Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. the Leader of the House, I should like to give an indication of the business of the House for next week. On Monday the Vote of the Minister of Foreign Affairs will come up for discussion, and this will be continued on Tuesday. Immediately after that the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will be discussed. When this discussion has been concluded, the further stages of the Medical University of Southern Africa Bill will be taken. This will be followed by the discussion of the Vote of the Minister of Transport. After the discussion of this Vote, the three Bills appearing on today’s Order Paper as Orders of the Day Nos. 13, 14 and 15, will be dealt with. This ought to bring the House to the end of the week.

Mr. Chairman, we have reached the end of the discussion of this Vote, and I am rising merely to make a few comments on a few matters which are still outstanding, and to furnish replies in so far as these have not been furnished by hon. members on my side of this House who participated in the debate.

Yesterday the hon. the Leader of the Opposition saw fit to refer again to the weak international position in which we allegedly find ourselves at present, particularly at the UNO, in contrast to the sound international position which existed when they were last in power. In the first place, of course, circumstances are not the same. When the United Party was still in power there were only two independent African states apart from Egypt, viz. Liberia and Ethiopia. Other African states only became independent from 1958 onwards. But what was the position in the years 1946, 1947 and 1948, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of the members of the UNO were pro-Western? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware of this, and I have mentioned it before in this House. When Gen. Smuts returned to this Parliament—he was then at the height of his power, his standing and his popularity—and not only to this House but to the congresses of the United Party as well, he painted the most sombre picture imaginable, and not only the most sombre picture imaginable of the treatment he had received at the UNO, of the virulence he had had to endure there, but also the most sombre picture possible of the outside world. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition—I have to remind him of this again—will recall that Gen. Smuts told South Africa from this bench where I am now standing: “In future you stand alone. We must arm ourselves.” Mr. Erasmus, who at that time was sitting on the opposite side, asked him: “Against whom?” His reply was: “The world”. That was the measure of Gen. Smuts’s pessimism. He said that his words had rebounded from a wall of prejudice and that there was no one who was prepared to listen to him, that reason had had no chance of prevailing. That was the picture in 1948. That was the position before the Organization for African Unity and the Afro-Asian bloc existed. If that was the position then, how much more is it not the position now? Therefore the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not have a leg to stand on when he uses that argument. It is not consistent with the facts. On the contrary. The merit of the National Party régime from 1948 onwards lies therein that in the midst of those circumstances, in the face of all the forces which were opposed to it and to South Africa, it has been able to hold the fort as it has in fact done. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot therefore resort to that argument. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then referred to a stockpiling of 70 million bricks.

Eighty million.

Eighty million. What is ten million between friends now, if they are bricks? Whether it is 70 or 80 million, everyone knows that at present there is an oversaturation as far as industrial buildings are concerned. As far as our industrial capacity is concerned, there is an under-utilization. Today bricks are used primarily in residential areas for the construction of dwellings. That is why it is understandable that this is the case. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition tells me that he did not make a mistake when he discussed Swapo. I think that he did. I have stated my standpoint on Swapo repeatedly. Hon. members here, in common with us, quite rightly adopted a standpoint opposed to the division of wealth, to take from one person by means other than the ordinary channels of taxation and distribute it to others, to take peoples’ property and give it to other people. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought to be aware that Swapo issued a statement to the effect that they will confiscate the property of people in South West Africa, that they will deprive people of their property. He must bear that in mind. The hon. member for Yeoville said he thought I should indicate what South Africa would look like in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time. To be able to do that I would have to don the mantle of a prophet, and I have never claimed to possess any gifts of prophecy. There is another hon. member who possesses more of this attribute than I. I do not know what South Africa will look like in future, for we are living in a world which is going to be a difficult one in future. However, I can tell the hon. member what I hope and what I believe South Africa will look like in future. I have already done this on previous occasions.

As far as the Black people are concerned, I believe that various independent Black States will exist in southern Africa, States which will be completely independent of one another politically. There will be no question whatsoever of power sharing, but in the economic sphere these States will co-operate very closely with one another, to the benefit of all.

I believe that the Black states will be developed to an ever-increasing extent, that they have to be developed to an ever-increasing extent, so that they are able to create employment opportunities for their own people. It is the dilemma of Africa—not only of southern Africa, but of the whole of Africa—that for generations to come, in spite of all future development, it will not be in a position to find work for everyone in their own countries, for Africa’s population growth is rapid, more rapid than that of any other area in the world. That is why there are in South Africa today thousands and hundreds of thousands of Black people from other areas outside South Africa who have come to seek employment opportunities here. For as far as one can see into the future Black people from beyond our borders will, from the nature of the case, have to continue to come to seek work in South Africa because they are unable to find work in their own areas. That is why I believe that we should do everything in our power in this regard during the next few years.

This Government has done its duty, and more than its duty, to establish the infrastructure and to encourage economic development in the homeland areas. I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton, who complained about workers having to get up at 04h00 in the morning to get to their places of work, that the same applies to White workers, not only to Black workers. To the PRP I want to say that in common with them I am also concerned about the situation. My party has been concerned about it for years. That was the reason why my predecessor of more than ten years ago introduced the border industry policy, so that workers could live in their homes, could return quickly to their homes at night and did not have to leave their homes so early in the morning. Can the hon. member for Houghton remember—there is nothing wrong with her memory, as we saw again yesterday—how they maligned that policy, how they opposed it, how they adopted the tactics of calling it ideological legislation which the Government had introduced and how they cast so much suspicion on the policy that if it had not been for that, we would have made much further progress? But in spite of their suspicion-mongering, that policy was a success. After we had stabilized this policy, we introduced investments in the homelands. The hon. members for Yeoville and Houghton and other leaders of the PRP—for there are many—must ask themselves what they did to encourage, recommend and popularize that policy. If they had done that we would in this field as well have made further progress today than we have in fact done. But we first had to break down the prejudice and make propaganda to remove the suspicion which they had sown in that regard.

If the hon. member for Yeoville now asks me what South Africa will look like in future, then I say to him that South Africa will look good, provided each one of us, on this side of the House and on that side of the House, pulls his weight in this regard. If the hon. member asks me again what the situation will look like in future, then he will find, if he reads them, that the answer has already been given in the speeches of my predecessor, i.e. that my predecessor predicted—and we see this being verified now—that as the policy of separate development is applied in practice and as it takes shape, better human relations in South Africa will ensue from it of their own accord. If the hon. member asks me what the situation will be in future as far as the human relations aspect is concerned, I say to him that I expect relations to improve consistently in future as every individual finds his place in the sun. In other words, I am not afraid of the future of South Africa. On the contrary. I think South Africa has a bright future, because it has the human material at its disposal and because it has a Government which has laid firm foundations on which the edifice of the future can be built. A Government which, while everyone talks of change, not only talks of change, but introduces it on a well-ordered basis. This is, ultimately, the difference between the hon. members opposite and the hon. members on this side of the House.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me about the Cabinet Committee. The Cabinet Committee, as well as the Cabinet as a whole, gives constant and exhaustive consideration to this matter. Recently, as the hon. the Minister of Justice said, exhaustive consideration has been given to this matter. Each Minister gives constant consideration to those matters which fall under his department to see whether there are things which should be eliminated. I want to make him a present of this argument, for I am mindful of this myself, I have in fact said this, viz. that while one of the bases of the policy of separate development is that we want to eliminate friction and since we have introduced certain measures with this objective as point of departure, one should nevertheless take constant care that these measures do not boomerang and have precisely the opposite effect. This is quite true, and the Government, my colleagues and I, keep in mind that we should take heed of this. In practice the talks will be conducted, as and when they are necessary, by the various Ministers in their departments, and they will make announcements in this regard, as and when these are necessary. Although it is a wide field, the hon. member said that he wanted a “blueprint”. Should I now make a speech, as the hon. member for Sea Point did, and then say it is the policy of the party? One cannot do this in such a manner, for one is not dealing with bricks which one can stack up here and there as one likes. One is dealing with people, and with human relations. All these things have to be taken into consideration. Therefore one can only indicate the general guide-line, which is that this Government is in earnest about eliminating discrimination based solely on colour. But we must always remember that what that hon. member considers to be discrimination I do not necessarily consider to be discrimination, or that what he considers to be non-discrimination those hon. members may in fact consider to be discrimination. It depends on one’s view of the matter. The hon. member for Houghton said it was good that I am holding talks with the Black people, but levelled the reproach at me that I do not listen to them. I am completely satisfied to submit to the judgment of the Black people themselves in this regard. But let me in all fairness, too, tell the hon. member for Houghton that I am not looking for a policy for my party from the Black people. Nor are the Black people looking for a policy for their parties from me. There is the good and sound understanding between myself and them that I make my own policy and they make theirs.

…“and never the twain shall meet.”

We argue about those matters on which we differ. In many cases we find an alternative; in other cases, we do not find an alternative because there are differences in principle between us and them. Sometimes they ask for things I cannot concede to. In that case I have the courage to state frankly to them: “I am sorry, but I cannot concede to this.” No one has ever left my office—and I am glad I have such a record— without being satisfied that I had listened to his case and to his problems with great patience and without having regard to the length of time it took. No one has ever levelled the reproach at me that I do not want to listen to advice or that I refuse to consider it, for I do so regularly. I am saying this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well now, with reference to a preposterous statement he made about me yesterday in connection with what I had said about the Theron Commission. What I said about the Theron Commission I considered necessary to say. I said it because some members of this House, as well as some members of the public, seem to have the idea that I appointed the Theron Commission to look for a policy for me, that that was the principal term of reference of that commission. That is why I considered it necessary to make it clear that that had not been part of my terms of reference to the commission. The hon. member for Piketberg quoted the terms of reference of the Theron Commission to this House.

However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, and I quote (Unrevised Hansard, 21 April 1976, page NN.3)—

Surely the same applies in his case, does it not? [Interjections.] Surely it is the congress of the hon. the Leader that makes his policy, except in so far as he has plenary powers from the congress. I do not have plenary powers from my congress, nor have I ever asked for them.

He has many policymakers. [Interjections.]

Well, I like that! That hon. member will know all there is to know about that, for the adversity he has encountered was because he made his policy too quickly. [Interjections.]

In any event, it was a good policy.

He then, as my children used to say when they were still small, developed a “speed wobble” in the process. [Interjections.] That was his downfall. Mr. Chairman, having said that, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say—

And let me say to him that “in other words” does not mean in my words—

I am stating it now as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself stated it. He added a little piece at the end and said “in other words”, and the “other words” were not my words. Naturally I shall listen to all advice. It is my duty to do so. Whatever the advice of the Theron Commission may be, it will therefore be considered by me and my party. We shall consider it, and if the congress decides that it should constitute our policy, it shall do so. However, if the congress decides that it shall not be the policy, then it shall not do so. This is the case because a political party can never allow itself to be bound by what a group of outsiders, among whom, what is more, there is a leading United Party member in this case, recommends in regard to matters of policy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put a question to me in regard to the Cabinet Council. Without going into details now, I want to reiterate that I am continuing with it. I am doing so because I believe that it will constitute great benefits. Similarly, I am also continuing with the appointment of Coloureds and Indians to various councils and boards. I hope to be able to furnish more particulars in this regard towards the end of this session. That is the reason why I have up to now left the question which was placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Sea Point unanswered. The difficulty I have with him is that he wants to know today what is going to happen tomorrow. As far as this matter is concerned, therefore, I am prepared at all times to receive and to accept advice, and to assess that advice on its merits.

The hon. member for Constantia, with further reference to what the hon. member for Mooi River said about free enterprise, took me to task. Let me say that in regard to what the hon. member for Mooi River said, I shall send him a speech which I made before the Chamber of Industries a few years ago and in which I spoke, in respect of this matter, precisely as the hon. member has now spoken. To my mind the hon. member has made good progress, but he still remains the Agrippa of South African politics. I am sorry for him, but I cannot solve his problem. The hon. member must solve his own problems, in exactly the same way as my hon. friend, the hon. member for Simonstown must do. I can understand it, but his problem is a problem which only he can solve. Apparently the hon. member has given serious thought to political parties, and the best advice I can give him now is what A. G. Visser wrote in a little poem. There is no political party which is perfect. The hon. member may as well take my word for it now. In any event, he has been in politics long enough to know it. A. G. Visser said: “As jy dan nie het wat jy bemin nie, bemin dan wat jy het.” The hon. member will simply have to look around now and then decide where his love will ultimately lie. More than that I am afraid I cannot tell him. But I want to return to the hon. member for Constantia. That hon. member said that the Government was to an ever greater extent adopting the course of socialism. Apparently he drew this inference from the fact that Government spending has increased, in certain proportions. I have it here, but I shall not bore the House with it now. It is true: It has increased, and the hon. member must bear in mind that a vast portion of that increase is due to defence expenditure and other essential spending on infrastructure which simply cannot be deferred in a developing country. What other countries have already done, South Africa still has to do, and will still have to do in the years which lie ahead. Surely the hon. member can understand that if it took us from 1910 to 1965 to install a million telephones in South Africa, and from 1964 to 1975 to install the next million, in other words to do in ten years what we previously did in 54, then surely this has to result in greater spending, also because commodities are far more expensive than they were then.

But it would be a mistake to conclude from that that the Government is following a socialistic course. I have issued the warning on innumerable occasions that South Africa should not allow itself to be enticed into adopting a course which would lead to a welfare state. In common with him I believe in free enterprise, and in common with him I endorse the profit motive. He is attacking me now. He said we had tackled 10, or 12 undertakings which we should not have tackled. I asked him to tell me what undertakings these were, so that I could reply to his allegation, but he said no; he did not have the time. He cannot make a general accusation and then not want to mention specific examples. I take it that what the hon. member had in mind was Sasol, and undertakings of that kind, but surely he knows that we left it to private enterprise to do this, and that they were unable to do it, that they did not want to do it; they did not see their way clear to doing it, and because this is a strategic industry the State had no option but to establish a corporation to do it. But he has not been in politics long enough to know about this. It is for the same reason that the National Party established Iscor, which the United Party says it established. There are certain strategic or essential industries which private enterprise was unable to undertake and which the State was therefore compelled to take over. But I will tell him this: What is more dangerous than the State establishing certain basic industries, is that one powerful financial monopoly should own all the industries. That should also be guarded against. I think the hon. member will know what I am referring to, and I think the PRP will be even better aware of it. One has to weigh all these matters against one another. I have already discussed the “redistribution of wealth”.

The hon. member for Mariental referred to the position of Swapo. This is a matter to which the Government is giving constant consideration. Up to now the Government has on balance decided not to take action, but the Government is watching the situation very carefully and will take action in future with due regard for the best interests which may be served by doing so. I want to say, since I am referring to Swapo and this brings one to South West Africa, that the idea is milling around very persistently in my mind that, since we transferred the administration of Walvis Bay to South West Africa in 1922, we should give very serious consideration in the recess to whether we should not repeal that Act. I am saying this for the simple reason that there are people in South West Africa, and in the outside world in particular, who adopt the standpoint that Walvis Bay belongs to South West Africa. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding whatsoever about this. Walvis Bay belongs to South Africa. At this moment I am saying no more than that this is simply an idea I have. However, it is an idea to which I shall give very serious thought during the recess.

For the rest my standpoint is still that the conference is a matter for the people of South West Africa. My hon. friend asked me, however, why I cannot act in South Africa as I am acting in South West Africa. Surely one cannot place these two on an equal footing with each other. Let us consider only a few of the facets of the situation now. South West Africa has a particular international character. Whatever our standpoint on the mandate may be, and however we may differ in regard to it, the fact remains that South West Africa has a particular international character and that one may not ignore this. Times without number I have had to listen to the reproach that it is the fault of the Government that various peoples are living in various places in South West Africa, although those people have been living there since before the German occupation. My colleagues can confirm that the reproach has also been levelled at us that we are deliberately keeping the people of South West Africa separate and are not affording them an opportunity to become acquainted with one another. I said to Dr. Escher: Very well, if that is the reproach—something which is not true—I shall go out of my way to bring the leaders of South West Africa together, for it is my policy that they should work out their own future. There is one thing I want to make very clear here today. If those leaders have worked out a future for themselves, even if I do not like the way in which they have done so, I shall accept it, for it is their land and their future. South Africa does not want that territory for itself. South Africa makes no claim to it. My friend, the hon. member for Mariental, and my friend Fanie Coetzee, will remember very well that I said years ago at Keetmanshoop that the future of South West Africa would not be worked out in Pretoria or in the glass palace of the UNO, but that it would, as far as the Whites were concerned, be worked out in the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa. I was attacked on that standpoint, but it is the correct standpoint to adopt. I can inform this House today that I have not interfered in the composition, the agenda or the discussions of the conference, not in any way—directly or indirectly.

If I had done so, I would have violated the principle that the people of South West Africa must work out their own future. I cannot state it as my standpoint that South West Africa must work out its own future alone and that I shall not allow the UNO to interfere, if I interfere in that regard myself. Until the peoples of South West Africa tell me that they have worked out their future, however, South Africa regards itself as being responsible for the law and order and security of the people of South West Africa. Therefore South Africa will not hesitate to take action or even to make laws to protect the public peace in South West Africa. There must be no doubt whatsoever about this. For the sake of the record I want to reiterate that South Africa is not there as an occupying power. South Africa is there as an administrative power, until such time as the peoples there decide their own future. As soon as the peoples of South West Africa tell me that they no longer want us there, South Africa will pack its bags and leave. But until that time arrives, South Africa has a task and a duty to fulfil, whatever the UNO may decide.

I come now to the composition of the conference. They themselves decided on a certain modus operandi. That modus operandi is theirs. If they want to bring in other people—whether I like it or whether I do not like it—it is their business. I am not going to interfere with that. I want to state my standpoint in that regard so that there need be no misunderstanding whatsoever about it. Because I believe that the peoples of South West Africa are aware of their responsibility, I do not believe that they will take any foolish decisions for South West Africa. They will have to realize that there is an enormous budget for which they will have to find the funds. They will have to realize that the services which South Africa is rendering there are services which they themselves would otherwise have to render. I believe that they will go about their task in such a way that they will not harm the future possibilities of South West Africa. It is a territory with infinite possibilities, particularly if one is able to provide the territory with water. This will, however, cost an enormous amount of money. Consequently I, personally, believe in the future of South West Africa. I do not believe that the peoples of South West Africa will allow the same situation as the one which arose in Angola to arise in that territory. I also believe that the peoples of South West Africa are alive to the need to ensure that chaos and anarchy do not arise in South West Africa.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that he could understand the situation of the Black people in our political set-up, but what about the Coloureds and the Indians? He spoke of a dilemma in that regard. I compliment myself on having been the first person—it was in 1967 if I remember correctly—to point out that dilemma here in the House of Assembly. I am constantly aware of the fact that that dilemma exists. I have discussed that dilemma openly with the Coloured and Indian leaders and I believe that what I offered them—which part of the Coloured corps of leaders go along with and which the Indian corps of leaders endorse—presents a solution to that dilemma. I say again that I am not in a position to say that it is a solution for all times, for other times may bring other solutions. But I do believe that this is the solution for as far as one can see. I shall strive to find a solution in that regard.

