Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I am sad to announce that there are aspects of this report which I believe to be both shocking and disgraceful. [Interjections.] As such it is a matter of scandal and a great shame for South Africa. I will deal with these revelations towards the end of my speech, but for the moment I must start at the beginning.

The report comes in several sections. The first bit is a sophisticated piece of “climatesetting.” The existence in 1982—voila!—of the South African community is discovered. A country in which less than 20% of the population have a vote, in which people are banned or imprisoned without trial, and some of them even die in detention—a country such as this is described by the commission as a “dynamic, expanding democracy.”

The report pontificates on the threat situation, the politics of siege, and inevitably it endorses the NP philosophy of “total onslaught.” It harnesses, for this purpose— over hundreds of turgid pages—the Soviet onslaught, the Western liberal groupings’ onslaught and myriad Black movements’ onslaught, and even the onslaught of priests, and exposes them all as part of a vast and evil conspiracy of world-wide proportions out to destroy, to decimate all that is good, decent and upright in our fair and badly misunderstood land. [Interjections.]

For every total onslaught, however, there must of course a be strategy. How could one possibly go without the other? So, in the recommendations, this villainous and total threat is totally dealt with.

In coming to these momentous conclusions it is fascinating to note that of the 176 individuals, institutions and organizations which the commission consulted only approximately four were not white, thus, of course, ensuring that the commission achieve the balance to which we are accustomed in this country.

Let me mention, however, the main recommendations of the commission. It recommends a central Press Council and a statutory register of journalists—a form of professionalization or, as the commission puts it: “To guarantee media freedom and independence.” It is to provide for internal control, devoid, of course, of Government interference. How does it propose to implement this? By proposing that the Government finance the setting up of this council and by recommending that, in its first year, which will be the crucial year, in which the council sets its standards, its procedures, etc., it be a body fully appointed by the Government. That is not enough, however. Even after the first year, its composition will be three persons appointed by the Government—who else?— three persons elected by the Government-controlled SABC, three members of the magazine industry—which should—quite predictably, deliver a majority of Government representatives or Government-orientated members—and three persons elected by the newspaper world. This then is the “independent” body which will spring to life and save South Africa from the total onslaught!

It is this carefully rigged, impartial body, which will judge the political writings of the Press. It is this so-called internal control device which will have the power to reprimand, to punish, to debar journalists from writing, to silence those who go too far and to strike down those who break the rules of the total strategy. And of course there must be a register. I had almost forgotten that. It will be a compulsory register, an all-embracing register. Not that any journalist asked for it. Not an editor asked for it. Not a writer asked for it. No one asked for it. Of course, there are precedents. I admit freely that there are precedents for a register in the world around us. I think we all remember that Adolf Hitler created one in Germany many years ago. We remember that General Franco used such a register in Spain in the early 1930s. We remember that Mussolini got a register going in Italy, and, of course, in Haiti “Papa Doc” Duvalier found a great deal of merit in the concept of a Press register. I think Nicaragua has one, and certainly registers exist in profusion behind the Iron Curtain. So perhaps not all that is Soviet is bad. This then will be a coercive register, the sword of political discipline held in the hands of an ever-vigilant Government-supporting council. This then is democratic South Africa’s answer to the onslaught conducted by the forces of Marxist dictatorship.

The opportunity is not given to many men of destroying a tradition, an institution which has survived through peace and through war in this country since 1828, since the epic struggles of Pringle, Fairbairn, of Ds. Faure of the N.G. Kerk. All these people fought in those days for a free Press. The commissioners must be very special, very honourable men to have this opportunity. [Interjections]. Yet I wonder, for the truth of this document is laid bare for all to see. The recommendations maintain a pretence of supporting independence, but its statutory register and its gerrymandered council are no more nor less than a politically inspired proposal to introduce Press control by form of stealth.

I believe that it is a pity that the commission found it necessary to obscure its findings and recommendations in such a welter of pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo. It would have been much more honest of the commission just to have come straight out and said what they really wanted.

But I must move on. One of the loftier phrases used by the commission on page 1160 of the report in setting standards for journalists was—

These are fine sentiments; yet on page 730 the commission moved away from that very fact and credibility it itself advises. Under the intriguing heading “Pack journalism” it proceeds, in order to bolster its viewpoint, to attempt to commit the political assassination of two journalists who wrote a book titled Render unto Kaiser. It described the authors as media men baying and snapping at the pariah society and using such emotive words as “contemptible”, “destructive of integrity”, “repelling depths” and the like. The comments of the commission are an almost open invitation to burn the book and to behead the authors! But upon what does the commission base its views? I refer to paragraph 4(vii) on page 735—this is what they based their views on—and which states—

To all intents and purposes the book was apparently not even read by the commission. Only the review of the book in the anti-Government Sowetan features in the report and seems to have been noticed. Do hon. members know that the book that is so attacked is not even mentioned in the bibliography of the commission and that the authors were not even invited to appear before the commission to explain their views before the commission attacked them as it did?

Getting back to those phrases about “accuracy”, “dealing with facts”, about “credibility” and “integrity”—and there are masses of such phrases in this report—I have this question to ask: How can a judicially-headed commission base a vicious attack on the writers of a book it has not even read? How can that be done?

How do you know that?

I state it.

If you state it, does that mean that it is a fact?

Reviewing a book without reading it is considered dishonest and a serious professional misdemeanour. I have read the book and it is a very good book. It is critical.

Ah!

Yes, it is critical and it is even a subjective book, but it also enunciates a legitimate point of view and it backs up its points of view with researched facts. I say that this attack on those journalists in this report is just another example of the commission applying that same “pack” or “advocacy” journalism it so denigrates.

Double standards.

In the space of a few moments, by doing no more than discussing cursorily two aspects of the report, I believe I have been able to reveal to hon. members two instances of distasteful political chicanery employed by these hon. gentlemen.

When I started I said there were aspects which were shocking and which were disgraceful. These are strong words. Perhaps I should deal with those aspects now. This aspect focuses directly on this “impartial”, “judicial”, “penetrative” and above all “original” report. Here I am obliged to ask hon. members—those who have the report in front of them—to turn to page 127, to paragraphs 10 and 11. I should now like to read to hon. members a few short passages from a book which enjoyed a modicum of prominence in the late ’70s and which according to booksellers I have asked still enjoys a certain saleability in intellectual circles. The book is called The Rise and Crisis of Afrikaner Power and was written by two academics, viz. Heribert Adam and Hermann Giliomee.

I wish to read to hon. members a paragraph from page 235 of the book, and I hope that all those interested are now looking at paragraph 10 of the report. I read from page 235—

[Interjections.] I am reading from a book that was published about Nationalist newspapers some years ago. There is a remarkable similarity as regards intellectual thought and even literary style between this and paragraph 10 of the report. In fact, the passage that I have read from this book is indentical to paragraph 10 of the report. However, on the very next page the mystery deepens. I refer to paragraph 13 of the report, and perhaps hon. members would like to look at that paragraph on page 128 and while they look at that paragraph I will read from page 239 of the book I mentioned. It reads as follows—

This is what Dr. Giliomee, or at least the Commissioner, states. For the benefit of those hon. members who do not have the report before them, I would like to read paragraph 13 on page 128. That paragraph reads as follows, and I am now reading from the report—

I find it incredible that a finding of a commission after “independent” and “scientific” research can, after “deep thought”, coincide so exactly with the thinking—and even with the choice of words—of Mr. Adam and Dr. Giliomee. I wonder whose findings that important paragraph 13 really reflect? Are they the commissioners’ finding, or are they Dr. Giliomee’s finding? I must say, Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled, for there is nothing in the rhetoric which I have just read out from the report, which the hon. commissioners have couched in quotation marks, nothing at all. Yet these paragraphs purport to be the original findings and comments of the commissioners. However, I was inquisitive; so I looked up an index of those who gave evidence and those who were consulted. I also paged through the bibliography, but neither Mr. Adam nor Dr. Giliomee are even given so much as scant acknowledgement; nor is their book. As far as I can see it is only their thoughts and their words which appear in the report and—I may say—in almost unabridged form. Of course, this appears under the names of the commissioners and not under Mr. Adam and Dr. Giliomee.

However, from the sublime to the ridiculous. On paragraph 11 of the report on page 127, in quoting a passage written by Dirk Richard the omission gives the impression that it had studied the full paper Richard wrote in 1976 on the role of the Afrikaans Press. Yet, this quotation, as well as the translation of the quotation from its original Afrikaans, and even the Adam and Giliomee introduction to it were lifted directly from the footnote to page 235 of this book which I have in my hand. I wonder whether the commissioners considered or even saw the whole paper and then sagely pondered upon its contents or whether the quoted paragraph they discovered in the book just seemed to read well and they thought they might as well put it in.

You know, Sir, academics who are found out at this sort of thing, usually lose their jobs and reputations. [Interjections.] Journalists who plagiarize others are fired. Civil court cases have been founded on less, and damages have been awarded. I am not at all sure if we do not have an example here of a criminal infringement of the Copyright Act.

I have a few questions, firstly for the honourable commissioners and secondly for the Government to answer. I should like to ask the honourable commissioners how many other passages, how many other quotations, how many other opinions and findings have been surreptitiously cribbed from the original works of others. How many of these views are really those offered by the commissioners? Which opinions are whose? More important, however, it is for the Government to decide, what value—I ask this of the Cabinet sitting opposite me—can be placed on this report, a report which pleads Press freedom but recommends a system of control which will lead to the death of that very freedom, a report which condemns two journalists without hearing them or without reading the work upon which their condemnation is based? Finally, what value can be placed on the views of men who have borrowed those views from others without acknowledgment? What value can be placed on a report in which there are errors even in the errata list? A single dishonesty found in a document which can affect the lives of other people should destroy that document. Three dishonesties, and perhaps others undiscovered, should consign it to where it came from.

I ask: What cognizance can any honest academic take of the writings of these learned, unbiased and “honourable” commissioners? If the Government implements any of the main recommendations, any one of them, it will stand convicted in the eyes of the Free World, it will have stoked up its own bogus Reichstag fire and in an orgasm of intellectual perfidy it will move, yet again backed up by these honourable commissioners, to curb, to halt and to silence its political enemies. What is left of democracy in our land will strangle and suffocate, though perhaps a little slower than Dr. Aggett.

I can summarize my feelings no more adequately than Ken Owen did in an excellent article he wrote a few days ago. I should like to read his conclusion—

And I say: Amen!

Mr. Speaker, commission reports have become an important instrument in our system of government. The appointment of commissions draws attention in a particular way to a specific problem and affords interested parties an opportunity to air their standpoints and opinions freely, in the knowledge and with the hope that they will be scientifically systematized and will form part of a specific pattern of finding. It is an excellent method of collecting and processing factual material on a very wide basis. Consequently a commission report affords a basis for discussing a specific problem for the first time, or it affords a further basis for reconsidering a specific problem. Pre-eminently it affords a basis on which a problem that has already been identified and on which opinions covering a very wide spectrum have already been obtained, one which has already been systematized and on which findings have already been laid down, may be discussed and from which one may then learn valuable and useful lessons in a critical and conscientious way which can be used as part of the search for a solution. Commission reports have become status documents. History itself will determine the quality of this status. History itself will impart the necessary honour or dishonour to those who participated in the giving of evidence, or to those who systematized the evidence, as well as to those who subsequently debated the evidence, in this House as well as in other places. In the final instance, history will also impart honour or dishonour to those who eventually had to decide on the findings of the commission.

The report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Mass Media displays some of these particular characteristics, and possibly others as well. I think it affords us an excellent opportunity to conduct a debate on this exceptionally delicate matter. Of course not everyone who listens to this debate or subsequently reads about it, will agree with us, for various reasons. We are politicians, representatives of specific parties, each with its own standpoints, principles and ideals. Besides that, of course, we only have a limited time in which to discuss the matter.

It is my opinion that the Government has so far dealt with the report with the greatest measure of circumspection, level-headedness and finesse. I have appreciation for the work done by the chairman and his fellow commissioners. As far as I am concerned, I should like to display sufficient modesty to say that the report of the commission can only be placed in its true perspective when all the parties concerned have had every opportunity to study the recommendations. The work of a commission is done in the spirit of what Thucydides, the Athenian, wrote when he imposed upon himself the task of compiling the history of the Peloponnesian war. I quote—

In this idealistic spirit, this side of the House would like to conduct a debate on the report which, in spite of any possible shortcomings, nevertheless affords us an opportunity to discuss it in a critical and enthusiastic way.

Annexure A contains a comprehensive list of organizations and individuals who gave written as well as oral evidence. Twelve persons from five organizations associated with the media gave evidence. The media gave evidence. Twenty persons represented 19 other organizations. Thirty persons represented 21 Government departments. Twenty-five well known personages from the world of the media, testified in their own personal capacity. They include Mr. Ivor Benson, Dr. Willem de Klerk, Dr. P. G. du Plessis, Mr. Tertius Myburgh of the Sunday Times, as well as Mr. Pogrund. In addition 21 academics testified, including Prof. Piet Cillie, Prof. Dugard, Dr. Danie Craven, Prof. Mike Louw and others. There were 81 other individuals who gave evidence. Those who gave evidence included the late Dr. Kosie Gericke and Mr. Joel Mervis. There were other persons who are perhaps better known to us, Messrs. H. H. Schwarz, G. B. D. Terblanche and J. W. E. Wiley.

Where was Dalling?

Annexure B contains a list of sources containing approximately 210 works and reports which, as is indicated, were consulted by the commission. These cover a diversity of writers, subjects and studies. The spectrum representing the Afrikaans view point was relatively wide and includes W. A. de Klerk and Edward Roux, J. H. P. Serfontein and Prof. Van der Vyver on the one hand and Prof. G. D. Scholtz and the late Prof. A. N. Pelzer on the other. In addition, the works of internationally renowned personages were consulted. The best known include people like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Rudyard Kipling, N. P. van Wyk Louw, Bertrand Russell, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Arnold Toynbee, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and many others. From the list of witnesses, as well as the list of sources, we may therefore assume that a broad spectrum of persons and bodies, experts and interested parties made their wisdom, experience and standpoints available, and that the members of the commission also had recourse to a large diversity of authors.

The report itself comprises specific introductory remarks, and then the South African circumstances are examined. This is followed by references to the South African conflict and threat situation, then to the consequences of that situation in the South African circumstances and, finally, comments on the South African media.

