Mr. Speaker, I move—

Clause 1:

It is standing practice to introduce a certain number of Bills in the Senate every session, and it is not deemed necessary to make special announcements in this regard. In fact, this is not the case in the House of Assembly either.

This matter was considered by the Sessional Committee on Standing Orders of the Senate, and the Committee recommended that this section be repealed.

Clause 2:

In the past a very narrow interpretation was placed on the provisions of this section in the case of measures which made provision for incidental expenditure or taxation only. When such measures were in fact introduced in the Senate, the relevant provisions were bracketed, which meant that the Senate was passing Bills which were in reality incomplete.

The House of Assembly then had to reinsert the relevant portions of the Bills, and thereafter the Bills had to be returned to the Senate for its concurrence in the amendments. As hon. members will realize, this procedure was extremely cumbersome, and for this reason it was seldom resorted to.

On various occasions in the past, the Cabinet, therefore, gave its attention to steps that might be taken to make it possible for the Government to introduce more legislation in the Senate. The object here was to arrange the programme of legislation in such a manner that the available time of the Senate and the House of Assembly could be utilized to the full, so as to ensure a better balance of work between the two Houses, and so as to cause the parliamentary machinery to function as smoothly and effectively as possible.

At a joint meeting of the Sessional Committee on Internal Arrangements of the Senate and the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders of the House of Assembly, which was held in 1974, this matter was raised by the Leader of the Senate.

The President of the Senate, as chairman of the joint meeting, then indicated that Mr. Speaker and he would inquire into the interpretation of section 60 with a view to enabling the Government to introduce Bills containing provisions pertaining to incidental expenditure or taxation in the Senate as well.

After carefully considering all aspects of the matter, and after consulting through the usual channels, Mr. President and Mr. Speaker decided that in future the following rules would apply when legislation containing financial provisions was introduced in the Senate—

1. 1. Section 60(1) of the Constitution will apply only in the case of appropriation and taxation Bills;
2. 2. Other Bills containing financial provisions may be introduced by the Government in the Senate; and
3. 3. the provisions of sections 60(3) and (4) and the interpretation placed on these subsections in the past will continue to apply, that is, the Senate may not amend any Bills so as to increase or reduce taxation, the appropriation of moneys for the services of the Government or

The proposed amendments are being effected so that section 60 of the Constitution may clearly reflect the rules as set out by the presiding officers, and so that any problems which might arise in the interpretation of the section, may be eliminated.

As a matter of interest, I want to mention that Mr. President and Mr. Speaker found inter alia that legislation of this nature had for some considerable time been introduced in the House of Lords by the Government in order to achieve a better balance of work between the two Houses. The Standing Rules and Orders of the House of Commons, too, were suitably amended in 1972 to make this possible.

Mr. President and Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the Sessional Committee on Standing Orders of the Senate and senior members of all parties in the House of Assembly, have approved of the proposed section.

Mr. Speaker, the traditional and constitutional function of the Senate is to act as a House of review, but the principle that legislation could also be initiated there, was accepted many years ago. This is in accordance with developments at Westminster, as the hon. the Leader of the House has mentioned. In Britain legislation can now be introduced in the House of Lords as well. Indeed, an important Bill has just been introduced there. We maintain, and I am certain the hon. the Leader of the House and the Government agree with us, that the Senate must remain essentially a House of review and that major legislation should always be introduced in the Lower House, i.e. the House of Assembly. As the legislation before us merely defines more precisely the legislation that can be introduced in the Upper House and as it will facilitate the introduction of legislation in that House, we shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think there has been some misunderstanding. The hon. the Minister has announced that this is an agreed measure, but as far as I am aware, it is a matter of which my party had knowledge, but with which it did not indicate as such that it agreed. However, that does not upset the picture, because I do not intend opposing this measure on behalf of my party. I would say that an amendment to the Constitution, even an innocuous amendment, is not something which happens in this House every month or even every year. Indeed, it is an unusual event. While, as I have said, we have no objection to the provisions of this Bill, we do query the wisdom of tackling piecemeal, on what I would call a sort of ad hoc revisionary basis, matters relating to the functions of Parliament. What we believe is needed, is a broad and far-reaching rethink of the Senate itself and of its functions overall. Particularly with regard to the legislation before us today, the question should be asked—it was posed very briefly by the hon. member for Griqualand East— whether the Senate in its present form and with its present procedures is fulfilling the true and historically envisaged role of review and of mature consideration of the enactments of this House.

Order! The hon. member cannot proceed along those lines beyond that sentence. He must come back to the Bill.

Sir, I shall therefore not embroider upon that, other than to say that I feel that it is not doing so.

Very often towards the end of a session we find ourselves in the position that legislation is damming up in the House of Assembly as a result of which from time to time the Senate has very little work to do and does not have to sit frequently. Therefore we have no objection to the enactment and the debate in the Senate in the first instance of certain Bills, provided, as the hon. the Minister has said, they are not Bills of an appropriation nature.

I should like to thank hon. members for the general support for the Bill. I do not understand what the objections of the hon. member for Sandton are about. The principles of this matter were discussed in the sessional committee in which his party was represented, and his Whip was informed. Perhaps the hon. member just felt like talking, and I do not hold that against him.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the Opposition for their support for this measure. In fact, we did not expect any opposition, because, as I said, this measure is for the most part a consolidating measure and no major amendments are being effected. However, I think the contribution which was made here by the hon. member for Hillbrow deserves comment. In the first instance, I should like to say that I am pleased that he brought it to our attention that as far as this department is concerned, it is work which is mainly done by the “backroom boys”. These people are doing work which could be of tremendous value to the country and for that reason it is to be regretted that censuses cannot be conducted more regularly, especially in view of the composition of our population and the policy which is being pursued. It would have been very interesting to have been able to have censuses more often. It is also a fact that statistics are not always completely reliable because one has to work on projections, but I do think we have at least reached the stage where these projections can be scientifically processed in such a manner that one can completely rely on the facts. I should also like to tell the hon. member that as far as his comments on the composition of the advisory council is concerned, I quite agree with him. I can assure him that as far as the present composition of the council is concerned, the business sector, which is perhaps most closely involved in this matter, comprises nearly half the representation in the council.

The hon. member for Klerksdorp also mentioned the fact that it was necessary for the relationship between the department and the private sector to be sound at all times. I can gratefully testify that the relationship has always up to now, and I hope the Act, as it will now serve in its amended form, will help to improve this sound relationship even further. What the hon. member said concerning the evaluation of the information, I should just like to tell him and the House that attention is already being given to this matter, also in conjunction with international bodies, in so far a statistics are available which are of importance to the international scene, in order to undertake this evaluation in time and in such as way that it fits in with the broad planning of other people who are interested in these matters.

†I should like to thank the hon. member for Orange Grove for his kind words in regard to this Bill and also for the co-operation of the party which he represents. I may mention in passing that this Bill, in its original form, was given to the Opposition parties for their scrutiny and comment. I received quite a number of comments from the hon. member for Yeoville. Some of those amendments have already been accepted and have already been incorporated in the Bill in its amended form. As for the rest, I think certain amendments are going to be moved in the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Yeoville, as follows—

We believe that the members of the Advisory Council should have some security of tenure. But wide powers are given to the hon. the Minister to revoke the appointment of a member if in his opinion good reasons exist therefor. These powers appear in some respects to be unnecessary and somewhat excessive. Unless there exists some security of tenure of any office, members could always be subjected to political or other pressure from a Minister, something which we regard as undesirable. We would therefore request the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider this amendment favourably.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

1. (2) The Minister shall revoke the appointment of a member of the Advisory Council if—

1. (a) his estate is sequestrated or he has entered into a composition with the creditors of his estate;
2. (b) he has been absent from more than two consecutive meetings of the Advisory Council without leave;
3. (c) he becomes a patient as defined in section 1 of the Mental Health Act, 1973 (Act No. 18 of 1973);
4. (d) he is convicted of an offence in respect whereof he is sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine.

After having heard the argument of the hon. member for Orange Grove, we on this side of the House are still of the opinion that it is necessary to have some means whereby the appointment of a member of the Advisory Council can be revoked. But we do not believe that it is desirable that the hon. the Minister should have complete authority in this respect. We feel that there should also be other means, other than those allowed to the member himself. If one refers to the part of clause 2 dealing with the appointment of members of the Advisory Council, we see first of all that not fewer than six and not more than 10 may be appointed by the Minister. But we also read that the appointment of a member of the Advisory Council as such shall terminate (i) when he, by writing under his hand addressed to the Minister, resigns from his office as a member, or (ii) when the period for which he was appointed expires, or (iii) when his appointment is revoked in terms of subsection (2). Now, if the Committee accepts the amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove, subsection (2) will be removed from the Bill. So it means then that the member himself has the right to resign, but the Minister will not have the power, as we see it, to revoke his membership if there should be good reason for it. So in order to be constructive we suggest that the conditions which would circumscribe the Minister’s power in regard to revoking the membership of a member of the Advisory Council should be clearly laid down in the Bill. Our reasons for suggesting this are that in other pieces of legislation similar conditions are embodied. We therefore suggest that the Minister shall revoke the appointment of a member of the Advisory Council if (a) his estate is sequestrated or he has entered into a composition with the creditors of his estate, or (b) he has been absent from more than two meetings of the Advisory Council without leave, or (c) he becomes a patient as defined in section 1 of the Mental Health Act, or (d) he is convicted of an offence in respect whereof he is sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. We believe that these are reasonable conditions under which a Minister would be able to effect revocation of the membership of a member should such an occasion arise, and I submit to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he gives favourable consideration to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I merely want to reinforce the contention of the hon. member for Berea when he indicated the view of this side of the Committee. We cannot support the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Yeoville and moved on his behalf by the hon. member for Orange Grove, because this gives the hon. the Minister no latitude whatsoever. After all, we are not dealing with a statutory body here; we are merely dealing with an Advisory Council. The Minister appoints the members in any event, and if this amendment were to be accepted, you could find that men who have become subject to emotional and mental aberrations or anything of that kind would have to be kept on the council. After all, these conditions arise in all walks of life and sometimes even afflict politicians. However, I think that the hon. the Minister should be given greater latitude, and that is why we support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea. I must concede that we are not wedded to the actual wording; we have merely tried to indicate certain norms, norms which also apply in other legislation and which we feel the hon. the Minister could accept as a guide in this case. If he is unhappy about the particular wording, we shall certainly be very happy if elsewhere he were to put it in a phraseology that would be acceptable to him. However, I wanted to make the point that we cannot accept the amendment as moved on behalf of the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Chairman, the reasons why I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove have already been pointed out by the two hon. members of the United Party.

I regret that I also cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea. Briefly, the crux of what I have to say has already partly been said by the hon. member for Hillbrow. The way in which this has been prescribed, we can have all sorts of conditions, for instance—to mention but one—that a member has been absent for more than two consecutive meetings. Why not make it three—we could have a long discussion on that—or four, or even without prior notice? We could have a long discussion on something which I merely regard as not being of such importance that we need quarrel over it as such. It is also clear that where the Minister has the authority to appoint a member, he must have some latitude as to when he should deem it advisable to terminate a member’s tenure of office. I think that it is implicit, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Hillbrow, that where this is only an advisory council, an occasion could arise where the Minister, apart from the four conditions, moved by the hon. member for Berea, might deem it advisable to terminate the office of a member. I cannot think of clear-cut examples, but we have had cases in the past—and this is not casting a reflection on any of these advisory councils—where a person merely becomes disinterested in the proceedings. I think that it is important that the Minister should not be liable to appear in court when he terminates a person’s term of office because that person is not doing his job properly. I am afraid that we have had examples of this sort in the past where a Minister did deem it advisable to terminate the term of office of a member, but because it was laid down in law that he could do so only under special circumstances, circumstances which were prescribed in law, he was not in a position to terminate the office of the person concerned. As was pointed out in the Second Reading, this department is a department which gives information to people and the giving of information is not a political matter, so that the term of office of people will not be terminated on these grounds. Somebody mentioned, although I do not think it was seriously meant, that it could be done because of political considerations. As a matter of fact, the composition of this council as it is at present is proof enough that this Advisory Council is not appointed on any other grounds than the confidence that can be placed in the people appointed to serve in an advisory capacity to the hon. the Minister. I therefore regret that I cannot accept either of these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said and I would like to ask your guidance on a certain point. Is it permissible for me to refer to the terms of a Bill which is not yet before the House and to use this as an example?

The hon. member may do so.

Thank you, Sir. If that is the position—and I did not want to be out of order on this question—I believe that there should be some restriction on the Minister’s power. I think that we have every confidence in the present Minister, but times could change and a case may occur where a Minister could possibly be tempted to abuse his power in revoking an appointment. Therefore I would like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he refers to clause 5 of the Broadcasting Bill. Subsection (3) I think would provide a way out of the impasse in which we find ourselves as result of the Deputy Minister’s remarks and which the hon. the Deputy Minister may be prepared to consider this when the Bill is debated in the Other Place. Here we have—and this relates to the period of office of members of the Broadcasting Board—the following—

1. (a) if his estate is sequestrated; or
2. (b) if he is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine; or
3. (c) if he resigns as a member by written notice to the State President;
4. (d) if he is removed from his office under subsection (4).

