that Dr. Piet Meyer was not an unemployed person before he became chairman, and that if he resigned as chairman of the S.A.B.C. he would not be unemployed. His services would be in great demand; our industries would be only too anxious to obtain his services. On behalf of this side of the House therefore I want to say to Dr. Piet Meyer: “we appreciate the fact that you are prepared to perform that service.” Sir, I should like to read out to you the policy of the Broadcasting Corporation. I think it is a good thing that the House should hear it because I do not think there are many members here who know what it is. This policy has made a very great impression on me; it has impressed upon me the sense of responsibility of the board; the fact that they realize that the Broadcasting Corporation is the mouthpiece of this country and that if they broadcast the wrong things, if they broadcast inflammatory reports, they might very well cause rebellion and disorder in this country.

I just want to come back again to the hon. member for Hospital who put forward what I think is a remarkable proposition, and that is that the Broadcasting Corporation belongs to the people of South Africa. In saying that he was suggesting that when Luthuli makes a speech, that speech must be broadcast by the S.A.B.C.

I did not say that.

That is what the hon. member meant. That is what the Broadcasting Corporation means when they say that they want to broadcast balanced news, not unbalanced news, not the unbalanced news of Luthulis and Poqos and other instigators in this country. I should like to know what the composition of the Board of Governors would be if the Opposition came into power in this country and introduced their federation plan, with one central broadcasting corporation and television system. I suppose Luthuli and a few others like Oliver Tambo would be members of the board. I should like to know what the position would be if they introduced their federation plan with a multi-racial parliament. We may be reminded that we ourselves are going to establish separate states. Very well, those separate states can then introduce their own television, if they wish to do so; they would be welcome to do so. On our Board of Governors we have Whites only who lay down the policy for the Whites in this country. It is not true that the Broadcasting Corporation treats the non-Whites of this country unjustly; that the Corporation tries to oppress them. Where has the Corporation ever done so? Let them prove it. Sir, here we have its policy—

I think this is a wonderful policy. We on this side of the House are convinced that they do succeed in implementing that policy fully. I admit—and I think hon. members opposite will agree with me—that we are living in a world which is full of problems and troubles, a world which produces news items of tremendous importance. The task that the Broadcasting Corporation has to carry out must be a difficult one but I do feel that they are fulfilling their task in a masterly fashion.

I would advise hon. members to examine this report of 1961. There they will find a proper survey of what the S.A.B.C. did.

I do not really hold it against hon. members that they hate the Broadcasting Corporation most intensely. Why do they hate it so much? Because the Broadcasting Corporation is charged with the duty of broadcasting certain important events in this country. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the past few years these events have followed so quickly upon one another that one has scarcely been able to keep pace with all the developments. I think that historians have scarcely been able to keep pace with all the important things which have been happening in South Africa in recent times. Let me mention a few of them. South Africa withdrew from the Commonwealth; there was the referendum, the declaration of the Republic, the inauguration of the State President, the general election of 1961. I agree, Mr. Speaker, that the United Party probably did not like hearing that news broadcast over the radio so factually—the truth and nothing but the truth, not coloured as it is coloured by the English-language Press. I just want to point out to hon. members opposite that after all it is not the fault of the S.A.B.C. that these things happen. If they want to blame anybody, I think they should blame themselves. Unless they change their policy in South Africa, they are still going to hear much more important announcements over the radio that they are not going to like.

I want to go further. I want to deal with the accusation which the hon. member made in connection with the staff. The hon. member for Orange Grove suggests that there is seething dissatisfaction amongst the staff and that that is the reason why people are resigning on a large scale. He also asks in his motion for an investigation into the appointment and promotion of staff and the excessive number of resignations amongst members of the staff. Sir, the staff of the S.A.B.C. is not appointed in a secretive way as suggested by the hon. member. Inquiries are not made surreptitiously to find out whether a person is a Nationalist. The Broadcasting Corporation appoints its staff in the usual way, in the same way that any other business does. If they have a vacancy and somebody applies for the post, he is appointed if he has the necessary qualifications. If they do not receive such applications, advertisements are placed in the English and Afrikaans newspapers and the vacancies are advertised over the air. Where the post is one which can only be occupied by an English-speaking person, the vacancy is only announced in the English programme and vice versa where the vacancy is one which can only be occupied by an Afrikaans-speaking person.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr, Speaker, when business was suspended I was telling the House how the staff of the S.A.B.C. is appointed. My time has nearly expired and I want to reply briefly to the charge made by the hon. member for Orange Grove. He sought to bring the House under the impression that there is seething dissatisfaction amongst the staff. He referred to certain resignations. If there is seething dissatisfaction amongst the staff of any organization, the best indication of that fact is the number of resignations. The percentage of resignations usually indicates the degree of dissatisfaction.

In this connection I want to mention some very interesting figures. I have statistics here from the Broadcasting Corporation indicating the number of resignations as from 1947. In 1947 the percentage was 17.6. That was in the days of the United Party Government. In 1948 it was 23.4 per cent. I can well understand that. The Opposition had packed the S.A.B.C. with so many United Party supporters that they resigned when the National Party came into power. What is very interesting in connection with these figures, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that over the past three years in particular the percentage of resignations has been lower than in the whole history of the S.A.B.C. since 1949. In 1960, for example, the percentage of resignations was 16.5; in 1961, 12.7 per cent, in 1962 15.8 per cent.

The hon. member for Orange Grove persists in alleging that the chairman, Dr. Meyer, is the canker in the body of the S.A.B.C. He is supposed to be the person with whom these people are dissatisfied and who is responsible for their resignation. What is very interesting is this: Mr. Gideon Roos was Director of the S.A.B.C. from 1947-8 until Dr. Piet Meyer became chairman of the board in August 1959. Mr. Roos eventually resigned. But when one looks at the percentage of resignations in the period during which Mr. Gideon Roos was the Director-General, one finds that at that time there was seething dissatisfaction because in 1950 it was 20.6 per cent, in 1951 22.5 per cent, in 1952 22 per cent, in 1953 22 per cent, in 1954 23.4 per cent, in 1955 21.4 per cent, in 1956 20.4 per cent, in 1957 22.1 per cent, and in 1958 18 per cent. In the year in which Dr. Piet Meyer became chairman the percentage of resignations was considerably lower, namely 17.1 per cent. But as time went on and Dr. Meyer and the Board of Governors put things in order—there was a very great deal of confusion in many departments—there was more satisfaction and the percentage of resignations gradually dropped to as low as 12.7 per cent.