As far as the introduction is concerned, I just wish to say that various people have different methods of dealing with a specific piece of work. Ultimately their own individual modus operandi are their own responsibility, and they alone are consequently able to account for such methods. However, I am satisfied that the members of the commission were not only prepared to take their major and formidable task upon their shoulders, but that they were also competent to do so. However, they were not only competent to do so, but did not allow themselves to be intimidated either. Here I should like to refer to page 12 of the report, where we find inter alia the following—

1. (i) that the lines along which this Commission is called upon to conduct its investigations are neither inconsistent nor irreconcilable with the accepted principles of Press or media freedom, nor incompatible with the normal newspaper and journalistic practice judged by ethical, technical and professional standards;
2. (ii) that such freedom and practice may on the contrary be indeed well served ultimately by an investigation along the lines this Commission has been called upon to conduct; and
3. (iii) we are also unanimously of the opinion that the Terms of Reference this Commission has been tasked with are capable of at least substantial performance, and most certainly not clearly incapable of any performance whatever.

This commission also adopted a specific standpoint on the Government, and I quote what the commission had to say on page 7—

The commission also furnished its views of other governments, and I quote further—

Then, mention is also made of the commissions that have been appointed since 1947 in England. However, the commission also furnished its observations on the reaction of the media to the appointment of the commission. I quote (page 8)—

That is what they should have done.

On the next page the members of the commission are so fair that they are able to say the following—

To my mind these words of the commission are also a demonstration of the attitude which they displayed in their approach to their task. We ought to have great appreciation for this.

Upon my perusal and study of the report the question occurred to me whether people would not be of the opinion that the commission had wandered too far afield in its inquiry. According to my way of thinking and approach the reply to that “no”. The mandate of the commission focused on the relationship between State and media, but both State as well as media are, after all, interwoven into the other facets of the pattern of life of our society. It goes without saying then that when the subject of media and State is being examined, one will simultaneously examine the other facets which are interwoven into this relationship. A natural consequence is that the State will also be scrutinized, i.e. the functioning of politics in such a State, etc. In addition it will also be important for one to consider the philosophical concepts of that State, as well as the constitutional concepts and views and what other people think of it.

The other very important thing that the commission did was to examine how those who seek political power are active in other facets of the pattern of life as well, and in this case, particularly how those who seek political power and control behave themselves in the sphere of theological discipline. Moreover, it goes without saying that the events, attitudes and tension in the global milieu would be examined. In addition the global milieu as such also had to be analysed, i.e. East/West relations, the relations between the First and the Third World, etc. All these things then had to be placed in an historical perspective before any findings or recommendations could be made.

In weighing up all the data the commissioners arrived at certain clear observations, and accepted certain things as irrefutable realities in Southern Africa. The one was the existence here in Southern Africa of a South African society. This is an old truth, but a truth which nevertheless is still valid. This South African society is moreover defined as consisting of heterogeneous cultural groups that have in the course of their history come to cherish strong emotions, opinions and views of themselves and also of other ethnic groups. This, again, is an old truth, but a steadily growing one. Thirdly, there is in this heterogeneity a conflict potential which is very strong and which could be fomented by other people. Furthermore South Africa is seen as a part of the world’s power game and power struggle. From this it follows that the commission observed an onslaught on South Africa, not only from the communist world, but also from the liberal West.

I want to single out a few observations, and refer in the first place to the interesting and stimulating view of the commission on the standpoints and writings of Prof. John Dugard. The commission treated the writings and evidence of prof. Dugard with the greatest respect and furnished a reasoned motivation when they differed with him. In addition I wish to draw attention to chapter 4, and specifically part 4 of that chapter, where mention is made of politicised theology and theologized politics. Mr. Speaker, you will parden me for saying that when I read these sections, I thought of the hon. member for Pinelands.

Would you repeat that? I missed that.

However one wishes to regard these specific aspects—whether one wishes to negate them with petty politics to boot—I wish to say that this portion of the report is of inestimable value for all who wish to examine how the communist world has infiltrated the theological world, the churches, with the purpose of not only destroying the evangelical message, but also to get people and groups of people into their power. The commission also took a very thorough look at the world Council of Churches and at the South African Council of Churches.

Another very interesting finding of the commission is that there is a very strong and vehement onslaught on the Afrikaner in Southern Africa, and it states that this is a fact which cannot be argued away by anyone.

The mandate of this commission was to investigate the mass media, and in its findings it not only expressed criticism in respect of the media, but also in respect of the Government. The commission also singled out the Government for criticism. As far as the media is concerned, the commission found that the concept of “press freedom” “had become unduly sloganized in too many Press circles”. The commission also found that the Press was frequently used as a convenient whipping boy for shortcomings which are prevalent elsewhere. In addition the commission also expressed criticism of the English-language Press in particular, but said that the exposure of the so-called “bungling” in the former Department of Information had in certain respects been commendable. The commission also described inter alia the contribution made by the English-language Press to the constant transmission of information on Blacks, on their standpoints and aspirations, as being “very valuable to the South African community”. On the other hand the SABC and the Afrikaans-language Press is criticized because they are not doing enough in this connection. In addition points of criticism are levelled at the Government.

However, I want to point out that we as politicians are accustomed to criticism. After all we are subjected to the criticism of the general public every five years. With all its shortcomings—if there are any shortcomings—this report has in my opinion created a basis for everyone in South Africa who aspires to prosperity, peace and security, not only for the individual as such, but for the individual within his ethnic community, from which we can argue. The Government and this side of the House will, as I interpret the issue, do our best to enter into a dialogue with the parties concerned here so that a solution can be found to this particular problem, a solution which will not only be the best one for the media, in general and in particular, but which will also enable them to perform their task in the community to the best of their ability. On the other hand the Government will, on its part, discharge its duties and responsibilities. I trust that we shall be able to discuss this issue in a peaceful and calm atmosphere in an effort to promote the welfare of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to dissociate myself entirely from the theatrical extravaganza of vituperation and viciousness with which the hon. member for Sandton introduced this debate. [Interjections.] He has clearly been infected by some of the hysteria which seems to infect some of his puppeteers. He made no positive suggestions …

He exposed the weakness …

[Inaudible.]

That is right. He made no positive suggestions and had no positive ideas, except total and blind opposition to the whole report. I happen to know a number of these commissioners, and however much one may disagree with specific recommendations, I deplore the fact that their personal honesty and integrity was impugned by the hon. member for Sandton. Whatever else one may say, I say one has no right to impugn the honour and honesty of a respected judge of the Supreme Court and of others who have tried to do a service. [Interjections.] I shall indicate in the course of my speech on which points I differ. However, I believe that one can disagree decently and without impugning the honesty of those with whom one disagrees.

Because this whole subject is so highly emotive I want to put the NRP’s basic attitude very clearly by quoting from my own evidence to the commission, where I placed firmly on record my commitment and the commitment of this party to the fundamental democratic principle of the freedom of the Press. I quote—

This requires—and I want to place this on record too—that the freedom of the individual is indivisibly linked to this right, the right of freely expressing his opinions in the public media. Of equal importance in a free country is the right of the public to be truthfully and accurately informed on matters of public interest. I quote again—

Vause quoting Raw.

I am glad you have disclosed your source at last. [Interjections.]

I concluded my evidence by saying—

I have quoted that evidence in order to put the view of my party very clearly and unequivocally on record. Having said this, I must also say very frankly that after what this party and its predecessor, the United Party, have suffered over the years at the hands of some of the media there is no way in which I can defend the manner in which that freedom is abused. It ridicules their holier-than-thou professions of objectivity and ignores their own self-proclaimed ethics and code of conduct. I want to give an example from one of this morning’s newspapers. In the Rand Daily Mail, The Cape Times and, I assume, probably also in The Natal Mercury, we find the following stated as a fact. I quote from the report published in The Cape Times—

“Unqualified backing”. This is a statement of fact. The NRP has issued only one statement since the report was tabled. Only one statement was issued by the hon. member for Umhlanga. In that statement he said—

Unqualified? No!

I quote again from our statement—

These are three specific, clear statements which are by no means describable as unqualified backing.

That was this very morning in connection with this very debate. If I had the time I could quote other examples of reporting on this whole issue which have been tendentious, very vague and far from the facts.

Are you going to report that to the Press Council?

This is the sort of interjection that one gets, and I am not going to be sidetracked. I am still going to come to the question of the Press Council. I want to say at this stage that I welcome the decision of the Government that it will consult and negotiate with the media itself before taking any decision. I believe that that is the right course, and it conforms with the view of this party that the media itself should be the body to control and regulate its affairs. But I would be dishonest if I did not agree with the commission’s findings on the partisan and activist role some of the media often play to the detriment of an informed public opinion based on an honest and balanced presentation of news. In this respect I am not referring to one side only. I am referring to the English and the Afrikaans Press. They are all guilty at one time or another—and some perpetually—of not giving a balanced and honest presentation of news. While it is to the detriment of an informed opinion it is, on the other hand, to the benefit of those who manipulate the partisanship of the Press to promote their own special causes. Now I should hear some “hear, hears” from the right, but there is silence. Time precludes the giving of detailed examples, but going right back to the time when we heard “Graaff must go” and to the Young Turk days, with headlines day after day … [Interjections.] There they sit. Those hon. Young Turks know how they manipulated the partisanship of the Press for their own little cause. However, we are still here despite what the Press has done to us. Despite what the Press has done to us, we are the only people who have grown, the only party that has grown. And look at what has become of the PFP with all their newspapers. I suggest they go and read of the public opinion poll in Rapport of yesterday.

I think you are putting your credibility a little in doubt.

That despite the virtual black-out of the NRP.

It is a black-out.

Another example of manipulation is what we see at this very stage where the partisanship of the Press is being manipulated by someone somewhere on the question of another commission which has not yet reported, whose report has not yet been tabled and is therefore not public, but which is having inspired leaks day after day to further its saleability so as to create the atmosphere in which, when it is eventually published, it will already have been “sold.” I refer, of course, to the Buthulezi report. Day after day there are leaks in order to manipulate and to create an atmosphere so that when it is published people will already have been conditioned to what they expect to receive. I want to emphasize that my criticism is a generalization. There are exceptions. Even in the same newspaper there are phases when it will act responsibly, rationally and fairly under one editor while under another editor that newspaper after a while becomes as biased and unfair and often as dishonest as one could experience. I am therefore not taking only one newspaper to task but am generalizing on the media as a whole. There are many which are responsible and which follow the code of ethics which they themselves stand for.

Not only from our own experience as a party but also in the broad interest of South Africa, in the national interest, for peaceful change and for the avoidance of violence and conflict, we in this party believe that something has to be done about this partiality and imbalance. In spite of all our painful experiences the NRP still stands firmly by its basic belief in a free Press and believes that corrective action must be taken by the media itself, as the commission itself specifically recommends. We equally believe that effective steps are necessary to protect the public’s right to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and not those parts of the truth which people want to present. The present mechanisms—and that answers the interjection which was made earlier—are clearly inadequate and ineffective. We accept the need for a statutory body with the power to ensure that the code of ethics which the media itself accepts, is effectively applied in practice by the media. We have looked at the formula that is proposed and weighed it against the violent and often hysterical reaction, which is incidentally an indictment by the media of its own colleagues, because it shows a total distrust by one section of the media in representatives of other sections of the same media, who might be appointed to the council. The media therefore does not even trust its colleagues in its own ranks. In practice the pack syndrome succeeded in discrediting the proposed council as “Government controlled” and the public has come to believe this.

We therefore want to propose an alternative to which there can be no possible objection. If the media is sincere in wanting to put its own house in order, this is the way in which it can be done. We want to move the emphasis away from the registration of journalists to the content of what is written and published. We see endless problems with the registration of journalists, such as country correspondents like the housewives who send in tennis news, people who write articles, and so on who are not professional journalists. We believe that the code of ethics should apply to anything that is written and to anyone who writes and publishes. This would be deemed to be subject to the code of ethics and authority of the council. We propose a statutory Media Council to which will be affiliated existing and new associations for each of the sectors of the media. These should be open to all full-time employees who would themselves elect the council itself, possibly on the following basis: As far as the SABC is concerned, one member for radio, another for TV and another for management. The magazines could elect one member from the editorial staff and one for management. As far as the Press is concerned, there could be three members from the editorial staff and two from the management side, and then two Government nominees. This gives a total of 12 with a clear balance in favour of the newspapers, viz. those involved in disseminating news. We believe that affiliation should be accompanied by a list of members of each association, but no full-time journalist should be refused membership in his grouping on the grounds of language or colour or race. We believe that the council should be elected within six months by a free vote of all members of affiliated associations.

We believe that in the interim an interim council could be appointed whose sole task would be to set up the registration of the associations, and the mechanism for the election, and draw up a draft code of conduct and sanctions on which the elected council would then have to decide after it has been elected. Nobody could say that this was a Government-manipulated council, because it would be elected by those involved in the media through an interim body which would simply create the machinery. The elected council should then have a statutory obligation, not only to deal with complaints, as the present Press Council does, but also to monitor and act against infringements of the code of conduct. There should furthermore be the right of appeal to the courts by any person who feels aggrieved.

Time does not permit me to deal with the other details on which there is no difference as far as I know. Here I have in mind the right reply to attacks, identification of comment from news and so on. I must, however, deal with one other major recommendation and that is the question of shareholdings. We agree that a monopoly and secret shareholdings are not in the interest of a free Press. We believe that this should be dealt with, but not necessarily—we have strong reservations in this regard—by the methods proposed. There is a Monopoly Act and we believe that is how one should deal with the monopoly aspect. We agree that all the shareholdings should be published so that everybody can know who the ghost figures are, who the people are who own the Press.

We cannot accept the 10% shareholding limit for private companies. There are many family newspapers, small country newspapers, owned by the editor or by a family and often they have been in the family generation after generation. Some of them serve a local need excellently. Often they are the most objective papers because they are not involved in this pack hysteria of political assassination and “follow my leader”. I would hate to see these small country newspapers wiped out by a provision that there has to be a maximum 10% individual shareholding. In the same way other family newspapers which we encounter on larger scale I believe should be allowed to continue as they are.

I want to appeal, finally, to the Government and the media to give serious consideration, in the discussions which are to take place, to our alternative, because this ensures that there will be a body which is elected by the members of the media themselves—by the management and the journalists. The body will be spread over the full spectrum of the media. There will also be Government representation so that the views of the Government can be expressed. There will, however, not be Government control.

I do not have the time to deal with it, but I have compared the proposed code of conduct in the draft Bill with for instance, those proposed by The Star and the Rand Daily Mail. As those go much further than the proposal, there can be no objection to that code of conduct if the Press is sincere. It can be drafted and controlled by the media itself. I appeal to both to look at this alternative and to move away from what has already been discredited by the hysteria against registration.

These are the view of this party which we wish to place on record.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point was partly positive, but he was also partly wishy-washy—let me put it that way—in his approach. Basically, however, we have no argument with the hon. member for Durban Point. What we are discussing today, are the findings in the report of the Steyn Commission, a report which consists of four sections.

