Mr. Speaker, I move—

The conventional aim of budgetary policy, in the broad economic sense, is the promotion of economic growth with stability. In the present internal economic situation in South Africa, where the growth rate has declined and the economy is running at less than full capacity in a downward phase of the business cycle, an expansionist budget might seem to be appropriate. But there comes a time in the history of every nation when sterner pressures from without, both political and economic, demand a different approach.

The external economic influences, which I shall presently describe more fully, include the prolonged depression in our principal overseas markets, the decline in the gold price and the continuing contrived uncertainty in the gold market, all of which have not only placed a strain on our balance of payments but have retarded our economic growth as well as the growth of State revenue. Political developments in Southern Africa, on the other hand, clearly demand that we increase our defence effort and strengthen our economic and military preparedness. These, together with the need for fighting inflation, are the dominant influences which must shape this budget.

To present a budget in these rather demanding circumstances is no easy task. I have no intention, however, of painting too sombre a picture. As I shall presently show, South Africa has weathered the economic storms of the recent past remarkably well. Given reasonable political stability in Southern Africa, for which, despite present uncertainties, I have good reason to be hopeful, the medium-and long-term prospects for our economy are bright indeed. But if we are to build up our economic strength and create the conditions for a resumption of rapid economic growth, we must grasp the nettle of our present problems without fear or hesitation.

General Economic Conditions

In my Budget Speech last year I said that “unless external factors exercise a much stronger unfavourable influence than can be foreseen at present, our economic growth rate should … still be relatively high”. In fact, as I have already indicated, external factors were much less favourable than could reasonably have been foreseen at the time.

The first of these factors was the much longer duration and greater depth of the depression overseas. Contrary to practically all expert economic opinion in the early part of 1975, the world depression which began late in 1973—the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s—continued practically unabated in most Western countries and in the majority of these countries there were few significant signs of recovery during the second half of 1975. In consequence, the expected improvement in South Africa’s exports and in our terms of trade has naturally been delayed.

The second unfavourable factor was the fall in the gold price on the private market, which declined from nearly $200 per fine ounce at the end of 1974 to under $130 in September 1975 and again, after a moderate recovery, to a low point of $124 in January 1976. The present price is still considerably higher than the average price of only three years ago, but the unexpected fall over the past year nevertheless had a strongly adverse effect on our balance of payments. Though I have every confidence in the longer-term future of gold, the present conditions in the gold market, including the uncertainty connected with the prospective sale of gold by the International Monetary Fund, make any significant improvement in the gold price in the immediate future problematical.

As I have explained on previous occasions, these two unforeseen economic factors were the principal reasons for the devaluation of the rand last September. In particular the sharp fall in the gold price after the International Monetary Fund meeting led to a resumption in “leads and lags” in foreign payments and receipts and a consequent further severe strain upon our reserves, which called for immediate action. Since possible alternative measures such as stricter import control, additional overseas borrowing or drastic deflationary measures were all open to serious objections, devaluation was the only realistic response to the unexpected situation which had arisen. The devaluation was successful in securing an immediate reversal of the “leads and lags”, and should in due course materially assist our export industries in increasing their sales abroad as conditions in our export markets improve.

Recent developments in Angola and Mozambique might be thought to have provided a third external factor to exercise an unexpected unfavourable influence on our balance of payments, particularly on the capital account. I am glad to say that in informed and responsible quarters abroad confidence in the South African economy continues unabated, though I believe it would be imprudent to neglect the possibility of some continuance of political uncertainty in neighbouring countries.

The unforeseen prolongation of the depression overseas and the fall in the gold price were primarily responsible for the continuation of the downward phase in South Africa’s economic cycle and for the reduction in the growth rate of the real gross domestic product from its high level of 7% in 1974 to about 214% in 1975. Though low by South African standards, our growth rate still compares very favourably with those of other developed Western countries: the average growth rate of member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which includes the United States and the other principal non-communist industrial countries, was minus 0,1% in 1974 and minus 2% in 1975.

Most components of gross domestic expenditure in South Africa grew more slowly in 1975 than in 1974, the single exception being current government expenditure, which increased by 14% in real terms. Capital expenditure by the public sector was also mainly responsible for a rise of 4% in total real fixed investment. At constant prices private consumption increased by 3% and private fixed investment by only 1%. It was, in fact, the public sector which was mainly responsible for the economy’s growth last year.

The slower rate of growth during 1975 was reflected in most sectors of the South African economy.

While the agricultural season was far from unfavourable, it fell short of the record season of 1974, so that the contribution of the agricultural sector to the real gross domestic product declined by 6%. The net income of farmers remained approximately the same as in 1974, mainly as a result of higher producers’ prices.

The volume of mining production—other than gold—of manufacturing production and of retail sales all increased at slower rates in 1975 than in the previous year, though sales in the important automobile industry increased by 6,4%, as against a small decline in 1974. Gold production and activity in the building and construction industries showed actual declines last year.

As was to be expected during a downward phase of the business cycle, the number of registered unemployed persons—White, Coloured and Asian—seasonally adjusted, increased from a low point of 7 150 in August 1974 to 11 462 in December 1975, but the latter figure still represents only about one-half of 1% of the relative labour force.

Inflation remains a serious problem. The consumer price index increased by 11,7% from December 1974 to December 1975, and by 10,9% from February 1975 to February 1976, as compared with 14% from December 1973 to December 1974. Between the third and fourth quarters of 1975 the seasonally adjusted annual rate of increase was 10,4%. This is a significant improvement but the rate of inflation is still unacceptably high.

Salaries and wages, however, more than kept pace, on average, with price increases. During the first three quarters of 1975 average salaries and wages per employee in the non-agricultural sector of the economy were 18,3% higher than in the corresponding period of 1974; for non-White employees the increase was no less than 25,3%.

Balance of Payments

The slower rate of growth in the South African economy during 1975 caused the volume of imports to decline, but the value in rand terms increased by nearly 17%. In the face of the world depression we did well to maintain the volume of merchandise exports at approximately its 1974 level. By value, however, exports rose by about 12%, mainly as a result of a sharp increase in the fourth quarter of 1975 following the devaluation of the rand in September.

While the average dollar price of gold during 1975 was very close to the 1974 level, the devaluation caused the average price in terms of rand to increase sufficiently to offset most of the fall in the volume of gold production. The value of the net gold output last year was consequently only slightly below the 1974 level.

As a result of all these factors the deficit on the current account of the balance of payments increased from R860 million in 1974 to R1 616 million in 1975, or just over 6% of the gross domestic product, which in all the circumstances and by historical standards is not abnormally high.

This current deficit was more than covered by a net capital inflow of R1 774 million. This record inflow consisted principally of long-term loan capital amounting to R1 263 million, of which R701 million was received by the public corporations and R391 million by the Central Government and banking sectors. Mainly as a result of leads and lags in external payments and receipts and other speculative movements of funds, the inflow of short-term capital fluctuated considerably over the year, and this occasionally placed severe pressure on the reserves.

The gross gold and other foreign reserves actually increased over the year 1975 by R191 million to a level of R1 100 million. This figure was swollen, however, by substantial short-term external borrowings by the monetary authorities, so that the net reserves, after deduction of such borrowings, declined during most of the first three quarters of 1975. After the devaluation in September, the net reserves improved until about the end of the year.

Since the beginning of 1976, unfounded rumours of a further devaluation of the rand have again given rise to unfavourable leads and lags in external payments and receipts and consequent pressure on the reserves. These short-term movements have been checked by the stricter credit policy of the Reserve Bank and by the stricter exchange control measures announced in February.

Monetary Conditions

During 1975 the quantity of money and near-money rose by 16%, as compared with 23% in each of the years 1973 and 1974. This increase was only slightly higher than the increase in gross domestic product at current market prices. Bank credit to the private and government sectors increased by 23%.

Bank credit to the private sector tended to show a marked increase at those times when rumours of a devaluation of the rand gave rise to leads and lags in external payments and receipts. The Reserve Bank accordingly in August and again in September 1975 tightened its credit policy inter alia by raising the liquid assets requirements of banking institutions.

In recent months there has been a substantial movement of funds from the private to the government sector, associated with tax payments and with the Government’s successful internal loan issues. Despite this, there was a further substantial increase in bank credit to the private sector in January and February, so much so that the Reserve Bank, as a temporary measure, instituted credit “ceilings” on the banks in February.

Economic Prospects

Economic forecasters have fared badly during the past two years. Throughout the world their forecasts have proved to be too optimistic and have had to be revised downward. Nevertheless, it is necessary for this budget, or indeed any budget, to take a view on the prospects for the economy.

Since the South African economy has been so profoundly affected by external forces during the past year, it is clear that developments outside our borders will play a great part in shaping the course of our economy in the year ahead. It is now widely expected that 1976 will be a year of economic recovery in the main industrial countries and that the volume of world trade will again increase. The most recent forecasts of the O.E.C.D., for example, indicate that the member countries of this organisation together will show a growth rate of about 4% in 1976, compared with a negative growth rate of 2% in 1975. While the latest estimates may err on the optimistic side, there seems little doubt that in the United States the upswing is now under way, and in several other Western countries the signs are promising.

The South African economy should benefit appreciably from such an economic recovery, though possibly with a time lag of a few months. The market for our export commodities should improve and—aided by the devaluation of last September—the value of our exports could show a substantial increase, which in its turn should stimulate internal consumption and investment and lead to a new upswing and more rapid growth in the South African economy.

This favourable effect will, however, probably not be experienced until towards the end of 1976 or during 1977. For the current year the growth rate is likely to be much the same as in 1975. In real terms, private consumption expenditure should increase only moderately, while private fixed investment may show little if any rise and inventory investment may even decline.

These conditions are naturally favourable for South Africa’s balance of payments, and there is every reason to expect that the deficit on the current account will be substantially lower in 1976 than in 1975, particularly during the later months of the year. A deficit of this order should be covered by a normal inflow of capital.

On economic grounds I do not anticipate any serious difficulty in obtaining foreign capital. Though one sometimes hears that South Africa has over-borrowed abroad, I do not agree that this is the case, especially when regard is had to the tremendous export potential of our mineral resources. By far the greater part of our investment is financed from internal sources: even the exceptionally high net capital inflow in 1975 amounted to only 23% of gross domestic investment, and in 1974—which was a more normal year—the percentage was only 11. As regards the public sector in particular, foreign capital plays an important but by no means dominant role in expanding our export potential and in the further development of our energy resources. As a percentage of the total receipts on the current account of our balance of payments— excluding transfers—that is our visible and invisible exports, total payments abroad in respect of interest, dividends and branch profits have actually declined, from 10,5% in 1965 and 13,1% in 1970 to an estimated 10,2% in 1975. Interest payments have indeed increased over this period, but this increase is more than counterbalanced by a decrease in the percentage attributable to dividends and branch profits. Our foreign borrowing is therefore well within the limits of prudence.

Here, however, it is necessary to take account of political factors. Thus far, the political uncertainties in other parts of Southern Africa appear to have had little effect on those foreign investors who are acquainted with the realities of this continent, though they have had some influence on those less familiar with the facts. I have already said that I am hopeful of an improvement in the political stability of other countries in this region. Nevertheless, it would be prudent to make some allowance for the possibility that some uncertainties may continue to prevail.

As against this possibility there is at least the reasonable assurance that the leads and lags in foreign payments and receipts which from time to time caused so much strain on the balance of payments during the past year, will have much less effect in the months ahead. This follows from the tighter liquidity position of the banks and the more restrictive credit policy of the monetary authorities.

The ability of the authorities to withstand short-term fluctuations in the reserves has also been greatly increased by the gold swap agreements recently concluded by the Reserve Bank. Because part of the gold component in our reserves, which is still valued at the old official price, was exchanged for currency at a market-related price, the nominal value of our reserves naturally increased. The main object of the transaction is to increase the cash content of the reserves, which will give the authorities greater flexibility both in dealing with short-term fluctuations in the reserves and in their gold marketing policy.

As regards inflation, it is necessary in considering the prospects for the coming year to take account of the fact that the effects of the devaluation of last September, though much smaller than forecast in some quarters, may not yet be fully reflected in consumer prices. Secondly, although the rate of inflation has declined in most industrial countries overseas, it is still at a fairly high level, so that South Africa will still have to contend with rising prices for imports in the period ahead. Thirdly, it must be accepted that certain administered prices will have to be adjusted upwards; a recent example is the rail tariff increases announced by my colleague, the Minister of Transport. Where price control applies, the Government will certainly not approve price increases before they are absolutely necessary, but, on the other hand, to postpone unavoidable adjustments of this nature too long will, apart from creating immediate financing problems, merely store up trouble for the future.

It is therefore only realistic to accept that, while the general downward trend in the inflation rate should continue in 1976, the problem of rising costs and prices will still be with us. For this reason the Government will continue to give high priority to this problem and will continue to co-operate wholeheartedly with the private sector in the Collective Campaign against Inflation.

Conclusions for Financial Policy

While the Government continues to attach the highest importance to the long-term growth of the economy, there are several factors which, to my mind, point to the need for a conservative budget at this juncture. The appropriate measure of financial discipline now will pay handsome dividends ahead for all of us.

There are, firstly, the uncertainties regarding the duration of the unfavourable external factors which have been influencing the economy and in particular the balance of payments. As I have mentioned, there is a good possibility that the economic recovery overseas will shortly begin to stimulate our export trade, that the gold price will stabilize and eventually resume its upward trend, and that greater political stability will prevail in Southern Africa with a consequent favourable effect on the inflow of foreign capital. It may be some time, however, before these conditions are fully realized, and in the meanwhile it would be prudent to frame our policy in such a way that our balance of payments is not exposed to undue strain. For this reason it is important that strict control should be maintained over aggregate demand.

The campaign against inflation furnishes another reason for restraint in fiscal policy. In view of the present slow rate of growth in our economy, I believe that cost-push rather than demand-pull factors are mainly responsible for our current inflation, the incidence of which, as I have pointed out, has diminished and should in due course diminish further. Nevertheless, it is clearly important that adequate control should be maintained over the money supply lest, when our growth rate starts to rise, excessive monetary demand should again tend to increase inflationary pressures.

Monetary and credit policy is already directed towards this objective. The successive increases in the minimum liquid asset ratios of the banks and the credit ceiling imposed, temporarily, last month are all designed to exercise a necessary measure of monetary restraint. It is now essential that fiscal policy should reinforce these monetary measures.

Naturally, it is necessary to preserve balance and perspective in the application of fiscal policy. It is not necessary or desirable, nor is it the aim of this budget, to apply so restrictive a financial policy as to stultify economic growth. Due regard must be paid to social priorities. What is required is a budget which is conservative in the sense of exercising strict control over State expenditure and financing it, so far as possible, from non-inflationary sources. This, it may be mentioned, is in accordance with the Government’s undertakings under the Collective Campaign against Inflation.

In order to see how this broad policy objective may be translated into practical budgetary proposals, it is necessary to review the Government accounts for the present and the ensuing financial years.

The Financial Year 1975-’76

For the financial year ending today, the Government accounts are estimated to show the following results.

Expenditure on Revenue Account will amount to approximately R5 184 million, which is R115 million or 2,3% above the original estimate. Taking into account the inflation rate of the past year and the unforeseen defence expenditures which we had to incur, I think this is a notable achievement. Mainly owing to the decline in the gold price and the consequent fall in the revenue from gold mining taxation, total Inland Revenue receipts are estimated to amount to R3 910 million, which is R71 million less than the original figure. Customs, excise and sales duties will, however, yield approximately R1 136 million which is R48 million more than the original estimate, so that total receipts will only be about R23 million lower than expected. Taking into account the opening balance of R419 million and the transfers to Loan Account, South West Africa Account and the Loan Fund for Economic Co-operation envisaged in my previous budget, I estimate that the year will close with a surplus of approximately R93 million on Revenue Account.

On Loan Account, expenditure is estimated at R1 632 million, which is R22 million or 1,4% above the original estimate. Our internal borrowing operations were particularly successful and I was able to transfer no less than R396 million to the Stabilization Account, and there should still be a credit balance of R3 million in the Loan Account at the end of the current financial year.

Revenue and expenditure on the South West Africa Account are expected to be close to the original estimates and the Account should close with a deficit of R39 million.

On the three Accounts combined, I therefore expect the financial year to end with a surplus of R57 million. To have achieved this in the difficult year which we have experienced, and at the same time to have transferred a very substantial sum to the Stabilization Account, was no easy task.

Its successful accomplishment is due primarily to the response of the financial sector to the State’s borrowing operations and to the general resilience of our economy.

As is customary, I propose that a part of the balance available in the Exchequer at the close of this financial year be transferred to the Loan Fund for Economic Co-operation. The amount customarily transferred is R6 million, but in view of the present financial stringency the provision will on this occasion be reduced to R5 million.

After providing for this transfer and for the shortfall on the South West Africa Account, the balance remaining in the Revenue and Loan Accounts together is then R52 million.

The Financial Year 1976-’77

Expenditure on State Revenue Account

The Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year which begins tomorrow are presented in the new form which was explained in detail last year to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I believe that in their new form the Estimates will prove to be far more informative to hon. members and will facilitate effective financial control. A detailed explanation of the changes is contained in the Memorandum which accompanies the Estimates.

The new Exchequer and Audit Act of 1975 replaces the old Revenue and Loan Accounts by a single State Revenue Account. This step not only lends itself to a more meaningful presentation of the Government accounts, particularly from the standpoint of economic analysis, but is also essential for the application of the modem techniques of integrated budgeting. One of the Government’s undertakings in the Collective Campaign against Inflation is to continue to promote the use of integrated budgeting systems by all Government Departments. While it is wise not to be over-hasty in this respect, five Government Departments—Agricultural Technical Services, Defence, Finance, Forestry and Health—will change to an integrated budgeting system in the coming financial year, and it is expected that all other departments will change within the next three years.

I have stated on several occasions that it is my aim to ensure that State expenditure in the financial year 1976-’77 will not, in real terms—i.e. after allowing for cost increases—exceed the level of expenditure in 1975-’76. The Estimates of Expenditure on the State Revenue Account which I shall lay upon the Table, provide for a total expenditure in 1976-’77 of R7 792 million.

In order to make this figure comparable with the previous year, an amount of R258 million must be deducted in respect of the interest paid by the Railways Administration on its debt which, in terms of the new Act, must now be appropriated from the State Revenue Account but which also appears as a contra item in the revenue estimates. The resulting aggregate expenditure of R7 534 million is R718 million or 10,5% above the revised figure for 1975-’76, and this percentage is near enough to our present inflation rate to enable me to claim that I have attained my objective.

This was not accomplished without considerable effort and without the whole-hearted co-operation of my colleagues, to whom I wish to express my deep appreciation. The task was not made easier by the necessity, in present circumstances, to make adequate provision for Defence.

I am sure that all sides of the House will support a substantial increase in the provision for Defence, so as to ensure that those defending our borders will have the best possible equipment with which to deter any possible enemy. The amount requested on the Defence Vote has therefore been increased to R1 350 million, which is almost 40% more than during the current financial year and nearly twice as much as in 1974-’75. Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me state clearly and categorically that South Africa has no aggressive intentions towards any country, but that we shall defend our borders with all the force at our command is beyond doubt or challenge.

In order to accommodate this increase in Defence expenditure and at the same time ensure that total State expenditure is not increased in real terms, the strictest economies have had to be applied to other Government Departments. Excluding Defence and after adjustment for the interest on, railway debt to which I have referred, the amount requested for 1976-’77 is in fact only about 6% above the corresponding revised figure for the current financial year. This means that, for several departments, there will be an actual decrease in expenditure in real terms.

The Government has, nevertheless, been mindful of its undertaking under the Collective Campaign against Inflation “to expand the infrastructure adequately so as to avoid cost-raising bottlenecks; and, in this manner, to provide adequately for future economic growth and the promotion of education and training of manpower”. Social priorities, as I have already mentioned, must also receive due attention.

For these reasons the amount requested for National Education, for example, is increased by 15,6% above the figure for the current financial year; for Railways by 17,1%, for Community Development by 19,7% —including 38,3% more for the National Housing Fund—and for Bantu Administration and Development by 15,5%.

The provision under the last-named Vote includes R30 million for the purchase of land. Hon. members will be aware that the financing of land purchases for the Bantu homelands has given rise to some problems during the past year. In consultation with my colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, I appointed an inter-departmental committee to investigate methods of augmenting the financial resources available for this purpose, and this committee has recently submitted its report. Some of its proposals are still under consideration, but the Government has already decided to accept two of its recommendations. These are, that the South African Bantu Trust may take over existing mortgage bonds on property purchased, and secondly that the Trust may negotiate with the owners of property for payment to be made by instalments over a period of time. In order to keep a close control over the State’s liabilities under such purchase agreements and generally to co-ordinate the consolidation programme, the Government has accepted a further recommendation that a permanent committee, consisting of representatives of the Departments of Bantu Administration and Development, Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, and the Treasury be established for this purpose.

The Provincial Administrations derive most of their revenues from a Government subsidy, calculated on a formula basis. Because of the urgent need to economize I had to inform the Administrators that, for the next financial year, I would have to reduce the subsidy below the amount determined in accordance with the formula and would furthermore have to allocate to the provinces considerably smaller loan funds for capital expenditure than they had requested. I appreciate very much the spirit of understanding in which the Administrators accepted this reduction.

Under the Vote—Industries—an amount of R50 million is included as share capital for Iscor. I must inform the House that finality has not yet been reached on this provision and I may have to approach Parliament later for an additional amount.

Apart from the provision shown in the printed Estimates I wish to propose certain increases in social and civil pensions.

Social Pensions

Sensation-hunters sometimes describe the aged and the handicapped as the world’s forgotten people. That, of course is not true of our country. This Government has in fact a sustained record of aid to our aged and handicapped and, despite the need for economies in nearly every field, it gives me much pleasure to announce today a further measure of financial relief to pensioners for the next financial year.

Dealing with social pensions for Whites first, I propose that these pensions, including parents’ allowances and the allowances payable to settlers, be increased by R8 per month.

I also propose that the allowances payable to children’s homes and to foster parents be increased by R5 per child per month, that maintenance and family grants and the allowances payable in respect of the children of settlers be increased by R2 per child per month and that place of safety allowances be increased by 25c per child per day.

It is further proposed that the subsidies payable to homes for the aged be increased as follows:

1. (a) Group I residents: by 50 cents per resident per month.
2. (b) Group II residents: by R3,50 per resident per month.
3. (c) Group III residents: by R5,50 per resident per month.
4. (d) Group IV residents: by R8 per resident per month.

I also think that an increase is warranted in the case of subsidies payable to institutions caring for the handicapped and I propose that these subsidies be increased by R3 per person per month in cases where no suitably trained staff is available and by R5 per person per month in those cases where suitably trained staff are available.

The question of war pensions is at present receiving the attention of the Government and it is expected that a Bill in this connection will be introduced later during the session. It is proposed that the existing pensions and allowances and bonuses payable to war pensioners be consolidated and that the consolidated amounts be thereafter increased by 10%.

It is further proposed that the pensions and allowances payable in the case of the other population groups be increased as follows:

In addition it is proposed that the subsidies payable in respect of homes for the aged in the case of Coloureds and Indians be increased as follows:

1. (a) Normal aged: by 30c per resident per month.
2. (b) Infirm aged: by R2 per resident per month.
3. (c) Extremely infirm aged: by R3,20 per resident per month.

It is also proposed that the subsidy payable in respect of institutions for handicapped Coloured people be increased by 10%.

I also feel that an increase of 15c per child per day in respect of place of safety allowances payable in the case of Coloureds, Indians and Chinese is due and that the allowances payable in respect of Bantu children should be increased by 6c per child per day.

The concessions referred to will, where appropriate, also apply in South West Africa and will, in accordance with the usual practice, become effective from 1 October 1976.

The total cost of these concessions is about R65 million per annum or R32,5 million for the 1976-’77 financial year.

Civil Pensions

The peculiar circumstances of the aged and the erosive effect of inflation are not confined to social pensioners only. There is another category of the aged, generally known as civil pensioners, who are feeling the pinch of rising prices as much as anybody else. Although they are traditionally regarded as a self-supporting group, the State, as their former employer, has nevertheless in the past given abundant proof that it is not indifferent to their needs.

