Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief, as there is not much which is controversial in this piece of legislation. I want to begin by saying that we agree entirely with clause 4. As far as clause 5 is concerned, I suspect that the hon. the Minister will know that an amendment has been proposed by the Chamber of Industries in Natal. This is in connection with the delegation of powers. The proposed new section 11(2)(a), which is proposed to be inserted by clause 5, states that the council may, either generally or in a particular case, delegate certain powers either to the chairman of the council or to the director-general. The Natal Chamber of Industries have objected to this on the grounds that there are certain specific committees and that if the council is going to delegate such powers, it should only be done with the agreement of the specific committee concerned. Furthermore, I should like to draw attention to the new section 11(2)(b), which reads as follows—

Mr. Speaker, in some senses this provision is simply not worth the paper it is printed on. It will be extremely difficult for the council to publish what would amount to a vote of no-confidence in the chairman or director-general once powers have been delegated to them in terms of the new section 11(2)(a).

The only other clause I have any trouble with in this Bill is clause 10, which substitutes a new section for section 21 of the principal Act. In terms of the existing section 21 there is no question of liability for damages that can be recovered from the council or from any of the authorities mentioned in this section. In terms of this amendment, the hon. the Minister is widening the protection which is afforded to the State and to the council, so that a person who may suffer as a result of negligence will not, particularly in terms of the new section 21(c), be able to claim against the State or the council. If the council certifies or gives its mark of assurance to the public in terms of the new section 21, that will not, in the words of this provision, give rise to any claim against the State or the Administration of the Territory or the council or any member of the council. We would have thought that a member of the general public should be entitled to rely on a certificate from the council, once it has had a chance to inspect, and once it has issued that certificate. If the council is then proved to have been negligent for one reason or another, we would have thought that a member of the general public should have a right of recourse.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to the appointment and powers of inspectors. First of all, I want to deal with section 18 of the principal Act—which is not under amendment in this Bill—in order to indicate what the position is. Section 18 of the original Act deals with the appointment of inspectors and indicates that every inspector shall be furnished with a certificate signed by an officer thereto designated by the Minister, stating that he has been appointed as an inspector for the purposes of this Act. Clause 9 of the Bill deals with the power of inspectors. While paras. (a), (b), (c) and (d) are, in my opinion, merely a clarification of these powers, in the original Act there is a further provision, which is not to be amended, but which states (section 19(4))—

I appreciate the fact that this may not be possible in terms of the rules of the House to amend this particular provision. My object of raising this matter at the Second Reading is to ask the hon. the Minister if he will examine the position. He has already indicated in respect of a previous Bill that he accepts the principle we put forward, namely that an authorized inspector shall not only on demand exhibit his authority, but shall exhibit his authority prior to inspection. I realize it is not possible to effect amendments in the Committee Stage of this Bill in this Chamber, but it may be done in the Other Place. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to bear this fact in mind. If it is not possible to amend the matter in this Bill, he should suggest to his legal draftsmen that in any subsequent or future amendment to the Act, they should bear this particular principle in mind and make provision for it in any amending Bill which may be placed before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their support of the legislation and in this specific connection, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens in particular. May I immediately felicitate him on having learnt his French lesson from the hon. member for Von Brandis very well. I hope that these are the only French lessons he will take and that he will further lessons leave it to younger people sitting in other places.

He is too old for it.

The hon. the Minister of Agriculture says he is too old for it and he ought to know what the capacity limit is in that particular connection. The hon. member referred to certain clauses of the legislation. The fact that we are considering this legislation and obtaining the agreement of hon. members to it, confirms that it is actually much more than a mere technical amendment of the legislation. It also testifies to the progress which has been made in industry and manufacturing with the manufacture of fire-arms for civilian use. We have already made such progress with this recent development that it has become necessary for us to pass the legislation because a potential and actual export market exists for the products of the company concerned. I think we ought to take note in this particular regard of the good progress that has been made.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and the hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to clause 5 of the amending Bill. The problem which they have in connection with the amendment of standard specifications …

Order! Hon. members must not converse aloud in the House.

… and codes of practice, and that this power may be delegated …

Order! The hon. members must obey the Chair.

Basically the objection which was conveyed telegraphically to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, the hon. member for Johannesburg North and myself by the Chamber of Industries of Durban, is to the effect that authorization should not be given for the amendment of standard specifications or codes of practice by the director-general or chairman. In this connection I want to say at once that I cannot really accept the amendment which the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has on the Order Paper. I think it is only fair that I tell him so now. In the first place the hon. member suggests that the codes of practice be omitted and that the amendment in respect of standard specifications be qualified in the sense that it may be done on the recommendation of the committee. But the word “committee” itself is in no way defined in the Bill. To what committee does this refer? Therefore it is not possible to give effect to what the hon. member has in mind with his amendment. If the hon. member looks at the definitions section in the principal Act, he will find that although the House may entrust certain duties to committees on an ad hoc basis, the concept of “committee” per se has no meaning in the legislation. If the hon. member says “on the recommendation of the committee” it has no meaning because it does not say which committee. I am not trying to be technical, but it is unfortunately a technical argument only.

What hon. members are also losing sight of is that these codes of practice and the standard specifications, to which an amendment may be made in terms of clause 5, deal with voluntary standard specifications and voluntary codes of practice. In the principal Act there is a definition of compulsory standard specifications. The power which may now be delegated to the director-general, does not refer to the compulsory standard specifications, but to the voluntary codes of practice and the voluntary standard specifications. In other words, as a result of the delegation of these powers, no one is onerously affected in a compulsory manner. We could perhaps debate this particular point in greater detail during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. the Minister be prepared to accept an amendment which is differently worded?

In my opinion it is not necessary at this stage. For instance if the powers were delegated to the director-general it would mean that onerous decisions could be taken against private entrepreneurs. The limitation on the delegation is situated therein that the delegation of powers refers to standard specifications and codes of practice which are not compulsory, but voluntary. Nobody is forced to have continued participation after the amendment if he should choose to do otherwise. The board itself does not meet very often. However, the need for amendment arose as a result of technological developments, and it was the industrialist himself who directed a request to the SABS for an amendment to adapt to the new set of circumstances. Often a request is not initiated from above. It often comes from below, from the private sector that participates in it. I wonder that if at this stage we should rather not agree with one another to accept the position as it is. If any practical problems should then arise which may have an onerous or hampering effect on the private sector, I shall look at them. I think hon. members know that if I give an undertaking of this nature, I usually carry it out.

The hon. member also put a question in regard to clause 9, and I might as well reply to all members simultaneously in this regard. Clause 9 deals with the powers of inspection of inspectors. The hon. member for Berea is entirely correct. The powers of inspection of inspectors are defined in section 19 of the principal Act. In the legislation which we are now considering, there is no question whatsoever of the powers of the inspectors being expanded. The intention is merely to expand the existing powers of inspectors because, inter alia, the new concept of “mark of authenticity” is included in the legislation.

But …

No, I am going to deal with that hon. member specifically in a moment. I am also talking to the hon. member for Johannesburg North now, who always sees a tampering with freedom in all legislation which is being considered. The concept of power is not the issue in the Bill. All that is at issue, is that the new element or concept has been introduced that the existing powers may also be applied to the new activities of the SABS. Once again I must emphasize that in most cases the activities of the SABS in this particular connection originated at the request of the private entrepreneurs. The private sector therefore has no objection to the provisions of the Bill, because the majority are voluntary standard specifications, voluntary codes of practice, and marks of authenticity which are used voluntarily. Therefore in my opinion there is no analogy between the legislation which we are now considering and the legislation on trade practices which has a completely different function and prescribes disciplines which have to be complied with.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I appreciate what he has said, but would he not be prepared to bear in mind with future amendments that this principle should be introduced in order to keep it in line with other legislation?

The answer to that is that I do not believe that we should be so dogmatic as to think that there should be the same type of provisions in all cases. The hon. member must consider that the one Bill will result in intervention in the private sector which was not requested by the private sector, but will take place at the insistence of the public as a protection against the actions of the private sector. In that case I then conceded the point and said that I am prepared to accept an amendment which would result in inspectors who are sent out by me, having to identify themselves for the very reasons we discussed at the time. Those considerations, however, do not hold for the Bill which we are now discussing, because the SABS does not initiate action, but acts at the request of the private sector to which the legislation applies and for which it lays down standard specifications or codes of practice on a voluntary basis. Of course there are also certain compulsory standard specifications. But the point is that the circumstances under which and the object with which the inspectors act, often differ from one Act to another. It would therefore be wrong of me to give an assurance that I shall accept what the hon. member has suggested as a general principle.

But you should still fit it into the Act.

The other day, in order to prove his case, the hon. member for East London City used an argument which was based on certain words in a Bill, but when the Bill from which he quoted those words, was considered, his party introduced an amendment in terms of which the words which he quoted, had to be deleted from the Bill.

That is something else.

Yes, it is something else and what we are talking about is something else again.

*The hon. member for Johannesburg North also raised the question of demands for compensation. Once again, without taking up too much time, I want to say that we are not dealing with a new principle in the legislation in this connection either. However, since we are introducing a mark of authenticity system for the reasons which I have indicated, the existing provisions are also made applicable to this. If the hon. member does not know this, he ought to know what the common law position in that particular connection is. Consequently he ought to know that in the way that the existing section is at present in the Act and in the way it is now being applied, it is not absolute and does not mean that no claims may be instituted by private or affected persons.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to say that I have considered the amendments moved by the hon. member for Durban Central to clause 4 and that it is quite possible for me to accept the first amendment, provided the wording is changed a little. In his first amendment the hon. member moved to omit the words “such number of members not exceeding nine as the State President may determine from time to time” and to substitute “not more than nine or fewer than five members”. The legal advisers inform me that it would be acceptable if subsection (1) could be amended by the insertion, after the word “members”, of the words “but at least five and”. For that reason I suggest that it should be done in this way.

Mr. Chairman, I have a bit of a problem here since it is not my intention to move the amendment the hon. the Minister referred to, but perhaps we can look at that at a later stage. Sir, instead of the first amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, I wish to move the following amendment—

1. (1) On page 5, in lines 28 to 30, to omit “such number of members not exceeding nine as the State President may determine from time to time” and to substitute:

I have handed a copy of this amendment to the hon. the Minister earlier. As I have indicated, this amendment replaces the first amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper. I also wish to move the second amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (2) on page 5, in line 40, after “appointment” to insert “or removal”.

The latter amendment is really self-explanatory. The Bill states that the appointment of a member to the board shall be notified in the Gazette, and I think it is only reasonable that the removal of a board member should also be so published. To come to the amendment I have moved in the place of my first amendment on the Order Paper, I want to say that it seeks to provide for a minimum number of members. I am very pleased to hear that that part of the amendment is acceptable to the hon. the Minister. I think it is necessary that a minimum number should be stated. I particularly think the Minister should be allowed some latitude and that is why I have brought the number down from seven, as it applied in the past, to five. Sir, the latter half of my amendment seeks to ensure that, when members are appointed to the board, this should be done with due regard to the composition of the South African population. By “composition” I mean both the language groups and the racial groups of which the population is comprised. In moving this amendment, I immediately wish to react to what the hon. the Minister said yesterday, viz. that it is the intention to appoint members of other race groups to the board as well. He stated last night that it was the intention to include non-Whites on the board. However, I believe that that declared intention should be taken up in the Bill as well. I believe that South Africa can derive much from this.

That is what we pointed out.