†Does the official Opposition remember how at a time they virtually venerated judicial commissions? When they were frantically searching for a policy they even went so far as to appoint a former judge, not just an ordinary judge, but “Broer Kowie”, to draft their 14-point plant. So much value did they attach to judicial commissions. But it would appear as though some of the findings and recommendations of judicial commissions have caused the official Opposition to lose some of its former enthusiasm for judicial commissions.

*A debate in this House on the Steyn Report concerning the media can either be fruitful or futile. To begin with, be clear as to whether we are discussing the role of the media as such, or the role of the media in certain abnormal, given circumstances. In South Africa we speak about the role of the media—not only newspapers, but the media as a whole—in certain given, abnormal circumstances. In this debate, in which members of the Government and the Opposition must adopt a standpoint on the report, there must be clarity as to what we accept as given. Do we accept that there is a building up of conflict between the superpowers; Russia on the one hand and America on the other? Do we accept that the Free World on the one hand, and the Soviet Union and its satellite and surrogate states on the other, are engaged in an international conflict? Do we accept, as is clearly stated in the report, that South Africa is one of the domino’s in this conflict? The finding of the Steyn Commission is as follows, and I quote from page 67—

I quote further—

The report states further—

It now depends on whether the Opposition accepts these statements or not. It is pointless our debating the matter if this premise of the Steyn Commission is not accepted. There may be politicians who are of the opinion that the findings of the Steyn Commission are correct in this regard and that it is desirable to endorse this idea. It depends, however, what the standpoint of the Opposition is with regard to the matter. Is there unanimity on the finding of the Steyn Commission that there must be a counter-strategy for an onslaught against the system in South Africa? Does the Opposition accept that there must be a counter-strategy?

Yes.

It is not important what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. the member for Yeoville say. They do not form the core of the PFP. What I should like to know, is what the standpoint is of the hon. member for Pinelands, the hon. member for Sandton, the hon. member for Houghton, the hon. member for Groote Schuur, the hon. member for Constantia and a few other less important backbenchers. This is what it is about. [Interjections.] The kernel of the Opposition must indicate whether they accept the necessity to establish a counterstrategy in South Africa. I want to make this point very clear. Basically, it does not concern the role of the media as such. The role of the media in a country such as Greenland, where there is no conflict, could be quite different to the role of the media in South Africa, where there is potential for conflict, where circumstances are such that we must be cautious, and I am speaking of politicians in this House as well as outside on public platforms. I am speaking of all politicians, from the extreme right to the extreme left, including members of the Government. What is at issue is the question of what our real responsibilities are, in other words, what we actually have to do. What is, in fact, the real responsibility of the media, and not only that of the Press, or of the Afrikaans or English newspapers, but of all the media? In this situation which we in South Africa are facing, with its tremendous potential for conflict, dare we allow increasing polarization to take place and to continue unchecked? It is not a question of the freedom of the Press. It is a question of the freedom of the total community of Southern Africa; Black, White, and Brown. [Interjections.] This is what is at issue. There is absolutely no question that the freedom of the Press as such is desirable or a necessity or a jewel which must be treasured. It is necessary to ask: Is this freedom of the Press being abused by people who possibly see themselves—or perhaps do not see themselves—as pawns in this strategy aimed at the situation in South Africa? This is what is at issue.

A report is before the Cabinet at present which contains certain factual findings, concerning which certain recommendations are made. At this stage, the Cabinet has not reached a decision. It has already been indicated that in the nature of the matter, the Cabinet is still to hold talks with representatives of the media. The Cabinet will, however, have to reach a decision and make recommendations, and eventually this House may have to give a final decision. This House does of course have a responsibility to serve the interests of South Africa to the best of its ability, and this is what this matter is about.

We in South Africa—I have already stated this very clearly—are engaged in a conflict situation. We have all the elements to cause the conflict situation in South Africa to escalate. It now depends on how the media, which play an extremely important role in this matter, see their task.

I should like to name an example. I could very easily put it symbolically by referring to the fact that the lens of a camera has a very limited area of vision, even more limited than that of the cameraman behind that camera. The cameraman can at least still look to the left and the right, but the lens of the camera only sees the specific image. What happens, is that the media concentrate on a specific matter and often present it as a generalization. In other words, it is presented as something which is generally valid. While the image may, therefore, be factually correct, it may nevertheless, in the way it is put across, be a lie, because the specific is generalized. If the media continue to abuse their freedom in this way, we must ask ourselves: Dare we in South Africa, with its conflict situation, allow this situation to be aggravated, so that the conflict increases and greater polarization in South Africa is promoted by the actions of the media?

You are the cause of the conflict.

The role of the media has an extremely important influence on mankind in general. I do not want to refer to the role of the media in South Africa, but to the role of the media in the USA with regard to the Vietnam situation. Television, the newspapers, etc., played an utterly demoralizing role and almost destroyed a whole nation in its will to adopt a standpoint in its struggle against communism. Now I should like to ask if we in South Africa, who are far more susceptible to undermining and the escalation of the conflict situation, can allow this situation to continue unchecked. I am of the opinion that we will have to state very clearly that it is not a question of the freedom of the media and the Press as such, but of responsibility in the situation in which South Africa finds itself. Taking this fact into account, we as members of Parliament, as Opposition politicians and as media—the Afrikaans and the English newspapers, radio, television and films—must play an important part in defusing the conflict situation and not allowing it to escalate. This is what is at issue. It is not about the restriction of freedom, but the building of a stable and better future for all the people of South Africa, Black, Brown and White. I therefore make an appeal—possibly a futile appeal— to the Opposition to adopt a responsible attitude. Perhaps there will be those who will adopt a responsible attitude, but the core of the PFP will not dare adopt a positive standpoint, for they serve other masters.

Mr. Speaker, I find the contribution made by the hon. member for Klip River to be in strong contrast with that made by the hon. member for Rissik. The hon. member for Rissik started off very calmly and continued that way, surprisingly for him, but we have just listened to a much tougher speech. The hon. member is anxious that the core or heart of the PFP should speak. So he must be very pleased.

I want to say that in many ways the hon. member for Klip River is quite correct. I think he is right in emphasizing that the real question we are discussing and debating here this afternoon, and indeed have been debating since the beginning of this session, is not whether or not there is a conflict in South Africa—I think we all accept that; I certainly do—but what the nature of that conflict is and how we should try to resolve it. I think he is also right in asking the official Opposition the question whether we do or do not accept that there is a total onslaught against South Africa. I think that that is a fair question and during the course of my speech I shall try to answer that as clearly as I can.

As far as the commission’s report is concerned, I want to begin by referring hon. members to volume 1, page 25, where the commission states (paragraph 11a)—

Further on in the same paragraph one reads—

I want to say that I heartily concur with that finding. It is certainly evident throughout the report and, in part, it explains why the report before us lacks academic stature. After struggling through 1 367 pages, one is quite overwhelmed by the imprecision, the mind-boggling generalities, the inaccuracies, the simplistic assumptions and the flowery and tortuous language which characterizes this report. I would suggest that its overall analysis is bizarre and its conclusions eccentric.

I wish I had the time to quote many passages from these three volumes in order to illustrate my point. Let us, however, look at merely a few passages. I want to refer firstly to the bottom of page 85 of volume 1. There one finds discussed the World Council of Churches, for which I hold no brief. I quote (paragraph 13a)—

I do not know if they are quoting anybody. It is difficult to ascertain that. I quote further—

It does not even make sense to me. They talk about the onslaught against South Africa, and on page 102 we read the following—

How long can it tread water?—

Now the strategy for survival—

Sir, this is only a small example of what is quite typical of this report.

The hon. member for Klip River is quite right. The basic premise of the Steyn Commission is that there is a total onslaught against South Africa, and if one accepts that I think some of the conclusions and the recommendations follow. However, if one does not accept it, one may well disagree with the conclusions. Quoting extensively from books written by Ronald Higgins, Sir Walter Walker, Brian Crozier and others and backed up by verbal testimony from Prof. Dirk Kunert, the commission found that there was a total onslaught against the West by the Soviet Union and, obviously, South Africa was a prime target. With remarkable selectivity and the setting aside of other evidence, the commission declares that the onslaught is total and is to be found externally and internally. It is summed up in volume I, page 109, as follows—

and here the options are wide open—

Because of this overwhelming danger, the media must be brought into line and controlled. This emphasis on the total onslaught is not new and is familiar NP electorate fodder. It is a total disregard of our strong friends and allies in the West, and to quote again from Mr. Ken Owen who was quoted earlier—

In other words, the commission has gone for the over-statement, and therefore for the over-kill. This naïve over-statement of the onslaught against South Africa is not only stupid; it is positively dangerous. Because to cry “wolf, wolf” so often and so loudly should the real danger occur the people of South Africa may imagine that it is yet another exaggeration and more political ammunition and may disregard what may indeed be a genuine threat.

I want to demonstrate just how dangerous this position can be and how counter-productive the fallacious analysis, and that the conclusions therefore are hardly worthy of serious consideration. I will list them, Sir. Firstly, the commission gives a number of surrogates, or proxies, in South Africa who carry out the undermining and revolutionary commitments of the Soviet Union. Here there is certainly more than just an echo of the Schlebusch-Le Grange Commission of 1973 and 1974. It is dangerous in the sense that no recognition is shown of the fact that people are forced by law to belong to a particular ethnic group, and are then denied meaningful political rights, with a result that genuine anger and aspirations are stifled and even forcibly restricted. Secondly, according to the commission, South Africa’s critics are in the main—with very few qualifications— either—

Whilst there is an occasional recognition that there may be some substance in some of the criticism, this is not allowed to intrude into the overall thesis, namely—

This is dangerous. This is dangerous because it allows the Government, and others—and South Africans in general—to disregard as a whole honest and well-intentioned criticism, and to lump together all critics as enemies of South Africa. This, I submit, underlines what I tried to say earlier this session, the difficulty of even the official Opposition in Parliament, which refuses to join the chorus of “total onslaught” and thereby stands in danger of becoming part of the total onslaught in the eyes of the Government, and indeed of the State.

That’s why you sided with the enemy.

You see, Mr. Speaker, that is a typical interjection. [Interjections.] We are now accused of joining the enemy. That means the official Opposition is an enemy of South Africa. We are an enemy of South Africa because we dared to suggest … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs evidently agrees with the accusation that we in the official Opposition are enemies of South Africa. [Interjections.] That is an outrageous statement. It is a totally outrageous statement.

It is an understatement.

An understatement? Well, the contribution made by that hon. Minister is inconsequential. Therefore it does not really worry us at all. [Interjections.]

Thirdly, a list of criteria is advanced, whereby South Africa is criticized. These are largely dismissed. When we consider what these criteria are, this commission only encouraged the assault on basic democratic values, for the criteria include the following—I mention them only in passing owing to a lack of time—

1. 1. Western democracy;
2. 2. natural law;
3. 3. the rule of law;
4. 4. equality before the law;
5. 5. a social contract theory;
6. 6. human rights.

This commission has successfully called all of these into question.

Fourthly, despite its dismal record in Africa, the Soviet Union is depicted as all powerful and even “unstoppable”. By contrast the West is weak and spineless and South Africa is made out to be a helpless victim. Thus the country’s security situation is in a state of crisis. All this, despite the obvious strength of the Western economy and its record in two major world wars. The Red Bear, as it is called, has apparently sapped all the courage and the will of the West, and the West is either prostrate before the Soviet Union or is actually aiding and abetting the Soviet Union’s total onslaught against South Africa.

If anything will encourage panic and fear in the South African population it is this simplistic and dangerous distortion. It is tragic that a party-political slogan which can stampede Whites into the laager has been given a measure of respectability by the Steyn Commission.

Fifthly, in order to meet the onslaught, the media must be suppressed and the old Information Department must be resurrected to continue its covert and overt operations in order to sell which is demonstrably unsaleable in the world. [Interjections.] Where and when will we ever learn? How must Connie Mulder and others be laughing their heads off when they read this commission’s report! They will say to hon. members of the NP, to us and to South Africa: We told you so. You never believed us and now this commission backs us up. [Interjections.]

Let me conclude, however, where I began. It must be clearly stated that, in our view, there is an onslaught against South Africa, but it is scarcely total, and despite misinformation, which exists, and double standards which are there, we have many powerful, actual and potential allies, including the USA, West Germany and Great Britain, to name only three. Their friendship, however, is constantly strained to a breaking point by the race policies of this Government and the inevitable and ever increasing incidents which follow as a result of this and the quite remarkable and astonishing statements from Ministers which follow. Furthermore, the pathetic paralysis of a Government which has to be cajoled inch by agonizing inch to the waters of real reform hardly constitute an encouragement to powerful friends and allies who desperately want to see stability and reform in Southern Africa. Any onslaught by this Government in the field particularly of civil rights and human rights, plays into the hands of those who seek only revolution and chaos. In fact, the Steyn Commission itself is no exception. It has already brought South Africa into considerable disrepute by its inprecise and unbalanced analysis and the recommendations which it offers which can only hobble and restrict the limited freedom of the Press. There can be no doubt that Marxist concepts of alienation and exploitation have a significant and powerful influence on Black thought and action in South Africa and it is precisely here that the Steyn Commission is at its weakest. It is because Blacks in South Africa are alienated and exploited by this Government’s policies, which are euphemistically described by the commission as a “developing democracy”, that Marxism becomes attractive. Therefore we cannot accept the report or the recommendations of this commission.

Mr. Speaker, if it is correct to state that words are still the most effective means of concealing a fact, and I submit it is correct, then the hon. member for Pinelands must certainly be regarded as being a master concealer. The hon. member at the outset indicated that he would reply to the question whether his party believes in the existence of a total onslaught against the Republic of South Africa. He has spoken at length but he has carefully avoided a definite “yes” or “no”. He only grudgingly conceded that there is an onslaught.

I did not grudgingly concede it; I conceded it.

Then he tried to lay the reason for it squarely at the feet of this Government. In other words, the onslaught is not a hostile onslaught from abroad, but according to that hon. member the onslaught is from this side of the House.

In part, yes.

This is the sort of argument that we get from hon. members of the Opposition. They are always prepared to find fault with this side of the House.

It is very easy.

They are always prepared to find fault with South African patriots and are always prepared to find excuses for the real enemies of our country.

*I come now to the disgraceful and re prehensible attack made by the hon. member for Sandton, under the protection of the privilege of this House, on the members of the Steyn Commission. Under privileged conditions here the hon. member saw fit to question the integrity and decency of the members of the Steyn Commission in a scurrilous manner, although he was aware of the fact that they cannot defend themselves here.

They put it in their report.

The hon. member accused the members of the commission of allegedly committing plagiarism by using passages from a work which they omitted to mention in their bibliography. I want to state categorically and clearly here, so that there can be no misunderstandings in this regard, that in the case of this report we are not dealing with an academic thesis. We are dealing here with a report which is based on submissions made to the commission. It is also based on documents which were consulted by this commission. The hon. member for Sandton is also a member of the legal profession. [Interjections.] I refrain from saying that he is a legal expert. I say that he is also a member of the legal profession and as such he ought to know that it frequently happens that court findings are couched in the exact words of the submissions to the court.