I have consulted my colleague, the Minister of Transport, and we feel that the position of the civil pensioner and the Railway pensioner also requires our attention. The Minister of Transport will give the necessary attention to the position of pensioners of the South African Railways and Harbours Administration and he will in due course make a statement on this matter. As far as other civil pensioners are concerned, it is proposed that civil pensions be increased with effect from 1 October 1976, by 10% but subject to a minimum of R25 per month in the case of Whites, R15 per month in the case of Coloureds and Indians and R12 per month in the case of Bantu and members of the Government non-White Employees’ Pension Fund.

These increases do not apply to pensioners under the Parliamentary Service and Administrators Pensions Act or to judges and their widows.

The pensions payable to former members of statutory bodies will, with effect from the same date, also be increased by 10%.

These concessions will require an additional amount of R14,7 million per annum from the Exchequer or R7,35 million for the financial year 1976-’77.

The total required on the State Revenue Account therefore amounts to R7 832 million.

Revenue 1976-’77

State revenue is influenced by a wide range of factors and its estimation is never an easy task. In the present phase of relatively slow economic growth in the Republic, a measure of caution seems necessary.

For customs, excise and sales duties I have allowed for a moderate increase to R1 162 million. Inland Revenue, which now includes loan recoveries, loan levies and other revenues formerly credited to Loan Account, will of course be affected by the lower gold price, which may substantially reduce the revenue from gold mining taxation and leases. The slowing down of the economy may also retard the growth of company profits and hence of the revenue from company income tax, but the continuance of some measure of inflation is likely to bring about a fair increase in the revenue from the income tax on individuals. Including the R258 million in respect of interest received from the Railways, to which I have already referred, I estimate the total receipts of Inland Revenue at R4 890 million. Total revenue on the existing basis of taxation will then amount to R6 052 million, leaving a deficit before borrowing of R1 780 million.

In addition to this amount, provision must be made for the redemption of internal and external loans amounting to R376 million and R200 million respectively. The total amount for which financing is required is therefore R2 356 million.

Financing Available

In December last year I addressed an appeal to all insurance companies and pension funds to invest, in the national interest, an additional 2% of their liabilities or assets, as the case may be, in Government stock during 1976. The response of the institutions was gratifying and most subscribed to the stock issued earlier this year. While some will doubtless still subscribe to issues later in 1976, it would be unrealistic to expect that we shall be able to raise as much loan capital internally as in the financial year now ending. Apart from an amount of R333 million representing the reinvestment of maturing stock, I estimate that we shall raise new loan funds to an amount of R250 million in the domestic economy.

As regards external loans, it should be possible to renew maturing credits to an amount of R90 million, while a further R55 million is available in terms of existing arrangements. I think it should be possible to arrange further external loans and credits to an amount of R175 million.

On these assumptions the available financing should be as follows:

This leaves an amount of R1 071 million still to be found.

Special Defence Bonds

Where Defence plays such a large part in this budget and where the defence effort commands such widespread support in our country, I think the time has come to appeal to all South Africans to make a voluntary financial contribution for this purpose. I am sure that many patriotic citizens will welcome this opportunity to make a tangible contribution to the defence of our country. I therefore plan to issue Special Defence Bonds, the proceeds of which will be devoted to the purchase of arms and equipment for the Defence Force.

The terms and conditions of these Bonds will be announced at a later stage. While I hope that many South Africans will be moved by patriotic motives to subscribe, it is not my intention to cause an undue diversion of savings away from other essential channels of investment such as the Post Office Savings Bank and the building societies. It is difficult to estimate the amount which will be raised in this way, but I put it at R120 million.

An amount of R951 million is then still required for the State Revenue Account.

South West Africa Account

Expenditure on the South West Africa Account is estimated at R133 million, which is 17,5% higher than the figure for 1975-’76. This comparatively large increase is due mainly to a sharp rise in the provision for the Department of Water Affairs, particularly for the North-Eastern Water Project. Revenue, after deduction of the statutory transfer to the Territorial Fund, is estimated at R73 million. As is customary, provision will be made in the 1977-’78 financial year for the resulting expected deficit of R60 million.

Stabilization Account

The balance in the Stabilization Account, after the transfer of R396 million this year that I referred to earlier, amounts to R822 million. Of this amount R17 million was used for television financing and the remainder invested with the National Supplies Procurements Fund. While it is possible to finance the Exchequer from funds of the Stabilization Account, it would not be advisable to use too large an amount for this purpose as it will increase the money supply.

Taxation

It is clear that a conservative budgetary policy requires a considerable portion of the shortfall of R951 million on State Revenue Account to be met from additional taxation. It is never a pleasant task to propose tax increases, and especially increases of this magnitude. I am, however, sure that the country will be prepared to shoulder this burden so that we may strengthen our economy and above all increase our military preparedness.

Under these circumstances there can be no question of any broad tax concessions. There is, however, one concession that I wish to propose.

Aged taxpayers

Last year the special income tax abatement for persons above the age of 60 was raised from R400 to R600. In view of our current inflation rate and its effect on aged persons, whose incomes are often fixed in money terms, I wish to propose that this abatement now be raised to R700. In future persons above 60 years of age will only be liable for income tax when their income exceeds R1 900 for married persons and R1 400 for single persons, and this benefit will only cease to apply when income exceeds R14 500 for married persons and R12 000 for single persons. The loss of revenue is estimated at R1,7 million.

Tax Increases

I now come to the tax increases, and I think that it is reasonable to spread the additional burden as widely as possible in order that everyone will contribute, though the well-to-do will naturally carry the heaviest burden. Quite obviously our traditional sources of revenue must receive attention.

Customs and Excise Duties

Beer

The consumption of beer has increased considerably over the past years and though the increase for 1975 may not have been as large as that of previous years, I am of the opinion that this product can still bear an increased tax. I propose that the duty on all beer (both imported and local) be increased by 2,4 cents per litre or about 0,9 cents per container of 375 millilitres (or per pint according to imperial measures). The retail price of beer should not rise by more than one cent per container of 375 millilitres, and I shall expect manufacturers, in fixing the increased price of beer in containers of different sizes, to give due consideration to the interests of the consumer. The estimated additional income during 1976-’77 is about R11,7 million.

Wine

Although there is no noticeable increase in the consumption of wine, I feel that the consumer of fortified wine and sparkling wine can also make a contribution. I propose, therefore, that the customs and excise duties on fortified and on sparkling wines be increased by 2,4 cents per litre. The duties on unfortified wine remain unchanged. The additional revenue from this source is estimated at R1,8 million.

Spirits

The consumption of spirits has also increased noticeably during the past few years and is still increasing. It is therefore only reasonable to expect the consumer of brandy, gin, whisky and other spirituous beverages to make a contribution along with the consumer of beer and wine. I propose that the customs and excise duties on spirits be increased by 33,6 cents per litre or about 0,9 cents per tot. The retail price of local and imported spirits should not rise by more than one cent per tot. The additional revenue is estimated at R28 million.

Tobacco

It is certainly only fair to expect the smoker to make his contribution and I propose accordingly that the stamp duty on local and imported cigarettes be increased by one cent per ten cigarettes, that on cigarette tobacco by one cent per 50 grammes and that on cigars (both local and imported) by ten cents per kilogram. As pipe tobacco is subject to an ad valorem rate of duty and consequently carries a higher duty as the price is increased, it was decided not to increase the rate of duty thereon.

The additional revenue for 1976-’77 from these increases is estimated at R23,8 million.

Cool drinks

The cool drink industry was also looked at and I am of the opinion that this industry can also make a contribution. I have consequently decided to withdraw, by means of a Government Notice to be published tomorrow, the existing provision for a rebate of the full duty less 70 cents per 100 litres on non-alcoholic beverages containing, by volume, less than a certain percentage of vegetable or fruit juices. The withdrawal of this rebate provision has the effect that the duty on cool drinks will be increased by 106 cents per 100 litres or by approximately 1 cent per litre. The customs duty is also increased by 106 cents per 100 litres. The estimated revenue from this source amounts to about R5,6 million.

Petroleum Products

The price paid by the consumer for petroleum products in South Africa is substantially lower than in many other countries while consumption is still rising quite rapidly. In the circumstances I propose that the customs and excise duties on petroleum products be increased by 2,5 cents per litre. The partial rebate of duty which applies in certain cases (for example for use for agricultural or forestry purposes or for public bus transport services) on kerosene, distillate fuel and residual fuel oil remains unchanged—i.e. no increase in the effective rate of duty is payable in these cases.

The escalating costs of road construction coupled with the effects of the various measures taken to conserve petrol have created serious problems for the National Road Fund, which relies for its revenue on a portion of the duty on motor fuel. I propose that 0,15 cent of the increased duty be paid over to the National Road Fund.

The additional revenue from these increased duties is estimated at R146 million for the financial year 1976-’77 of which about R8,5 million will go to the National Road Fund.

Sales Duty

Since the last increase in sales duty during 1971, the sales duty on certain goods has been reduced from time to time. I think, however, that in the present circumstances it will now only be proper to expect a higher income from this source. I therefore propose that the rates of duty in all cases be increased by approximately one third, for example 5% is increased to 6,5%, 7,5% to 10%, 10% to 13%, 12,5% to 16,5%, 15% to 20%, and 20% to 26,5%.

The estimated additional revenue from these increases in the rates of sales duty amounts to about R66 million for the financial year 1976-’77.

All the increases in customs, excise and sales duties which I have announced take effect immediately and apply to all the goods concerned that have not yet been cleared for home consumption, i.e. not yet removed from the premises of importers and manufacturers licensed with the Department of Customs and Excise.

I would, however, like to draw special attention to the fact that the increased duty on local and imported beer and spirits (including spirits in spirituous beverages but excluding wine) will also be payable on such stocks which have not at this time been delivered from the stocks of distributors (including distributing depots of manufacturers), wholesale dealers and retail dealers.

In the case of cigarettes and cigarette tobacco, the increased duty will also be payable on such stocks which have not at this time been delivered from the stocks of distributors (including distributing depots of manufacturers), wholesale dealers and other dealers who purchase supplies direct from manufacturers or their depots.

As the increased duties on beer and spirits are payable on all such goods in stock at all outlets, stock will immediately have to be taken at all such points.

Dealers in cigarettes and cigarette tobacco know where they purchase their stocks. Where stocks are purchased by dealers directly from manufacturers (including distributing depots of manufacturers), such dealers will immediately have to take stock of all cigarettes and cigarette tobacco they have in store at this time. In case of any doubt regarding which dealers will have to pay the increased duty on their stocks, this information should be obtained from the nearest office of the Department concerned.

Forms, on which the stocks of beer, spirits and spirituous beverages, cigarettes and cigarette tobacco on hand at such dealers must be declared, will be forwarded to all the dealers concerned by the Department of Customs and Excise.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of section 58(1) of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, I now lay upon the Table for consideration by the House, the formal taxation proposals with regard to customs, excise and sales duties.

I also cannot omit to point out to dealers from whom it is expected to take stock of the relative goods in their possession or under their control, that care should be taken to take and declare stocks as accurately as possible. As is common knowledge, the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, provides for severe penalties in the case of failure to declare all goods in stock. Dealers who must submit returns will in due course be visited by officers of the Department concerned to ensure that such returns were in fact submitted and that the quantities declared are correct according to the dealers’ records.

There is no justification for other dealers, who are not directly affected by the increased duties, to increase immediately the prices of goods purchased at the old rates of duty. I therefore rely on, and appeal to, such dealers to sell at the current ruling prices those stocks on which the old rate of duty was paid, and to adjust their prices only when new stocks bearing the increased duties, are received.

I certainly expect that the retail price of all the goods affected by these proposals will not be raised by more than is strictly justified by the increased duties.

In the case of goods subject to price control merchants may not raise their prices without the consent of the Price Controller.

Hon. members will recall that it was proposed a few years ago that the present sales duty be converted to a duty payable at the point of sale to the consumer or a tax on retail turnover, and that these proposals were referred to the Standing Commission of Inquiry into Taxation Policy. The Commission has investigated the matter thoroughly and has recently submitted its report. The problem is a complex one and aspects of both practice and principle require careful consideration. I am at present considering the matter.

I wish to mention in passing that the Standing Commission, which always reports to me confidentially and therefore receives little publicity, has already submitted reports on various important tax matters. In addition to sales tax its reports have already covered inter alia capital gains tax, taxation of married women, and certain proposals in respect of taxation in decentralized areas, and it is at present still engaged on the whole problem of inflation accounting. Members of both the private and the public sector serve on the Commission, and I should like to express my appreciation of the exceptionally useful work performed by the Commission.

Where the increases in indirect taxation spread the burden on a broad basis, it is necessary to seek further revenue from the business sector and the more affluent taxpayers.

Direct Taxation

Before I consider the necessary tax increases, however, there are a few aspects of direct taxation which require attention.

Married Women

Last year I announced that the Department of Inland Revenue, in collaboration with the Standing Commission of Inquiry into Taxation Policy, would investigate the basis of taxation of married women. This investigation has now been completed and this afternoon I shall table both the Commission’s report and the Department’s memorandum.

This aspect of tax policy has unfortunately become a somewhat emotional issue and I appreciate the sober and objective way in which both bodies have approached the problem. I can inform the House that both came to the conclusion that the present basis of taxation should be retained. The Government is still considering the reports and I shall announce its decision on a later occasion.

Inflation Accounting

Last year I also made mention of the problem of the effect of inflation on business profits and especially the ability of businesses to set aside sufficient funds to replace capital assets. Due to the fact that there is no unanimity as yet in accounting circles on the so-called inflation accounting, I have also referred this problem to the Standing Commission. The Commission could not yet complete its investigation into this controversial subject. I can, however, inform the House that according to information already gathered, the existing South African system does not compare at all unfavourably with those of most other countries. I wish to remind hon. members that, due to the effect of our wear and tear, investment and initial allowances, a manufacturer can deduct from his taxable income up to 74% of the cost of machinery in the first year of usage, and that the total deduction over the lifetime of the machinery amounts to 130% of the cost (or up to 165% in the economic development areas). This concession already compensates to a great extent for the effect of inflation. I am nevertheless prepared to give careful consideration to the Commission’s recommendations when they are received.

Tax on Non-resident Shareholders

I wish to propose a change in the Nonresident Shareholder’s Tax. The present Act contains a stipulation introduced many years ago under quite different circumstances, namely that no tax would be payable if the shareholder who receives the dividend is a non-South African company doing business in the Republic. The result is that such dividends are now free of tax even if the South African business activities of the shareholder-company are negligible.

I therefore propose that as from today all dividends payable to such companies be subjected to Non-resident Shareholders’ Tax. This will also eliminate an anomaly, which I shall explain in more detail when the Income Tax Bill is introduced at a later stage during this session.

The estimated revenue for the financial year 1976-’77 is R3 million.

Company Tax

The rate of income tax on companies in South Africa is still lower than in many comparable countries, and an increase under present circumstances is fully justified. Because the present financial problems are, it is hoped, only temporary, it is only fair to collect a substantial part of the additional revenue by means of loan levies. I therefore propose an additional surcharge of 5% and an additional loan levy of 10% on the basic tax payable by all companies (excluding diamond mining companies). Diamond mining companies are excluded from the additional surcharge because they already pay a considerably higher tax than other companies; they will, however, have to pay the additional loan levy. The new rates mean that a company (excluding gold and diamond mining companies) will in future be subject to a basic tax rate of 40% plus a surcharge of 3% plus a loan levy of 6% on taxable income.

It is estimated that the additional surcharge will raise R80 million and the additional loan levy R160 million in the financial year 1976-’77.

Income Tax on Individuals

Individuals now pay a surcharge of 5% on their basic tax, but no loan levy. I propose that an additional surcharge of 5%, plus a loan levy of 10% be imposed on their basic tax. The surcharge and loan levy are, however, only payable where the basic tax exceeds R150 in the case of persons under 60 years of age. In the case of persons over 60 years of age, liability for the loan levy and the surcharge only commences if such a person’s taxable income exceeds R5 000.

The result of these proposals is that a married man under 60 years of age with two children and with an income of R4 000 per year will pay an additional R9 in surcharge and R17 in loan levy approximately; with and income of R10 000 the amounts are R58 and R116 respectively; and with an income of R15 000, R138 and R275 respectively.

It should be mentioned that these proposed rates of taxation plus loan levy are still considerably lower than those applicable in 1971.

The additional surcharge will contribute an anticipated R65 million and the loan levy R130 million in the next financial year.

Undistributed Profits Tax

The main purpose of the Undistributed Profits Tax is to encourage companies— especially companies controlled by a few shareholders—to distribute a reasonable share of their profits which are then taxed in the hands of the shareholders.

The proposed increase in the rate of company taxation will effectively place all operating companies outside the scope of the abovementioned tax so that the tax will in future only be applicable to financial companies.

The proposed increase in the rate of income tax on individuals also requires that the rate of tax on undistributed profits be raised in order to maintain the effectiveness of the latter, especially in relation to private financial companies which present an easy vehicle for tax avoidance. It is accordingly proposed that the rate be increased from 25% to 33⅓%.

This amendment is not expected to yield any additional revenue during the 1976-’77 financial year.

Raising or lowering of loan levies in anticipation of parliamentary approval

As long ago as 1970 the Commission of Inquiry into Fiscal and Monetary Policy in South Africa (the Franzsen Commission) recommended that the Minister of Finance be empowered to amend the rates of certain taxes under certain conditions between budgets. The Commission’s recommendation was mainly based on the desirability of using tax rates as a short-term stabilizing measure during the parliamentary recess.

While I fully realize—as did the Commission—the limitations on the practical application of such a provision, I am nevertheless of the opinion that the provision is in principle desirable, especially in view of the length of the parliamentary recess in South Africa. A mission of the International Monetary Fund, who recently visited the Republic for the customary annual consultation, has indeed also suggested that the Minister of Finance be invested with such authority.

The desirability of such a provision is enhanced by, on the one hand, the political uncertainty in other parts of Southern Africa, and on the other hand, the possibility of an earlier and stronger favourable change in our export markets or in the gold price than presently expected, which may necessitate urgent adjustments of rates, either upward or downward.

I feel, however, that the authority of the Minister should be limited to an increase or decrease of the rate of loan levy only (rather than of taxes), that the maximum increase or decrease should be 10% of the basic tax, and that any such adjustment should be subject to parliamentary approval during the next ensuing session. I propose accordingly.

Summary

The additional amount required for the State Revenue Account was R951 million, plus a further R2 million for the concession to aged taxpayers—altogether therefore R953 million. The additional revenue from the increases in customs duty, excise duty and sales duty is estimated at R275 million, from direct taxes at R148 million, and from loan levies at R290 million—altogether R713 million. The shortfall of R240 million will be met from the Stabilization Account, which will still leave an amount of R582 million in this Account.

As is customary, a summary of the Government’s accounts is subjoined in the printed version of the Budget Speech.

Mr. Speaker, the objectives of this budget are threefold. Firstly, we must make adequate provision for the defence of our country. Secondly, we must maintain our economic strength and, in particular, safeguard our balance of payments and curb inflation. Thirdly, we must see to it that our economic growth is maintained and that the interests of the less privileged members of the community are cared for. It is not easy to reconcile these three objectives, but I believe that this budget maintains the necessary balance as far as possible.

Defence is perhaps the principal duty of the State, and in the present uncertain situation in Southern Africa the House will certainly welcome the increased provision for defence, even though it entails a heavier burden on the taxpayer. Two hundred years ago the great Scottish economist and formidable champion of capitalism, Adam Smith, himself acknowledged that “defence is of much more importance than opulence”. I confidently expect that South Africans will not only be prepared to accept gladly the greater burden of military preparedness, but will make a tangible contribution to that preparedness by investing generously in the defence bonds which I shall issue shortly.

It is equally important that our economy should be strong, and for this reason this must be a conservative budget.

In this connection I should like to refer to the annual consultation with the International Monetary Fund which took place last November. The fund mission which visited the Republic for this purpose, drew up a particularly favourable report on our economy. During the consultations negotiations were conducted in connection with the drawing from the Fund of the equivalent of 80 million Special Drawing Rights (R81 million) which was approved in January 1976. It is customary in connection with such drawings that the Fund requests the member country concerned to furnish certain undertakings in respect of its economic policy—undertakings which are actually in the country’s own interest in order to strengthen its economy. I did not hesitate, therefore, to give the Fund the assurance, firstly, that State expenditures in 1976-’77 would increase at a slower rate than in 1975-’76, and secondly, that the budget deficit would not increase in real terms.

I believe I have complied with these undertakings. As I have already pointed out, the budgeted State expenditure in 1976-’77 will not only rise more slowly than in 1975-’76, but there will in fact be no increase in real terms. As regards the budget deficit, what is intended here is the deficit before borrowing. The deficit for 1976-’77 is estimated at R1 463 million, compared with R1 435 million for 1975-’76—a nominal increase of 2% but definitely a reduction in real terms. Actually it may be regarded as more meaningful for this purpose to deduct loan levies from the deficit, in which case the figures for the present and the ensuing financial year are R1 349 million and R1 069 million respectively—therefore, a very considerable decline.

I wish, however, to warn against the tendency to try to summarize the effect of the budget on the national economy in a few figures. The economy is too complex for that. But the total impact of this budget, including the strict control over expenditures, the reduction in the real deficit (before borrowing), and the moderate use made of the State’s reserve funds, definitely give it a strongly conservative colour which, despite the higher expenditure on defence, can substantially strengthen our balance of payments and at the same time make a big contribution to the struggle against inflation.

It is not enough to reduce State expenditure; we must also take care that the right priorities are maintained and that the available money is spent as effectively as possible. I have already indicated that in determining priorities I have, in accordance with the Government’s undertakings under the Collective Campaign against Inflation, laid special emphasis on the infrastructure and the training of our manpower. As regards efficiency, the integrated budgeting system being introduced in the Public Service should make an important contribution.

I also cherish high expectations of two committees which I recently appointed—the Committee on Building Norms which may achieve big savings on Government buildings, and the Committee of Inquiry into the Finances of Local Authorities which will also report on methods of promoting efficiency in this sphere.

Sound economic growth remains our most important long-term economic target. This budget cannot, it is true, be deliberately stimulatory, but by placing the economy on a sound basis it can build a firm foundation for renewed rapid development in the future. Meanwhile, by means of increased pensions and the tax concession for the aged I have made provision for the interests of the less privileged.

That this can scarcely be regarded as a popular budget, is to me irrelevant. It is, I believe, a realistic budget which, in the national interest, asks certain sacrifices from the community. I am confident that the House will accept these sacrifices in order to safeguard our borders and to establish a sound basis for future economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, I now lay upon the Table—

1. (1) Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from—

1. (a) the State Revenue Account [R.P. 2—’76]; and
2. (b) the South West Africa Account [R.P. 3—’76] during the year ending 31 March 1977;

1. (2) Estimate of Revenue for the financial year ending 31 March 1977 [R.P. 4—’76];
2. (3) Statistical Survey [W.P. B—’76];
3. (4) Comparative figures of Revenue for 1975-’76 and 1976-’77;
4. (5) Taxation proposals [A. 1—’76];
5. (6) Report on the inquiry into the taxation of the income of married women conducted by the Department of Inland Revenue in co-operation with the Standing Commission of Inquiry with Regard to the Taxation Policy of the Republic [W.P. E—’76].

REVENUE 1975-76

R1 000

REVENUE 1976-77 (On existing basis of taxation)

R1 000

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke in the budget debate last year I stated that the hon. the Minister had assumed his position at a time when South Africa was facing very real economic and financial problems. I believed that that was the case at the time, and events justified that view. But if South Africa was facing difficult economic times a year ago, how much more difficult are the times which the country is presently facing? If there is one thing which comes out clearly from this budget, it is that we should make no bones at all about the fact that South Africa is facing extremely difficult economic times. The hon. the Minister has identified four main problems in his speech. The first is the need to provide a substantial amount of money for defence, something which we on this side of the House support. I would like to add a further dimension to the problem of providing for defence, and that is the problem to provide for defence without throwing the economy out of balance any more than is necessary. The second problem which the hon. the Minister has identified is our balance of payments problem, a problem which reflects the fact that we have been living beyond our means which, in turn, is a reflection of overspending over a long period by the Government. The third problem which the hon. the Minister has identified is the one which we all know about and that is inflation, the rising cost of living, which remains at a double figure rate largely also as a result of the high level of Government expenditure and the way that expenditure has been financed in past years. He also mentioned a further factor, viz. the lack of significant real growth in the economy. But he played this factor down and he did not elaborate on what the low growth rate means in terms of lower living standards and unemployment and what the Government intends doing to meet this problem. He did not mention the fifth problem with which the economy is faced, namely the lower level of business confidence compared with a year ago, which is evidenced by the fact that fixed investment by the private sector rose by only 1% last year. He also played down the fact that the overall economic condition of our country has deteriorated significantly within the past year.