Subsection (4) reads as follows—

And these words could well be “the Minister”.

I would like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that this is something which he could insert in the Other Place and I commend it to him for his sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Chairman, the reply is that we can always consider this at a later stage, but may I point out with due respect that I have not yet had the opportunity of going through the Broadcasting Bill; so I am merely guessing that this board will be a statutory body and a statutory body is something which is very different from an advisory council. That makes a vast difference. I would fully agree with the hon. member if he said that the term of office of a member of a statutory body, carrying with it perhaps pension rights, etc., cannot be terminated without certain reasons being given. But this body is something very much different from a statutory body and I maintain that where this is only an advisory council, we should leave the powers in the hands of the Minister, whom I am sure will not misuse that power.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Clause 4 deals with the Secretary being empowered to administer the Act. In subsection (2)(a) it is stated—

Then in subsection (2)(b) we find—

Briefly, the object of my amendment is that while the person so assigned shall have the written authority, in terms of my amendment, “he shall exhibit that authority before he undertakes any functions empowered to him by this Act”. We on this side of the Committee feel that this is a matter which involves a principle, the principle of establishing by legislation the best possible relationship between the inspectors of various departments and those who are being inspected.

We feel that, whenever a person is inspected and is, in terms of the law, authorised to ask the inspector to show his authority, it creates a resistance in the mind of the inspector. It disturbs the good relationship that could have existed between the inspector and the inspected, and we feel that, in the interests of these good relationships and in the interests of a smooth administration of the Act, and also to eliminate any possibility of imposters or bogus inspectors, it is desirable to stipulate in the Bill that an inspector shall exhibit his authority before he commences with his duties. We do not put this forward without any precedents. Over the years there have developed a number of precedents in legislation, and because this is the first time that I am aware of that this hon. Deputy Minister has had to consider an amendment of this nature, I would like briefly to refer him to the fact that in the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act, in the Drugs Control Act, the Hazardous Substances Act, the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, the Dental Mechanicians Act, the Plant Improvement Bill—which is in the process of being passed—the Abattoir Industry Bill, and only recently, last week, in the Trade Practices Bill, the same principle was accepted by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs.

It is for these reasons that we ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give favourable consideration to this amendment, because we believe that it engenders a positive approach as against the negative approach, where an inspector shall, on demand, produce his certificate of authority.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think we need quarrel much over the amendment. However, quite frankly, I cannot see what the reason is for this amendment. I must point out that, when the Bill was originally printed, the wording “at the request of” was not included. I think the hon. member will appreciate that. The hon. member for Hillbrow will remember that it was pointed out to me—and I respect the opinion of people on the other side, and of members on this side who also pointed it out to me—that the occasion might arise when a person who might not be satisfied that the inspector approaching him was in fact an appointed inspector, might insist on the inspector proving his authority.

Sir, if “at the request of a person …” is written into the Bill, why should an officer— and may I point out that many of these officers are from time to time appointed on a temporary basis—on each and every occasion, and to each and every individual, produce his document of authority and have it read through by the person to whom he is directing himself, even before he is requested to do so? Why should he have to do that? I can well imagine that there are people who will object to being asked certain questions and who will want to know whether the person to whom they have to reply, has in fact been authorized to ask those questions. That is why, at the request of certain hon. members of the Opposition, we inserted these words providing that, if he is requested by any individual to do so, he is compelled to produce his document of authority. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea reads as follows: “In the presence of any person affected thereby, he shall … ” I cannot see that it really makes all that difference. Of course, it cannot be done in the absence of a person. That is quite obvious. If, for example, an inspector came to the hon. member for Berea to gather certain information, he could not simply produce proof of his authority to somebody else. It must be “in the presence of” the person who will be required to reply to questions. I also think that we must remember at all times what this body really is, and what the work of the department is. I am not saying this in a derogatory sense, but I think it will be realized that some of the Bills which have been mentioned by the hon. member for Berea regulate departments which are, to some extent, policing departments, investigating departments where people are trying to obtain information to prove the guilt of someone who may have committed an offence of some sort.

In this case, however, it is purely and simply the gathering of information which, in most cases, is covered by the clause which enforces the secrecy of the information which is gathered. I therefore believe that it is quite unnecessary to accept this amendment, and I hope that the hon. member will accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to place one additional thought before the hon. the Deputy Minister. I appreciate that perhaps this particular piece of legislation may not have the same importance in regard to the inspectors as other pieces of legislation, but if he were to accept this principle—even though we might be at variance with the manner in which it shall be worded—I suggest that he would be falling into line with the legislation which has been accepted recently, and I believe that it would be an extension of the philosophy which, I believe, should be observed in every country, the philosophy that the State exists for the individual and not the individual for the State. I maintain that the State always has a responsibility to look after every individual. Clause 5(2) requires that “every person shall to the best of his knowledge and belief answer, when so required, all questions put to him orally or in writing under this Act by the competent person concerned and which are necessary for the collection of statistics, and shall furnish in the prescribed manner all such statistics as are required under this Act”. I suggest that the State should have the obligation to the people who are required to supply these statistics, in order to ensure that the person who seeks the information is genuine and establishes his bona fides without having to be asked to do so. To me it is a fundamental difference, and I would urge the hon. the Deputy Minister to reconsider this and, if possible, to accept the principle when the Bill goes before the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the hon. member that I am prepared to look at the wording of this clause and to change it in the light of what he has suggested. If an inspector of this department approaches someone in order to obtain information which is in the national interest or merely for statistical and research purposes, I do not want the impression to be gained—especially by people who are ever so suspicious—that this is being done in order to catch them out in doing wrong. I would like the work of this department to be continued with the full co-operation of the public. I also want members of the public to know that they are not being subjected to policing or that their affairs are being investigated with any ulterior motives, but that they are being visited by friends who merely want to obtain information from them which is in the national interest.

However, I am quite prepared to discuss with the hon. member a change in the wording which would meet his objections to the clause, and to effect such change in the Other Place. Meanwhile, however, I expect him to accept the bona fides of my department and of the wording as it is at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanation, for which I thank him. In the circumstances I ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Yeoville, as follows—

We believe that individuals are entitled to have opinions on personal matters which are private and that their rights of secrecy should extend not only to financial particulars, but to these personal matters as well. I want therefore to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give this his consideration.

We on this side of the House have no objection to the amendment. To a certain degree the spirit of the legislation is of such a nature that the amendment is actually unnecessary and possibly even a little frivolous. We on this side of the House, however, have no objection to it, provided that it is acceptable to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to oblige the hon. member as far as possible. As far as this particular clause is concerned, I have already acceded to certain aspects, but since I would like to have unanimity in this respect, I looked up the meaning of the word “personal”.

†However, due to the variety of the things covered by the word “personal”, it would be difficult to obtain any information at all if this word is included in the Act as a person will simply refuse to give information on the grounds that the Act provides that he can refuse to furnish personal information. The dictionary for instance describes the word “personal” as “relating to an individual, his character, conduct, motives or private affairs, especially, but not necessarily, in an invidious or an offensive manner”, “making or given to making personal remarks”, “relating to or a characteristic of human beings as distinct from things”. So it goes on and on and refers to personal account, personal action, personal effects, personal estate, personal flag, personal freedom, personalia, personal identity and personal injury. It covers such a wide field that a person can simply say that the Act provides that that particular matter is personal and that consequently he is not replying to the question. Therefore, however much I would like to meet the objections of all hon. members in this regard, I am afraid that to accept this amendment will destroy the object of the work of the department.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he accepts that there are certain personal matters, in the usual sense of the word, which should be accorded privacy and the individual in this regard be respected. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to request his legal advisers to look at this wording before the Bill goes to the Other Place. Perhaps he may be able to meet my objections in some other way. I can accept that the word “personal” is possibly too all-embracing for the legislation which we want to introduce.

The hon. member has my sympathy and I will ask the legal adviser to see if he can find some other word that will meet his objections. I am glad to know that he realizes that the word “personal” is too all-embracing for me even to consider inserting in the Act.

Mr. Chairman, on that basis and following the assurances of the hon. the Deputy Minister, I request leave from the hon. Committee to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Yeoville, as follows—

We obviously have no objection to competent people under this Bill having the right of entry on to any land or premises for the purposes of inspection. We however suggest that it will be reasonable for any such person to exhibit his written authority. Much of the motivation for this has already been given by the hon. member for Berea on clause 4. We believe that unless such authority can be shown, difficulties may well arise on questions of identification. Such inspectors are not uniformed officials and confusion can well arise in the minds of members of the public. If authority is produced there will be no excuse at all for refusing entry. I request the hon. the Deputy Minister to permit the insertion of these words.

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove because I believe that it is an extension of the principle which we sought to establish in clause 4. I cannot see in this particular instance that there can be any problem in regard to the wording and I would like to urge the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept this in the light of his undertaking that he will discuss and reconsider the amendment which we put forward in clause 4.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make my shortest speech during this session: the amendment is accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Yeoville, as follows—

We believe that these are matters of private concern and that individuals should not be forced to disclose details of these matters or their attitudes in regard to these matters. I can think of no example at all where it might be in the interests of the State for such information to be disclosed. On that basis we want to request the hon. the Deputy Minister to agree to the insertion of these words.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House feel that it is not really essential to make these additions to the legislation. From the nature of the case the Department of Statistics will leave a matter of this nature to Kinsey and such people, because the department itself is not interested in it. Nevertheless, if there are people who are sensitive about these matters, they should be protected and, therefore, we on this side of the House have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am once again being confronted with the question of definitions. As far as the term “racial attitudes” is concerned, the department may from time to time deem it necessary, for the purposes of gathering statistical information, to conduct a survey on people’s attitude in respect of racial matters, although not in a political sense. There are so many spheres in respect of which consensus exists that I regret that we should, on every occasion, want to make a political issue of matters on which we, after all, agree. I am not going to discuss the definition of “sexual habits” because if there is one thing which could beneficially be removed not only from our newspapers, but also from the minds of many people, it is this subject. Hon. members may be assured that it is not the intention of the department—on the contrary, this is not its intention by far—to investigate abnormalities and aspects of this nature. I honestly feel it is rather humiliating to define matters such as “sexual habits” in a law of the Republic. I find it rather infra dig., to be quite frank. Finally, I should like to deal with the term “domestic relations”. What are “domestic relations”? Does this term mean that we shall not be able to ascertain whether a person is married or single or how many married people there are in the Republic? I am not an authority on the English language, but I think one would be able to argue that the term “domestic relations” covers this as well. What then should the purpose of a census be? We can accept that, as far as the department is concerned, it has been proved since Union that it exists to gather information in a manner that does not give offence and not to publish it.

†May I mention in passing that we recently had a questionnaire initiated by a world body on the population explosion. This survey was done by people who regarded this as a matter of privacy and treated it in a way that these matters should be treated. Women were not questioned by males for instance. It was done in such a way that it had the co-operation of all the people who were questioned. I would like both sides of the House to accept the bona fides of the people working with this type of research and that it is done in such a way as to show respect for people and to earn respect of the people who are questioned. I regret that I cannot accept the wording of the amendment as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches would still like to see this added protection given to individuals. We of course accept the assurances of the hon. the Deputy Minister that there is no intention on the part of the department to be Paul Pry’s in any way, but we believe that it should be an expressed right of individuals to have, for example, their sexual habits kept as a private matter. The inclusion of “sexual habits” might be infra dig. as far as the hon. the Deputy Minister is concerned, but when we come to “domestic relations”, these words in the normal usage in the English language mean only one thing. I do not really understand the hon. the Deputy Minister when he embroiders further on what “domestic relations” may mean. I would ask the hon. the Deputy Minister at least to consider these points. I do believe that the public is entitled to have this protection expressed in the Act. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister could talk to his law advisers about this in order to see whether he cannot in some way incorporate these words. I think a little more than an expressed intention during a debate is required here.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to give the hon. member for Orange Grove an assurance in this regard, and I hope that he will pass this assurance on to the hon. member for Yeoville. When I originally made this draft Bill available to the Opposition parties and to members on this side of the House for scrutiny and comment, I discussed all the suggestions I received with the law advisers. It is all very well to say that, in the general sense, the words “domestic relations” have a certain meaning in the English language, but when the words are included in an Act, they must be able to stand up in court of law. I cannot rely on the general meaning of words. A provision in an Act of Parliament has to be worded in such a way that it will stand up to argument in a court of law. I want to say that the officials of the department should be protected, too, and I think the hon. member will agree with that. If, however, he has a different wording in terms of which he would like to protect individuals, I shall most certainly consider some alternative wording to the words contained in the amendment he has moved, in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of that assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister, I should like to withdraw the amendment with the leave of the Committee.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately an error has crept into the English version of this clause. I regret that the amendment has not yet been printed. I therefore move—

1. (1) On page 11, in line 52, after “of” to insert “paragraph (b) of”;

Furthermore, I move a consequential amendment, which reads as follows—

1. (2) on page 11, in line 52, to omit “(b)”.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Broadcasting Act, in terms of which the South African Broadcasting Corporation was established, came into operation on 1 August 1936. However, the SABC was not the first broadcasting organization in South Africa. It is interesting to note that it was the South African Railways that was responsible for the first radio broadcasts from Johannesburg on 29 December 1923. From 1 July 1924 the broadcasts were continued by the Scientific and Technical Club in Johannesburg.