There is an acknowledgement of counsel’s name in the report.

This frequently happens. That hon. member ought to know that the statement he has just made is not correct either. He is also a member of the legal profession. Again I refrain from saying that he is a legal expert.

The judge acknowledges Counsel’s argument.

What is more, the processing and wording of the report is not necessarily undertaken by the commissioners themselves or by any one of them. The hon. member for Sandton has no information on how the compiling of this report took place. He does not know to what extent the completion, wording and processing of the report was undertaken by officials of the commission.

Are you saying it is not the report of the commission?

However, he has seen fit to condemn the integrity, the decency and the correctness of the findings of the commissioners here in the strongest possible language. The fact of the matter is that all the commissioners needed to do in this connection was to ascertain and satisfy themselves that the wording in the report was in fact a correct rendition of their opinions. It was not the task of the commissioners to ascertain the origin of that wording and whether it came from another work.

Why not?

It is not their responsibility. It is the responsibility of the compiler of the report.

May I ask a question?

No. The hon. member had enough time to speak. He wasted his time and he must not try to waste my time as well. [Interjections.]

Are you condoning a criminal offence?

The fact of the matter is that the sum total of any person’s knowledge is basically the sum total of what he has learnt from other people. Surely this is true. Whether you quote from a scientific work or whether you obtain your information on the basis of oral evidence given before you …

Have you read the Copyright Act?

… or whether you obtain it through your contact with people in a contact situation every day, your knowledge is basically the sum total of the totality of knowledge. Therefore if a person, whenever he makes a statement, first has to investigate and inquire whether any other person elsewhere in the world has not perhaps said the same thing in the same way, no one will ever be able to say anything. [Interjections.] The crux of this matter is not whether someone else used the same words. But what was significant about the speech of the hon. member for Sandton was the fact that he never tried to evaluate the correctness or ascertain whether it was well-founded. What did in fact happen was that the hon. member threw up a smoke-screen to try to conceal his basic negativism as well as that of his party. The hon. member could not face up to the implications of the report, and he had to try to find a device for rejecting the report in toto. So he acted the clown here with theatrical gestures until all the hon. members on his side laughed at him. [Interjections.] That was the contribution the hon. member made, and I say it was a reprehensible contribution, a disgraceful contribution, a contribution one can in a responsible House such as this, only expect from an Opposition which lacks responsibility to the extent the official Opposition does. Unfortunately I have now devoted too much of my time on that hon. member.

Recently, since the tabling of this report, we have heard a great deal about freedom and about rights, in particular the freedom of the Press, but we have heard considerably less about duty and responsibility. In his standard work, also quoted by the commission, A Textbook of Jurisprudence, G. W. Paton wrote on page 285—

Yes, but they vest in different people.

It is correctly pointed out in the report that “a right would indeed be without meaningful significance in the absence of a duty imposed upon others to respect it”.

The fact that the Government is prepared to recognize and to honour the rights of the media, in other words freedom of the Press, appears clearly inter alia, from the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement at the time of the tabling of the report. I am referring to Hansard, 1982, col. 101. It is also fairly generally recognized and accepted that the mass media also has duties and responsibilities. In a television programme last week, for example, in which editors of various newspapers took part, it was clear that they accept that the media also has responsibilities and duties. However, it was also quite clear that there was a vast difference of opinion as to what those duties are and what that responsibility entails.

The question which then arises is to whom the mass media has duties and responsibilities. By way of summary I wish to mention three bodies. In the first place, they have a responsibility to themselves, a responsibility not to violate their own credibility. In the second place they have a responsibility to the community as a whole and not to a specific section of the community. In the third place the media has a responsibility to the State.

There is an old Latin proverb salus populi suprema lex—let the welfare of the people be the supreme law—and I believe that this maxim also applies to the mass media.

But who are the people?

The population of South Africa is represented by this Government. Hon. members on that side of the House can shake their heads as much as they like. That is the reality in South Africa. If hon. members do not like it, they should pack their bags and move to a country they do like. This Government represents South Africa and all its people in terms of the constitutional dispensation which applies at present and until such time as that dispensation is changed, this will continue to be the case. The welfare of the population of South Africa is therefore represented by the government of the day.

It is White domination.

Unfortunately my time has expired and what I have said will therefore have to suffice.

Mr. Speaker, there is much worthy of note in what the hon. member for Mossel Bay has had to say. As the hon. member himself admitted, he used much of his time to address himself to the hon. member for Sandton. Otherwise he could probably have elaborated more on the message he wanted to bring to the House.

I am on record as saying that the Steyn Commission applied itself diligently to the mammoth task of investigating the role of the media in the situation in which South Africa finds itself today. I think the appointment of the commission was timely and the hysteria that followed its findings was completely and utterly unnecessary. I have said before—and I want to repeat it now—that the commission has come forward with many recommendations and findings that are worthy of serious consideration, both inside the House and outside.

Such as what?

We in these benches have little argument with the great majority of the findings. I believe the commission should be thanked for the service it has done South Africa in focusing attention on our problems. Uppermost among those problems I believe is the future survival of freedom and stability in Southern Africa. The Steyn Commission has made out a good case in many instances. As we have already heard, the recommendations are in accord with the evidence given on behalf of this party by our national leader. There is an urgent need for greater self-discipline in the media. I think we are all agreed on that point.

Speak for yourself.

We are all agreed then, with the exception of course of the official Opposition. This self-discipline requires an instrument through which it can be exercised. Our leader has already made significant proposals as to how this can be achieved. For some considerable time we in this party have been deeply concerned about the public’s right to be kept reliably and accurately informed, and I repeat “reliably and accurately informed”. The proposed council for the media could do much to achieve this objective.

I also stated unequivocally that I believe the media, and not the State, should be responsible for maintaining the code of ethics. Referring to this morning’s report in The Cape Times I wish to state categorically that the NRP has no intention of modifying its stand today as The Cape Times indicated it might do.

But you supported the council for the media in your statement …

Harry, you can make your own speech and I will make mine. Just be quiet now. If, however, the commission has erred, it has erred by not stressing sufficiently the effects of the actions of this Government over the past decades in contributing to the growing rift between, firstly, the State and … [Interjections.] When those two hon. gentlemen have finished their argument, I shall continue. The Government contributed to the growing rift, firstly between the State and the media, secondly between our country and our traditional Western friends and, thirdly, between the various population groups in this country. I shall not belabour this point but shall merely, by way of example, draw attention to an issue stressed by the Steyn Commission, i.e. the importance of having a judicial review of detention and its effect on our overseas image. We have, for years now, urged the Government to give this aspect its serious consideration, and I know we shall be returning to this subject during the discussion of the Rabie Commission’s report tomorrow.

The commission’s criticism of the Press has not been a one-sided affair. It has been as critical of the Afrikaans Press as it has been of the English Press. It has pointed out that whereas the English Press often supplies ammunition to those hostile towards South Africa, in many instances the Afrikaans Press has been blinkered. It has laid great emphasis on Russian involvement, in the dangerous position in which South Africa finds itself, but it has also clearly stated that by its actions the Government does, in many instances, exacerbate the onslaughts against this country. Does this justify tampering with Press freedom? We say that it definitely does not. We have come forward with proposals for a media council, something which the hon. member for Durban Point has spelt out, proposals which could have a salutary effect on the media and which cannot be construed as tampering with Press freedom. I believe that this is the appropriate time to look at this vexed subject very closely, but as calmly as possible.

We must ask ourselves why the English Press—and I shall deal with the Afrikaans Press a little later—conducted itself in such a manner as to have laid itself open to such sharp criticism from this commission. Is it not a by-product of the resentment and frustration at the policies of this Government which have succeeded in alienating South Africa from the Free World? Has this not also led to the despair and anger that gave rise to an obsession to punish the Government by whatever means possible? The tragic consequence has been the political polarization of English speakers and Afrikaans speakers in South Africa, and that is certainly a tragedy.

I now want to turn to the Afrikaans Press. Let me say that I believe that it has come of age. From the narrow objective of the achievement of an Afrikaner-dominated Republic, through the machinery of the NP, the realization has taken hold that there is a greater, all-encompassing challenge for South Africa. This has unfortunately been bedevilled by a deep-seated suspicion that there is some sort of plot to destroy the Afrikaner’s right to a national identity, with self-determination.

This party of ours has suffered, more than any other, as a result of this tragic polarization and politicizing of the media into two distinct ideological camps. This party, with its predecessors, the South African Party and the United Party, had as their fundamental objective the fusion of English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people into a single national identity, but they have their work over half a century broken down. Few will realize the intensity of the campaign waged against the Afrikaans-speaking supporters of our party, a campaign which sought to denigrate them as second-class Afrikaners for not supporting the NP. The Afrikaans editors will know what I am talking about when I say this. This denigration was not merely confined to verbal abuse, because it included an insidious campaign of isolation, alienation and intimidation. Let me here pay tribute to our Afrikaans-speaking supporters throughout the length and breadth of this country who stood firm against this “total onslaught”.

In recent times our English-speaking supporters have suffered similarly. A campaign has been waged which sought to tell them that, by adhering to the principles of pluralism and refusing to support the PFP, they were pseudo-Nats or even covert racists. This has led to some angry exchanges between ourselves and both ideological camps within the media.

Notwithstanding what I have said, I believe that punitive measures alone will not solve this fundamental dilemma. I believe that a common purpose in the establishment of a just society is the only cure for the real or imagined ills of the media and its conflict with the State. The only way in which this can be achieved is through the projection of a programme of change which will achieve such a free and just society while accommodating group self-determination. The ultimate solution to the conflict between the State and the media is a joint commitment to make democracy and freedom work in the difficult circumstances which prevail in our country. Courageous leadership in the pursuit of this objective will be the catalyst to forge a new coalition of interests, which will be the only effective way of facing and overcoming the onslaught on our country. A new attitude of trust and mutual co-operation between the State and the media can only be achieved by the Government producing concrete evidence of its commitment to the attainment of a society wherein the established norms of democracy become the highest priority. This is not the time in the history of our country for selfrighteous anger or petulant obstinacy. If we have the interests of the people of this country at heart, we will know that it is not the time for settling old debts. It is rather the time for the State and the media to join hands and pool resources to ensure the survival and growth of freedom and democracy on this subcontinent.

One of the ironies of life is that man seldom learns from history. In the legends of ancient Rome there is a lesson in the story of the Sabine women who, after having been abducted by the enemy, interceded on behalf of their children to prevent war. Therefore, let us rather today consider the future of our children and join hands in a re-dedication to the upliftment of all citizens of Southern Africa, because we may be called upon to participate in the final conflict between freedom and tyranny. The battle may already have begun and we must decide on which side we will be found.

Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in following on the hon. member for Umhlanga who has put his case in a very calm manner. I trust that the rest of the debate will be conducted in the same fashion.

I think it behoves us to thank the commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Steyn for a tremendously thorough piece of work. I say this because I am sure that the commission’s findings will indicate the direction to be followed in this country for many years to come as regards the mass media. The commission makes the fundamental and indisputable finding that South Africa is involved in a battle for its survival and faces a multi-dimensional and omni-dimensional and ever-escalating physical and psychological onslaught directed at the existing order. It is not directed at the NP Government. This onslaught is directed at the existing order. This finding vindicates the view held by the Government that we are facing an onslaught and that we are engaged in a battle for our survival. The commission on its part is vindicated by what one reads as having been said by Dr. Igor Glagolev, who was adviser on foreign affairs to the Central Committee of the Communist Party, of the Soviet Union. He said the following—

Let us go back a long way and see what Stalin said. Stalin said the following—

Sir, we are facing a world revolution, and nobody should have any illusions as to the reality and to the intensity potential of this survival battle in which we are now involved.

*In the combating and conquering of this psychological component of the onslaught on our people, the mass media play an enormously important role. They play, as it were, a decisive role, and that is why it is so vital that there be a good understanding between the State on the one hand and the media on the other. This is of the utmost importance. The struggle is for the spirit and the mind of our people. They must be persuaded psychologically, and therefore we must give very careful attention to what the hon. the Prime Minister said, viz.—

If one says that the Press is “vital”, how can it be maintained that Press or media freedom is at stake? The Press is vital, the bearer—

The hon. the Prime Minister wants to stress the importance of the media, and he states—

In my opinion, then, it is a pity that we read the following on page 954 of the report—

This is a charge against certain Government departments and it is a pity that they have not adopted the approach recommended by the hon. the Prime Minister, particularly since he himself has set an example. When the hon. the Prime Minister was Minister of Defence he established a Press liaison board with the specific aim of keeping channels open. A good mutual understanding is definitely vital.

†I think we should grasp one nettle and make it quite clear that we believe and understand that the media itself is certainly under siege; the media itself is a target. It is a target area for our enemies in this survival battle. The report states on page 30—

To press home this onslaught by the Soviet on the minds of the people, it becomes imperative for the Soviet to control the media. Thus the media is under attack, and this is very clearly put by Prof. Kunert on page 408 of the report where he says the following—

This is very important. Universities and schools have to be conquered. The publishing houses have to be penetrated. The mass media also have to be penetrated. It is therefore very clear that the mass media itself is under siege. Let us have a look at how far this war of position has proceeded. In this regard I should like to quote briefly from the commission’s report. In paragraph 10, on page 141 of the report, the following is said—

So far has the war of position progressed. On page 148 the following is said—

How far has this war of position progressed? On page 130 the report states—

From this, one must conclude that the war of position is indeed being fought today and that the media are under siege. The media must clearly take cognizance of this and bring their house in order. For the media everything is not rosy in the garden.

In this regard I should like to refer to one particular commentator, Mr. Ken Owen of The Cape Times. I am referring to an article published in that newspaper on 10 February 1982. Before I quote from that newspaper report I should like to point out that it should be borne in mind what the commission itself says in this regard, and I refer to page 144 of the commission’s report, where the following is to be found—

I want to read the newspaper quote now and compare it with what I have just quoted from the report. Mr. Ken Owen says, and I quote—

Is this not belittling the commission, Mr. Speaker? Is this not derogatory? I understand that Mr. Ken Owen is about to become editor in chief of the Sunday Express.

He is already there.

I quote further from what informed sources say—

This means there is a strong connection between the S.A. Communist Party and the ANC. This is exactly what the commission says. The ANC certainly goes further by stating as follows—

This is clearly the situation. Far from being ignorant, I believe the commission has hit the target. I believe that Mr. Ken Owen, “in a revealing flash”, has exposed himself as a disseminator of disinformation. I believe the Press should bring its House in order.