Basically he has chosen a damping medicine to deal with the situation, a damping medicine which is mainly aimed at dealing with the balance of payments and inflation problem. In Choosing that medicine he has foregone measures which might have been adopted to stimulate the economy and with stimulation and growth improve the confidence of businessmen. I regard it as a terribly sad reflection that a virile, strong, enterprising economy such as we have in South Africa and such as we on this side of the House have faith in, should be subjected to strait-jacket treatment in the way that this budget has subjected it to. I hope that the Government will realize the implications in terms of unemployment and the social consequences of unemployment of a second year of low economic growth. I believe that this situation makes a decision to relieve the position of those persons who are going to be affected by lower growth—mainly the Black population,—by lifting apartheid measures and giving them more job opportunities than they have at present, a matter of very great urgency.

At this stage when our minds are filled with first impressions of the budget, I am going to keep my powder dry for the debate which will take place next week. I can, however, say at this stage that a large share of the blame for the deterioration in the economy between last year and this year must be borne by the Government. The Cabinet is the board of directors responsible for the management of our economy and the hon. the Minister is the managing director. Collectively they have produced a much worse set of accounts and a much worse directors’ report than was produced a year ago. They cannot escape the responsibility for the deterioration in this performance.

I want to deal briefly with some first impressions of the budget itself. When the hon. the Minister said that this was an “unpopular budget” he certainly was not underestimating the position. There are few crumbs to bring joy to anybody, but what crumbs there are we do welcome. We welcome the fact that expenditure in real terms has been kept in check, but we regret that this has been done, firstly, at the expense of not being able to announce any increase in the salaries of the civil servants. It has, secondly, been done at the expense of postponing rather than economizing on many desirable projects. We welcome very much the increase in social pensions and we welcome the increase in civil pensions. We welcome the increased amount provided for housing and we welcome, although they are minimal, the concessions granted to the aged persons in respect of income tax. On the other hand the shocks in this budget are going to hurt people, they are going to hurt the economy and they are going to hurt where it hurts most. The increase in income tax and the loan levy on individuals is going to raise the maximum marginal amount that taxpayers will have to pay to 72%, which is very nearly a historical high. It is certainly a level which is going to act as a deterrent to productivity and the desire to work. The increase in company tax will make the maintenance of the cash flow by companies all that more difficult at a time when they need to conserve their resources to keep their assets in good order. For many persons a lot of the joy of life is going to be diminished by the higher duties on liquor and tobacco. The most cruel of the tax impositions, however, are those on sales duties and the excise duty on petrol. The increases in sales duty affects a broad spectrum of the necessities of life and as such are going to add directly to the burden of people by increasing the cost of living.

But the worst, the very worst tax of all in this budget, is the increased tax on petrol. This is substantial tax. It is a tax which will affect the life of every person in this country, because it will increase costs right throughout our economy and will have a multiplying effect on the cost of living.

Mr. Speaker, I say that this is a sad budget and a sad day for South Africa.

Finally, I would like to say that there is no benefit to be obtained from underestimating the seriousness of the situation. That is, I think, what the hon. the Minister was inclined to do. The true picture is a sombre picture of a troubled situation. This is the time when men get sorted out from the boys, and whether the hon. the Minister is an adult wearing a tailor-made suit, or a teenager wearing bell-bottom jeans, or a youngster wearing shorts and stockings, will come to light during the debate next week. Meanwhile, to enable us to study the budget further, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak in support of the arguments raised yesterday by my hon. colleague, the member for Parktown. I do not wish to react to the detailed minutia belaboured here yesterday by the Official Opposition. One of the main objections to the Bill enunciated by my colleague, was the failure of the Government to create a policy-making control body and a service which will be representative of all the sections of our diverse community. We say that the first necessary steps to be taken in such direction, should be to ensure that the executive control of the SABC is not vested in the hands of a uni-racial, one-party minority. This vast and influential public utility, corporation, through its board of Governors, through its various advisory bodies, through its numerous local boards and committees, has in our view, consistently followed policies which are hardly appreciated by any section of the community except that one half of the White electorate.

Even the senior management of the Black programme section appears to be an all-White affair. From what we can see, the qualifications for appointing representatives of the English-speaking section of our community, relates in particular to their docility and, certainly, if any of these people are known for their opposition views at all, this is news to us. The net result of this policy and of this legislation has been and will be that the SABC is a closed shop, at the top level in particular, to all except those who adhere to, or who hold, orthodox Nationalist Party views.

Although nominally an autonomous body, or an autonomous corporation, it is today, as my hon. colleague said, held in the eyes of many as merely being an extension of the Department of Information of either the Government or the Nationalist Party. This control is further extended by the provisions of clause 5(4) of the Bill itself, which reads—

I see that there is an amendment in this regard on the Order Paper, an amendment which, I think, deals with this subject. However, in the present form, even those appointed to the boards find that their security of tenure is at the whim of the Cabinet. This, I believe, to be an unhealthy situation, to say the least.

This is an appropriate moment to make a special appeal to the hon. the Minister, particularly in regard to the appointment of members of the Television Advisory Board. Is it not time to give positive effect to the Nationalist promises which we hear here regularly month after month, to move away from discrimination? Is now not the time to put together an advisory board on a non-discriminatory basis, a board which includes members who are not necessarily White, and members who are not necessarily known for their adherence to Nationalist Party ideology? If this is done, and only in this way, will programmes be formulated, developed and broadcast which will reflect the different facts, the different views and the different interests which go to make the whole that is South Africa.

The question which I ask, is this: Are we South Africans such weaklings as to want to endure programmes fit for milksops only? Even the harsh realities and the lessons of the programme “The World at War” have reportedly been censored for those whom the SABC apparently regards as being lily-livered South African viewers. No true debate on current or burning issues is heard over the radio or seen on television. A slanted viewpoint is heard, yes, but a full airing of different viewpoints, no.

Why do you not prove that?

Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to prove this. In the course of what I have to say, I shall attempt to do that. It will, for instance, be illuminating to see whether the hon. the Minister of Finance, who has just delivered a budget with far-reaching effects for the whole economy, is going to be confronted with the main Opposition spokesmen on finance on television in the full view of the entire South African public, or whether the normal pattern in this particular instance, of dull and acquiescent comment, is going to be followed on the radio and television media.

Do you want television in Parliament?

When there is a debate, it is usually about subjects …

May I ask a question?

Not at this moment. You may do so at the end of my speech. When there is a debate, it is usually on subjects which are of little general interest, subjects which are often soporific and boring. We had, for instance, a fantastic debate some weeks ago on the availability of spare motor parts, their mark-up, the profit margins and the reasons for shortages. I have also listened to debates on some obscure ecclesiastical matters, which are much better fitted to the forums of a church council or a synod.

Even then, when we have to listen to those debates, the questions are carefully tailored, pre-rehearsed, pre-digested and set answers are served up. If the answers are not in line with Government policy, the tendency seems to be to cut from the interview that which is not in line with Government policy, for controversy of a real nature is to be avoided.

The hon. member for Florida, who is not here at the moment, derided these claims and called for examples. I shall give him the most recent one, and I quote now from the Rand Daily Mail of yesterday—

All I can ask is: What is the justification for this kind of conduct? Where is the journalistic morality which the Government claims on behalf of this corporation?

In the years to come, as in the years gone by, in terms of this legislation one Minister after another will hide behind the time-worn argument that the SABC—as it has always been and as it is intended to be—is an autonomous body that is not accountable for its views or presentations of opinion to the hon. the Minister or to this Parliament, except in very circumscribed circumstances as set out in the Bill. This, of course, is a most comfortable argument, particularly when that so-called autonomous body is in the hands of what I would call Government puppets. Consequently, because of this policy, maintained by the very composition of the upper, senior echelons of the SABC, interviews are and will be largely dull and sycophantic affairs. There will be no probing of standpoints as one sees on British TV. There will be no in-depth questioning as one sees on European and American TV. Ministers, and particularly the hon. the Prime Minister, will continue, as now, to be treated uncritically and with total civility by all their interviewers. Stimulating debate, except on subjects critical perhaps of our critics, will probably be minimal. This is denied by members opposite, so let me therefore ask them a question. Will the Government-controlled SATV ever allow interview and debates between say, Mr. Sonny Leon and the hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations on the future of the CRC? Will SATV allow a debate between Mr. Hassan Howa and Mr. Billy Woodin on the problems of the cricketing community? Will we have the Administrator of the Cape facing his critics on his Sandy Bay decision? Will we have the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. the Minister of Finance debating the effects of a budget? Will we ever be allowed to have the hon. member for Parktown, the hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. member for Florida debating the objectivity of the SABC? So I could go on enumerating subject after subject. These are real issues, real problems involving real people. [Interjections.] What is the Nationalist Government really afraid of? [Interjections.] I ask this question of the hon. member for Carletonville who continues to interrupt. Does the governing Nationalist Party not have the courage or the guts to debate with us and with other people the future of South Africa before the South African public on television? Do they not have the guts to face South Africa? [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon. member for Sandton wants a reply from the hon. member, that hon. member alone must reply. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I welcome the interjections. In fact, they are not disturbing at all, especially those of the hon. member for Carletonville, because every time he makes an interjection he lays himself wide open to a load of trouble.

Politically I never have any trouble.

The Nationalist Government, as can be seen by its legislation, does not have the courage to debate with us or anybody else the future of South Africa before the eyes of the people of South Africa. They will not allow the South African public to judge their case. We in the PRP are called irresponsible by the Nationalist Government. We are also called many other names by many other people. We, in fact believe that this Government is a Government of racial exclusivists. Should we in South Africa, unlike the inhabitants of any other democratic country, not have the chance of seeing these matters openly discussed?

No, definitely not!

If we are that bad, will not South Africa see this, and if the Government is so good, will such debate not be to the Government’s advantage? Or is it perhaps that the Government know deep down in their hearts that they rule this country mainly on the strength of a docile Afrikaans Press, on the strength of a lackey-radio and on the strength of a dull and servile television service?

Now this will give you an image!

In answer to the hon. member for Carletonville, I would wager my image on television against his any time.

You have been here for two years only. I have been here for 25 years.

I now wish to move to a different aspect. Another good reason for defining more clearly the composition of the controlling bodies of the SABC relates to the fact that while television does and will give a tremendous fillip to the profession of actors, artists and entertainers, this has so far not spilled over and across the colour line. Technically and as a medium of education SATV has, in my view, got off to a flying start. I think it is fair to compliment the technical staff of SATV and of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications on a job well done, but we must remember that owing to this new medium in South Africa, many local artists have, in a remarkably short space of time, become national celebrities. They have achieved prominence which they would not have achieved in any other way, and all this is to the good. However, if we did not know better we would believe, from watching the television service, that the 4 500 000 White people provide all the entertainment talent emanating from a population of some 25 000 000 people. Very few, if any, Black, Coloured or Indian entertainers—and there are thousands—have been given any opportunity of making good in any way on the television service and I include the religious broadcasts. Even the religious broadcasts on television are geared solely to the Whites. Are there only Whites in South Africa who can entertain? Are there only Whites who need and can offer counsel? How is it that the Government and SATV can perform the miracle of virtually making 20 000 000 Black people disappear and cease to exist, except perhaps for depiction in servile or primitive roles? There is also the exception of allowing the broadcast of the odd multi-racial sports match as window-dressing. Let me, in consequence, refer to page 9 of the 1974 Annual Report of the SABC. I quote—

One is filled with foreboding for, innocent though the words may appear, they take on an ominous note when viewed against the background of this legislation, the history and the past performance of the SABC since its creation.

Now let me turn to the hon. member for Florida in absentia. That hon. member made one or two little points I should like to refer to. The hon. member is obviously still at the petrol station. He said that, whenever matters concerning the SABC are debated, the Opposition always refers to indoctrination and slanted reporting without substantiating these allegations. That is what the hon. member said. I believe that I have already substantiated these claims. However, let us take a recent case. Let us look at what happened during the newscast at 10.40 p.m. on Monday night. The newscaster was interrupted and suddenly there appeared on the screen the figure—panting and champing at the bit, rising to the crowd with Nationalist Party ardour—of the Minister of Defence. He was making a party-political speech, thumping the tub, licking his lips and eating up all that came before him. There he was! The question I want to ask is whether …

Order! Before the hon. member continues with his speech, I want to say that I have been giving hon. members a considerable degree of latitude in discussing this Bill. May I remind hon. members that we are engaged in debating the Second Reading of a Bill before the House and not voting the hon. the Minister’s salary. Hon. members should therefore not discuss in detail the administration of the department. I do not mind hon. members alluding to it in discussing policy, but I cannot allow them to go into detail on specific instances.

Sir, I have all but finished with my remarks and I thank you for your indulgence. However, I hope you will allow me to complete my sentence. I was saying that I trust that, having allowed political broadcasts by one party, we shall see Mr. Eglin on the screen next Monday when he speaks at the Johannesburg City Hall.

Sir, in terms of your ruling I find I am now unable to deal with some of the points raised by the hon. member for Florida. That is unfortunate. In the light of the fact that we believe that the policy of the SABC is determined by its Board of Governors and its controlling bodies and that the Board of Governors are representative of only one section of the community and that there is no provision made for the representation of …

Which section?

The Afrikaansspeaking Nationalist section of the electorate.

You cannot prove that.

I would say that the Board of Governors does not even represent the majority of the Whites. This state of affairs is enshrined in this Bill. There are no qualifications laid down for the appointment of the management. There is no mention of appointing people of different colours or people representing different sections. Therefore we say that, until such time as control of the SABC, control which will filter right through to the administration, is vested in a broader spectrum of opinion and has regard to persons of colour, we cannot support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, since yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Sandton has had six hours to substantiate the accusations made about the SABC by his bench companion. He has had all that time to find examples to support the exceedingly sharp attack of the hon. member for Parktown. The hon. member for Parktown called the SABC “an arm of the Government” and “a political instrument” and many other such descriptions. The hon. member for Sandton had the opportunity this afternoon to support those non-specific and vague pronouncements with examples. In respect of the first example which the hon. member mentioned, namely the interview with Mr. Wilson about the prices of television sets, the hon. member for Sandton has missed the point. Apparently he did not see the programme and relied completely on a newspaper report. For people who did see the programme, Mr. Wilson’s statement that our prices do not compare favourably with prices abroad, was put very clearly. It became very clear from that interview that it was a case of two experts who had a difference of opinion on television prices in South Africa.

The accusations of that party against the SABC are unfounded. Yesterday the hon. member for Parktown also said: “The Board of Governors is not representative of the people.” This is approximately what he said.

Yes, that is correct.

This once again underlines the irony of that party, viz. that as far as South Africa is concerned, they never have anything good to say. When other countries are concerned, they will use any matter concerning such a country as an example with which to criticize South Africa here. I should like to refer to those hon. members to the position as regards the control of television and radio in a country like Britain, where the liberal tradition, speaking in general terms, is very strong. Britain has two bodies which are composed in approximately the same way as our SABC control board. They are the BBC Board of Governors and the Independent Broadcasting Authority, the IBA. The deputy chairman of the IBA writes about this board and its authority as follows—

The “Authority” is the equivalent of the SABC—

However, the deputy chairman of the IBA goes on to say—

This is exactly what the hon. members are maintaining about the SABC here. The deputy chairman goes on to deal with this accusation. In this connection he makes a few points of which I only want to mention one. He says—

One cannot compare this with South Africa.

Now the hon. member for Parktown is shaking his head. I should like him to listen to what the deputy chairman went on to say. He made a statement with which I can only agree. I should like the hon. members of the Progressive Party to listen carefully to what the deputy chairman of the IBA wrote in this connection. He states—

That is unworthy.

The argument of the hon. members of the Progressive Party is that the control of the SABC must be taken out of the hands of Parliament and the Government and given to another body which the hon. member for Parktown referred to as an “outside referee”. We on this side of the House are convinced that it is the task and the responsibility of Parliament and this Government, which has been created by the democratic process, to carry out this important function, namely the control of broadcasting in South Africa.

If only we could have a few facts.

I shall return to the question of facts in a moment, because this too was an objection raised by the hon. members of the official Opposition. I just want to tell the hon. member for Parktown that his argument that we need an “outside referee”, does not hold water at all. In my lifetime I have dealt with many “outside referees” and I want to say that they often give “outside interpretations” too.

The hon. members of the official Opposition, through the hon. member for Durban Central, raised the objection that Parliament would not have sufficient control; it linked that control to the fact that parliamentary control was only possible if sufficient information was available. Yesterday the hon. member for Virginia pointed out that clause 27 makes due provision for Parliament to be informed. It is provided that a report concerning the work of the corporation, together with a balance sheet and a full statement of income and expenditure as well as other particulars must eventually be laid on the table in Parliament. The hon. member for Durban Central is not present at the moment, but I should like to know what other information he requires. If there are matters which are not being reported on, the hon. member may suggest in the Committee Stage that a subsection be inserted in clause 27 to make provision for that.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he has read clause 27(1 )(g) and whether he has ever, in reading the reports of the SABC, seen that the provisions of that subsection are complied with? Subsection (1)(g) stipulates that certain particulars in connection with political broadcasts must be furnished.

If clause 27 stipulates that certain aspects must be reported to Parliament, then such aspects must be reported. When the Minister’s vote is dealt with in the House, the hon. member may avail himself of the opportunity to discuss such aspects. If there is any other matter which is covered by the clause and has to be reported, the hon. member can discuss it, too, while the Minister’s vote is being dealt with. There is therefore an opportunity to do so. The hon. member for Durban Central advanced several arguments to support his standpoint. I have a copy of his Hansard manuscript and I quote from it as follows—

However the fact is that duly audited reports of the SABC are laid on the table in Parliament. Among other things, the profit and loss account is also laid on the table and all the different amounts are reported on. The hon. member can therefore discuss all items of expenditure when the Minister’s vote is being dealt with.

I honestly think that the hon. members of the Official Opposition are confusing “control” and “administration”. The Government wants to control the SABC but we do not want to take over the administrative functions of the SABC. Perhaps as a last word with regard to the speech of the hon. member for Durban Central, I could quote what was said by Sir Michael Swann, member of the control board of the BBC—

Therefore we envisage control, but not the taking over of the administrative functions of the SABC.

In his speech the hon. the Minister indicated clearly how this legislation is also an important milestone in the history of broadcasting in South Africa. By means of the legislation the television service is in fact being cost in a special form. As far as television is concerned, we in South Africa are entering a new world of experience. The immense potential of television as a of communication is well known. In this connection one can dwell at length on a number of aspects. There is the entertainment aspect, the educational aspect, sport etc. However, there is also the fact that television as medium of communication confronts man with his problems in a very particular way. I think that we all remember from our childhood that the visual image, the picture which one sees, makes a very much greater impression on one than what one hears.

I believe that in the past few months, since we have had a fulltime television service, we have become aware of one conviction: The television service emphasizes to the viewers how small our world has become; small and interdependent. So small that an event which takes place in some remote comer of the world, appears on the screen in the lounge within a few hours. This conviction emphasizes once again that in this world of ours which has become small, or, as it is generally referred to, in this “global village” of which we are citizens, no problem is isolated anymore. This holds good, too for our problems in Africa and in Southern Africa. Whether we like it or not, television has brought home to us how very much we in South Africa with our problems, have also become part of the world, just as the world is part of us. This means that television can allow us in South Africa to struggle with our problems in a very special way.

As far as we in South Africa are concerned, television can illuminate our problems for us in a fresh and original way. In this connection, therefore, the television service can make a very important contribution to a process of sound formation of opinion in South Africa. I believe that in the times we are living in and in view of the problems of Africa and Southern Africa, it is of the utmost importance that the public is properly informed about the immense challenges which face us and that the public—the viewing public as far as television is concerned—should be aware of the possible solutions which are suggested and also of the dangers for and the threats to our existence in South Africa. The contribution which the SABC can make towards a process of sound and balanced formation of opinion on actualities, is of great importance. Of course, it is not an easy task and as we have deduced from the sharp attack made by the hon. members of the PRP in particular, it is a very hazardous undertaking. I believe that the hon. members of the PRP will grant, in all fairness, that to discuss actualities on the radio or to present programmes of that nature on television, is no easy task, because it does not simply mean a presentation of facts. Yesterday the hon. member for Florida pointed out that even the presentation of facts also means that the facts must be selected. However, the facts must also be placed in the context of the overall picture and of the circumstances and situation of the listener or viewer concerned. We must then be honest with one another and admit that there is always an unavoidable personal or subjective element in such a presentation. We cannot avoid this. This element is not only in the South African radio and television service, but is to be found wherever similar programmes concerning actualities are presented. The chief of the programme service of Independent Broadcasting says in this connection—

These are the facts of the situation: There is a certain personal element in presentations of this type. However, I want to say that in spite of this problem the SABC has thus far presented outstandingly balanced programmes in its radio service and particularly in its television service, programmes which are definitely related to the personal circumstances of the viewers. I want to go further and say that the SABC must not be afraid to deal penetratingly with sensitive problem situations in South Africa. Sound debate, even of a political nature, concerning an actuality can make a worthwhile contribution towards sound formation of opinion in South Africa. I can even foresee the day when a certain time will be made available to political parties for television broadcasts. This may stimulate political interest in South Africa and will certainly make an exceptional contribution towards bringing the basic questions which the parties are grappling with, to the attention of the public. The division of time is naturally a matter which one will have to deal with very circumspectly, but we shall possibly be able to learn from the manner in which it is done in Britain by the BBC and the ITV. The respective television programmes there decided, after consultation with the parties, about the time to be set aside for such programmes. The division of that time is then left to the parties themselves.

†The parties themselves decide on the division of this time, taking support at the previous general election as the main criterion.

*Now I know that the hon. member for Parktown will not like that because the democratic process has already shown several times that the people have much more confidence in this side of the House and if time on the screen has to be divided according to that, there will be very little opportunity for him to put his case and that of his party.

I should also like to make a brief remark about a matter which is often discussed, and this is the influence which television may have upon our norms and values, on our standard of living and way of life and on our approach and attitudes. There are naturally divergent opinions about this matter. Divergent opinions exist in South Africa too. The Pilkington report, which was published in 1962, states two divergent standpoints very clearly. I do not want to deal with this further, but the facts are that it was always difficult in the past to determine what the influence of television was, because there was no country in the world where an investigation could be properly carried out with a neutral group as a control group. Investigations of this nature were always carried out after television had already been introduced. However, we in South Africa are in the unique position among the countries of the world that an investigation of this type could be carried out here before television was actually installed. The H.S.R.C., in collaboration with the SABC, undertook such a study, a project which is still continuing, in which scientific investigation of and basic research into psychological, sociological, ethnological and other factors concerning mass communication is being carried out. The most important aim of this investigation is to determine the influence of television on the school-going child. Now I believe that this research will reveal many new and illuminating facts and will provide the SABC with the necessary knowledge to apply its service with the greatest degree of consideration of the child. The relationship of the child to television, however, remains ultimately the responsibility of the parent. The parent will have to educate the child to use this medium responsibly. Children who are allowed to watch television in an undisciplined manner, will definitely suffer as far as their development is concerned.