The hon. member to my left says that they pointed that out, but I want to say that the Committee and the hon. the Minister will notice that in the wording of my amendment I have refrained from attaching any racial connotation to it. I have refrained from mentioning Coloureds, Bantu or Indians and from stipulating that at least one member of the board should be, say, a Black man or a Coloured man. It should be realized and we must accept that, with the abolition of the Bantu Control Board, there will in future be only one control board which will cater for all the race groups and population groups in South Africa. However, in dealing with the other population groups in South Africa, one must never create the impression that one is adopting a patronizing or a paternalistic attitude. Nothing can be more humiliating to a person than for him to get the impression that the only reason why he is being appointed to the board or in some other way being elevated or promoted and being given greater responsibility is the colour of his skin. I would say that the hon. member for Houghton, who is not here at the moment, will agree with me. I agree with what she said last night, that there are non-White people who are capable of being appointed, to this board. I am convinced about it. The Minister has declared his intention that this should be the case. Now I want to see that intention also embodied in the legislation. The hon. member for Houghton said that she was convinced that there were people who could do the job. I am convinced of that as well. But what is important is for us to decide in what manner we want to do it. A bad thing for us to do would be to be silent on this. I think that in view of the times we are living in in South Africa, we must put this wonderful intention of the Minister in our legislation so that people can see it. It must be expressed. The worst thing we could do, as I have said, is to create an impression by stipulating all sorts of artificial aspects as well, because this would expose us to accusations that the only reason why such a person is appointed is because of the colour of his skin and not on merit. It is for this reason that the hon. the Minister must not confuse my amendment with any other amendment which may or may not come. It is essential that his intention should be put into the legislation. We have his promise and we accept that, but Ministers come and go. The hon. the Minister may get promotion to another post. After all, we have seen the dynamic rise of the hon. the Minister from being a Deputy Minister in six years.

Mr. Chairman, I find the second part of the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central very interesting. Despite any kind of semantic gymnastics in which we may indulge, particularly after hearing the hon. member for Green Point last night, I think that what the hon. member for Durban Central and I are seeking is very largely the same thing. I now want to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

My aim in moving this amendment has absolutely nothing to do with judging people on the colour of their skin. I simply want this board to be representative. I am not particularly wedded to the wording of my amendment. It is the spirit thereof that I would like to have accepted, and I think the spirit of the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central in fact comes very close to achieving what we want to achieve. It may well be that his is a better way of doing it. Sir, I hope you will allow me to refer just for a minute to what was said by the hon. member for Green Point last night and the fatuous suggestion he made that we, in taking this kind of attitude, wanted a board selected on colour lines. Now this is such arrant nonsense that I find it difficult to believe that he meant it seriously.

Our whole approach is a non-racial one and I believe this is in fact embodied in what the hon. member for Durban Central has said here. Sir, as I have said, I am not wedded to my wording. All I would like is an undertaking from the hon. the Minister that he agrees with the principle of Black and Brown as well as White people sitting on these decision-making bodies. This is all we need, and in the context in which we operate in this country today, we have to take these factors into consideration. I would suggest that the hon. the Minister got very close to this last night. I do not know whether the hon. member for Durban Central is quite accurate in saying that he accepted this, but he got very close to it when he said, if I understood him correctly, that it was inevitable that at some stage or other Coloured and Indian people would in fact be appointed to the advisory boards. He said that this was an inevitability and we accept that. We are not quarrelling with the Minister about this. This is a decided advance as far as the situation today is concerned. We pointed out yesterday that it was absolutely ludicrous to have a Bantu Advisory Board without any Black people on it at all. I am not quite sure, and I do not want to overstrain the Minister’s tolerance in this, but I would like to know from him whether he accepts this principle—if I can say this without treading on the sensitivity of the hon. member for Green Point—that people of colour should be represented to the most important board of all, which is the Board of Governors of the SABC. I want to take this just a little further, in case anybody says there will be difficulty in finding anybody suitable. There should be no difficulty whatsoever. I believe that if you want to do this you can get the Coloured Peoples Representative Council to nominate somebody and the Indian Council to nominate somebody. As far as the Africans are concerned, the Minister would do a magnificant job by appointing to the board a man like Mr. Sam Motsenyane, who is president of the African Chamber of Commerce and the founder of the first African bank in this country. People like him would be an adornment on this board. There should be no problem in it at all. I would be prepared to go along with the hon. member for Durban Central in so far as he has moved in the direction in which we want to move. All we want from the Minister is to accept that in so far as the main board is concerned, the decision-making body of the SABC, there will be other people than Whites on it. That is all we ask for.

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

1. (6) Whenever the State President has designated a member of the board as chairman, vice-chairman or acting chairman of the board, the Minister shall lay upon the Tables of both Houses of Parliament within seven days after such designation, if Parliament is then in session, or if Parliament is not then in session, within seven days after the commencement of its next ensuing session, a report containing a full statement of the qualifications of the member of the board concerned to be chairman or vice-chairman or acting chairman of the board.

This amendment contains what is in the original Act, but which has been omitted from the Bill before us. We feel that this is a regrettable omission and that the original provision should be retained. I think it is quite obvious, as the hon. the Minister said yesterday, that the SABC is the most powerful public medium of information in South Africa and, consequently, the men at the top, the chairman and the vice-chairman, hold posts of tremendous responsibility and power. Therefore we should like to see that they are people who are above suspicion. Therefore, surely we are entitled to have their qualifications and their credentials laid upon the Tables of both Houses of Parliament as is required by the original Act. It is not a question of being suspicious of the people or prying into their background, as I am sure that they are highly qualified and honourable men. We do feel, however, that it is a public right and a parliamentary right that we should know who these people are and I therefore ask that we do retain the provision in the existing Act.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister has already indicated that he is going to accept the first part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central with a certain adjustment as far as the phraseology and wording are concerned. Consequently I do not want to discuss the matter. The amendment moved by the hon. member here, and the new part he added today and which does not appear on the Order Paper are an indication to me that the United Party has now decided to say good-bye to the rural areas, as Alberton has shown them, and to compete with the Progressive Party for urban votes. Since this council will mainly devote itself to, and deal with broadcasting matters relating to Whites, Coloureds and Indians, this side of the House is prepared— and I do not think there is any difference of opinion on that score—to see that this is done when one of the people qualifies to be appointed to the council on merit. I have no doubt about that. But why should this be laid down in legislation? Whom does one really want to bluff? To me it is so characteristic of the liberal point of view of our South African set-up that one has to make a gesture, that one has to try and bluff the world, while all kinds of problems have arisen here in South Africa as a result of this very thing. One now has to make a gesture and show the world that one of these people is present here, and now one responds. Yet, all the time it is nothing else but pure and simple White domination for ever. The National Party has proved through the years that if it wants to carry out its policy in regard to these matters, it will do just that. We are not afraid of saying that we shall appoint a Coloured or an Indian person who can be appointed in this council on merit. This can be done as the Act stands at present. There is nothing to prevent this from being done.

Surely in that case the Minister can accept the amendment.

The Minister can accept it if he wants to. Why should we compete with the Progs in order to be able to tell the urban voters that we did in fact suggest this? I think the amendment moved by the hon. member for Parktown is rather a half-baked one. His amendment reads as follows—

This does not define the racial groups. Does the hon. member mean Whites, Indians, Coloureds or the Chinese, or which racial group does he want? We have so many race groups in South Africa, that we would have a very large board if we were to appoint one member from every racial group.

Order! I feel that there is at this stage a misunderstanding in connection with the amendments which are before this Committee. The hon. member for Durban Central had an amendment on the Order Paper and the hon. the Minister said that, with certain reservations he was prepared to accept a certain part of the amendment if the hon. member would amend it accordingly. Now the hon. member for Durban Central has moved another amendment. In the meantime I have been informed that the hon. the Minister also wants to move an amendment, which will have the same effect. The hon. the Minister will have to move his amendment himself and then state his standpoint in regard to the other amendments. I should like to offer hon. members this guide-line so that we know exactly where we stand. Therefore, at this stage, I should prefer to afford the hon. the Minister an opportunity of stating his standpoint.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared, after it was explained to me by the law advisers, to insert in the Afrikaans version on page 4, line 28, after the word “maar” the words “minstens vyf en”. The amendment will then read as follows in English—

Therefore, I move as an amendment—

That is the only portion of the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central in connection with that matter which is acceptable to me. By your leave, Mr. Chairman, I now want to avail myself of this opportunity to react to the other amendments so that you can know exactly where you stand, with me at any rate, in respect of the amendments. Concerning the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central that on page 5, in line 40, after “appointment” to insert “or removal”, so that that particular clause 4(5) will read as follows—

I want to say that the amendment is unfortunately not acceptable to me. After all, I do not think, and hon. members will agree with me, that this is really all that important. In all these years a board member has never been removed from his post. One now wonders why, although this legislation has been introduced in a positive way, the hon. member now wants to introduce such a negative amendment into the legislation. If one of the members appointed on the board does not a carry out his work properly because of certain circumstances, or is unable to do that work properly, and were to be removed, why should it now be necessary to give further emphasis to this by publishing it in the Gazette? We honestly think, and we have also obtained the law advisers’ opinion on this and have spoken to the people in the department about it, that it would create unnecessary problems for us, and therefore I feel that I cannot accept it. But there is still a final and very important consideration which is that it can only lead to unnecessary court cases if one should have the case where somebody was removed merely because he was just not able to carry out his functions on that board properly. If one wants to dismiss somebody for that reason, to remove him from his position, why publish it in the Gazette, while, if the matter had run its normal course, the person would have been dismissed without anyone thinking anything else but that he did not carry out his work properly? However, if it is published in the Gazette, that man could maintain that he has been insulted, and as a result is going to take the matter to court. The law advisers tell me that we are looking for, unnecessary problems here while in the past this did not happen at all. Therefore I hope that hon. members accept that I considered this matter in a good spirit. I adopt that attitude that if the Opposition makes a good suggestion, I accept it. However, after having obtained advice, I cannot accept that amendment.

In connection with the following amendment, namely the one moved by the hon. member for Parktown, which reads—

I want to state clearly that last night I went very far to commit myself in respect of the Bantu Programme Advisory Board and the Television Programme Advisory Board. If and when such a board should be appointed—I committed myself to this; it is recorded in Hansard; and I am doing so again now—that I shall ensure that one or more Bantu, according to circumstances, will be nominated to the Bantu Programme Advisory Board because I adopt the standpoint that it is fair that such a programme advisory board of the Bantu should have Bantu serving on it. I shall do so without any doubt whatsoever. But to put Coloureds and Indians on that programme advisory board for the Bantu, I feel is asking too much. [Interjections.]

We are not asking for that.

But surely that is what the hon. member is asking, is it not?

No, that is not what I want!

Very well then, then that is not what the hon. member is asking for. However, I want to point to him that many illustrious members are serving on the Bantu Programme Advisory Board. Among the members of that board are Professor E. F. Potgieter, the Commissioner-General and Mr. G. J. Rossouw, the present Secretary of Bantu Education. Therefore, if we want to be fair and allow what is best for all the parties concerned, we shall also have to nominate non-Whites to the council, knowledgeable non-Whites who occupy outstanding liaison positions and who are able to bring about effective negotiations between the various race groups. I have pledged myself to ensure that this happens, and therefore I cannot see why hon. members want to take the matter further. I also undertook to ensure that Coloureds and Indians would be nominated to the Television Programme Advisory Board, but here we are dealing with …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

You may ask me a question in a moment. I first want to complete my argument.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to ask a question. Lam rising on a point of order. The hon. the Minister is speaking on the wrong clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking on the wrong clause.

*I am trying to explain to the hon. member that I promised yesterday to undertake certain things in respect of the Bantu Programme Advisory Board and the Television Programme Advisory Board. I am repeating it because I do not want any misunderstanding about this. I did not say a word last night about the control board of the SABC, on which the hon. member for Parktown now wants to introduce a motion. Is the hon. member still under the impression that I am speaking on the wrong clause, or does he not understand Afrikaans? [Interjections.]