I obtained very interesting data from two large business concerns in Cape Town. The one employs 900 Whites. In 1962 the percentage of resignations amongst the White staff, including married women, was 16.3. This does not include non-Whites. As far as resignations from the S.A.B.C. are concerned, I want to point out that the figures include the whole of the staff, male, female, married women and non-Whites.

Another large business in Cape Town—I do not want to mention the names but my figures are reliable—which employs 1,556 people, had 13.63 per cent resignations in 1960. This does not include Bantu, nor does it include married women. In 1961 the staff numbered 1,714 and the percentage of resignations was 15.7. In 1962 the percentage of resignations was 12.6. When one bears in mind that in these cases married White women and non-Whites are not included in these figures, I cannot see what right the hon. member for Orange Grove has to say that there is seething dissatisfaction. I do feel that that statement is without foundation. I agree with him that certain members of the staff did resign. I do not have time to go into that now but that matter will be dealt with by other hon. members. Once again the hon. member is quite unnecessarily sowing suspicion here.

I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by showing the House that the Opposition are very sensitive when we point out to them that they are committing a crime against the S.A.B.C. The motion which has been introduced here to-day and which asks that all these things be investigated, immediately gives the enemies of South Africa the impression that there is something radically wrong with the S.A.B.C. of the Republic. Hon. members opposite try in every conceivable way to create the impression abroad that the South African radio is on a par with Zeesen of Nazi Germany. It has already been said in this House by the hon. member over there that the chairman of the Board of Governors is a Broederbonder. I do not know what he is, but these things have been said here on various occasions. Exception is also taken in this motion to some of the radio talks and I take it that the hon. member means talks such as the one given the other evening, for example, in which comments were made on “Sabotage in South Africa”, the film which was shown over the television network of the B.B.C. in England. I want to ask the hon. member and members of the United Party pertinently whether there is anything wrong with that. Do they hold it against the Broadcasting Corporation that it commented on this film? I personally feel— and if the Broadcasting Corporation has not yet done it I want to suggest that it should do so—that the S.A.B.C. should also invite the Leader of the Opposition to tell us over the radio what he as a good South African thinks about this film that we all saw recently. Sir, my seconder will take the matter further, but I repeat that this side of the House has full confidence in the Broadcasting Corporation. We want to wish the Corporation everything of the best for the future and we want to ask them to continue to build on the foundation that they have laid and to build up the South African Broadcasting services into one of the best services in the whole world.

I second the amendment. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) commenced his speech by quoting from Hansard, and for a moment I thought it was probably an important speech by Kennedy or somebody else which he was quoting. I was really disappointed when the hon. member said that he was merely quoting from a speech which he himself made last year. It will not surprise me at all if the hon. member again quotes from that speech next year and the following years. The hon. member for Hospital as well as the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) reminded me of the two men who were stranded on an island and stayed there for many years. They had nothing to do and the one old chap, to beguile the time, regularly sang a little song which he knew, “O die springkane” (oh the locusts). Day after day he kept on singing “O die springkane”. Eventually his friend became sick and tired of that monotonous little tune and said to him: “Listen pal, that is quite enough about the locusts. Sing something else.” The friend remained silent for a little while but again started to sing “O die springkane His friend then asked him what the matter was and he replied: “No, this is another swarm that I am singing about.” I am really fed up with all the locusts and all the swarms and it is of no avail the hon. member for Orange Grove singing his monotonous little tune about the locusts every year. Can the hon. member not sing another tune or is his knowledge limited to those locusts; does he not know anything else? I think that is the case. I listened attentively to what the hon. member opposite had to say and I must really admit that it is difficult for me to find anything to which I can reply. I had expected and hoped that the hon. member for Orange Grove would say: “Look this was where the S.A.B.C. distorted political news,” or “on this occasion they used the radio for political propaganda purposes”. That was what I expected but all we got from the hon. member were generalities. I have made a note of what he said to which I want to reply although I do not want to waste much time on him. His one complaint was that the S.A.B.C. did not make sufficient use of Sapa; he complained that Sapa had been relegated to an inferior position in the news service of the S.A.B.C. Let me tell him that I believe Sapa has a good news service but you must not forget, Sir, that it provides a news service to all the newspapers and that from the nature of things Sapa reporters, because most of them are English-language newspaper reporters in South Africa, more or less reflect the policy of those newspapers for which they work. That is also the reason why Sapa is inclined to and tries, as far as possible, to appoint people to their news service staff who are independent of newspapers. They want people who can report objectively on news from the point of view of Sana. It is for the same reason that the S.A.B.C. does not want to use Sapa or any other news service because it does not want to be dependent on another organization. It already makes use of Sapa and four other agencies as well as of its own staff. But it has its own independent approach which the other news agencies lack and that is what it wants to reflect in its news broadcasts in South Africa. Does the hon. member for Orange Grove blame them for that?

The hon. member also complained and said that lately the S.A.B.C. had not broadcast what appeared on the front pages of the Burger and of the Cape Times. I rather regard that as being to the credit of the S.A.B.C. because the front page news of the Cape Times, for example, and of other newspapers are usually political news and the hon. member for Orange Grove does not want the S.A.B.C. to broadcast political news.

The hon. member also said that the English language Press were criticized regularly in this House and that that was then broadcast by the S.A.B.C. but that when the Afrikaans-language Press was criticized that was not broadcast. I give the hon. member one mark for that, but I want to tell him that it is not news when the English-language Press is attacked in this House, it happens every day. I can well imagine the hon. member wanting that occasion when the Afrikaans-language Press is attacked to be broadcast because that does not happen every day and it has news value. I agree with him to that extent.