Whatever solution may be found, I am adamant that a particular population group must continue to retain the right to decide its own affairs. It may not allow this to leave its hands. Therefore, I reject power sharing, and what is implicit in the policy of the hon. members on the opposite side as they proclaim it.

The hon. member for Hillbrow said that I owe him an apology. It took him a long time to bring it to my attention, but according to the evidence which he submitted, it is true. Consequently I give it to him gladly, for it is his due. I do not want to owe anyone anything, if I can help it. But the hon. member also said that I had made an unfair attack on him in regard to what he had said about my visit to Israel. I was not unfair to the hon. member. To tell the truth, I spared him, for what the hon. member himself said in this House made his case so much worse. What did the hon. member say? I am quoting from the unrevised version of the speech he made yesterday (Hansard Manuscript GG. 1)—

The question which now arises is precisely what the hon. member said at the time. One must remember that the hon. member is no longer a backbencher who can say irresponsible things about Malawi; he has made progress in the meantime and, has become a frontbencher. Consequently he is a person who has to be very careful when he expresses opinions on delicate matters. What did he say the circumstances were under which he did that? I quote further on page GG. 2—

Now what did the hon. member say according to the report? I am going to read the entire report—

He was then quoted as follows—

Why did the hon. member say that?

Is that how he welcomes this? He went on to say—

Is that the Rand Daily Mail report?

Yes.

The Cape Times gave far more; the whole thing.

I did not see The Cape Times; I saw the Rand Daily Mail report, and this is what is bruited abroad. There is nothing of a welcoming nature in this report. On the contrary. It is a questioning of the entire matter. It is a snide comment on the whole business. This is how the hon. member welcomed it. What I take amiss of the hon. member as frontbencher is that although he said that it was late in the evening and he did not have the particulars at his disposal, he nevertheless reacted. Why did he not tell the reporters that he did not have the text in front of him? Surely he could have told them that it was already late in the evening, that it was a delicate matter and that he would consequently prefer to wait until he had the full text in front of him. Surely these things are so delicate that one cannot rely on one’s prophetic gifts … [Interjections.] … but has to have the facts in front of one before commenting on matters of this kind. I do not think that the hon. member did either South Africa or Israel a service by making this kind of comment public.

This brings me, I think, to the end of my reply. I want to express my appreciation to hon. members for the spirit in which the debate as a whole has been conducted. I think—and I am being very candid when I say this—that contributions were made which had no place in the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote. I think that many other matters which were not raised could have been raised. Since these matters have not been raised, I therefore have no opportunity now to reply to the misgivings of hon. members in that regard.

Before I conclude, I want to point out that I believe that all of us realize—I realized this when I presented my New Year message—that 1976 will be a watershed year for South Africa. I am being very candid when I confess to hon. members today that I do not envy myself the task which will rest on my shoulders in future. It will be a difficult one and a far from easy one. However, I am convinced that in spite of those difficulties and problems, the future of South Africa is assured, that the people of South Africa are of the right calibre to face these problems and problem-situations and that South Africa itself has the potential to become a great country, an unshakeable country. I believe that in spite of the rumblings which are being heard in Southern Africa, people in the outside world, in common with us, have sufficient confidence in the future of South Africa. I do not think there is a single reason for anyone to become panic-stricken in future or to have doubts about the future of South Africa. But this requires that all of us play our part. With all due respect to my friend, the hon. member for Yeoville, I want to say that we shall not achieve that object with a military parade on 31 May; we shall only achieve it with the will of all our people to defend South Africa in every possible sphere. I do not think I am doing the hon. member for Yeoville an injustice when I say that he did not want to vote against the amendment I moved to the motion of no confidence. I know he did not; I was here in my bench. Everything in him rebelled against that. That is the impression that I, and other people as well, had. I want to tell him that South Africa’s interests go further than the particular interests of any of our parties.

I believe that in the months which lie ahead a spirit of solidarity will develop between Afrikaans-and English-speaking people, between Whites and non-Whites, a solidarity such as we have never seen in South Africa before. That is why I am not afraid of the future.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is purely and exclusively a consolidation measure of existing legislation. The amendments which had to be effected to it were made in the Bill the hon. the Deputy Minister piloted through this House earlier this year. All that is happening now, is that it is being combined in this consolidation measure. The legislation was submitted to the legal advisers and they certified that it is purely a consolidation measure. For that reason I hope this House will agree to this measure without discussion.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House I want to say that we welcome this Bill. It is high time that the Bill be consolidated. I believe that this measure is of importance to both the provinces and all other interested parties. As far as I can see, the Act has been drafted in an excellent manner and will facilitate matters for everyone. I welcome the announcement made by the hon. the Minister that he received a certificate from the legal advisers and that it is not necessary for the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee. We therefore support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as has been stated, no new principles are contained in the Bill at all. In the circumstances, no debate is really allowed on this measure and I am sure the hon. the Minister will be grateful to hear that we shall support all stages of this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Wine, Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act has been amended quite a number of times during the past ten years. A great many of these amendments were effected for the purpose of simplifying the implementation of the Act, or were caused by technological progress. However, most of the statutory amendments arose as a result of the changing requirements of the wine industry and are characteristic of the growth which is constantly experienced by this progressive branch of the agricultural industry. The amendment which is being submitted to this House for consideration today, is aimed at the regulation of the affairs relating to the industry and enjoys the support of all sectors of the liquor industry.

The Bill contains a number of provisions to regulate the labelling of liquor. This includes the arrangement of the use of certain names for liquor and the manner in which particulars have to be furnished on labels. These provisions are aimed for the most part at preventing deception and misrepresentations. In addition, it is being envisaged that these provisions will also apply to other fermented liquor and not only to wine and spirits as is the case at present.

At present authority to sell special wine of a particular quality, has to be granted by the Minister. However, the Wine and Spirits Board exercises physical control over its production. I therefore propose that this board should also take over the control over this matter.

Since its inception in 1972 the system of Wine of Origin has made a considerable contribution to making the public aware of the character of wine, the noble product of the vine. The time is now ripe for the closer demarcation of areas. This will lead to the encouragement of the production of a larger variety of wines with the specific and distinguishable characteristics of each area. Experience gained over the course of centuries overseas confirms that the utilization of particulars obtained on a scientific basis regarding soil, climatic, geographical and other characteristics of areas, makes it possible for areas to be demarcated in the most meaningful manner. Such areas will necessarily differ and for this reason various norms will be essential in the consideration of these characteristics, as well as various requirements for the production of the particular wine of every area. For that reason authority is being asked to make provision for such differences.

†Measures are also proposed to provide provisional protection for the names of estates of prospective estate wine producers. This is necessary because, unlike any other agricultural product, great value is attached to names used to indicate the origin of wines. The names of such estates can at present be used arbitrarily as trade names for commercial wines without consideration for the sentiments of the owners thereof. I wish to assure users of trade marks which were registered prior to the establishment of the system of Wine of Origin that, provided it is in the general interest of the wine industry, their rights will not be affected detrimentally by the application of this provision.

At present no provision is made in the Act to control liquor imported for private consumption. Differentiation between imports for private consumption and those for purposes of trade, is not justified. Both categories are at present, for practical reasons, being subjected to the same control. The Bill, accordingly, provides for the abolition of the existing distinction.

In my opinion the amendments contained in this Bill will benefit both the South African wine farmer and the liquor industry and will simplify the administration of the Act.

Mr. Speaker, as far as I can recall, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture introduces legislation of this nature every year, legislation to amend the original Act of 1975. I agree with him that more improvements are effected every year. The background against which the improvements are made is, as the hon. gentleman correctly said, the changes which take place in the technological sphere in the wine industry, which in their turn, again necessitated changes in the Act. The wine industry is undoubtedly an industry which does not stand still, but grows continually. Attempts are made to bring the standards which we in South Africa maintain in respect of wine, brandy and other fermented beverages and spirits, more or less into line with the standards abroad. There is a continual improvement. The Wine and Spirits Board in South Africa plays a major role in continually improving the standard.

However, what amazes me, is that we have amendments at regular intervals. I wonder whether the time has not arrived for the legislation to be consolidated at one stage or another. The legislation is of a highly technical nature. It is not merely agricultural legislation. One must have, inter alia, a very thorough knowledge of how liquor is prepared and how liqueurs and malt whisky are produced. A major portion of the agricultural industry is geared to doing just this. The wine industry, however, is of a far more scientific and far more technical nature. In this connection I should like to refer to clause 6, which amends the original section 8. There are definitions of, for example, malt whisky or liqueur. One wonders whether it is not necessary for these changes of the terms to be defined by means of regulation. I should like to quote from clause 6 to indicate the change in respect of the term malt whisky. On page 9 it is stated—

Previously the term “compound esters” was used, but now the term “volatile esters” is used. I only know of volatile “sisters”.

And fast “sisters”!

Yes, and fast “sisters”. Hon. members may do well to listen to the constituents this must contain—

1. (a) volatile esters, calculated as ethyl acetate, not less than 45 grammes per 100 000 millilitres of absolute alcohol.

I am not going to embarrass the hon. the Minister by asking him to explain to us what this means.

Never mind, I am able to explain it to the hon. member.

Yes, the hon. the Minister would probably be able to furnish the technical explanation. This kind of definition however, is changed continually, just as the technological processes of improving malt whisky, change. I do not object, for example, to the term “year of production” being changed to “vintage year”. The term “vintage year” is an acceptable change. Changes of this nature are obvious and necessary. However, when it comes to highly technical points, they may just as well be defined from time to time by means of regulations. We must have a uniform piece of legislation in respect of wine, other fermented beverages and spirits which, as I believe, should be more meaningful to us in Parliament when we deal with it from time to time.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I think that the majority of these changes are good ones. They are quite essential, and therefore we shall not object to them. The change of “area” to “area of production” is also a very good suggestion. Clause 12 provides that anyone who applies for the registration of a name of a certain estate wine, can have that name registered provisionally until such time that proper consideration can be given to that name. The applicant is therefore enabled to peg out a claim, as it were, as far as that name is concerned. I think this is a fine suggestion, and therefore I welcome it.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Opposition supports this amending Bill. I do not want to take up the House’s time unnecessarily, but there are a few minor matters which I should like to raise. The hon. member for Newton Park said that the Act is patched up a little every year. That is true; the Act already looks like a patchwork quilt. However, one probably has to accept that we are dealing here with an Act which concerns a very delicate product. Therefore the Bill is probably rather delicate too. One must therefore accept that the amendments which are effected from time to time, are made after very thorough consideration.

I should like to refer to labelling. It is naturally very important that we should look carefully at the label on a bottle, because in any event most of us more often judge the contents of the bottle according to the label and not according to what is actually in the bottle. This is unfortunately the case, and I hope that this will improve in time.

There is another amusing aspect in respect of the provisions of the amending Bill. Provision is being made for containers with contents of less than 25 litres and it is provided that they be provided with very clear labels, that these should be legible, and so on. But when a container has contents of more than 25 litres, we do not worry about it. In other words—and I say this lightly—if one wants to swindle people with wine, one must do it on a large scale and not on a small scale.

I also want to say something concerning the term “vintage year”. I am very pleased that we are substituting this term with “year of production” as far as wine is concerned. However, I have my doubts because spirits are also included in this. It is very difficult to speak of a “vintage year” in respect of spirits. It can easily happen that, for example, a cellar produces wine in 1974 which it cannot sell in 1974 or 1975. This wine may then be distilled into spirits in 1976. What does one call it then? One can no longer speak of a vintage year; one will have to speak of a year of production in respect of the brandy. However, it is probably the case that, at this stage, we do not yet have a system of the certifying of certain kinds of brandy as we have in the case of wine. I am therefore prepared to accept the provision provisionally. In my opinion, however, we shall have problems in future, and shall have to add another patch to the Act. We shall have to bear in mind that, in this connection, we shall probably have to effect an amendment at a later stage. Perhaps this can be done when re-writing the Act, as the hon. member for Newton Party requests. The term “area of production” is very important, because the varieties of wine grapes differ immensely from one area to another. It is a good thing that we are narrowing the field a little and speak of “areas of production” and not only of areas in general.

“Intappery” is referred to on page 16, but what is really meant is bottling. I refer hon. members to clause 13(1)(a)(i) on page 17—

In the English text the term “bottling” is used. In the rest of the clause reference is made to wine which is “bottled”. I can accept that today one probably deals with containers, which are not necessarily bottles, but I nevertheless find it strange that we refer to “intappery” (“bottling”) at this one instance in the whole of the legislation. However, I think it is a very pleasant word. My farm labourers also say “Sir, a little of the drought wine.” This is a very fine word which can be embodied in the legislation, but then we must be consistent and not refer to “intappery” in one place and to “bottelering” further on.

Another point I should like to mention, is the question of the clearance of wine from the customs when it goes to Heads of State. I think the Heads of State and members of the diplomatic corps will certainly welcome getting their drinks a little sooner. It is therefore a privilege for me to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the debate is showing dangerous signs of becoming somewhat technical. I would like to avoid the technicalities of the Wine, Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Amendment Bill. As an expert in this field, if not in the origin or manufacture of the product, then certainly in the expeditious, efficient and pleasurable disposal of the product, I think it would be very churlish of me to oppose this Bill. I therefore welcome and support this measure which enhances and improves the quality and the quantity of the production of this industry. Having heard the most expert advice of the hon. member for Newton Park and the hon. member for Malmesbury, I would like to say that we are quite prepared to be guided by these experts in this field and therefore we shall support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Newton Park, because I wholeheartedly agree with him that the time has come for this Act to be consolidated. The hon. member referred to clause 6 in which there are certain anomalies, things one does not understand—malt whisky, for example. One of the changes in clause 6, to quote an example, is concerned with the fact that no liqueur in the Republic may be whisky-based. We have always regarded Drambuie as a liqueur, but in fact it is whisky-based. In other words, Drambuie was actually on the market illegally. Through this legislation this is now legalized.

You found out rather late, didn’t you?

Yes, we found it out late, but as I have said, there is so much minor technical detail in this legislation that I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member for Newton Park that we should undertake a consolidation at some time, or other. The hon. member for Malmesbury is quite correct. The question can be asked why there is reference to “intappery” in one case, and to “bottelering” elsewhere. Sometimes we have bottles, and sometimes larger containers of, for example, 25 litres. I do not want the hon. member to say that we must patch it up again. We should rather consolidate the whole Act. I also want to thank the hon. member for Sandton for his contribution. Since three speakers were so kind as to support me in this legislation, I undertake to deliver a bottle of Cabernet to each of them on Monday morning. [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, as this side of the House would like to earn something more on Monday, I should just like to say that we have no objection to the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, if there is anything in it, I think we should record our support of the Third Reading too! [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The aim of this Bill is to amend the Wine and Spirit Control Act of 1970 in order to regulate the quantity of wine grapes purchased annually from winegrowers by the wine-producing wholesale trade.

The historical development of the wine industry in South Africa has resulted in wine farmers and the wholesale trade limiting their activities to more or less well-defined spheres. Whereas the winegrower has for the most part confined himself to viniculture and the pressing of grapes and has undertaken the making of wine individually or on a co-operative basis together with other farmers, the wholesale trade, on the other hand, has confined itself primarily to the further processing and mixing of wines to prepare them for the market, and has concentrated on the subsequent marketing of wine. As a rule the wholesale trade has not purchased grapes from winegrowers in order to press them and process them further itself. In any event, certain legal provisions, too, have made it unprofitable for winegrowers to sell grapes for the making of quality wine direct to the trade, because in the case of such sales, winegrowers could only get the equivalent of the distilling wine price for the grapes. However there is no price penalty when a winegrower buys grapes from another winegrower for the making of quality wine.

Over the past few years, however, the trade has begun to adopt the practice of purchasing grapes from wine farmers through associated farming companies. In this way it has been able to ensure that the higher price it has been prepared to pay for grapes is passed on to the winegrowers. This, in turn, persuaded certain winegrowers to sell their grapes direct to the trade. As purchases by the trade increased, winegrowers who were organized on a co-operative basis began to see in this phenomenon a threat to the economic survival of their co-operative cellars, in which they had invested a great deal of capital over a number of years. The purchase of grapes necessarily involves the construction of wine pressing cellars by the trade, and according to these producers this amounts to uneconomic duplication of already existing and adequate facilities. According to them this is not to the benefit of the wine trade. On the other hand, the producing wholesale traders argue that purchases of grapes are essential to them because they want to ensure in this way that they will obtain part of their requirements as regards quality wine in order by so doing to maintain and extend their market in these wines. Apparently there is a fear that the co-operative cellars will bottle their best wines themselves and market them direct.

As a temporary measure the Act was amended in 1974 to provide that during the period ending 31 January 1977, winegrowers could get the full price for grapes sold direct to the trade for the production of quality wine. The idea was that the KWV and the trade would negotiate in the meantime with a view to coming to a satisfactory arrangement for the future in this regard. However, the two parties failed to come to an agreement and since the mentioned temporary arrangement was due to expire early next year, I was forced to appoint an inter-departmental committee with the commission to carry out a thorough investigation the problem. This committee came across no malpractices with regard to the purchase of grapes by the wine-producing wholesale trade. However, it did report that although the fear on the part of both parties that their interests would be prejudiced was not entirely substantiated, and was perhaps somewhat exaggerated, nevertheless it was desirable to consider regulatory measures. The committee was particularly concerned about the fact that such purchase of grapes caused unrest in the industry which could prejudice the sound co-operation between the various sectors. However, in the opinion of the committee a general prohibition of the purchase of grapes by the producing wholesale trade was not justified and it therefore recommends that the trade be authorized to purchase grapes but that in future it must do so in its own name, viz. not through associated farming companies, and that the purchases be regulated in such a way that they do not increase excessively and in an uncontrolled way.

In accordance with the recommendation of the committee the Bill provides for the proposed regulation of purchases of grapes by the trade. To be specific, it is proposed that the Minister of Agriculture be empowered to determine, at his discretion, the quantity of grapes which may be acquired by the producing wholesale trade in any specific year. The quantity will only be fixed by the Minister after he has been requested to do so by the KWV and after he has consulted with other interested parties. The Bill further provides that the KWV must allocate the quantity fixed by the Minister to the various producing wholesale traders on a basis prescribed by the Minister by regulation. Such trader is prohibited by law from acquiring a larger quantity of grapes than the quantity he is allocated during the year in question.