In terms of the present Act, the Minister may at will nominate anyone to the control board, or recommend any nomination to the State President. At this stage, however, I do not want to make any promises in connection with the control board. There must be no misunderstanding about that. I cannot, I am not going to and I do not want to make any promises about the nomination of people to the control board. All that I can say now, is that the Minister has the power to nominate any people to the control board, or to recommend the nomination of any people to the control board to the State President. Members of the control board may be nominated from any race group in the Republic of South Africa. Therefore, while this is the case, I cannot understand why the hon. member wants to compel the Minister by means of legislation to go about it in a certain way. For this reason, I am not prepared to accept the amendment. It would mean that, by means of legislation, the door to forced integration would be opened. Therefore the hon. member for Parktown’s amendment is unacceptable to me.

However, I want to refer to the legal situation too. According to my law advisers, the wording in question, considered from a legal point of view, is not acceptable, regardless of whether I will be prepared to accept it in principle or not. The present wording of the hon. member for Parktown’s proposed amendment will in any event make the proposed legislation unenforceable in practice, because he argues that the control board should consist of at least one representative of each race group in South Africa. How does one define a racial group. Are a Chinese and a Japanese a racial group? If they are, then the Namas may make demands in their turn, because this legislation will also be applicable to South West Africa. If we were therefore to give representation on the board to the Namas, other population groups would also be able to demand that in time because they could argue that they are also separate racial groups. In this way the situation eventually arises that—while the legislation provides for a board of nine members—one has 12 or more claimants to membership on the board. In this way the entire matter could degenerate into a contradictio in terminis. It therefore seems that the proposed amendment of the hon. member is not acceptable from a legal point of view as well. For the same reasons which I have already given, the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central, the amendment which reads “with due regard to the composition of the South African population”, is not acceptable either. I do not desire to present the same argument all over again, but I want to repeat that the present Act provides that the Minister may recommend to the State President who should be appointed to the board, and the State President may “with due regard to the South African population” nominate anyone to the board. My standpoint therefore remains that it is unnecessary to stipulate it in the legislation in this way, because in this way we shall create a situation which will cause us many problems and difficulties in future. Therefore I cannot accept the proposed amendment.

Subsequently the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North moved an amendment by means of which he wants to add a subsection to the end of clause 4. The hon. member is concerned here with the tabling of particulars in respect to the qualifications of members nominated to the control board. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be petty, but unfortunately I cannot accept this amendment either. If the hon. member is prepared to try and understand, I shall tell him why I cannot approve his amendment. He will perhaps understand it better if I illustrated it to him in the following way. If we were to constitute a board from this House, for example, and were to provide by legislation that every member of Parliament’s qualifications should be mentioned in a publication—let us say the Gazette—we would obviously be creating insurmountable problems for ourselves. This is something which simply cannot be done in practice. Say there is a member of the board, an eminent and successful businessman, but nevertheless someone who perhaps did not even pass Std. 6. Say he did not even pass Std. 1. So you see, Mr. Chairman, that it is very difficult to give a definition of qualification in such a context. The SABC was faced with the same problem. They could not come to a decision whether the question of qualification should be academic or business or other qualifications. In the end they decided to content themselves with the acceptance of academic qualifications as their criterion.

Now, it happens that one has a man with five or six doctors’ degrees. I am not exaggerating at all. This is approximately the amount of doctors’ degrees which Dr. P. J. Meyer, the chairman of the SABC’s control board, obtained.

All honorary doctorates!

Oh, do not be funny! They are not honorary doctorates. They are doctorates which he earned. I naturally do not mean that a man with an honorary doctorate did not earn that degree, but … [Interjections.] However, it is nevertheless better than losing one’s deposits, as the UP candidates lost theirs.

Somebody else gave you that line!

The Progrefs were very well advised not to have taken part in the by-election in Alberton. That is certain. They would also have lost their deposit.

*Mr. Chairman, the existing Act provides that the qualifications of members of the control board shall be mentioned. However, the problem is that on the one hand one has someone like Dr. Meyer, and on the other hand someone else, a brilliant businessman and perhaps one of the best members of the board, but someone in connection with whom there is a problem when the question of qualifications is raised. What qualification can be mentioned in respect of that man? Must one now say that he passed Std. 1 or Std. 6, or what must be mentioned? What on earth is achieved in any event by mentioning qualifications. There are members of the Assembly sitting here who perhaps only passed matric, but who are nevertheless still eminent members of Parliament. Should it now be required for them to mention their qualifications, it would most probably be written as follows: “Piet Koomhof, D.Phil., Oxon.”, etc. … [Interjections.] Furthermore there can be a very good member of Parliament who only passed Std. 6 who is a better man than I. What can one therefore achieve by mentioning qualifications. [Interjections.]

For this reason I cannot in all honesty, accept the proposed amendment in connection with qualifications. I should not like it to be placed in the Statute Book once again. It causes people to feel hurt. It annoys some people, and to apply a provision like this in practice, is exceedingly difficult. It is practically impossible. Therefore it is not included in this Bill. The omission of this provision in the Bill is part of our attempt to modernize and round off this legislation. We want it to be a legislation of which we may be proud. It is undesirable to add such an archaic provision. I hope the hon. member agrees with me about this.

May I refer first of all to the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister. I think it would be better if those words were inserted after the word “nine” and not after “members” in the English text. I make that suggestion for the hon. the Minister’s consideration. The intent remains the same; it is purely a matter of drafting.

With regard to the amendments which have been moved, I am very pleased to find that the pleasantries which passed between the hon. member for Houghton and myself last evening have rather crystallized some thoughts and that we can now look at this Bill and see what we are attempting to achieve. My objection last evening to the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown was that in order to insert that in the Bill, you would then have to have legislation with a racial intent. The hon. member for Houghton last evening said in the course of her pleasantries addressed to me—she also addressed herself to Mr. Speaker—that if we thought that the hon. the Minister was in fact going to appoint members of the African, Coloured or Indian population to this board and if he gave us him firm assurance in this regard, it might be a different matter. Sir, I want to discuss the amendments which have been moved in the light of that statement by the hon. member for Houghton. I want to remind her and draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that when we discussed the Publications Bill, which was in August 1974, it was before the statement made in October 1974 at the United Nations by our ambassador as to South Africa’s intent, and it was before the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House at the beginning of the 1975 session. We were then dealing with a somewhat similar situation where one had an organization with a top board and with advisory committees that were to be appointed. It is interesting that even at that stage before we had these assurances from our ambassador at the United Nations and from the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Parktown, in dealing with the top board, moved certain amendments, which I need not go into in detail to the effect that the qualifications of the members of that top board were to be paramount.

I believe that when we come to the members of the board of control of the SABC, which is primarily a vast business organization, we require the best persons available to discharge those business duties. The hon. the Minister has stated that in making appointments he will have regard to all sections of the population. That is in keeping, I trust, with the attitude of both sides of this House. I think the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Durban Central gives effect to the approach being directed not to colour but being directed to the composition of the population of this country. Amongst us, the Whites, there are the English speaking and the Afrikaans speaking; there are the cultural and all sorts of other aspects of life—the Caledonian Societies and other things—when one looks at the composition of the population as apart from the racial composition of our population, and I do hope that the hon. the Minister will reconsider his attitude towards the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Durban Central. I believe that when it comes to appointing advisory, representation of the various population groups is a matter of great importance, but here again, as has been rightly mentioned by the hon. the Minister, if one attempts to say that certain races should be represented on a committee or a board, one comes up against the difficulty of deciding which races we have in mind. When we come to the four major colour connotations, then I think we run into some difficulty, and I want to suggest to the hon. member for Parktown, who is not here this afternoon but whose attitude I appreciate, that what we are looking for is a South African approach in dealing with matters which concern the whole of South Africa and not just one section. The control of our broadcasting system concerned every person of every walk of life, irrespective of his colour or language, so when one comes to the advisory aspects, that is where one should look to see whether the particular responsibilities of that advisory committee require that there should be a particular form of representation. Sir, I want to make this abundantly clear; I want to state unequivocally that so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we believe that the undertakings given at the United Nations impose a solemn obligation upon everyone of us in this country, and I am prepared to accept from the hon. the Minister that when he says that he is going to do something in the interests of South Africa, he means in the interests of every part and section of the population of this country. We know that there are people amongst the various colour groups who are well qualified to serve on these various committees, and it is up to the Minister to see that the policy which we are moving towards in South Africa where we are becoming a little colour blind, if I may put it that way when it comes to dealing with matters of this nature, will be carried out by him.

It is for that reason, Sir, that the hon. member for Durban Central referred to the composition of the population and not to the racial composition of the population, because the composition of a population is something that is far wider than racial or colour composition. I am disappointed that the hon. the Minister has said that he cannot accept this amendment because his attitude may be interpreted and can be interpreted as a desire to maintain exclusive White control. I can see no reason why regard should not be had to the whole spectrum of the population when these appointments are made. When it comes to radio and television, we are not dealing with something that belongs to a particular community or affects only a particular community; it affects everyone, and for that reason I hope that the hon. the Minister, if he is not prepared to accept the actual wording of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central, will at least say that he will give consideration to the question of moving an amendment of a similar nature in the Other Place. The hon. the Minister will agree with me when I say that he and I and everyone in this country must be careful that what we do or what we say in this House does not adversely affect the position of our country in the comity of nations. I believe that the hon. the Minister should specifically state in this Bill what he has said during this debate. When we debated this matter, to which reference was made by the hon. member for Houghton last night, we had from her during the course of that debate an acceptance of the position which we now find in this Bill, i.e. that there is nothing to prevent …

Order! I must point out to the hon. member that although I have allowed a great degree of latitude, I am not going to allow a repetition of the Second Reading debate.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, but with respect, I merely wanted to say that whereas the clause before us does not exclude the appointment of persons of various colours, the Minister should embody in this clause, either in the words suggested by the hon. member for Durban Central, or in other words that the Minister may choose, an expression of intent to consider all persons of this country, irrespective of their race or colour. That is all I am asking the hon. the Minister to do. As I have said, there was a lack of prohibition in the case of the Publications Bill, and there is a lack of prohibition in this Bill, and for that reason I am asking the Minister to give consideration to this request. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, with reference to the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Durban Central this afternoon and which was supported by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I should like to say that it has become very clear to us this afternoon that the Opposition would like to achieve certain things, while on the other hand they are not prepared to state exactly what they stand for. This is in contrast with what we have had from the Progressive Reform Party. They at least have the courage of their convictions to mention it by name and to say what they want. I cannot understand the hon. Opposition in this respect. If I remember correctly, the hon. member for Green Point pointed out last night that we have to be careful not to play off the various race groups or population groups against one another by mentioning them by name. The hon. the Minister replied to that last night and gave the assurance that attention would be given to all qualified persons from all population groups, if they would be able to serve on it. He repeated this today.

Order! The hon. member is now referring to clause 9, and that is not under discussion now.

No, Mr. Chairman; I am referring to this clause we are debating. I cannot understand why, although this assurance was given by the hon. the Minister this afternoon as well, the Opposition still is not satisfied in respect of this matter. I cannot understand what they want with this. It is clear—and I agree with the hon. member for Green Point—that we should handle this matter in such a way as not to cause friction among the various population groups. For that reason I should like to support the hon. the Minister with regard to the amendment which he moved today in respect of this clause, and I should like to ask hon. members to accept it as such.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Virginia is quite right. We are trying to spell out exactly what we want for this board. We do want representation by the racial groups, the major racial groups. I think it is silly for us in this House to pretend that we do not know what we are talking about when we talk about representation from each of the racial groups. South Africa has always clearly understood, according to all the classifications that we have and all the divisions of authority and administration that we have, that there are Africans, Whites, Coloureds and Asians in this country. That clearly is what we mean. We do not mean the Caledonian Society or any of what I would call the sub-cultures of composition of the population. [Interjections.] I am sorry; I must apologize to the hon. member for Durban North …

Durban North?