The hon. member also objected to a broadcast by the S.A.B.C. about the Bunga. The hon. member must correct me if I represent what he said incorrectly. I think he said that amongst others it was stated in that broadcast that the Bantu themselves had asked for the system to be changed; and secondly he alleged that the report was wrong in this respect that it created the impression that the Bantu were dissatisfied because Whites had also been appointed to the executive of the Bunga. I think I should quote somebody to the hon. member in this connection. I do not want to quote a Nationalist or anybody with whom he does not agree but I want to quote one of his comrades in arms, somebody who is definitely hostile to this Government. That quotation will prove to the hon. member that the S.A.B.C. did indeed give the facts correctly. I want to refer him to a book written by Professor Jabavu “The Black Problem”. On page 23 he gives five reasons why the Bantu were dissatisfied with the Bunga system and one of the reasons is that a colour bar is observed when it comes to promoting Bantu to the higher clerical posts because only Whites are appointed to those posts. And that was precisely what the S.A.B.C. said. The hon. member made another point. He said that even the S.A. Agricultural Union was concerned about the one-sidedness of the news. I immediately want to say to the hon. member that I agree with the S.A.B.C. if they refuse to broadcast negative news items. If the S.A. Agricultural Union suggests anything positive in their agricultural talks and if they discuss farming questions in a positive way it will be worthwhile broadcasting those talks. But if they wish to represent the position in a negative way then it is indeed not news. I do not regard that as news. Apart from that agricultural talks should not have a political flavour. Why does the hon. member particularly want the S.A. Agricultural Union to broadcast talks with a political flavour? Surely it is the very policy of the S.A.B.C. not to do that. If the South African Agricultural Union or anybody else is engaged in a political dual with the Government they will be welcomed by the United Party newspapers.

Is it politics if they broadcast that the farmers are dissatisfied with the price of maize?

That Is not the point. The hon. member generalized. Will the hon. member tell me whether the S.A. Agricultural Union is only dissatisfied with this one aspect?

The hon. member also said that even Dagbreek en Sondagnuus, an Afrikaans newspaper, had expressed its dissatisfaction with the news service of the S.A.B.C. and he then quoted from a leading article which appeared in one of the English newspapers. I have the leading article here which appeared in Dagbreek en Sondagnuus to which the hon. member has referred; as a matter of fact they did not criticize the policy of the S.A.B.C. but commended it. The paper wrote the following on 30 September 1962—

Then it goes on—

This comes from the same leading article and the hon. member for Orange Grove now sees the English Press in its true colours—no, the British Press because I draw a distinction between the two. In South Africa we really have English newspapers and British newspapers; the English newspapers adopt a South African attitude, but the British newspapers who do not want to hear or write anything good about South Africa are the ones who distort this news service as has just been evinced by the hon. member. I hear the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) interjecting. He even complained that English was declining and he reprimanded the South African Broadcasting Corporation and blamed them for it. Why does he not blame himself or somebody else for that? Why should they be blamed when English declines? It is tantamount to blaming the donkey when the cow has horns. Is that fair? That hon. member should put his hand in his own bosom and he should tell the English-speaking people in South Africa that like any other Afrikaans-speaking person they have a share in this country and that it is their duty to preserve their cultural possessions to the best of their ability and to add it to the South African culture so that we can develop one big culture. However, I do not want to go further into the allegations made by hon. members opposite. As I have already said I waited in vain for them to come with something really substantial.

I am not surprised at hon. members opposite continually complaining about the S.A.B.C. I am not surprised because hon. members opposite have a guilty conscience because they know how they exploited the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation for political purposes. They know that very well. Do you know what the then Deputy Director of Information of the United Party Government wrote, Sir? He kept a special eye on the affairs of the S.A.B.C. He wrote the following in a report which was submitted to the then Minister of Posts and Telegraphs—and I want the hon. member for Orange Grove to prick his ears—

That was during the 1943 election. That is why I say that hon. members opposite have a guilty conscience. They know very well how they used it. Because they did not succeed in doing so in South Africa they even enlisted the services of the B.B.C. to indoctrinate the people in South Africa to an extent unknown in South Africa.

That was in the war years.

Yes, that is always the excuse. As soon as hon. members opposite are cornered they say “there was a war on”. I really think that hon. members have adopted an arrogant attitude in connection with this matter. It is precisely because they regularly used the S.A.B.C. for political propaganda purposes that they adopt the attitude that only what they say is right. When they do anything it is all very well, but the minute the National Party or the Government does anything, there is something wrong with it. Because of his persecution mania the hon. member even followed in the footsteps of the Rand Daily Mail who is going so far as to make a tape recording of every talk over the radio which has a slight political flavour and if they have an interview with any member of the S.A.B.C. staff, telephonically or otherwise, they switch on a tape recorder because of their persecution mania and in order to determine whether they can find any trace where the S.A.B.C. has broken the code. There is another reason why I am not surprised at hon. members opposite being so annoyed with the S.A.B.C. Hon. members opposite are only following in the footsteps of the British Press in South Africa, and it is in fact the British Press which is pin-pricking them from behind to set them in motion. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members opposite were not the people who originally objected to the S.A.B.C. No, that was started by the British Press in South Africa and that is where they have found all their material. We know how the British Press in South Africa tried to incite the South African listener against the S.A.B.C. Certain newspapers were at the forefront of this campaign of incitement.

Mention them.

I have many leading articles which have appeared in newspapers which I could quote. Here I have the Rand Daily Mail for example. In the issue of 1 December 1961 they announced in big headlines that the Black Sash were going to draw up petitions throughout South Africa in order to expose the S.A.B.C. They say this—

Do you see how wily the Black Sash are, Sir. They organize the petition but they do not want the public to associate the Black Sash with it. They remove their black sashes and present their petition so that the hon. member for Hospital who may perhaps not be so very well disposed towards the Black Sash, will also sign the petition. I have seen with my own eyes here in Cape Town how those people set about getting signatures to their petition. It reminded me of the student who tried to establish a handshaking record in Cape Town the other day. The students formed a circle and shook hands with him. The same thing happened in the case of those who signed the petition; that petition was signed over and over again. But that is not all. The United Party Press in South Africa, of course, does not approve of what the S.A.B.C. does in South Africa, because the United Party Press has taken unto itself the sole right in South Africa of presenting matters the way it wants to. If anybody states the position differently they are immediately annoyed with him.