In conclusion, I want to point out that the KWV and the Cape Wine and Spirit Institute have been duly consulted in connection with the introduction of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, when the previous Bill, which also concerned wine, was dealt with, a few bottles of Cabernet were at stake. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that a few bottles will not help him this time. In this case we have a very interesting amendment.

Are you the chairman of the wine group?

The hon. member need not concern himself about the question whether I am able to deal with the matter of wine. I have both knowledge and experience of wine. Apparently the hon. member has experience only. [Interjections.] The speech which the hon. the Minister made, clearly indicated a quarrel between the KWV and the wine cellars on the one hand and the wine trade on the other hand. It is a pity that the hon. the Minister did not try to employ a different method to resolve the quarrel. All he had to do as the man who is in charge, was to get the two bodies together, the KWV and the wine cellars which are both representative of the producers on the one hand, and the trade with its own association on the other hand. He should have told these two bodies to iron out their affairs. In that case there would have been no need to introduce legislation in this regard. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister did not make an attempt of this kind. In any event, when one weighs up the case of the two parties, there is very little to choose between the two. In fact, as far as I am concerned, they are on a par, and consequently I cannot believe that the hon. the Minister was unable to do something in this regard so as to have the matter settled outside this House.

What is the background against which the quarrel must be seen? It is very simple. The hon. the Minister referred to the development which, broadly seen, had taken place on two levels over the years—on the one hand the winegrower who produced wine, and on the other, the wine dealer who marketed the wine. However, it was not such a clear division as this. Over the years the practice has developed of the winegrower not only making the wine but also marketing the wine, and in this way made inroads into the sphere of the dealer. The wine dealer on the other hand, has been buying grapes and making wine and in this made inroads into the sphere of the grower.

The dealers have also been buying farms.

The dealers bought farms through their wine producing companies. However, this is not a new practice; it is an old one. Now the situation has arisen that the hon. the Minister has submitted a restricting and regulating measure to this House, one which merely deals with the inroads in respect of the wine dealer. One may expect the wine trade to feel unhappy about the matter and to have objections to this state of affairs. Actually the hon. the Minister is correct. That part of the Crafford Report to which one has had access, spells out very clearly that the fears which the trade as well as the wine producers have, are in fact groundless or exaggerated. The question which comes to mind is whether it is necessary to change the Act because of a matter of this nature.

We on this side of the House find that there is little to be said in favour of either of the two sides of the matter. The hon. the Minister said very clearly that no proof whatsoever existed of the dealers constituting a threat at this stage as far as the purchasing of grapes was concerned. In fact, the co-operative societies themselves obtained more of the noble grape varieties to make their own wines. What is more; it is a fact that one will be able to get a situation where it will be possible to obtain control over the quality grape varieties only if there is a shortage of that grape variety. I think the hon. the Minister should make a point of telling the KWV that they should encourage farmers to plant more of the grape varieties of which top quality wines are made. This will result in a drop in the prices of these products and this will be to the advantage of the consumer as well. As the situation is at the moment, I believe that there is little to be said in favour of either of the two sides of the matter, except that the hon. the Minister has done nothing to eliminate the fears of the wine trade, whilst he has in fact tried to do something to eliminate the fears of the winegrowers.

After evaluating the matter with due regard to all aspects, and also taking into consideration the fact, as stated in the Crafford Report, that the fears of the trade were perhaps more exaggerated than those of the winegrower, I believe that the hon. the Minister is perhaps taking a wise step by placing himself in a position of being the arbitrator.

They may make representations to him.

The trade may make representations to him, but the hon. the Minister will now be able to decide to what extent the trade may purchase grapes; whether they may purchase larger or smaller quantities. However, he will have to approach this position of being the arbitrator with the greatest of circumspection. He will also have to ascertain at all times that neither the farmer nor the wine trade is affected detrimentally since both these entities are vital links in the production and the marketing of wine.

I think that the hon. the Minister will be satisfied when I tell him that we on this side of the House will support the Bill, but he must expect that he will possibly, receive representations from the trade in future to keep the matter balanced, and he must also expect that he will probably have to contend with bigger problems in future. He must realize that the wine trade will not sit with its eyes closed while inroads are being made by the producer into its sphere of marketing. Therefore I want to conclude by saying that the whole matter could have been settled very easily if the hon. the Minister were to have said to the KWV, “You know your business and the trade knows its business. Get together and iron the matter out and do not come to me and ask me to take controlling or regulatory measures on my shoulders.” With these few words I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we, on this side of the House, support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some measure of interest to the hon. member for Maitland in order to find out whether he was for or against this piece of legislation. I must say that he veered very manifestly between being for it and being against it. He changed his mind as he went along, but eventually decided he was actually for this piece of legislation. Sir, I do not expect to receive a bottle of wine from the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for what I am going to say here. I have no farming interests and I have no alcoholic interest in the broadest sense of the term either. As I have no liquor interests, I do not pretend to be an expert either on the production or on the consumption of wine. However, what I do want to say is that there is a principle at stake in this piece of legislation, a principle with which—and I say it with regret—we cannot agree, i.e. State interference in everything that goes on in this country. If the hon. the Minister of Agriculture were to have said in his Second Reading speech: “As far as we are concerned, the public is being prejudiced, the farmers are being prejudiced, the co-operatives are being prejudiced, or the liquor dealers are being prejudiced”, I would have been able to understand his saying: “The final decision in respect of the quantities has to be made by me, because somebody is being prejudiced.” However, his very speech indicated that not only was nobody being prejudiced, but also that he had appointed an interdepartmental committee in terms of which it has been found that in the circumstances, no single case of a winegrower being denied access to a co-operative has been established. According to the hon. the Minister not a single case of prejudice has been established. On the contrary, he said fears were greatly exaggerated. Why then is there a need for State interference? Is it just another example of the ever-increasing interference by the State in the free enterprise system? To that the hon. the Minister has not replied; he has not said a word about it.

I am really amazed that the hon. member for Maitland could perform such an egg dance— now being for it, then being against it, and then finally not knowing what it was all about anyhow. That hon. member and his fellow party members have been speaking about defending free enterprise. The hon. member for Constantia waxes so lyrical about it, but at the very first opportunity of deciding whether there should be more State interference or not, the official Opposition decides to vote in favour of it. I cannot understand what this is all about.

Is the interference mandatory?

Sir, I hope that hon. member has read the Bill. According to the Bill the hon. the Minister considers the recommendation by the “vereniging”, as well as any objections that are lodged. Subsequently, the hon. the Minister fixes a maximum quantity, as contemplated. Why does he have to interfere at all? This is a free enterprise economy, as the hon. the Prime Minister has also told us. Yet, at every opportunity free enterprise is being abused and we find departments of State increasingly poking their noses into the affairs of other people. The hon. the Minister whose nose is admittedly within bounds, should nevertheless keep it out of things in which it is not necessary for him to interfere.

No case has been made out here for any form of Government interference. No case has been made out for any abuse that exists in these circumstances. Nobody who believes in a free enterprise system will be able to vote for this measure at this stage. If the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is going to run short of bottles of wine, it may be necessary for someone to give him a bottle of wine in order to persuade him to withdraw this legislation and to apply his mind to it anew.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Yeoville displayed his ignorance of this matter this morning. When he refers to State interference here, he is making a mistake, because this legislation is being introduced here on behalf of and for the benefit of and in the interests of more than 7 000 viniculturists who are worried about certain tendencies which have developed over the years. I do not think the hon. member for Yeoville has done justice to his thinking this morning. If he knew the industry and its problems, and if he was aware of the complications that arise, I do not think he would have made this reprehensible statement this morning. Sir, looking at the graph of the wine industry over the years, the production and stability graphs, you will note that over the years these graphs have oscillated tremendously. At times these graphs have dropped sharply, particularly the stability graph. It is for that very reason that the wine industry organized itself into co-operatives. Sir, this morning I am speaking on behalf of 68 co-operatives into which the 7 300 viniculturists have organized themselves, because these people felt that there was a threat. A clear dividing line has been imposed over the years specifically as a result of this drop in the stability graph. To be specific, there had to be those in the industry who produced and those who marketed the product. There was a clear dividing line between the primary producer and his functions and the wine-processing wholesale trader and his functions, and that is why there was concern. I am not going to trouble you with a great many examples. I merely want to quote one case. The purchase of grapes is one facet, but the take-over of this function can result in distillation and in the amalgamation of certain wine producers, and this could be to the detriment of the spirit of the organized co-operatives.

Sir, let me just motivate briefly why I strongly support this Bill. I just want to tell the hon. member for Maitland in passing that I do not know how good an authority he is on the wine industry. He himself was connected with the KWV in former years, but he must not come and tell me today that the viniculturist does not lie awake at night wondering which cultivar to plant. Sir, it is not like tomatoes, where one plants a plant and if it is not a good one, one pulls it out and replaces it. This is a long-term industry. A farmer cannot simply decide to replace his French grapes or his hanepoot or hermitage in order to have better quality. Thousands of rands per morgen are invested by the wine grower, and it is impossible to change that investment of thousands of rands on the spur of the moment, and throw away his vines in order to see whether he can plant something better the following week. That is not what happens.

But who said it was?

The hon. member for Maitland stated here that the farmers should consider planting better qualtities. There was a time when the viniculturists called themselves grape farmers, but for the last few years they have been calling themselves winegrowers because they have begun to take an interest in the quality of their product. I want to say that over the last few years our cellars have grown tremendously owing to the capital they have invested in them, the modernization and mechanization and the appointment of experts in the process of wine-making in every cellar. The people appointed there are not just ordinary men; they are trained people, and since we are talking about quality I want to tell you, Sir, that many of our cellars today produce the same good quality wine as the wholesale traders, which are wine-processing bodies. I want to say that the one reason for my support of the legislation is the fact that we do not want duplication in the processing of wine. Very heavy expenses have been incurred by cellars and millions of rands have been invested in the processing of our wines and in the production of good wine, quality wine, and for that reason it is unnecessary for other people, too, to spend money on this on a large scale. Let me give an example here. The wine-processing wholesale traders purchase the grapes from the producer at fantastic prices. The wholesale trader might pay R350 per metric ton for grapes. He then processes the ton of grapes and gets R1 880 for the wine at R2 per bottle. Taking into account the fact that processing costs must be added, he is operating on a margin of profit of 437%. We therefore feel that it is unnecessary for him to make a capital investment because the cellar has already made that capital investment. We want to eliminate the duplication of pressing expenses and processing.

I now want to conclude by thanking the hon. the Minister for having listened here, as a farmer and a member of a co-operative, to the request made by the KWV, which is the mouthpiece of 7 300 wine growers. When this matter was being dealt with, the chairman of the KWV had the following to say about the purchase of grapes by wine-processing wholesale traders—

Here it is a question of the spirit of the co-operatives and the fact that the farmer and the co-operative can produce quality wines. We are opposed to the high expenses for the consumer as a result of the high production and processing costs for the wine-processing wholesale trader.

Mr. Speaker, I shall reply very quickly to the questions put to me. I think the hon. member for Maitland had good reason to ask certain questions. I want to give the hon. member for Yeoville the assurance that I am not in favour of State interference in any free economy, especially not as far as agriculture is concerned. However, this is an altogether different situation.

*The hon. member for Yeoville will remember that the legislation relating to the KWV provides, inter alia, that in view of greater state interference the KWV may not sell any liquor south of the Sahara. In this country of ours there were 24 liquor traders; today there are four, two of which are giants. There are 70 co-operative wine cellars, constructed at enormous expense by 7 300 farmers. They begin to press the wine in the traditional way and they then deliver it to the KWV and the trade. I want hon. members to be very clear on one point. Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery, as one of the very biggest makers and distributors of top-quality wines, has done the wine industry in this country the greatest possible favour. Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery put top-quality wines on the market. Today, if one goes to a Transvaal maize farm, one will find the farmer drinking red wine instead of brandy or whisky. Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery brought top-quality wines to the attention of the public and I therefore regard Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery as a friend of the farmer. The liquor traders, too, with all their advertising campaigns, are the last people I would want to hurt. But now we find that suddenly they are stockpiling wine. As the hon. member for Worcester rightly said, they are paying up to R300 per ton for grapes, because wine is a sought-after beverage which they have helped to popularize.

It is a question of competition, too.

Yes, it is also a question of competition, but whereas there are already 70 co-operative cellars, these people are constructing even more cellars. I want to state clearly here that nothing is being taken away from these people and that we are going to impose no restrictions. We only wish to regulate. Last year they bought up 25 000 tons of grapes. Say, for example, they were to come along next year and say that they had created a market for 35 000 tons, we would accept that, but it would have to be regulated in such a way that the actions of existing co-operative cellars which are controlled by law could be protected so as to prevent the cellars eventually being saddled with a large number of facilities because the trade across the road had created the same facilities.

I do not like to interfere. Now the farmer who has received that R300 agrees, through his co-operative, that this is an unhealthy state of affairs, because one of these days it will be found that a surplus will occur. They will then say that they are no longer interested in the product in question. The manufacturer of the product is then simply left in the lurch. Consequently control must be exercised. I think the hon. member for Maitland had a right to put certain questions. I believe that we must take cognizance of them. The hon. the Prime Minister has just made me realize that he does not believe that the hon. member for Yeoville is stupid. The hon. the Prime Minister thinks the hon. member is intelligent. I do not want the hon. member for Yeoville to think I am so stupid as to want to make a mess of the wine industry. I should like to regulate it. That is what I want to do.

The hon. the Prime Minister did not say that you were not stupid.

That is true, but the hon. member thinks I am. The hon. member must understand that we want to regulate; we do not want to restrict. We see how matters are developing in practice. We shall review the matter from time to time and I shall be very sympathetic to the trade.

The managing directors of all the liquor trade groups consulted me before the Bill was introduced. At the time I informed them that the winegrower was just as concerned as they were. Both the traders and the farmers are my clients and I do not want to hurt either of them, because the one needs the other. I can give the hon. member the assurance that in practice, problems will not occur in the sense that there will be restrictions. I am not a socialist and I do not want to interfere in our free economy. I do not believe that the hon. member need be concerned. We can discuss the matter again in a year or two, and the hon. member will see then that I am right. Does the hon. member know what is at stake? Only 2% of our grape purchases. Quality wines comprise only 2% of our wine industry. However, this can escalate and in time create a problem for us. I ask the hon. member to have confidence in my assurance that we are not making a mistake here.

Question agreed to (Progressive Reform Party dissenting.)

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very brief for obvious reasons. The whole of the argument which the hon. the Minister of Agriculture has put forward in reply to me in the Second Reading debate, makes it very clear that this legislation is not necessary. The simple point which I think the hon. the Minister has not dealt with, is that if the problem is so small and if it has not yet been created, why then legislate and why make him the arbitrator in the end. This is the crucial point in the whole issue: Where the free enterprise mechanism is working without doing any harm, there is no need for legislation. If we were to introduce legislation of this nature in spheres unrelated to the wine industry, I think we would have the Statute Book full of things dealing with potential problems which may arise. With great respect to the hon. the Minister, he has not made out a case for this. I believe that this legislation is another interference with the free enterprise system in South Africa. Those who believe in the free enterprise system and think they should safeguard it, must be heard at a time when there are, in fact, inroads made into it. This is such a time where those who believe in free enterprise should be heard.

Question agreed to (Progressive Reform Party dissenting.)

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be comparatively brief in regard to this legislation because my party is not going to oppose it. In fact, we are supporting the Second Reading of the Bill. However, there are certain questions which we should like to ask the hon. the Minister. It is a very short Bill; it only has three clauses. As we understand clause 1, the hon. the Minister is now seeking to enlarge the board from six to seven members since he wants to have the Secretary for Industries or his deputy to be a member. Previously there were a representative of the TCOA, a representative of the Natal Coal Owners’ Association and a third member who, in the words of the principal Act, had to have a special knowledge of coal. There was also a representative of the CSIR. There was no mention as to what attributes the remaining two members had to have. Because I have no knowledge as to whom were appointed to be the fifth and sixth members of the board, I should be glad if the hon. the Minister could enlighten me when he replies to the debate. I would presume that because three members constituted a quorum, the hon. the Minister did split the membership of the board into three members representing the Government and three members representing the coal-mining industry. If my presumption is correct, then obviously he is now tilting the balance by inserting a provision in the Bill that either the Secretary for Industries or his deputy should be a member of the board, because he will then have four members representing the Government as opposed to three representing the industry; that is, if one assumes that the person with a special knowledge of coal is representing the industry. This amendment may, of course, be connected with the report of the Petrick Commission or it may be not and therefore I should like the hon. the Minister to explain the position.

This amendment has been introduced at the request of the chairman of the board who, at the moment, is Dr. Petrick.

There it is. I hope the hon. the Minister will go on and perhaps give us the reasons why Dr. Petrick recommended this, because quite honestly we have considerable reservations in regard to the recommendations contained in the Petrick Commission’s report where greater overall control, by the Government, is suggested.

When we come to clause 2 which seeks to raise the maximum levy which can be charged per ton of coal from 1,1 cents to 2 cents, it is important to bear in mind that there were 72 million tons of coal produced domestically last year. We take the point that all that is envisaged, is merely that the maximum levy which can be charged is raised. If the hon. the Minister therefore should raise the maximum to 2 cents, the levy would produce R1,44 million. In addition the Government, of course, contributes on a R-for-R basis. Our difficulty arises from the fact that this levy is not specifically for purposes of research because, as I understand the position, research is covered by the existing subsection (2) in terms of which an additional levy of 0,55 cents may be imposed. Here again the Government contributes on a R-for-R basis. If my knowledge is correct—I hope the hon. the Minister will tell me one way or the other—any running surplus over and above the operating expenses could be used for the objects set out in clause 2 which include the establishment of laboratories and testing stations. I am not clear and I hope the hon. the Minister will tell me if a pilot plant as such is covered by the term “testing station”. If it is covered, then I find it quite difficult because, as I understand the position, the levy for the current year is at the rate of 0,85 cents per ton; in other words, it is below the previous maximum level. My difficulty is that we are unsighted as to the future and we cannot see why there is a present need to raise the maximum from 1,1 cents to 2 cents when the current level projected for this year is 0,85 cents. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us further about this.

I should also like the hon. the Minister to tell us what is the level of the accumulated funds held by the Fuel Research Institute. I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that they have accumulated funds available to them which could be used for the purposes now being provided for. I assume that when the hon. the Minister introduced this Bill, he did it with the recommendation and approval of the board as such.

Are you now referring to the increase in the levy?

Yes.

That has been recommended by the board.