I am sorry; I have it on the brain. I mean the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I repeat: We are not referring to sub-cultures like the Caledonian Society.

Should they not be considered?

No, I do not think they should be considered, because they fall within the general ambit of South African life. We have done this in order to try to ensure such representation. We are not trying to introduce a racial element into this Bill, as the hon. member for Green Point rather spitefully put it last night. I may say that that was the only reason why I was provoked into responding to what he said last night. We are trying to ensure that the representation which we consider is the just due of each of the major racial groups, is in fact given them on this board. The hon. the Minister says that he is not prepared to consider this amendment. He is not even prepared to consider the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central, which is narrower in its concept in some ways, or, shall I say, which is less binding. Sir, I have the utmost faith in this Minister. Far be it from me, as one Oxford alumnus to another, to display anything but the utmost faith in the hon. the Minister. Of course, I must admit that he got his doctorate the hard way, unlike me. [Interjections.] I may say that he has since changed his mind considerably on the subject for which he got his Ph.D. But, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister, regretfully perhaps, will not be here for ever. When I say “regretfully”, I do not mean that I would be brokenhearted if he were to be replaced, for instance, by the hon. member for Parktown as the Minister of this portfolio. I must remind him, however, of one of his predecessors, because none of the hon. the Minister’s assurances would be any good whatever if by some odd and unfortunate quirk of fate the hon. Dr. Albert Hertzog were once again to be the Minister in charge of this legislation.

What about Dr. Treumicht?

Yes, that applies also to the present Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. I have long learned that ministerial assurances do not mean anything in this House, I am afraid, because they are not binding on the future. There are phrases such as “the dead hand of the past” with which we are familiar in this House. We want something entrenched in the law. What we want must be written not only for today, but also for the future. That is why we insist on going ahead with this amendment, and not because we have any lack of faith in the honourable intentions of the hon. the Minister. I have no doubt that when he ponders on whom he is going to have on his board, at least for a fleeting moment or two he might consider an African or a Coloured or an Asian. And, of course, he has given us a much more definite assurance with regard to a later clause of this Bill to which we shall come in due course. I want to say that there is nothing unusual in the sort of amendment introduced by the hon. member for Parktown. We have had it over and over again in this House. We had a similar amendment from the Opposition in the case of the Publications Bill which was passed a couple of years ago, and we had similar amendments in every one of the Universities Bills that were passed. In the case of those Bills we tried to get members of a particular racial group on the boards, the councils, the convocations and the senates of those universities and that is, I submit, surely analogous to the boards of the SABC or SATV. Therefore I am afraid we must press ahead with our amendment, irrespective of the assurances of the hon. the Minister, although we may reconsider our stand if at least the Minister accepts the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central, which is not quite as far-reaching as ours.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to indicate to the hon. the Minister what a reasonable man I am. I accept his explanation as far as my second amendment is concerned, and I am accordingly prepared to withdraw it, with the leave of the Committee.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I really think that, had he spent just five minutes more on considering seriously the other amendment which I have put forward, he would have come to another decision. The hon. the Minister made it clear to us that his promise relating to appointments to the advisory boards was a stronger promise than his promise in respect of the control board. I want to say that if, in the case of this top board, in this year of 1976, we cannot accept this clear intention, then I really think the hon. the Minister must reconsider his situation, because we do not have all that much time left. I want to say also that whilst I am convinced that my amendment avoids certain pitfalls which are inherent in the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown, we shall have no option but to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown as well if my amendment is not accepted.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief. I want to mention two points. The first one is that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Parktown and the very similar amendment proposed by the hon. member for Durban Central are in fact the key amendments to the clause. We have been asked: Why enshrine it in law when we have the assurance that the Minister will consider, on merit, any particular person who may have the qualifications to be a member? But we say that the board we are now discussing in this clause is in fact the main policy-making board of the SABC. The argument we have used is that as a result of the previous composition of that board the policy has been biased and pro-Nationalist in its import and has not given effect to the views and aspirations of the entire population. That is the argument. We feel that the only way in which this can be remedied and in which the SABC’s programmes and policies can become representative of the people of South Africa, is not to have at the top a board which is an all-White, uni-racial and uni-party board. I shall not again quote the examples which we gave yesterday except to say that this is in particular the argument.

Finally, I think it is because of the very history of the SABC that we ask that this should be enshrined in law. Even as the hon. the Minister gave us his sincere assurances last night—which were sincerely accepted—we find that members of opposition groups are being refused time to express their viewpoints over the SABC. Unfortunately, therefore, we feel that it is not sufficient to receive an assurance from an hon. Minister who is merely the final arbiter of what is an autonomous body. It will only be sufficient when it is obligatory upon the hon. the Minister, in selecting his board, to take into account the different sections and different interest of our community or, as it has been put by the hon. member for Durban Central, with due regard to the composition of the South African population. We feel it is not enough to have assurances, and because of the history of the SABC we on this side of the House would like to see it written into the law so that it can be beyond question and so that in future the hon. the Minister can, when there is a case to be answered, be brought before this House and be asked to account for the composition of this board.

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to what the hon. member for Virginia said a moment ago and to agree with the hon. member for Houghton that he is quite right that we are playing word games here today. We know exactly what we mean by both amendments which are now before the House. The very heart of the matter is that the SABC is a public utility company and therefore liable to anyone who pays licence fees, whether it is for a radio or a television set. Therefore the central board of control, which determines policy, should be representative of all the people in this country. I am amazed when the hon. the Minister starts objecting to this and says that we must not enshrine this in law, when we have so many laws on the Statute Book already which enshrine discrimination again and again. I want to give an example of this. Let us take the Industrial Conciliation Act, which deliberately excludes Bantu workers by definition. It is written in there, because that is the policy of the other side of the House and they have not, up till now, made any apology for that. We say it is wrong. We have raised objections and opposition to it, but have never been able to persuade that side of the House to change it. So there are many other Acts, and now we are saying that if there are people …

Order! The hon. member must not go too far.

No, Mr. Chairman, I shall not go too far. I am confining myself to the very heart of the matter. The SABC, by its very nature, ought to be representative of all the groups in South Africa.

On amendment (1) moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper,

Question put: That the words “such number of members not exceeding nine” stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—78: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, M. G; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; 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.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Treumicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

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

NOES—31: 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.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B.W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment moved by the Minister of National Education agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. R. M. de Villiers put and the Committee divided:

AYES—31: Aronson, T.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. L; De Villiers, R. M.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C; Waddell, G. H.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. L. Boraine and D. J. Dalling.

NOES—79: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, M. C; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; 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.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Koomhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P. Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Treumicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

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

Amendment negatived.

Amendment moved by Mr. G. W. Mills negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—78: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; 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.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Koomhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Treumicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C. Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.

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

NOES—31: 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.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B.W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

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

1. (a) has not complied with the conditions of his appointment; or
2. (b) in the opinion of the State President has been guilty of improper conduct or is incapable of efficiently performing his duties; or
3. (c) in the opinion of the State President has not taken all possible steps to cause an order of court made under this Act, by which the board is ordered to remedy a default, to be complied with; or
4. (d) has been absent, without the permission of the chairman, from three consecutive meetings of members of the board of which he has had notice.

The wording of the amendment is taken from the existing Act and I see no reason why it should not have been included in the Bill. I have two reasons for moving the amendment. Firstly, that it does afford protection to board members so that they cannot be hired and fired indiscriminately and, secondly, it does allow for Parliament to be kept informed as to the reasons why board members have been dismissed. If board members are dismissed, rumours tend to develop amongst the public as to why it has happened. I think it is very important that the record should be kept clear, if such a situation of dismissal were to arise, so that everybody could be informed. We also feel that Parliament would be happy if the proposed provisions were to remain in the legislation because they are aimed at ensuring that the hon. the Minister neither abuses his powers, harbours friends of his on the board nor keeps people who are incompetent there. On the other hand we must also ensure that the hon. the Minister does not hire and fire indiscriminately because otherwise, as I said yesterday, we could have the position that there are only yes-men on the board. I also said that what should be sound enough reason for the Minister, should be sound enough to be laid upon the Table in Parliament for all to know.

Mr. Chairman, I have also studied very carefully the clause and the amendment which the hon. member has moved. However, I must point out that unfortunately I am unable, for very good reasons, to accept the amendment.

†Clause 5(4) reads—

The existing Act contains the wording which the hon. member now seeks to insert in the Bill—

1. (a) has not complied with the conditions of his appointment; or
2. (b) in the opinion of the State President has been guilty of improper conduct …
3. (c) in the opinion of the State President has not taken all possible steps to cause an order of court …
4. (d) has been absent, without permission …

In other words, he wants the conditions spelt out in greater detail.

*However, the law advisers informed me that they would prefer the wording of clause 5(4), as I quoted it, because legally this is more correct. They are also of the opinion that the wording which appears in the Bill at present could eliminate unpleasant law-suits. These then are also the reasons why the wording of the existing Act—the inclusion of which the hon. member is now proposing— has been omitted from the clause. The wording of para. (b) in the amendment is not relevant in any case, because the members of the board are not appointed in terms of the ordinary conditions. What is more, the paragraph also places a limitation upon the powers of the State President.

Because I wanted to prevent the reproach that we simply want to play a quick one and also wished that side of the House to have confidence in the legislation, I asked for the opinion of the chief law adviser as well. The chief law adviser also agrees that the present wording of clause 5(4) is legally the correct wording. He also agrees that it is a better wording from every point of view than the one which appears in the existing Act and which the hon. member now proposes should be included in the Bill. I was not yet satisfied. I then told them that the hon. members on the other side would argue that many other laws exist in which the wording is similar to that in the principal Act. The law advisers then gave me a long list of laws in which this new, modern and better legal wording is used concerning the dismissal of a board member. I shall quickly point out the laws so that hon. members can consult them themselves. In those laws it is provided that a board member may summarily be dismissed from office by the Minister or the State President. The same wording which is used in the Bill appears in section 3(2) of Act 9 of 1972, in section 5(4) of Act 24 of 1975, section 3(3)(b) of Act 63 of 1974, section 2(4) of Act 58 of 1973, section 16(3)(a) of Act 41 of 1971, section 4(4) of Act 33 of 1970, etc. I could mention other laws as well. I have the complete list here. There are 12 laws altogether in which the wording is the same as in this Broadcasting Bill. Legally speaking this wording is better than that in the principal Act and that which the hon. member wants to introduce into the Bill again. For these reasons, which to my mind are very valid reasons, I must request the hon. members on the other side to accept my explanation and to consent to the retention of this much better wording instead of a return to the old clumsy wording which may lead to law-suits and which may cause a number of unnecessary problems.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that we in these benches support the amendment. We think it is a good and useful amendment. I do not think it is much of an argument to say that the new wording should be retained because the same wording occurs in a number of recent modem laws. Sir, I think you will find that this type of wording has been opposed by us in these benches on every occasion when such wording has been brought forward. While it might give the executive more options, and might ensure that the executive can take a decision on the continued presence of a member on the board on grounds not raised in the Bill itself, it also gives the executive—which is the Minister—a carte blanche to take a decision on the continued membership of board members. When one creates a board which becomes an autonomous body, one of the most important considerations if one wants a board to have a reasonable degree of independence, is to ensure that the continued membership of members of those boards are not subject to the whim of the Cabinet. Only where one has security of tenure on a board, will total and proper independence be exercised. Let us take the example of the judges. Judges cannot be dismissed by the executive for making a bad decision or for some frivolous reason or other. They in fact retire at a given age, but prior to that they can only be dismissed in limited circumstances. That is why we have such a tremendous respect for the independence of the Bench. I am merely using this as an example. Exactly the same should apply in the case of the Board of Governors of the SABC. You may ask, Mr. Chairman, whether there is not a vast difference between the judiciary and the SABC. Indeed there is. However, we must realize that this organization is a vast public utility corporation and one which, by its very nature, deals with controversial matters, with views, news and with politics. Indeed, it deals a lot with politics. It is supposed to serve all sections. Its decisions are often controversial. Therefore in our view the board members should feel free to take an independent line and should not have to look over their shoulders.