On 15 September 1924 the Cape Peninsula Publicity Broadcasting Association began a similar broadcasting service in Cape Town. Durban’s broadcasting organization commenced on 10 December 1924. The limited revenue obtained from listeners’ licences was the direct cause of the financially stronger Schlesinger Organization, with authorization from the State, amalgamating the three into one broadcasting organization called the “African Broadcasting Company” on 1 April 1927. This organization had the sole right to make broadcasts. A shortage of money remained a troublesome factor, however, so much so that the then Prime Minister, Gen. Hertzog, ordered an investigation into all aspects of broadcasting in 1934. The investigation was carried out by Lord Reith, director general of the BBC. As a result of Lord Reith’s report, the SABC was established in terms of Act 22 of 1936, and it was provided inter alia that within one year broadcasts were also to be made through the medium of Afrikaans. Up to that stage there had only been one programme service in English. In the initial years inadequate equipment and finance were an inhibiting factor, and the question of whether English and Afrikaans-language programmes should be presented on the same transmitters very soon arose. There was a gradual change-over to separate transmissions and in 1937 broadcasts in Afrikaans were made on a regular basis for the first time. However, it was in 1938 that Afrikaans won a place for itself as a radio language when comprehensive broadcasts on the symbolic Ossewa Trek were made. The Second World War seriously curtailed technical expansions. On 1 May 1950 a third programme service, Springbok Radio, was introduced. Reception conditions were not everywhere satisfactory in our far-flung country and for that reason a short-wave transmitting station was put into operation at Paradys, near Bloemfontein, on 1 July 1956.

†In the meantime the requirements of a broadcasting service for the Bantu-speaking peoples of South Africa had increased. On 1 August 1952 a rediffusion in three Bantu languages for the Native townships to the west of Johannesburg was introduced. This was the modest beginning of the present well-known Radio Bantu.

In order to improve reception for listeners and to create more channels for broadcasting purposes, a start was made with the planning of a comprehensive FM network. The first FM broadcasts took place on Christmas Day, 1961, from the SABC tower in Johannesburg, in Afrikaans and English, as also the programmes of Springbok Radio and for the Bantu speaking population in South Sotho and Zulu. The introduction of the FM service created the possibility of providing additional broadcast channels, so that it was possible to introduce separate services for the various Bantu languages which could be increased to seven programme services.

In 1961 there were approximately 232 000 Bantu listeners’ licences; in 1974 this figure increased to 734 000. One can only get a real conception of the impact and popularity of Radio Bantu if one considers that approximately 5 million letters are received annually from Bantu listeners. Last year more than 5 million letters were received from the Bantu people in the Republic of South Africa.

The first regional service, Radio Highveld, commenced on 1 September 1964 from Johannesburg, followed by Radio Good Hope on 1 July 1965 from Cape Town, and Radio Port Natal on 1 May 1967 from Durban. For the first time also South West Africa could listen in on FM, broadcast from Windhoek and Oshakati on 1 December 1969. Also in this year an FM service in four languages, viz. Kuanyama, Ndonga, Herero and Damara-Nama was introduced for the indigenous population of South West Africa.

The external services of the corporation, broadcasting presently in Afrikaans, English, Dutch, German, French, Portuguese, Lozi, Swahili and Chichewa for approximately 190½ hours per week, has been in existence since 1 May 1966 and reaches nearly every country of the world with the exception of the Spanish-speaking parts of South America. This service is known as Radio RSA, the “Voice of South Africa”, and broadcasts only on shortwave from the H.F. Verwoerd transmitting station at Bloemendal, near Vereeniging.

In 1971 it was reported that representatives of 30 out of 38 African States at the United Nations were listening to RSA broadcasts on a regular basis and regarded this as the most important source of information regarding events in Africa. Reception in the target areas can be regarded as good to very good. Four transmitters of 250 KW each are used for this service and ensure that the voice of Radio South Africa is received clear and loud in Africa, Europe and North America At the end of 1974 there were 4 787 students studying Afrikaans through the medium of Radio RSA—almost 5 000 students. These lectures were offered in English, German, Dutch, Portuguese and French. Radio RSA is the only external service in the world which regularly scrutinizes on an individual basis papers sent in by students and who renders comment on the answers so supplied.

Could any radio pioneer 50 years ago have envisaged the extent to which this mighty communication medium, the radio, could have developed in South Africa? Could they possibly have visualized that the SABC today could broadcast a total of more than 2 000 hours per week in its 20 programme services covering almost, with exception of the one part of the world which I have mentioned, the entire world?

Against the 161 800 licence holders in 1936 there are today 2 350 000 licence holders served by 91 FM stations, 12 shortwave stations and eight mediumwave stations from eight broadcasting centres. I am not talking of the United States now, I am talking of South Africa. This transmitter network presently serves approximately 99% of the European population on FM, 99,4% of the Bantu populations, 93,2% of the Coloured and 100% of the Asiatic population in the Republic of South Africa.

*In December 1969 the State President appointed a commission of enquiry under the chairmanship of Dr. P. J. Meyer, chairman of the SABC board, to look into the possible introduction of a television service. The commission brought out its report within 11 months and recommended the introduction of such a service to the Government. On 31 April 1971 my predecessor in this hon. House announced that the Government had accepted the recommendations of the commission in principle, and the SABC was instructed to introduce such a service, having regard to the various requirements and divergent cultural backgrounds of the heterogeneous population of this country.

Within the space of four years, on 6 May 1975, the SABC began its first test broadcast. On 5 January this year the service began to broadcast on one channel for 37 hours per week in Afrikaans and English, with equal treatment of both languages. I think it is a very fine achievement that broadcasts in both languages are being made on one channel. A start has already been made on the planning of phase II of the service, which envisages the introduction of a separate channel for the principal Bantu languages. We are all making efforts to introduce this service as quickly as possible for the Bantu peoples of South Africa.

A broadcast centre, which is to be offically opened on 2 April by the State President, is situated west of the city centre of Johannesburg. Situated on 15 ha of land it is one of the biggest broadcasting complexes on one site in the world. The complex includes the administrative head office and the television studio complex of 45 000 sq. metres, or almost 4,4 ha, as well as the radio studio complex comprising a floor area of 60 000 sq. metres, accommodating 52 radio studios. As far as attending to the technical aspects of the service is concerned, the SABC need take second place to none in the entire world in this regard.

As far as programme content is concerned, too, the SABC may look back with pride on its work and is constantly endeavouring to improve in respect of programmes and technical services. This it shall continue to do throughout.

At present there are no advertisements on the television service of the SABC, but the Government has assented to the SABC presenting spot advertisements as from 1 January 1978. In accordance with the recommendations of the commission of inquiry, no sponsored programmes will be allowed. The only revenue which the SABC is at present receiving from its television service is the licence fees. The aim is that television licences will eventually provide the SABC with an annual amount of R36 000 000. Hon. members will appreciate that R36 000 000 is only a drop in the bucket compared to the enormous expenditure which the television service has so far entailed for the SABC.

Transmitter and studio equipment and buildings to the amount of R64,6 million has already been purchased and erected, while R5 000 000 has been spent on programme production and purchases. In addition the SABC had to raise loans to introduce the service, and to date R68,l million has been borrowed abroad and R46,2 million at home. The growth of the SABC has been phenomenal, and I want to pay tribute to all the board members and officials who have over the years contributed with such dedication and loyalty to the prestige organization which the SABC is today. The contribution which the SABC has made to the development, peace, order and tranquillity in this country in past years is difficult to describe in words, let there be no doubt about that.

Due to administrative necessity and technological development the Broadcasting Act has already been amended eight times, and the result is that it has of course become rather clumsy. Consequently I have seen fit to come to this House with a new, reformulated Bill, the principles of which I shall now elucidate in broad outline. I should like to point out that the Bill was published in the Gazette on 30 January this year for information and comment. Consequently it has been at everyone’s disposal for several months, and anyone was at liberty to comment on it. In essence this is merely a consolidation Bill which makes provision for licence fees for television and for one or two additional matters.

†Until November 1970 the administration of the provisions of the Broadcasting Act was handled by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. Since it was considered, however, that the broadcasting service was of a cultural and educational nature, it was felt that administration of the provisions of the Broadcasting Act should be the responsibility of the Minister of National Education. This switch took place in November 1970 and is, in many respects, in accordance with the considerations put forward by the Commission of Inquiry into Matters Relating to Television. The present Bill also makes provision for this new concept.

I should explain—and hon. members who have studied this Bill will have noticed—that the control of the telecommunication authority, i.e. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and the Postmaster-General, over radio activities is not in any way whatever diminished or removed. That control remains.

The present Bill also provides for certain amendments to the Radio Act, No. 3 of 1952. Clause 1 of this Bill consists of a number of definitions regarded as necessary for the proper arrangement and composition of this Bill.

Clause 2 confirms the continuation of the SABC notwithstanding the repeal of the 1936 Act.

Clauses 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 deal with the appointment of the SABC Board, its functions and powers, meetings of the board, the appointment of the chairman and the validity of the decisions and actions of the board, and is, broadly speaking, in accord with sections 2 to 10 of the existing Act.

In terms of clause 9, a new body is created, namely a Bantu Programme Advisory Board which will take the place of the Bantu Programme Control Board at present provided for in the Act.

As a matter of fact, I can confirm that the present Bantu Programme Control Board has been functioning as an advisory body rather than a control body. In addition, this body consists of professionals in the field of Bantu culture, education, etc.

The aims of the corporation are set out in clause 11, and it is firmly established that the corporation can also, by obtaining the necessary licences from the Postmaster-General, undertake some of its broadcasts by means of cables, should this be necessary.

In terms of subsections (1) and (2) of clause 12 the corporation is entitled to a broadcasting licence issued by the Postmaster-General, who will determine the conditions of such broadcasting licence and publish the same in the Government Gazette. This licence may not be withdrawn without the authority and permission of the Minister.

Clause 12(3) determines, as section 4 of the Act presently does, that the corporation shall compile and execute its broadcast programmes with proper consideration for the interests of the English, Afrikaans and Bantu cultures.

*Clause 13 states the general powers of the corporation and limits the corporation’s activities as regards the broadcasting of advertisements by means of television in that the Minister may prescribe conditions in this regard.

In clause 14 all provisions relating to the staff of the corporation are summarized.

Clause 15 contains the expropriation powers of the corporation and does not differ from the provisions of section 23A of the present Broadcasting Act.

The borrowing powers of the corporation are set out in clause 16 and correspond to the provisions of section 18 of the existing Act.

The issuing of listeners’ licences and of television licences is regulated by means of clause 17, and in terms of this clause it is now the corporation which issues licences, and no longer the Postmaster-General. In practice, however, the Post Office will continue to issue licences in the name of and on behalf of the corporation, and it is consequently being provided in clause 22 that the power of the corporation to issue licences may be delegated to the Postmaster-General. As mentioned earlier the revenue of the corporation from television licence fees is the only revenue which it presently obtains from its television services. Consequently the licence regulations as contain d in this clause as well as in sections 5 and 12 of the Radio Act, will have to be scrupulously enforced.

In terms of clause 23 the corporation may make regulations with regard to the licence fees, and such regulations are only valid if approved by the Minister. In this regard I might point out in passing that listeners licence fees have only been increased once since 1936. Admittedly a new licence fee was introduced when the FM service was introduced, and was subsequently increased to R6,60 in 1971.

Clause 18 empowers the corporation to issue listeners’ licences free of charge, and, if necessary, to cancel such licences. The corresponding provision in the Broadcasting Act, 1936, is section 17A.

In terms of clause 20 the Minister may annually pay to the corporation an amount which he determines in consultation with the Minister of Finance out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for that purpose in respect of the use by the State or Departments or organs of the State, as the Minister may deem fit, of sound radio sets and television sets.

Clause 21 makes provision for inspections by authorized persons to ensure that licencing provisions are complied with.

Clause 24 provides that the corporation shall establish specific funds, and this corresponds to sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Broadcasting Act, 1936.

Clauses 25 and 26 re-incorporate the provisions of sections 22 and 23 of the existing Act, which deal with accounts and auditing, but effect minor changes to the existing text.

Clause 27 provides in what manner the Minister shall be furnished with reports and is identical in wording to section 24 of the Act.

Clause 28 which deals with offences, is a new provision.

In terms of clause 29 the corporation will be exempted from the paying of transfer duties, stamp duties and income tax, and specific sections of the Publications Act, 1974, are not applicable to the corporation.