Well, if that has been recommended and approved by the board, I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I shall refer briefly in the course of my speech to the question of the levy. I think it is important that one should consider certain aspects concerning the availability of energy resources in the world, and therefore in South Africa as well. I want to begin by stating that very little progress has been made during the past decade in discovering new energy resources. Sir, when I say this, you must not misunderstand me. I am not derogating what is being done in regard to nuclear power research. I want to maintain, firstly, that the development of new energy resources has not kept pace with the demand for energy in the world on the long term, and, secondly, that it has not taken into account the familiar energy resources which are available in the world. I am referring in particular to the available oil, gas and other kinds of resources. It is generally recognized that by the year 2 000 oil and gas will be very rapidly declining as primary energy resources. It is generally recognized that by the year 2 000, coal and fossil energy resources in general will become increasingly important in the energy world.

When looking at the coal position, we notice that especially during the past two decades, the use of coal as a source of energy has tended to decline. We notice, for example, that in 1960, 60% of the world’s energy requirements were met from the coal resources. As opposed to this, in 1975, only 15% of the world’s energy requirements were met from coal resources. According to the latest world energy conference, everything indicates that by the year 2000, coal will once again be responsible for 30% of the world’s energy requirements. This means that by the year 2000, coal will again be the primary source of energy supply in the world.

This very short and clear Bill is basically concerned with energy research. The money obtained from the said levy will be made available to the Fuel Research Institute. If we look at the position in South Africa in this regard, we see that at the moment 96% of our energy is obtained from coal resources. We are engaged in a major diversification programme. We are generating gas at West Bank and at Akasia in Cape Town. There are also large water schemes, like those at the H. F. Verwoerd Dam as well as the Cabora Bassa scheme. When they have been completed, we shall be able to obtain more energy from other sources. The maximum levy of 1,1 cents per metric ton is being increased to 2 cents per metric ton in terms of this legislation. An hon. member has indicated that this will bring in R1,4 million, which together with the Government subsidy will amount to R2,8 million. In this regard I want to state, in support of this amending Bill, that it is an irrefutable fact that the survival of mankind is bound up with the availability of energy. If we do not have energy resources, our survival is at stake. I want to refer to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Coal Resources. In this report there are 84 recommendations for some form of research of investigation concerning energy resources.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended, I was saying that the survival of mankind was bound up with the availability of energy. I think this is an aspect of which the public in South Africa must take particular cognizance. I have also referred to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Coal Resources. That inquiry produced 84 recommendations for some form of research or investigation into the coal resources in South Africa. If these 84 recommendations were all to be acted upon, I am convinced that we would not have the manpower, that we would not have the know-how nor the funds to do this. However, if one makes a careful analysis of this whole document, there are actually three aspects which are very strongly highlighted. The first one is the reclamation of available in situ coal resources in the Republic. Certain mines reclaim only 10% of the available coal resources in those mines for consumption. The average reclamation in South Africa’s coal mines is 40%. There are certain other methods of reclamation, and especially where there are power stations at coal mines, the reclamation percentage is as high as 90%. I think that special attention should be given in this particular regard to the reclamation of a higher percentage of coal from the available resources. When one analyses it in this way, one finds that according to this analysis, 106 000 million tons of coal is available in South Africa. Due to the lack of effective reclamation methods, only 42 000 million tons is available for consumption. Therefore this ought to receive special attention.

The second point that is highlighted here is the question of the reclamation of commercial coal. Because coal has a high ash content, it is essential that the coal be washed for commercial consumption. During this washing process an additional 15% of the coal is lost—in other words, an energy loss of an additional 15%. In considering all these aspects, and in looking at this Bill, we may say that the important aspect is the saving of energy. There are two other aspects which may also receive attention in the course of research. The first is that—if I may express it in easy terms—for every four spadesful of coal energy which one puts into a power station, one gets back only one spadeful of electric energy. In other words, there is a loss of 75% of the coal energy which is lost in the power stations. It might pay dividends to look into this matter as well. Another important fact is that after the energy has been generated and the electricity has been released, people should be taught to save energy. A tremendous amount of energy is wasted, especially during the winter which lies ahead, and therefore people should be taught to save energy.

I conclude by saying that I support this Bill on behalf of this side of the House. Finally I want to say that in view of the fact that this additional levy only provides a meagre R2,8 million for research into such an important facet of our society, as opposed to countries like Germany, which provides 150 million Deutsche Mark for research into conservation alone, I think this 2% is a very low levy, and this could easily have been doubled if we had had the methods to be able to use it. I therefore support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank hon. members sincerely for their support of this legislation. The hon. member for Von Brandis opened the discussion on behalf of the other side, and apart from expressing his support of the legislation, he referred to the research which is being done in the USA concerning coal and fuel resources. Obviously it would not be reasonable to compare what is happening in the USA with what is happening in South Africa. However, I think we in South Africa may rightly be proud of what we have achieved in the past. If he were to look at the broad spectrum of the activities of the Fuel Research Institute and compare these with the achievements through the years, I want to maintain that the present achievement is impressive. The spectrum of activities of the institute includes, as hon. members know, a survey and an evaluation of the Republic’s coal resources in general. I think this has been brought to our attention more specifically by the Petrick report, to which the hon. member for Wonderboom referred. It is also the institute’s responsibility to do research concerning the beneficiation of fuel from the poorest type of coal we can get and which cannot be used for other purposes. Research is also being done concerning the provision of coke and other carbonaceous reducing agents for the metallurgic industry. Considering the achievements of the institute in this particular regard, I could make the general statement that the institute is an indispensable source of basic and applied information for the private and the public sectors. Through research the institute has proved, amongst other things, that bituminous smoke-producing coal can be burnt without any smoke being emitted. Local authorities are now forcing people to use stoves of this kind and the producers in our country are already manufacturing them.

Very important research studies have been and are being completed on the explosiveness of gas and coal dust in mines, in order to make mining operations safer. Very important analytical work is performed from day to day by the institute for the private sector at their request and very valuable research is also done by the institute concerning the generator gas for motor vehicle fuel. I point out these things in order to stress that South Africa itself, through the institute, has long been aware of the special role which coal must play in our country as a source of energy, while other countries have actually been regarding this particular resource in a new light since 1973, after the energy crisis. South Africa has been doing this for many years.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North put certain specific questions to me which I should very much like to answer. His first question was about the composition of the control board. In this particular regard I want to point out that the amendment which increases the number of the members of the board to seven does not flow from the report of Dr. Petrick. It flows from a specific request from the board as conveyed to me through Dr. Petrick, namely that the institute needs to have close liaison with my department on a personal basis. I readily conceded that for the department and myself to make a proper evaluation of the needs of the institute, it is essential for me to receive information at first hand. For that reason I immediately agreed to comply with the request of the institute by having somebody from my department appointed to the board. There is no other motive whatsoever for this amendment. On the other hand the hon. member will understand that because I regard the role which the institute has to play in the future as being even more important than the one which it played in the past, the institute has to liaise on this intimate basis with my department and thus with myself as well. The composition of the board is as follows: Dr. A. J. Petrick is the chairman and he was appointed in terms of section 3(2) of the Act. Dr. T. J. Wilken-Jordan was appointed in terms of section 3(2)(d) by virtue of his special knowledge of and interest in coal. Mr. T. L. Gibbs is the State Mining Engineer and he was also appointed in terms of section 3(2). The appointment of Mr. A. D. Tew has now expired and I have just granted approval for the appointment of Mr. R. B. MacGillivray in his stead. The other members are Dr. C. van der Merwe Brink from the CSIR and Mr. A. C. Coetzee. The latter was appointed at the recommendation of the Natal coal mining companies. All the principles which have been established and which have to be observed are embodied in the composition of the board.

The second question which the hon. member put to me was whether the institute had any accumulated surpluses. The answer is yes in this particular regard, and it is estimated that the amount concerned will be R667 000 on 31 December 1976. The hon. member asked me why we were proposing at this stage that provision should be made for the maximum levy to be increased from 1,1 cent to 2 cents. Apart from what I said in my Second Reading speech by way of motivation in this regard, I must point out that, from the general research point of view and in regard to the ordinary management and operational activities of the institute, greater demands will be made on it. I referred, amongst other things, to the possible construction of a pilot plant. I must point out that the institute’s financial year does not coincide with the parliamentary financial year, since the institute works according to a calendar year. Therefore, if I am to enable the institute to obtain additional funds next year, provision must be made for this before the commencement of the next session of Parliament. I hope the hon. member will understand that if it should become necessary for funds to be supplemented by an amount which exceeds 1,1 cent, I would have to make such supplement before being able to return to this hon. House. If the hon. member refers to the Act, he will find that it is section 7(1) which must be amended. In terms of the proposed amendments, the levies imposed under subsections (1), (3) and (4) of section 7 of the Act will be used for the running expenses of the institute, which include the institute’s normal research activities, while the levies referred to in section 7(2) relate to coal mining research. I want to tell the hon. member that the funds are used for all purposes, except that the funds appropriated in terms of section 7(2) are used exclusively for mining research purposes. I hope I have answered the hon. member’s questions in this regard.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Wonderboom for his contribution and I want to point out, without furnishing too many details in this regard, that the Government has already taken certain decisions in consequence of the 80 or more recommendations of the Petrick report. At this stage I merely want to say that because the Government regards the whole question of energy as important, the Government has already established two bodies. In the first place there is a Cabinet committee which is responsible for the energy policy of the country. This committee serves under the chairmanship of the hon. the Minister of Planning. Furthermore, the Government has composed an energy policy committee which consists of authorities in this particular field. We may not realize it, but the legislation really emphasizes the special place which the Government assigns to energy and every institution which deals with it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It has become clear in recent years, particularly on the part of the private sector, that there is an increasing need for greater communication, discussion and consultation between the public and private sectors on matters concerning the provision of shipping services to, from and between South African harbours. The important influence which our country’s import and export trade has on the economy, and the decisive role played in this connection by shipping, have been the major factors which have emphasized this need. I do not think we always realize that international trade, apart from the material and financial advantages it holds for South Africa, also serves to bring countries much closer together and presents the opportunity for co-operation, not only in the economic sphere, but in many other spheres as well. Perhaps I should just point out again for the sake of the record that of the 129 countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation, South Africa is sixteenth on the list as far as importance as a trading country is concerned. This is emphasized by the fact that our imports, expressed as a percentage of our gross national product, amount to 35, and that our exports amount to 31%. Therefore one can understand that all the people involved in the international trade in South Africa have an interest in securing the closest possible contact between the private and the public sectors. In addition, the introduction as from next year of a containerized shipping service on our most important sea route has also presented several problems in connection with the provision of efficient and suitable shipping services.

In consequence of this clearly perceptible need on the part of the private sector for a greater measure of communication and consultation with the authorities concerning shipping matters, the existing Shipping Board considered the desirability of having its constitution and functions amended in order to meet the need to which I have referred. After a careful study of this matter, the Shipping Board came to the conclusion that for various reasons it would be advisable, instead of amending the existing legislation, to draw up a completely new Shipping Act to provide more adequately for the need for more effective communication and consultation between the public and private sectors, a need which exists at the moment in regard to shipping matters. As hon. members probably know, the existing legislation was passed as far back as early in 1929. Apart from the rather antiquated restrictions imposed by the present legislation on the membership and the functions of the Shipping Board, the legislation has become obsolete in several other respects as well.

The Bill which is now before the House is aimed at providing for a completely new and reorganized Shipping Board on which all the interested sectors of the national economy will be represented, a board which will give continuous attention to the efficiency, the suitability, the regularity and the cost of shipping services to, from and between South African harbours. Furthermore, the legislation is also intended to repeal the Shipping Board Act of 1929.

In terms of the present legislation, the Shipping Board is composed of six full and three additional members—the last three have no voting rights—who are all appointed by the State President. Three of the six full members are appointed from people nominated by the Association of Chambers of Commerce, the Federated Chamber of Industries and the South African Agricultural Union. The remaining three full members are nominated by the State President. One of these three is nominated from the public sector. At the moment this is the Secretary for Commerce, who is also chairman of the board ex officio. In terms of the present legislation, the other two members must be people who are not members of the Public Service or of the S. A. Railways. In the course of years it has become the accepted practice for the latter two persons to represent the Perishable Products Export Control Board and the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut on the Shipping Board. The three additional members without voting rights are appointed from the ranks of the Public Service and the S.A. Railways.

In terms of clause 3 of the Bill, the number of members of the Shipping Board is now being increased to 13. Four of these members will be public servants, while the Secretary for Commerce will be the chairman of the board. The other three members will represent the Department of Industries, the Department of Customs and Excise and the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. A fifth member of the board will be appointed from the S. A. Railways and Harbours Administration. Of the eight remaining members, one each will be appointed from nominations by the Perishable Products Export Control Board, the mining industry and the agricultural industry. Organized commerce and organized industry will have two and three members respectively on the board.

In my opinion, the proposed membership of the Shipping Board will therefore be representative of all the important organizations in the commercial, industrial, agricultural and mining sectors, as well as of the interested authorities. The Shipping Board will therefore perform a more meaningful function in the future, especially as a forum for communication and consultation between the authorities and the private sector on all the matters affecting the country’s shipping services.

In regard to this matter I want to add that representations have also been received from various other subsidiary organizations in the private sector, organizations which desire representation of their own on the Shipping Board. For practical reasons it is not possible, however, to comply with all the requests, because the membership of the board would then become so large that it would become a cumbersome and inefficient body. Consequently it was decided to give representation on the board only to the individual comprehensive sectors of the economy. This was done to ensure that the membership of the Shipping Board would remain within reasonable bounds, while the board would nevertheless be sufficiently representative of all important economic sectors.

One of the objects of this proposed legislation is to abolish the appointment of additional members without voting rights. The Bill also proposes to simplify the administrative procedures, and consequently the power to appoint members to the board is being granted to the Minister instead of to the State President, as is the case under the present legislation.

In clause 3 of the Bill it is proposed that the existing custom according to which the Secretary for Commerce is chairman of the Shipping Board ex officio be expressly layed down in the new legislation. This is being done because the Department of Commerce is largely responsible for all the matters concerning South Africa’s import and export trade, and because the Department of Commerce will be accountable for the administration of the board.

As far as the functions and the duties of the Shipping Board are concerned, it is believed that instead of being merely an advisory body, the board would be eminently suitable for serving as a forum for consultation between the authorities and the private sector in connection with all matters relating to shipping. From the nature of the case, a mere discussion of such matters by the Shipping Board will not be sufficient. For this reason, clause 6 of the Bill provides that the council shall investigate all representations, recommendations and complaints relating to shipping services that are brought to its notice. After such investigation, the board shall, if it deems it necessary, make representations in that regard to the authority or State department concerned, with a view to the improvement or rectification of the complaints concerned. The Shipping Board may of its own accord undertake such investigations and evaluations, as well as the necessary action concerning the rectification of complaints.

Clause 7 of the Bill provides for the Shipping Board to appoint committees from its own ranks to assist it in the performance of its functions and duties.

Clauses 8, 9 and 10 provide for a shipowner or his representative or agent in the Republic to be compelled to furnish the board with information concerning matters such as freight rates, saling schedules and the shipping space available on vessels sailing to, from and between South African harbours. The provisions of these clauses are substantially in accordance with the powers already conferred upon the Shipping Board in terms of the regulations relating to shipowners which were promulgated by the State President on 13 May 1966 in terms of section 3 of the existing Act—Act No. 20 of 1929. It is deemed to be essential that this information be made available to the Shipping Board if it is to function effectively.

Clause 11 of the Bill provides for the board to submit annual reports on its activities to the Minister concerned. These reports are intended to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament. Clause 12 of the Bill is concerned only with matters of procedure relating to the functioning of the Shipping Board.

Finally, clause 13 provides that the proposed legislation shall not derogate from the provisions of the Perishable Products Export Control Act of 1926. This provision is proposed by virtue of the fact that the Perishable Products Export Control Board—a board established in terms of section 1 of the existing Act—is the competent body for making arrangements with shipowners and other people for the shipping of perishable products.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once to the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House intend supporting this Bill. The intention announced in the title, i.e. to establish a South African shipping board and to determine the functions and to provide for matters connected therewith, is illustrative of the basic principle involved in the Bill. The hon. the Minister has also been at some pains to motivate the Bill, and I thank him for the information he has given us. I am sure that this is indicative of the co-operation which is now taking place between the Government, the Department of Commerce and Industries, and the private sector. I believe that this Bill is indicative of the tremendous growth which has taken place in the shipping industry and in the economy of this country, the movement of goods from overseas into our country and the movement of our goods abroad as an exporting country. The development of the two additional harbours in recent years is again indicative of the importance of shipping’s role in our country’s economy and in our economic security. I believe that the original draft Bill had certain clauses which were objected to by commerce and by shipping interests, but these have been removed and the Bill in its present form is far more acceptable. I want to say that in clause 3, which deals with the constitution of the board, intelligent and sensible recognition has been given to those interests in the shipping world and in commerce and industry who should have their voices heard on the board. I think it is a distinct improvement that we now have seven members from the public sector as against six members from the Government sector, representing all sectors of the economy, including the Chambers of Commerce and other public bodies. I believe, too, that it is only right and sensible that we should recognize in the legislation that the Secretary for Commerce and Industry is nominated as a member of the board in his own right and also acts as chairman of the board. I think it is important that commerce should know what the functions of this new shipping board are, and also what its powers are. I think the three clauses to which the attention of this House should be particularly drawn are, firstly, clause 6, which deals with the functions of the board.

Here I want to commend the hon. the Minister for having indicated that it will be a function of the board that not only shall it receive from persons interested representations and give such representations consideration, but that they themselves will investigate and evaluate these recommendations, and that further in subsection (3) the board is compelled, in terms of the definition of its functions, to make its own recommendations where it is believed that in the interests of smooth operation of shipping around our coastline, it should do so. Then we come to clause 8, which gives the board considerable powers, powers which can be neglected only at the peril of those concerned. The main powers are that the board has the right to be informed by the various shipping interests as to the sailing schedules to and from and between South African ports, the tonnage of shipping space available on the various sea routes or between the South African ports and the freight rate at which goods are being carried between these ports. The board also has the right to be informed of contractual and special arrangements entered into between shipowners and their agents. In order to implement this particular clause, I refer to clause 9, which deals with the right of the board to call witnesses, and here the powers are extremely wide. Not only may they take evidence, but they may also summon witnesses and require the production of any books or records, documents or any other things which the chairman may think fit. They have the right to summon witnesses in the usual formal way, and it is noted that every witness so summoned shall be compelled to attend and that severe penalties can be imposed should he fail to do so. But I am glad to see that in this instance the board is subject to the restriction that in examining witnesses, the witnesses shall be entitled to all the privileges to which a witness subpoenaed to give evidence before a provincial division of the Supreme Court is entitled. I think that this provision takes a lot of the sting out of that clause. It is one that we support, and we could only hope that it had been introduced also into other legislation previously passed by this House.