While children and the child are under discussion, there is one field which, so it seems to me, is becoming increasingly important in foreign radio and television services, and which is largely absent here at this stage, and this is educational school broadcasts and broadcasts for adult education. Naturally it is still too expensive today to utilise television for school broadcasts, although the benefits of this are obvious. One could dwell at length on the advantages of television for school broadcasts, but I only want to mention a few just briefly. They are that the outside world is brought into the classroom, the imagination and the intellect of both teacher and child are stimulated, the teacher who does not perhaps have the necessary knowledge, is given support, to the benefit of his pupils, and can provide material which is generally not easily available. The fact is that it is necessary today that in order to make best use of the teaching situation, the teacher must be in a position to make use of the best technical aids. Whereas there has recently been a great deal of concern about teachers who often have to teach children in a subject for which they are not properly trained, I believe that at a later stage, the use of radio and television will be of great value in this connection for both the pupils and the teachers. Liaison between the education authorities and the SABC in this connection will definitely be worthwhile. It is perhaps also worth nothing that both these groups fall under the same Minister.

Much has been said in this debate about advertisements, too, and in the few minutes still available to me I should also like to say a few words about them. Clause 13(2) of this Bill makes provision for the corporation to broadcast advertisements after approval by the Minister and according to conditions and requirements determined by him. The commercial radio service of the SABC has been broadcasting advertising spots since 1950. According to an announcement by the Minister these advertising spots will be broadcast on TV as from 1978. Sir, if it was merely a choice between a service with advertising spots or a service without advertising spots in South Africa, I have no doubt that everyone in South Africa would prefer a service without advertising spots. But we have no choice. We shall have to allow television advertisements eventually, not because we want to, but because we must, because television is a very expensive undertaking. A country like South Africa which has to incur vast expenditure in connection with the creation of the necessary infrastructure, for defence and many other matters, really cannot afford the luxury of a service of this kind without advertisements for long. We have already done exceptionally well because we have a service of almost unbeatable quality. This morning I read in Die Burger that Dr. Walther Bruch, who designed the PAL colour system, is in South Africa and said that South African television was among the best in the world. Therefore we have achieved a great deal already, but we cannot have our bread buttered on both sides. [Interjections.] Sir, as far as I am concerned, there is no reason why advertisements should detract from the high quality of the service. The law authorizes the Minister to lay down the requirements with which these advertisements must comply, and the Minister can make these requirements stringent. He can lay down requirements relating to both the form and the content and quality of these advertisements. The Act gives the Minister wide powers to ensure that advertisements which do not come up to the high standards demanded by him, will not be allowed. I am convinced that the people of South Africa may rest assured that the SABC will see to it that when advertisements are allowed, they will not detract from the high standards of the service in any way. Sir, this legislation enables the SABC to continue with and expand its radio and television services.

Every reasonable South African—and I should like to repeat: Every reasonable South African—is proud to have a service which maintains such high standards. Personally I am very proud that the SABC’s new centre falls within my constituency and that that centre is being opened on Friday. On this occasion I should like to join the hon. the Minister in extending my congratulations to the chairman of the council, the council and the management committee on this memorable day. We can say to them: Congratulations; carry on with the good work.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Johannesburg West who has just resumed his seat is, of course, known for his exploits of self-discipline. I do think that he confuses self-discipline here with a submission to authoritarianism as is contained in the wide powers which this Bill gives to the Minister. We do draw this distinction and that is the reason why we oppose this Bill. My colleagues tell me that they have seldom come across a Bill of so complicated a nature. It is not so much what has been put into the Bill, but what has been left out that makes this a difficult Bill to debate. It has taken hours of research to reach this point, and this is not surprising, as we believe that the Bill was three years in the drafting. The hon. the Minister also felt, quite correctly, that the Bill should be gazetted well in advance to give people an opportunity of studying the changes. These background facts do confirm the view that it is a complicated Bill. Apart from the changes, there are also important principles, in our view, which relate to this hon. House and which are affected. But in the hon. the Minister’s speech he did nothing but skate on the surface. In fact, this is what he said, and I quote—

It is absolutely true.

There it is in the hon. the Minister’s speech. We would like to know why the hon. the Minister presents such a disarming picture. Why did he not tell us about the new powers he has given to himself and to his board? Why did he not disclose that he has removed certain safeguards and protections from the existing Act? The United Party was suspicious of this Bill and consequently we have asked that it should go to a Select Committee. However, since hearing the hon. the Minister and the Government speakers, we feel more suspicious and more convinced that the Bill should be subjected to the scrutiny of a Select Committee. For example, the hon. member for Virginia, who is not present in the House at the moment, referred to clause 27(2) of the Bill. Clause 27(1) states that the board shall furnish the Minister with a report, and clause 27(2) then reads as follows—

He referred to clause 27(2) in an effort to still any fears that the Opposition may have had that Parliament’s control is being weakened. In our view, if that Hon. member is satisfied with a truncated report that appears 16 months out of date, if he feels that that is all he needs to know about the workings of the South African Broadcasting Corporation, and if he feels that that is all the control that is necessary, I think he is doing Parliament a disservice. While we are dealing with this clause which was mentioned by that hon. member, I should like to direct the attention of the House to clause 27(1)(g) which states that the board shall in the report so furnished give particulars as to, and I quote—

Where have they done that?

Well, exactly, that is in the original Act. I would like to ask if any hon. member in this House who has been here much longer than I have, can remember ever having seen this information published, because we cannot. If this is so, Mr. Speaker, here we have a glaring example of where the Statute is ignored in the report. Is that hon. member for Virginia still confident that Parliament is kept well informed about the South African Broadcasting Corporation?

We do not deny that there has been progress, and particularly in the case of the Auckland Park complex which is going to be opened on the 2nd, this progress has been quite spectacular. Of course, the hon. the Minister is proud and so are the board members, particularly in their new gleaming Mercedes Benz motor-cars. They do themselves proud. In fact, what does one do to get on this board?

You have to be a “broeder”.

Now we shall not even know that, because section 4 of the Act, which requires that these qualifications shall be tabled in this House, has been omitted. It is difficult to assess this progress because of the limitations, and while Parliament cannot effectively examine and criticize, the grandiose claims of the hon. the Minister must be taken with reservation. In the past the United Party has always been opposed to the extension of powers to the South African Broadcasting Corporation Board and the lack of adequate control exercised by Parliament over these powers. We find in this Bill a further extension of the powers of the corporation, a further limitation of the already inadequate information concerning the powers of this corporation and the further reduction in the control of Parliament over the corporation. Consequently we are alarmed by this development. We feel that the secrecy clothing these activities is unacceptable to us, that, there is a disregard for public enquiry and that this is unhealthy. We are uneasy about the acquiescence that comes from the Nationalist members in this regard. In fact, how do most South Africans see the SABC? To them it is some sort of dark syndicate. I say “dark”, because one cannot find out what is going on, and “syndicate” because its tentacles extend far and near. I wonder how many South Africans realize that over 3 000 personnel are employed by this corporation, that they have new offices extending from Witzieshoek to Windhoek and from Umtata to Oshikati, and that they have news correspondents spread all over the world. You cannot get this information, but this is how far the corporation extends. As an international organization it is fed by the South African taxpayer, who should have a right to this information. But it is so protected that I think it might be easier to elicit information from the Kremlin than to get it from this board. I have had experience of having questions rejected, simple innocuous questions which you cannot even get onto the Question Paper.

What this Bill does in our view is to tighten the security and to reinforce the board’s exclusiveness. As the hon. member for Durban Central pointed out yesterday, the most unacceptable clauses are 13(1)(d), the amendment to section 14 of the Radio Act, 1952, and the omission of sections 18(3) and (4) of the same Act. The United Party has been, as I have said, a defiant witness to the growth of the arbitrary powers of the board and the hon. Minister over the years. We have opposed this because we see in it the embodiment of the philosophy of the authoritarianism that I spoke about earlier on. Now we are faced with the next stage. This is the natural development of such a point of view, that where you have power concentrated in a few hands, those who have it want more. There are not less than six other clauses in this Bill which complement those three major pillars of authoritarianism that I have just mentioned. I should like to deal with these to further our case. The first that I should like to deal with is clause 4(1). This refers to the constitution of the board and reads as follows—

This seems pretty innocuous. The present Act, however, stipulates not more than nine or less than seven members; in other words, it stipulates a minimum number of members. The new proposals remove that minimum and one has to ask the question: What checks does one have on the composition of the board? The only sure guarantee is the appointment as laid down in the Act, of the chairman and the vice-chairman by the State President, as advised by the Minister. In that case you could well have a board of just two. These are key members in terms of the present clause 4. Their qualifications had to be laid upon the Table of the House, but that provision has now disappeared. We feel that, since Parliament has created these key posts of responsibility and power, Parliament should have the right to know what sort of people will fill them. We do not take it lightly that Parliament is handled in this off-hand and disrespectful manner. Apart from the credentials of the members, the hon. the Minister, through the State President, in terms of clause 5(4), does not have to give specific reasons for a board member’s dismissal. In the present Act section 3(3) states specifically that the State President may remove from his office any member of the board who for specific reasons should be dismissed, and then it lists, the reasons in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). We believe this is a good thing, but in the Bill before us those specific reasons have been omitted. We feel that if the State President has sound reasons, those reasons should be mentioned. Clause 5(4) says the following—

If the State President has sound reasons, these reasons should be sound enough to be stated here in Parliament and to the member of the board who is being dismissed. This is an arbitrary power which we cannot accept. If this provision remains as it is, one can have a situation where these board members, and parliamentarians, may become fawning yes-men to the sound reasons of the hon. the Minister. Another omission we do not like, is that of section 6(3) of the Act, which reads as follows—

In other words, the existing provision allows board members to call special meetings. This freedom and right has now been removed. It is a right which is a normal and accepted inclusion in any constitution of a club, society, parliamentary body or even a corporation. It does allow members to feel that they have a stake in or share of the responsibility, but now there is a sorrowful gag of silence. This is pursued in clause 7(1), in terms of which the times and places of the meetings shall be determined entirely and solely by the chairman. I think at this stage it is right that we should remind the House that, in our view, these board members can become nothing less than lackeys to the hon. the Minister or to the chairman of the board. In fact, this view is reinforced in clauses 9(4) and 10(4), which deal with the creation of the Bantu Programme Advisory Board and the Television Programme Advisory Board. Both these are new concepts, new bodies which we welcome, but what we do not like is that in both clauses 9(4) and clause 10(4) the chairman of the board of the SABC shall automatically become the chairman of both the Bantu Programme Advisory Board and of the Television Programme Advisory Board. What we object to is that the chairman’s influence now automatically pervades these two other bodies which have been created specifically to advise him. In other words, he talks to himself as adviser. This does not allow for fresh views and ideas to come forward. We feel that where one has a board, in the case of the Bantu Programme Advisory Board, a body that has been created specifically to advise on programmes for the consumption of our Bantu people, there should be some provision, which is not stated in this Bill, for members of those groups to be represented on the board and to give advice as has been done in the case of the XDC where they have appointed Bantu directors. Therefore, we cannot see why there should be an omission here.

These omissions and insertions that I have spent some time in mentioning do lead us to the conclusion that there is a consolidation of the already tight hold the hon. the Minister has over these very powerful public media. We are dissatisfied with this extension of power. We are suspicious of the Bill, because the hon. the Minister has created such wide powers for himself and for his board. We are also against the way in which he has screened these powers and operations from parliamentary surveillance. If any hon. member here wants to test that, I challenge him to try to get a question on the Question Paper relating to any of these matters. I asked whether they would negotiate with the BBC for the television interview with Solzhenitsyn, and that quite innocuous question was refused. He is a man who has taken the world by storm and it is something which would be quite interesting, but we could not get this question on the Order Paper. If any hon. member here challenges what I have said, let him see if he can do it, because I should like to know how he does it. However, I do not think he will. In clause 13(1)(d) this exclusiveness of the board is taken a step further. In terms of this paragraph the board can now sign international treaties. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; here the South African Parliament is being asked to grant the right to an organization independently to enter into agreements with other countries. This Parliament is in no position to query those agreements. [Interjections.] The way in which this provision is worded is quite unacceptable to us. If one looks at section 18(3) and (4) of the Radio Act, No. 3 of 1952, and bears in mind the proposal to omit this section, then one becomes fully aware of how the powers of Parliament are being eroded. Other speakers on this side of the House will refer to further aspects in this Bill which we find unacceptable because they give greater power to the hon. the Minister and to the board and because they lessen parliamentary control over the corporation.

I should like to conclude by reading an extract from the leader of The Sunday Tribune of 28 March 1976 which does rather crystallize our whole concept as to what is going on here. It says the following, under the heading “The high price of silence”—

I have mentioned some of the omissions and additions to indicate the number of new aspects which we feel should be considered by a Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we have now had an opportunity to listen to both the Opposition parties. I think one side has already made three speeches, and the other two, and we found it interesting to listen to these hon. gentlemen. As far as the speech made by the hon. member for Durban Central is concerned, I want to tell the hon. member that I listened to him with an open mind, and that I read his speech with a very open mind. The hon. member began by referring to the film “Funny People”. The hon. member was sitting right in front of me, and I think this was one of the few occasions on which he had a very good background! The hon. member puts me in mind of the mail-box episode. The man who was walking past the mail-box suddenly heard a voice speaking; he stopped in his tracks when the voice began to argue with him. All that resulted from the hon. member’s argument with the hon. the Minister was also rather comical. But I do want to tell the hon. member that he was calmer, and far more quiet than his predecessor of earlier years, Mr. Etienne Malan. Personally I find it much easier to listen to the hon. member. There was not really much substance to the speech of the hon. member, for various reasons. The hon. member tried to make a very thorough study of the Bill, yet I still found that he was very vague in his criticism. A further consequence of this vagueness was that he spoke out of frustration a little, and it is quite understandable that there will be just a little frustration in a person who has sat in the Opposition benches for so long. Frustration also leads to one being able to speak a little disparagingly of an organization such as the SABC, while there is such a wealth of positive activities of the corporation which the hon. member ignored completely. This reveals that the hon. member has not really acquired a thorough and exhaustive knowledge of the SABC. He should listen a little more carefully to “Current Affairs”.

Actually I want to confine myself to the Progressive Party, particularly to the speeches made by the hon. member for Parktown. Since the establishment of the Progressive Party I have taken a special interest in that party. Since the inception year of that party my Greek Professor, Professor Flippie Pistorius, has been a member, one of the first, of the central committee of the Progressive Party. As a student I often argued with him about these matters and listened to what he had to say, and for that reason I am interested in the various facets of the essence of the Progressive Party. It is interesting to examine their historic and spiritual predecessors. Their mode of thought interests me, and so do their methods, their terminology, friends, action—their psychology and their methodology. These aspects are widely manifested in our South African society.

That is why the speech made by the hon. member for Parktown has once again aroused my interest, and I therefore want to devote a little attention to him now. The hon. member for Parktown is a prominent member, for he is a person who was, for a long time, the editor of a major Progressive Party newspaper. He is a widely-read and also a widely-travelled man. He is also a member about whom a great deal has been written, and for that reason I want to analyse several of his so-called authoritative standpoints.

Order! The hon. member must not take too long to get to the point.

Mr. Speaker, I want to formulate my prefatory remarks very thoroughly. Firstly, the hon. member discussed the board of the SABC, and I want to confine myself to what he said in this regard (page W.3, 30.3.76)—

Then he went on to say (page X. 1)—

These accusations are serious accusations, and give rise to a few questions which I want to put to the hon. member. I am putting these questions because I hold the hon. member and his party in high repute, because they are people who are held in high repute in society. They are intellectuals, are from the top layers of society, etc. I want to ask them a number of questions. In the first place: Who should appoint these members? Secondly: How many members should there be? Thirdly: According to what norms should these members be appointed—according to the Dutch norms, in which religion plays a very important part or according to the English method, in which regional representation is given prominence? In this regard I draw a distinction between the two opposition parties, for I expect hon. members of the United Party to pursue certain principles and when they govern, if this should happen one day, to present a policy. However I am according such prominence to the Progressive Party in South African political thought because I should like, at this stage already, to have answers from them on how they see these matters. In the course of this debate I should very much like to have answers from the Progessive Party, with its knowledge, funds and concepts.

I get the impression, Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to say this, that the hon. member for Parktown should like to see the following board in control of the SABC: As chairman he should like to see Mr. Rene de Villiers; as Vice-chairman, Mr. Rene de Villiers; as representative of intellectual Afrikaners, Mr. Rene “de Vijee”; as the representative of Nusas cum amicis, Mr. Rene de Villiers; as representative of the verligte, adult Afrikaner, Mr. René de Villiers. As representative of the free, independent Press with the Rand Daily Mail and the Sunday Times as prototypes, Mr. René de Villiers; and as representative of the free, unrestricted authors and poets, once again, Mr. René de Villiers. One member will be appointed as soon as the report of the Van Zyl Slabbert Commission appears, while the remaining 95% of the population of South Africa will be represented by Mr. René de Villiers.

I shall appoint you to the board as well.

That is the impression one gets from the Progressive Party side, viz. that their knowledge is all-encompassing, and that no one else in South Africa is competent or qualified to accept responsibilities in South Africa.

That is being a little drastic now, Daan.

That is the impression the hon. member creates. But I want to ask the hon. member where the roots lie, how the composition of the membership of this board originated. If the hon. member had taken the trouble to read the report on Broadcasting Policy and Development by Sir J. C. W. Reith (U.G. 18—’35), he would have seen that as long ago as the ‘thirties these people were referred to on various occasions. I shall quote only a few examples in this regard—

1. 33. Great importance attaches to the personnel of the first Board, and its personnel will, to a considerable extent, determine the attitude of the community.

Furthermore it states—

1. 36. I cannot believe that it should be difficult (as some appear to feel) to find in the Union of South Africa six or seven qualified individuals—or an average of little over one per annum—able and willing to assume the responsibility of directing this great service, completely impartial and capable of carrying with them the goodwill and the confidence of the community.

Then the report goes even further. If the hon. member had taken the trouble to read the debates of those years, when the National Party was not in office, he would have seen that the following was said by the Minister of Posts of that time, [Interjections.] C. F. Clarkson (Hansard, Volume 27, col. 3829)—

This was at a time when the hon. member was still a young journalist; it was under the policy of his party, for I assume that in those days he was a supporter of the United Party. This was, at the time, the standpoint of the United Party. However, what did the National Party do under its régime in respect of the people who serve on this board? With regard to the appointment of members to this board, the National Party under its régime endeavoured to appoint people of noble character, people with a sense of responsibility, people with an understanding of and an insight into South African society, people with self-discipline, and of well-balanced judgment.

And then they kicked out all the “libbies”.

I should like the hon. member to indicate whether there is any member on that board at the moment who does not comply with these requirements.

I do not know, but why did you kick out Gideon Roos?

The liberalist? The hon. member is making an accusation now which he will subsequently have to qualify. [Interjections.] The liberalist, the Progressive, has devised a subtle method whereby he is able to create tension between Black and White, tension in any population situation. This is the case not only in South Africa, but throughout the world. This is the conclusion one arrives at when one makes a study of their thinking, their writings and their reasoning. He has also devised a subtle method of steering the population situation, particularly in South Africa, towards troubled waters. His method consists of presenting the National Party as the oppressor and the dispossessor of the rights and the privileges of the non-Whites. However, I want to return to the speech …

Yes, that would be a good thing.

… in which the hon. member said (page X. 1, 30.3.76—

Then the hon. member went on to say—

These are the statements the hon. member made. In the Broadcasting Act of 1936 the legislature of the time clearly wrote into that legislation that the Broadcasting Corporation should take very thorough cognizance of the culture of both the Afrikaans-speaking as well as the English-speaking sectors. The National Party, when it came into office, added to this and stated that not only should careful cognizance be taken of the culture of the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking sectors, but also of those of the Bantu.

Now, I accept that the premises of members on that side of the House differ entirely in principle from those of members on this side of the House. Those members see South Africa as an integrated, organic unity, while we on this side of the House do not see it in that way. Therefore we shall, in determining how the population problems of South Africa should be dealt with, do so from the point of view of multi-nationalism. That is why those hon. members will in fact criticize our methods and our modes of action. But they will never have the right to say that we prevented the Bantu of South Africa from also reaping the benefits of the radio as a material creation of mankind. We did this …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether, in terms of the policy which he has just outlined, the SABC, to his knowledge, is going to start a special service for the Coloured community of South Africa?

Mr. Speaker, that is a logical and a good question. The hon. member for Parktown also referred to that yesterday. But I just want to complete my argument dealing with the Bantu before I reply to the question. From the outset we never saw the Bantu as a homogeneous group, although we have been using the term “Bantu” for a long time—since the previous century in fact. This is a word which has acquired a specific connotation and which, in my opinion, may as well be used to identify that group of people. However, we have learned to accept the diversity of that group of people, and precisely for that reason we were the people who did not wrong the Black man, but who accorded him recognition in his essence and in his ethnic context. We did not disregard or undermine his language, his culture or his aspirations in our radio services. In fact, we made use of the radio to develop these things. In this way we tried to render a service to the Venda, the Xhosa, the Zulu, each within their own cultural context. In that way we have constantly been endeavouring to recognize the Bantu as people.

So it will avail the hon. member nothing to attempt to allege, in theatrical fashion, that the National Party is simply ignoring the Black people of South Africa, that the National Party will have nothing to do with them, or that the National Party is acting as though there are only White people living in South Africa. That is not a fair statement.

It is nevertheless true.

It is not a fair statement, because we have in fact accorded recognition to these people, and because we have also made it compulsory, by way of legislation, that the interests of the Bantu should be looked after with due regard for their own culture and their own traditions. They are not simply being regarded as a homogeneous group. We consider each separate group within its own ethnic context. This is something one could argue about for a very long time …

But not on the control board.

Of course it was the Whites that conquered Southern Africa. Their conquests were quite probably the result of British imperialism. It is necessary for us to consider this matter in its historic perspective in order to establish why the Whites, at a certain stage in history, exercised control over the whole of Southern Africa. People who are even now advocates of this policy of domination are the spiritual descendants of the imperialists. However, our standpoint has always been different. It was different because we perceived the diversity. You would be astonished, Sir, if I had to tell you of the continuous conversations which were held on the Bantu Advisory Committee between ourselves and the Bantu representatives. Whether from the Venda, from the Xhosa, from whatever group, conversations took place between us, and I can state that very few complaints were raised on the advisory committee in regard to the standard of the broadcasts made by Radio Bantu.

Mr. Speaker, any level-headed, objective student will realize that it is the National Party which accorded recognition to the Bantu, which recognized the Bantu culture and all the various facets and nuances of that culture.

I wish hon. members of the Progressive Party were able to understand Bantu languages. Quite a number of hon. members of the United Party are conversant with the language of the Xhosa and are therefore able to listen to the Xhosa programmes of Radio Bantu. Many of our people in the Transvaal have a knowledge of either Venda or Tswana or North Sotho, and are therefore able to listen to any one of those three services of Radio Bantu. Whites who understand the language of the Bantu consequently have an understanding of the programmes which are being broadcast over their radio services. The service which is being rendered to the Bantu by the radio is far more than merely a broadcast service. It is also far more than just a mere report on world events and concepts. Radio Bantu has in fact acted in a culturally creative capacity in many spheres, and has afforded the Black people of South Africa an opportunity to write poems and prose works, compose music and listen to their own creations very soon afterwards. I believe that many of the Bantu performing artists in South Africa have already achieved world fame and have already become renowned owing to the possibilities which Radio Bantu has afforded them. But not only have they been afforded the opportunity to act in a culturally creative capacity; they were also afforded an opportunity to participate and share in these activities. Thirdly, a pride in their cultural assets (kultuureiendomlike) was cultivated among these people. I know that this is a term of abuse to the Progressive Party. As soon as one refers to “those things which are peculiar to a people” (volkseiendomlike), to identity and culture, then they take fright. They have an aversion to it. This is perhaps a pathological or psychological phenomenon which should be analysed. But we accept the situation, because they are here.

A further value which could be attached to the Bantu service is the recording of the spiritual and cultural treasures of the Bantu, things which simply cannot be bought. Radio Bantu went out and recorded certain things on tape. I am certain that in future such cultural treasures will also be recorded by means of TV, cultural treasures which in a hundred, 200 or 300 years’ time will be of inestimable value to the Bantu peoples.

By way of summary I want to draw attention to the following: It is in fact the National Party which realizes that there is nothing diabolical in the diversity of human cultures, but that there is something splendid in it. We have the record in South Africa, in spite of many things that are being said, of not having destroyed cultures and ethnic groups, but of having created the opportunity for these things to be encouraged.