If the hon. the Minister is absolutely sincere in saying that in future we must not distrust the executive at all, I would ask him whether, if he is not prepared to accept this amendment, which I consider to be a very reasonable and proper amendment, I may suggest an alternative. Will he be prepared to accept an amendment to delete the words “in his opinion” in subsection (4) line 58? In other words, is he prepared to remove the subjectivity of the Cabinet through the State President in the subsection as worded at present? If a person is to be removed, let him be removed because, objectively, there are sound reasons for removing him. Let us delete the words “in his opinion”. In supporting the amendment and coming forward with this suggestion, we wish to indicate that such action should not be subjectively taken at the whim of the Cabinet, but that, if we are creating an independent board, the board should enjoy independence. Only by creating and granting security of tenure to its members, can we ensure that very independence.

Mr. Chairman, we realize that there is the tendency, to which the hon. the Minister referred, to change the wording of the relevant Act. Nevertheless, we still object, even as we have done in the past, because we are dealing here with an autonomous body. Although I am not legally trained, to me it is common sense that, although the new wording might streamline executive action, it also places vast powers at the disposal of the Minister. At the same time it removes from this House the knowledge of why the Minister is hiring and firing board members. For that reason we object to this wording.

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North and also the hon. member for Sandton, whom I want to thank for supporting our amendment. The hon. the Minister listed other legislation in which the same wording occurs as occurs in this clause. It is interesting to note that earlier this week, when we debated a similar measure to which we moved an amendment somewhat similar to this, the reply from the hon. the Deputy Minister who handled that piece of legislation was: “No, this is just an advisory committee. If it were a board, that would alter the situation, but seeing it is merely an advisory committee, it is not really necessary to have these various conditions entrenched in the Bill.” Well, in this case, we are dealing with a statutory board of very high standing. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the wording proposed in the amendment allows plenty of scope because, while it lays down certain conditions under which a member of the board may be dismissed, the State President to my mind still has fairly wide powers in terms of para. (b), which states that he may dismiss from office any member of the board who “in the opinion of the State President has been guilty of improper conduct”. “Improper conduct” immediately introduces a wide range of possibilities. I believe that on that basis alone the paragraph allows the State President much scope to take such action, whilst it also provides that any connotations which we on this side of the House feel might be introduced without due safeguards, could be covered by paras. (a), (c) and (d) of the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North.

The officials of the department tell me that in all these years there has never been a dismissal of a member of the board.

There is always a first time.

I will not allow the dismissal of a member of the board for a trivial reason. I have stated all the arguments as to why I think the amendment is not necessary. I have also given the argument why the top legal advisers think the wording should remain as it is. As for the suggestion made by the hon. member for Sandton, to omit the words “in his opinion”, I am not a legal man but to me it seems very trivial. As far as that is concerned, I will get further legal advice and if I find that the words can be omitted, I will move such an amendment in the Other Place. But I am not in a position to give a legal opinion now on the question of whether those words should be omitted at this stage. Therefore I ask hon. members to accept my explanation; let us leave it as it is for the moment.

I merely rise to say that possibly one of the reasons why there has never been a dismissal of a member of the board for the last 40 years is because of the very fact that they enjoyed protection, because this is a provision which was taken over from the existing Act. Also, the hon. the Minister must bear in mind, when we look back at some of his predecessors, that although we did not have as much confidence in them as we have in him, even the fact that we have confidence in the Minister does not mean that it will be all right for ever.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, clause 7 will be acceptable to me if the following amendment, as submitted to me by the law advisers, is agreed to—

If the hon. member for Durban Central will withdraw his amendment, I shall move this amendment which is in agreement with the legal advice, and which embodies the very same idea the hon. member for Durban Central wants to introduce into this Bill.

Order! The hon. the Minister has not yet moved his amendment; he says he will move it if the hon. member withdraws his amendment.

I am glad that the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept the spirit of my amendment, and consequently I shall not move it.

In that case, Mr. Chairman, I formally move the amendment I have read out, viz.—

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following four amendments—

1. (1) On page 7, in lines 50 and 51, to omit “chairman of the board and such number of other members, but not fewer than three or more than five”, and to substitute:

1. (2) on page 7, in line 53, to omit “Such other” and to substitute “The”;
2. (3) on page 7, in lines 55 and 56, to omit “chairman of the board shall be chairman of the Bantu Programme Advisory Board, and whenever he” and substitute:

1. (4) on page 7, in lines 57 and 58, to omit “of the board”.

As you will have noticed, the first of these amendments is not exactly as printed in my name on the Order Paper. There are two basic issues involved here. The first of these I referred to in my Second Reading speech as a crazy set-up, in that the chairman of the board also automatically is the chairman of the advisory board, and is his own main adviser. I naturally believe that there should be liaison between the two boards. This I do not argue about, but I believe that the board should also be placed in a position where it is sufficiently independent to act, to a certain extent. I have no problem with members of the board serving on committees established in terms of clause 8. There it is provided that the board can establish committees, but when it comes to an advisory board I believe that we must give them the opportunity of acting to a certain extent outside the immediate influence as such of the board itself.

The second issue is that of composition. The principles involved here are very much the same as those we had in clause 4, as far as the composition of the board is concerned. It is unavoidable here that one has to refer, for instance, in a racial context, to Bantu persons as such because it is in fact a Bantu Programme Board and one has to do that. All the arguments I used in respect of clause 4 are equally valid here. I want to say that the Minister has already given us a much firmer promise in respect of this board, i.e. that he will see to it that Bantu are in fact appointed to this board. I have no doubt that perhaps in time to come the whole board may consist of Bantu, but on the other hand a person need not be a Bantu to be an authority on the culture of Bantu. One need not be a Greek to be an authority on Greek history or Greek culture. For that reason you will find, Sir, that once again we say that members should be appointed with due regard, in respect of the composition of the board, to the representation of Bantu persons. We did not tie ourselves down to a stipulation of particular numbers, because once again we believe here that it need not be the case that a person has to be a member of a particular group to be an authority on the function which that board has to fulfil.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am very delighted with the UP this afternoon. They were somewhat stunned yesterday by having come off such a bad third in the debate and in the by-election that they have somewhat altered their tactics. They have looked at the amendments which we have put on the Order Paper, improved the wording but slightly and have brought them before the House this afternoon.

Order! I do not think the hon. member should elaborate on that point.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the sympathy which you have shown to that party at this difficult time for them. But it is good to see that the entire Opposition side is looking at the central aspect of this Bill and in particular of this clause. The board which is being established in terms of clause 9 is a board whose main task will be to advise on the programmes geared to the Bantu market. Over the years, the Bantu, as far as we are aware, never had representation on a board of this sort. We believe that over the years this has been a glaring example of discrimination and disdain by the Government in respect of the contribution which can be and which has been made by the Bantu people themselves in enriching this service in particular. We have had certain assurances from the hon. the Minister last night, which were very gratefully noticed by this side of the House and by many people in South Africa, but we feel that it is not entirely sufficient in the light of the history of this organization to accept purely the bald assurance of a Minister whose stay in politics or in this Ministry may well only be transient. The Government is always saying that Blacks must be trained, must be helped and encouraged to serve their own people and to further their own interests. Here, if I may put it to the hon. the Minister, is an ideal opportunity to implement the oft expressed sentiment of the Government policymakers. There can be no moral principle in denying this extension of opportunity to Black persons. Assurances, as I have said, can be fine in many circumstances. But, because of the history of this organization, we are lead to believe that an amendment in the form of the written word is desirable. We are not hard and fast on the exact wording of this amendment. If the hon. the Minister will accept the principle of this amendment, we shall go along with him on any semantic change. We await eagerly the positive response of a new “verligte” Nationalist Party to the type of amendment which we have put here, in particular to this amendment.

In so far as the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central is concerned, this amendment is acceptable in so far that it covers the principle of what we were trying to put to the House, but we believe that we would like in any event to persist with the wording of our amendment. Mr. Chairman, I accordingly move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 7, in line 54, after “board” to insert:

1. (2) on page 7, in lines 57 and 58, to omit “vice-chairman of the board shall” and to substitute:

Mr. Chairman, the first amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central reads as follows—

That and the ensuing amendments dealing with the question of the “chairman of the Bantu Programme Advisory Board”, are not acceptable to me, for the simple reason that for more than 15 years it has been proved—and I am now speaking as a person who, for a considerable time, served on the Johannesburg Radio Advisory Board—that it worked very well indeed in practice when the chairman of the board and the chairman of the advisory board were the same person. This is the case for the simple reason that it helps the advisory board to obtain first-hand knowledge of certain things at once so as to enable them to provide the control board with better advice. Therefore it follows of its own accord that it should remain as it is. Let us now take the example of the Johannesburg Advisory Board. This does not consist only of experts. It also consists of interested persons. It is also true that there are persons who want to make a contribution. But these are not persons who are in the privileged position of serving on a control board, for example, and who have a knowledge of complicated matters—for this is a very big organization we are dealing with, and now there is television as well—of that kind. It requires a person of exceptional ability to be able to deal properly with those specific matters on which advice is required and on which the control board has to take decisions. Hon. members must not underestimate this at all. Therefore I maintain that it works very well indeed in practice to have that link between the control board and the Bantu Programme Advisory Board. For this practical reason, this simple, but yet very important reason, I regret very much having to tell the hon. member for Durban Central that unfortunately I cannot accept that amendment and the ensuing amendments, which have the same intention, viz. that the chairman of the control board shall not ipso facto be chairman of the Bantu Advisory Board.

Furthermore, the hon. member proposed that in the wording of the provision relating to the Bantu Advisory Board, the words “and at least three of whom shall be Bantu persons” be inserted. This is the amendment of the hon. member for Sandton. I now want to reply to the second matter. I am separating the two from one another completely, for I think it is necessary to do so. In regard to the second matter, I have already, when I was discussing the control board, advanced strong arguments as to why I honestly think that it is not necessary at all to write into the legislation what is being requested here, because, as the Act reads at present, the Minister of National Education has the right to nominate any person to this Bantu Programme Advisory Board. If the Minister therefore wishes to nominate three or more or fewer Bantu to that Bantu Programme Advisory Board, he has the statutory authority to do so. There must be no doubt about that. I undertook to ensure that this is done. Since I have given that undertaking, and since it is absolutely in accordance with the policy of the Government that this be done, it creates and will create problems for me if I now had to write it into the legislation here, for the same reasons which I advanced in regard to clause 4 as to why it is not necessary to obtain statutory authority for that now. I can reverse the arguments of the hon. members opposite, which they are now submitting to me, and hurl the arguments back at them. They say that they accept my word, but who knows whether I shall be Minister of National Education for a long time or for always. I can hurl the same argument back at them, viz. that if one were to write into legislation here who should be nominated to that Bantu Programme Advisory Board, just as in the case of the control board, one would be introducing a new principle which is a racial principle by specifying that that specific race should serve on the board. In any event this is a principle which is not acceptable to me. Therefore I am being absolutely consistent when I say that for the same reasons as those for which I do not want to accept this in regard to the control board—while I and any hon. Minister are able to do this—I cannot accept it here either. I want to reiterate that I shall ensure that Bantu are nominated to the Bantu Programme Advisory Board. I really hope that hon. members will accept this explanation, because I think it is the correct thing to do.