I am wasting my time with all these quotations; I rather want to go a bit further. It is the English Press which is to-day keeping the hon. member for Orange Grove on the alert to continue to attack the policy of the S.A.B.C. The English Press succeeded very well in that the other day in regard to the statement in the Senate by Mr. Pilkington-Jordan and Mr. Conradie in connection with the Transkei. The English Press stated very clearly: Look that was how the United Party acted in the Senate. When they tried go get out of it, it took them by the scruff of the neck and rubbed their noses thoroughly in those statements which had been made in the Senate. This is the way in which they try to incite the people and to prevent those incidents which do not suit the United Party Press from happening in the Senate.

I want to point out how the S.A.B.C. handles its political news, but I first want to teach the hon. member for Orange Grove a basic elementary lesson in news reporting because he has never really been connected with a newspaper which was concerned with providing news. He worked with a newspaper which was conducting a fight and he represented the news the way he wanted to. Had he not left it timeously the National Party might have faired worse. But I want to say this to him: According to the basic news code there are various questions which have to be considered. I first want to refer to the news code and I then want to apply it to the political news service of the S.A.B.C. In the first place news is, of course, what happens and it is news, of course, if it is something which does not happen every day. Like the old well-known expression which they have in newspaper offices: It is not news if the dog bites the man but it is news if the man bites the dog, because that does not happen every day. It is not news when the sun rises every morning but believe me if the sun should not rise one morning, Sir, it will make front page news in the newspapers. It is not news when the wind blows but it is news if the wind is particularly strong. It is, of course, also news to tell listeners how things will affect them in future. Let me put it this way: The S.A.B.C. or the newspaper concerned, broadcasts or places a news item because they know it will affect the listener or the reader. That is why, when there has been a motor-car accident, you will always read that Mr. So and So has died as a result of a motor-car accident; and then they add “.father of five children” or “father of twelve children dies”. Reference is only made to the twelve or five children in order to stimulate the imagination of the reader as to the tragic happening which has taken place. But it is also news when an incident happens. It is not news when a lion walks about in the Etosha Game Reserve. But I predict that if a lion were to walk into this House this moment it would certainly be news. It will be news to such an extent that Mr. Speaker will be obliged to ring the quorum bells in order to provide me with a reasonable quorum. It will indeed be such great news that while he is lying there chewing on the hon. member for Orange Grove for example and looking at me, I shall be obliged to move the adjournment of the debate, and you, Mr. Speaker, will have to adjourn the House. Naturally it need not necessarily be an undignified adjournment of the House. As a matter of fact, I think once that lion has looked in the direction of the Press gallery and licked its lips there will not be anybody to describe that adjournment. I do not want to scare the hon. member for Orange Grove but I want to apply this basic news code to the news which is offered by the S.A.B.C. As far as the S.A.B.C. is concerned what constitutes political news in South Africa are ministerial statements, they are of great news value because they affect the whole nation. From the nature of things the Government issues more statements than the United Party. That will be the position of every Government. If the United Party has no important statement to make it is not the fault of the S.A.B.C. If facts and news value are lacking something which is unimportant cannot be made to appear important. That is why I say that the S.A.B.C. must always be positive. They give fuller reports on the Government because the latter says: Listen, I want to embark on an Orange River scheme. The listeners realize that that is something positive which will affect them in future. Or if the Government announces that it intends subsidizing butter, for example, that has a news value to the listeners because they know that will affect them. But if hon. members opposite issue a statement to the effect that they are not going to subsidize butter, or even that they are indeed going to subsidize it, it is of no value to the listeners because the Opposition cannot put that into practice. That is why it has no news value. That is the position in regard to the question of Bantu self-government in South Africa. That is of great news value because it is going to affect the future of South Africa for hundreds of years.

Hear, hear!

Naturally the Opposition’s opposition to that also has a certain amount of news value because they suggest an alternative policy. I want to ask hon. members opposite this: How do they expect the S.A.B.C. to deal with their attitude? Must they deal with it by way of policy statements? They are already doing that. If the Leader of the Opposition issues a policy statement it is reported by the S.A.B.C. and incorporated in the news. But it is of no interest to anyone when the hon. member for Orange Grove or the hon. member for Rissik (Mr. de Kock) issues a policy statement. In any case they cannot carry it out. But the S.A.B.C. can also provide news about the United Party by means of talks in which they explain their attitude. But I ask hon. members opposite in all honesty whether anyone of them can explain the policy of the United Party. Is the hon. member for Orange Grove able to do so? Even the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has muddled the United Party’s policy to such an extent, right from the Graaff Senate plan to his federation plan, that I think even the hon. member for Yeoville who is sometimes called upon to pull the chestnuts out of the fire when nobody knows what to do, will find it difficult. Somebody once said a very true word and that was that there was only one person who knew and understood the United Party’s policy in South Africa and that was the Prime Minister. But surely hon. members do not expect the Prime Minister to make policy statements on behalf of the United Party. The alternative for the S.A.B.C. is to state the policy as stated by members in Parliament, and that is indeed what they are doing, I just want to make a comparison between the S.A.B.C. and the newspapers. Take for example the debate we had in this House last year on the sabotage legislation. The S.A.B.C. prepared its news service faithfully in accordance with what members had said in the House. What was the result? The S.A.B.C. reported as many as 9,590 words concerning the Government’s side and 9,850 words concerning the United Party’s side. In other words, many more words than in the case of the Government’s side and you must not forget, Sir, that there are 18 Ministers on this side of the House and four Deputy Ministers; there are 114 members on the Government side against 70 on the Opposition side. Compare this with what the newspapers did. I first want to refer to the Burger. I want to make a comparison in respect of what that newspaper has reported on the happenings in this House over the past week up to yesterday. In terms of single column news the Burger placed 245 inches giving the Government’s side (and that included ministerial statements) and 194 inches giving the Opposition’s side, practically 50-50. What is more, the photographs of six Government members were published and five of Opposition members. A reasonably fair ratio, I should say, of what has happened in this House. But what did the Cape Argus do? Over the same period it placed 116 inches single columns giving the Government’s side and 171 inches giving the Opposition’s side. It published the photographs of seven Opposition members and that of one Government member. Take the Cape Times. It is very much worse. Over the same period it placed 111 inches giving the Government’s point of view 272 inches giving the Opposition’s point of view. The sum total which the two English newspapers in Cape Town reported were 227 inches dealing with the Government’s point of view and as many as 443 inches dealing with the Opposition’s point of view. If the English newspapers therefore, do not succeed in inflating the United Party nobody will.