I want to come now to the question asked in regard to the Coloureds and the Indians. I accept that at present there is no statutory provision for this, but with the growth and unfolding of our policy, and with the discussions we are holding with these people, it is not impossible that the SABC, the hon. the Minister and the responsible leaders of these people will find a reasonable solution in order to meet their needs. That is all I want to say about the matter. The hon. the Minister can discuss it again at a later stage. There are practical and organizational problems to which one has to give attention. There are two further statements of the hon. member for Parktown which I should like to mention.

You seem to have me on the brain.

The hon. member made two further disturbing statements. I want to confine myself now to the terminology he used. I am referring to the unrevised copy of his Hansard speech. Since he wrote out his speech, I take it that the report is correct. I quote—

Then he said—

I, as a small leader in my community and as member of this House, realize that when one is dealing in South Africa with the population situation or problem, whichever one wants to call it, one has to discipline oneself very severely. With one’s terminology one should not mar relations, even when one differs radically from an opponent, and that group is the group in this House with which I differ the most. If that group boasts of a sense of responsibility, they have to realize that the employer/employee relationship has always existed in the history of our country. I also occupied a position within that relationship, and I tried to do my part, on the best possible Christian basis, as many of our people are doing. However, I do not think that the terminology used by the hon. member is conducive to sound relations in South Africa. It is not exactly conducive to sound relations to tell people at the leadership level that in their negotiations with the control board they are merely the servant while the control board is master, or to insinuate that they are merely the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. With our policy we will to an increasing extent eliminate the employer/employee relationship, and the respective representatives of the groups will communicate with one another. Why then use this kind of terminology now?

There was something else which the hon. member said which I found equally shocking. The hon. member said the following—

The hon. member dragged quite a number of things like this into the Second Reading debate, for example the question of the censorship board and then, too, other aspects which should properly be classified under labour matters. If he wants to act in a responsible manner he will realize as well as I do that the labour situation in South Africa could become explosive, that one does in fact have agitators and that there are people who simply do not care. It is not only the Black people who are irresponsible. There are also irresponsible Whites. We should try to create a level-headed, balanced attitude in South Africa, and in that respect the mass media has a role to play.

Later this year, if I have the opportunity, I snail refer specifically to the affinity between the hon. member and the English-language newspapers in South Africa. It makes no difference whether the Whites are wrong or whether the Blacks are wrong. Radio and television should not deal with matters in such a way that greater tension is created as a result. I am entirely in favour of the events in the country being reported in the form of news, but one has to report it in such a way that problematical situations do not create unnecessary tension, do not incite racial or population groups against one another, and do not afford irresponsible people an opportunity, by means of this powerful communication media, of causing greater tension, further strikes and further disturbances. Therefore, after all the fine things I have attributed to the Progressive Party, I nevertheless demand that they should discuss this matter with a greater measure of responsibility.

In the few minutes that remain I just want to refer to what Paul Sauer said in 1936 as the first speaker to reply to the Second Reading speech made by the then Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Naturally one feels grieved that a man like Oom Paul is no longer with us. However, he began his speech on the Broadcasting Bill as follows (Hansard, Vol. 26, col. 2727)—

I come now to the important point. He went on to say—

These words of the late Senator Sauer are still of great value today. I can understand an opposition feeling that only one side of the matter is being stated, and that it should also like to state its side of the matter. The hon. member for Sandton said that he should very much like to see a greater exchange of ideas on various aspects of television. I agree with that, provided that, in South Africa in particular, we have leaders who are responsible—be they sportsmen, politicians, economists or whatever—and provided we do these things with great responsibility. In my own heart, however, I feel that it is a matter of festina lente, i.e. that one should make haste slowly. I know the criticism is levelled at the National Party that we are always lagging behind a little. [Interjections.] But I believe, particularly in these days, that one should lay one’s foundations on which one’s principles are based very thoroughly and correctly. When one builds, one should not build sensationally; one should build so that the structures which one erects, will stand for a long time so that one’s children and grandchildren who come after one, will not have to demolish what was badly built.

I want to say, and with this I want to conclude—one can say a great deal about this Bill—that I have the greatest appreciation for the educational values which the SABC has bequeathed to us over the past 30 or 40 years. One thinks pre-eminently in this regard of the cultural treasures which have been bequeathed. For example, one can listen to Gen. Smuts or Gen. Hertzog; one can listen to leaders who preceded you a long time ago; one can see films; one can watch sports events. Tremendous cultural treasures are stored away for us in this way and we have to preserve them. Therefore I believe in my own mind that this Bill makes adequate provision for every responsible member of the board to criticize the functions of the SABC and of television, and for that criticism to be of a constructive nature. I want to appeal to this House to proceed with this Bill, and refrain from accepting the amendments, but to bear in mind in future that in South Africa we do not want to build for one particular group only, not for the Afrikaans or for the English-speaking group only, but for all the population groups, so that in course of time the service will be able to crystallize into something which is really sound, from which every population group may derive its benefit and pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rissik will excuse me if I do not react to his speech immediately. In the first instance I want to pay a very sincere tribute to Mr. Etienne Malan, the former member of Parliament for Orange Grove and for 16 years a respected member of this House. I believe that his continual sustained efforts to pioneer the conversion work had the effect of influencing the Cabinet in its decision to introduce television; and this despite the sustained and old-world prejudice of Dr. Albert Hertzog, who was Minister of Posts and Telegraphs for 11 years from 1958 to 1968. I think it is of great significance that, when Dr. Hertzog was deprived of his post in 1968, it took barely a year before a commission was appointed to investigate the desirability of introducing a television service in South Africa.

Ask them if he is still in the Broederbond!

I wish to come back to my friend, the hon. member for Rissik. In reacting to the suggestion for the composition of the advisory council put forward by the hon. member for Parktown, the hon. member, I think, indulged in a little reductio ad absurdum. I think he took his cue from the Bill itself. I want to refer the hon. member to clause 4(3) which states the following—

Under the present circumstances that would be Dr. Piet Meyer. Then the hon. member should cast an eye on clause 9(2) which says—

Finally, in subsection (4) of clause 9 we read—

It seems quite clear, therefore, that Dr. Piet Meyer will advise himself as chairman of the board in his position as chairman of the advisory board. This is the beginning of the process of reductio ad absurdum.

I want to come back to a comment the hon. member for Rissik made in connection with subsection (3) of clause 12. It is a short subsection and, for the sake of the record, I shall quote it—

I am sure the hon. member agrees with that. I do not know whether he is aware of the front page leader in the Sunday Times Extra which says: “New radio service today”. The article explains—

This appeared in the Sunday Times Extra of 21 March 1976. Judging by the sentiments the hon. member has expressed, I am sure we are going to have a convert in the Committee Stage and that when my hon. colleague for Durban Central moves the amendment to clause 12, as it appears on page 296 of the Order Paper, the hon. member for Rissik will support it because I believe the amendment expressess what the hon. member has in mind. If that amendment is accepted, subsection (3) will read—

Surely, you agree with that?

Does he agree with that? Sir, I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central that a Select Committee be appointed. I listened to the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech attentively. There were six pages of very interesting historical facts concerning the development of radio and television, developments dating back to 1923. However, there were just two sentences referring to the promulgation of the Draft Bill in January 1976. In those two brief sentences, the hon. the Minister gave no indication of the who, what and why in connection with the comments that were sent to him. We do not know what bodies or individuals sent comments, we do not know what they said and we do not know why, after considering the comments arising from this draft Bill, the hon. the Minister was prompted …

I shall reply to you. There was almost nothing.

That supports the point I am making. If there were almost no comments, I believe that at least those bodies that did take the trouble to submit their comments, should have had a greater opportunity to consider this Bill after it had been commented upon. Sir, we had the First Reading of this Bill less than a week ago; so it was virtually impossible for them to express any opinion before its Second Reading. This only serves to entrench our impression that it is necessary to have a Select Committee. The hon. member for Durban Central has indicated, and I want to endorse it, that this is a complicated Bill. It consolidates, it amends and it repeals. It repeals an Act which is 40 years old. It repeals the Radio Act of 1952 and the Broadcasting Act of 1936, or sections of them, and in addition it repeals large portions of six amending Acts. It is an extremely complex piece of legislation for Parliament to consider without the benefit of a Select Committee.

Then I want to come to the remarks the hon. the Minister made in regard to external services—Radio South Africa; the Voice of South Africa. He indicated that this service had now been in operation and had been putting the opinion of the Government of South Africa over the ether to various countries for 10 years. Sir, I raise this question because Parliament votes money to subsidize this service and in the last budget an amount of no less than R3⅓ million was allocated to it. I had hoped that the Minister would have given some indication as to what effect RSA was having overseas, the reaction to the picture which South Africa was placing before them in regard to current events. This morning I had the privilege of meeting a high-ranking American who I believe is sympathetic to South Africa and fully aware of South Africa’s problems. I asked him whether Radio South Africa enjoyed much support or warranted much attention in the United States. I found his answer disappointing. He said the people in the USA devoted most of their time and attention to television, so that they were not interested in what came over the radio. The only time when they might listen to the radio is when they are driving to office and would like to listen to a little music on the way. I want now to make a constructive suggestion to the hon. the Minister, because I believe that as far as possible the Voice of South Africa should reach as many people as possible. I realize that it puts a subjective view, as the Government sees the situation in South Africa, but we in South Africa must counter the subjective view which is broadcast to many States throughout the world. I want to suggest that there should be closer liaison between this Minister and the Department of Information, because my experience has been that the Department of Information are only too pleased and willing to extend their circulation of the South African Digest to people in other countries. I have tried them out over the years, and whenever I meet people who show an interest but are ignorant about the affairs of South Africa, I have arranged to have their names placed on the mailing list of the South African Digest. Through that they are able to receive a weekly picture which gives them a different conception of South Africa. I want to suggest that with a little co-operation between the two departments and a little liaison, the people who receive the South African Digest overseas should also be placed on the mailing list of RSA Calling. At least it would make them aware of the fact that Radio South Africa is there, and I believe, too, that it might pay the Minister to ask the South African Digest just to give more notification, say once a month, in the editions indicating that Radio South Africa broadcasts overseas on certain wavelengths.

Now I want to come nearer home, to a visit which, through the courtesy of the SABC, some of my colleagues made to Johannesburg to see the operation of the SABC. Sir, we went to Commissioner Street and gained a good insight of the operation there, but we also saw the cramped conditions, the outmoded and outdated conditions, under which they work there. Then we were taken to Auckland Park and we saw the dramatic change and the development which has taken place there. I want to emphasize most specifically that I accept that South Africans should enjoy the best possible transmission services. I believe that the executive, administrative and technical staff of the SABC should enjoy congenial working conditions, but I want to ask the Minister whether he believes that the Government has its priorities right as far as this matter is concerned. I have been told that the initial cost of establishing this magnificent complex at Auckland Park is in the neighbourhood of R106 million. I want to compare that with the total expenditure of R110 million in 1974 for the provision of housing for Coloureds, Asians and Bantu. The argument could well be that this complex will be there for a long time and will serve South Africa for a long time, but I submit that housing also serves people for a long time. I believe, too, that one has to compare this magnificent building complex with, not wall-to-wall carpeting, but pavement-to-wall carpeting and I also want to ask him whether he believes that the provision of such lavish facilities for top management is justified when the shortage of housing is still acute. On 31 December 1975 the shortage of housing stood at approximately 85 000 houses for Whites, for Coloureds and for Indians, excluding Africans. I believe therefore that we have to adjust our priorities.

Previous speakers have referred to the lack of information that is forthcoming when attempts are made to question, through Parliament, the activities of the SABC. If one studies the Bill, one finds that clauses 2 to 7 deal with the appointment of the SABC, the functions and the powers of this body. But the Minister also has certain powers and to me these are reasonably broad. They are detailed in clauses 9, 10, 11, 13, 16 and 20, among others. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that in his new post he should try to establish a better liaison between Parliament, himself as a Minister and the SABC. I think that all reasonable requests for information tabled by members should at least be satisfied. I know that the rules of the House at the moment make that difficult, but I believe that this Minister can alter that position. I believe that Parliament is entitled to ask for and to receive this information, because Parliament still subsidizes the SABC for certain aspects of its activities. I believe that on those grounds alone it is desirable—nay essential—that members of Parliament should receive the information they seek. Sir, I want to quote an anology for the benefit of the hon. the Minister. It often happens that members of Parliament table questions seeking information in regard to matters affecting Bantu affairs. Parliament subsidizes the various homeland Governments and I have not yet experienced an occasion where the Minister of Bantu Administration has refused to give information on the grounds that it concerns a homeland Government about to become independent. That Minister and his department have so far been singularly co-operative in obtaining information from the various homeland Governments. If this can be done as far as that department is concerned, I believe that this hon. Minister too can change the position as it relates to the SABC. I do not believe that it is possible for an annual report to deal completely and thoroughly with the day-to-day matters arising from the administration of the SABC.

The Bill has certain omissions and in that connection there are already amendments printed on the Order Paper. We should like to deal with them during the Committee Stage. However, on this occasion I should like to deal with a matter on which I hope the hon. the Minister will comment. I refer to inspectors and their powers and functions. This matter is referred to in clause 21, which provides—

1. (a) require any person who in terms of the Radio Act …

As I understand it, this particular portion of the Radio Act is not being repealed. The point is that that person may be required to do certain things, such as producing his licence or permit. He may be required to produce any sound radio or television set. The inspector has also certain powers to demand that radio dealers produce things. The inspector has the power to enter upon land. Other than the phrase “any person authorized thereto by the corporation” I find no suggestion that the inspector should present his certificate prior to conducting an inspection. However, if one refers to clause 28, which deals with offences, one finds that it contains a provision to the effect that if an offence is suspected of having been committed, clause 28(b) would come into operation, because it provides—

I have already quoted clause 21. If that person fails to comply with the inspector’s request, the inspector can take certain steps. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not feel that it is desirable to bring this Bill, if possible by amendment, into line with other Bills in which the principle has been accepted that an inspector shall produce his certificate of authority, not on demand, but prior to carrying out his duty in terms of the legislation. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that there have been occasions earlier this week where this principle has been accepted.

I want to come to clause 13(2), which deals with advertisements. It reads—

Then there is a proviso which I shall not read. My appeal to the hon. the Minister is that he should give very serious consideration to the televising of advertisements which deal with alcohol consumption or smoking of cigarettes. Without going into any great detail I want to point out to him that in terms of legislation on the Statute Book in South Africa alcohol is defined as a dependence-producing substance. I do not think that I need take up the hon. the Minister’s time or the time of the House to elaborate on the statement that it has been proved the world over that cigarette smoking can be a health hazard.

After the budget we will all start smoking and drinking.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister sincerely that when he considers the possibility of allowing commercial TV—I realize that he has indicated quite frankly that he is not in favour of sponsored TV programmes—he should consider this aspect. There are countries overseas which have already taken a stand and I believe that we in South Africa have a moral obligation to our young people not to encourage them to indulge in habits which may be social habits, but could be to the detriment of their future health and productivity to South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, there are three matters which the hon. member for Berea mentioned which one could perhaps comment on. The first is his reference to the “Voice of South Africa”, which was allegedly making no impression at all in America because the people there watch television. I think that there is positive evidence to the contrary as well, from the Bantu states of Central Africa, for example, where very prominent Black people have testified that if they want to know what is really happening from day to day in South Africa and Africa, they listen to the “Voice of South Africa”.

That is true.

There an hon. member is saying from their own benches that it is true. I think we should take cognizance of that positive evidence, and not simply consider the negative reactions all the time. The second point the hon. member made on which one could comment was that the Opposition members were concerned about the many powers the Minister is going to receive. This is characteristic of a person who is not used to power, for anyone who is not used to power, is afraid of power. It is understandable that this powerless Opposition sitting here would be afraid of the power which the hon. the Minister has because they themselves are powerless in the political arena of the Republic. I think the third point the hon. member made was a very unfair one. Once again he compared apples with pears. He compared the cost of this highly sophisticated television studio of R106 million with housing for coloured persons. If the hon. member had taken the trouble to analyse that amount of R106 million he would have seen and appreciated that to establish a television studio is, in the first place, no easy task. In the second place it is a tremendously expensive undertaking. The equipment which has to be used there, the standards with which that studio has to comply in regard to lighting, insulation for sound, heat, vibrations and tremors, is simply—I almost want to say—breathtaking. To comply with those requirements when one is erecting any structure is a very difficult task and also a very expensive one. Consequently I think it is very unfair of the hon. member to compare these two figures. They are not comparable at all. I want to content myself with saying that.

I have listened to the hon. members of the Opposition scratching around to find something in this Bill which they can discuss. There is a saying that after water has passed over nine pebbles, that water is pure and clean. The hon. members themselves admitted that the Radio Act which is basically being consolidated here, has for 40 years already withstood the test of time and practice. Admittedly there has been a minor omission here and there, as one of the hon. members mentioned when he referred to the fact that the SABC will no longer have the right to maintain telex networks. But surely that is not their task. The test of time has demonstrated that this is no longer their work. It is the work of the Post Office. This is the kind of scratching around that is being done here, and it puts me in mind of the Plymouth hens that I have in the orange orchard on my farm, that scratch around frantically and eventually find only a dessicated chrysalis. This chrysalis is tom to pieces, for each of the hens pecks at it. If we see what these hon. member have scratched out it basically amounts to only one thing, and that concerns control. They had a few things to say about licenses, and then the hon. members of the Progressive Party indulged in a pot of gossip-mongering here. Of course one of their normal items of gossip was once again that we are supposedly doing nothing for the Bantu as far as television is concerned. This is an uncalled-for approach. Four years ago the SABC commenced our television service with great zeal and are now providing us with a television service of five hours per day for both the English and Afrikaans programmes, a service which I think is of an excellent standard. However, four years were required to do this, and I think we should congratulate the SABC on the achievement of establishing such a complicated process—not only the establishment of facilities, but also the training, maintenance and the widespread network with the help of the Post Office—within a period of four years.

I want to return to the argument that nothing is being done for the Bantu. If hon. members had wanted to take the trouble they would have established that at this stage the SABC is already engaged in the planning of phase two of this programme. What does phase two of this programme comprise? It comprises the following: After they made the survey they found that by 1980 there would be at least six million Bantu listeners, six million Bantu who would be in a position to watch a television programme. This phase will take as long as the first. In other words, it will take four years from the present. If we consider capital, it will perhaps require a further R100 million to make those facilities available. By that time programmes for Bantu will be available in five languages, for example, Xhosa, Zulu, North Sotho, South Sotho and Tswana. Once the facilities have in fact been established, how are they manned? To man these facilities and to work out programmes for these people a staff of approximately 1 000 will be required. This is the estimate. These 1 000 people have to be trained, and we accept now that they have a natural talent for appearing before the television camera. However, they still have to undergo basic training, and the SABC is planning the establishment of facilities, if they are not already there, to enable them to train 50 of these Black personalities, programme staff, simultaneously. If we take into consideration that the requirement is 1 000, then this training could virtually have been completed within four years. Another important matter is that one cannot present or develop programmes if one does not have the material at one’s disposal, in other words, if one does not have the written material suited to the culture of the people to whom the programme has to be offered. Radio Bantu, which began to broadcast in 1960, organized competitions, and this is what this Government, with the help of Radio Bantu, has accomplished: In that time, since 1960, 500 manuscripts have already been prepared for broadcast over Radio Bantu. It will certainly be possible to adopt certain of these manuscripts for presentation on television as well. Having regard to the television programmes which are going to be presented in four years’ time, one of the great Bantu artists, a man by the name of Muntu Zulu, has already made three basic manuscripts available to the SABC for television programmes. I want to conclude this aspect by quoting what Mr. Theunis van Heerden of the SABC said in respect of the Bantu television programmes—

This is all I want to say about the agitation to the effect that the SABC is ostensibly doing nothing to render a service to the Bantu public of South Africa as well. If one speaks of six million people, it feels as though it is a mere drop in the ocean. Perhaps attention should be given, in a more general context, to the problem of making television sets available. There are large Bantu townships to which electricity has not yet been supplied. This is a very major stumbling block in making television programmes available to the Bantu people living in such areas.

To return now to the only chrysalis which the poor friends were able to scratch out, i.e. the question of control …

It is a major issue.

The hon. member says it is a major issue. That hon. member gave us an indication of what his problem in regard to control is concerned with. In his speech he referred to three clauses of this legislation. He referred to clause 13(1)(a), and to clause 13(1)(d). Is that correct? The hon. member for Durban Central says that it is correct. The hon. member also referred to clause 11(b). Let us consider those clauses, for they give us an indication of where the hon. member’s problem as well as the problem of his party in respect of this legislation lies. Clause 13(1)(a) provides that, with the approval of the Minister, the SABC may erect installations and broadcasting stations in areas outside the Republic. What does the hon. member want to control there? Does he want to control the specifications of the installations? Does he want to control the purchase of such installations, the places where they have to be installed, their maintenance? Or does he expect Parliament to be able to control all these highly technical aspects, while the SABC probably has one of the best technically equipped teams in the world to control such matters? If the hon. member wants that he is completely off frequency, to use their terms. Then his tone is completely false. This Parliament is not called upon or capable of controlling anything like that.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he, as a member of Parliament, does not feel that he is entitled to have that information?

Mr. Speaker, I think the reply to that has already been given by the hon. member for Johannesburg West. Clause 27 of the legislation provides that a report shall be made to this Parliament. Clause 27 of the legislation provides that a report shall be made to this Parliament, and under the Vote of the hon. the Minister anyone in this House may discuss any aspect of this matter. It is information which is available, and if more information is required, hon. members may receive that, as well, from the hon. the Minister or from the department. The question of control also emerges in clause 13(1)(d) of the legislation. Hon. members say that clause 13(1)(d) enables the corporation to enter into unilateral agreements or uncontrolled agreements. I should like to quote the provision concerned for the record—

What does section 13(b) state? Section 13(b) in essence simply states that the SABC may enter into agreements with any person, a government or an administration, in terms of which these organizations may present programmes or information for programmes to the SABC. If that is the problem hon. members have, do they want to exercise control over what programmes are broadcast, when the programmes should be available and what subjects the programmes should deal with? If that is the case, it is clear that they are all at sea. We proceed to the third aspect, and that is clause 11(b) of the legislation which provides—

Once again we see here their inherent mistrust of the exercise of power. The hon. members imagine they see here the spectre of the SABC being able to broadcast programmes which do not suit the hon. members. What does the hon. member visualize under control in terms of clause 11(b)? I really cannot see what he wants to control. Is it really his idea, and that of his colleagues, that control should be exercised over every programme broadcast by the SABC to a territory beyond the borders of the Republic? That is all to which the hon. member for Durban Central referred when he discussed the problem of control here. But the hon. member for Parktown set the seal on the matter with his contention that he was in favour of the establishment of a separate controlling committee. He urged that a separate controlling committee be established, while the Bill already makes provision for the establishment of a board. I should like to know from the hon. member what the task of his proposed committee will actually be once it has been constituted. Is he not satisfied with the information which the proposed committee will submit to the House in the form of report, in terms of clause 27? Does he perhaps intend giving directives to the committee, or does he want the committee to comply with certain unknown requirements? Whatever the hon. member is envisaging, surely it cannot in principle contain anything else but what is already being provided for in the Bill, i.e. for a board appointed by the State President.

In conclusion I should like to say that I believe that this legislation, in its present form, may in future be amended in places. Amendments will be effected because problems arise in the course of time which have to be overcome. As I have already said, the Broadcasting Act has been tried over the years, and provisions are simply being added now in terms of which provision is being made for television broadcasts. In essence this legislation therefore does not differ from the existing Act, except perhaps as far as technological and operational problems are concerned. For that reason all these aspects are being brought together in one piece of legislation.