The hon. member for Houghton is not present here at the moment, but she advanced an argument here earlier this afternoon in regard to four various race groups. However, she does not occupy any position in the Government and is for that reason not involved in any practical administration of matters of this kind. This legislation will also be applicable to South West Africa, and if it is decided, for example, that three Bantu should be appointed to the board, practical problems will undoubtedly arise with regard to representation in South West Africa, in which such a great diversity of population groups are living. It will also create other practical problems, and I am therefore requesting the hon. members to show an understanding. There is no substantial difference of opinion between us on these points, but for practical reasons, I think, it would be better if the Bill were retained in its present form. I hope the hon. members accept my explanation. I can give them the assurance that I have only good intentions with it.

Mr. Chairman, in his reply the hon. the Minister referred mainly to the proposed amendment moved by the hon. member for Sandton. His contention was that it was not desirable at this stage to commit oneself to a specific number, say three. In this respect, however, I would like to refer to the latter part of my proposed amendment which, if the hon. the Minister would be prepared to accept it, would purely read as follows: “But not fewer than three or more than five with due regard to the representation of Bantu persons”. The argument here is to a certain extent quite different in respect of the Bantu Programme Advisory Board from what it was in respect of the board of the corporation. In this case one deals specifically with a Bantu board. The hon. the Minister pointed out that this Bill was going to be applicable to South West Africa as well. If the usage of the word “Bantu” would then tend to create an embarrassment, my submission is that the Bill as such will then in fact be an embarrassment, because the Bill itself speaks of a separate board for a separate group of people. Whatever problems the composition of the Advisory Board based on my amendment could create for the Minister surely exist already in the Bill.

Irrespective of the difficulties arising from endeavouring to establish who the Bantu people really are, it would be so much better to say, as I do in my proposed amendment, “with due regard to the representation of Bantu persons”. I am really disappointed at the fact that the hon. the Minister does not see his way clear to accept this. I do not know whether it would be permissible for me to move a further amendment in order to facilitate matters for the hon. the Minister. I could for instance move an amendment inserting after the word “five”, on page 7, line 51, the words “with due regard to the representation of Bantu persons”. Such an insertion will enable us to dispose of all the arguments in connection with the chairman of the board and to merely focus the attention on this particular and crucial aspect.

Mr. Chairman, will I be allowed to move such an amendment?

The hon. member may move a further amendment, but then he must first withdraw the amendment he has moved.

Mr. Chairman, I shall then ask one of my colleagues to move such an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, may I just point out that one can act in whichever way one desires according to present wording of the Bill. But if I were to accept the insertion of the wording as recommended by the hon. member for Durban Central, it might create difficulties. Say for instance a Nama person claimed that he was not appropriately represented on the Board. He could then institute action against me or the department for not having been given representation on the board.

That is utter nonsense!

It is not nonsense!

Of course, it is!

Of course it is not! I can assure hon. members that I have had long discussions with the law advisers, and they have assured me that I can in any event act exactly as those hon. members now want me to act. I therefore cannot, for the life of me, understand why hon. members want to force me into accepting the insertion of this wording in the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to carry my argument one step further. I do not know why the hon. the Minister is so concerned about the Namas. As far as I know the Namas are not classified as Bantu people. They are included among the Coloured people. It is being said that difficulties may arise from using the word “Bantu” or “Bantu programmes”. How are people to judge these programmes? Surely, these programmes will be judged by their contents. In that respect there should be absolutely no difficulty. I say once again that I do not understand the problem experienced by the hon. the Minister in accepting my proposed amendment. However, I can see some difficulties—and I think hon. members of the Progressive Reform Party will agree with this—with regard to their amendments, but I do not see any difficulty with regard to the amendment I have proposed.

Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to ask a question. The hon. the Minister has made the point that, if the wording proposed by the hon. member for Durban Central was accepted, it could happen that the hon. the Minister or the SABC or the council would be taken to court by, as he put it, a Nama of South West Africa for not being represented. I realize that the hon. the Minister is not legally trained, but even for one who is not legally trained, a remark such as that, is really a very fatuous one, if I may say so. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether, if a Nama was to sue, who the actual plaintiff would be and what the grounds for his complaints would be. Would it be a civil or a criminal action? Would he be claiming damages or would he be claiming specific performance? [Interjections.] I merely ask this because the argument put by the hon. the Minister is in fact completely groundless. It is an argument which is somewhat misleading and not worthy of the intellect of that venerable Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

That will make clause 9(2) read as follows—

Mr. Chairman, that will leave the actual control of this matter entirely in the hands of the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister has said that it is his intention—and I believe it is—and therefore there should be no problem, because the hon. the Minister has intimated that Bantu people would be appointed to this board. This does not tie him to numbers. It avoids the problem posed by the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sandton, suggesting a fixed number of Bantu, and leaves it to the discretion of the hon. the Minister, in making the appointments, to see to it that there is representation of the Bantu on that particular board. I trust the hon. the Minister will accept my amendment.

I should like to have a good look at the wording of the amendment. I will then take up the matter with the legal advisers and if the amendment is acceptable legally and otherwise, I will move it in the Other Place.

I thank the hon. the Minister. I merely want to say that I have moved the amendment in this form so that it should be a consideration to which the hon. the Minister must have regard when he exercises his discretion. I thank him for giving that undertaking, and with the leave of the Committee I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper negatived and amendment (2) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (3) moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper negatived and amendment (4) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Once again I would like to notify the Committee that I do not intend moving the amendment as printed in my name. Instead of that amendment, I should like to move the following amendment—

1. (1) On page 9, in lines 6 and 7, to omit “the chairman of the board and such number of other members, but not fewer than three or more than five” and to substitute:

I also wish to move amendments (2), (3), (4) which stand in my name—

1. (2) on page 9, in line 9, to omit “Such other” and to substitute “The”;
2. (3) on page 9, in lines 11 and 12, to omit “chairman of the board shall be chairman of the Television Programme Advisory Board and whenever he” and to substitute:

1. (4) on page 9, in line 14, to omit “of the board”.

The issues involved here are very similar to the issues that we have just debated, so I do not think it is necessary to debate them again.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment which stands in my name is very similar to that of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Durban Central. I merely want it to be stated specifically, as this amendment does, that there will be representation of the three main non-White groups in this country. It is not necessary to argue this again. I think this amendment is not only fair, but I think it is also in the interests of the Corporation. I move—

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper negatived and amendment (2) dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. R. M. de Villiers negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (3) moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper negatived and amendment (4) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

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

The clause will then read as follows—

To some people this may seem to be tautolo-gous, but it seems to me that it is essential in view of what I call the unfortunate history of the South African Broadcasting Corporation in so often only presenting one side of the case, particularly in controversial issues. I do not think anybody can seriously deny this. I am not going to go into the recent cases …

Order! I must rule the amendment out of order because it is not relevant to this clause. If the hon. member refers to clause 12, he will see that it refers to the rights and obligations of the corporation in connection with its objects. The hon. member can move a similar amendment there, but he cannot do so on this clause because it is not relevant here.

I rise merely to say a few words about clause 11(b), because it refers to the powers of the board. The hon. the Minister gave us an assurance yesterday afternoon in connection with the provisions of clause 13(d), and I just want to make sure that I did not misunderstand the hon. the Minister. I understood him to say, as regards the conditions referred to in clause 11(b), that he would see to it that this would be one of the matters on which a report would be submitted to us in terms of clause 27(1)(h). I accept that there may be certain circumstances under which it will not be possible to report to us, but I should like to have the hon. the Minister’s assurance that he will see to it that this is not regarded as a domestic affair of the corporation.

Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member that two things are beyond all doubt in this connection. The one is that such an agreement with another country has to be approved by the Minister concerned. In the second place I can also give the assurance that the matter has to be reported on to the Minister concerned and that the Minister concerned will then of course report to this House. Consequently I can fully satisfy the hon. member on those two points.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

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

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following two amendments—

1. (1) On page 9, in lines 55 and 56, to omit “English, Afrikaans and Bantu culture” and to substitute:

1. (2) on page 9, in line 56, after “culture” to add:

If these amendments are accepted, subsection (3) of this clause will read as follows—

I think that that sounds very sensible, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree entirely with me that this is the sort of amendment which the Government should accept. There was a great deal of debate yesterday, which I realize we cannot repeat today, relating to the complaints by the Opposition of the biased approach of the SABC and SATV. This was described as partisanship and many examples were quoted. We feel that, in the light of this, if there is bona fides on the part of the Government—and we trust that there is—there should be no objection to to accepting what is in fact an innocuous amendment, an amendment which merely sets out what should be the standard of the SABC, a standard to which I am sure the SABC would be delighted to aspire.

With regard to the first amendment I have moved, where I spoke of “all sections of the listening and viewing public”, we must realize that this corporation deals in particular with the utilization of all sections in the making of programmes and in allowing different points of view. The hon. member for Durban Central has once again more or less come in from behind and moved an amendment along the lines of our amendment.

Mine was on the Order Paper long before yours was.

Mr. Chairman, we feel that there can be no objection at all to the acceptance of my amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I can assure this Committee that few, if any, clauses have received the attention which the wording in this particular clause received, both by the SABC and by the Cabinet. I can assure hon. members that the words “with due regard to the interests of English, Afrikaans and Bantu culture” were discussed fully at two Cabinet meetings. A Cabinet committee was then appointed. I was at that time not yet Minister of National Education, but I served on that committee and I know what very extensive discussions took place on this very point. After this matter had been studied in depth from many different points of view, the wording as it stands in the clause now was decided upon as the only correct wording in the circumstances pertaining in the Republic, and I want to assure the Committee that I am neither in the position nor willing to tamper with that wording in the light of the tremendous amount of deliberation that went into its formulation.

*I hope that hon. members will believe me as far as this is concerned and that they will understand. I want to tell hon. members, for example, that if we were to do it in any other way, we would have the most impossible problems you can imagine and I do not want to go into all those problems on this occasion. A further important point is that this wording in the Bill is the same as the wording in the old Act. I can assure hon. members that definite attempts were made to amend this wording as it was contained in the old Act. After all those attempts we came to the conclusion that this was not something one could easily tamper with. We have many different population groups in South West Africa and in the Republic of South Africa, and with the concept of “English, Afrikaans and Bantu culture”, we cover the maximum spectrum of people we should like to cover. Hon. members must remember that if we were to amend these concepts, we would be giving legal authority to them, and that would really create problems.

The hon. member for Sandton has proposed, amongst other things, that the words “balanced, unbiased and non-partisan” should be inserted. Unfortunately that wording is not acceptable to me either. These are very fine-sounding words.