Let us take the position outside Parliament. There, of course, the S.A.B.C. have to confine themselves to groups which are represented in Parliament and that is why they cannot pay any attention to the National Union which is a little mushroom party. They cannot, for example, take any notice of the Fritz Smit group. They cannot, as the United Party Press does, select certain leaders of groups which spring up like mushrooms, bolster them up only to discard them with cold brutality later on. And if those parties launch a campaign against Government policy the S.A.B.C. cannot broadcast that because it is not authoritative and because they do not represent anybody. But who, in any case, is going to collect all those various groups together? Where are you going to collect them from amongst the weeds and from dirt-bins to air their grievances against the Government? Apart from that the S.A.B.C. is not the place to air grievances. I maintain that the S.A.B.C. is acting as objectively as it possibly can outside Parliament. I have made an analysis of its news services and I have found in the first place that in its talks on definite subjects they invite people from different schools of thought. A prominent representative of the Opposition Press often appears in its radio conference programme. They choose people from various professions, language groups and schools of thought to give radio talks. In its weekly news services, This Week in the Press, they give the opinion of all the various political parties. Where will you find a more balanced reflection of the news?

What I found remarkable was this: I have analysed all the complaints that we have had against the S.A.B.C. and I have found that as against the 91,800 minutes which the S.A.B.C. have allotted to talks, there have been complaints in regard to only 45 minutes, and those complaints were against the talks about Albert Luthuli, Helen Joseph and those people. Sir, I think that is an achievement on the part of the S.A.B.C. When you think of the campaign which the United Party Press has launched against the S.A.B.C. and when you think that there were only 12 complaints about those programmes, you must conclude that there is nothing wrong. There were 17 complaints about the broadcasts concerning Albert Luthuli but they all came from Houghton and that immediately makes one suspicious. That was organized.

What after all is the duty of the S.A.B.C.? If it is partial it is partial in favour of South Africa.

In favour of the Nationalist Party.

It reflects the position as it obtains in the big and developing economy of South Africa and who will deny that there is great economic development in South Africa to-day?

The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has denied it.

Naturally the S.A.B.C. must steer clear of anything which will jeopardize the safety and lawful interests of the whole South Africa. The S.A.B.C. must have as its objective the maintenance of the heritage and continued existence of the Western European Christian way of life and at the same time the development of the non-White national groups as groups of their own in their respective spheres. Of course it should not do anything which will encourage opposition and undermining from within or from outside. On the contrary, it is its duty to do everything in its power to encourage the various national groups to understand each other, to co-operate arnd to trust one another. It should avoid giving offence to the traditional conventions of the various national groups. It must promote a healthy South African patriotism and encourage all the people to be loyal to the country and that is why I say that those people who object to the news service of the S.A.B.C. are people who are not South Africans in their heart of hearts. The S.A.B.C. must see to it that the mighty weapon of the radio is not employed, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously, to weaken and to undermine the South African morale in order to conduct a psychological warfare. It has to do that by refusing to allow the S.A.B.C., because of political pressure as envisaged in this motion—because he wants the Minister to have a say over it—to play into the hands of those who do not have the real interests of South Africa at heart. It should allow reasonable criticism but not that which is aimed at undermining the authority of the State. I say that if it is a crime to promote the interests of South Africa within the framework of accepted conventions and customs, if it is a crime to promote sound relationships between the various national groups, White and non-White, and to reflect in its programmes that which is beautiful, good and noble and the Christian way of life of every national group, if it is a crime to refuse to allow the country to be besmirched and to allow the confidence in the country to be weakened and to give encouragement to groups which want to do undermining work by giving them publicity, if it is a crime to refuse to promote agitation against the laws made by Parliament, then the S.A.B.C. is guilty of that crime. But that is exactly what it is not doing. Radio South Africa must be the voice of South Africa, that is to say, the voice of the people and of all the various cultural and ethnic groups in our fatherland, without ignoring the right of each language group or national group. I can quite understand that unpatriotic elements will find fault with this. What the S.A.B.C. wants to do is to render a service to South Africa. Here I have the statement of policy of the B.B.C. I do not want to read it, because my time has nearly expired but I want to say that it says here that it is the task of the B.B.C. to be of service to Britain and I maintain that it is the calling of the S.A.B.C. to be of service to the people of South Africa.

I want to congratulate the S.A.B.C. on what they are doing. Unfortunately I cannot deal with everything. I still wanted to deal with licences and television but I really think that measured against this code of conduct which you expect from it, the S.A.B.C. is rendering a service to South Africa and I want to appeal to the people of South Africa to be positive and in future also to express their appreciation in their letters to and comments on the S.A.B.C. for what it is doing and not only to be negative and to go and complain with the United Party newspapers. I just want to say this that there is, of course, still room for improvement in the S.A.B.C. For example I should like to see the head of the news service section promoted to the status of Director on an equal basis as the other directors because I think the news section has become such an important factor that it justifies a higher status.

The hon. member for Middelland (Mr. Van der Merwe), the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) and other hon. members have dealt very effectively with a large number of insinuations and allegations made by hon. members on the other side, and I want to congratulate them on the high standard that they maintained in their speeches. They were, of course, not able to reply to all the points raised here, and I am in the same position, because I shall not be able to reply to all the unanswered accusations. I shall therefore have to confine my reply to certain points only.