Clause 32 makes provision for the transitional period.

†This deals with the body of the Bill and as far as the schedules thereto are concerned, the first schedule broadly agrees word for word with the first schedule to the Electricity Act, 1958.

In the second schedule the Radio Act is being amended mainly to fit in with the proposed new wording of the Broadcasting Bill.

I trust that hon. members will agree with me that the amendments as now proposed in this Bill are necessary and naturally follow on the introduction of the new medium, namely television. In addition, by this Bill the new Broadcasting Act will be a modem and up-to-date version and will hopefully limit amendments.

Mr. Speaker, last night a large number of members present here attended the première of “Funny People”. Today we are discussing a Bill which I should like to describe as a rather funny Bill in many respects. The hon. the Minister spoke for approximately 15 minutes telling us about all the achievements and the history of the SABC. He did that without elaborating on the details of the Bill. When one looks at the Bill, one is not surprised by this action of the hon. the Minister. The long title of the Bill states that it is a Bill to consolidate and to amend. The Bill naturally resembles a consolidating Bill. We therefore find that this is really a two-in-one sort of Bill. On the front page we read that this is the “Broadcasting Bill” and, in fact, several pages of the Bill can really be termed broadcasting legislation. However, when we come to schedule 2, we find that there are several pages dealing with another Bill which is not repealed, but amended. We therefore have in front of us two amending Bills instead of one. I say it deliberately to the hon. the Minister that it is not “funny” to deal with a Bill of such a nature. I sincerely hope that it will not become the practice to draft bills in this way. In dealing with a Bill of this nature it is extremely difficult to determine what the new provisions are. After all, it is important for Parliament to know exactly what the new provisions are. It is also very important to know what sections of the existing Act have been omitted. The hon. the Minister has said that certain clauses are merely redrafts of existing sections of the principal Act with a view to modernizing the legislation. I shall, however, indicate at a later stage that important matters have been left out.

I should like to thank the members of the staff of the Department of National Education who were prepared to explain to members of the official Opposition some of the details of the Bill. I should also like to thank members of the staff of the SABC who were kind enough to render us assistance. We are grateful for that. But I must, however, right at the outset voice my dissatisfaction with this type of legislation.

In introducing this Bill, the hon. the Minister adopted what I can only describe as a very low-tone approach especially in so far as the new provisions of the Bill are concerned and also in respect of the matters which have been left out altogether. The hon. the Minister’s attitude was that those matters were not really important. I think the phrase he used was that they were merely “modernizing the existing legislation”. During the course of the debate my colleagues and I shall indicate that some of the changes brought about through acts of omission and commission are very important. The Bill does contain quite a lot of good provisions, but there are also bad ones. We on this side of the House quite naturally welcome the good provisions. What is of importance at this stage, is that we are not prepared to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

*We are now consolidating and amending an Act which was placed on the Statute Book 40 years ago. Unlike our predecessors who were responsible for the drafting of the Act at that time, we now have the advantage of 40 years of experience, experience of the principles on which the Act is based, of the way in which the Act has been administered and, more than that, of the nature and the character of several amendments which have been made to the Act in the course of years. It is no secret that we on this side of the House have indicated our dissatisfaction with the functioning of the SABC on various occasions and in various ways. I want to make it clear that the principle on which our objection is based is that the corporation has been moving further and further away from parliamentary control. Let me make it quite clear that we naturally accept that there was limited control to begin with. The fact remains, however, that there is a clear tendency to move away from such control. Unfortunately, this tendnency is to be found in this consolidating and amending Bill as well, and therefore I move as an amendment—

Parliamentary control can only be exercised efficiently if Parliament has sufficient information available to it. The hon. the Minister furnished quite a lot of information about the SABC today, by way of a present, as it were. However, this is not enough. If a member of the House of Assembly wants to obtain proper information, he can place questions on the Order Paper, for example.

However, any hon. member who has tried to do this will testify to the fact that it is very difficult to obtain such information. In the first place the chances are that such a question will not be placed on the Order Paper, because of all the provisions already contained in this Act. The effect of those provisions is that one cannot even have such a question placed on the Order Paper. In the second place, if such a question is in fact allowed, one finds that the answer one gets is unsatisfactory because it is alleged to constitute interference with the domestic affairs of the corporation. This has not been the experience of present hon. members only, but also of previous members of the House of Assembly, and it can be looked up in Hansard. I want to tell the hon. the Minister at once that I am not pointing an accusing finger at him in particular. In the first place, he has only recently taken over this portfolio and in the second place it is the legal set-up of this corporation which makes it a waste of time for some hon. members to ask questions about it. I merely mention this. The reason for not making information available was perhaps made quite clear by one of the hon. the Minister’s predecessors. I refer to a very well-known ex-Minister of the NP, i.e. Dr. Albert Hertzog. The excuse he offered— and he was right—was that he had only “light control” over the corporation. That was the reason he gave as to why we could not get information.

Not to mention enlightened control!

Perhaps it was a good thing that that hon. Minister had only “light control” over it, but it is definitely undesirable for the control that the House of Assembly has over it to be just as light. Consequently we should like this Bill to be investigated once again by a Select Committee. Often it is not only a question of “light control”; often one finds that the dividing line between “light control” and “no control” is very thin. Consequently one has the position that the Minister cannot really be held responsible, because we are faced with “no control”.

The hon. the Minister spoke of the millions of rands which are spent on the projects, etc., of the SABC. This is a well-known fact. I have here a cutting from Die Hoofstad, for example, with the headline: “So woel SAUK met R106 miljoen.” So impressive amounts are involved. The fact remains that under the present circumstances we have at best only “light control” over it, as Dr. Albert Hertzog put it. Worst of all is the fact that, as I shall indicate, the hon. the Minister has introduced a Bill which actually perpetuates this principle of light control and of no control and which actually expands it. Let us look, by way of illustration, at the general powers of the corporation as set out in clause 13. The hon. the Minister did not mention it, but subsection (1)(d) of clause 13 is really a new provision. In terms of para. (d), the SABC is authorized to enter into agreements “with the government or administration of a country or territory” in relation to the broadcasting and reception of programmes. The country or territory with which the corporation may enter into an agreement in terms of this provision is a country or territory referred to in clause 11(b). In clause 11(b) we find that one of the objects of the corporation is—

Clause 11(b) is an example of the “light control” of the hon. the Minister. The position is that he may determine a framework of conditions in terms of which such programmes can be broadcast, but in respect of the actual agreements in terms of the new power conferred by clause 13(1)(d), we shall have no control. The real control will be regarded as a domestic or internal concern of the corporation, a situation we have come to know only too well. So there we have the degrees of comparison: light control—no control. We can speak from experience, because the powers of the corporation described in clause 13(1)(a) have been exercised since 1969. Clause 13(1)(a) authorizes the corporation to erect broadcasting stations and installations outside the Republic. In this connection many reasons have been advanced as to why it has not been possible to make details available. I do not want to be too pessimistic, but I can even foresee the possibility that we as a Parliament may be unaware of the fact that a specific agreement has been entered into and that we as a Parliament may not even be able to obtain particulars concerning such an agreement. Such a task cannot be left in the hands of a body over which Parliament has so little control.

Let me add at once, however, that hon. members must not interpret this as testifying to a lack of confidence in the present chairman of the board. This has nothing to do with confidence or lack of confidence. It is concerned with Parliament and with principles which I should like us to approach more closely, instead of taking a further step in the opposite direction, as envisaged by this amending Bill in its present form.

The tendency becomes even clearer when we look at other proposed amendments. In this way, for example, there is the making of regulations. In terms of the Broadcasting Act, this is done by the corporation, although in certain cases it can only be done with the approval of the Minister. So there is a form of control over some of them. However, when we look at the seven pages of this Bill which amend the Radio Act, we find that a regulation in terms of the Radio Act is made by the State President. The hon. the Minister did not say much about Schedule 2, but if one looks at page 36, approximately half-way down the page, one finds that the schedule amends section 5 of the Radio Act. In consequence of this amendment, regulations formerly made in terms of the Radio Act will now be made in terms of the Broadcasting Act. In this way the corporation obtains powers which seem quite innocent at first glance. But when we begin to test them against the principle of parliamentary control, the picture changes completely, because a regulation made in terms of section 18 of the Radio Act must be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within 14 days and must be left there for 28 consecutive days. Then we also find, in terms of section 18(4) of the Radio Act, that it is possible for Parliament on certain conditions to disapprove or to change these regulations. But, Sir, I look in vain for such a regulation with such conditions in the Broadcasting Act. On certain conditions, Parliament can, in terms of section 18 of the Radio Act, change those regulations, for example by passing a resolution and accepting a motion, as long as it happens within the same session. With such a system I have no quarrel, because it gives the institution concerned sufficient freedom to see to its internal affairs, but Parliament as such is not disregarded.

The hon. the Minister mentioned something else as well. I am not going to say much more about it at this stage, but he mentioned the powers of the corporation in terms of clause 13 in respect of television. Here a proviso has been added, a proviso which came after the publication of the Bill in the Gazette. Although the hon. the Minister is authorized by that clause to determine conditions in respect of television, the tariffs will in fact be determined by the corporation in terms of the proviso. I want to say at once that there may be excellent business reasons why this should be so. In this respect I just want to mention one thing to him, and that is that we have heard, as he says, that there will be only spot advertisements on television from 1 January 1978. But that is not good enough. In terms of the new authorization in this legislation the hon. the Minister can see to it that this takes place earlier. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister, too, that if one has lost the potential of two years, one can never compensate for it. The SABC will never be able to make up for the income it could get from advertisements in 1976 and in 1977, and I think the hon. the Minister should give attention to this.

†Sir, we should also bear in mind that although the Minister used the term “consolidation Bill”, as I pointed out, it is in fact an uncertified consolidation Bill, I want to point out that in the process of consolidation certain provisions have been deleted and others have been added. It so happens that we do agree with some of these provisions in some respects and I want to deal with some of them. We have now had the abolition of the Bantu Programme Control Board and its replacement by an advisory board. I think you will find, Sir, that when this was originally introduced, our attitude was that in fact there should rather be just one board for the SABC and that we should not have this fragmented approach. Five or six years ago when I came to this House, the hon. the Minister was a very enthusiastic Deputy Minister of Bantu Education. He used to speak about “die dinamiese ontplooiing van die beleid”, but it seems to me that it has now gone into reverse, and that the policy is not developing further but that we are moving in another direction now. I agree that the old Bantu Programme Control Board was not in any event independent. It could never really act as such because it had as its chairman Dr. Meyer, and it does not make sense to us that you should have a Bantu Advisory Council of this nature. Why must the same person be the chairman of the board and also the main adviser? Dr. P. Meyer is chairman of the board, but he must rely on the advice of Dr. P. Meyer as his main adviser for Bantu programmes. It is a crazy set-up. I want to say that the time is long overdue when one should already have had a Bantu or somebody else directly appointed to the board of the SABC. That would have been the obvious thing to do. I must say that this is a crazy set-up. We find this equally crazy set-up when we come to the Television Advisory Board. Here we find that Dr. P. Meyer is also going to have, as his main or chief adviser for television, the chairman of his advisory board, Dr. P. Meyer. We naturally welcome the introduction of a Television Advisory Board, but this is obviously quite crazy. The only thing I can say is that three or four years ago the hon. the Minister’s predecessor promised us that we would have the necessary legislation the following year. Then, in the year which followed, he told us we would get this advisory board before the introduction of television. Well, we have now had the introduction of TV and I think in this respect we must admit—and I concede that we welcome it—that ultimately we will have a Television Advisory Board. But this whole matter of television and programmes is something which I think could have been dealt with in another way. In certain respects the Government, as I have said, has accepted some of our advice. I just want to name a few examples. In respect of free listeners’ licences, the hon. member for Umbilo moved seven years ago that apart from hospitals and charitable, educational and state institutions, other institutions should also qualify for free listeners’ licences. The exact words used were “and other institutions”. It is therefore pleasing to see that what was defeated seven years ago has now, as a result of clause 18(1) been redrafted and modernized in such a way as to include the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo, become a reality.

*Even though the Government is seven or eight years behind us, we are glad that they have proved to us the truth of the old saying “better late than never”.

†I am just using this point to show the hon. the Minister that I am convinced that if the whole subject matter of this Bill were to go to a Select Committee, we would be able to make a valuable contribution.

I want to come to another point, one of these things which apparently falls into the category of innocent, or “onskuldige”, amendments.

*Once again I want to refer specifically to Schedule 2. We find on page 45 that section 14 is being amended (i) by deleting the words “other than a listener’s licence” in subsection (1), and (ii) by deleting subsection (2).