†I can state, as I stated last night, that to my way of thinking the SABC and SATV are indeed very balanced, unbiased and non-partisan. [Interjections.] We can argue until the cows come home about that wording. Who is in any event going to decide whether it is balanced, unbiased and non-partisan? I do not want to play politics now, but I could very easily put the following question to hon. members opposite: Does the expression “non-partisan” mean a non-partisan approach with regard to the Republic of South Africa? In other words, if Russia attacks us, does a non-partisan approach mean that we must accept an attack by the Russians? [Interjections.] The point is that one can argue about this. I just want to point out that it is very difficult, and for that reason, although I agree that the words sound very good, I cannot accept that these words should be included in this legislation. Hon. members must accept my bona fides when I say that I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton a little earlier on in this debate, in the Committee Stage, spoke as one Oxford graduate to another, and I must confess to a feeling of deep shame for our common university after hearing that illustration as given by the hon. the Minister. I must say once again that one is very depressed and disappointed that the hon. the Minister cannot accept the amendment moved by the member for Sandton. He said that the Cabinet deliberated on this for a long time; it was a special Cabinet committee which did so. Well, I just mourn for South Africa if the Cabinet is going to spend all its time in arguing over such things. In heaven’s name, why should it even be restricted to culture? What about all the other interests of all the peoples of South Africa—the social, the political, the economic and the religious aspects? All these are genuine interests and concerns the total South African population. [Interjections.] If the Cabinet, or a Cabinet committee, can only come up with this clause as it stands, to the effect that the corporation shall carry out its functions with due regard to the interests of English, Afrikaans and Bantu culture, then I think we need a new Cabinet. I really do. The wording as proposed in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sandton refers to all sections of the listening and viewing public. I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister must agree that although we have not formed a Cabinet here, this is a very much more improved wording than that of the Cabinet committee.

I now want to move on to the whole question of biased and unbiased and partisan and non-partisan, the wording we have moved now instead of moving it under clause 11. Sir, I am not going to rehearse all the arguments we used in the Second Reading, yesterday afternoon and last night. I just want to say that there is a genuine feeling on this side of the House, a feeling which conflicts radically with that of the hon. the Minister in his undertaking and judgment of the SABC, its nature and its whole approach. That is why we feel that it is important to put this in in this clause, and that is why we have moved this amendment. Let me make one remark in relation to what the hon. the Minister said in his reply to the Second Reading, without going into specific reference on this clause. The hon. the Minister said that he understood that the Coloured community, for example, ought to have representation for their ideas and thoughts and aspirations and interests they should also be represented on radio and on television. He agreed with that and said that he would see that it was dose. But I think, with respect, that he missed one of the major points we were trying to make, and that is that there is much in the so-called—for want of a better word— Coloured community’s culture and the African culture and the Afrikaans culture, which is of real interest not only to that particular group. What I am trying to say is that art and entertainment, to say no more …

Science.

Yes, if you like, science also. We think all of this is beyond language or race or colour. That is why we are saying that the SABC in its whole policy just does not seem to grasp that. Of course, it is because it is undergirded that it is undermining what I think is in the interest of all South Africans. That is why we ask that these words be included.

Mr. Chairman, I must say it is very difficult to speak with all these ex-students of Oxford present [Interjections.] As an ex-student of Wits I want to be a little more modest …

Just do not make a confession now.

That is one confession I am very proud of. Sir, the hon. the Minister maintains that the radio is in fact unbiased, that it is in fact balanced and that it does in fact pay regard to the needs of all sections of the listening public. I would like to ask him a question, if that is the case. I should like to know whether, for instance, SATV has on its staff any one Bantu, Coloured or Indian interviewer, or news reader, who has in fact appeared on the television service. Because if in fact the Minister’s statement is correct, that in fact all sections of the community are being catered for, then I assume that the answer would be “Yes”, and if the answer is not “Yes”, I assume that the answer will be that they will attend to it immediately and see to it that they have people of this nature. Similarly, with religious broadcasts, if the Minister is correct in his statement, I would ask him whether he is prepared—and if he has not already done it; I might have missed it—to allow Coloured, Black or Indian priests or predikants or dominees to appear on TV and to give religious counsel in the normal course of events, instead of just allowing it to be the domain of White persons? If the Minister is correct in what he said—and this is the last example I want to quote—will we … Sir, it is impossible to speak with these people mumbling here.

Order! There seems to be quite a number of predikants near the hon. member.

The last point I want to make is this. Will we see on the screen of SATV in line with the Minister’s assurances, the type of film which features, say, Sydney Poitier, or will we have to wait for five or 10 years before we see a Black man as a hero in a film, or as a detective or as an actor, playing a major rather than a servile role? If we can have these assurances, I think it would go a lot further towards giving credibility to the claims that the Minister is making across the floor of the House.

Amendment moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper negatived and amendment (1) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling put and the Committee divided:

AYES—29: Aronson, T.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyser-lingk, C. C; Waddell, G. H.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. L. Boraine and D. J. Dalling.

NOES—79: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; 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.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Koomhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotze, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Treumicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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.

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

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the Committee’s attention to the provisions contained in clause 13(2) which states that—

I addressed the House on this particular issue during the Second Reading. I pointed out that on Sunday evenings immediately after the news review, which lasts from 20h00 to 20h30, we have seen advertised a publication issued by Republikeinse Pers of Durban, a publication which is known as “Radio and TV”. There is also an Afrikaans counterpart. In my humble opinion this is advertising.

Order! The hon. member is out of order now. He is discussing an administrative matter, a matter which he can raise under the Vote of the hon. the Minister. He cannot raise it now.

Mr. Chairman, may I then ask the hon. the Minister whether he has given ministerial approval for this particular advertisement?

Order! The hon. the Minister need not reply to that question.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: the hon. member for Umhlanga is only trying to determine what qualifies as an advertisement. You will notice that subsection (2) provides that an advertisement may only be transmitted with the approval of the Minister. The hon. member only wants to determine whether this particular case, where a publication is in his opinion already being advertised, may be regarded as an advertisement. We should like to know for what the hon. the Minister may give his approval.

Order! This matter concerns administrative matters only. In the Committee Stage only the details of a clause may be discussed. Therefore I had to rule the remarks of the hon. member for Umhlanga out of order. I must stand by that ruling.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. I merely wish to comment on one particular aspect and put a question to the hon. the Minister about it. I refer to clause 13(1)(a) in terms of which the corporation may “acquire or erect broadcasting stations” and matters in connection therewith. I presume that that has been taken over from the existing Act. Over the past year or two there has been a lot of trouble with Government and semi-Government institutions concerning the powers those Government institutions have to erect whatever constructions they want wherever they want them. For instance, there is a hot dispute in my constituency at the present time between Escom and the local authority concerning pylons. I mention this as an example. As I see it, it is most desirable that an organization such as this which does require from time to time to erect large structures should take local authority requirements into account.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise with the hon. the Minister the implications which we see in the power he is being given. Subsection (2) states—

This can be read in two ways. It can be interpreted to mean that every single advertisement requires the approval of the Minister. I do not think that that is what is intended. However, that is how it appears from the wording we have before us. I know that this wording has been taken over from the existing Act. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has given consideration to the fact that, as the wording stands, in my opinion it can imply that his approval will be required for every single advertisement which appears on television.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the question of the hon. member for Green Point I should like to point out that the intention of the clause is precisely that the Minister should be exempted from having to approve of every individual advertisement. However, if the hon. member has certain doubts about the wording, the clause can be examined again on a later occasion, and I shall look at it very carefully in any case, in the light of what he has said.

I must point out to the hon. member for Sandton that the SABC has the right to expropriate, but that right must be exercised with the approval of the Minister of National Education. In any event, the type of matter to which the hon. member has referred is also subject to the provision that the local authority concerned must grant its approval.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has replied to the matter raised by the hon. member for Green Point, but I should like to know whether he would, in response to the appeal which I made during the Second Reading, indicate whether he intends either prohibiting or approving of a special type of advertisement. I referred yesterday to the question of alcoholic beverages and I asked the hon. the Minister to indicate his attitude. However, he did not respond in his reply to the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Chairman, I have a high appreciation for the suggestions which the hon. member for Berea put forward last night in regard to advertising cigarettes and alcohol. I am very sympathetic to the suggestions he put forward. But advertising is a complicated issue and we shall have to look into it very thoroughly. We shall take account of the suggestions of the hon. member however. At this stage I am not in a position to give any categorical assurances in connection with the questions which he raised. One will, of course, have to take into consideration the fact that children will also see the advertisements and I can assure the hon. member that we shall look into the matter very carefully.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the issue of licences by the corporation against payment of certain fees. When we come to the schedules to the Bill, we shall find that in terms of the Radio Act a person who uses a receiving apparatus is required to obtain a licence. The power to collect the fee and issue the licence will be delegated to the corporation in terms of this clause. I want to refer the hon. the Minister particularly to clause 17(3), which reads—

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

There are three particular provisions. The first is that the licence shall confer on the holder the right to use the licence “during a particular licensing year” and the second that it shall be “at a place specified in the licence”. It appears therefore that when this licence is issued, it will not be issued to John Jones without an address, as happens with a radio listener’s licence, but will be issued to John Jones in respect of a television set at a specified address, or, in terms of the third provision—

The position may be such that—in fact this has already happened—a person with a television set moves from his licensed address, taking his television set to another address. In terms of the regulations provision has to be made for that person. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell us what his thoughts are in this regard. What provision is he going to make, as far as the licence is concerned, for a person who moves a set from one address to another? Would that licence have to be taken to the nearest Post Office to be endorsed or could this be done by letter? That is the first question I wish to put to the hon. the Minister.

However, there is also another situation that could arise, and I think it is one which many members of this Committee could possibly find themselves in. What happens to the person who has two sets, at two different addresses, if he is only using the one set at a time? As I read this clause, it could be interpreted to mean that a licence empowers a person to receive television signals, and that it is not the television set but the television viewer who is licensed. If a person therefore has a set here in Cape Town and at the end of a session moves to his home, say in the Transvaal or Natal, where he has a second set, which he then puts into operation, the one in Cape Town being locked up for the period of the recess, would that person require two licences, or would it be possible to have the licence transferred from one address to the other by some form of endorsement? Could the hon. the Minister please answer these questions first, and then we can consider what further action to take?

Mr. Chairman, let me start by answering the hon. member’s first question. The person concerned should write a letter to the SABC informing them of his change of address. That is the position as far as the first question is concerned.

The second question is an important one. It is important to realize that the principle underlying television licences is that one licence per television set is issued. Throughout the Bill one will find this principle adhered to. We have really looked into this matter very carefully, but we are not in a position, certainly not at this stage, to accede to requests to deviate from that principle. We are not in a position to do so, because of financial and other problems that I could mention. I ask the Committee please to accept this principle. My reply to the hon. member’s second question is therefore that the person concerned would require two licences. If I have one television set in Cape Town and one in Pretoria, because the principle is one licence per set I would have to pay two licence fees. If I also have another home somewhere else, and I have a third television set, I would require a third television licence.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation. It would appear, then, that the licensing is in respect of a specific television set. It therefore does not confer on the holder of the licence the right to use any television set. It only confers on him the right to use a specific set. There is also a further set of circumstances I wish to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister. There are people—not only members of Parliament—whose work is of such a nature that it requires them to live in various centres. There are leasing organizations in the country which have an agreement with people to lease a set in the one centre, to take it back immediately they are transferred from that centre to another, and issue a second set in the second centre. What is the position with regard to those people? Is it the television receiver which is licensed or is the listener, the observer, who is licensed? Under those circumstances, will the hon. the Minister consider specifically in the case of leasing, where there is no doubt whatsoever that the persons concerned will only have the use of one set, that they could then operate on one licence and not be compelled to take out two licences? Again I wonder whether I could ask the hon. the Minister to perhaps give this Committee the undertaking this afternoon that he will look into this question where a person will use only one set at a time, to see whether it is really necessary that that person should take out two licences in respect of two sets where he can only use one set at a time. If we compare this with the provisions regarding a radio listener’s licence, one finds that one licence covers any number of sets, a multiplicity of sets and not only one set. It is the person who is licensed as a listener.