It was a pleasure to listen to the introductory part of the speech of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel), but I am very sorry indeed that he did not maintain the same high standard throughout his speech. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) once again demonstrated the hostility and the aggression underlying everything that he has to say against the S.A.B.C., and in the course of his speech he levelled certain criticisms against the S.A.B.C. and tried to prove that the S.A.B.C. was not independent but was under the influence of the Government. His first allegation in support of this theme was that the chairman was appointed by the Government—which has always been the case throughout the history of the S.A.B.C. and also in the case of the B.B.C., because the chairman of the B.B.C. is appointed by the British Government. Does the hon. member want to tell me that because the Government appoints the chairman, the B.B.C. has become the mouthpiece of the Government? That statement is equally untrue in the case of the S.A.B.C.

In the nature of things the National Party Government has ensured, better than the United Party did in the past, that the position of chairman of the S.A.B.C. is one that can be occupied by people of the highest standing in the business world. That is the important change. The Government has made it possible for outstanding people in the business world to occupy positions in the S.A.B.C. organization. The Government has been extremely fortunate in having been able to obtain the services of a man from one of the strongest and most progressive companies in South Africa, one of the best in its sphere in the world, a company which has expanded through the world because of the inherent ability of its employees and of its drive and farsightedness. I say that South Africa has been fortunate in having been able to draw a man from an undertaking such as this and to place him at the head of the S.A.B.C. Men of this calibre are scarce. A person who has reached the highest rung in the business world is a man of character. One does not reach the highest rungs of the nerve-racking business ladder unless one is a man of character. Is the hon. member for Orange Grove so naive as to suggest that one can take an outstanding man from the business world and place him at the head of another business and then think that he is going to be willing to be at one’s beck and call? He is appointed under the provisions of the Act which lays down his rights and duties. But no man of standing would allow the Government to do what it likes with him. That is the guarantee of the outstanding independence of the S.A.B.C.

What was Dr. Meyer’s position at Rembrandt?

He occupied one of the most senior positions. Does the hon. member want me to discuss the domestic affairs of Rembrandt? Everyone knows what his position was. He was the most senior executive official at Rembrandt under Mr. Rupert. You can see, Mr. Speaker, that there is this underlying hostility in their attitude; they are not even prepared to be fair. They are always trying to put the S.A.B.C. in a bad light. I shall return to this point later on. I say that it is because we have had the good fortune to be able to appoint a man like Dr. Meyer, that we have had unprecedented development in the S.A.B.C. By bringing one of the most capable men in with him he placed the S.A.B.C. on a sound and progressive footing such as we have never had before.

The second example that the hon. member mentioned in support of his case was a certain agricultural talk. He told us that the S.A. Agricultural Union stopped its radio talks which were compiled by its Assistant Director because the S.A.B.C. either mutilated those talks or else did not want to broadcast them. May I remind the hon. member that it is always a good thing to have the correct facts. The true facts are that agricultural talks were always compiled by the Department of Agriculture but there was one particular talk that was compiled by the S.A. Agricultural Union for the Department which the Department did not want to give to the S.A.B.C. That was why that talk was not broadcast. Those are the facts. The S.A.B.C. was therefore not at all to blame.

The hon. member advanced a third reason to support his statement that the S.A.B.C. does not give a true reflection of the news and that it is allegedly under the control of the Government. He said that he used the newspapers as his test; that if he saw some report or other on the front page of the Cape Times and he did not hear it over the radio …

And the Burger.

He included the Burger merely as a sop.

If the S.A.B.C. does not repeat what the Cape Times has reported that morning, then there is something wrong. But the hon. members’s standards are wrong. Just imagine taking the Cape Times and the English-language Press as his standard! He only included the Burger as an afterthought. Let me tell the hon. member that the English-language newspapers present either the news or their comments on the news in a slanted and distorted fashion every day. And the hon. member need not take my word for it. Let him accept the findings of the Press Commission. What has the Press Commission to say of the English-language Press? The Commission states “that 731 per cent to 74 per cent of Sapa’s news comes from the English-language newspapers”. About three-quarters of Sapa’s news come from the English-language newspapers. The Commission goes on to say—

Where can one get a more serious accusation against the English Press and Sapa? But that is the hon. member’s yardstick. That is the yardstick by which the S.A.B.C. is measured. He wants the S.A.B.C. to follow that distorted Press that one cannot believe—because the Commission states that one cannot believe them—and to broadcast the news contained in that Press. That, of course, would delight the English-language Press. It would delight that side of the House. As the Commission states, the purpose of the English-language Press is to represent the Opposition in a favourable light. The United Party would be delighted, of course, if the S.A.B.C. could boost them in this way. But I want to continue. The Press Commission goes on to say—

Not only that, but the Press Commission goes on further to say—

I say again, Sir, that you need not take my word for it; the Press Commission makes a damning accusation against the English-medium Press in South Africa and that is the Press which is used as the yardstick to condemn the S.A.B.C. Precisely the opposite is the truth. There has never been a news service in South Africa as good and as outstanding as the news services given by the S.A.B.C.

In this debate we have had an excellent example of those distortions, distortions which unfortunately have also been promoted by hon. members in this House. I want to come back to the story that I apparently said that the S.A.B.C. was a “nationalized industry”. Let me remind hon. members of what happened. On 7 June last year I explained the position in detail and emphasized the fact over and over again that the S.A.B.C. was an absolutely independent body and that the Government had no authority over it except in so far as was provided for in the Act. I compared it with the B.B.C. But I went further and said that the position in England was worse. Not even questions can be asked about the B.B.C. in the British Parliament.

Of course questions are asked.