† Now, Sir, this section in fact deals with the suspension or cancellation of licences, permits or certificates issued in terms of the Radio Act. Section 14(1) which is being amended reads as follows—

This clearly means that you cannot cancel or suspend a listener’s licence under circumstances where you believe it is necessary to do so. You can suspend the other type of licences, such as aeronautical station licences, aircraft licences, amateur station licences and broadcast licences. I can understand this. A listener’s licence, in other words a radio licence, could only be cancelled or suspended in terms of section 14(2) which reads as follows—

In other words, the only time that a listener could lose his listener’s licence is when he has contravened the Act or contravened a regulation. However, there was none of this business that it could be done because the cancellation was necessary under the circumstances. I think that this introduces an entirely new principle, but the hon. the Minister did not even mention this. This introduces an entirely new dimension, however. If a person is caught in possession of a radio apparatus or a radio or anything of that nature without a licence, the very fact that he has it in terms of the provision on page 39 which states—

I think that the hon. the Minister must tell us what sort of circumstances could warrant such drastic steps, where in fact you could go along and suspend a person’s licence without his contravening a regulation or without his contravening the Act. One must bear in mind that we are here dealing with the members of the public. This of course involves a tremendously important principle. This is something which I feel we cannot just come here and pass in the form of a schedule to a Bill. This, too, should be a matter of proper consideration. Let us hear from the hon. the Minister what his problems are in this respect. Let Parliament hear about it. Let us get together and decide how we can best draw up legislation which cannot be regarded outside as being an interference with the rights of the individual.

I wish to conclude by saying that the wisest thing for the hon. the Minister to do, will be to accept my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have learned over the years that anything—however innocent— relating to the SABC is opposed by that side of the House. This afternoon the hon. member for Durban Central accused the hon. the Minister of having adopted a low-key approach to the Bill. The hon. member spoke for almost half an hour and he himself adopted a very low-key approach to this Bill too. He did not mention a single objection in principle to the Bill. However he mentioned a few points which could perhaps be dealt with at the Committee Stage and he added that he did not know which clauses were new and which were consolidating.

You must be deaf!

This of course is something one can manage if one does one’s homework. One really cannot expect the hon. the Minister to mention this every time. The hon. member’s main objection was that the SABC was moving away from parliamentary control. I wonder whether the hon. member really knows what he is asking for? The SABC is a public utility company with an autonomous board of control and if this were now to be taken away and if the SABC were to fall directly under parliamentary control, he would be the first to complain about it because parliamentary control would in fact mean direct control by this side of the House. In other words, if what he is asking for were to be put into effect, the SABC and the television service could become an excellent instrument in the hands of the NP for building up its image and then we would really hear complaints. The hon. the Minister can accept the hon. member’s amendment requesting a Select Committee if he wants to. Personally I really cannot see any good reason for wasting time be referring this Bill to a Select Committee. As the hon. member said, this Bill is almost exclusively a consolidating Bill which brings together, co-ordinates and consolidates a number of Acts. So much research work has been done, and various investigations carried out, in connection with the SABC and the television service. Authoritative reports and sources are available for reading and research by anyone interested in this field. I do not know what new light a Select Committee of this House could cast on this Bill. When does one refer a Bill to a Select Committee? This is done when one is not sure of the implications of the Bill, when there is a lack of clarity and when one does not have sufficient information on the subject. This Bill does not meet any of these criteria because comprehensive and lengthy debates on this subject have already taken place, particularly in respect of the various Acts when they were accepted originally. The UP opposed every one of those Bills and they have been argued about and debated at length. As I have said, there are many authoritative documents and reports of committees and of the individuals who have done research on this matter. I am therefore of the opinion that a Select Committee could not perform any useful work in connection with this Bill.

The hon. member also complained that they had put questions and that the questions had not been replied to. What about the annual reports submitted by the SABC? This is done annually and a vast amount of information is provided in those reports. To maintain now that questions put here have not been replied to, is really stretching the truth a little. I have been sitting here for many years and I cannot remember a single question not having been replied to. I think that all questions have in fact been replied to very comprehensively. If there has been one in ten years, then that is a lot. This is therefore a very meagre straw which the hon. member is trying to clutch at.

In terms of clause 2 of the Bill the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation will continue to be a juristic person after this Bill has come into effect. Over the past 40 years the SABC has done absolutely incomparable work in the service of the people of South Africa. The SABC has built up a fine record of correct, positive and constructive work over a very long period. They have often had to do so under difficult circumstances, often in the midst of storms of controversy and emotional storms which they have had to endure. Appreciation for the work done by the SABC has very seldom been expressed from the benches opposite. On the contrary. Unfair and also violent criticism has often been expressed, often in the most unbridled language—if I may put it that way—by predecessors of the hon. member for Durban Central. The most important reason for the criticism has been and still is that the SABC accepts that the community it has to serve and the authority to which it is subject have the right to expect that a national broadcasting corporation will honour and carry into effect those principles and values which are the basis of the way of life of the people it has to serve. It is because the Opposition has never been able to appreciate these principles and these values correctly and has often misunderstood and rejected them, that it subjects the SABC to such violent criticism. I believe that the SABC can still be proud of its record of impartiality and of objectivity. It is its standpoint that as a public utility company in a multilingual country with a heterogeneous population, with many minority groups, it is not responsible to the Government of the day but to Parliament, viz. to the freely elected representatives of all the listeners it serves, irrespective of their political affiliation. The standpoint of the SABC is that it is responsible, not the the Government of the day, but to the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa.

I say that the SABC has a fine record of impartiality. Of course, impartiality does not mean that it should remain neutral in all circumstances and never adopt a standpoint of its own. It would surely be senseless of a public communications medium to remain neutral when a choice has to be made between order and disorder, morality and immorality or freedom and licence. Nor does the SABC stand entirely alone in this respect. The yearbook of file BBC for 1973, for example, states the following—

A former Director-General of the BBC, Sir Hugh Green, said—

As to the SABC as a juristic person, I think it would also be fitting on this occasion to express sincere appreciation for and pay tribute to the members of the Control Board of the SABC, people who in most cases have devoted themselves, with great sacrifice and passionate dedication, to the affairs of this organization. Nor can one omit at this point to refer, too, to the chairman of the Control Board of the SABC, Dr. P. J. Meyer. The great task of education, the phenomenal development of our cultural heritage in its widest sense, must certainly be ascribed to the unflagging zeal, the drive and the insight of this man. At the same time I want to pay tribute, too, to a number of officials, inter alia

Mr. Douglas Fuchs, who retired last year, and Mr. J. N. Swanepoel, the present director-general, who have never spared themselves.

Today, transmissions by the SABC are no longer only heard throughout South Africa and South West Africa, but also in all the African states and in Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and the USA. Already in 1974 more than 2,5 million licensed listeners listened to the transmissions of the SABC. Every day about 1,1 million adults listen to the Afrikaans service, 535 000 to the English service, 2,3 million to the transmissions of Springbok Radio and 1,4 million to the FM regional services. The seven programme services of Radio Bantu have a daily listenership of 4,7 million adults. Last year the SABC received more than 5 million letters from Bantu listeners, virtually all of which were full of praise for the programmes of the SABC.

They were letters from participants in competitions!

The average daily listemership—Whites, Coloureds, Asiatics and Bantu—was almost 10 million last year. In addition, the external service of Radio RSA broadcasts 22 hours every day in nine different languages. In 1974, more than 50 000 letters were received from listeners abroad, more than half of which were from African States.

An hon. member of the Opposition who recently visited an African State far beyond our borders informs me that Radio RSA’s transmissions were extremely popular and very highly regarded in that State, because of their very correctness and reliability. The SABC has altogether 19 programme services, the collective broadcasting time of which is 2 007 hours weekly. This is indeed an outstanding record and something of which we have reason to be proud.

I should now like to express certain ideas with regard to television—particularly with reference to clauses 10 and 13. South Africa has waited a long time for its television programmes, and now that we at last have them, the wisdom of the Government’s decision not to introduce television earlier is very obvious. Our youthful television service has already been described by many authorities as being comparable with the best in the world. The fact that after a short preparatory period of only four years, our television service was able to make such a brilliantly successful start speaks volumes for the organizational ability and the dedication of the chairman of the Control Board of the SABC and also of the many officials and artists attached to the service.

On Wednesday the vast television complex in Johannesburg will be inaugurated. It has cost more than R100 million to complete. I should like to extend my congratulations to the SABC in advance on this great occasion. The complex includes inter alia a special training studio. This studio cost about R2 million and is used for the training of workers in all the branches of the television service and the manufacture of television materials. All in all, the complex comprises six storeys above the ground and two below, including inter alia seven television studios.

The SABC emphasizes the importance of locally manufactured programmes and according to stated policy, right from the outset at least 50% of the daily transmission time is devoted to local television programmes. That policy has been implemented consistently thus far and I believe it is a major achievement that from the outset our television service is already producing half of its programmes locally. This is not the case in other countries. In those African countries which already have a television service, overseas programmes are used almost exclusively. Even in a country like New Zealand, only 25% of the programmes broadcast on its television service are locally produced. In terms of legislation which came into effect in Australia last year, that country’s television services are at present obliged to produce at least 50% of their programmes locally. In Canada the percentage of programmes that have to be produced locally is 60%. It can therefore be regarded as a major achievement that our television service already produces 50% of its programmes at this early stage.

To conclude, I should like to express a few ideas relating to clause 13(2) and clause 29(2).

I should like to discuss the issue of advertisements and the presentation of violence and bloodshed in television programmes. We in South Africa are indeed fortunate in having been able to learn our lessons abroad, lessons in connection with advertisements, and particularly the real threat posed by the commercial radio service in the form of sponsored programmes. We can therefore oppose this with all our might. According to my information the Government recently reconfirmed its policy once again in regard to advertisements on television. What it amounts to is that during the first two years of the television service, no advertisements will be broadcast, and from the beginning of 1978 only 5% of the total transmission time will be devoted to advertising spots. This means that about 30 advertisements of 30 seconds each will be broadcast daily.

We all realize that television is a very expensive service. Many countries have therefore succumbed to the temptation of introducing a commercial service and allowing sponsored programmes in order to recover the high costs involved in providing the service. The detrimental effect of the sponsored programmes is a direct result of the fact that such programmes are aimed chiefly at the masses and that as a result, not much attention is paid to quality. This necessarily has a detrimental effect on the viewers and is therefore something which we should try to avoid while it is at all possible to do so.

When it comes to violence and bloodshed, too, we must try to select our programmes with circumspection and care. This even applies to the interesting programmes which are being presented at the moment and which everyone very much likes to watch, inter alia “The World at War”. Such programmes will have to be selected and controlled very carefully. Extensive research has already been carried out on the influence of television on children. It goes without saying that there are many examples of the positive influences which television has on children. For example, it has been pointed out that the child’s horizons of perception are expanded far beyond his own city or town, or even the borders of his own country. It can therefore contribute vastly towards the expansion of a child’s knowledge. The child is therefore a pupil who acquires knowledge from television, but who also copies the behaviour of the people he sees on television just as he copies the behaviour of his teachers. In our country, care is taken that teachers are very carefully selected and that is why it would also be as well for us to pick our television programmes, particularly those which are shown early in the evening, and are watched by many children. In countries which have had television for a long time, parents find that their children regularly copy the television characters—sometimes for better, but sometimes, too, for worse, as will be evident from the following examples: Graham, Lyle and Porter have quoted the following examples—

I remember hearing that years ago.

It might be years ago, but it is still true. In Los Angeles a housemaid caught a seven-year-old boy in the act of sprinkling ground glass in the family’s lamb stew. There was no malice behind the act; it was purely an experiment, having been inspired, according to this reports, by curiosity to learn whether it would really work as well as it did on television.

*Research has proved that these programmes have an influence on children. The surgeon-general of the United State, Steinfeld, made the following statement about television at the end of a research programme which included 23 projects—

I now want to conclude my argument and should like to express my wholehearted support of the Bill once again. I also want to warn our youthful television service that we must be careful with regard to the selection of programmes intended for children.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Algoa said that anything in connection with the SABC, however innocent, usually came under attack from this side of the House. He followed this up by saying that our objections to this Bill could be dealt with in Committee. This is quite correct and is exactly what we want. We want this Bill dealt with in a Select Committee. How right he is therefore! He then went on and gave a long dissertation of the history of the SABC. I enjoyed the hon. the Minister’s history lesson for more, but then, of course, the hon. the Minister is the Minister of National Education, so he is properly equipped to give us a history lesson. I wondered if the hon. member for Algoa even bothered to read the Bill. Apparently he is so disinterested that he has already left the House. Let us hope he has gone to read the Bill.