I think that this is an excellent piece of legislation, and I believe that we should congratulate the SABC and the hon. the Minister on the fact that they have succeeded in consolidating, into such a neat Bill, the labyrinth of amendments which have been effected over the years. Therefore I should like to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Parktown, and in the course of this I shall try to respond to some of the criticism expressed by hon. members on the other side in response to speeches made by the hon. member for Parktown as well as by the hon. member for Sandton. All this has definite reference to the Bill and to the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Parktown. I want to say right away that we were very impressed that the hon. member for Rissik deemed it necessary to devote his entire speech to a reply to the hon. member for Parktown, which suggests that the hon. member for Parktown obviously got through to him, that he had something worthwhile to say, but I wish I could say that the hon. member for Rissik gave as good a response. Amongst other things he said that we should try to use moderate language when we talk about anything that takes place in South Africa. I agree with that, because I think he is absolutely right. We live in extremely difficult and contentious times. He then referred to the remarks made by the hon. member for Parktown regarding the attitude of the SABC towards, for example, the Newcastle bus boycott. The only point we have made—and we stand by it—is that if an event takes place in South Africa which has grave consequences to all the peoples of South Africa, one would imagine that a newspaper and a medium as powerful as the South African Broadcasting Corporation should present not only the facts given by the owners of the bus service and by the officials concerned, but also the views of the people who spent a very long time, at considerable discomfort to themselves, walking to work and back every day. The very fact that the department itself—the department concerned—intervened in the end, suggested that these people had a case. That is the only point we are making. Time and time again the South African Broadcasting Corporation simply does not reflect both sides. The hon. member for Florida said that what we were objecting to was that the SABC exercised its right to interpret news items in perspective just as any newspaper did. However, there is a vast difference between newspapers and the SABC. For example, licence-holders are a complete cross-section of the community, and since the SABC is a public utility it has an obligation, very different from that of a newspaper, to represent as fairly as is humanly possible all the stances and responses to various events taking place in South Africa.

Within certain limits, though.

Of course there are limits because there are human limitations. After all, we do not want something as bland as a bowl of custard. One must have some spark and some movement. That is something the hon. member for Sandton made very clear. We are not asking that every single point of view should be put, but rather that the controversy, which is the very heart of this nation, should be clarified. That is putting things into perspective; then people can be allowed to make their own decisions about this rather than being spoonfed a bowl of lukewarm porridge, because that is the kind of thing that is being dished up to us time and time again. While the hon. member for Rissik was speaking I asked him a question. According to the development of the hon. member’s argument, the policy of the Nationalist Government makes itself felt in every facet of life, and one of the mediums through which it does so is the SABC. As in every other instance, a multinational policy also had to be developed by the SABC. The hon. member made great play of, and set great store by, the emphasis placed upon the various services for the Bantu people in South Africa. My question to him was a simple one. I asked him whether the Nationalist Government and therefore the SABC, because the two are synonymous, were going to introduce a special television or radio service for the Coloured community of South Africa. The hon. member for Rissik was so totally bowled over by this question that he staggered around for a while and then tried to give an answer. His answer, however, was the usual one, i.e. some time in the future, if the policy develops, etc. … It was the same old story all over again. He was hopeful that there would be an adjustment here and there and that we would truly have not only black and white television but also coloured television in South Africa. Then finally he grabbed on to the rope, as they always do—I feel so sorry for the hon. the Minister because this happens to him again and again. When they do not know the answers they invariably say: I am quite sure the hon. the Minister will reply to that question. Well, I am quite sure he will not.

I shall.

I am so tremendously excited I can hardly wait. However, I will not immediately resume my seat, because I do not think he will answer right now. I am nevertheless sure it is going to be a very good evening, and I look forward to hearing from the hon. the Minister. The other matter I want to raise concerns the hon. member for Johannesburg West, who has for the moment left the House. He usually does when he knows he is going to get a good answer. He said that time and again the hon. member for Parktown had raised certain issues which the hon. member for Wonderboom described as “skinderstories”. Well, of course, that is absolute nonsense. He asked for examples and illustrations to be given. This afternoon was a very important afternoon in the House because the budget speech was read. Quite understandably a great number of people are going to be waiting for further details about the budget. The SABC, of course, will be covering this issue on radio, as it has been doing for many years. Quite obviously the issue will also be dealt with on television this evening. Since the hon. member for Johannesburg West wanted further examples, I hope hon. members will pass on this classical and topical example to him. The hon. the Minister of Finance has probably already been interviewed and has probably already given the highlights of the budget for all the viewers throughout South Africa. I think that is absolutely right and proper. I think that members of the public have the right to know this. They have the right to see the Minister and to hear him give what he believes to be the highlights of the budget. Probably he will be giving them all the good aspects while leaving out all the bad aspects, but nevertheless it is his right to interpret the budget as he sees it.

This is another “skinderstorie”.

Don’t you “skinderstorie” here. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members should please give the hon. member a chance.

When we asked this afternoon for permission to give our point of view—as I am quite sure the official Opposition would also want to do through their chief spokesman—our request was denied. I am sure the hon. the Minister is shocked at this. I am sure he can hardly believe it. [Interjections.]

No, I am not shocked.

Is this perhaps a “skinderstorie”? No, it is not. This is a classic illustration of how one-sided this service really is because the contentious nature of any budget is well known. There will be various differing views from a variety of sources in the newspapers tomorrow. This is understandable because different people have different points of view. We therefore submit that both the official Opposition and the members in these benches also have the right to give the public, on television, their immediate reactions to the budget. My hopes are now high because we have a new and very good broom. [Interjections.] I am convinced that he has already written a note telling the people in the SABC that this state of affairs is not good enough. I am sure he has already asked them to give us a chance to put our point of view. Am I correct?

We shall talk about that tonight.

I am really very disappointed because it has been very thrilling to see the way he has responded to his new task as Minister of National Education, what with his great promises and the extra amount in the budget! What we now want to know, however, is whether he is going to change the whole approach of the SABC. Is he going to give it the clout it needs? Is he going to allow it more direct control from the Minister, not from the “ander Piet?” Is the hon. the Minister going to be able to exercise the kind of direct control that the SABC badly needs?

We are building on good foundations.

He may be building on good foundations, but he is going to have to build a completely new house. I have tried to give a topical example and the hon. the Minister has assured us that he will respond to my comments. I think my example is an illustration of what happens when the SABC becomes part and parcel of the Government of the day. That is why we have moved the amendment and that is why we talk about an independent board. All of us have expressed our admiration and enthusiasm for the technical developments that have taken place in the SABC. However, the nature, character and approach of the SABC leave very much to be desired. I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will take the amendment seriously since that is how it is meant. It is not meant merely as an attempt to make some capital out of a Bill. Of course we have not given the total answer as far as composition and appointments are concerned. We shall come to these points in the Committee Stage, but I do believe that we deserve to be given an answer to the broader aspects we have referred to, and I believe that the answer should be a satisfactory one in terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Parktown.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20hl5.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned I was about to summarize the argument I had been making in support of the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown. Sir, over dinner tonight, which was a little painful because of the increased price of certain commodities, I reflected on an interjection made across the floor of the House by the hon. the Minister when I was talking about the fact that, having a new Minister, we hoped that there would be new initiative. The hon. the Minister’s comment, I think, was that he was building on sound and good foundations.

Yes.

I am glad to hear that, because that brings me to another point. One assumes that he is building on the foundations of his predecessors, and one of his predecessors was none other than the famous Dr. Albert Hertzog. I assume, when the hon. the Minister says he is building on those foundations, that he is following in the footsteps of Dr. Hertzog. Sir, I cannot believe that this is true, because when the hon. the Minister of Defence was on television again the other night—this time direct from a public party-political meeting—one would have imagined that Dr. Albert Hertzog would have been given an opportunity to speak as well, he being one of the distinguished predecessors on whose foundations the hon. the Minister is building. So I believe that the hon. the Minister is not really being frank with us.

Order! I hope the hon. member is not going to take us back to prehistoric times.

Sir, I will certainly try not to go so far back, and one hopes that the Nationalist Party, in its television programmes, will also come into the twentieth century. The point I was trying to make was that in our judgment the SABC, both in its radio and in its television services, was partisan, and I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me. I am glad the hon. member for Houghton is not here, because she probably would not want me to say what I am going to say now. [Interjections.] That hon. member has been a member of this House for well over 20 years and has never yet appeared on radio, nor on television although I am quite confident that the hon. the Minister would want her to be amongst those who appear on television as stars of this country, and also on radio. We hope therefore that this is going to be remedied. The hon. the Minister is nodding his head and one looks forward to seeing her in full technicolour, as opposed to integration. [Interjections.] But, to be a little more serious, one is grateful for the kind of service that the SABC gives in its daily report on Parliament. There is no question about it, when one has the opportunity to listen to it, that the coverage is fair and objective. But one cannot but help noticing that as soon as the parliamentary session ends, one could almost imagine, listening to the radio or watching television, that there is no longer an Opposition, which of course is not true. One would hope very much indeed that the same kind of objectivity and the same kind of fairness in broadcasting which comes right throughout the session will also find a place on radio and on television throughout the year, because as the Government goes on throughout the year, so fortunately does also the Opposition. One would like to have some perspective there as well. [Interjections.]

To reply to the hon. member for Wonderboom, I think he missed the point which we were trying to make from these benches earlier. The hon. member for Sandton referred to the fact that if one watched television, one would imagine that at the moment the only people with any talent or ability are the Whites. Sir, that is not so. The point we are making is that even now there has to be an opportunity for all the people of South Africa to enjoy the richness of the diversity which is in South Africa. We have never ever argued from these benches that everybody is exactly the same in South Africa. That would be too boring a spectacle. We have never argued that any group’s identity or any person’s identity should be destroyed or put on one side. But we say that the richness of this deversity is not being reflected in television or on the radio. One thinks, for example, of the Eoan Group amongst the Coloured community. They would make extremely good television broadcasting material, but that of course we will not see until the hon. the Minister in some way, in the same way that he juggles with the sports policy, manages to be able to juggle things so that we have a Coloured television programme as well. [Interjections.] One thinks of the programme called “Starbound”. There is enormous talent within all the groups in South Africa, but one would never think so, because it is only one group that is reflected. So, too, was the remarkable production—I do not think everybody would agree with this—“Sizwe Banzi is Dead”. This remarkable production has been seen in many parts of South Africa and has also received acclaim and prized in New York and in Washington and in London. If only the SABC would recognize the inherent talent of all the people in this country, it would a make a very considerable difference to our television programmes. That is why we have tried to make the point that the service at the moment is partisan.

Now, to sum up. The other major point we have tried to make is that one of the ways of bringing about a change in perspective would be in regard to the whole question of independent control. Sir, the point we tried to make earlier in terms of the budget is that here we have a classic example of something which is of interest to all the people of South Africa and yet there is only one presentative of the hon. the Minister of Finance and of nobody else. Sir, here we have the hon. member for Yeoville with a brand new shirt bought in South Africa and he would look extremely good on television. [Interjections.] I suppose it is almost understandable that the hon. the Minister of National Education should not be blamed for this entirely. Probably there is some sort of arrangement with the hon. the Minister of Finance, because with a budget like that, can you imagine the kind of impact we can make on television? It is so bad that we just could not lose. I should like to sum up by saying we need this control to avoid partisanship and to try to combat the sterility of the SABC programmes at the moment, and one of the ways is to introduce that total variety—that total complexion, if you like—of our total South Africa on our screens and on our radio.

Mr. Speaker, we can only be deeply grateful tonight that the Government did not listen to the hon. Opposition, as large as it is sitting there, by simply introducing television in a precipitate fashion, as they have asked and pleaded over the years. I do not know what it would have looked like if we had done this. Tonight, however, we can proudly say that it is among the best in the world, after having been tested repeatedly and the whole matter studied very thoroughly.

The Opposition appeared to be very uncertain throughout this debate. They were very vague and did not quite know what it was all about. As usual they were very suspicious and they admitted this, too. They were distrustful, as they are distrustful of so many of the good things which are done. Actually the Bill is in essence a consolidating measure, because it only contains a few amendments. Although this is the case, they are again distrustful and are opposing the measure. That, too, is why we have had remarks such as those made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. The hon. member said that it was easier to know what was happening in the Kremlin than to know what was happening in the SABC. We would do well to refrain from making remarks of that nature about a corporation which meets the requirements it is set, and which renders an excellent service. Doubts were also expressed about the Board of Control. However, I can quote an example which proves the opposite. Mr. Ernie Williams—I do not think he would mind my mentioning his name—when asked what the greatest experience of his life had been, answered—

To be able to comprehend and interpret the Bill in any way, one should take into consideration that broadcasting in South Africa was first handled by the Railways. It was later handled by the Post Office, and later still it was divided between the Post Office and the Department of National Education. As a result of this process a distinction had to be drawn between the various legal provisions and as a result certain amendments to the legislation had to be effected and certain things omitted. This is precisely what the hon. Opposition is struggling with. I should like to deal with the speech by the hon. member for Pinelands. He referred to a few matters to which I should like to try and react. The hon. member complained about the fact that the SABC had not devoted attention to the bus episode at Newcastle. Before this episode occurred in Newcastle, similar events, which were in fact dealt with by the SABC, had taken place on the East Rand. After all, the SABC cannot continually broadcast the same kind of events. All newsworthy items are sorted out and selected by the SABC and discretion is exercised in respect of all such items in the sense that it is determined whether it is necessary that it be broadcast. All news bulletins are studied very carefully every day with a view to determining the order of importance and which items have the highest news value. The hon. member for Pinelands would do well to listen to this. If the stream of news which flows into the SABC daily and is sorted were to be printed, it would cover as much as five printed volumes.

In accordance with what norms is it selected?

The hon. member for Pinelands would then realize that something which happens repeatedly, really cannot be broadcast. One can only admire the news broadcasting of the SABC. If one were to judge by Press reports, etc., one can only be grateful for what the SABC is doing and for the skilful way in which they select news. The hon. member for Pinelands also said that the SABC, as a utility company, should be objective. However, he replied to his statement himself by saying to the hon. member for Rissik that the broadcasting service differs from the newspapers. He also said that news could not be broadcast by the SABC in such detail as it appeared in newspapers and that the news could not be covered so extensively by means of the news broadcasts of the SABC. Therefore, the hon. member supplied the answer to his own question. However, the hon. member also said—

Do you accept that?

Surely in practice it cannot be any other way. He admitted this and said so himself. However, I shall come back to this later.

You have just confirmed what the hon. member for Pinelands said.

The hon. members of the PRP say that if the hon. the Minister of Finance may discuss the Budget on the television service, every member of Parliament ought also to be able to do this.

No, I did not say that.

Then what were your precise words?

He only wants Helen to discuss it.

The chief spokesmen of the Opposition should have the opportunity.

I do not want to offend the hon. member, but if the hon. Minister of Finance appears on television, he appears in his capacity as a Minister. He appears in his official capacity and this to my mind, is where the major difference lies. After all, he has to account for what is or is not being done on behalf of the Government. [Interjections.] Therefore, we are not dealing with comparable circumstances and for that reason we cannot comply with the requests of the PRP in this regard. However, I want to agree with the hon. member that should it become necessary—once again it is of course a matter of discretion—for the official Opposition to be given an opportunity to state its view of a matter, this ought to be considered. [Interjections.] If such an opportunity were to be granted to the Official Opposition, the situation would not of course be that every member could appear on television. [Interjections.] I assume the hon. member for Pinelands would also like to appear on television; he has such a nice, friendly appearance.

I have a message.

They are of course hoping to introduce themselves by means of television, but I am afraid that if matters could be arranged in such a way that the business of this House could be presented on television every day, they would emerge with as little credit as when they broached matters concerning this Bill. The arguments put forward by the hon. members are not at all watertight. Especially when I look at some of the hon. members opposite, I believe that it definitely will not be necessary for us to go to the cinema to see “Funny People”. If the public were to see some of those hon. members appear on television and were to hear the arguments which they have put forward concerning this Bill, I think they would only have sympathy for them.

I am grateful for this Amendment Bill, because it facilitates understanding of the whole matter. I agree with the hon. the Minister that it is mainly a consolidating Bill; it only contains a few amendments. I do not think this Bill is controversial. I really want to congratulate the SABC on the excellent service they provide. I should also like to thank all the employees of the SABC for the outstanding way in which they perform their task and for their conscientious attitude to their work. We paid a visit to the SABC and we have only the highest praise for these people.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it would not be possible, for instance, to liaise with the Department of Information to promote Radio RSA, which is broadcast on shortwave for overseas listeners, by means of the publications published by the Department of Information. Since the world really knows very little about our way of life in South Africa, I believe that it will become increasingly necessary in the times we are living in for us to tell the outside world by means of our broadcasting service who and what we are, what we are trying to do in South Africa, what our aim is and what our national set-up really involves. I feel that the people of other countries who are not privileged to be able to travel, could in fact be kept informed by means of our broadcasting service. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for having been afforded the opportunity to make my modest contribution.

Mr. Speaker, if I am to summarize briefly the speech of the hon. member for Hercules, I can only say that he told the SABC in a nice way: “Thank you for the fine way in which you have supported us; do carry on; we need it.” That was his message to the SABC.

†Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate we on this side of the House have dealt with the omissions from the principal Act and, generally, the amendments to it which appear in the Bill before us. Those issues have been adequately dealt with by the hon. member for Durban Central and the other speakers on this side of the House. As the hon. the Minister is new in this portfolio, I think this is an opportunity for him to enlighten us on this side of the House of the manner in which he intends to approach and his attitude towards the various functions and responsibilities that will be his in terms of this Bill when once it is passed by this House. I believe it is relevant that one should raise these questions with the hon. the Minister. A statement by him would be welcomed on his approach to the exercising of his powers which are to a great extent discretionary powers and which will greatly influence the way in which the SABC will function in respect of both the radio broadcasts and television. Reference has been made in this debate to the growing tendency to exercise less and less control over the operations of the SABC and its board, as has been evidenced by the replies received to questions that have been put. The hon. member for Durban Central put it that “ligte beheer lei tot geen beheer”. I believe that we are reaching that state of affairs as a result of the attitude that has been adopted by the hon. the Minister’s predecessors.

The hon. the Minister has statutory obligations in terms of the measure before us. They are obligations which he cannot sidestep by means of the dexterity he has in his other capacity as Minister of Sport and Recreation. When it comes to clause 4, I want to say that while it is correct that the State President appoints the members of the board, we all know that it is the hon. the Minister who will tender his advice to the State President in regard to those appointments. I want to know from him, and I believe the House and the country will be interested to know from him, what his attitude is in regard to the recommending and selection of members of the board. Will he give adequate representation on that board to both language groups and to all communities in South Africa? I merely ask him what his attitude in that regard is because he will be the one to make the recommendations.

We have got a good record.

Now just listen, oom Cas.

†His attitude should permeate downwards and influence the selections which the board in turn makes in regard to its appointment of advisory committees. From what sources will the hon. the Minister seek advice as to who should be appointed to the board? I believe we are past the stage where we should legislate on the grounds of colour in this House as to who should be on that board.

That brings me to the rather revealing first leg of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Parktown. As the Act stands, it is silent on the question of the race group to which the person should belong who is appointed to the board. As I read it, it is open to the hon. the Minister to recommend to the State President the appointment to the board of any person of any race. Whilst it is true that to date the hon. the Minister’s predecessor has not recommended the appointment of anybody other than a White person, one can only force the issue by amending the law to provide that it should be an integrated board which must consist of persons of such and such a colour, such and such a race, etc. I believe that if that were to be done, it would constitute a decided step backwards when, at the present moment, he is attempting to eliminate—at least, I hope he is trying to do so—aspects of legislation which have reference to colour and not to the ability or qualifications of the persons concerned. That, after all, was the undertaking given by our ambassador to the United Nations, and we look forward to the implementation for that.

The members of the Progressive Reform Party, however, are moving an amendment which I would have expected would rather come from the Herstigte Nasionale Party. They are wanting to stipulate, in the legislation of this country, that a board should be selected on colour grounds. That is the first leg of the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown. [Interjections.]

There is a noise on your left.

Of course, there is a noise on my left! They have not given this amendment which they have introduced much consideration. We do not ask for representation because of colour as they do on their side. What I do want to ask the hon. the Minister, however, is that he will give us the assurance here in this House and to the country that he on his part, in making recommendations as to who should be appointed to this board, will make those recommendations having regard to the available, suitable persons who are qualified to serve on that board, irrespective of what colour they might be. That is the position we must reach in this country. When it comes to appointing a board of this nature, I hope that the hon. the Minister will exercise his powers, because that would be in fulfilment of the undertaking given by the hon. the Prime Minister at the beginning of last year, i.e. that he would see to it that there was representation of all interests on boards of this sort. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, may I put it in this way to the hon. the Minister, because then it will perhaps be clear to him, as it does not appear to be clear to the hon. member for Carletonville? What I am saying to him is that in selecting the board he does it in the same way as selecting a representative team for South Africa, not by putting people on because of their colour, but by putting them on irrespective of their colour, and by choosing the best persons available to fulfil that task. That is what I ask him to do [Interjections.] These remarks apply equally to the selection of members, in terms of clause 10 of this Bill, to the Television Programme Advisory Board. The board of control of the SABC is a business management board and is subject to such powers as the Minister has in terms of this Bill, which are somewhat limited and I believe should be limited in so far as the business management is concerned. One must realize, however, that this is a monopoly concern. I do not quibble for one moment that, for economic reasons, the board should have the power to run the business. After all, they are supposed to be the experts. SATV and SABC are, however, perhaps the most powerful propaganda media in the Republic and there must be evidence that they practise absolute impartiality and objectivity on controversial issues. Here I believe that the control which has existed so far has fallen down lamentably. Whether political, social or economic aspects of life, which are controversial, are being dealt with, it is essential that the SABC and SATV present a balanced picture and a balanced report on what the various aspects or opinion in South Africa are on those issues. I do not want to criticize what has been done or has not been done in this regard, as well will be able to have a better discussion on those aspects under the hon. the Minister’s Vote, and whether the administration of the SABC is doing what we believe is necessary. Therefore, I only want to comment in passing on the type of broadcast and telecast which we are receiving. I believe that the hon. the Minister, if he finds time to sit before a TV set, would agree with me on this matter. For instance, last evening there was a veritable parade of Cabinet Ministers on the TV screen during the news presentation. I looked at it and wondered why it was happening. I could only assume that the fact that Oscar awards were being awarded for stage performances in other places had influenced certain Ministers to see how well they could perform on TV last night. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he looks at this because I believe that it is wrong and that it will detract from the efficiency and the efficacy of the SATV news if we have an unbalanced presentation and see the faces of hon. members on the other side of the House too often.

We have far more faces.

I hope that the hon. member for Carletonville will be put on TV. I do not know whether he will be in the Potroast or the Biltong team, but I should like to see him on either.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the reports of the board. I believe the hon. the Minister should use the powers which he has under clause 27 of the Bill to extend the spectrum of matters upon which the board should report. Again here I believe that the report will be merely a business report, without the more detailed information which would be of interest and which I believe Parliament is entitled to receive from the board. At this point I do not want to labour the point on the details. We can deal with those at a later stage. We shall discuss them in the Committee Stage, and endeavour to expand the provisions of clause 27. Clause 27(1)(g) is a re-enactment of the present obligations of the board. It is one of those interesting clauses, because it reads as follows—

As has been mentioned in this debate, that has not appeared so far in any report that I have seen from the SABC. I wish to raise a few interesting questions with the hon. the Minister and I hope that he will answer them this evening. First of all, I want to know whether, in the keeping of this tally, a Cabinet Minister is included in the category of a “member of a political party”. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to tell me. If so, there can be no doubt that the National Party on the other side of the House will be an odds-on favourite to win when it comes to any stakes as to who gets the best terms on TV or on the radio. I think the hon. the Minister must tell us whether he regards a Cabinet Minister as being a member of a political party for the purposes of this clause. The mere existence of this clause, containing as it does these matters on which there should be a report, clearly contemplates that time should be allowed to political parties on TV or on the radio.

Do you want that?

Of course we do! It has been refused us over and over again and if the hon. member for Algoa will help me to get that for political parties I shall be very happy. You cannot even buy time for a political party on Springbok Radio. It has been refused. You cannot even buy time, and that is the monopoly which is in the hands of that side of the House.

Why not?