No, that is so. That rule may perhaps be overlooked from time to time by some Minister or other but the legal position is that no questions can be asked. I quoted at the time from authorities, from Chester and Bowring. I also quoted Mr. Butler, one of the British Ministers, where he gave reasons as to why questions could not be asked about the B.B.C. in the British Parliament. I quoted these words used by Mr. Butler—

One of the hon. members opposite then interjected, “nationalized industry” and I said—

I was still talking about England and English law and the fact that in the British Parliament questions of this nature cannot be asked. I went on to say—

I did not use the words “genasionaliseerde industrie for the sake of clarity I used the English words “nationalized industry”. I was dealing with the position of the B.B.C. But what did the English-language Press do? They suggested that I had said that the S.A.B.C. was a “nationalized industry”. But I was not speaking about the S.A.B.C. then. This only indicates the level to which the English-language Press can descend. One of them stated, in pursuance of my statement in Parliament—

They mentioned a “revolutionary change”. Where is there any question of a “change”? Where is there any question of “nationalization”? There is no question of it at all, but because I said this of England, my statement was taken and applied in a distorted fashion to the S.A.B.C. because they thought that by means of this distortion they would have a stick with which to beat the S.A.B.C. They went on to say—

But this was just after I had emphasized over and over again in my speech that there was no such thing as State interference or Government interference in the S.A.B.C., except where the Act laid down certain requirements. They went on further to say—

“Now” there is no self-government. In other words, there was previously but that is no longer the case. How has the position changed? The position is precisely the same. The S.A.B.C. is still the same S.A.B.C. which is controlled by the same Board of Governors; there is no question of a change but here we had the English-medium Press suggesting that that was the case. The English-medium Press went on to say—

Where has any right of the public been taken away? The position has not been changed in the slightest. The position is still precisely the same. The powers of the Minister are still just as limited as they have been over the years. But here we had the English-medium Press abusing the words that I used here in Parliament in order to create a false image.

Another lie.

They went on to say—

Last year’s annual report was the same as the annual report submitted year after year under the United Party Government. It assumed different forms under the United Party but last year it was just the same as it was under the United Party. They came forward with the story that I stated in this House that the S.A.B.C. was being nationalized and because it was being nationalized everything was being changed.

Another lie.

This Press report went on to say—

What I said here, which referred only to the B.B.C., was applied to the S.A.B.C. by the English-medium Press: “The Minister has declared it to be a nationalized industry.” This is the kind of distortion that we have—

In other words the Government simply makes use of the S.A.B.C. for its own purposes. I want to make one further quotation—

I need not comment on this statement. Its falsity is so obvious that it must strike one immediately. But the pathetic part of it is that hon. members opposite have actually repeated it here to-day!

Yes, that Malan will do anything.

Order!

I want to try to analyse the position. What is behind all these attacks on the S.A.B.C.? I want to try briefly to-day to reveal one fact behind these attacks. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that I pointed out last year that during its period of office the United Party continually interfered with the S.A.B.C. It hampered the Board of Control in the performance of its functions; it obstructed the board in its administration. Things were so bad that eventually the Board of Control of the S.A.B.C. took legal advice from Adv. Strauss who later became the leader of the United Party. Adv. Strauss advised the S.A.B.C. that the United Party Government had no right to interfere and that the Board of Control should simply remain aloof and refuse to answer questions. Notwithstanding this fact the United Party Government continued to interfere in the affairs of the S.A.B.C. and the result was—which one always finds when people interfere in the management of any business—that the S.A.B.C. deteriorated financially and otherwise. One cannot undermine the authority of a business and imagine that the people in that business are going to be satisfied or that the finances of that business will remain sound. The S.A.B.C. deteriorated more and more, to such an extent that discipline could no longer be maintained among the staff of the S.A.B.C. In the words of the Commission which inquired into the matter there was “seething dissatisfaction” amongst the S.A.B.C. staff during the period of office of the United Party Government. The Commission stated that members were continually approaching Ministers with complaints and that those Ministers then interfered in the affairs of the S.A.B.C. The best members of the staff of the Corporation resigned. The staff were “overworked” because of the staff shortage. The Commission stated that correspondence was “unduly delayed”, and all who had anything to do with the S.A.B.C., even the local advisory boards, had a feeling of frustration. That was the position during the period of office of the United Party Government. The Commission revealed a number of evils. They could not hide the fact that at that stage one section of the people, the Afrikaans-speaking people, were treated shamefully. Few of them were permitted to join the staff of the S.A.B.C. The broadcasting stations were made up as follows: Mediumwave and shortwave stations were being used at the time. The shortwave stations were always inferior or less attractive than the mediumwave stations. The S.A.B.C. had a limited number of transmitters but when they had to allocate those transmitters, they used all the good transmitters for the English service and all the shortwave transmitters, which were weaker, for the Afrikaans service. The excuse given was of course that most of the Afrikaans-speaking people lived in the rural areas. When these people did eventually get mediumwave transmitters, when the mediumwave transmitters also broadcast Afrikaans programmes, the strongest transmitters were used to broadcast the English programmes and the weaker transmitters the Afrikaans programmes. I mention this merely to indicate the evils that were prevalent at the time; how one section was given preference over the other section, which from the nature of the case always causes dissatisfaction. If one does not try to treat the various sections of the people in South Africa fairly, it must create dissatisfaction and so there was dissatisfaction at the time both within and outside the S.A.B.C. Any sensible Government could easily have rectified this position by simply appointing a strong Board of Control but the United Party did a strange thing; they appointed a Commission of Inquiry which—I am sorry to say, was probably one of the worst Commissions of Inquiry that they could have appointed. I must explain a few of their findings to the House merely to indicate what kind of commission it was. They discussed the question of how many directors the S.A.B.C. should have. One of their arguments was that the B.B.C. had 11,000,000 listeners and had seven members on its Board of Control, so the S.A.B.C. which at the time had only 500,000 listeners should have five directors. The number of directors of a company has nothing to do with the scope of the business of that company. To tell the truth, a small business often needs a far larger board of directors than a large business because the largest businesses in South Africa are managed by only four or five or say six directors. Another strange finding of this strange Commission was the following: They said that it was very important to make the board of directors independent and in order to make them independent of the Government they had to be appointed for life. But, they said, if the directors could not be appointed for life, they should only be appointed once. It is difficult to understand the logic of this reasoning. They also made another recommendation. They said: The S.A.B.C. must not be dealt with as the business world is dealt with; the directors must not receive a fixed amount each year as an honorarium; no, each director must be paid for each day he works and for all the other work that he does he must be paid 4s. 2d. per hour.