*My time has almost expired. However, I just want to state briefly the Government’s standpoint on this matter. The Government must, of course, take cognizance of the recommendations and the findings of the commission, and reach a decision thereon. However, the situation is that while the media can neglect their duty and fail to bring their house in order, the Government cannot neglect its duty. Indeed, the Government has a duty to the community at large. Lord Parker put it very eloquently—

The Government will not evade its duty in this connection. That we must understand clearly. Sir John Innes, a former Chief Justice, said—

The Government will not evade this duty resting upon the State to defend itself and to decide what its specific national security interests require, and I personally should appreciate it, and I believe that everyone would appreciate it, if the mass media did not evade their duty either.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall refer to a few of the things that the hon. member for Pretoria West said here. Before I come to that, I just want to say that I find it a pity that the hon. member for Umhlanga did not present the last portion of his statement that he made on 1 February here in this House, or at least not as it was recounted to me. In that statement he said inter alia—

If one takes into account the fact that the hon. the Minister is entitled to appoint that council for at least one year, and possibly for 15 months, and that of those 12 people at least three will be from the SABC, I cannot understand the analysis of the hon. member for Umhlanga. However, I shall leave it at that.

In a document of this scope, a document amounting to more than 1 300 pages, it is clear that there are things in it that will be acceptable to some people and unacceptable to others. Surely this is unavoidable. In other words, in view of a document of this nature, one cannot expect one-sided recommendations in favour of one view or the other. I want to state this very strongly. In this regard I want to say that I associate myself with what the commission is recommending here because it is important for the future. On page 1295, paragraph 15, there are three things that the commission rejects. It says it rejects “State control, legislation or a ‘media law’”. If it says that it rejects legislation, I do not know how it could come up with the recommendation that it has in fact come up with. [Interjections.] I associate myself with this. I also associate myself with the second rejection of the commission viz.—

The third thing that they reject is the “New World information order”. In this regard they say the following in paragraph (c) on page 1296—

On behalf of this side of the House I too reject it.

We find the basic conclusions of the commission on page 1284, where the commission states very clearly that, in terms of the evaluation of the commission—

Then the commission goes on to say—

This is the main point of the recommendations of the commission. In this regard the commission then says that the English-language newspapers have not done their work properly because they have overplayed the Opposition against the Government. The Afrikaans newspapers have not done their duty either, because they have not represented the frustrations and needs of the Black people adequately. Even if one accepts this, it nevertheless appears that the commission’s basic premise in this regard is wrong, because the commission links it to its own conception of the total onslaught. If we accept that there is a total onslaught, there is a question that I want to put to all hon. members: Even if the Government takes full control of the Press and things remain as they are in this country, would it bring about the end of the total onslaught against South Africa? Definitely not.

But no one is saying that.

That is why I am saying that this is the fundamental deficiency in the commission’s approach because it was not necessary for it to link its recommendations regarding the press to the entire question of whether there is a total onslaught or not.

There is one thing that is very clear in the report. It runs through the report like a golden thread. Time and again the commission found that apart from the deficiencies of the Press, the current situation in South Africa is untenable. Time and time again in the report the commission calls for the Government to make the necessary changes and to bring about those changes rapidly. That representation runs throughout the report. That is why I say that the problem does not lie—and I am saying this in all honesty— with the inferior quality of reporting but with the imperfection in which we are living. In other words, the problem does not lie in the way the Press is dealing with that situation, but in the fact that we in South Africa have a situation that is untenable. This is what the commission discovered here. They discovered that we cannot expect the other people in South Africa to be prepared to accept this situation any longer. This is very clear. When the commission talks about the radicalism of this onslaught from abroad and of the people who are seeking a liberal radical solution for South Africa—and by the way, they talk about “one man, one vote” as if it is the only alternative that exists for South Africa in the terms formulated by the commission—if we look at what the so-called “moderate Black opinion” told the commission through Inkatha and Mr. Motsuenyane, what do they say? They say: “There must be radical change”. They use the word “radical”. Therefore, it is entirely wrong to link the whole matter to a search for a radical solution and in turn to link this to a total onslaught. I am saying this because our own Black people are calling for a radical change in this situation. We cannot escape this.

This brings me to some of the fundamental deficiencies in the report. I have a great deal of respect for the scope of the work but I want to tell the hon. member for Mossel Bay that one does not expect this report to be an academic one. However, one does expect the usual scientific principles to be applied in a report of this nature. [Interjections.] I say that the usual scientific principles must be applied. Well-known sources have definitely been consulted, but if one looks through the report one finds the uncritical acceptance of what people have written and said, people who have been discredited in the academic world in many respects. I find this totally incomprehensible. There are long drawn-out quotations. [Interjections.] I detect confusion of thought in the fact that the commission can quote Rev. Sitloeane on a unique ethnicity, the maintenance of one’s own identity and then uses it to justify a policy of differentiation. Surely this is ridiculous.

It is right.

I want to refer the hon. member for Rissik to the works of Leopold Senghor on the concept of negritude and I want to ask the hon. member whether he thinks that Senghor would be prepared to accept a policy of differentiation or discrimination that affected himself under any circumstances. Of course he would not. It is a total confusion of concepts. I find a fundamental deficiency in the report, viz. the inability to equate those things which the other people in South Africa are advocating with the struggle of the Afrikaner. The report talks about the theologizing of politics and the politicizing of theology. As sure as we are sitting here, we know what an important role religion played in the politics of the Afrikaner. We admit it because we cannot deny it. Then, if other people have the same need to find a basis in religion for what they view as their struggle for freedom, in what respect does this differ from the struggle that we Afrikaners waged? The most fundamental deficiency in this report is the absence of a Black perspective in the report. The hon. member for Sandton pointed this out. As far as I have been able to determine, there were only four non-White witnesses who appeared before the commission. [Interjections.]

I cannot understand how a commission can obtain findings on the current situation, how a commission can talk about “radical change”, and how a commission can talk here about a total onslaught when it has not had Blacks before it who could articulate the frustrations of the Blacks effectively enough. I am amazed that the commission can talk about a “dynamic, developing democracy” and to quote Prof. Dugard and Prof. Louw in this regard. I am acquainted with both of these gentlemen and I have a great deal of respect for both of them, but I am completely amazed that the commission can declare that there is a “dynamic, developing democracy” in South Africa—“an expanding democracy”—on the basis of what two people have said and on the basis of the commission’s own finding with regard to the independence of the Transkei. One simply has to read Dr. Wimpie de Klerk’s article in yesterday’s Rapport and then ask: Where is this “dynamic, expanding democracy” in South Africa? I cannot see it. [Interjections.] Nor do I see it coming. If the hon. members over there, including the hon. the Prime Minister, can give us the assurance that it is on the Government’s programme to introduce a really “dynamic, developing democracy” in South Africa within the foreseeable future, I can say that we will support the Government’s steps in this regard 100%.

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. nominated member Prof. Olivier made so many analyses that it was almost impossible to keep up with them. I believe that South Africa is in fact changing, and the hon. member realizes it. However, the hon. member does not realize that there are forces active, not only in South Africa, but also abroad, which will do anything to prevent South Africa from changing peacefully. They want to achieve revolutionary change in the Republic.

†It seems to me a common occurrence that, when commissions are appointed to deal with the safety of the State and with South Africa’s security, their findings are inevitably treated with disrespect and abuse. I remember that in the 1970’s there was a commission consisting of members of Parliament on both the Government side and the Opposition side which had to investigate certain organizations, one of which was planning to create chaos on the campuses of our universities so as to bring about revolutionary change and a Black socialist State here in Southern Africa. I remember that the argument then was that it should not have been a commission consisting of members of Parliament, but it should have been a judicial commission. I can remember no other commission that was vilified and slanged to the same extent as that commission was vilified and slanged in the columns of the English-language newspapers. Now we have had recently the appointment of the Steyn Commission. This was a judicial commission, but it seems to me that the treatment of this commission is going to follow the same pattern as that of the Schlebusch Commission which was not a judicial commission. It seems to me that the Steyn Commission is going to be abused and vilified, and today we have seen the first Parliamentary shots fired in the campaign of abuse against the commission and its findings.

I want to say this about Mr. Justice Steyn. As I have read the report, I think that the judge and his commissioners have gone out of their way to try to be even-handed in their treatment of the manifold problems that are discussed and dealt with in their report. I think they have leaned over backwards to be fair and to try to find justification for attitudes that they discuss in the report and for their conclusions. I want to say that there is one outstanding key-note of the report, and that is that it rings with concern for the safety of this country and the belief in the ability of South Africa to survive. Mr. Justice Steyn not so long ago was the Administrator-General of South West Africa. I remember the Opposition parties, and the Press that keeps them alive, referred to him as the liberator of South West Africa because he was doing away with some of the colour bar legislation in that country.

The man who was not so long ago the liberator of South West Africa has, I believe, now become the scourge of Johannesburg, and especially the scourge of Main and Sauer Streets, which, by no coincidence, are the headquarters of Saan, the Argus Company and of the Anglo American Corporation. My only criticism of Judge Steyn’s report is that I think he is a wishful thinker. I think he must be, like myself, an Aquarian, a dreamer. He has an implicit belief in the third leg of the trilogy to which he referred in his previous report when he dealt with the question of reporting on S.A. Defence Force and S.A. Police Force matters. He then said that the South African state in the light of the onslaught it is facing depended on laws, weapons and what he called benevolentia for survival. He believes implicitly in benevolentia. He believes for example that there can be mutual trust and respect between the Government and all of the media. He believes that the Government, the Opposition, the media and private enterprise can all co-operate to “formulate an authoritative picture of South Africa”. With great respect to Judge Steyn, that benevolentia is lacking. One has seen examples of that this afternoon. There is a deep difference of opinion between those on the Government side of the House on the one side and those in the Opposition benches and those who sit on the left-hand side of the Press Gallery on the other side.

I want to quote something which, to my surprise, has not yet been quoted today in this debate. It sums up the attitude of the section of the media to which I am going to refer today, viz. the Argus and Saan group. The quote comes from a book written by a former editor of The Argus. The quotation is one that I would have thought would have been used in this debate. It refers to the English language newspapers as “the source and perpetuator of division on every plane, social, economic, political and spiritual. It would seem that in addition to supporting only one side, they only belong to one church”. That was said by Mr. Morris Broughton.

What have we seen by way of reaction to the Steyn Commission report? We have seen a reaction to a judicial commission which finds that the South African media are neither measuring up to the demands of the times nor serving the needs and the interests of the South African community. We have seen nothing but negative reaction and abuse. A judicial commission states that the Argus/Saan group, the English newspaper monopoly, has in fact jeopardized claims to there being a free English language Press at all. This is totally dismissed in immediate public reaction by the Argus and Saan newspapers and, more particularly and more seriously, by the chairman of the Argus group, Mr. Slater. He says that if the findings and recommendations of the commission are accepted, South Africa will become the laughing stock of the world. He then says in respect of serious findings of a judicial commission that he hopes that sanity will prevail.

Let us look at other reactions. In the case of the Cape Times, its headline a day after the commission’s report was made known read: “Storm of protest throughout the Republic”. The former editor of The Sunday Times and at present—I do not know whether he is paid or unpaid—the official observer of the Independent Press Institute, writes in the Cape Times: “The Steyn commission findings and recommendations are grotesque.” The Argus states—

This is a clear threat to the Government that if the recommendations of the Steyn Commission are put into effect there will be outside pressures and intervention. In addition to that, the editorial states that it is “A matter of life or death”.

The Argus also says—

The commission heard evidence from a great number of sources, which have been referred to here today. The members of the Steyn Commission heard evidence, about the threat facing us from the S.A. Defence Force, the police and other security forces. Yet, in a manner typical of all the other newspapers of that group, The Argus questions whether there is any threat facing South Africa and talks about the Government’s obsession with some sort of theme. The Argus’ editor knows best! The tragedy, however, is that The Argus is read by a great number of people, whereas the Steyn Commission’s report will only be read by a few.

Surprised?

Coinciding with the hysterical internal reaction, we also had reaction from foreign correspondents and from countries overseas. There was, for example, the American reaction, the British reaction and the German reaction, carefully orchestrated only one day after the Steyn Commission’s report was tabled.

By whom?

I have not the slightest doubt but that the orchestration originated inside this country, in exactly the same way—as the Steyn Commission was able to report—that everything bad that is written about South Africa, in the newspapers of the world, originates from journalists in this part of the world. [Interjections.]

Let us have a look at the South African circumstances. The Steyn Commission’s report states, in chapter 3, that there are certain expressions and concepts that are repeatedly resorted to by White and Black radicals of the outspokenly anti-White and far-left political spectrum, as well as a goodly number of clerical and liberal groupings, and by a large section of the mass media, all seeking to maintain and intensify South Africa’s pariah status and to substitute a radically different political and socio-economic order to that prevailing in South Africa. These public perceptions are very often false, says the report, due to incorrect information being made available to the public. It also clearly says that it believes that there is obstructionism from some of the Government departments and that that should be remedied. It says, for example, that the State system of communication with the community has failed somewhere en route. It also says that there are incorrect perceptions, due to a false image of reality, being presented by the media to the public as a result of malice or incapacity or an infelicitous blend of both. It is a most remarkable thing that each one of those States that has become a pariah State in the eyes of the left-wing media of the world has been a State that has seriously tried to contend with the communist menace. There was, for example, Iran which was overthrown by revolution and abandoned by the West. There was Rhodesia, handed over to Marxist terrorists at the conference table, and also Israel, Chile and Taiwan. A striking feature of each one of these pariah States is the fact that it is anti-communist. The commission’s evaluation in the report is that the members of the commission are satisfied that the media do indeed contribute to extending the ambit and the intensity of the conflict situation, and to political polarization, and that they do, in fact, often encourage revolutionary forces at work in this country. That is a thesis that has occupied the attention of this House on a number of occasions. There are many people who believe that there are forces loose in this country that are determined to undermine the existing order of things and to bring about a radically different situation and that those forces are stocked by fires of revolution from outside South Africa. Instead of abusing the commission, and instead of heaping vilification on the members of the commission, I would have thought that leaders of the Argus and Saan groups would have given some attention to the very adverse findings in the report about the operations of journalists of those particular companies.

As regards the question of a monopoly, I have for many years maintained in the House that there is an unhealthy monopoly of shareholdings in Argus and Saan. That has been conclusively proved in this report. The Steyn Commission bears out the findings of the 1950 Van Zyl Commission and it also bears out the feelings of the former MP for Hillbrow, Dr. Friedman, who in 1947 asked for an investigation into monopolistic conditions in the Argus-Saan group. It is a cause for concern that English speakers are deprived of a choice of newspapers and that a uniformity of policy is imposed upon them through a virtually monopolistic machine.

What about The Citizen?