Because the board refuses to sell time. I want to give to you, Mr. Speaker, an indication of a very modest request which I myself have made for a, little assistance and a little time on SABC. You may know, or may not know, that my constituency encompasses some 11 islands which start at Robben Island and end up on the west coast near South West Africa. In 1974 I had some problems in communicating with voters on them because I am not the owner of an off-shore power boat with which I could visit these areas. I therefore wrote to the manager of the SABC—the broadcasting station is in my constituency—and I asked him whether I could have a few minutes on the air merely to tell the voters on these islands, whom I could not visit personally, that I was a candidate and why I felt that they should vote for me. This was a very modest request, but it was turned down. I must say that the manager in Cape Town of the SABC wrote me a very charming letter and said that he would do his best to inform the voters as to how they should vote in that particular election. That was a little risky, leaving it in the hands of the SABC to tell them. The second point I want to ask the hon. the Minister to deal with is to tell us what is a political party for the purposes of this Act. The hon. the Minister will do a great service to several hon. members of this House who are serving on a Select Committee dealing with the electoral laws, because it is a vexed problem as to how one defines a political party. After all, politics is said to be a national sport in South Africa and one only has to look at the recent history to see the number of self-styled political parties that have sprung up like mushrooms. Some of them have lasted; others have withered; others have been absorbed in marriage, but they have disappeared from the political scene. All I want to know is what the hon. the Minister’s concept of a political party is. If he can give me a definition, for the benefit of the Select Committee, it would be a most useful thing.

I can give it to you now. It is a party which has representatives in the House.

The hon. the Minister is a bit too quick in making that representation. I think he has Alberton on his mind. He feels that the Herstigte Nasionale Party must not be regarded as a political party.

I have a good definition of that.

If the hon. the Minister would give it to us and to the Select Committee, we would be most grateful because we have been struggling for a long time to find a definition.

I want to turn to aspects of television for a moment and I want to say that one realizes that this is still partially experimental. At the moment the programmes are restricted to a limited time. Personally I appreciate the extent to which the present experience must lead to improved standards in content and in presentation. However, there are one or two matters to which I want to refer particularly this evening. These are matters on which I believe, Parliament’s views should be conveyed, through the hon. the Minister, to the board of the SABC, or rather, SATV. I want to urge the hon. the Minister very strongly to do everything in his power to see that the existing basis of the one-channel experimental stage is continued, namely that the programmes on the one channel are English for half the time and Afrikaans for the other half, alternating as to which takes place in the first half of the evening and which takes place in the other. I know there are many problems, but I believe this is the greatest contribution that can be made to the improvement of bilingualism in this country. It has a tremendous educational value, particularly on the younger people and I do not think there is anyone in this House who has not found that to be the case amongst our children or grandchildren. I want to urge the hon. the Minister that if, as there will be, additional channels are introduced, they will be introduced rather as to the nature of the programme, the light, the entertaining, the serious or whatever it may be, and not on a language basis with English on one channel and Afrikaans on another channel. I hope the hon. the Minister will agree with me that it is a matter which can be pursued.

Secondly, I want to urge the hon. the Minister to introduce political forum discussions which are basic to TV throughout the world. I believe they must be introduced as soon as possible and as a regular feature. Presently there are very excellent panel discussions which are televised, but unfortunately these discussions are not publicized beforehand. They appear within a programme of a special sort, a magazine programme as it may be, and there again I want to ask the hon. the Minister to see to it that when there is to be a panel discussion—not necessarily on politics, but also other panel discussions—there is sufficient prior notice through the Press the day before to say that this panel discussion will be included in such and such a programme during the following evening.

The next point I want to raise is in regard to newscasts. I know that time is a problem at the moment, but having newscasts at 8.10 p.m. and at 10.40 p.m. means that any person who is occupied during the evening can see neither the first nor the later of those newscasts. I think serious consideration must be given to this, as to whether there can be more suitable times so that there is a newscast before one goes out or so that there is a newscast late enough so that one can see it after returning home.

I know publications control does not apply to TV, but I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe there is an awful lot of unnecessary blood and guts, if I may put it that way, on TV at the present moment. In the news this is perhaps unavoidable and it is perhaps desirable to show what is happening where there are revolutions, etc., in other countries, but one finds that the blind inspector seems to be inevitably involved, in every instalment of the serial, in some killing or other, and although I enjoy Westerns, poor old Shane seems to be mixed up in a great deal of shooting, murders, killings, etc., whenever he appears on the screen. I want to suggest that in so far as those matters are concerned, there should be a more balanced approach to these presentations which are being televised.

I want to conclude with a suggestion relating to the second part of the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Parktown, calling for the appointment of an independent board to see if there is a proper performance of its duties by the SABC. I have never heard of such a nonsensical suggestion. I can only suggest that if one wants to have an independent board there must be no Nationalists on it. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister tonight that perhaps that board should consist of the hon. member for Parktown, perhaps the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Durban Central, the hon. member for Wynberg, Dr. Albert Hertzog, Mr. Louis Stoffberg, Mr. Joel Mervis and Mr. Gerdener. If the hon. the Minister does not want to preside as chairman I suggest we have Fanus Rautenbach as chairman.

When they come to seek an objective assessment, amongst that spectrum of opinion, as to whether the SABC has been fair in its programmes, the meeting should always be televised. It might take the place, as I said earlier, of the programme—which I suggested the hon. member for Carletonville should be on—Potroast and Biltong as a weekly feature on TV. It is a stupid suggestion and what is more, it is a suggestion which I take it has merit because that committee, according to the motion, will judge whether the programmes have been correctly carried out and it will judge the performance. By using the word “judge” the rule of law is no doubt the basic element in the proposal which has been made by the hon. member for Parktown.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend participating in the Second Reading debate of this Bill, but I have been provoked into doing so by the jocular fun which was made at the expense of my party by the hon. member for Green Point. I should like to take advantage of the situation to enjoy a little reciprocity in this respect. It was very interesting to hear the hon. member castigating the hon. member for Parktown because of the amendment he moved to the Second Reading of this Bill. He was particularly scathing about the first leg of that amendment, which declines to pass the Second Reading of the Broadcasting Bill, because—and this is the leg particularly objected to by the hon. member for Green Point—the composition of the policy-making bodies of the SABC is not representative of all sections of the population. I think it is possible that the hon. member for Green Point will concede that that is the factual position. What the hon. member objected to was that by this statement, the hon. member for Parktown clearly wanted to insert in the Bill the proviso that members of the committee should include persons from the African, Coloured and Indian sections of the population. The hon. member thought it was a very silly idea, although the amendment says that the SABC’s policymaking bodies are not representative of all sections of the population. [Interjections.] The hon. member asks: How else can one do it? There is no other way one can do it and there is no other way we want to do it.

If we thought that the hon. the Minister was in fact going to appoint members of the African, Coloured or Indian population groups to this board and if he gave us his firm assurance in this regard, it might be a different matter, but we got no assurance from the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading of this Bill and I wonder if he is going to give us such an assurance when he replies to the debate. The hon. member said he would like to see this, provided it was done on merit, if there were persons who were sufficiently qualified to be appointed from the different groups. We assume that there are such persons; indeed we know that there are such persons, and without thinking twice I could mention members of the African, Coloured and Indian population groups who would be eminently suitable for serving on such a board. Therefore we have no difficulty about that. Perhaps the hon. member for Green Point does not know such members of the Coloured, African and Asian population groups.

You do not know my friends.

We know such persons very well indeed and we could mention such persons to the hon. the Minister should he like any advice in this regard.

I want to come back to the objection in principle which the hon. member for Green Point made. I know that the United Party changes like a will o’ the wisp from one moment to the other, from one policy to the other, and from serving on the Schlebusch Commission to not serving on the Parliamentary Internal Security Commission without giving any reasons therefor although these two commissions are exactly the same. I now want to ask the hon. …

Is what you are saying accurate?

I am being extremely accurate and who would know it better than the hon. member for Green Point?

I know you are not being accurate.

The hon. member has served on the Schlebusch Commission for four solid years and now refuses to serve on the Parliamentary Internal Security Commission. I want to ask the hon. member whether he remembers a Bill which was passed only 18 months ago, on August 1974, viz. the Publications Bill. Does the hon. member remember that? I think he took part in it and he made some very valuable contributions in that debate whereas he made a very silly contribution to tonight’s debate. I want to ask the hon. member what his party moved in regard to clause 5 of that amending Bill which provided for the setting up of committees which were to consider what we may read and what we may not read, what may be published and what may not be published. The hon. member’s party moved (Hansard, Vol. 50, col. 1573)—

1. (2) In line 33, after “Minister” to insert “, with due regard to adequate representation of all sections of the community,”.

Let me read out again the amendment, the first leg of the amendment, which was moved by the hon. member for Parktown, to which this hon. member took such umbrage. [Interjections.] The amendment states that the House declines to pass the Second Reading because the composition of the policy-making bodies of the SABC is not representative of all sections of the population. I wonder whether the hon. member will concede, mutatis mutandis, that maybe what his party tried to do in respect of the Publications Bill is exactly what the hon. member for Parktown is trying to do as far as this Bill is concerned.

Have mercy, Helen; have mercy.

Why should I have mercy? There is no reason whatsoever why I should have any mercy, and I think the hon. member knows it. However, let me just see. Maybe he was absent; I had better find out. There must have been a division in regard to that clause. He spoke on it, and he spoke strongly in favour of the amendment. The hon. member for Green Point on the very same clause said (Hansard, Vol. 50, col. 1593)—

It was the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South who moved the amendment which I read out a little earlier. The hon. member for Green Point went on to say (col. 1594)—

He also, in the same speech, spoke of—

Equally, we say that White, Coloured … [Interjections.]

Does the amendment to which the hon. member has referred go on in this way: “To provide for an independent committee to act as a judge of the SABC’s performance in providing a service which reflects the diversity of interests and of political opinions of the whole population”?

Does that amendment contain that? Of course it does not.

It does not say “political opinion”. [Interjections.] The facts that I mentioned when I started refer to the first leg of our amendment. Would the hon. member like to put his question again a little later? [Interjections.] Let me say that I am coming to the second leg in a minute, before the hon. member for Green Point leaps to his feet, because he can never resist the opportunity of having a go at this party even when we are agreeing with him in opposing the principle of this Bill at Second Reading. Of course the trouble is that the hon. member is smarting from the spanking that the hon. the Prime Minister gave him the other day and he is trying to take it out on us.

As far as the second leg of the amendment is concerned, we do not find it impossible to believe that there are a political people in South Africa who could form objective judgments on the sort of performance put up by the SABC and SATV. We are seeking to find some sort of committee which can indeed give an assessment, an impartial assessment, of the sort of service that we have to listen to, because we are in the hands of the board and of the Government. It is, as hon. members have pointed out, one of the most powerful media in South Africa, and in fact the most powerful, as far as television is concerned. That of course is the reason why we get no time, or very little time, on television. I am only hoping as I hoped when I knew that television was going to be introduced in this country that the constant injection of the faces of the members opposite into the privacy of the sitting rooms of citizens of South Africa ought to put them out of business at the next election. I believe that the electorate of South Africa is being subjected to a series of traumatic experiences in having to look at those faces, day in and day out and night in and night out. I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Parktown and members who criticize that amendment should perhaps try to cast their memories back a little, because they will find that they too basically and in principle are in full agreement with that amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my thanks to all the members who took part in this Second Reading debate on the Broadcasting Bill for the pleasant spirit in which the debate was conducted.

†As far as the hon. member for Houghton, who has just sat down, is concerned, they say that success depends on luck and pluck, luck in finding somebody to pluck. We have just witnessed what luck she had in finding the hon. member for Green Point to pluck and I must say she really plucked him well on this occasion. On the other hand, the hon. member for Houghton has in effect said that the more I appear on television, the better for the Opposition parties, that that the more hon. Ministers appear on television, the better for the Opposition. However, she makes the mistake of thinking that because she has had so much good and solid opposition from this party in this House, the rest of the public outside will also react in the fashion in which she reacts. That is precisely where she is wrong.

*Mr. Speaker, since we are concerned here with news media which are extremely important—radio and television—I should like to begin by undertaking to try to the best of my ability to make a study of this important subject in an understanding and responsible way. I shall not only make a study of it, but I shall also try to handle it in the interests of the Republic of South Africa and of its people. Allow me to say right at the outset that the most reliable and most objective news medium we have in South Africa at the moment, I believe, is the news service of the SABC. [Interjections.] Hon. members on the other side may raise a hue and cry about it, but it is quite true. So to allege, as hon. members have been doing since yesterday, that the National Government is using this news medium as an instrument of propaganda for the National Party is absolutely untrue. The National Party does not want to use this medium as an instrument of propaganda, nor shall we …

I, too, get angry with the SABC, after all!

Nor shall we allow this to happen. However, let us try to see what has happened here in perspective. If we examine this Bill closely, we realize that what the United Party as well as the Progressive Party wants is that the television service of the SABC should be made available to their parties for conveying their political propaganda. That is mainly that their whole argument is about. From the nature of the case, we are not prepared to do so at all. Anyway, this kind of thing would be a disservice to the Republic of South Africa, no matter by what authority it is allowed. Therefore I want to give them the assurance now that while I shall study this matter with understanding, I am very much aware of the fact that in those countries where the television service is used for political purposes, the authorities bitterly regret the fact that they ever allowed this to happen. Consequently I now want to tell those hon. members—and they can quarrel with me as much as they want to—that as long as I am the Minister of National Education, I shall do everything in my power to prevent the SABC and its television service from being used for political purposes by any group. In doing so—of this I am convinced—I shall be rendering a service to the Republic of South Africa. I just want to say that in 1968 …

You keep it exclusively for the National Party!

I shall give examples, naming chapter and verse, from which it will be clear to this hon. member that it is not so. I shall say more about that shortly.

Good wine needs no bush!

Mr. Speaker, in 1968 I was in America, and at that time an inquiry was being conducted into the country’s television service. There was a commission of inquiry and I was privileged to attend its sittings for two days and to listen to the discussions and the evidence that was given there. The findings to which the commission gave rise to the longest debate ever conducted by the American Congress. It concerned television in the USA, and I can assure you this evening that the whole tone of the report that was published—hon. members may have a look at it themselves—reflected the bitter regret of the USA about the fact that it had ever allowed its television service to be used for political purposes. In the same report the USA issued a warning to other countries not to make the same mistake. Now the Opposition wants the Government to allow the same sort of thing in our television service. This is something we shall not do. We cannot risk it.

Harry, do not think that truth is politics. Truth is something separate.

Mr. Speaker, this is really the gist of what we have heard about this Bill yesterday. The fact of the matter is that the Opposition has contributed a lot of heat, but I must honestly say—and I have listened very carefully to all their arguments—that they have shed very little light on the matter. They have turned up their volume so loud when speaking of the SABC and of television that the result was more of a cacophony of sound argument.

*Anyway, Mr. Speaker, if we were to allow that kind of thing here in our country we would only have problems. I am going to mention an example to you. The hon. member for Pinelands referred to the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance this afternoon. The hon. the Minister presented a difficult Budget here in the interests of South Africa. I now want to ask the hon. members whether it would be fair, whether it would be objective and correct—especially since the hon. the Minister did not talk a single word of politics here this afternoon … [Interjections.]

For goodness sake, Piet! Surely you don’t believe that!

The hon. the Minister introduced an unpopular and difficult Budget … [Interjections.] … in the interests of South Africa, as some of the hon. members on the other side said …

When did we say that?

… in the interests of the country and under difficult circumstances, under extremely difficult circumstances. Would it be fair, therefore—and this without giving any hon. members on this side of the House the opportunity of appearing on television—for one political party, and that nondescript little party at that … [Interjections.] … to allow its spokesman to appear on television? What would the hon. member for Yeoville have done on television? Of course he would have tried to make as much political capital out of it as he possibly could. [Interjections.] He would have attacked the hon. the Minister. He would have said what a rotten Budget it was; he would have spoken about the tax burden which people will have to pay from now on and of other ways and means which the hon. the Minister should have utilized, and so on in this vein. The hon. member would have made politics out of it. If we were to allow him to appear on television we would have to allow the United Party to do the same, after all. [Interjections.] Then, after all, we … [Interjection.] Very well. Now we have to be realistic and practical. We would have the situation, therefore, that as soon as the hon. the Minister had introduced his Budget, we would have to appoint someone from the Opposition to state their side of the matter on television. What do you think he would do, Sir? It would be an exact repetition of what happened here this afternoon. That hon. member rose and immediately proceeded to make a political attack on the hon. the Minister, while the …

That is the essence of democracy!

… hon. the Minister had not made any attack on that side of the House. Nor had he talked any politics. Furthermore, we must not forget that the hon. member for Yeoville would also demand an opportunity to appear on television. In order to put the matter in perspective—that is to say, if one wants to be fair—the chief spokesman of the National Party should have the opportunity in his turn of replying to what the Opposition said. Only then would the picture be complete. [Interjections.] So if we were to do this … [interjections.] Let us take this argument to its logical conclusion … [Interjection.]

Order!

Having done this, what about all the other political parties outside? Should we give each of them a chance as well? Should we give the Labour Party of the Coloured people a chance as well? [Interjection.] They will also have a word to say, after all. [Interjection.]

Harry, what do you say now?

They will also have an opinion to express on the Budget. Furthermore, we would have to give Buthelezi a chance as well, because he, too, is the leader of a political party. We would also have to give Kaiser Matanzima a chance, and also … [Interjections.]

In other words, it is only for the Nationalist Party?

Do you see, Sir, that the matter is becoming quite ridiculous? [Interjection.] Mr. Speaker, while I am on that subject … [Interjection.]

Order!

… I want to point out that hon. members have a great tendency to talk without really reflecting on what they are saying. If we were to start allowing this kind of thing, and if we wanted to be honest and fair towards everyone who is involved in the matter … Surely this is the duty of the Government. Please allow me to emphasize at once and repeatedly that this is something I shall try to do with understanding, with insight, modestly and to the best of my ability. However, then I must be fair and equitable as I should like to be. This is why I am now discussing this matter openly. As soon as one has opened up this possibility, one has started a tremendous chain reaction, and one does not know where it may end. It is definitely not in the interests of South Africa. We must be very clear about that point. SATV has always been very reasonable towards the Opposition parties. See how the hon. member for Durban Point fills the television screen! He has been on television several times.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister to explain to us why Mr. P. W. Botha’s activities at a party-political meeting were portrayed on SATV? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order! I now want silence in this House, please.

The hon. the Minister of Defence, in his capacity as Minister of Defence … [Interjections.] … In his capacity as Minister of Defence he spoke on defence matters and for that reason it was broadcast on television. [Interjections.]

Helen, you are not the Minister. P. W. Botha is the Minister. [Interjections.]

Order!

We must be careful with this matter. We shall try to give all the political parties a fair chance as far as newsworthy matters are concerned. That assurance I want to give to hon. members this evening. I shall try under all circumstances to ensure that the SABC will be as fair as possible in this matter, but hon. members must realize that it is not an easy question. Even if one wants to be fair and equitable one can still get caught up in a labyrinth, and therefore I request hon. members’ understanding in this matter.

†I was asked by the hon. member for Berea to establish better liaison between myself, Parliament, the SABC and SATV. I want to state clearly and categorically that I will do everything in my power—and hon. members can hold me to that—to establish such improved liaison. I will gladly do that because I do think it is really important. I shall come back to this matter at a later stage.

*However, what else did we find in this debate? One side of the UP accused us of having too little control over the SABC and of being headed for no control. Other members of the UP said exactly the opposite, however. Their accusation was that the Minister had too much control over the SABC. Several hon. members on the other side said so. What is one to do with a party which blows hot and cold about a matter in this way? I do not think this is right and fair.

I now want to reply to certain questions that have been put to me. The hon. member for Durban Central wanted us to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. Unfortunately, I cannot grant that request of the Opposition. My reason for this is a simple but nevertheless a very important one. This legislation provides for television licences and the licence year begins on 1 October. I must admit quite frankly that I would have preferred not to introduce this legislation at this early stage. I would have preferred to introduce this legislation next year, and because this was my opinion, I had lengthy discussions with officials of the SABC. I would very much have liked to have more time to give attention to certain aspects, but since the SABC needs this legislation before October in order to arrange matters in connection with television licence fees, I had no choice, and I was forced to introduce the legislation at this stage. There is another reason. The SABC urgently needs this legislation before October for the additional purpose of making certain adjustments in connection with radio affairs. They told me that if the legislation was not introduced at this stage, they would be skating on very thin ice. Therefore, by postponing this legislation, we would be doing the country a very great disservice. Because I was unwilling, as the responsible Minister, to take such a risk, I simply had to decide to introduce the legislation now. Without good legislation matters cannot be handled on a sound basis. Therefore I ask hon. members of the Opposition please to understand that I cannot grant their request to refer this legislation to a Select Committee. Consequently I am glad that we have been able to discuss this matter here at great length. I shall reply to all the questions in detail. In the Committee Stage, too, I shall try not to evade any responsible question. I shall give them all the information there is on this matter.

The hon. member for Durban Central, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North and the hon. member for Parktown advocated greater control over the SABC by this Parliament. This is a most important matter and consequently I want us to examine it closely. What are the facts of the matter? If this allegation is substantiated, it is a very serious charge and we have to examine it. However, if it is not substantiated, I want to ask the hon. Opposition please to stop making this groundless accusation. In my humble opinion, the SABC is under the best possible control. We must have no illusions about that. I have known some of the members of the SABC’s board of control for 20 years and longer. There are English-speaking people on that board whom I have known for 20 years or longer, and my acquaintances include people of the highest integrity. There are Afrikaansspeaking people on that council who are also people of very high integrity. It is an excellent board of control. We must make no mistake about that. Dr. Piet Meyer, whom I have known for may years, has abilities which few people have. He is an exceptionally able and competent man. It is not fair and proper to run down good and competent South Africans and an excellent board. However, hon. members say, through the mouth of their chief spokesman, that Parliament should have greater control over the SABC; I have no disposed of the question of control over the SABC. I now come to the question of Parliament.

Clause 27 of the Bill, formerly section 24 of the Act, and certain other provisions spell out this control in detail. According to clause 27, the SABC “shall furnish to the Minister, on or before 30 April in each year, a report on the work of the corporation”. I perceived from what hon. members said that they were aware of this. In addition to the fact that the work of the corporation has to be reported on, the clause also prescribes the details of all the matters that are to be reported on. Now I want to quote clause 27(1)(h). The board has to report on—

In spite of this, hon. members allege that there is not sufficient control. I listened to them carefully and I understand that it is a major problem among them. However, I can reassure them. If they look at clause 27(1)(h) they will see that any other matter can be dealt with. Is this inadequate control?

†I have already given the assurance that I intend bringing about the closest possible liaison between the Minister and Parliament and the SABC. If there is anything hon. members want to bring to my notice, I can bring it to the notice of the SABC and we are covered by this Bill which is in front of the House at this moment.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether we can take it that he will not specifically in future, when he is asked about these matters, say that this is a matter about which no information can be given?

I was coming to that, but I may just as well deal with it now. Since I have become Minister, a few questions have been put to me about the SABC. I have not shrunk away from a single one and I can assure hon. members that it is not my intention to shrink away from a single question. But there is only one proviso. If hon. members put a question to me about the private affairs of the SABC, a question which, as I stated across the floor of the House, could jeopardize the good working of the SABC, then I shall not be able to divulge such information to the House or to the public. I want to go further. There must be no misunderstanding about this. If a question of that nature is put to me, where it is not in the interests of the House or in the interests of the country to divulge certain information about the SABC, which is a big business organization with a lot of interests, I undertake to divulge that information to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition so that he can know what the position is. There is no secrecy about the affairs of the SABC, but there may be certain information which will not be in the interest of this big business undertaking to have bandied across the floor of the House.