This Bill has been introduced by the hon. the Minister of National Education, Sport and Recreation, but I cannot quite make up my mind whether or not he has introduced it as the Minister of Sport or whether he has introduced it as the Minister of Recreation. With due respect, I can hardly believe that he has introduced it as Minister for National Education. I think that the Bill could best be described as having been framed to confuse and to provide either the hon. the Minister or this side of the House with a certain measure of both sport and recreation. Possibly the hon. the Minister had hoped that we would throw up our hands in horror and just retire gracefully from the scene. But it does not work that way. We have many reasons for moving that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee, and it is my intention to enumerate some of them. We cannot accept the hon. the Minister’s statement in his Second Reading speech where he says that this is no more than a consolidation Bill. He quite clearly states this. He nods his head and thus agrees with me. If this is so, then I ask him why have we not had before us the certificate in terms of Standing Orders No. 72 of this House, which reads—

Why has it not gone to a Select Committee before Second Reading, because surely this is automatic in the case of a consolidating Bill? I regret to say that the hon. the Minister rather negates his own statement. I want to reinforce the argument of the hon. member for Durban Central and wish to draw attention to page 45 of the Bill, where the circumstances that are envisaged in respect of the deletion of the words “other than a listener’s licence” are outlined. This was dealt with by the hon. member for Durban Central, who pointed out to this House the following provision in the existing Act—

It is now suggested that the words “other than a listener’s licence” be omitted. I want to ask why? What are the circumstances, what type of circumstances are envisaged? Is it because it is envisaged that possibly the public of South Africa may start listening to foreign broadcasts and hear things perhaps that the hon. the Minister does not want the public to hear? Should it be time that the Postmaster-General can withdraw a listener’s licence. I will be very interested to know how it is possibly hoped that this could ever be enforced? How do you hope, when you have, shall we say, a family gathering, the normal family with a radio in the home …

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

No, I am not prepared to answer questions. How can a family gathering sit down and listen to the radio when father has had his licence removed? Does this mean that father must go and lock himself away somewhere when the radio is turned on? Is the rest of the family then permitted to listen to the radio, or does it mean that the radio is removed entirely from the home? This is a most peculiar amendment. The possibilities both amaze and amuse one. On page 37 of the Bill we find another amendment to the Radio Act which has also been dealt with in part by the hon. member for Durban Central. That has to do with the exemptions with regard to radio licences. It has to be remembered that the Radio Act falls directly under parliamentary control. In terms of the suggested amendment, what will the position be now? Surely here we have another reason why a committee should examine this. We feel that the control is being taken out of the hands of this Parliament slowly but surely.

You are behaving very poorly.

One could have expected a remark like that, because hon. members opposite know this is true, and want nothing more and nothing less. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, important measures have been left out of this so-called consolidation measure. I refer hon. members to clause 13, which deals with the general powers of the corporation. Section 13(1)(e) of the original Broadcasting Act reads as follows—

Why has this been left out of this Bill? Does this suggest that the SABC may no longer broadcast religious services and addresses? This provision is not to be found in the new Bill. We also find, in section 13(1)(c), that the original Broadcasting Act empowered the corporation, for the purpose of carrying out its objects, to “acquire copyrights and performing rights and deal therewith and dispose of the same”. This is something which was opposed by this party many years ago, and now, in true Nationalist tradition, we must say: “Thank you, Mr. Minister; you have at last accepted our amendment.” We say this because the words “and deal therewith and dispose of the same” have been omitted in this Bill.

I also refer hon. members to section 13(2) of the Broadcasting Act, which reads as follows—

Surely we are entitled to ask why, in a consolidation Bill, this is the sort of thing that is just blithely left out. This provision has been omitted from the new Bill.

Finally, I come to a matter which I regard as most important. Section 13(1A) of the Act reads as follows—

This provision, Mr. Speaker, has vanished off the face of the earth. What is the reason for this? The only mention in the Bill of the investment of moneys is to be found in clause 24(2), which reads as follows—

I submit that the Minister is being very quiet about the housing fund and the bursary fund. We feel that there are questions to be answered in this regard.

Equally, Sir, there are additions in this Bill which disturb us. I refer again to the general powers of the corporation. Clause 13(1)(d) states—

Why should the SABC be empowered to enter into agreements with other Governments and administrations? Surely this is the province of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is hardly the province of the SABC.

There are other peculiar anomalies. One of these, to which the hon. the Minister made reference in his Second Reading speech, is to be found in clause 12(3), which reads as follows—

Are those the only cultures we have in South Africa? The Minister made reference to the fact that the Asiatics have a 100% listening audience. Are we not going to make provision to cater for the needs of that community, albeit a very small community?

They have an English culture.

Yes, and we too have an English culture. And we have an Afrikaans culture. We have many cultures in South Africa, and we also have the many cultures among the Asiatics. My friend, you will hang yourself on that one.

I said the Asiatics have an English culture.

Mr. Speaker, before dealing with licences, particularly television licences, I wish to say a few words about advertising on television. The Minister said that there will be no advertisements on SABC television until 1978. Sir, somebody is kidding the Minister. Somebody is fooling him and I think the Minister should look into this, because I want to know why SABC television is actively engaged in advertising two magazines issued, I believe, by Republikeinse Pers, the one being Radio and TV and the other being its Afrikaans counterpart. And, horror of horrors, Mr. Speaker, it is indulging in this advertising on Sunday evenings. On Sunday evenings we have an advertisement for a Republikeinse Pers magazine which ells us exactly what programmes we can watch and listen to. It is well known, I think, that I, in common with a number of my colleagues, am no particular lover of the Sunday Times, but why do we not have a little plug for the Sunday Times or for Rapport, which also lists the programmes for the coming week? Has the Minister given his approval to this? In terms of the Bill before us there will be no advertising except with the approval of the Minister. I would therefore like to know whether the Minister has given his approval to this. If he has given given his approval, why have these two magazines been selected? If we are going to have a little free advertising on television, then something very important comes to mind. That is that nowhere in this Bill has provision been made for free television licences.

What about the Ministers?

No, not even for the Ministers. Sir, this is a sad and sorry state of affairs. The Minister will know well that there are a number of service organizations that do excellent work. I think he is acquainted with one, viz. the Nomads Golf Club. This organization, through the pleasure and love of the game, and through playing golf in and around Durban, has accumulated funds in order to donate a number of television sets to deserving institutions in and around the city of Durban. Why can these institutions not have free licences?

How many golf balls do you think they will give me if I give them a free licence? [Interjections.]

They will give you a gross. Why can free licences not be considered for these institutions? But not to have any provision for free licences is a sad state of affairs. If it took seven or eight years for the hon. member for Umbilo to have his amendment finally accepted, quietly and without his knowledge, will we have to wait another seven or eight years before the Minister will make provision for free television licences?

Then there is another peculiar anomaly in this Bill. On page 15, line 40, it says—

1. (a) a licence conferring to the holder thereof the right to use or permit any other person to use, one television set or such greater number of television sets as may be specified in the licence.

Does this mean, as I read it, that the Minister is relaxing the provisions or the regulations in respect of television sets so that an owner owning more than one television set will only have to pay one licence fee? The way it reads at the moment certainly makes it appear that way and I think this would be welcomed. Further in regard to licensing we come to the radio dealer. While I hold no brief for the radio dealer particularly, I must point out that the amendment to the Radio Act on page 43, clause 12, right at the bottom of the page, says that every radio dealer shall—

1. (a) complete or make at such times and in such manner, and retain for such period, such registers or other records as may be prescribed by regulation; and
2. (b) make and send to the Postmaster-General or, as the regulation in question may require, to the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation, such copies of or extracts from those registers or records, at such times and in such manner as may be so prescribed.

Sir, the original Act clearly sets out the requirements in respect of the dealer. These are easy to comply with and not expensive to the dealer. They involve him having a duplicate invoice on which he records all details. But now comes an amendment which I submit will involve him in additional expense and that expense is going to find its home in one place only—it is going to be passed on to the consumer. Is this necessary? Is it necessary to amend this Act in this way? Surely the original Act can quite adequately cover the requirements?

In conclusion I say that we reject this Bill. We feel that this Bill must, in terms of the amendment, go to a Select Committee for a full inquiry and report.

Mr. Speaker, I really find it extremely difficult to react to the hon. member for Umhlanga, because I think the proverb that one fool can ask more questions than a thousand wise people can answer, is very specifically applicable here. I should like to tell the hon. member that although I have the highest esteem for the intelligence of the hon. the Minister I believe that he would have to have the wisdom of Solomon to understand the arguments of that hon. member this afternoon. [Interjections.] I shall still come to the hon. member for Durban Central. He does not differ much from the hon. member for Umhlanga either. As far as the hon. member for Umhlanga is concerned, was that hon. member not listening when the hon. the Minister said that this Bill was for the most part consolidating legislation, with the exception of this and that and the other? However, both the hon. member for Umhlanga and the hon. member for Durban Point are professing that the hon. the Minister supposedly said that this is solely a consolidation Bill and they are levelling the reproach that certain things are being concealed in that way. I do not think this is fair. I think if the hon. members were to listen to what the hon. the Minister has to say, they would not have those problems. I should like to mention another point in respect of the hon. member for Umhlanga. Concerning the advertisements the hon. Minister dealt very clearly with spot advertisements which will be shown on TV. Now the hon. member for Umhlanga is confusing this with advertisement programmes or with the advertisement of such programmes in various magazines. Surely this has nothing to do with the matter.

You are pathetic.

I should like to touch on another point as far as this hon. member is concerned. The hon. member referred to clause 17(2)(b)(iv), in respect of the listeners’ licences, and asked the hon. the Minister whether this would now mean that various sets may be kept on only one licence. But the hon. member for Umhlanga should do his homework more thoroughly. What is involved here are listeners’ licences and therefore radio sets. It has always been the case that various radio sets may be kept by the same person on a single licence. But the hon. member for Umhlanga is confusing this with television. Surely one cannot reply to him on that.

I now come to the hon. member for Durban Central. This hon. member also expressed his concern about there supposedly not being sufficient Parliamentary control and about the South African Broadcasting Corporation allegedly getting too much power. If the hon. member would go to the trouble of studying clause 27 of the Bill, he would find that it was very clear that sufficient control is being exercised by the Government here over the SABC. I should like to refer to clause 27 in which it is stated among others that—

1. (1) The board shall furnish to the Minister, on or before 30 April in each year, a report on the work of the corporation …

Now, the hon. member for Durban Central waxed lyrical about the fact that the SABC would be able to enter into certain agreements of which Parliament as such would bear no knowledge. But it is stated here they may report every year.

“May” report.

Not may report, but shall report. It is stated here that the board shall furnish it, and in clause 27(2) it is stated—for the information of the hon. member for Durban Central—that the Minister shall lay every report furnished in terms of subsection (1) upon the Tables of the Senate and of the House of Assembly within seven days after receiving it. Why is the hon. member for Durban Central saying “may” and not “shall”? What is more: The accusation was also made that the SABC might make misuse of programmes. If the hon. member were to look at this same clause 27—I do not want to read all these subsections—he ought to obtain satisfaction concerning the control which may in fact be exercised over the activities of the SABC by Parliament.

As regards the Bantu Advisory Board, to which the hon. member for Durban Point also referred, he argued that it was not necessary to have different advisory boards and that it would be better to have a single board, if I understood him correctly.

No, various advisory councils but one control board.

Very well. Apparently I misunderstood him and I accept it as such. I should like to come back to the Bill before us and associate myself with what the hon. the Minister said about this Bill being for the most part a consolidation Bill with the exception of certain amendments which the hon. the Minister made very clear. It consolidates the Broadcasting Act (No. 22 of 1936), the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 14 of 1949), and the Radio Act (No. 3 of 1952). To my mind it is essential that this Broadcasting Bill should in fact have been introduced, because the administration of the old dispensation placed a heavy burden on the officials as far as the implementation of the various Acts was concerned.

Both the existing Acts which are now being consolidated in this Bill, were previously the responsibility of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. In fact, they were the responsibility of the Minister concerned from 1936 to 27 November 1970 when the Broadcasting Act, together with the Broadcasting Amendment Bill became the responsibility of the Minister of National Education, by way of proclamation. In reply to a question put by Mr. E. G. Malan on 24 February 1971, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs explained this separation very clearly. The question read (Questions and Replies, 24 February 1971, col. 297, question No. 202)—

This is the Department of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs—

The then Minister very clearly indicated which portions had been transferred to the Department of the Minister of National Education and which fell under the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. In the main this means that the application of the Broadcasting Act was transferred to the Minister of National Education and the application of the Radio Act remained the responsibility of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I shall not elaborate on this matter any further. This caused difficulties in regard to the administration of the entire system of broadcasting in the Republic, because it fell under two departments and two Ministers. For that reason I am welcoming the fact that we have a new Bill here which is consolidating various Acts. I should also like to express my gratitude that this Bill is also falling under the Minister of National Education now and that the control will be exercised by his department. Let me motivate my statement. If we go back to the report of the commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of Dr. Meyer, we find that the recommendations in the report of that commission stress in particular that television, and in fact the radio as well, is in any country very closely associated with the teaching profession and with education. I do not think there is anybody who would deny this. I want to refer in particular to para. 468 on page 53 of that report. There we read—

Allow me to add that where reference is made to “the national identity and the social structure of its various communities”, we should not interpret it to mean that the National Party as such, or the governing party as such, wants to misuse this service to promote its own affairs. What is involved here in general is what is indigenous to a nation, that which forms an integral part of the nation as such. Therefore, the television service should ensure that it respects, strengthens and enriches the abovementioned aspects of the various communities—

1. (a) By providing wholesome and edifying entertainment; (b) by supplying reliable, objective and balanced information; by reflecting and projecting the cultural assets of each community; (d) by stimulating indigenous creative talent; and above all, (e) by constantly striving to foster good relations between all the people of the country.