Then I want to say how glad we are on this side of the House to note that under clause 11 the board shall submit an annual report on its activities to the Minister and that the Minister shall lay copies thereof on the Tables of the Senate and the House of Assembly. I think the nature of the work of this board is so important that it is only right and fitting that members of this House should be able to keep under surveillance the operation of the board at least annually. Finally, I feel that when this Bill is ultimately implemented, the Shipping Board Act of 1929 and the Shipping Board Amendment Act of 1965 will be repealed. So, in effect we, are substituting for an Act which worked extremely well over a number of years a more modern instrument which I understand has the support of both the shipping industry and of the Association of Chambers of Commerce and other industrial organizations in South Africa. Sir, we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens for having expressed his support for this Bill in the way in which he has. It goes to prove that this is a very thorough piece of legislation which has been submitted to the House at a very opportune moment. I think in particular of the fact that shipping has undergone major changes since the days of Jan van Riebeeck and also since 1929, when the old Shipping Board Act, which is now to be repealed, was introduced. That was also in the time of the NP. In these times of containerization I consider it to be the task of shipping as well as of commerce and industry and all other parties—the exporters and the importers—to enable shipping to take place as efficiently and as rapidly as possible and with the minimum of delay. This was also the reason why containers were designed to facilitate and expedite the shipping of goods. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his clear Second Reading speech, in which he dealt at great length with the question of why this Bill is necessary at this stage. I just want to tell him that I looked with great interest at the composition of the board in terms of clause 3, and at the fact that the requisite number of members happens to be 13, because 13 is really the lucky number of this side of the House. That explains, too, why the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens had no objection to the composition of the board.

I should like to refer to the functions of the new proposed board. The functions of the new board are more comprehensive and are not merely of an advisory nature, as those of the old board used to be. In the light of modem commerce and industry and shipping and the import and export trade, it is essential that these people should have more than merely the power to give advice which may be accepted or not. What is very encouraging—and here I agree whole-heartedly with the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens—is that all the sectors are represented in the composition of the board, i.e. there will be co-ordination and all interested parties will help to expedite matters. Many years ago I was involved in a company which dealt with exports as well and the shipping agents were really our only contact with shipping. I want to express the hope that under the new dispensation, exporters will have closer contact with the Shipping Board and will not always have to deal with the shipping companies through third persons.

Sir, I do not want to waste the time of the House. With these few words, therefore, I want to express my whole-hearted support and that of this side of the House and to thank the hon. the Minister for this timeous legislation.

Mr. Speaker, before we can make up our minds finally whether to support the Bill or not, I xould like to put to the hon. the Minister certain questions. We assume that the rationale behind this piece of legislation is to improve efficiency and keep to the minimum the cost of the carriage of goods and persons by ship, either to and from South Africa or between South African ports. If that is correct, we have trouble with certain parts of the Bill. Let me start off by congratulating the hon. the Minister on the provisions of clause 9. It is somewhat of an exception for those who are part of the Government to say that those who are called before the board “shall be entitled to all the privileges which a witness subpoenaed to give evidence before a provincial division of the Supreme Court is entitled”. We should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this, and we hope it will prove infectious to his colleagues. In terms of clause 3, the hon. the Minister is proposing a board of 13 members, six of whom will be Government-appointed, or shall I rather say they will represent and be employed by the Government, while seven will represent what is called the private sector. I suggest that that is out of proportion when one considers the shipping industry and its importance to the private sector in South Africa. This impinges further when one comes to dealing with clause 12(1)(a) in regard to the determination of a quorum. I would like to come back to this.

One of the clauses with which we have serious trouble is clause 4(1)(c). The hon. the Minister is setting up a shipping board to control and oversee the shipping industry, the carriage of goods and persons around South Africa. Clause 4(1)(c) debars a person from membership of the board if—

This is a most extraordinary provision. I hope the hon. the Minister will do his best to answer this. What he is saying is that he wants nobody to sit on the board who has any knowledge of the industry concerned.

That is not correct. You know it is not correct.

I was trying to think of some examples. Let me make it quite clear that my knowledge of and interest in the shipping industry is absolutely zero. [Interjections.] I used the word “interest”. If the hon. the Minister will read this carefully he will see that what he is saying is that anybody who holds a share in any public company, for example Safmarine, is debarred from sitting as a member of the board. Does the hon. the Minister agree with me?

Yes.

The hon. the Minister agrees with this. What he is, therefore, saying is that, as I was saying, that if this is applied for instance to the Government— this, of course, may be true of a different industry—then nobody who is interested in politics should be a member of the Government. What he is saying is that any board of an industry set up should not contain people who have a knowledge of that particular industry. What is the hon. the Minister about here? Will he tell us why he debars anybody who has a knowledge of the industry from sitting on the board? I hope the hon. the Minister will reply to that. It goes even further. In the previous clause, i.e. clause 3(6), it states that—

There is no problem with that. That is a normal thing. It states further that—

I hope the hon. the Minister is going to motivate that, because, as I have said, we had high hopes of him when he granted the privilege in terms of clause 9. This, however, does not strike me as being a democratic procedure, because it is very broad. The board consists of 13 members, and the hon. the Minister may remove any member when he considers that there are good reasons for doing so.

The last problem we have with this piece of legislation is that the hon. the Minister takes it unto himself the right to make regulations in regard to the quorum. In terms of the membership of the board, which the hon. the Minister has already set out in clause 3, it is obviously difficult to propose something which is reasonable in the sense of a minimum quorum, because we have Government members on one side and those from the private sector on the other in equal countervailing forces of some kind. However, will the hon. the Minister consider bearing in mind an amendment stating that the quorum which he sets out, which he determines in terms of the regulations, will include members both from the Government and from the private sector? The problem with providing for a minimum is that if one believes that the Government representatives were there in force, then one would have six members and one then would have to determine a minimum of 12. This is clearly impracticable. What we would like the hon. the Minister to consider is that a quorum must consist both of representatives of the Government and of the private sector. As I have said, we would like to hear from the hon. the Minister the answers to both these questions, more particularly to the question why anybody who has an interest in a shipping industry, an interest in one of the firms in the shipping industry, however indirect, is debarred from membership. We would like the hon. the Minister to explain the rationale which underlies this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation for the fact that hon. members support the legislation in principle. I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens that the basic motivation for the introduction of the legislation we are considering is to be found in the fact that it is a further affirmation of the desire of my department and myself to ensure the closest co-operation between the private sector and those public bodies that are concerned with any regulating or advisory function in this particular regard. I think there are few people in organized commerce and industry who do not have the highest praise for the fact that the offices of the Department of Commerce are always open to those people whose normal business activities must necessarily bring them into contact with my department. I want to thank my officials in this particular regard. Because we are aware of the special role played by commerce, particularly international commerce, in regard to the legislation which is before us, I think that hon. members will understand that it is essential for us to have the closest contact with the private sector. This measure is a prime example of legislation which cannot in any way be described as an example of creeping socialism, but which is in fact intended to make it as easy as possible for the private sector to play its part in meeting its obligations.

I want to thank the hon. member for Germiston for his contribution. He emphasized the two vital new elements in the legislation as against the old Act, which is now being repealed. I am referring to the expansion of the composition of the board itself to give further effect to the concept that there must not only be consultation for the private sector and the public sector, but that the consultation should also represent as wide a spectrum as possible. He was quite correct when he said that the other important facet of the legislation was to be found in the fact that the responsibilities and the functions of the board were being considerably expanded. To enable it to perform properly all the functions entrusted to it, it must naturally receive the powers which are now being conferred upon it in terms of the clause concerned. I think we shall find, with the passing and implementation of this legislation, that the new Shipping Board will be able to function much more efficiently, to the benefit of the private sector.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North will forgive me if I make a remark in respect of the problems he has in this connection. I do not like the idea that in speaking of the composition of the board, he thinks that the balance of the representation between the private sector and the public sector has been cut too fine in the sense that he believes there should be more representatives from the private sector than from the public sector. I do not merely want to emphasize, I also want to issue a serious warning that we must not create the impression that the public sector and the private sector represent opposing groups. On the contrary. I believe that it is the specific responsibility of myself and my department, a responsibility which they fulfil most commendably, to see to it that the two sectors complement each other. We must not create the impression in our arguments in this House that we have to scrutinize even the composition of boards as if we were dealing with parties that have to neutralize one another’s standpoints. I should much prefer the composition to be of such a nature that the various parties should complement one another so as to increase the efficiency of the service for which we are responsible. I hope the hon. member will understand the spirit in which I make these remarks this afternoon. After all, this board has no regulating or decision-taking functions of any nature. Consequently it is unreasonable, I think, to make an issue of this particular facet. I cannot accept the idea that we should delete clause 4(1)(c). I want to tell the hon. member at once what the rationale is on which this clause is based, i.e. that this Shipping Board will have to discuss, as a continuous process and because it is its primary task, matters which directly affect the shipping interests and which have a bearing on their activities. So to have anyone as a member of this board who is directly involved in the shipping industry—as an employee, a director or a shareholder—would, I believe, militate against the concept that the interests that are discussed should not be represented on that board on which they are discussed. However, I want to concede one point to the hon. member, i.e. that one could ask whether the question of a share is not going too far. I am prepared to look at that, but I cannot concede the point that employees of shipping companies should serve on boards of this nature. This would give representation to a particular interest as against the organized one.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether we cannot work out a compromise. I have no objection to people who have a direct material interest being excluded, but that is not the wording as, it now stands. I hope the hon. the Minister will bear the difference in mind.

Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that I cannot allow the principle that a person with a particular interest should be represented. However, it is possibly a valid argument, as I said that a moment ago, that a man should not be excluded whilst holding only one share in a shipping company. I am prepared to consider that particular aspect. I want to go further in this regard and say—and I think the hon. member will agree with me—that it is not only people who are in the shipping business on the day of appointment who have any knowledge of the shipping business. There are many people with that knowledge who are not actively involved in the shipping business who could be used to great benefit on a board of this nature.

*In other words, there are enough experts we can appoint to such a board. The hon. member goes further and objects to the provision in clause 3(6) that the Minister may terminate the membership of any member of the board. He thinks that this is too arbitrary a power which the Minister is taking upon himself. With all respect, which power is the most important: the power to appoint someone to a board, or the power to terminate somebody’s membership of a board? Substantively speaking, with all respect, there is no difference in principle between the right which the legislation gives the Minister to appoint someone to a board and the right it gives him to terminate someone’s membership. I do not think we need debate this any further. Many circumstances could arise under which it could be essential that membership be terminated. I want to tell the hon. member that we must not be concerned about this particular aspect, because the appointment of a person or the termination of his membership, when considered by the Minister, is considered in the light of whether the member is able to make a contribution to the performance of the functions of the board. In this particular connection, therefore, I cannot satisfy the hon. member.

Finally, the hon. member argued about clause 12(a), which relates to the power which the Minister has, in terms of the proposed legislation, to determine the quorum of the board. I am quite prepared, in making the regulations, to consider this particular aspect to which the hon. member has referred, i.e. to ensure that a quorum will be composed in such a way as to be representative of both the private and the public sectors. I say this with the reservation that we must not take up the standpoint that these two sectors are opposed to each other.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I had intended to move an amendment asking for the deletion of clause 4(1)(c), but in the light of the assurances given by the hon. the Minister I shall not be moving it. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to bear two points in mind. Firstly, I do not think he should necessarily foreclose his options in the sense of saying that in terms of the present clause 4(1)(c) people who have a share should automatically be excluded from being appointed to the board. It seems to me that this depends on two things: Firstly, on the nature of the interest, i.e. whether it is direct and whether it is material; and secondly, on whether the interest has been disclosed or not. In my view there may well be circumstances such that the hon. the Minister may want to appoint somebody to the board even though that person may be concerned directly with the shipping industry in this country. What is important here is that the person’s interests should be disclosed. As the hon. the Minister will know, there are many other directors of boards serving under similar conditions. I hope the hon. the Minister will consider, before going to the Other Place, some or other wording to remove this absolute prohibition, leaving some flexibility so that those who have either an indirect or immaterial interest—in fact even those who do have a direct interest, such interest, however, being disclosed—have the right to be appointed to the board.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that in the legislation we are now considering there is, in any event, a provision to the effect that the board itself can appoint subcommittees consisting of people who are not necessarily members of the board. Such people, who would have special fields of interest, could advise the board when policy decisions have to be taken. People in the shipping business are therefore not excluded, in terms of the Bill we are now considering, from advising the board when decisions have to be taken. That is the first point I should like to make. The second point I want to make is that I have already conceded one point. Excluding from membership of the board persons who hold theoretically only one share may be going beyond the limits of what I think is reasonable, and therefore I am willing to indicate now that I am prepared to consider that aspect. I am prepared to restate this issue if I can find another clause to substitute for the present one without detracting from the purpose which the present clause is intended to serve.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have had lengthy debates on the previous stages of this Bill, especially with reference to amendments proposed during the Committee Stage. This afternoon I shall deal with certain aspects arising, in the main, from assurances given by the hon. the Minister during the course of these debates and also from certain attitudes he has taken up during the course of the debates. I do this because the Bill before us is virtually a new charter for the SABC. There are some amendments to the corporation’s past powers to make provision for the changed times and media. I suggested earlier in these debates that we have moved out of the crystal-set stage of our broadcasting system to the crystal chandelier stage. We have moved from relying solely on sound to the presentation of sound and images for our edification.

About the amazing technical developments you say nothing.

I am going to take the hon. the Minister up on the amazing technical ability of saying nothing, because I want him to be a little more explicit when he replies to the Third Reading debate with some of those easy-flowing assurances, undertakings and expressions of belief and opinion he has indulged in during the discussion of previous stages of this Bill.

Basically the board is still exclusively empowered to administer and direct not only the business undertakings of the corporation but also the programme content and the general policy of the SABC and SATV. From the hon. the Minister, with the very limited say he has in the workings of the SABC, we have had the assurance that he intends to put all his cards on the table as far as the public and Parliament are concerned.

About certain misgivings, which have been aired not only in this House, but also elsewhere, there has been sufficiently lengthy discussion to make it unnecessary for me to go into the matter at any length again. I am referring to the question of the party political bias of SABC radio broadcasts and the monotonous regularity of the expounding of the virtues of this Government in “Current Affairs” and other similar programmes. As far as SATV is concerned, it is a little early at this stage to make a final assessment. However, some of the previews, or should I say in musical terms the “preludes”, of what is going to be displayed to us in the way of entertainment are a little frightening. What has been seen so far of the technical quality of the telecasts is undoubtedly, in my opinion, worthy of praise from all of us in this country. However, the indifferent quality of the filming on many occasions we must accept, I think as being due to a lack of experience in a new industry. Undoubtedly this will all improve with time. There is, however, deep concern about the political involvement and movement towards a television type “Current Affairs” approach as far as television broadcasts are concerned. This powerful communication medium is new to this country, although it is not new to other parts of the world. I believe that in the implementation by the corporation—in view of the powers it has—of the legislation before us, it can benefit from the experience gained in other countries. This would enable it to render a service of high quality and to avoid the unfortunate misuse that has been permitted elsewhere.

When I say “misuse”, I do so with an awareness of the misuse of the medium for propaganda purposes by the non-factual or biased presentation of subject matter that has occurred to the detriment of South Africa on foreign TV channels. However, we ourselves could easily commit the same offence by not being sufficiently self-critical of what is happening in our own country, thereby producing an erroneous picture of what is happening in this country by over-indulgence on the credit side. Therefore I feel that a heavy responsibility rests on the hon. the Minister and on the board.

I think there are real advantages attached to the introduction of television. Some of these advantages are already apparent. I want to say immediately that I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for supporting my suggestion that there should be no departure from the present system of alternating Afrikaans and English programmes on the same channel. I believe that this has done and will continue to do a great deal to develop bilingualism in this country as well as an appreciation of the one language for the other through the programmes that are televised. What has also already become apparent is the tremendous value television has in giving to the people of South Africa a greater appreciation of the natural beauty of this country of ours. Television brings into the homes of people places they may not have the opportunity of visiting. It also has great value in giving the people an appreciation of the country’s economic achievements, the expertise of our scientists in various fields and the technical skills of our industrialists. It has also created a great deal of interest in our Cape furniture and other aspects of our traditional background which, through television, we have been able to present to the people. Africana in its various forms can be presented to them.

However, I doubt whether all of us have given sufficient thought to the possibilities of this new medium. I want to suggest six possible uses to which I want to direct the attention of the hon. the Minister and of the board. Firstly, I believe the medium can be used to end a great deal of sterile political argument which at present is being carried on in this country. I want to give an example of this. During the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote, we on this side of the House with our experience of consultations with Black leaders suggested what their views were on certain issues. The hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior replied: “You are quite wrong; the Black leaders told me exactly the opposite.” This medium presents us with a wonderful opportunity to put an end to this sterile type of discussion in the House. Since the Black leaders are not present here, we could permit them to appear on television to express their views for the public at large to hear. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Deputy Minister is convinced that what he said yesterday was correct, what has he to fear in allowing the Black leaders to tell all of us in this country that they are in accord with what the hon. the Deputy Minister said? It is as simple as that. I believe that this is something that should be done. I was rather disappointed—in fact, I was rather horrified—when, in the course of replying to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister said, with reference to the question of giving political leaders an opportunity to speak on television, that he would have to grant time to Chief Minister Buthelezi and also Chief Minister Matanzima seeing that they are leaders of political parties too.

I was replying to a certain point.

Yes, the point concerning allowing them to speak on political issues.

I said that with reference to a certain point. The hon. member must not try to interpret it wider than that.

I am coming to political broadcasts in a moment. I am very pleased to hear the hon. the Minister say that because if we in South Africa find there is no reason to permit the leaders of homeland governments, which are about to become independent and take control over portions of the very ground of South Africa, to appear on television to express their policies and views …

I never went as far as that.

If the hon. the Minister says he did not go as far as that and did not mean what he said in the Second Reading, I accept it.

I never went as far as that.

I am very glad to hear it. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we have here a medium which should be utilized in such a way that we can get to understand and know exactly what these people are thinking. In that case we shall not have to rely on what is reported to have been said by one or other of the leaders. Let us hear them; let us know the truth. I believe this could lead to the people having a much better understanding of these matters and I am sure that it will enable us in this House and the public at large to assess, consider and decide on future attitudes to be adopted, if we could hear the leaders themselves.