When the Argus group made a direct bid for Saan in 1968, all Saan editors opposed the move on the grounds that it would create an English-language Press monopoly. The Government refused to sanction it and the bid fell through. Subsequently the Argus group began a creeping take-over, as I have called it before, of Saan. It acquired more and more Saan shares until ultimately the present situation has been reached where it holds directly approximately 40% of the Saan shareholdings. However, subsequent to 1968, the Saan editors have been strangely quiet. They have done nothing to stop the Argus group gobbling up Saan, and the situation today is no more tolerable than it was at the time of the direct bid for Saan in 1968. If the Government objected to a take-over then, I believe the Government will not idly sit by and allow the Argus group to acquire Saan by stealth.

I referred to most of these matters in a private member’s motion not so long ago, but the Steyn Commission found as a fact that a monopoly situation posed—

referring to the English-language Press in South Africa—

It goes on to say that people could not be faulted if they gained the impression that only one Press group dominated the English-language Press in South Africa: It was the Argus group that dominated Saan which was its captive. I believe that, if effect can be given to the Steyn Commission’s recommendations that the shareholdings of Argus and Saan be diluted so that members of the South African public can acquire shares in those newspapers, then those newspapers will become more South African in their approach; one will have a different kind of person, more representative of South Africa, elected as a director, and people selected as editors of those newspapers who will be more representative of South Africans than is the case at the moment. It is a proposal that is both reasonable and sensible. The other suggestion which is made, namely that there should be no anonymity in the holding of shares of newspaper companies, will, I am sure, be generally welcomed throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. There is something thoroughly unhealthy about it when newspaper shares have to be held in the names of disguised trusts, nominee companies and other secret ways.

Like Volkskas nominees.

I do not believe that that situation should be allowed to be tolerated.

In conclusion I should just like to say that for many years I have been making speeches in this House to the effect that the threat facing us was aggravated by the internal situation in the Argus and Saan groups. That has been proved up to the hilt in this commission’s report. The reason why I brought these matters to the attention of the House over the years was that I felt that there was a threat to my country, that the interests of my country were at stake. For that reason I brought this matter to the attention of the House and I am glad to be able to say that the findings of a judicial commission bear out what I have said from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, it would not be correct to say that everything the hon. member for Simonstown said this afternoon I have heard before, because there was one fact which was new to me and which I found quite fascinating, and that is that the hon. member was born under the sign of Aquarius. Sir, I should like to share with you the thought which then went through my mind. In my mind’s eye I saw the hon. member participating in the scene “The age of Aquarius” in the musical Hair. Seeing him prancing around there was to my mind quite appropriate in relation to his hairy outlook on some of these matters.

The hon. member spoke about monopolies and in the very few minutes available to me I want to speak about the recommendation contained in the Steyn Commission’s report concerning monopolies.

Media monopolies are, to my mind, as undesirable as monopolies in the provision of any other services or in any other groups in the community. The provision of information to enable judgments to be made on political, social and economic matters is vital. As interest groups seek to attain control of information dissemination activities to further their own subjective point of view, it is essential that the public should have access to different sources to enable judgments to be made on a basis of comparative analysis. The danger of tame media under the exclusive control of political power elites is only too obvious. Those who seek to remain in power within dictatorships or one-party States, irrespective of whether they operate on the extreme left or the extreme right of the political spectrum, inevitably seek to reserve to themselves the ownership and control of the media. The commitment of those who seek to further democratic government should be to media operating in a free, competitive society, not in the exclusive ownership or control of the State or of economic power concentrations. There should be that freedom. In addition to that it should be relatively easy to enter the field so that competing individual aspects of the media evidencing different approaches are available to a critical public which is seeking information and desiring to formulate its own views on social, economic and political issues.

The issue therefore is: How does one actually achieve this? If it was the object of the commission to find an answer to this, I regret to say that I do not believe that they have found the answer. While the commission considered that in respect of radio and television there should be a greater degree of independence from the Government and a greater accountability it in fact made no effective recommendations of any kind in order to end this monopoly. The media is not only the Press, Sir. The media is also radio and television, and if there should be no monopoly in newspapers there should be no monopoly in radio and television. Radio and television are at least as powerful in the convincing of people as are our newspapers. While different media compete with each other, there should also be competition within the individual components of the media. If competition within television is difficult from the point of view of economic viability—and I should like to challenge that proposition because extra channels are, in fact, possible—that argument in any case does not apply to radio and is not suggested by the commission in respect of radio at all.

The commission also stresses the need for private sector involvement in conveying an authoritative picture of South Africa to its own population and the world. However, its recommendations exclude the private sector from the most powerful aspects of the media and support the confirmation of State monopoly in that regard.

The second issue on which, I believe, the commission has failed in regard to monopolies, is its failure to appreciate that power concentration and monopoly can exist, even if the shareholding is spread. I should like to ask whether it is desirable for a company to hold the monopoly of a particular aspect of the media, even if its shareholding is widely spread. This, to my mind, is as much least as much a monopoly as when the shares of a company are so held as to vest control in the hands of a smaller number of individuals or corporations. Is it not better to have more newspapers demonstrating different approaches than a concentration of newspapers in the hands of one company in which the shares are spread? There are major business corporations exercising monopolistic powers both nationally and internationally, whose shareholdings are very widely spread. Does this make the concentration of the economic power which they exercise less monopolistic? Certainly, the SEC in the United States does not think so, and it has again recently demonstrated even under the Reagan administration, by its actions against a number of corporations that this is, in fact, an undesirable situation.

The commission had evidence of this before it and it is surprising that it did not analyse it, because one company, Nasionale Pers, has a very wide spread of shares and has a limitation on voting powers. Yet the commission in its own report says the following—

Here they were referring to Nasionale Pers, not merely to what the hon. member for Simon’s Town refers to as the SAAN and Argus Group. The spread of shares in itself is not a test. In the modern world, in any case, economic power tends to rest more with those who control wealth than with those who own wealth. With the growth of pension funds, mutual and other insurers, and the vastness of the capital of corporate giants, which results in the spread of shareholdings with institutions, individuals, cross shareholdings and all other devices, economic power concentrations have more and more turned to the control of wealth as opposed to the ownership of wealth. Once individuals and groups get control, not only do they maintain it for themselves but they decide who shall be admitted to the power-clique and elected to boards, often on a reciprocal basis. Therefore, without owning large shareholdings dynasties—not necessarily family dynasties, but more often what I would call club dynasties—actually exercise economic power. This type of power concentration is in no way avoided by the spread of shareholding but, on the contrary, often assist those who are in control.

It is remarkable that the commission’s main recommendation in connection with dealing with monopolies therefore is a spread of shares in order to avoid it. One or two companies owning all the newspapers in a particular language section, even if its shares are widely spread, is still a monopoly. The problem is not shareholders, but other factors, including the power to take over existing media activities, power by wealth in order to drive out small competitors, and the supporting of media activities by more profitable outside activities in order to allow competition where a loss-making newspaper is used and subsidized by other activities providing an unfair method of competition in the newspaper field. Then there is the difficulty of starting new newspapers and the difficulty of competition from advertising on radio and television.

The answer is, to my mind, not to remove the ability to own a newspaper, which the commission refers to as tycoon control, but rather to make it possible to own. The ability to own should not be removed, but it should be made easier to own a newspaper so that there can be competition in the field. One had hoped that there might be proposals in the commission’s report which would enable newcomers to enter the media field more readily, proposals to make it easier to raise capital to enable smaller local newspapers in private ownership to be started and maintained, and also to have radio stations opened and operated in competition with the SABC. None of this was in the commission’s report, however. Instead the restriction on ownership of shares in newspapers, I believe, is going to make it more difficult to start newspapers, and it is going to make the underwriting of public issues in respect of companies which are going to start newspapers, even more difficult, and will turn it into a mine-field. Nor is there any limitation suggested in the commission’s report on the ability of boards to refuse the transfer of shares from existing holders to new purchasers who might not be politically acceptable.

Hon. members will know of a newspaper group—a very powerful newspaper group in South Africa—where I could imagine what will happen if the hon. member for Sandton were to buy shares in that company and would seek to obtain transfer of those shares into his name. We know that that is in fact a reality. If one is going to spread shares, I have to ask why one would want to spread shares. The issue is this. Is there really anything wrong with a newspaper advocating a political course? Is there? No. I cannot believe there can be anything wrong with that because throughout the history of Afrikaans-language newspapers the practice has been to advocate a particular political cause. Therefore there is nothing wrong with owning a newspaper in order to advocate a political cause. It is undesirable to have a monopoly so that readers cannot compare what the one says with what the other says. That is what is really undesirable. There is nothing wrong, however, with having a point of view. All over the world there are people who own newspapers because they want to advocate causes. I am not prepared to sit here and condemn for example the whole movement of the creation of the Nasionale Pers for advocating the cause of the NP in South Africa. I believe, even though I disagree with it, that it was a legitimate political activity, and I do not believe that we should condemn it for that. There is another question that can also be asked. If one talks about spreading shares, why in fact in the draft Bill is there nothing in regard to the voting rights of shares? Hon. members know very well that if one looks at the two companies in the Afrikaans sphere that are quoted on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, one will see that if one buys every share that is quoted one will still not be able to get control of either company. The reality of the matter is that there are voting shares and that there are other shares that do not have the control in respect of votes. Therefore, if one wants to avoid a monopoly, one cannot then ignore that. If one looks at the report one will find an analysis of the shareholders of the English-language newspapers but one will not find a similar analysis of the rest.

Then there is the issue of the Black shareholding, the Black Press. We are not suggesting that there should not be a Black Press, but it is suggested that if there is a political motivation in it, then that is wrong. I believe that if it is a legitimate political motivation, a proper political motivation and an honest political motivation, then it should be allowed, whether it is Black, whether it is White, whether it is English or whether it is Afrikaans.

I believe that we need to look again at the whole question of monopoly in South Africa because this commission’s report certainly does not give the answer.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this House occasionally has the opportunity to discuss a subject of cardinal importance to the country and its people, and I feel that the subject we are discussing today is such a subject. You will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, for saying that it is disappointing that the reaction of the official Opposition has shown that they are incapable of understanding and discussing either the seriousness of the subject of the times and the circumstances involved.

A second remark I want to make is that in this House we obviously debate matters. But in order to do this it is presumed that we should at least have the facts right. I do not intend to devote much time to the hon. member for Sandton, but I just want to refer to one remark the hon. member made, which was supported by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. This was that the report is based on the view of witnesses of whom only four were Black. Why did the hon. members conceal the facts as reflected in paragraph 10(c) of the first value of the report? In paragraph 10(a) the commission expresses the need for a scientific investigation into the identification of the population and its needs and interests. For this reason the commission directed the Human Sciences Research Council to undertake such an investigation. In paragraph 10(c) the commission says the following in this connection—

The fact remains that 38% of the sample were Black and 25,7% White, and in this regard we have a very pertinent remark by the commission. The commission says—

In the first place I want to ask this question: Why did the hon. members neglect to refer to these facts? In the second place I want to ask how it is possible to describe as secret a survey in which over 8 000 people took part? I charge that these hon. members concealed this because it does not suit their argument. [Interjections.] And then the hon. member Prof. Olivier is the one who spoke so sanctimoniously about the commission not acting scientifically! I want to tell that hon. member that this omission shows a serious lack of scientific spirit on his part and I do not think he should criticize other people when he himself is at fault.

I want to go a step further. If I may—and we can debate this—I should like to ask: What, in essence, is this report about, and what, in essence, is this debate about. I contend that what we are in fact debating is freedom. In this country we are in fact debating far more than merely freedom of the Press or the media. The totality of freedom in this country is at stake. No one in this House is in favour of the present socio-economic, political or constitutional dispensation remaining as it is. No one advocates this— neither hon. members opposite, nor hon. members on this side of the House. What we are not agreed on is what the ultimate aim of reform in this country is to be. What we are not agreed on is the method we must adopt in this regard. Hon. members opposite cannot understand this, and if they do understand it, they are not prepared to acknowledge that they do. It is this very process of expanding and broadening people’s freedom, whether this involves participating in the economic life of the country or participating in decision-making in the country, that does not suit the book or fit into the framework of the forces that seek the destruction of the country. I accuse the hon. members opposite of being prepared for the sake of short-term advantage and for the sake of the goodwill of certain groups in the media, in the first place to be prepared to conceal part of the truth and in the second, to be unwilling to face the realities of the country in which we live. May I refer to an interjection by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North? What did he say? If one wants to formulate a counter-strategy—he said this in reaction to the hon. member for Klip River—then “abolish apartheid”. Let us take this simplistic approach further. This is not only the approach of that hon. member, but also that of the hon. members of the official Opposition and the Press that supports it. I refer to an editorial in this mornings Cape Times, because in my opinion two paragraphs in it cryptically sum up the view of the hon. members opposite—

the rest of the population. I shall return to this later. The last paragraph explains the essence. The council that is to license journalists is referred to and it is stated—

Irrespective of the fact that no reasonable person could arrive at such a conclusion, it is the best example of the unionism controlling that sector of the media. The hon. member for Umhlanga asked that there be greater understanding between Afrikaans and English speakers and between Whites and Blacks in this country, but what hope have we if this is the mentality of people faced by the circumstances we must overcome in this country?

Let us consider what has happened during the past few weeks since the tabling of the report, and let us consider the reactions of various newspaper or news media groups and political parties, because I think this reaction tells a story which is actually typical of South African life. Whereas one would expect everyone to approach this matter with self-control, what did we find? On 3 February the hon. member for Sandton made a speech in connection with the report. I say he could not have studied the report in that time—it is impossible. Because he could not have done so, I say that speech was not his own. [Interjections.]

This brings me immediately to the hon. members of the official Opposition. The hon. member for Yeoville said to the hon. member for Simon’s Town that he had heard all that before. I should like to remark that I have read all that before.

The fact of the matter is that not one of the hon. members of the official Opposition said anything today that has not already been said over the past few weeks. Not one of them made any contribution at all to the debate.

What about plagiarism?

All the hon. members opposite merely echoed what other people had prompted them to say. [Interjections.]

May I go a little further? Is it not strange that the commission’s report was tabled in this House on 1 February and there was already overseas reaction to it on 2 February?

When did you give the report to the Press? [Interjections.]

I am coming to that. [Interjections.]

Order!

See what interesting allegations the hon. members are making about the Press. A moment ago they were praising the Press and now they want to know when I gave the report to the Press. I gave the report to the Press the previous Friday morning—subject to the customary embargo—so that the Press could study it for a day. The Press is supposed to be the sacred instrument. Not only was the report subject to an embargo, but the mere fact that they had it, was also subject to an embargo. Do you know what hon. members on that side of the House are telling me now, Sir? They are saying the Press leaked the report overseas, in other words, certain members of the Press broke that embargo.

Did you give it to the foreign Press?