I think this is a splendid statement of purpose and that the television service as such should also comply with it.

Furthermore, I want to say that television can be a great aid for the child. I do not think that the life of a child can be detached from the community. If I relate this to what we have just read, hon. members will agree with me that, when the community as such forms a certain opinion and television adapts itself to this opinion, this will also ipso facto apply to the child. Television is an important educational medium. This applies in particular to the child in his pre-primary as well as his primary years. Television can broaden the child’s reality if the service remains pedagogically sound. The educational value should also be determined by the factual material which is presented. Therefore, the programmes should be compiled in the closest consultation with educationists. If this does not happen, we would most certainly be unable to achieve that object. Therefore, within this educational process as a whole, the needs and interests of the child should be taken into account.

I should like to refer to certain clauses of the Bill. Firstly I should like to refer to clause 8, in which mention is made of the possibility that various committees shall be appointed to assist the corporation in the functions which it has to perform. I hope and trust that such committees will in fact be established. Such committees could consist of knowledgeable people, people who, owing to their particular knowledge, could make a major contribution by providing the Broadcasting Corporation with advice. I should also like to refer to clause 12(3) which reads—

I think radio as well as television, in as far as we have already acquired experience of the latter, have succeeded extremely well in affording the various cultural groups equal recognition in this regard as well. This provision also formed part of the existing Act.

The hon. members who participated in the debate on behalf of the Opposition had a great deal to say about clause 13 which makes provision for broadcasting stations and installations to be erected within or outside the Republic. It is very clearly provided in the legislation that this may only be done with the approval of the Minister. Since this may only happen with the approval of the Minister, I want to allege that very thorough control will be exercised over anything of this nature.

Clause 13(1)(d) deals with the transmission inter alia of sports or other events. Hon. members will remember, as the hon. the Minister has also pointed out, that the legislation was published in draft form as early as January this year. Clause 13(1)(d) as it appeared in the draft legislation, gave the corporation the right to undertake direct transmissions of some or other sports event or from a sports field. I regret that derogatory reports appeared in the Press in this respect. Such remarks were addressed, in particular to officials who were alleged to have simply included such a nonsensical provision in the draft legislation. I think those remarks were very unfounded and very unfair, for anyone who has even the vaguest conception of how a Bill is drafted and through which channels it passes, will realize that it is nonsensical to maintain that it should simply be laid at the door of an official. I do not want to go any further by stating in which newspaper this appeared or by quoting how it was worded. I shall leave it at that. In any event, grateful to be able to know that provision is still being made in the legislation enabling agreements to be entered into with various people and institutions with a view to direct television transmissions of certain events of public importance.

Clause 17 deals mainly with the various licences which may be issued and it contains various provisions to which we may react positively. However, I leave it at that until we have reached the Committee Stage, on which occasion we could perhaps deal with details.

I should like to conclude by making it very clear that I believe that in spite of the fact that the Opposition speakers tried to disparage the Bill, there are so many good and positive things in the South African broadcasting industry, both radio and television, that we could discuss them for days on end. I am also convinced that the Broadcasting Bill as it is at present before the House, is creating the method and the machinery to facilitate the expansion of the fine elements in the broadcasting industry, in the interests of South Africa and its various communities.

I trust that the Bill as it reads at present, will be passed and I can in no way associate myself with the idea that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. The Bill was published as early as January of this year. Why did the Opposition not come forward with amendments in the meantime? Now they want it to be referred to a Select Committee, but why? Have they failed to do their homework and is this the reason why the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee? I am in favour of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Virginia will forgive me if I do not respond directly to his speech. Nevertheless, I can give him the assurance that amendments to this piece of legislation will be forthcoming. I hope that in the course of what I have to say it will become clearer to him why I do not think as he does “dat dit ’n baie mooi wetsontwerp is”. There is a great deal in this Bill to which we in these benches object. Right at the outset I want to point out that we do not deny what the hon. the Minister of National Education has said. We admit that the SABC has very considerable achievements in various fields to its credit and particularly in the technical field. As he has said, the SABC may well have held its own with the best in the world. However, I should also like to say without any equivocation that the SABC has certain very grave shortcomings. There is no point in our not looking them squarely in the face. We believe that with this piece of legislation a very valuable opportunity has been lost of introducing a consolidating Broadcasting Bill which would not only have retained the best of the old Act, but which would also have contained fresh provisions aimed at ensuring that the SABC was in fact better equipped to serve all sections of the community—I emphasize “all sections of the community”. South Africa has just entered the television age, although almost a generation or more behind a lot of other countries, and I believe that we need a legislative instrument more suited to the times if we are to get the best out of this service. I submit that it is common cause amongst large sections of the community, although not to my friends on my left, that the SABC has either turned itself into or has allowed itself to become an arm of government and so of the ruling party. I think this is indisputable. Too often sound radio has been little more than a party political apologist. We must not allow this to happen to television. We must try to break sound radio’s habit of being a pale reflection of “his master’s voice”. It is with that in mind that I want to look at the Bill before us today. Our problem in the past—and the hon. member for Durban Central referred to this in passing— has been the difficulty of determining responsibility and culpability in this sphere of the SABC. Time and again, when the SABC has been under discussion, a number of us have been told in this House that the corporation is an autonomous body and that the Minister in charge has no authority to interfere or to instruct the SABC in various matters. I want to give a few examples of this because I believe this to be an important issue.

Some time ago I asked what seemed to me to be a perfectly legitimate question. I obtained certain information from Die Vaderland which, under normal circumstances, is a fairly reliable source of information as far as that side of the House is concerned. I wanted to know whether it was true that the lighting in the office of the chairman of the SABC in its new complex in Auckland Park had really cost R80 000. [Interjections.] This information was published and I have never seen it refuted. When I asked this question, I was told that the hon. the Minister would not reply because this was an SABC matter. [Interjections.] I think it is important to realize what one can find out and what one cannot find out about the SABC; When I wanted to know whether non-White workers at the Auckland Park headquarters of the SABC had canteen facilities or not since the Whites have such facilities, I received a similar kind of reply. I have no doubt, too, that if I now asked the hon. the Minister what the SABC’s policy is concerning the use of Black artists on TV, I would receive a dusty answer. [Interjections.] In the past this reticence has certainly been the case as far as matters of policy are concerned. I do not know whether the present Minister of National Education— and incidentally we welcome him to this important post—is going to adopt a similar approach. Perhaps not, because he is more of an extrovert than his predecessors, and we therefore hope for better things. From the Bill before us, however, it is still not by any means clear who the real boss in this whole situation is, and here I am referring to “boss” with a small “b”. If the hon. the Minister can, as I suspect, still take shelter behind the autonomy of the SABC, as his predecessors used to do, we shall again be having the worst of both possible worlds. We shall have a board of governors which is ostensibly independent and autonomous, and therefore a law unto itself, while at the same time it is a body appointed by, and is in many ways responsible to, a Minister. In other words, it is in effect a creature of the Minister over which he has only limited control, according to information given to us in the past. If this is, in fact, the case—and I hope we are going to be given a clear-cut answer on this issue because it is basic to the whole situation—I suggest that the whole set-up is hopelessly unsatisfactory. According to the provisions of the Bill before us, we shall have a board which a Minister controls but which Parliament cannot effectively criticize because it is supposed to be autonomous. At any rate, we shall not be able to get the facts, as the hon. member for Durban Central pointed out. We cannot criticize without the facts, and if no one is going to give us the facts …

That is absolute nonsense.

The hon. the Minister says that this is absolute nonsense, but we can refer him to countless statements in Hansard by his predecessors. However, perhaps he is going to turn over a new leaf. Perhaps he is going to broadcast on a different wavelength.

We look forward to better days.

What we need—and this would be the way of achieving our objective—is a truly independent board of governors to run the SABC in such a way that it comes as close as is humanly possible to providing a representative service which will serve all sections of the community fairly and equally. In all seriousness I suggest that this is hardly possible as long as the board remains, in effect, a creature of a Cabinet Minister and to that extent a political instrument which does not—as in the case of the present board, no matter what anyone says to the contrary— include representatives of all groups and interests, for example listeners’ and employees’ associations, to give but one example. I do not think that anybody can seriously argue that the present board of governors is truly representative of the people of this country. It is not. I would suggest that it is not even representative of the White people of this country, never mind people who are not White. As it is, I believe the board of governors should statutorily be representative of every section of the community. Just as important as the composition of the boards over which the hon. the Minister has got authority, is the spirit in which it approaches this job of running the SABC. It is here that I suggest that we are in trouble. The Bill before us contains nothing about the nature of the composition of the board, whether it in fact should represent all sections and strive to hold a balance between different interests. I submit that the present board, as I said a moment ago, is anything but representative, and if it is striving to hold an even balance between all interests, I do not think that it is being very successful. The important point here is that during the past 25 years it has come to be accepted—it has just grown, it has become a habit—that the SABC is the voice of the establishment when it comes to news, commentaries and interpretation.

The situation on television, however, is not nearly as bad as it is on sound radio. So I believe that there may still be an opportunity, and I do hope there is, of compelling the SABC to try far more consciously and deliberately to be fair and objective when it comes to what I might call the non-entertainment side of broadcasting. One instance I should like to mention is the use of artistes of colour, Black or Coloured people, on television. How many hon. members have seen these folk on television? If you watched SATV you would think that this was a country which consisted entirely of White people. The non-Whites might not as well exist as far as television is concerned. Here is the one point that we should like to make. The first important addition that one wants to see in the Bill before us is a specific provision that the board of governors shall be representative of all the people and of their interests, White as well as non-White. This ought to be stated specifically and categorically. The hon. the Minister may say that they take it for granted, but they have never done anything about it if they have taken it for granted. It is true that in clause 12 the corporation is instructed to carry out its programme, and I quote—

Why confine ourselves to those three cultures, as the hon. member for Umhlanga pointed out, I do not know. What I want to know is, what about the community’s other interests and desires? What about the political, educational, social and economic aspects? Why only the Black group’s culture? What about the Coloured people? What about the Indians? And when it comes to Africans, may we ask the hon. the Minister what the policy of the SABC will be towards the new homelands? Is special provision being made to give them some kind of a voice in the affairs of the SABC?

This brings me to what this Bill calls the Bantu Programme Advisory Board. Again there is no reference to the nature of its composition and, as my hon. friend for Durban Central has pointed out, at present we have the wholly ludicrous situation of a Bantu Programme Advisory Board which consisted, when this matter was last raised in the House, entirely of White people. Not a single Black or Coloured man or woman is on this board. Surely this is absurd, Sir?

It is true.

Of course it is true! This is despite the fact that according to the SABC the African listening public in South Africa today amounts to 4,5 million Black listeners, a higher figure than the entire White population of the Republic. Incidentally, could the hon. the Minister tell us what the relationship is between this Bantu advisory board and the main board of governors? Is it a master-servant relationship? Does it only have advisory powers? Does it have any kind of authority at all? I submit that it is not clear from the provisions of this Bill. Similar considerations apply to the proposed Television Programme Advisory Board for which this Bill provides. Again, there is no reference to the nature of the composition of the advisory board. It does not say whether it has to be representative of the interests, not only of the English and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans, but also of the non-White peoples of South Africa. This could be an important body if it were properly constituted. We are not quite sure what its powers are going to be, but judging from past experience we certainly cannot take it for granted that all sections will in fact be represented. Again, I submit, it should be specifically stated in this Bill that all sections of the community, including the non-White section, should be represented.

Another major criticism of the Bill is that it gives very little guidance in the key areas of broad SABC policy. If one looks at the clause dealing with the general powers of the corporation, clause 13(1)(c) states that the SABC may “broadcast current events”. Thank heavens it is not “current affairs”. The SABC may “broadcast current events or descriptions thereof or commentaries thereon”. That would be fair enough, if one could assume that the corporation would start off on the assumption that it should present both sides of an issue which is in dispute.