*Let us now settle this question of control. It is great fun to make political capital out of certain things, but not unnecessary things, particularly when it is not in the national interest. As the Minister of National Education, I am accountable to this House. This provision which makes control possible over the SABC is so wide that it is possible for the Minister to request a report from the SABC on any matter. The annual report of the SABC has to be tabled in this House, and from the nature of the case this House can then discuss anything which is dealt with in the report. And if hon. members can convince me that there is anything else that ought to be reported on, I now undertake to request the SABC to submit the necessary report on it. Then I want to point out that in addition to what I have already said, the Minister also has control over the licence regulations. If we settle this point now, we need not settle it in the Committee Stage tomorrow. In terms of this legislation, the Minister has control over licence regulations and tariffs, the borrowing powers of the corporation, the appointment of the members of the board and of the programme advisory committees, and the establishment of foreign services. The Minister has control over all these matters. In addition, as I have already said, he has the power, in terms of clause 27(1)(h), to refer to the SABC any matter raised by any person or any party and to request a report on it. Consequently I hope that we shall be able to settle this question along those lines and that it will be the end of the matter.

I have a note here about “Current Affairs.” I know that some hon. members have had misgivings about the programme from time to time. If this has been so, hon. members will be able to raise the matter in the way I have described, and I shall obtain a report on it from the SABC.

Mention has been made of agreements— clause 13(1)(d). Both the hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North referred to clauses that had been included in or omitted from the Bill as if there were something sinister behind this. But I now want to point out to hon. members that clause 13(1) (d) provides for the corporation to enter into agreements of which this House is not informed. And several members of both political parties referred to these agreements under clause 13(1)(d). If what the hon. members said had been true, I would have regarded the matter in a serious light. However, what are the facts. If one has a proper look at the clause, one sees that it refers to a government or an administration of a country or a territory referred to in clause 11(b). In terms of clause 11(b), programmes meant for a country or territory outside the Republic must be broadcast at the request of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may determine. Any agreements required for or arising from something of this nature must therefore be approved by the Minister concerned.

And the conditions?

Yes, and the conditions. The Minister concerned is then obliged to account for these to the House. Surely hon. members know me to be an honest man, and if there is any difficulty, hon. members will be able to state in this House their arguments concerning the agreements about which such a fuss has been made. Then the matter can be discussed and consequently there need not be any misunderstanding or difficulty about this aspect.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he therefore undertakes, as far as these matters are concerned, to reply in full to questions asked about the particulars of agreements?

Yes, I undertake to do this, with the proviso, however, that if it is deemed to be contrary to the public interest to furnish the required information in such a way that it will be available to the general public, I shall discuss the information with the leaders of the Opposition parties in a confidential manner. In this way we shall eliminate any problem which may arise in this connection. The Transkei is shortly to become independent and it is a territory which will have to be covered by way of agreements. I believe that the hon. members of the Opposition must be informed of such agreements. However, it is not impossible that there may be delicate matters in such agreements and that it would not be in the public interest for these matters to be made public. In such a case we shall handle the situation in the way I have just described.

Furthermore, there is the question of the deletion of the words “other than a listener’s licence” in section 14(1) of the Radio Act, to which both the hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. member for Umhlanga referred. I should like to point out that subsection (2) of the same section which refers to listener’s licences is also deleted by means of the Bill. The position is that the Postmaster-General used to be the authority that issued listener’s licences as well. By means of the Bill, this power of the Postmaster-General is now being transferred to the SABC and the SABC will henceforth issue such licences. However, provision has also been made for the SABC to delegate its function in this connection to another party, such as the Postmaster-General. This is something the hon. members must be clear about, because this new arrangement has caused considerable misunderstanding on the Opposition side. In terms of clause 17, the SABC will henceforth issue licences on such conditions, if any, as may be prescribed by regulation. The hon. members thought that such regulations would not be subject to parliamentary control, but I now want to make it quite clear that their assumption was not correct. In terms of clause 23(4), I have to approve such regulations as the responsible Minister, and in any event, the regulations have to be promulgated in the Gazette. The same applies to exemptions which have to be approved by me as the responsible Minister. Exemptions in this connection are concerned with those categories of persons who must or can have free licences or licences at lower tariffs. Please let us have no misunderstanding as far as the regulations are concerned. I say this especially with a view to the Committee Stage. I repeat that the regulations are subject to ministerial control and that consequently there is full parliamentary control in this respect as well.

References were also made to the way in which the amendments were submitted to the House. I regarded this as a serious charge and hon. members must forgive me for replying to it. In fact, it is my duty to reply to it, and besides, my reply will enlighten the hon. members. The amendments were submitted to this House in this way because the SABC was transferred to the Department of National Education in 1970, as I pointed out in my introductory speech. If we had wanted to submit these amendments to the House in a different way, we would have had to introduce an amending Radio Bill at the same time. However, the procedure we followed was chosen on the best legal advice available to us. We were advised that the method followed by us was the best—in fact, the only correct modern way. This is why we did it in this way. I want to point out once again that there is absolutely nothing sinister about this matter and hon. members must therefore understand that when I say that this is a consolidating measure, I am quite correct. If hon. members will make a thorough study of the Bill, they will see that this is in fact the case. The only really new element in the Bill, as I said in my previous speech, is the Bantu Programme Advisory Board and the Television Advisory Board.

This brings me to the question of the Bantu Programme Control Board in terms of the Bill. I want to compliment the hon. members of the Opposition at once on having been the ones who suggested the establishment of the Bantu Programme Control Board at the time. Matters have now developed to a point where a Bantu Programme Advisory Board will be established, and I really hope that the hon. members will not disagree with us on this matter any further, since they were the ones who suggested it at the time. However, the hon. members for Parktown and Sandton, as well as other hon. members, commented on the possible appointment of Bantu persons to the Advisory Board. I promised that I would reply to that, and I shall do so now. I shall definitely consider the appointment of Bantu persons to the Bantu Programme Advisory Board, and there must not be the slightest doubt about that. I said that I would give a clear reply to their inquiry, and this is my reply. This is also my reply to the hon. members of the official Opposition who referred to the matter. It is fair and proper that Bantu persons should be appointed to the Bantu Programme Advisory Board. I do not have the slightest doubt that it will be possible to find suitable Bantu persons for this position. We shall find them and we shall appoint them. However, it must be realized that members serving on the board at the moment cannot be dismissed before their term has expired. They must be allowed to serve their full term. As soon as they have served their term, I shall have a look at the position.

If we were to decide to establish such a television advisory board—hon. members must note that the Bill provides that the Minister may establish such an advisory board and not that he shall do so—we should have to look at the whole matter very carefully, because an important principle would be at stake, the principle of whether we want to retain the radio and television within one body or whether we want them to develop into two separate bodies. A decision in this connection will have far-reaching effects, of course, and I shall have to consider such a decision very carefully because I shall have to take responsibility for it. I am not at all satisfied in my own mind as yet that it would be desirable to establish a television advisory board at this stage. I believe that it might be possible to handle matters in a better way than by the establishment of such an advisory board. However, I want to point out that if it should become necessary to establish a television advisory board, I would naturally consider appointing Coloured people and Indians to the board as well. I give this undertaking this evening. For the present, and particularly in view of the principle as to whether the radio and television should continue to fall under one body, I think that in order to make sure that we take the right action in the future, a committee system as far as television is concerned is the sensible thing to have. Then we could constitute expert committees for various purposes. As far as nominations to such committees are concerned, I believe that it is right and proper that Coloured people and Indians should also serve on them.

The question of the so-called Black artists was also raised. Sir, if there is an outstanding Black artist, for what reason would such a Black artist not be shown on television? Of course such an artist would appear on television. There is not the slightest doubt about this. While I am on the subject, I want to say that it is not practicable at the moment, because of a lack of frequencies, to institute separate channels for Coloured people and Indians. We simply do not have the necessary frequencies, and if we wanted to do that, we would have to discontinue other programmes. It must be realized that provision will be made for Coloured people and for Indians on the ordinary television channel, as we have it in South Africa at the moment. Such programmes are being compiled, and there have already been splendid programmes of that nature on television. I repeat that good programmes are being compiled for Coloured people and other groups, and those programmes will be broadcast on television. Of course, when the Transkei has become independent, it will be free to develop its own radio and television network. The Transkei will be able to choose what it wants to do under the circumstances, as will the other Bantu homelands when they become independent. Hon. members know that it is the Government’s intention to institute a Bantu television service in South Africa as soon as it is practicable.

†Mr. Speaker, one of the hon. members asked whether there was a master-servant relationship between the present board of the SABC and the Bantu Programme Control Board. I want to say that that relationship has consistently been of a most cordial, positive and fruitful nature. I want to say that it hurt when that hon. member mentioned a master-servant relationship. The members of the Bantu Programme Control Board have, without exception, been experts in their own field, and I would on this occasion like to pay a warm tribute to the valuable work they have done, and to their contribution towards making Radio Bantu what it is today. Let there be no doubt about it; Radio Bantu has made an invaluable contribution in the Republic of South Africa.

The hon. member for Durban Central found it strange that the chairman of the SABC Board should also be chairman of the Bantu Programme Advisory Board and the Television Programme Advisory Board. I should like to point out that I cannot conceive of another system which could ensure such direct, immediate and high level attention to the recommendations of these advisory boards as this arrangement. In fact, if this arrangement were to be amended, the alternative would inevitably be that advice would not go to the Board through the same direct link and with the same authority.

Nonsense.

Sir, let us now be practical and realistic. We are dealing here with a very big organization which bears a very great responsibility. There is a control board and now we have an advisory board. The advisory board has to advise the control board. Now, if we have the chairman of the control board on the advisory board, we shall establish very good contact indeed for conveying the advice of the advisory board directly to the control board. In addition, that chairman will know what is going on in the control board. Consequently he will be able to tell the advisory board quite frankly what the position in connection with certain matters is. [Interjections.] I have investigated this matter very thoroughly and I want to tell hon. members that it works beautifully in practice, for the reasons I have just given. Consequently I do not think it would be necessary or correct to allow an amendment in this respect. I believe that these provisions, as they read at the moment, will give us the most direct liaison we can have, in order to ensure good results and good control. I am absolutely honest in saying this. If hon. members want to advance other arguments, I shall listen to those arguments, but this is the practical reality and there is absolutely nothing sinister about these provisions.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North stated that information on the SABC was difficult to come by. Mr. Speaker, I have already replied to that point. I shall see to it that that information is readily available, as I promised.

*The question of free licences was also raised. I want to point out at once that approximately 220 000 concessionary or free licences are being issued at the moment. The SABC cannot allow its financial foundation to be threatened by issuing free television licences. Hon. members must remember that a television licence costs R36. It is simply not possible to issue such a licenece free of charge, because of the great expenses involved. I hope hon. members will understand this and will refrain from labouring that point any further. As far as ordinary radio licences are concerned, the situation is different. In this respect we have issued quite a number of free and cheaper licences, as I have just said, but in dealing with television, we must think in the first place of the financial burden to be borne, and in the second place we must bear in mind that a person who is able to afford a television set can surely afford to pay R36 for a licence. So we think that this standpoint is reasonable.

Could you not consider granting free licences to institutions and not to individuals?

Sir, if we make one exception, we shall have to make other exceptions as well, and I do not think that would be right.

The hon. member for Hercules asked me whether we could establish closer liaison with the Department of Information. This is a question which was asked by the hon. member for Berea as well. This is a very good suggestion which those hon. members made. We shall very definitely do so. We shall ask the Department of Information to propagate Radio S.A. abroad by means of information documents. It was also asked what influence Radio S.A. had abroad. This is something which is very difficult to determine, and I do not want to go too deeply into the matter, but I may just mention that we received more than 50 000 letters from various parts of the world last year as a result of Radio S.A. More than 25 000 of those letters came from African countries. Therefore, although it is difficult to ascertain the influence, there is not the slightest doubt that it does have an important influence.

I also want to refer to questions put by the hon. member for Green Point. To some of them I have already replied.

†The hon. member suggested that political discussion should be introduced on the SABC. Mr. Speaker, I disagree with that view. I do not think politics should be introduced on television. We can discuss this again during the Committee Stage, but it is my view that we must be careful about such things. The hon. member also asked me about newscasts. He suggested that, if possible, there should be a newscast early in the evening before one goes out. I think that is a very fair request. I shall take this matter up with the SABC and see whether it is not possible to introduce such a newscast early in the evening.

The hon. member also made mention of the bilingual system. I agree with the hon. member that that is one of the very good things that television has brought to South Africa. The fact that we have both Afrikaans and English on the same channel has had a very salutary effect all round. I have noticed this, and I am very happy with it. I shall do everything in my power to keep it that way. Even when there are new channels in later years, I hope that we will be able to persist with this system of having both languages on the same channel. As far as both children and adults are concerned, I think this has been a very good development.

*With regard to the continual complaints received from the Opposition in connection with the groups or persons to whom full justice is not yet done on television, I should like to emphasize on this occasion that hon. members must not forget that this is a new medium and that this medium is in its initial stages in South Africa. May I also say with all humility that I am a new Minister in this field. I am very much interested in it, but being new at it, I have not had the time to study all the aspects of it in depth. Hon. members must realize that we are only broadcasting 38 hours a week on one channel as yet. However, the service will be expanded. In years to come, specific provision will be made for Bantu people on television. One hopes that the number of complaints will decline greatly as this new medium develops. Hon. members must realize that there is a sincere desire on our part on the part of the SABC as well to do these things in the national interest. If we realize this, I think we can go a long way with understanding.

In conclusion I just want to refer to Prof. Walther Bruch. I do this in consequence of an interjection that was made. I think that I am entitled to point out to hon. members that Prof. Walther Bruch, who is visiting South Africa at the moment, has devoted the past 43 years to the development of television. At the Olympic (Tames of 1936, for example, he made the first live broadcast of sporting events. A year later, he exhibited at the World Show in Paris an Iconscope television set that he had designed and built. He is one of the foremost television experts in the world. This man designed the PAL colour television set. He arrived in South Africa yesterday and he said that he considered the television reception in South Africa to be the very best in the world. Coming from a man of this calibre, this is really something to take notice of. While these are the facts of the matter—I am sorry to have to conclude on a negative note—it really is strange that there has been so much criticism of the SABC and SATV from the Opposition side. The hon. members have every right to express criticism; I do not blame them for doing so.

However, I have not the slightest doubt that their motive was not so much to discuss the merits of the Bill as to make political capital out of this Bill. They have every right to do so. However, now that they have made political capital out of it, and now that I have tried to give really comprehensive replies to the questions and have removed, I trust, quite a number of the hon. members’ problems and misgivings, I hope that we shall have a different kind of discussion in the Commission Stage and that we shall really be able to render our country a service by ensuring that the country has the best possible radio and television service. This applies to all parties in this House.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—79: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobier, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Hom, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Koomhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Treumicht, A. P.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. C. Roux, N. F. Treumicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—30: Aronson, T.; Baxter D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The South African Bureau of Standards was established under Act No. 24 of 1945 as amended by Act No. 33 of 1962. It is common knowledge that the main functions of the SABS are the promotion of standardization, the framing of standard specifications and codes of practice, the control of the use of standard marks and distinctive marks and the testing of commodities in general. Additional tasks of significance and magnitude which have been entrusted to the SABS since 1962 are the framing of standard building regulations, the introduction of the metric system of weights and measures in the Republic and the raising of the standard of industrial design in the country. The high standard of expertise with which the bureau carries out its task is recognized, too, far beyond the borders of the Republic.

Because it fits in with the normal testing and standardization activities of the bureau, and with a view to the export potential of fire-arms manufactured here in South Africa for civilian use, the SABS was recently approached by the industry concerned to introduce a South African marks of proof scheme for fire-arms. Although essentially such a scheme falls within the normal scope of the activities of the SABS, it was deemed advisable to add this function to the founding aims mentioned in the Standards Act in respect of the SABS. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, among other things, effect this addition.

There is an international organization known as the so-called CIP, with its head office in Liège, Belgium, which controls methods for testing fire-arms. Countries which are members of this organization are bound by the rules of the organization itself to accept imported fire-arms for sale within their borders only if such fire-arms are stamped with the recognized mark of proof of a fellow member country of the CIP. With a view to the development of the export market for fire-arms of South African manufacture, and also to obtain valuable technical information, it is essential that South Africa become a member of the CIP. However, membership is not available to private bodies and can only be acquired by the State through the mediation of the Belgian Government. Clause 3 of the Bill authorizes the Minister of Economic Affairs to conclude the necessary agreements in this regard.

†Clause 4: As a result of its involvement with the testing of pesticides, the SABS presently performs a high volume of pesticide residue determinations, inter alia, on agricultural produce. This activity falls within the scope of section 10(3) of the Standards Act, which enables the SABS at the request of any person to test “commodities”. However, pesticide residue determination is inevitably developing towards tests on human samples such as blood, urine and body fibres; samples of equine urine are also regularly analysed for evidence of the doping of racehorses. To ensure that this important service is fully covered by enabling legislation, the Bill in clause 2(a) extends the concept of “commodity tests” and in clause 4 specifically empowers the bureau with the prior approval of the Minister to conduct tests on articles of a more general nature.

Clause 5: Circumstances arise from time to time where it is necessary to urgently amend an existing standard specification of the SABS and where such an amendment cannot be held over for approval at the next formal meeting of the SABS council. An avenue for the implementation of urgent amendments is created by clause 5 of the Bill, which provides that the Standards Council may delegate its authority to amend standard specifications to the chairman or the vice-chairman of the council, or to the Director-General of the council.

A minor error of text was introduced in the course of earlier amendments to the Act. This is rectified in clause 6 of the Bill.

Clause 7: In keeping with recent trends in industry the SABS standardization marks, although retaining their design, were restyled and modernized. The summary declaration of the restyled marks as standardization marks in terms of the Act would, however, preclude further use of the current standardization marks. This in turn would entail a financial loss to holders of permits to apply the standardization marks, in the form of stockpiled mark-bearing products, supplies of packing materials, containers, labels, etc. To overcome the problem clause 7 of the Bill empowers the SABS Council to allow on application the simultaneous use of the restyled and current standardization marks for a limited period in order to enable the phasing out of the current standardization marks without detriment to permit holders

It will be noted that in all clauses of the Bill dealing with proof marks, parallel reference is made to marks of authenticity. The background to this is that, from as early as 1948, the SABS has been administering a scheme for the marking of articles made of gold and silver in accordance with their precious metal content. The scheme takes the form of a standard specification under section 14 of the Standards Act. As a standard specification is voluntary in its application, it is evidently not the ideal vehicle for a scheme of this nature. Hallmarking, as it is known in Europe, is compulsory in the majority of countries and as such enables the elimination of numerous malpractices in the precious metal trade.

As the methods of implementation of proof marks and marks of authenticity are basically similar, even to the extent that the Minister might wish to exempt imported articles bearing a recognized hallmark such as the British Hallmark from the requirements of relevant regulations, these marks are jointly dealt with in the Bill.

*As I mentioned earlier, the SABS was recently approached by the local industry for the establishment of a marks of proof scheme for hunting rifles. Although it is probably possible, on the basis of the existing authorization contained in section 15 of the Standards Act, to operate a marks of proof scheme—in the form of a compulsory standard specification—these methods of application have legal shortcomings in that important aspects such as the identification of fire-arms according to manufacturer, calibre, and so on cannot be fully enforced. For this reason clause 8 of the Bill provides for the making of regulations by the Minister of Economic Affairs on a basis wide enough to control all aspects of a marks of proof scheme of this nature. In view of the fact that the South African marks of proof regulations are modelled on those of the CIP, it is superfluous to subject fire-arms which have been imported from a fellow member country and have already been proof-marked there, to further proofmarking in South Africa. Consequently clause 8 also provides for the exemption from the provisions of marks of proof regulations which are to be promulgated, of fire-arms which have already been proof-marked. The present section 15(7) of the Standards Act prohibits the sale of commodities which fall within the ambit of compulsory standard specifications, but which do not comply with the requirements thereof. An analogous prohibition with regard to marks of proof regulations is instituted in terms of clause 8 of the Bill.

Clause 9: At present the inspectors of the SABS already have the necessary powers to carry out certain inspection services with regard to compulsory standard specifications and standard marks. Section 19 of the Bill is amended by clause 9 in order to enable these inspectors to exercise the same powers accordingly with regard to marks of proof and marks of authenticity schemes as well.

Clause 10: Under the existing section 25 of the Standards Act, the State, the Administration of South West Africa, the Council of the SABS and its individual members are indemnified against claims which may arise by virtue of the fact that commodities bear their standard mark or in fact comply with or are reputed to comply with the standard specification or a compulsory standard specification. Clause 10 of the Bill extends this indemnification to marks of proof.

Clause 11: To administer a marks of proof scheme effectively, it must be possible to apply a sanction against transgressors of marks of proof regulations. Clause 11 of the Bill applies the existing penal provisions of the Standards Act to marks of proof regulations as well.

Clause 12: Clause 12 amends the long title of the Act to provide for the amendment contained in the Bill.

Clause 13: Clause 13 contains the short title.

Mr. Speaker, this House is indebted to the hon. the Minister for having motivated the Bill which is now before the House very fully. In his opening comments the hon. the Minister referred to the South African Bureau of Standards and to the fact that this Bill sought to amend Act 33 of 1962. We on this side of the House also want to pay tribute to the work of the council of the South African Bureau of Standards, a council which has in its ranks many of our leading scientists. This council has achieved a reputation for South African products which have come to enjoy the mark of the S.A. Bureau of Standards, a reputation which is international. In no field has this been more evident than in the field of South African grown timber, where the mark of the S.A. Bureau of Standards has taken our timber industry out of one which was decidedly raggedly and in a somewhat untidy state, to the stage where the industry today produces timber worth millions of rands for the South African economy and saves us on imports and on foreign exchange. We owe a debt of gratitude, firstly to the members of the board and the staff of the bureau for the valuable work which they have done and which has made our South African products in all levels of commerce and industry as well known as we were in the sporting fields when the Springbok emblem carried our sporting reputation throughout the world.

I want to refer to clause 3, which the Minister dealt with briefly and gave us a very interesting explanation, I feel however that he was less than forthcoming in referring merely to the fact that there was an international organization known as CIP—as he himself indicated, not CID. Perhaps if he had the help of the hon. member for Wynberg, he would have been able to say that the commission to which he was referring is Commission Internationale Permanent Pour l’Epreuve des Armes a Feu Portatives, a commission which, as the hon. member said, is international and has its venue in Belgium in the town of Liège.

It is noteworthy and we can be proud of the fact that we are a country manufacturing sporting small-arm rifles of international calibre. Not only are these being accepted overseas today, but that we are also making provision to ensure that our manufactured small-arm sporting rifles have a recognized mark and the international recognition of the CIP. In this we support the hon. the Minister entirely.

Otherwise this Bill is entirely non-political. It is a technical Bill which seeks to improve the legislation of 1962, which basically merely distinguished the operations of the CSIR from those of the S.A. Bureau of Standards. There are one or two comments we shall have to make during the Committee Stage because we are unhappy about one or two clauses of this Bill. I refer particularly to clause 5, which seeks to amend section 11 of the principal Act. The hon. the Minister has indicated his desire to allow the council to delegate authority, in certain exceptional instances, to either the chairman of the council or to the director-general in the event of the chairman not being available to make decisions on behalf of the board. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we have had representations—since this Bill was read in the Other Place—from certain sections of industry. It is believed that the hon. the Minister is taking upon himself powers which would be prejudicial to certain sections of industry. Therefore, during the Committee Stage I shall be moving an amendment to this particular clause.

I also note that we continually evidence a certain degree of suspicion when it comes to clauses in which powers are being given to inspectors. This will also come up for discussion during the Committee Stage. Otherwise, we believe this Bill is essentially beneficial to the Bureau of Standards itself and that it is long overdue, and we desire to support the Bill as we did during the Second Reading in the Other Place.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, should like to lend my support to this Bill and I am grateful that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens agrees with us that this is a very necessary Bill. I should also like to associate myself with the tributes paid by the hon. member to the Bureau of Standards and to its officials. Over the years the Bureau has done outstanding work and its mark is accepted and recognized throughout the world. Particularly with a view to exports this fact is of the greatest importance for South Africa and for our economy in particular.

Last year it was my privilege to pay a visit to Iran. I went there as a member of the Parliamentary Association and while I was there it struck me that silver and gold products in that country bore the official mark of the Government of Iran or a body similar to the SABS. This constitutes proof of quality. If one wants to buy a quality product, the first thing one does is to check whether it does in fact bear the mark of quality. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for having submitted this Bill to the House at this stage. I do not fully agree with the statement by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens that the legislation is somewhat late. All good things take time.