No, I did not. The hon. member asked whether I gave it to the foreign Press. No, I did not. I gave it to the local representatives of the foreign Press subject to an embargo until Monday. Surely, therefore, the report could not have reached Foreign countries by 2 February. However, the fact remains that the overseas reaction was the same as the local reaction. This is not a coincidence. It is as if the notes were agreed on beforehand and then played in unison.

You will understand, Sir, that in concluding this debate I must refer to certain naïve and unfounded statements and certain misrepresentations in respect of the report. The debate was conducted from that side of the House today as if what is involved is an attack on freedom. [Interjections.] Those hon. members say this is so. Let us consider the philosophy arising from the report. The first is community responsibility. Are all hon. members in favour of that? [Interjections.] The report also stands for journalistic independence. Are we all agreed on that? The report also stands for freedom of the media, but with responsibility to the community it serves. Are we all agreed on that? The report advocates the uniting of these two aspects. If we are agreed on this, why, then, are we not prepared to stand up and debate with one another on how we are to extend this freedom and community involvement in this country? Why do we not get up and state how we can ensure the independence of the journalist without the owner prescribing to him what he must say? Why are we not prepared to stand up and say that freedom also implies responsibility? Why do we not also say that the media in this country—I refer to all the media—and the critics of the Government function within the democratic system this country ensures for them?

Do you accept the recommendations? That is the real point.

I had thought that we could debate this matter reasonably with one another. What is the contrast that has manifested itself between certain media groups during the past few weeks? Some of the media groups in the country have rejected registration …

Why?

… and do not like the professionalizing of the profession. However, some sectors of the media have displayed responsibility and said we must debate the findings and recommendations of the report with one another and negotiations on them. In contrast, some sectors of the media rejected the report. Is not the very fact that we never read the findings of the commission in certain organs of the media, but only read of the rejection of the recommendations, in accordance with the commission’s evidence that the present regulatory system is not efficient and does not work efficiently? I did not hear one of the hon. members opposite arguing that the Press Council has succeeded in enforcing the Press code. I did not hear one of those hon. members, who are apologists of freedom, argue responsibly that they did not agree with the commission’s methods and in consequence request that we consult with one another on other methods that are acceptable to all of us because what is at stake is our country and all who live here.

In all fairness, let us contrast this with the attitude of the Government. The Government has not adopted any standpoint in this connection. As regards the criticism levelled at it—and there was a great deal of criticism of the Government and its actions—the Government said it would put its own house in order and see if it was not possible, within the framework of State security and confidentiality, to speed up and facilitate the channels of communication between the Government and the media, and via the media to the public.

In consequence of the criticism regarding restrictive legislation not essential to the security of the country, the Government said it would refer the matter to a committee of the Cabinet to ascertain which legislation is not essential. The Government did not, therefore, adopt the standpoint that it was above criticism. The Government did not see the report as condemning the media as such. Nor did the Government state in an undemocratic way that it was going to accept all the recommendations. In sharp contrast with the behaviour of some sectors of the media, the Government’s attitude is that it will not take any final discissions until it has negotiated with the organs of the media.

Let us contrast this behaviour on the part of the Government with the behaviour of certain groups in the media and the behaviour of certain hon. members of the official Opposition. What do we find? We find that the change of an emotional reaction and unfounded formulation of viewpoints cannot be levelled at this side of the House, but that it can in fact be levelled at the other side of the House. When the hon. the Prime Minister reacted to the report on 1 February, he actually gave advance notice of the expected hysterical reaction to the report’s findings and recommendations. Thousands of words have been written here and overseas in consequence of the report, many of them malicious, and many presumptuous and superficial, and they were written despite the lack of an in-depth study of the report.

If we as members of this House are not capable of disciplined thought or of conducting a rational debate on this subject, how shall we, as the House of Assembly, ever be able to meet the needs of the time? Hon. members opposite agree that if the reform to be implemented in this country is to be orderly, it must take place through this House. Now I ask again: How are we to succeed in the face of this cynicism, this scepticism and this negative attitude on the point of the official Opposition on a subject such as this? The official Opposition has merely proved that they say what they are told to say. In this process the hon. the Leader of the Opposition took the lead. We need not blame anyone else on his side for the atmosphere that prevails there. He alone must take the responsibility for this, because he is the man who questioned his participation in the parliamentary process if the freedom of the Press is attacked. What does this imply? It implies that the report we are studying threatens the freedom of the Press. It implies nothing else. Today they passed judgment on and condemned the report before there had been a reasoned discussion in this House on the recommendations of the report and what we are to do about them.

No, it is not negotiable.

The freedom of the Press has suddenly become a slogan. This results from the malicious distortion of the findings and recommendations in the report. It has become a pretext for the official Opposition.

If ever we had proof in this country that the real Opposition is not present in this House, we have had that proof today. The real Opposition are the people who prescribe and dictate to the hon. members opposite.

Such as who?

Who are those people?

Consider the terminology used by the editor of the Sunday Express. He spoke of “rubbishy jargon” and an “extraordinary compilation of clap trap”. I can understand that this gentleman will be opposed to the professionalizing of the journalistic profession because no decent profession ought ever to allow such a smear action in its ranks.

Except Die Burger.

I want to allege that the behaviour of certain newspapers, including the one I quoted from, furnished the best proof of the commission’s finding of a gross infringement of the ethical norms and code of decency of the Press Code.

You do not know the meaning of the word “ethical”.

This shows us how much respect this sector of the media has for the Press Code, which is their own, and for the Press Council, which they created.

It is nothing but a fraud.

Then hon. members ask why it is necessary for us to investigate this situation! The hon. the Prime Minister invited the media to negotiate with him. He also indicated that we are taking further steps to negotiate on the other recommendations.

Allow me to refer to what has dominated the debate, namely, the discussion regarding freedom of the Press. The irony of the matter is that this misses the essence of the report and of the debate, because that is not at issue here.

Allow me to return to the question which the hon. members of the official Opposition are so quick to denigrate and—reject in superficial position—in this connection a part of that code. It was found that the country is faced by a threat that is escalating in magnitude and intensity. It was also found that this threat originates in the Marxist philosophy, its hangers-on and its proxima. It was found that the international tention between the First and the Third World entails dangers for this country. Consider what a superficial analysis is now being made of this situation, for example that according to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, it is only due to the circumstances in South Africa.

Let us consider Zimbabwe, “the miracle of reconciliation”. Let us consider this “miracle of reconciliation”. When Muzorewa won the election there was a majority government, but that was not enough for the Marxist forces. In South West Africa the National Assembly is composed on the basis of one man, one vote, but that is not enough for the forces that want to destroy it.

Are you now going to give in?

I wish that hon. member would keep his mouth shut and open his ears for a change.

The fact of the matter is that this is not what is at issue. Is it not true that this country is facing a threat in more than one field? What are the facts? Apart from the denigration of leadership in the psychological sphere and the denigration of values and norms in the country, the objection to over 50% of the literature dealt with under the Publications Act, is that it affects the security of the country, and over 60% of the complaints were found to be correct. This has nothing to do with the internal situation in the country, but is part of a general pattern. If we have to spend millions to become independent or as independent as possible in the field of energy, using money we could have spent to bring about economic and social changes, this certainly forms part of a threat to the country. When shall we in this House at least understand that there is a widespread and all-encompassing onslaught against South Africa? One of the most important reasons for the onslaught against us is the fact that we are gradually succeeding with our domestic policy within the borders of the country. [Interjections.] It is of no use for hon. members opposite to laugh. The fact remains that under this Government more people are involved in a larger number of institutions in the political life of our country than has ever been the case in the past.

In the political life of the country?

Yes, of the country. Leaving aside the population growth, more people are participating in economic development under this Government than under any other Government, and it is of no use to argue about this.

I want to warn hon. members to leave the sphere of influence of people who want to destroy the country. [Interjections.] It is of no use for hon. members to laugh about it. I want to tell hon. members on the Opposition side that they and some of the media are consciously or unconsciously playing a part in delaying the process of reform in our country. [Interjections.]

In all fairness I want to ask if it is not true that in our society, with its built-in potential for conflict, reform—and by this I mean structural changes—in all fields is a dangerous and difficult process. I repeat my warning to hon. members. We must not underestimate the potential for conflict in a process of reform in which some people are clinging to privileged positions, while others make demands this country cannot afford or tolerate. What do we get from hon. members opposite? What do we get from a certain sector of the media? What is happening to us, is not unique. Africa has had a struggle for freedom. The blood brothers of some of our media appealed for constitutional reform in Zimbabwe as well. The Prog. policy followed there was not enough for them. Today I want to ask them … I want to ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North— the man who sees Zimbabwe as a country representing a miracle of reconciliation—who was the first victim in Zimbabwe, if it was not the Press.

Do you want to have 20 people shot every day? [Interjections.]

While I am dealing with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, I want to put a further question to him. Do the Whites in Zimbabwe agree with him that that country is an example of a miracle of reconciliation? Do the followers of Nkomo agree with him that Zimbabwe is a country that is a model of reconciliation? All the things they are demanding for South Africa, were also demanded in Zimbabwe. [Interjections.]

Conditions in South Africa are a prime example of an exploitable situation, a situation in which we have a governing First World and a large number of Third World people seeking freedom. Surely hon. members know that we are being threatened for reasons other than those they put forward. How is it possible that in America they appreciate the fact that South Africa is part of the world scene? How is it possible that the American administration understands the complexity of this society? There are hon. members in this House, people whose task it is to try to determine the fate of the people of this country, who are totally unable to understand this. Do those hon. members not understand what they are doing?

In conclusion I want to quote the words of Paul Johnstone—hon. members will know who he is—Johnstone is well-known among hon. members opposite, and they frequently quote him in support of their arguments. I want to quote him in one respect only. Johnstone was discussing the seven deadly sins of terrorism. According to him the following is the sixth of these deadly sins: the basis of terrorism is not in the totalitarian world. That is only where its money, its training, its arms and its protection come from. At the same time, however, terrorism can only function effectively in the freedom of a liberated society. What, then, is he saying? He says that terrorism can only flourish in an atmosphere of freedom in a liberated society. He goes on to say that terrorists are the spies of the totalitarian army, and the sin of terrorism is that the vehicle of freedom is exploited in liberated societies, thus endangering them. I want to add to this that it also exploits the instruments of freedom in this respect.

Johnstone goes on to say, that in order to combat the threat of terrorism, a free society must arm itself. However, the very process of arming itself against the danger in its midst, also threatens its freedom, its decency and the standards that make it civilized. According to Johnstone terrorism is a direct and sustained threat to all the means of protection of a free society. It is a threat to the freedom of the Press and television. It is a threat to the sovereignty of the judiciary, which is obviously harmed by emergency legislation and special powers. He goes on to say that this sin works in reverse. A free society that reacts to terrorism by exercising authority, harms itself. I confirm that this is true. But he says that an even greater danger is that in their eagerness to avoid excessively stringent measures, free societies neglect to arm themselves against the dangers of terrorism. I want to issue a warning to hon. members. They are advocating that we neglect to arm ourselves against terrorism.

The viewpoint of the Government in respect of the Press, the media, has been stated repeatedly and I shall not repeat it here. History will sit in judgment on those people who create a climate for revolution in this country, those people who allow the wider freedom to be destroyed—not only freedom of the media, but the totality of freedom—and herein lies the responsibility of the Government. Whether the threat against this country is from the communists or from the liberals, the highest responsibility of the Government is the security of the country, of the State and of its people. Today I say plainly that this is the highest responsibility of the Government, a duty it will not neglect.

In conclusion I want to ask the media …

[Inaudible.]

Yes, we shall even have to protect the freedom of that hon. member, in spite of him. I must negotiate with the media and their organs and therefore I want to say quite plainly today that it makes my task more difficult to negotiate with the media when they come forward with preconceived statements. It is difficult for me to negotiate with people who are not prepared to reserve their standpoints until we have all considered the matter together.

Mr. Speaker, I now move—

Agreed to.

With leave, motion withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we come now to the Third Reading of the Heraldry Amendment Bill and hon. members will recall that the official Opposition voted for its Second Reading, and we shall be supporting the Third Reading as well. We made it very clear both in the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage that whilst we supported this Bill, chiefly because of its reference to the coat of arms of the Republic, we had some reservations. The reservations we mentioned then I mention again now because, although we introduced a number of amendments, the hon. the Minister did not find it possible to accept any of them. Firstly, in clause 1 we suggested a reduction of the penalties from R10 000 to R1 000 and of the period of imprisonment from five years to one year. We said then that we felt that this was an over-reaction by the Government. We felt that the penalties were too high, and we still feel that way despite our support for the Third Reading of this Bill. Then, when we came to clause 2, we put before the hon. the Minister certain representations that we had received and certain conclusions that we had drawn. We again voted against subsection (2) of clause 2. We hoped that we could delete that because we felt it was unnecessary and even unfair. However, once again our amendment was defeated.

As far as clause 3 is concerned which deals with the possible deportation of certain people if they contravene the law regarding contempt for the coat of arms of the Republic, we felt that this too was too severe and we voted against clause 3.

With those words we reiterate our position. We support the Third Reading of the Bill with those reservations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Pinelands for his support of the Third Reading. I want to emphasize once again that the legislation deals with important public symbolism in our country. The national symbols that it deals with here, are symbols that bind us together, as I stated in my Second Reading speech as well, in spite of differences and in spite of diversity and division that may prevail in the country. Therefore they are very valuable symbols in our national life.

In the second place what is at issue here are symbols that also reflect the historical foundations of our community and system of Government. For that reason, too, we consider them to be very valuable and highly esteemed symbols.

The standpoint of the Government with regard to the extent of the penalties—we were obliged to differ with the official Opposition in this regard during the Committee Stage—is that it is the expression of the determination of the State and of Parliament that these symbols that are so valuable, as I have just said, and should not be criticized or abused, that is at issue here.

We have also emphasized that as far as the application of public symbolism for family use is concerned, we should like to guarantee the authority and credibility status of those symbols rather than to leave them to mere lighthearted playfulness.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether the enactment of clause 2 means that the hon. the Minister envisages two possibilities? The one is that it is going to lead to the licensing of manufacturers of family coats-of-arms, and in this connection I should like to have the assurance from the hon. the Minister that this would not be so. The second part of the question is, where would copyright come in so far as a family coat-of-arms is concerned and the ability of somebody else to manufacture such a coat-of-arms without violating the provisions of the Copyright Act?

Provision is made in the Heraldry Act for each one to apply for himself or for a specific family for a certain family crest to be officially registered. He can then lay claim to such a crest not being abused by other people who do not have any claim to it. In terms of the clause that was criticized by the hon. member for Durban Point during the Committee Stage, there is also an indemnity, as it were, for anyone to offer that crest for sale under certain conditions. The question of copyright of the crest is not covered by this legislation, because if I understand it correctly, it is a proprietary asset that is being protected in terms of the Copyright Act and not by the Heraldry Act. Therefore, clause 2 has nothing to do with copyright; it merely deals with an indemnity against unauthorized peddling. It does not protect from the point of view of proprietary law, the right of the person who is the creator of the crest.