Why not 4s.?

I mention this to you, Mr. Speaker, to prove to you the kind of commission of inquiry that was appointed and in order to clarify the further results that flowed from it. One immediately comes to the conclusion that this Commission of Inquiry was not really appointed to place the S.A.B.C. on a sound basis. That was not the motive. That is the only conclusion that one can draw. There was another purpose. Let me just explain what was happening at that time. There was a broadcasting station in Lourenço Marques which at that stage had already been in existence for quite a few years. It was a commercial station, an advertising station, and it made large profits. The aim of that station was not to provide South Africa or even the Portuguese territory with a good service. Their main purpose was to make a profit and a number of persons and bodies approached the United Party Government and applied for commercial licences with the idea of participating in those profits. The United Party Government then saw an opportunity of giving commercial transmitters to friends or “pals of giving them the chance to make money in this way. In its findings the Commission has the following to say: We must realize that F.M. will probably be introduced into South Africa within the near future and “then a large number of local F.M. Commercial broadcasting stations will in all probability be needed”, In other words the Commission stated that if F.M. was introduced it would be necessary to have a large number of commercial stations out of which people could make money. It said further: “Commercial advertising on a large scale is inevitable”. Mr. Speaker, you can understand the attraction of giving commercial transmitters to your friends throughout South Africa to enable them to make a great deal of money. This Commission of Inquiry was appointed in 1946. An election was to be held in 1948 and from the nature of the case—if I am correctly interpreting the motives of the Government at that time—it did not want the world to know what plans it had for the S.A.B.C. When one reads the terms of reference of the Commission, nowhere does one find that the Commission was instructed to inquire into or make recommendations concerning the handing over of commercial services to private people. The Commssion itself had the followint to say—

Can you imagine it! The Commission of Inquiry itself stated that the Government gave it no instructions in this regard but nevertheless it made that recommendation! What inference is one to draw from this? All that one can deduce is that some secret instruction must have been given to them in some way or other to the effect that they should make a recommendation of this nature, otherwise they would never have made that recommendation.

Was the recommendation accepted?

I am coming to that. In other words, this was deliberately omitted from the terms of reference so that the public would not know what was in store for them; so that it would not affect the result of the election to be held in 1948. If the Commission of Inquiry had brought up a report in these terms the Government would have been able to say: “They exceeded their terms of reference; we did not instruct them to make a recommendation of that nature It is interesting to note that shortly after the Commission was appointed, the secretary of the Commission received a letter from the Postmaster-General in which he wrote: “There is no reason why licences should not be issued to concerns other than the S.A.B.C.” In other words, the United Party Government had already secretly decided to take this step, otherwise why would the Postmaster-General have given this instruction to the secretary of the Commission? The Postmaster-General went on to say that the number of stations should be limited. He said: “It is considered that the issue of licences should be limited In other words their instruction was: We have decided now to give licences to private people but that the number must be limited. On that authority the Commission made this recommendation: “We recommend that licences for commercial broadcasting services in the Union be granted to private persons or companies,” but it did not impose any restriction. [Time limit.]

The Minister seems to have got his Commissions somewhat mixed up. The motion of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) asks that a Commission should be appointed, and not that there should be a discussion on the Commission that was appointed in 1948. The hon. the Minister then goes on to give us some of the criticism of this particular Commission, and he tells us that this Commission was one of the weakest Commissions he has ever known. But the fundamental point is that, weak or strong, that Commission did criticize certain aspects of the policy of the S.A.B.C., and if that Commission was weak, that is all the more reason why the Minister should agree to the appointment of a strong Commission so that one can find out what is going on in the S.A.B.C., because however weak this Commission was, there is ample evidence in this report, and there is ample evidence that we know of to-day, that so far as control of the S.A.B.C. is concerned, nobody quite knows where that control lies. Sir, we, the listeners of this country have over a period of some 28 years given the S.A.B.C. R8,000,000 which it has used for capital purposes to build up the S.A.B.C., and apart from its debentures and its loans which are going to be repaid in due course, the entire capital of the S.A.B.C. is owned by the listeners of this country, and the listeners want to know from the Minister who is in charge and who is controlling our money. Nobody knows what is going on. We have had this Section 24 discussed at length. The hon. member for Orange Grove has asked question after question as to when we are going to get correct information in this S.A.B.C. report. If the Minister had not spoken already, I would have challenged him to get up in this House and say that he did not know that the report was not complying with the requirements of Section 24 of this Act. There is nothing in this report that tells us what is going on. We do not know what the depreciation rate is in regard to the S.A.B.C. We know that they write off their records and their programmes every year and reduce them to R1 in their balance sheet. How much is involved and what is involved, nobody knows. When we look at Section 24 and see what requirements the S.A.B.C. has to comply with, the position becomes completely farcical. They are supposed to tell us the extent and the value of all classes of property owned by the Corporation. Are we told that anywhere in this report? Sir, I have so little time that I can only deal with the highlights. Paragraph (f) of Section 24 says—

How does the Broadcasting Corporation show this item in their balance sheet? They are supposed to show it as a separate item, but they lump it together with “maintenance, administration, maintenance of premises and vehicles, rents, rates, taxes, insurance and sundry expenses”, and yet there is a specific requirement in the law that they must advise Parliament on this particular point in the report submitted to the House. The position is this in a nutshell: Here you have an organization which is owned by the listeners through their R8,000,000. The Board is not responsible to the Minister; the Minister is not responsible to Parliament. To whom is the Broadcasting Corporation of South Africa responsible? If the law is that it has no responsibility, then all I can say to this House is that it is time the law was changed, so that the Minister and the Board of the Broadcasting Corporation will have to go to its shareholders each and every year and tell them what they have done, and account for their stewardship.