Secondly, I believe that, in view of the policies to which all of us in this House are committed and which are, after all, basic to the Government in that we have heard from the hon. the Prime Minister that the ruling party is a party for change, we now have a medium by means of which we can eliminate the fear a vast number of people have of facing up to and accepting the changes which are necessary for the future of this country. How can we do that? Television gives us the best available medium, the best possible medium, through which to provide for communication not only between politicians but also between the ordinary people of South Africa, irrespective of race, who wish to find the way for continued peaceful coexistence in the future. I believe it is no good our carrying on as we have done so often in the past, having to preface our remarks with phrases such as “I have heard that…” and “I understand that …”. Let the public at large hear directly what the views of different people are with regard to the future of this country of ours.

I believe, thirdly, that the proper use of the medium of television can create a united dedication to the interests of South Africa, because there is one thing we cannot do over television—we cannot practise apartheid or separate development over the ether when telecasting a programme from a television studio in Johannesburg. It cannot be said that a particular programme is only to be viewed by a particular group of people. I believe that this medium can be used to create a united dedication to the Republic by letting the people, of all races, who wish to help build the country, enter the homes of all the other racial communities in this country. Let us not merely have formal interviews in studios, but let us through television meet, in their homes, people of all races and of all walks of life in this country. Let us get to know how each community lives and let us all appreciate a little more the contributions being made by the Black businessman, the White industrialist, the Coloured man and so on. Let us get to know the way they are bringing up their families and how they are living. I believe this would contribute greatly to the development of a united, dedicated South Africa.

Fourthly, I believe that a lot of the problems the Government is experiencing in dealing with undesirable circumstances in this country can be ascribed to the fact that there are many people in South Africa who are not aware of these problems, the nature of the problems and where they are experienced. At the present moment there is a problem being experienced which is a matter of grave concern in certain parts of the country. Legislation is to be introduced in regard to it. I refer to the unfortunate position of the unemployed and the impoverished who live in squatter camps. This is an undesirable state of affairs, but how many of the people walking the streets of Cape Town and Johannesburg know exactly what the conditions there are? How many of them know anything about the problem? The odd photograph might appear in a newspaper and that is all. I believe television should be used to bring home to the conscience of the nation the conditions that exist in, for instance, squatter camps and the evils and dangers of such conditions. Let us in this way arouse the public conscience. I mention this merely as one example. I am sure other hon. members can give other examples of similar problem areas. By bringing such scenes into the homes of the public and letting them see the conditions for themselves, one could get a spirited public involvement. The same thing applies on the plus side. Mere figures are empty. They are difficult to understand. A figure representing the number of children at school or representing how far we have advanced with certain aspects of education has very little meaning. Let the public see these things. Let the public see what is being achieved in the way of new schools and education, and the way that these people are now progressing and living. Those are the things which will impress people in this country and help us more as Parliamentarians to get the public involved in the solving of so many problems in this country.

The fifth point with which I wish to deal is the question of the diverse cultures, the complementary cultures, which exist in this country. We are sometimes inclined to rather regard each of the cultures as a sort of separate idol on an island and say, “this is the English culture, this is the Afrikaans culture, this is the Bantu culture”, etc., when there is a need to build up a common appreciation of the cultures which exist in this country of ours. I asked somebody the other day, who was talking about culture and trying to associate it with a particular group of people in this country, what the culture was that I would see if on a visit to Vienna I attended an opera at an opera house in Vienna and Mimi Coertse was singing and the production was an Italian opera. When you have one of our foremost Afrikaans singers singing an Italian opera in Vienna, that culture is a universal culture as far as I am concerned. There are other aspects of the culture of our peoples in this country which could equally well be disseminated through television to enable us to have a better appreciation. While I am talking about opera, might I make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister, because even if he does not have to listen to it, some of us do because the family tune in to these programmes. I wonder if we cannot have what my hon. friend from Berea refers to as a gravel-voiced singer rather than this procession of unisex-voiced singers we seem to get on the programmes at the present moment. I think that some of us would sometimes like to listen to a masculine baritone voice instead of some other singers that we seem to have a surfeit of on the proqrammes at the present moment.

The last point I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is the question of political discussion. The hon. the Minister said in the Second Reading (Hansard, col. 4354—

He also said, a few moments earlier in that same speech—(col. 4353)—

If the hon. the Minister wishes to tell me that members of the Cabinet are not members of a group and are not party politicians, I can understand his reasoning that he is not going to allow TV to be used by politicians or particular groups. But the fact that of necessity members of the Cabinet must appear on television does in itself introduce a political content into the telecasts. The BBC has over a long period of time dealt with this particular problem of political broadcasts. I want to separate the authorized, standard party political rights to appear on television from the programmes of questions and panels and having people there for the entertainment of the general public. The two are quite separate. The question of having people appearing on panels and being in the hands of a question-master is one matter, but what I am concerned about are the rights of political parties being able to appear and to convey their views, opinions and policies to the public through the medium of television. I have before me the report of the British Information Services with regard to broadcasting in Britain. This is a recent report and it is interesting to find that they state the following—

That soon fell away. The listening public wanted to hear of controversial subjects. I want to refer to some of the guide-lines which were adopted by the BBC—and with which I can find little reason to disagree—with regard to the formal rights of political parties to use the television service. For instance, it was provided from 1947 onwards that—

1. (a) In view of its responsibilities for the care of the nation, the Government should have the right to use radio and television from time to time for ministerial broadcasts.

That is the accepted position. I think that everybody will accept that. It was further provided that—

1. (b) Time for controversial party political broadcasts should be allocated to the main political parties broadly in proportion to their vote at the previous general election.

This agreement was revised in 1969, as far as ministerial broadcasts are concerned. It was found that inevitably ministerial broadcasts introduced a party political bias in most instances. I quote further from this report—

The report goes on to other aspects, but the current agreement which applies to the BBC, I think, is a very reasonable one. I quote—

It then allocates to both the Conservative and the Labour parties the following programmes, viz. nine broadcasts of 45 minutes in all on radio and six broadcasts of 60 minutes in all on television. This was throughout the whole year. There was an equal allocation to each party. There were also allocations to the Liberals, the Scottish National Party and the Welsh Nationalists. The report states further—

The arrangements for broadcasting before a general election are worked out between the political parties and the BBC with regard to the allocation of time. There again on a regional radio broadcast the allocation was based on the number of candidates standing for a particular party. They have a minimum number of seats that must be contested to enable any of the candidates to speak. I quote further—

That was in regard to time allocated to them. It states further—

What is the lesson that we learn from this? By all means let your Cabinet Ministers make their statements on matters on which there is major consensus and which are in the interests of the nation as a whole. That is their right as Cabinet Ministers. However, when they enter the field of political conflict, political discussion or political differences, fair justice demands that the opposition parties should also be entitled to get to the public.

I agree.

I am very glad that the hon. the Minister says that he agrees.

I agree with the last part.

I am going to make an appeal to him because I believe he is new to this and he has said that he is going to make a study of it. This policy is most important as many people turn to the broadcasting authorities for information and explanation about current affairs, and particularly to television for the greater vividness of watching events happening and seeing the persons concerned who are making these statements.

That is what is essential. I believe that the hon. the Minister, in following up what he said about making a careful study, will make a careful study and that he will revise some of the things he said during the course of the Second Reading, perhaps in his enthusiasm at the time of the debate. Some of his words and some of the statements he made might well be weighed again because he has already said that he did not mean that leaders of Black homelands should be denied the opportunity of speaking and of being seen on television.

I want to conclude by saying to the hon. the Minister that in these times when we are trying to develop understanding between the peoples and races of this country and between the different communities of this country, we have in our hands the greatest means of communication, a weapon and media which has fortunately come into our hands at a time in this country when it is most needed that we should develop understanding between our peoples. I believe that this media can be used in that way and, because of the assurance given by the hon. the Minister, we are disappointed that a lot of these matters could not have been discussed in a Select Committee which we requested during the Second Reading. We are also disappointed that the hon. the Minister has not seen fit to accept any of the amendments which we have moved. On the assurances given by the hon. the Minister we will, however, not oppose the Third Reading of the Bill and we will watch with interest development along the lines which I suggested, take place as far as the use of television in South Africa is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, there is one matter on which I agree with the hon. member for Green Point and that is what he said at the end of his speech, namely that he wants to believe that the members on his side of the House support the Third Reading of the Bill, provided the hon. the Minister will go into certain matters. The hon. member posed in the attire of piety when he broached six points. One of the points was that political discussions should be broadcast on television. This can be done, but I want to tell the hon. member that it can also get out of hand. People may later make demands which cannot be complied with.

Anything of this nature will take place on the basis of agreement between the parties.

The hon. member says that the parties should reach agreement, but if the parties cannot even reach an agreement politically and if that hon. member and his colleagues on the other side of the House cannot even see that separate development is the solution for our multinational problem, I cannot know how he is going to see that broadcasting time be divided on a basis of fairness. The hon. member said that those things upon which there is consensus should in any case be broadcast on television. However, I do not believe what is at issue. The issue is that the hon. the Opposition has a certain policy which it endorses, a policy which differs radically from the policy of this side of the House, and then I am not even talking about the policy of the PRP. Something on which I do agree with the hon. member, is that the various cultures—and there the hon. member quite wisely admits the existence of various cultures—must be introduced on television. I have no fault to find with that. There are various cultures in our country and broadcasts are made in various Bantu languages. I also agree with the hon. member that, if at all possible, I should like to retain one channel for English and Afrikaans broadcasts. I should like this to happen if it is possible to do so.

However, I cannot agree with the other point raised by the hon. member. I do not believe in any event that it is wise to show the world all the squatters’ camps and slum areas, in other words, the things which are not so pleasant.

Just hide them away.

I want to tell the hon. member that if we had had television before 1948, when we could have showed all the slums of that time and the mismanagement which prevailed during those days, not one of them would have remained on the other side of the House today.

I believe that one must look at oneself in a balanced manner and try and solve one’s problems, but I do not think that one should show all the things which are not so pleasant. I can see why the hon. member wants this. He says that we must show John Citizen what our problems are. However, this is not the issue here. The hon. member wants us to exhibit those things and say: Look how bad we are. We are not sufficiently capable to solve these matters. The hon. member also wants the world to draw its own conclusions as far as these matters are concerned.

I leave the hon. member at that. I want to emphasize once again that the Opposition seems to have no perspective nor takes into account the reality of things. The reality is that this side of the House and the leader of this side of the House, the hon. the Prime Minister, is responsible towards the whole of South Africa for what he does or does not do. It is quite obvious to me that the hon. the Prime Minister will justify what he does or what he does not do from time to time over the radio and even on television. Unlike the hon. member for Green Point, and unlike hon. members on the other side, I want to congratulate the department, the SABC, and the legal draftsmen for the Bill which is before the hon. House at the moment. The Bill testifies to thoroughness, as well as of merit. Therefore I believe that we cannot do otherwise than express our gratitude and appreciation for this legislation.

I want to emphasize that, when this legislation comes into force, the SABC, which is an autonomous public utility company, will be able to deal with its administration in a proper manner. This Bill, when it becomes law, will ensure the proper functioning of the country’s broadcasting enterprise. We have no fault to find with what has been done by the SABC so far. If we consider the history of the SABC since its inception—as the hon. member for Green Point correctly remarked—it began with a “crystal set”; he also referred to the “crystal chandeliers” installed in the new broadcasting centre—we can testify that there had been vision in dealing with matters, vision as far as the future was concerned. It was a vision of the future which brought about the realization that the old “Broadcast House” would never meet the requirements which television would demand of us in this country. For that reason the 15 ha of land was purchased in Auckland Park, a plot where one of the largest and most modem broadcasting complexes in the world is situated on one piece of land. This is indeed something to be grateful for. It is something about which we ought to wax lyrical. The broadcasting complex of R23 million will include 52 completely equipped studios on completion.

Mr. Speaker, did you know that 5 000 km of electric cables were installed in that broadcasting centre? If we could form an appreciation of this, we could build up a picture for ourselves around this. Then we would be able to imagine for ourselves what the true situation is.

Furthermore I should like to express my regret that there were so few members of the hon. the Opposition present at the opening of the broadcasting centre.

There are only a few of them.

Mr. Speaker, the administrative head office is housed in a 146 metre high building, a concrete structure which, after the SABC tower, has become a well-known landmark. On completion that building will house approximately 1 500 staff members. This proves once again the progress and the development which has taken place in our broadcasting. The new broadcasting complex also includes a training centre for television, a central warehouse and workshops. Besides the seven broadcasting studios for the television service, rooms have also been set aside for the manufacture of television decor and for other technical activities. The television complex has already cost R51 million.

The new broadcasting centre is the pulse of our national community. There we find what which we are seeking in our national life. There we do not only find those things which take place in our own country, but also those things which take place in the great world in which we are living, a great world which has suddenly become very small. Taking into consideration the numbers of staff members who were recruited abroad for our television service, the world in which we are living is becoming smaller by the day.

South Africa’s television service does not only make a contribution towards the education of our youth, but it also disseminates knowledge and information to millions of people who cannot read or write, people who never enjoyed formal education. According to figures furnished by Unesco, there are 800 million absolutely illiterate people in the world today. In this sphere too our broadcasting system, and in particular our television service, can make a major contribution.

I want to conclude by saying that every South African can be proud of and grateful for that fine institution in the broadcasting system of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I want to join the hon. member for Hercules in one aspect of his speech, namely his compliment to the SABC on its technical excellence. I believe that I can also compliment the hon. the Minister and his department—just to put him in a good mood at the outset of my speech—on the excellence of the SABC’s presentations in so far as the technical aspects are concerned, especially the reception, which I think is experienced by nearly all the viewers and listeners throughout the country. That is something which is directly due to the workmanship of the people who set up the television service.

Considering that we are in the early stages of our television service, I think that on a technical basis our service compares favourably with services I have seen overseas, and certainly favourably with the best in the world. I also believe that I may compliment the hon. the Minister on his attitude—if not on his deeds—in the Second Reading of this Bill. In his reply he displayed a spirit of co-operation, which is not unusual for this hon. Minister. He also gave several undertakings, undertakings relating to politics and relating to the composition of the SABC Board. I believe that I am correct in saying that this hon. Minister will certainly earn the goodwill of this side of the House and, I think, of many thousands of South Africans if he carries out to the letter those undertakings which were given. He is certainly far more amenable to fair criticism than most of the hon. Ministers sitting on that side of the House.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I realize that the hon. the Minister must be wondering— must be somewhat perplexed—why we cannot accept the assurances given and why we cannot support the Third Reading of this Bill. After all, he must be thinking that this is really largely a consolidating Bill. There is much in this Bill which is not new. There are very few new principles involved in this Bill. Very few principles of consequence have been altered. The provisions that are inserted relating to television go very much along the existing lines of the existing Act.

There are in fact very good reasons why we cannot support the Third Reading of this Bill. I want to say to the hon. the Minister in all sincerity that, though he may not agree himself, and though members on that side of the House may not agree with what I say—they may not see any merit in these reasons—if he were sitting on this side of the House, if he were a member of an Opposition group, and if he found the treatment meted out to him as members of the Opposition generally do, on radio and television over the years, or if he were a member of the unenfranchised masses, he would know why we cannot support the Third Reading of this Bill. I shall try, in the short time I have, to explain some of these reasons to the hon. the Minister. Some of them flow from the Committee Stage of the Bill, during which the hon. the Minister, in his charming way, refused to accept any amendments of any consequence which would alter in any way the sense of the Bill which was originally introduced. The Minister says he has accepted two amendments. He did not accept any amendments of any consequence relating to the objections raised against this Bill in the Second Reading. I think that is a correct statement. He left the Bill almost unchanged, unaltered from its original form. Now I ask him, and I ask the hon. members opposite, to believe that the opposition to this Bill epitomizes the measure of distrust felt by thousands of South Africans towards the SABC itself and the manner in which it has conducted its affairs over the years.

How do you prove that?

The opposition to this Bill is not to be found in every case in the exact wording of this Bill. The opposition to the Bill is based on the measure of the distrust in the workings of the SABC over the years. This distrust relates not to the quality of the reception or to the technical excellence of the SABC; it relates to that age-old problem which besets all peoples and countries, namely politics, politics in the first instance and politics in the end result. Let us list a few of these aspects which form the basis of the objection to this Bill. Some of them have already been ably dealt with by the hon. member for Green Point. The very first and most important point is the failure of the provisions of this Bill and the failure of this Minister to create in the Bill itself, in the enabling legislation, a board of representatives, a controlling body which is in fact representative of all the communities and peoples of South Africa. That is the first and basic objection to the Bill and that objection is at present now as it was on the first day of the Second Reading debate. From this key complaint flow all the other complaints relating to the SABC and to the television service, all the complaints relating to biased reporting, all the complaints which have been made, and rejected, relating to one-sided newscasts, all the complaints relating to the question of the pseudo autonomy of the SABC and all the complaints relating to the non-use of Black, Coloured and Indian artists.

Let us look at some of these points. The position is still as it was a few weeks ago. Except for isolated cases Black entertainers, pop singers, classical performing artists, actors in plays, are still largely left out of SABC productions. The South African White public is totally unaware that there is in fact a wealth of established and potential Black talent available in South Africa in almost all spheres of the performing arts. [Interjections.] Do hon. members dispute that? Do they dispute that there is a wealth of Black talent in South Africa? Is that what they are shouting about, Sir? There is a wealth of Black talent available to the performing arts in South Africa. Let us mention but a few of the top people. There are people like Jonathan Butler, a singer, Lionel Pietersen, Margaret Singana, Dollar Brand, Richard Jon Smith, who has achieved world fame outside South Africa, Tallie Pietersen, the guitarist, the Eoan Group, Judith Bailey, a mezzo-soprano, Zane Adams, a pop singer. These are all people who are talented and who are available to the television service in South Africa. [Interjections.] What causes the anguish and the frustration of these people is to see imported foreign talent appearing on the television service while they themselves are left out. Many Indians feel the same. For instance, if we look at an article published, I think, on 9 February in The Natal Mercury, we see the following—

That is the feeling, as I understand it, and I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I have not just taken it from this article. I have in fact spoken to various Indian people in Johannesburg who have television sets and who feel exactly the same as is mentioned in this article.

Now in this connection there are four points to make. We have had assurances given by the Minister and I want to say that those assurances are welcome and we are grateful for them, but almost three weeks have passed since those assurances were given and I want to say that there is no discernible change in the policy of the SABC to date. The Minister’s assurances, as I understood them, in fact represented a discernible change in policy if not in practice, and I would ask that the Minister now give effect to some of the assurances he gave us. It is quite clear, Sir, that it will be necessary to continue to state this viewpoint until it is taken seriously by members on that side of the House. We do not believe that it is necessary to create separate channels for the various race groups, Indians, Coloureds and Whites. We believe that there is sufficient time, within the time channels on the SABC, to ensure that proper representation is given to those people. And if it is felt that this is not sufficient there surely would be no objection to having an increase in the time from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. to say 5 p.m. to 11 p.m., giving an extra hour to enable this to take place.