Mr. Chairman, let me just furnish the hon. member with a reply quickly. As I have explained to hon. members, the position is that it is a licence per set. Because effect is now being given to that principle in connection with the example quoted by the hon. member a moment ago, for example where a person hires a set for nine months, for six months or 14 days, or whatever the case may be, the position is that the person who is going to lease out the television set pays the licence fee of R36 per year for the set which now belongs to him. If he leases the set to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South for six months, the person who has paid R36 because he is the owner of the set, is entitled to recover on a pro rata basis the rental for the licence for a period of six months from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. This is how it works in practice. The principle, i.e. that the licensing fees are levied per set, is being retained. I am quite prepared to consider the request of the hon. member. We are only in the initial stage in affording the public television—I said this last night—and we shall consider the matters mentioned here to the best of our ability. I shall also, therefore, consider this matter.

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I think it is framed to be of service to members …

Order! No amendment has been moved up to this stage.

I thought the hon. member did move his amendment. In speaking then to the amendment which appears on the Order Paper …

The hon. member has only asked the hon. the Minister a question; he has not spoken to any amendment.

All I want to say is that the amendment seems to be framed to benefit members of Parliament more than it does anybody else that I can think of. I am not sure that we should be framing legislation which is of benefit to members of Parliament. Mr. Chairman, clause 17(3) reads as follows—

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

It seems to me, therefore, that provision is made to issue one licence for more than one television set, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not consider using this clause as an opportunity to make a statement relating to what his intentions are with regard to old-age homes, hotels which have large numbers of rooms and which cater for tourists, hostels and other institutions such as hospitals, nursing homes and even army barracks. Whereas it seems there is the power to issue a single licence for more than one set, the public of South Africa are not clear as to the policy of the department and would like a lead from the Minister, particularly in the light of the very high cost which the public are already being called upon to bear in relation to the introduction of the television service.

Mr. Chairman, I have made the position very very clear and if the hon. member would read that particular clause of the Bill very carefully, he would notice that the only provision made in that particular clause is that an hotel owner can get one piece of paper for 300 television sets, for 250 television sets or whatever number it is, but on that one piece of paper would be stipulated 250 licences of R36 per set. That is the position.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to raise another aspect with the hon. the Minister in connection with a reply he furnished last night in respect of the provision contained in the Schedule dealing with the cancellation of licences. Last night the hon. the Minister told me that everything is now being done in terms of clause 17. Clause 17 deals with the issuing of licences and all I want to ask the hon. the Minister, is whether he could give an indication at this stage as to whether this matter is being dealt with here, or what the case is. The hon. the Minister referred to the deletion of section 14(1) and (2) of the Radio Act and said that his was falling away now since all licences were being issued in terms of section 17 of the Broadcasting Act. I should just like to know whether the hon. the Minister is in a position to give me some indication at this stage, because this relates to something I should like to suggest at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to furnish the hon. member with a reply in this respect. The matter raised by the hon. member is being dealt with in terms of clause 23(1)(b), which reads as follows—

1. (b) the conditions subject to which a listener’s licence or a television licence may be issued.

Provision is being made for cases such as those the hon. member referred to.

Mr. Chairman, I come back to the first point that I made under this particular clause when I put it to the hon. the Minister that it was quite apparent that his intention here was to license the listener’ not the set.

No, nonsense!

The hon. the Minister says “nonsense!” This is exactly what is written here in clause 17(3), which reads as follows—

1. (a) a licence conferring on the holder thereof the right to use … one television set …

If the hon. the Minister will just listen to me, he will see that I do not want to fight with him at all. He has given an undertaking that he will look at this clause. But I want to ask him to look at this particular aspect too, because this can lead to litigation and to trouble in the courts. If I am charged for using a set for which I have no licence and I were to say to the court that I have a piece of paper which entitles me to use a television set, but the fact that I have taken that television set from Cape Town to Durban does not mean that I am still not licensed to use a television set or that I have left one in Cape Town and am using another one in Durban, what would happen? This is the point that I am raising with the hon. the Minister. He has undertaken to have a look at this clause, and I hope that he will look at that particular aspect as well.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask a question. Is the hon. the Minister prepared under this clause to make a statement relating to old-age homes, hospitals, hotels, institutions, nursing homes and army barracks where a situation exists that they have more than one television set, numerous sets in fact? I cannot agree with the hon. the Minister’s interpretation of the words. I think there is a difference between his interpretation of the words and the facts. I think he has the power to issue one licence for numerous television sets, and then later state the terms and conditions he may desire. What I want from the hon. the Minister under this clause is a statement of policy as to his intentions. This is very important, and I shall tell you why. For instance: We as members of Parliament receive representations in the same way that Ministers do and I received a note a little while ago coming from people who are connected with my constituency and who have business interests. The note reads as follows—

Then they go on to say the following—and this is very interesting, because I am not sure whether the hon. the Minister has thought of this—

Now, are these television sets or are they not? And what is the hon. the Minister’s attitude to having organizations, institutions, charitable places, hospitals, which use monitors off a master set which are in fact television sets themselves, but which do not receive directly from the TV aerial? All these things have to be dealt with in the very near future, because there are companies planning their businesses. There are mines that are expanding their services to their workers and hospitals are being built. Therefore I think the hon. the Minister should give us an answer. These people ask further—

In putting this forward I am not trying to be difficult, but I do think the hon. the Minister should give us some sort of answer in order to deal with the problems that are facing people.

Mr. Chairman, to me it is very difficult to say “no”, especially where old-age homes and institutions like that are concerned. However, in this case I have no option. Because of the underlying principles I have mentioned we cannot make exceptions, because at this stage if we start making exceptions, we shall land ourselves in grave difficulties. These licence fees are high—R36. Hon. members know that we shall not have advertisements before 1 January 1978. Therefore, at this stage, however sympathetic I am—I have discussed it with the officials of the SABC, we simply cannot make exceptions at this stage. Please accept it from me. The position is, secondly—as I have explained to the hon. member—that one can issue a licence on one piece of paper covering a number of television sets, but it must be clearly understood that there is to be paid R36 per television set. That is my reply, and there is no question about it, because I have no more power than what I have explained to the hon. member. That is the position with the specific provision in the Bill.

What about monitor sets?

With regard to the monitor sets, the position is exactly the same.

Mr. Chairman, does the hon. the Minister and the SABC regard a monitor set, which cannot receive directly from a SATV aerial, but which receives from a cable from a master set within a particular establishment, as a separate television set which has to be licensed separately? Does the hon. the Minister realize the consequences this will have on business and on all sorts of institutions?

I realize the consequences: It will mean more money for the SABC! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, why does the hon. the Minister differentiate between giving a blanket licence for radio sets, where one can have monitory loudspeakers in all hotel rooms, and not for TV sets?

Because there is a large difference. In the one case one pays R36 for a television licence and in the other case one pays an infinitely lesser amount of money for the radio licence. That is one reason. Secondly, we are dealing with a new medium requiring money and I pointed out last night that the only income of SATV at this stage is from television licences. For these reasons we cannot make exceptions. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Minister does allow advertisements on television will he review the situation with regard to licences?

I have emphasized it all the time that we cannot do it at this stage and I thought that with that I implied that when the time came and the position changed, I would certainly look into the matter again. I have already given that assurance to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North.

Mr. Chairman, can I ask the hon. the Minister—I cannot find myself able to draw the distinction: One can have a television set—let us take a mine in the hon. member for Carletonville’s constituency—which one can then project, through various mechanisms, on to a much wider screen or a number of screens. As I understand the hon. the Minister, what he is saying is that for that one TV set one pays R36. If the mine in his constituency, and I assume the hon. member for Carletonville will agree that it would be a sensible policy, puts a number of monitoring sets in the rooms where the workers live, then that mine will have to pay R36 for every monitor set, as opposed to having a wide screen like a cinema. Is that what the hon. the Minister is telling us? If it is, can he explain the sense behind it? I can see no sense in it at all.

Order! The hon. the Minister need not do it again. He has already done it twice.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18:

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

I hope that after the hon. the Minister’s hard-line stand on “one licence, one set”, “one set, one licence” he might be a little sympathetic to me and my plea. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister of National Education will have a serious discussion with himself in his capacity as Minister of Sport and Recreation. I think that if the hon. the Minister does that he will agree that he could perhaps be a sport and allow some people the recreation that I think they should have in the viewing of TV. I am talking about our less fortunate citizens, such as the aged, the infirm, those who are chronically ill, those who are confined to hospitals or are in charitable and other institutions. It is on their behalf I am making this plea. I am not making the plea in the sense that I am saying that all licences to these institutions should immediately be free. I am making the plea on this premise, namely that the hon. the Minister should seriously consider the addition of these words in order to make provision for this. I am only asking for a provision for free licences to be included in the Bill. It naturally follows that the granting of such licences will still remain the sole prerogative of the corporation. I am not asking that the granting of these licences should necessarily be immediate, but I believe that the machinery for the granting of these licences should be incorporated in the Bill that is before us today. Surely there must be many deserving cases worthy of this consideration, and I will give the hon. the Minister a typical example of this.

The other day I spoke to the hon. the Minister and I told him, through the Speaker, that the Nomads Golf Club had done a tremendous amount of work in accumulating funds in order to donate a number of television sets to such institutions. I do not say that every institution should automatically get a free licence, but I feel that we should have the provision embodied in this Bill in the event of the day coming when the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to considering applications from these institutions. This is what this amendment seeks to do. As the hon. the Minister does not have this power, I am asking him to give himself the power, to give the corporation the power, not for now but for the future. It naturally follows that, should this amendment be accepted, consequential amendments to this clause will follow, but let us deal with first things first. I regret that I cannot agree with the hon. the Minister’s contention in his reply to the submissions I made in the Second Reading to the effect that he cannot consider the free licence provisions firstly because of the enormous amount of money involved in the establishment of television and, secondly, because anyone who can afford a television set, can afford a licence. This is not a matter of anybody who can afford a television set being able to afford a licence. We are talking in terms of people who may be given television sets by charitable organizations that donate these sets to institutions. These institutions can ill afford the price of the licences. I can tell the hon. the Minister of a pensioner who was given a free ticket in a competition with a television set as a prize. This person said that he would love to win it but that he could never afford to keep it. This is a tragedy and I ask that this door be unlocked. It does not have to be opened, just unlocked. Old age and infirmity is a very lonely state and the television is the most wonderful form of entertainment for these people. I am sure that there is not one South African, and I say this with the sincerity I can muster, who will not endorse my words here today. I can never believe that my fellow South Africans, of all shades of political opinion, do not in their heart of hearts agree with me and would not like to see that what I am moving here today, be incorporated in this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlanga has moved the amendment printed in his name on the Order Paper. As his amendment is identical to the first amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, I shall not move my first amendment, but I shall move amendments (2), (3) and (4) which are consequential upon the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlanga.

The hon. member is entitled to move all his amendments.

That is not necessary, Mr. Chairman. I move the other three amendments printed in my name, as follows—

1. (1) On page 17, in line 36, to omit “A listener’s” and to substitute “Any”;
2. (2) on page 17, in line 37, to omit “listener’s”;
3. (3) on page 17, in line 38, after “set” to insert “or television set”.

I shall first put the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlanga.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. the Minister not going to indicate whether he is prepared to accept these amendments or not?

Order! I have already put the first amendment. The hon. the Minister can vote for or against the amendments.

Amendment moved by Mr. B. W. B. Page put and the Committee divided:

AYES—28: 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.; Hughes, T. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B.W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

NOES—79: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; 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.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Koomhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Treumicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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.

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

Amendment negatived, and amendments moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling dropped.

Clause agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.