I can mention two recent examples where the corporation has again fallen down. The SABC coverage of the Newcastle and Springs bus strikes, just to take one example, certainly did not suggest that both sides were going to have their case fairly stated. We know that sound radio has been notoriously one-sided in its handling of this kind of controversial or contentious issue. It has not only failed to give the minority view, but often it has gone overboard in stressing and over-emphasizing the establishment side. Now we believe that TV is in danger of going the same way. We see one Cabinet Minister after the other, night after night, and heaven knows very little of anyone else in the political field. While we are in this political or semi-political field, I may mention that clause 27 calls on the board of governors to include in their report, and I quote—

I believe that this was taken from the existing Act. This is, however, as far as I am aware, a dead letter. What is the purpose of having a provision of this nature? Will every appearance on television by some grim-countenanced Cabinet Minister qualify as a political speech in future? Will it go down to the credit of the Nationalist Party or will they be exempt? I do not know how this is going to work and I do not know what the purpose of it is. Presumably it could be argued that it might be used as a barometer of the extent to which the balance was being held between different political parties, but I suggest that it is so cumbersome as to be largely meaningless. Of course it could always be interpreted—and this, I think, is the danger of the clause as it exists at the moment—as a subtle from of bringing pressure to bear on an already over-sensitive SABC. I see that the Bill has certain references to sections of the Publications Act to which the hon. the Minister referred. I would like to welcome the fact that the SABC is not going to be subject to the censorship provisions of the Publications Act primarily because I am utterly opposed to the prevailing system of censorship. But why make fish of the SABC and flesh of the cinema industry and every other interest which has to be subjected to this Act? Is it logical? [Interjections.] We certainly do not want any of these provisions to apply. Of course on the other hand, one faces another dilemma in a situation of this nature. To judge by its inordinately verkrampte attitude to some records—I take the case of “Jesus Christ Superstar” as one example—one does not know whether the SABC’s self-censorship will not in many cases be worse than the plethora of committees which have been set up under the Publications Act by the hon. the Minister of the Interior. This brings one back to the very important problem which I believe this Bill does not solve, the problem of ultimate control of the SABC and the whole spirit which animates it in its approach to vital issues. As I see it, if we have to continue in that twilight world of the past quarter of a century with the corporation being autonomous only in a narrow sense and actually existing in a kind of vacuum and feeling itself beyond criticism, this House is going to continue to be powerless in trying to bring any kind of pressure on it. It has tended to be the voice of the defender of the party and has steadfastly and consistently refused to see both sides. Perhaps we should look in the legislation before us for a new deal …

Like what?

I shall tell you like what. What we need is a wholly independent committee to act as a judge of the SABC’s performance and of the extent to which it lives up to its protestations of fairness and objectivity. I believe provision could be made in the legislation before us today for such an outside auditor, referee or judge. I should expect such a body to report on these three matters: Firstly, the extent to which news coverage of events inside and outside South Africa reflect the interests and concerns of the listening and viewing public; secondly, the extent to which the presentation of and the need of opinions on current, political, religious, educational, economic, scientific and cultural affairs adequately reflect the diversity of facts, opinions and approach of those involved with those matters, and finally, the extent to which broadcasting services maintain a balance between news, comment, education, entertainment and advertising so as to satisfy the needs and requirements of the listening and viewing public. I think the creation and composition of such an adjudicating body by this Bill would be a tremendous step forward. There will of course be problems, but once the need for its existence is recognized, I believe it could prove its value. Amongst many other things, it could—and this is desperately needed in the context of the SABC—act as a court of appeal for the viewing and listening public, people who feel themselves aggrieved. I know the SABC deals with this, but it can hardly be expected to sit in judgment on itself, to be a judge in its own cause, and that is why I say the need here is for an independent body which should report to Parliament via the SABC and the responsible Minister. I can readily foresee that under normal circumstances there should be no need for such an adjudicating body, but conditions and circumstances in South Africa are not normal. The history of the SABC over the past quarter of a century has shown conclusively that it is not capable of holding the balance between conflicting interests, not even to judge its own actions and activities objectively, without bias. It has unfortunately come to see its role as that of a contestant and not as an onlooker and bystander when controversial issues are involved. In South Africa there is no need for us to stress how many and how varied these are.

Therefore I suggest that the Bill before us today could easily be the vehicle for such an independent adjudicator of what I call the SABC’s social obligations and responsibilities. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister of National Education will give this suggestion serious consideration. If the SABC has to produce audited accounts every year, I believe it should also be called upon to produce a social audit at the same time. In view of our feelings on the performance of the SABC and in view of the shortcomings of this measure in certain key respects, I should now like to move the following amendment—

1. (a) for the composition of the policymaking bodies of the South African Broadcasting Corporation to be representative of all sections of the population; and
2. (b) for an independent committee to act as a judge of the South African Broadcasting Corporation’s performance in providing a service which reflects the diversity of interests and of political opinions of the whole population of South Africa and not that of one section only.”.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we on this side of the House find it particularly interesting that those people who always make such a fuss about the multiplicity of councils, committees, etc., today want to appoint another council to sit in judgment on the SABC. I want to ask the hon. member who should appoint such a council. The Progressive Party? If it is going to be appointed by any body in which the majority opinion will apply politically, it will, be people, after all, who feel like those sitting in this House today.

Once again today we heard a tirade from the hon. member for Parktown, to which we have become so accustomed and so conditioned in this House that we should not even take notice of it any more. He said so much that one would need much more than 14 minutes to react to it at all, before one could proceed to make a contribution in respect of the Bill under discussion.

The hon. member and other members of the Opposition speak about better control by this hon. House over the activities of the Broadcasting Corporation. What are they talking about? They did not name a single proper example to indicate what they had in mind. This little committee or the judges of which the hon. member spoke can only be rejected with contempt, because it is impractical. The hon. member spoke of lighting, which according to gossip, had cost R80 000 or some other phenomenal amount. Is this the kind of control which the hon. member wants Parliament to exercise? Does the hon. member want this Parliament to decide what the lights in the chairman’s office should cost? Does he want this House to have a say about the sort of equipment which is bought? These are negotiations which carry on for months. Let us look at the level about which the hon. member always has no much to say, namely news and news commentary. Does the hon. member want this Parliament, by means of its channels and organs, to control what is being broadcast by the SABC?

It is very interesting that hon. members should paint a very theoretic picture of mis-management, of indoctrination and of propaganda without mentioning a single substantiated example. They have never once tried to convince us in a credible manner that their standpoint is at all sound. All we have is a foolish and rhetorical repetition of the same old arguments year after year. [Interjections.] The hon. member says by way of consolation that the situation in respect of television is not so bad. But just after that he says that it is in danger of going the same way as the radio service. I wonder if in his case we are not dealing with a journalist who became frustrated about the effect which the positive and neutral reporting of the SABC had over the years on the credibility of the newspaper of which he was editor. As a former newspaper editor, that hon. member must have experienced the frustration of a newspaper with an immense circulation, but with a minimal influence in comparison with the SABC, which provides factual reporting and sensible commentary every day. I want to ask the hon. member if he has ever heard anything on the SABC which was not in the interests of the Republic and all its people. Has he heard anything like that? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Orange Grove says “every day”. However, I challenge him to prove it naming chapter and verse. He cannot do so. Even his colleague, the eloquent journalist—with his carefully prepared speech which he recited here page after page—could not furnish any real proof of any of the accusations which he made.

Mr. Speaker, once again it boils down to the old, old story in connection with the SABC and its management and of their presentation of news and news commentary. Perhaps the hon. member has not read previous Hansard reports on this subject. Perhaps he does not have insight into these matters, or does not want to. Perhaps we should ask him whether he cannot realize for a single moment—as he himself experienced in practice as a journalist for years—that in the midst of the explosion of news, information and newsworthy occurrences, in the midst of the mass media which engulf us in information every day, every medium has to give a certain perspective, a certain interpretation to things in order to present them to its readers in a meaningful way. Does he really want to deprive the SABC year after year, in his boring manner, of the right to interpret news and information and to present it in perspective? Does he want to try and persuade us to deprive the SABC of that right? Is it his desire to deprive the SABC— which belongs to the whole population of South Africa, being a utility company—of participation in the actualities of today’s life? This is indeed what he is asking.

Furthermore he tries to register his indignation by means of clichés about small things, such as strikes, bus boycotts, etc., which he alleges did not receive sufficient news coverage. I would like to know what the hon. member means when he speaks of sufficient news coverage. As a journalist he ought to know that no one publishes the same old story day after day in his newspaper. Does he expect the SABC to repeat reports in connection with the bus boycott in all its consecutive news bulletins and carry on with it until everyone believes that the whole world is involved in a bus boycott?

That is what he would like.

But he did not qualify it. In any event it is a pathetic example. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, there are three different kinds of radio organizations in the world, and I believe that we on this side of the House are quite sick and tired of being compared by the members of the Progressive Party—they are now being echoed by the United Party as well—to Russia and its satellite states, for instance, where the radio is the mouthpiece of the State and of the Government in all respects. This is a ridiculous and irresponsible comparison to make. It is something which we really cannot take any more in this House, because it is not true. Allow me to give a practical example of this. In one of the SABC’s news bulletins this morning it was mentioned that Zambia had urged UNO to ensure that South Africa should leave South West immediately. As a result of South Africa’s policy of détente it is generally accepted that we are on very good terms with Zambia. Therefore if our radio service had been an instrument of the Government, something of this nature would have been kept quiet, especially if it was true. Then why was a news report of this type broadcast? It was broadcast because it was newsworthy. Because it is news, it was right and fair to broadcast it. Therefore the SABC broadcast it and ran the risk of people thinking that our policy of détente is beginning to crumble. This was the risk run by the SABC, but nevertheless it was right and fair for South Africa to know about it.

When a journalist has to write a news report for his newspaper, he sifts his particulars and evaluates them in the light of the requirements of the day and the policy prescribed by the board of directors of his newspaper. For this purpose he uses the knowledge which he has acquired and applies certain norms and certain responsibilities. Newspapers operate according to criteria which are much more simple and much wider than those which are expected from the SABC’s news service. Why? The reason for this—and this is my third point—is that the responsibility of a newsman of the SABC extends throughout the whole Republic. A newspaperman is only responsible to the board of directors of his newspaper. In contrast to this, a newsman of the SABC— when he has to select from the mass of information available to him for the composition of a news bulletin—is led by the generally accepted norms of the population as a whole and by the criteria which are applicable to the majority of people at a particular time and in particular circumstances. In the second place a reporter of the SABC’s news service has the responsibility to see that his reporting does not instigate, that it does not cause unrest. The SABC’s news service acts, in other words, as an antipode for that part of our country’s Press which is unfortunately only accessible to a certain part of the population, namely the great mass of uni-linguists. Therefore if the SABC creates perspective by giving a balanced version of news events, these people become frustrated because, according to them, the SABC’s reporting has a political implication. Naturally it also happens because it causes people no longer to believe all the things which they read in that particular part of the Press.

They do not like perspective.

Therefore—as a reaction to the hon. member’s speech—if we want to evaluate the SABC today, and if we approve this particular legislation in order to inform the SABC that we approve of its good “track record”, we mean it. We also want to praise the SABC because in its news commentary and its perspective programmes—ever since the time of Sharpeville—it has made an immense contribution towards obtaining peace and quiet in our country as well as to the continual provision of information to the listeners throughout the whole country. History will confer its recognition on the SABC, although that body is unfortunately not sufficiently appreciated by members on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I specifically want to refer to “Current Affairs”. This is a programme which is slated by the hon. member year after year, a programme to which he regularly refers as “His master’s voice”, “a rule unto itself” and an “arm of the Government”. That particular programme brought perspective to us in South Africa in connection with the personal freedom of people. In that programme the standpoint is very clearly expounded that, as against the so-called right of the individual to live a free life, according to his own norms, each individual, apart from his right, also has a responsibility towards his community. “Current Affairs” has also stated clearly the principle that there must be a balance in respect of the criteria and of the limits which have been created by generations through the centuries and according to which we must live.

In the second place, “Current Affairs” encouraged the radio to take note of the population composition and situation in South Africa. Traditionally we live apart in this country. It was a striking example—actually a little ludicrous—when the hon. member for Parktown and for Umhlanga called out today: “What about the Indian culture? What about the Coloured culture?”

Who is now asking for separate development? Who is now asking for the recognition of separate cultures? And when one argues that the radio must recognize separate cultures, how much more one should advocate the recognition of the basic political claims of separate groups and their aspirations to self-fulfilment, as embodied in the policies of this Government. In this respect, too, “Current Affairs” has made an immense contribution by making it clear that it reflects the criteria and the generally accepted life-style of all groups of the Republic of South Africa.

Therefore we want to ask the Opposition today whether the SABC has ever acted irresponsibly in its broadcasts or whether it has ever broadcast falsehoods. Errors may creep in but history has proved to us how seldom something of this nature happens. In cases where the SABC has made mistakes, it has always had the courage of its convictions and has been prepared to admit it and rectify it. However, what those hon. members are asking is that, when the SABC states a particular standpoint, they must have an equal opportunity to state their opposing standpoint. I want to indicate once again that nowhere in the world does the principle hold that any person may be given an opportunity to put his opposing standpoint over the radio. This was rejected as far back as 1967 by the European Broadcasting Union.

I want to put another question to those hon. members. Why do they allege that history has proved that the SABC does not reflect the standpoint of the majority in its broadcasts? Therefore, if the opinion of the majority of people in South Africa happens to agree with or to differ from the opinion of the people on this side of the House, those hon. members should not be jealous. Then they should rather tell their hackneyed old story to the voters and see if they can gain a majority vote in that way, which would enable their opinion to prevail. Instead of that they are trying to earn themselves a position of authority by slight of hand.

In conclusion I want to ask them: Does fairness mean that a news medium, such as the SABC, should give prominence to the opinion of the majority? I think this is a ridiculous insinuation.