The hon. member for Green Point spoke of the time of change that we are going through, and that is true. We are in fact going through a time of dynamic change in South Africa, a time in which the interdependence of the races on each other in South Africa is becoming accepted as an undisputed fact. I want to say that the key to peaceful change is education and trust between the peoples of South Africa. I want to state further that the enemy of peaceful change in South Africa is ignorance and distrust between the peoples of South Africa. As has been said and clearly accepted, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians have and must increasingly be brought into the main stream of South Africa’s cultural life. But Whites too need educating. Lack of knowledge of the cultures, of the thinking of our fellow-South Africans of colour is woeful and I say that in these times today it is even dangerous. What better medium in this modem world is there than television to help create through its visual impact that fund of knowledge and goodwill towards those South Africans on the other side of our internal self-built fence of colour? There is no greater medium or greater opportunity at this stage in South Africa to create that fund of trust that will radically aid peaceful change and coexistence. [Interjections.] Now an hon. member over there says that this Bill does not provide for this particular type of thing.

I said this Bill does not prevent it.

What I am saying, as I said at the very beginning, is that the Board of Governors and the controlling bodies of the SABC set the policy of the SABC, and the very policy of the SABC can only be carried out properly and be in the interests of all sections of the community if in fact all sections of the community are represented on that board. That is the point I am trying to make. This Bill does not provide for that.

Finally, there is the argument which has been offered by this Minister and other Ministers that a television service for Blacks is going to be introduced shortly, a television service which it is announced will cost in the region of some R102 million, perhaps more, by the time this is finally brought to fruition. I think that in years to come there will be a need and a desire for this television service to be introduced. I think the diversity of language itself will allow of an extra television service in, for example, Zulu, Xhosa or Sotho. However, we live in a time of tremendous inflation. We are at a stage in which South Africans are being asked to pull in their belts. We are in a time when the Public Service has to make do with a 10% increase after two years. We live in a time when every single item one buys in the shops costs 30% to 40% more than it did two years ago. There are so many important priorities in South Africa. School education for all races in this country, for example, is one of the key-stones to the peaceful development of this country in the future. We have also heard of the chronic housing shortage …

Order! I think it is about time the hon. member came back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you were not in the Chair when I commenced what I wanted to say. You may perhaps not quite have the sense of what I am trying to put across. So, if you will allow me, Sir, I shall merely quote examples to show that there are other priorities, for exmple, technical and social welfare. The Blacks do not even have electricity with which to make use of television sets in many of the townships.

I say that when South Africa is embattled on an economic and financial basis and front, it is a gross wastage of public funds to announce expenditure of this magnitude on a separate television service. One cannot fob people off who need houses and education with a new television service. In my view that is just not good enough. Talking about separate television services, I would just like to say that we must realize that people do not live in separate boxes. We have in fact a community …

But do they not?

No, they do not live in separate boxes. Their lives transcend boxes. We work together; we earn wages together; we occupy cities together; we shop together and people of different races are in the same houses, serving and helping each other in their work. No, everything cannot be separate in life. I believe that we should, in fact, at this stage, have a single television service to cater for all the needs of South Africa.

There is another question, relating to the autonomy of the SABC. Again we have had assurances given by this hon. Minister, assurances relating to the liaison between the SABC, the Minister and Parliament. These assurances are welcome. Obviously we will look to them and watch the hon. the Minister. I am sure he expects us to do just that. Only a day or two ago we had a situation which I should like to refer to. I would just like to ask the hon. the Minister who in fact the boss of the SABC is. What type of information is Parliament entitled to in terms of the Bill? Can the hon. the Minister for instance explain why a television interview with the Postmaster-General was dropped recently? I have an article here which appeared in a newspaper on 12 April 1976 which I would like to quote as an example—

And so it goes on to describe the interview, saying that it might have been a somewhat critical of the telephone shortage, and so on. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister is able to tell us why this interview was in fact not broadcast over television. Or is it a domestic matter? In the light of the Bill and of the hon. the Minister’s assurances I think it would be helpful if the hon. the Minister would tell us exactly where his authority ends and that of the Board of Governors starts or where his starts and that of the Board of Governors ends.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that those are all administrative matters which are not relevant to the Bill.

No, Mr. Speaker, this is relevant to the Bill. I do not wish to argue with you, Sir, but it is relevant to the Bill. These are matters which were raised during the Second Reading debate as well as during the Committee Stage. Certain assurances were given. What I am trying to establish is precisely what those assurances are worth. In other words, I do not wish, for instance, over this particular matter, to make an enormous issue over whether Mr. Rive’s interview should have been broadcast over SATV or not. That is not my purpose. I do not however believe this question is entirely administrative. I think it is of public import. I want to try to establish whether the hon. the Minister is able to assist us and to give us information of that sort when it is required by Parliament.

The Minister said that he was going to establish a board which is going to be the television board. He qualified this by saying that he was not certain whether he would establish it at this stage but that he would give it considerable thought. The only real complaint relates to the establishment of the board which in fact then filters down to all the other aspects, namely the question of biased reporting and the question of politics and politicians. I would like to say that, although members of my political party refused to serve on PIS-COM, I am sure that I could persuade one of my colleagues to serve on the new SABC TV board.

We do not need him.

I would advise you to have him. I am quite certain that I could persuade one of my colleagues such as the hon. member for Parktown or the hon. member for Pinelands, to serve on such a board in which case it would be his task to assist the hon. the Minister in ensuring that we do have fair play on television and in ensuring that we do have a fair picture given in respect of the wide divergence that is South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to react to the hon. member for Sandton except to say that I hope we can now come down off cloud nine and back onto the floor of the House. I see that the hon. member for Pinelands chose to sit in front of him during his speech. Perhaps he did so to prop him up on his heavenly perch.

The hon. member for Green Point made reference to the over-exposure of Ministers, or the ministerial over-exposure, call it what you will, that we have on the television service today. I would like to be a little specific and refer the House to the start of the Easter recess, that is the night of 9 April 1976 when, on the late-night Afrikaans news, we got a 20 minute newscast in excellent colour, technically brilliant, but consisting of the following items; The first item was good news. It was about the hon. the Prime Minister in Israel, and a very newsy item it was. Then it started. The second item was the hon. the Minister of Labour and of Mines, Mr. S. P. Botha, addressing the Rand Afrikaans University. The third item was an item of interest in that it showed the President of the Senate who was once a Cabinet Minister, also at the Rand Afrikaans University. The third item was Minister Alwyn Schlebusch, the Minister of Public Works and Immigration, who gave us a few words of wisdom. The fourth item was Minister S. L. Muller, the Minister of Transport, speaking on Richards Bay and telling us of the cost thereof. Item five was the most dramatic: We saw Minister P. G. J. Koomhof, the Minister of National Education for Sport and Recreation speaking to us on education in English. And who followed then? It was Minister P. G. J. Koomhof, the Minister of Sport, speaking to us on sport in Afrikaans. The rest of the 20 minutes was taken up—hon. members must remember that this was the news feature for the South African public—by the following: We had Punch Barlow being awarded an honorary doctorate at Rhodes University, a snatch of the cricket at Kings-mead and a snatch of the tennis at Ellis Park. Then we had the epilogue.

I am sorry I have to leave this tale here because I think it was only surpassed by what I consider to be real news value which appeared on the 14th—I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Defence is not here and believe me, I sympathize with him in his present predicament—of this month, the first item announced the death of a soldier from wounds, presumably inflicted by Swapo, a very serious event. The second item was the death of another of our servicemen due to kidney damage he had sustained in an accident in the operational area some months before. The third item on the national newscast on television on the night of 14 April advertised the fact that a special issue of Paratus had been issued to celebrate the tenth anniversary of Minister P. W. Botha as Minister of Defence. [Interjections.] In an interjection early this afternoon the hon. the Minister said that the hon. member for Green Point had an amazing technique and ability to say nothing. I want to accuse the hon. the Minister of just that himself, because during the Committee Stage I believe he neglected to reply to something …

Lionel, is he your last speaker?

I may be the last, but not the least. The Minister neglected to reply to something which I believe is of the utmost importance to a number of citizens of our country.

I now want to exanine the effects of what I consider to be a glaring omission from the provisions contained in this Bill, namely the omission from clause 18 of the words “and television licences”. As the Bill now stands—I hope the hon. the Minister will give me a little of his attention—he may under certain conditions, over which the hon. the Minister as well as the SABC have control, issue radio listeners’ licences free of charge to certain categories of hospital, charitable, educational or other institutions and persons as prescribed by the regulations. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the hon. the Minister will not grant himself the right to issue free television licences in such cases as he may deem fit and deserving of such consideration. What is he afraid of? This causes me concern because I feel he must be afraid of something. Why does the hon. the Minister not grant himself these powers? I suggest in all sincerity that he would do well to reconsider this hard-line attitude before this Bill is debated in the Other Place. I say this for many reasons, the most important of which is my firm belief that there are very few citizens of our country who would not heartily approve were he to reconsider his decision. I believe 99% of the citizens of our country would endorse the hon. the Minister’s actions were he to grant concessions to those people and institutions who care for our aged and infirm fellow citizens. Such a concession would enable the ill, the aged and the lonely also to enjoy this wonderful new medium. Again I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we are not suggesting that free licences should be granted willy-nilly. We do not suggest that he goes wild on this exercise. But we are suggesting that each case be considered on its merits and treated accordingly. The hon. the Minister, in his reply to the Second Reading debate made the following statement (Hansard, 31 March, col. 4368)—

The hon. the Minister makes this statement on the premise that 220 000 concessionary or free licences are already issued at the moment. On 22 April, in reply to the following question by my hon. colleague for Berea—

1. (a) To institutions, up to 30 September 1973, 367; up to 30 September 1974, 154; up to 30 September 1975, 173 and (b) Over the past three years to individuals, none.

Are we therefore to understand that in 1973 we had 21 633 licences that are obviously unaccounted for or, alternatively, they could have been concessionary licences of some form. In 1974 there were 21 645 such licences and in 1975 there were 21 826 such licences. As the saying goes; “There is something rotten in the State of Denmark.” I think the hon. the Minister is being misled somewhere along the line. Let us assume that at worst—based on the figures that were supplied in reply to the question by the hon. member for Berea—that there were 250 institutions that would be granted licences, then the cost to the SABC would be a pultry R9 000 per annum. I should like to compare that R9 000 to one chandelier I know of that weighs 15 ton. Let us go to extremes and suppose that the hon. the Minister were to grant 2 000 applications between now and the time that commercial television is introduced, which is 20 months hence. The total cost would probably be in the order of R100 000. I should like to compare this R100 000 to the price of that chandelier as well. I do not think there is much difference. If the hon. the Minister’s figure of 220 000 free radio licences is accurate—I do not know which figures to take now, because there is such a wide diversity here—it would mean that the SABC is losing an amount of R1 100 000 per annum in respect of those licences, if one bases it on a cost of R5 per licence. Surely the hon. the Minister must accept the fact that there is little or no argument against these figures or against the complete and utter “mish mash” that was made of these figures. We would like to hear what the actual position is. Heaven alone knows, it is not much to ask him to reconsider his attitude. I can assure him that the reconsideration of his attitude would be welcomed by all sections of the community. Who knows, if he does it quickly in the Other Place, he may even get a few votes for his party in Durban North. I am sincere in my plea. The hon. the Minister must please not persist with this attitude, only to come back to this House in a few years’ time with an amendment and benevolent smile. People are getting tired of this sort of reaction to amendments that are moved in Committee Stage and rejected without any reply by the hon. the Minister concerned, and in this respect I am also referring to my own amendment. The hon. the Minister did not even do me the courtesy of replying to the amendment I moved.

I replied in full.

The hon. the Minister did not bother to reply to my argument in the Committee Stage. I wonder what our old age pensioners and the chronically ill who are in charitable institutions will think of him for that. Amendments are rejected only to be reintroduced time and again by our worthy hon. Ministers at some later stage as their own highly original ideas. I appeal now to the hon. the Minister—and I shall continue to do so—to consider very carefully the effects of allowing this Bill to go onto the Statute Book in its present form without granting to himself and the SABC the powers he should under clause 18. This would do no harm and he would still be able to use the powers if and when he sees fit to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlanga actually raised two matters here. The one is in connection with the contents of the news programme to which he listened. The only answer I can give him in that connection is that the exception usually proves the rule. Therefore the exception which he held up today in this House proves that the programmes of the SABC are generally very good and very effective.

He should listen to Haas Das.

He also said that the hon. the Minister should be granted more powers in terms of clause 18. He said the hon. the Minister “must grant himself more powers”. These are the words he used. However, for the moment I want to content myself with this because in a moment I shall return to the question of more powers to which the Opposition is so keen to refer.

The hon. member for Sandton once again came along with the old story that they have no confidence in the control and functioning of the SABC. I think the only reason why they do not have confidence in the SABC, is because they fear that the blows which they have received in recent times in this House may possibly be repeated when topical matters come under scrutiny through the medium of the SABC.

Then he also criticized the legislation as such. However, most of the time he made such wide detours that he was quite off the point and had to be called to order. He referred to the composition of the control boards of the SABC and accused this legislation of not making provision for other coloured groups to be appointed on these committees or boards of control. This of course shows that the hon. member did not even read the legislation. After all, nowhere in this legislation does it state that only Whites should be appointed on the Bantu Advisory Board or any of these committees. In the composition of these boards the judgment is left to those making the appointments to decide which people they want to appoint on these particular boards or committees according to merit. In other words, the hon. member has merely used this legislation once again to make political capital out of aspects which actually have nothing to do with this legislation. Indeed, they need political capital after their political bankruptcy of the past week. The hon. member for Sandton mentioned the names of some Black artists. I can also add more names, for example Ray Masengana, Lerato Molefe and Muntu Zulu. However, this does not mean to say that this legislation prevents these artists from performing. This is why the SABC is involved in training programmes to prepare these people so that, when television is available to them, they will be able to prepare proper programmes for themselves.

I wonder whether, in his plea for only one channel, the hon. member really wants the viewers in the Transkei, for example, to look at Haas Das or Biltong and Potroast every night. This is not the intention with the programmes meant for Black viewers.

I should like to associate myself further with the hon. member for Green Point because I think members of the National Party will agree that we must congratulate the SABC on the composition of their programmes. For many years I had the privilege to watch many television programmes abroad. I did not simply see one programme by chance; I saw many. As a result of that I should like to say quite frankly tonight that the programmes which are at present offered in South Africa by the SABC can only cause our viewers to have the fullest confidence in the SABC, its board and our Minister, a confidence that they will present appropriate and educational programmes to the viewing public.

I also want to associate myself with him in respect of the six points he mentioned here. The basic contents of those six points are briefly that television is a powerful medium for opinion making; it is truly a powerful opinion-making means of communication with immeasurable power. Therefore we on this side of the House want to express the greatest confidence that the SABC and the hon. the Minister will give their attention to maintain the present standard of programmes in the future in the implementation of this legislation.

A great deal has been said about the political aspects of the television programmes. I also agree completely with the hon. member that topical events in our country must be presented to the viewers. The same also holds for political matters which have to be presented to the viewing public. He also referred to the fact that in England there are so-called political times when political group discussions take place. In this respect I think one should be rather careful. I have the greatest confidence that our hon. the Minister will deal with this matter cautiously. I am quite aware of the fact that one of the most competent programme leaders, David Frost in England, greatly embarrassed his Government and his people with the kind of political discussions which had been presented on television. I am also aware of the fact that the BBC has stopped them these political discussions since then. The hon. member for Green Point said at the beginning that “the Minister has limited say in the works of the corporation”. In his turn the hon. member for Umhlanga asked that the Minister should have more power over it. It is strange that some of the members of the Opposition complain in connection with this legislation that the Minister has too little power. Let us consider what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North says about this particular matter. I am referring to Hansard of 31 March 1976, col. 4299. I think it is important that we should take note of these two divergent points of view in the same party. I quote what the hon. member said—

He said further (col. 4300)—

Now hon. members must listen carefully—

I should like to reject this statement with all the power at my command. I think it is scandalous for an hon. member of this House to make a statement about other hon. members in the House to the effect that they are becoming “fawning yes-men”. I almost want to say—and I say it with respect towards the Chair—that it is unparliamentary. The hon. member went on to say with reference to the members of the board—

I think this is in extremely poor taste. However, it indicates the two poles. On the one hand it is said that the Minister should have more power and on the other hand that he has too much. This is also what we have heard from the hon. member for Green Point this afternoon. The whole problem of the hon. members of the Opposition concerns the amount of control. I do not think the hon. members quite appreciate the difference between control and management. If we look at this legislation, we see that the aim thereof is practically threefold. On the one hand it aims at setting up the machinery the corporation can use to control the daily activities of the organization. If one reads the legislation, one cannot but gain the impression that it is a complete machinery which truly gives the SABC’s council the proper responsibility and authority to be able to control the organization.

Secondly the Bill concerns the actual control. The three aspects of control are the management, the ministerial control and parliamentary control. I think it is in this connection that hon. members are at sixes and sevens. Management is neither the function of the Minister nor of Parliament. However, there is integration of management between the Minister and the management itself. This is integration of control. There is also integration between Parliament and the Minister regarding legislation, control and the submission of reports. Provision is being made here for the submission of reports.

I conclude by saying that the hon. members of the Opposition adopt opposing standpoints when they refer to the authority the Minister is supposed to have or not to have. They are confusing the concepts of “control” and “management” altogether and therefore do not know what it is all about. I support this legislation in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know who is actually responsible for the organization and for the broadcasts. I do not know whether it is the Minister or the board. If it is the Minister, I should like to ask him whether we could not have more bowls and less politics on television.

I want to raise with the hon. the Minister the question of concessionary radio licences. This matter goes back quite a long way as is apparent from correspondence I have here. I have been asked to deal with this matter by the hon. member for Durban Point who raised this question repeatedly with the hon. the Minister’s predecessor. It concerns concessionary radio licences for people who find themselves in institutions that are subsidized by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. This category of people includes civil pensioners as well as old age pensioners. The hon. member for Durban Point raised this question in September 1975. He asked for concessionary licences for the people in the old age homes which are being subsidized by that department. In point of fact, the people in these homes are really subject to a means test. Therefore it does not apply to every civil pensioner, but only those whose income is below a certain amount.

As such, they are recognized by the department.

Yes, that is so. Therefore it is a proper means test that is applied. The hon. the Minister replied to the hon. member for Durban Point that, if he were to grant such a concession, it would mean that he would have to grant approximately 57 000 licences each year which, in total, would amount to R131 000 per year. This is, of course, incorrect because these figures are based on the total number of civil pensioners and old age pensioners. All we are asking for, is that concessions should be granted to those people who are in proper institutions and who, it has been found, need this sort of assistance. It seems very unfair that there should be two classes of pensioners in the same institution, viz. those who are entitled to a free radio licence and those who have to pay for it. The second group consequently cannot get a radio licence because they simply cannot afford it. We know that the board they pay is determined as a percentage of their income. They are left just about enough money to buy the necessities of life. I wonder if the hon. the Minister would be so kind as to have another look at this matter.

There are two other matters I want to touch on very briefly. The first is the question of commercial television. According to this Bill, commercial television will only come into being on 1 January 1978. If we are to judge by the quality of the programmes that are being broadcast at present and if these are relative to the money the corporation is earning, I would say that the sooner we have commercial television, the better. Not only in my view, but to many people, the present programmes leave a lot to be desired. We know—it is no good being too critical—that SATV has a big job on its hands. It has to cater for a wide variety of people. There are some who have a very cultured taste and prefer opera and high-brow music. At the other end of the scale there are those who prefer pop music or no music at all. We realize that it is difficult to satisfy everyone. Perhaps it would be far better if there could be a second channel catering for other tastes. If the hon. the Minister considers that commercial television will relieve this position, perhaps he can try to accelerate its introduction. If it comes a year earlier, this will do all the good in the world.

The other point I wish to touch on, was also referred to by the hon. member for Wonderboom. It concerns the powers the Minister has. According to the Bill before us, the Minister will now have more powers than he had before, while the Broadcasting Corporation’s services will be less under parliamentary control than before. I am sure no one can gainsay that this is so in terms of this legislation. However, I wonder if it has been realized that this power is being put in the hands of one man. Such power could, of course, be used by an ambitious man for his own ends. Not for a minute am I insinuating that the hon. the Minister would do that, because I think that, like Caesar, he is not ambitious, or is he? All in all, we feel that this is not a step to be pleased about. We consider it a retrograde step because time alone will tell whether these powers are going to be misused by the Minister responsible for the Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I am like Caesar. All I want to tell the hon. member for South Coast, who has just sat down, is that I am not over-ambitious except that I would like to do my work as Minister of National Education, in which capacity I am responsible for the SABC and SATV, as well as is humanly possible. That, I can assure hon. members, I shall endeavour at all times to do.

*Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for the spirit in which this debate was held. As you will have noticed, it was a pleasant spirit. There was no spirit of vindictiveness. In the years I have been sitting in this House, I have experienced some of the most venomous debates on this matter of the SABC and related matters. Therefore I am of the opinion that we have made very good progress and consequently I want to thank the hon. Opposition for the good spirit in which the discussion took place. I also want to convey my sincere thanks to the official Opposition for the fact that they will not oppose the Third Reading of this Bill. I think it is very kind of them, and from my side I want to express my appreciation for this. The hon. members of the Opposition will pardon me now if I say that they reminded me a little of a shy lover who is always being ousted. Sometimes there is not a very big difference between love and hate. The one easily changes to the other. I think that in the arguments we have had from the Opposition on this Bill, we witnessed something of this kind, because I think that without the slightest doubt they displayed the frustration which, in fact, they experience when they discuss the SABC and SATV. Actually they are unable to hide their secret admiration for the work done by the SABC. Nor can they hide their admiration for the influence the SABC and SATV exercise in the Republic of South Africa; nor for the achievements of the SABC in the past with regard to both the Bantu radio and the White radio; or for the clear-sighted view of the South African scene and way of life which both the SABC and SATV afford this country; or for the standpoints—the unbiased standpoints I may say—concerning the conservative factors in our national life for which the SABC has been responsible for many years; or for the well-balanced way in which matters of current interest are dealt with, or for the healthy balance which is maintained in spite of problems with which the SABC is faced, problems through which it has to steer with care so that justice will be done to everybody in this country.

I think it is this secret admiration which, at the same time, led to the attacks which were made, many of which, as I have said, lacked venom, and for that we have great appreciation. These were nevertheless attacks which, to my mind—and I have studied this legislation and I know it quite well by now—were made owing to a real and basic lack of knowledge. Not one of the hon. members opposite, for instance, even referred to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into matters relating to Television which appeared in 1971. Many well-informed people served on that commission. Dr. P. J. Meyer was the chairman, and the members were inter alia, Prof. Thom, Dr. Gericke, Dr. Riekert, Dr. S. M. Naudé, Prof. J. M. Leighton, Prof, G. J. Beukes and Bishop R. W. F. Cowdry. This is why I say that we already have one bishop; we do not want another one! Dr. Schutte was secretary of the commission. If hon. members were to look at this report, they would realize that television was not simply introduced in South Africa in a haphazard way, but that it was done after a thorough and exhaustive investigation. For that reason one notes with gratitude the secret admiration of members opposite.

I do not want to start answering in the wrong order, but let us look for instance at what the hon. member for Sandton had to say about the so-called “Black artists”. Black artists appear on television from time to time. The names of Pietersen, Butler and others have been mentioned to me. Some of them play in orchestras, etc. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Langlaagte also mentioned a few names. It is certainly not the policy to prevent Black or non-White artists from appearing on television, but the hon. member opposite seemingly does not know this.

I should like to reply to the questions and the issues which the hon. Opposition raised. The party of the hon. member for Green Point made proposals this afternoon, and what, for the most part, they amount to, as I shall try to indicate, is that the SABC does in fact perform its task well. The work of the SABC is actually endorsed and in essence it is being told: Carry on the good work. I am actually very thankful for that. The hon. member for Green Point made a good speech and, as I shall indicate, in general I agree with the six points he raised. To a large extent these six points already form part of the policy of the SABC and SATV, but I shall nevertheless reply to each one.

The hon. member very piously mentions what is done in Britain in this regard. I immediately want to say that there is not the slightest doubt that I have the greatest respect for Britain; in fact I studied there for three years. However, if it is put to us that what is right in Britain should ipso facto be right in South Africa, I say this is the wrong way round. It is putting the cart before the horse. This is in no way necessary. Instead of informing this House as to what is being done in Britain, I want to inform this House as to what the policy is in South Africa in regard to the SABC and SATV in this respect. I think it will interest the hon. members to know what the function of the SABC is in the first instance. I quote—

These are the terms of reference of every member of the staff of the SABC and here it is in black and white for the staff of the SABC to carry out. I now ask whether the hon. member or any of his colleagues can object to this being the function of the SABC. These are the terms of reference which the SABC must carry out. With regard to the third point, which concerns impartiality, it is laid down that all news and information should be presented objectively, impartially and on the basis of factual news value. People are so fond of talking about the news, but I have often heard Mr. Douglas Fuchs, the former director-general of the SABC, say that news presentation on the SABC is sancrosanct—that is to say, sacred. One cannot bring in all kinds of nonsense while broadcasting news. News is factual and one gives the facts of the news and that is that. However, the hon. members do not see this. They ought to praise and thank the SABC for what is, to me, one of the best news services in the world, because it is presented in the way I have told you about, on a local, national and international basis. The news is given to the public as information on the basis of factual and unbiased news. Who is the public? The public is all the people of the Republic of South Africa, White and non-White. For that reason it is laid down that the news shall be objective and unbiased and is to be presented on the basis of factual news value. Hon. members would do well to listen again to the news broadcasts of the SABC and then decide for themselves whether this is the case or not. This is the instruction which all the officials have to carry out. Furthermore, all possible attempts will be made to stress both sides of a matter of polemical nature in a balanced way. Reports of events in Parliament or of any other legislative body, will be presented objectively, impartially and factually. Ministerial statements on Government policy and ministerial explanations concerning legislative measures are regarded as factual news and treated as such.

The fourth point concerns commentary. Commentary in the form of statements or explanations may only be broadcast when it comes from a person with the authority to release it. We in this House may surely all be regarded as responsible people. If, then, one wants to meet the requirements I have referred to, requirements concerning the domestic policy of the SABC, surely it is simply impossible to broadcast commentary from every Tom, Dick and Harry and still be under the impression that one is rendering a service to the country. The fact is, surely, that commentary should only be had from people of authority—acknowledged experts or spokesmen in their official capacity—and who also represent an acknowledged body or institution. Such a spokesman cannot therefore be just anyone.

For the sake of completeness, I want to make further reference to this fifth point, which concerns crime and sensation. In this regard we have sufficient reason to praise and thank the SABC and SATV. It is the policy of the SABC in this matter that reports or information on crime should be handled with the greatest care and with a view to good taste, as is fitting for a Christian and civilized country. I really wish the daily Press would also recognize a similar code with regard to its internal policy, especially as regards its reporting on crime. Reports on crimes involving sex or filth are not broadcast. Any possibility that the relatives of a person involved in a crime may be personally embarrassed, must be prevented. Surely these are high ideals, ideals which no decent person would oppose.

The sixth point concerns incitement and panic. No news report broadcast by the SABC may contain elements in conflict with the laws of the country, the provincial ordinances of the Republic of South Africa, or any regulations promulgated in terms of such laws or ordinances. I ask myself whether many of the complaints which come from that small party, are not perhaps the direct result of this provision, a provision in terms of which the SABC gives clear expression to the principle of not criticizing existing laws and regulations and by doing so confusing the public, as that little party is so fond of doing at times. Concerning the internal policy of the SABC, the principle is upheld that no programme may be presented in a way which may cause unrest or panic or as a result of which revolutionary aims may be encouraged internally. When we take note of this, it is easy to understand where certain criticism of the SABC originates. There are many people who would very much like to do exactly the opposite of what is implied by the principles applied in the SABC’s internal policy affairs. In terms of its stated policy the SABC and SATV render an excellent, pure and extremely valuable service to South Africa. It cannot be anything else; its policy is clear and correct. It is provided, too, that no programme may be broadcast which, in the opinion of the SABC, could possibly incite public opinion or could lead, directly or indirectly, to contravention of the law, or could pose a threat to the security of the country. After all, this is a matter which rests upon excellent foundations. A further policy rule is—

This is another factor which contributes towards the SABC being kept clean. Hon. members can imagine what would happen in a country like South Africa with its kaleidoscope of people if one did not have such a firm rule. Imagine the appeals and requests there would have been. If one does it for one, then one must do it for the others. Where would it end if one began to do this on radio? That is not to mention television.

Suicide is also referred to, but I do not want to read it. I do not want to waste the time of the House. For example, the following is said concerning religion—

Should I say this to hon. members? Thank God for the religious peace we have in the Republic of South Africa. If one wants to find one of the most important reasons for this, one will find it in the policy of the SABC and SATV, a policy which is pure and correct, excellent and praiseworthy. This applies to reports which contain direct advertisement for a prticular denomination or faith. I now come to the following directive—

Once again this befits a good broadcasting corporation and a Christian and civilized country. We want to honour the Sabbath and keep it sacred and the same goes for Good Friday and the other religious holidays celebrated in our country. Who can argue with this? This is what keeps our country on course in difficult times. This is why we on the southern tip of Africa are a stronghold against communist attacks. This is why we in South Africa are a stronghold against immorality and all the other filthy things which found favour to such an extent in the Western world and have sown so much destruction that Solzhenitsyn and others have come like prophets of old, to warn Western civilization to take care, because it would be possible to conquer it without a shot being fired, since they have become rotten to the core. If no one else wants to do so, then I, the Minister concerned who took over the portfolio a short while ago, shall praise the SABC for its excellent internal policy and for the role it plays in the Republic of South Africa.

I should now like to say something about political reports. I see the hon. member for Pinelands, who is a Minister, likes what I say and agrees with me. I want to thank him sincerely.

He knows a good message when he sees one.

Yes, he knows a good message when he sees one. I should now like to discuss the internal policy in respect of political reports—

1. (1) dit van ’n feitelike of gesagheb-bende aard is;
2. (2) dit ’n positiewe beleidsverklaring van ’n politieke party is ten opsigte van enige gebeure of dispuut en mits die verklaring, soos uitgesaai, nie vergelykings met of kommentaar oor die verklaarde beleid of stappe van ander Suid-Afrikaanse politieke partye bevat nie …

There is a description of a political party. Since time does not permit, I shall leave it at that. I continue—

1. (3) opmerkings gemaak of menings gelug word deur die erkende leier van ’n politieke party, nasionaal of provinsiaal, wat die publiek ’n aanduiding gee van sy party se houding ten opsigte van ’n gebeurtenis of ’n dispuut; en
2. (4) politieke argumentasie sal oor die SAUK nie gebruik word nie. Die voorgaande sal altyd onderhewig wees aan die voorwaarde dat partypolitieke kommentaar wat daarop gemik is om ’n politieke party of ’n lid van sodanige party te benadeel, nie in enige nuusdiens uitgesaai sal word nie.

Surely this is pure and clean as well as fair. Therefore we are grateful that the SABC does not carry the political polemical disputes we raise across the floor of the House and at political meetings, like the one I addressed last night in Durban North, into our homes. After all, we have many homes in South Africa; we not only have White homes, we also have Coloured and Bantu homes. Why should we want to carry our political disputes into the lounges of peoples’ homes? Therefore, in my opinion, the policy is a sound one. However, the policy also states that reports should not be of a polemical nature. We do not disparage a single party over the SABC or over SATV, not even the PRP. This is really an achievement!

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister why his speech in Durban North was not reported as was the case when the hon. the Minister of Defence spoke there?

I did not make a statement about national affairs last night at Durban North. If I had made such a statement then …

What did you say?

I made a heck of a good political speech. [Interjections.] I went for the PRP with all the relish I possessed.

*But the hon. member must not try and put me off. What I have just mentioned will always be subject to the requirement that party political commentary aimed at harming a political party or a member of such party, will not be broadcast in any news service. All reports, whatever their nature, must comply with the SABC’s interpretation of good taste. This will take account of physical defects, deformities, racial or colour questions, medical particulars or references to parts of the human body, unsavoury particulars of drunkenness or drug addiction and gambling. Particulars of torture, executions and the suffering of man or animals will not be broadcast or shown on television. The S ABC’s interpretation of good taste will adopt as a point of departure the fact that programmes can be enjoyed by all members of the family, from the smallest boy or girl to the oldest grandfather and grandmother. Surely it is good, pure and fitting in a Christian country that an important body like the SABC should have such a policy.

It is a good Platonic principle.

That hon. member is a Christian and he should not speak rubbish about these matters; he should agree with them.

I said it was a good principle of Plato.

Oh, I am pleased that the hon. member thinks so. Reports or programme material containing an advertisement for a commercial concern will only be broadcast if: The news value or programme value exceeds the advertisement value; the report on programme is presented without mentioning the name of the product or concern; failure to mention the name of the product or concern may lead to confusion; a case of emergency causes it to be necessary and justified; and the report or programme can be related to provision 7 of the code or section 16 of the corporation’s licence. Then the general policy follows. Before I come to the general policy, I just want to read the following concerning foreign affairs—

As far as the general policy is concerned, I want to point out the following—

I have now presented the internal policy of the SABC to hon. members and have kept my word as regards informing the hon. House about the basis on which the SABC rests. I shall try to do this at all times, because while there are hon. members who may think that there are matters relating to the SABC or SATV which are concealed, it is my standpoint that we are dealing here with a powerful medium which should not be hidden from view but should be placed in the public eye—as I did this afternoon—so that everyone can see it and can cease criticizing things which are fine and noble and honest in this country. Hon. members will now understand why I adopted this standpoint on these matters with so much conviction during the Second Reading.

I now come to a few questions which hon. members put to me. I have already answered most of them, but I should once again like to tell the hon. member for Green Point that I have much appreciation for his speech. In my opinion it was a good speech. I shall look carefully at each of the six points the hon. member raised. I shall ask my officials to look at them with a view to when on the 29th of this month, that is next Thursday, I discuss with the chiefs of the SABC the review of the entire policy structure as raised in the House during this debate. This applies to television in particular. Television is a new medium, and the principles upon which it rests are absolutely pure, firm and correct. I think hon. members will readily agree with me but at the same time they must remember that we are a modern society. I do not close my eyes to this, nor to the hints which came from both sides of this House. Therefore I have asked the chiefs of the SABC to see me on 29 April. We shall then take a fresh look at each of the six points.

I now want to deal with a few aspects so as to avoid misunderstanding. Firstly, I want to refer to the statement which the hon. member made here about chief Matanzima. Chief Matanzima is a person whom I have known for 25 years, and I only refer to him in a particular political connection. I have very little time to watch television, but I have seen some of these chief ministers of the homelands on television. The other day Prof. Ntsamwisi made a speech on television, and if one of them can appear on television, then the others can too. There is not the slightest doubt about this. Mangope was also on television the other day.

You have changed your attitude.

No, this is why I said to the hon. member by way of interjection that I only made that reference within the framework of this specific point raised here, so as not to involve him in White politics. That is why I made that reference. Therefore I want to put the matter very clearly here. Within the framework of the principles which I mentioned here, it is the policy that they can indeed appear on television, as in the case of Mangope and Prof. Ntswanisi. Due to a lack of time I do not want to elaborate on that any further, but I shall go into these matters further when the matter is further discussed. I have already answered the hon. member for Sandton’s argument concerning Black artists. I do not think there are any further important points which I have not yet answered as far as he is concerned.

†I must now be honest and say that the hon. member for Umhlanga gave us nothing but a blank page on this occasion. If he ever were to be responsible for TV I would not be surprised if we also had blank image television.

*The hon. member tried to make a fool of me here with the figure of 220 000 as against the 367 (1973), 154 (1974) and 173 (1975) which he mentioned here. What are the facts of the matter? In both cases, however, I was completely correct. The hon. member must not try and make a fool of one if he is not sure of his own facts. When I quoted the figure 220 000 during the debate, I had the facts before me. The 220 000 licences to which I referred, however, referred to a particular type of licence, viz. concessionary licences. There is a variety of types of concessionary licence in the country. Now the hon. member is smiling and pretending that he knew what he was talking about. However, he definitely did not know what he was talking about. There are concessionary licences of R1 and of over R1. I repeat that the information I gave to the hon. member was completely correct. There are 220 000 concessionary licences. That is the one point.

Then another hon. member in this House asked me how many free licences there were in the country.

Yes.

Now he says “yes” and I can really hear the echo of his words, because his head must be extremely hollow if he makes that kind of allegation here. There is a vast difference between concessionary licences, of which there are 220 000, and free licences, of which there were 367 in 1973 and 173 in 1975. That figure, which I provided, is also completely correct. These are the facts of the matter and the hon. member must not make out that I did not know what I was speaking about. I knew very well what I was speaking about.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.