I hope that with these remarks I have replied to the reservations of hon. members.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendments to this clause standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, as follows—

1. (1) On page 5, in line 20, after “education” to insert “(including books and stationery)”;
2. (2) on page 5, line 26, to omit “primary and secondary”.

I move these amendments because my hon. colleague is unable to be in the House at this time.

The debate on the Second Reading of this Bill centred entirely on this particular clause and I am sure the hon. the Minister will therefore not be surprised that we have major reservations in regard to these provisions. The important point that I wish to try to make once again during this Committee Stage is that when it comes to matters relating to education, one realizes that these are important matters which affect everyone— every person, every family and every child in this country irrespective of race or creed. This particular Bill, however, deals only with White education. We know that for a very long time there has been a certain approach on the part of the Government, in large measure supported by the Opposition, concerning education in its provision for Whites in South Africa. When it comes to amending those provisions I want to say with as much emphasis as possible that I believe we should observe something that we have been trying to observe particularly over the past 10 years, as far as I know. It is that when we initiate changes or effect amendments which indicate a fairly radical departure from the norm, we should at least get together in a select committee, as we have done in the past, in order to discuss issues concerning education. Then, after having had the opportunity to consider all the intentions and the best possibilities for all concerned, we can return to the House to continue the debate. We may not always come back to this House agreeing completely with each other—in fact, this would most probably not be the case—but there are no two ways about it that in the past we have found that we have been able to understand why such changes have been made and why such an amending Bill had been brought to the House. We have been able to return to the House from the select committee with a better understanding of what the intention of the Government was. I want with great respect to remind the hon. the Minister that after his quite perfunctory introduction to the measure, I expressed my own disappointment and that of my party regarding the lack of motivation for this Bill. There was a single sentence in the introductory speech which stated that we were all aware that education was very expensive. We know that. We are aware of this but it has always been a costly undertaking. However, we have always believed that education is important and that it is therefore worth the expenditure of money and time, of training and of expertise. We have together tried to suggest that the best possible education should be available to all White children. We are dealing here with a Bill dealing with White education. It has been our contention that to extend that education to all South Africans, we should adopt the same standards that we have sought for our own children for the education of other children as well. We have been mindful of the movement within the Government to try to bridge the yawning chasm which exists between education opportunities and the provision made for White children on the one hand, and for children of other race groups on the other hand. If it were the intention of the Government to try to meet the total education needs of South Africa and to that end having to bring about certain amendments, that is one matter. We were not taken into the hon. the Minister’s confidence, certainly not in his introductory speech. I believe it is very important that when we discuss matters relating to education we should know what the Government intends to do.

Whilst the hon. the Minister can say, and has indeed said, that these changes not necessarily mean that any action is going to be taken, that is hardly credible. The hon. the Minister will not think us unreasonable if we suggest that if amendments are made, we expect them to be carried out. We expect them to be carried out forthwith, bearing in mind the points the hon. the Minister made earlier about the necessity for consultation, and that once Parliament had spoken its mind it would be easier to bring about the necessary changes. Changes are quite clearly going to come. This amending legislation is premature. That is the key point I want to make. I believe we, the Opposition, should be taken into consideration when these fairly drastic and radical changes are made and that we should not be left in the dark concerning the plans of the Government. We ask therefore that the status quo be retained in so far as this measure is concerned. We ask that the present policy as it affects this particular provision, should be maintained. We have other arguments about other policies, but this is not the time to discuss those now.

The hon. the Minister has a discretion in regard to pre-primary education, pupils receiving instruction on a part-time basis, as well as in regard to apprentices. This has now been extended to include secondary education. We want to be absolutely sure that there is not going to be one child in South Africa who, by this change, will not have the opportunity of the best possible education. That is why I have moved the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to two matters that were raised by the hon. member for Pinelands. The first is the request that the hon. member made during the Second Reading debate and once again a moment ago that a Select Committee should be appointed. I want to say in all fairness towards the hon. member that it is strange that the Opposition sometimes finds it convenient to want to make drastic recommendations to this side of the House with regard to amendments, without calling for a Select Committee, amendments that affect people just as seriously as this specific clause does. I want to grant it to the hon. member: Of course it affects the people. However, the hon. member says that a Select Committee should be appointed with regard to this matter. The hon. member knows that what is at issue here is merely the best for education, and I am convinced that even if it were referred to a Select Committee, this side of the House would have come back with exactly the same standpoint. I am saying so for two reasons that I shall proceed to debate briefly.

The first reason is that it is justifiable on an educational basis. Secondly, it is in the best interests of all school-children in this country that this necessary amendment be made today. The De Lange Report indicated clearly—and the hon. member for Pinelands will agree with this—that education is expensive. Indeed, the hon. member for Pinelands said so himself. Therefore, when we can muster funds to the optimum within the powers of the State, this must be done. I agree with this. However, when one can obtain funds from other sources to the benefit of the upliftment of education as well, one must utilize them, too, and any responsible Government would do so. For that reason this amendment is being made and “must” is being changed to “can”. In view of the financial requirements of education, it should also be made possible for parents— and not only the parents, but for the community, too—to contribute towards better education in general for children.

That hon. member is concerned—I am aware of this—about the education of the Black population, as well as the education of the Coloureds, the Asians and so on. However, the hon. the Minister has indicated that this amendment will not detract from the standard of education. On the contrary, this amendment is aimed at making it possible, in the interest of education, for more money to be pumped into education. Therefore, it is very clear that there is nothing sinister about this. Nor does it mean that it will be expected that parents will have to pay for their children’s education tomorrow, no matter which parents or what colour group it may be. Not at all. It will merely open the door so that they can make a contribution towards achieving the best and highest ideals that we on this side of the House are cherishing for children in general—I am convinced that this is also the objective of that side of the House. This is what this amendment is about.

Mr. Chairman, we in the NRP also feel very strongly about this particular clause, as I motivated in my Second Reading speech. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister the cardinal differences between his perception and our perception of this particular clause. Firstly, in spite of the Minister’s assurance to the contrary, in public and in his speeches here, we believe that here the thought is father to the deed and that once this enabling measure is passed it is axiomatic that it would lead very shortly to education being charged directly to the account of the parents. That is certainly going to happen, for otherwise this amendment to the legislation would not be necessary.

Secondly, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that we believe that the thrust of educational policy should be free, compulsory education up to a level of self-sufficiency, and here there is no specification of what that level of self-sufficiency would be. What the hon. the Minister is doing at the moment, however, if it is his intention to implement the amendment—and one must assume that he intends to implement it, or else there would have been no reason for the amendment in the first place—is to affect the cardinal aspect of compulsory education. If one has compulsory education up to a level of self-sufficiency, however, it is totally wrong, if not immoral, to levy a charge for this directly on the parents. If society as a whole deems it necessary to enforce the principle of compulsory education, education must also be free. Otherwise society has no right to demand compulsory education, because it is unquestionable that a large percentage of society will not be able to afford out of immediate earnings the kind of education that will have to be paid for their children. Therefore there is a cardinal principle at stake here, viz. the principle of compulsory education being commensurate with free education up to a level of self-sufficiency.

Thirdly, and lastly, I should like to say that the standpoint of this party is that, when one looks at education for one group, one must also bear in mind what the other groups are going to do. I know that in this Bill we are talking about White education only, which is administered by the provinces. We would have preferred to have seen the present position maintained where education is specified as being free, including books and stationery, and where it is common practice for schools to raise voluntary levies on the parents. I have had a look at the records of some of the Cape and Natal schools and found that only a very small percentage of parents in fact renege on that voluntary contribution. The majority of parents—this applies right across the board to all race groups—see education as one of the primary need-drives of their children. In other words, that for which they are prepared to do most and sacrifice most is to see that their children get a good education. As I have said, the records show that only a small percentage of parents actually do not pay the voluntary levy.

We believe that the cost of education should be a charge on society as a whole and, secondly, that the majority of parents will in fact pay the voluntary levy. Therefore I should like to say to the official Opposition that we will be supporting their amendment. We will also be voting against the clause in its entirety.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the comments made by the hon. members for Pinelands and Durban North in connection with the amendment that has been moved and that cannot be accepted by this side of the House. I think that the hon. member for Virginia dealt very effectively with the argument of the hon. member for Pinelands in which he called for the appointment of a Select Committee. Therefore, I do not want to go into this any further. In actual fact, in his argument the hon. member for Virginia also indicated that this entire matter has already been thoroughly and, I think, logically and convincingly argued during the Second Reading.

The hon. member for Durban North referred to the necessary link that there should be between compulsory education and free education.

†The hon. member for Durban North made the point that free compulsory education up to a level of self-sufficiency, however that is to be defined, should be charged to society as a whole. He also made the point that a deviation from the policy which he proposes, he would characterize as immoral. Although this is evidence which became available after the decision was taken to introduce this Bill, it is interesting that in the De Lange report it is made quite clear—and I quoted this in my reply to the Second Reading—that from the junior secondary stage completely free education should no longer be applied.

*On page 115 of the report we read the following with regard to the junior intermediate phase of three years—

Then various reasons are given, which the hon. member for Virginia touched on partially in his argument and which I too mentioned during my reply to the Second Reading. Therefore I do not want to repeat them.

I should also like to deal with a remark by the hon. member for Durban North, which I feel is related to a certain extent to the criticism expressed by the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member for Durban North said that this amendment affects the education of other population groups as well and he felt that it should rather be postponed so that it could be dealt with together with the educational planning for these groups. I believe that the hon. member for Pinelands was aiming in the same direction when he said: “The same standards should be maintained and education expanded so as really effectively to reach all children.” He also said: “No child should not have an opportunity for the best possible education in South Africa.” I said during the Second Reading debate and I want to emphasize once again, that the Government does not want the introduction of partially non-free education and a financial contribution by the parents to be to the detriment of communities that cannot fairly be expected, due to their socio-economic circumstances, to make a contribution. As I put it in that debate, the specific socio-economic circumstances of the various population groups, and within those groups as well, will have to be taken into account.

It is also quite logical that a contribution towards the education of their children that is expected from a community, would have to take into account the degree in which the quality of their education is comparable with the most favourable system of education in the country. During the Second Reading I emphasized that it is reasonable to accept that the degree to which the education of the groups concerned has been placed on a parity basis with regard to standards and opportunities should be taken into account, in so far as it affects White education, but eventually the education of other groups as well, when working out a policy on the basis of this proposed new principle.

The final objection that I should like to elucidate that was raised by hon. members on the other side of the House, actually concerns the allegation that the introduction of this Bill was supposedly premature and the motivation perfunctory. Here too I want to emphasize once again that the Government submitted this legislation to the House after all the authoritative bodies—I do not want to mention all the details once again—that could give it advice, had been consulted. The advice of those bodies was unanimous, identical and unambiguous. I also want to say once again that following that, the Government actually had the additional benefit of the De Lange report, that also gave a clear motivation on educational grounds as to why education in its entirety should not be free. In its argument, the De Lange Commission does not draw any distinction between the population groups, but merely emphasizes another important point that both those hon. members made, viz. that the contribution expected from parents should not be such that the children would be excluded from a decent education, education of a full and equal quality. I do not believe it is necessary to go into this further.

I am sorry that we cannot have this clause accepted with the support of all the parties, and I should like to quote what was recently said by a spokesman of the official Opposition in one of our provincial councils.

I am referring here to a speech that Mr. Peter Nixon delivered on 10 February this year in the Transvaal Provincial Council. He referred to the De Lange Report, and after he had laid into the Government in connection with all the things that the Government had supposedly done wrong with regard to the De Lange Report, he said—

He did not allege this on the basis of what the Government said, but on the basis of the train of thought in the De Lange Report. He went on to say—

I am now quoting Mr. Nixon’s words; I do not necessarily agree with his exact words.

I find it a pity that this more positive approach on the part of a spokesman of the PFP in another body, did not come to the fore in this highest council chamber in the country as well. I cannot but refer as well to a leader that appeared in the Johannesburg newspaper The Star, on 11 February this year.

†This leading article appeared under the heading “Popular but wrong”, and it deals with the attitude of the parliamentary Opposition parties in rejecting this National Education Policy Amendment Bill. I quote from that leader—

It refers here to the Opposition parties.

This is what the newspaper says.

Then this newspaper concludes as follows—

After the ringing defence of the Press supporting the Opposition parties that we heard from hon. members opposite during the debate on the Steyn Commission report this afternoon, in so far as there were any positive contributions from that side of the House—I believe the Opposition should now halt, make a round about turn and march together with us on this side of the House in accepting the original wording of this clause. I cannot accept their amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear that we have always felt the Press has the right to draw its own conclusions and to make its own judgments.

The Press has the right to be wrong.

Even though they are wrong in this instance it is their right to be wrong; just as it is the Government’s fashion to be wrong. [Interjections.] I think the hon. the Minister, by his reference to the Transvaal Provincial Council debate and, of course, to the leader in The Star, has a claim to a degree of support from outside quarters. One can also quote a leader from one of the Natal newspapers, which also takes the hon. the Minister’s side. Simultaneously, however, one of the Cape Town newspapers, also in a leading article, takes the point of view that we have been trying to advance. This just indicates the confusion that reigns at the moment.

Confusion in your ranks.

No, no. The newspapers I have quoted are not from my own ranks. I am talking about education, which is a burning issue in any community. Already we have different viewpoints and even different interpretations of what this legislation is actually going to mean. That is the point. That, I believe, emphasizes the point I have tried to make, but which I shall not make ad nauseam again. That is that this legislation is premature. It is premature, also because the hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that when we as an opposition fought and pleaded for the report of the De Lange Commission we were told to wait. We were told it was not necessary and that the Government had not yet made up its mind, that the Government still awaited numerous other comments about the Commission’s recommendations. Now, when it suits the hon. the Minister, he quotes the De Lange Commission in support of this amendment, whereas we know full well that the Government, according to the same spokesman, has not made up its mind yet about the De Lange Commission report. Naturally we are confused and somewhat bewildered. The hon. member for Durban North made an extremely vital point in terms of the linkage between compulsory and free education. There is no clarity as to whether this is going to be honoured. There are also other questions which are unanswered. I am glad of the assurance that the hon. the Minister has given us, namely that he is aware that there are some people who are going to be affected by any action which is taken and which will lead to parents paying more than they are paying now for the education of their children and that there will be protection for those falling into the categories of those people who cannot afford this. They will be looked after and cared for, but how? Is the Government going to introduce a means test? These are questions to which we have had no answers. That is why we feel that it would have been advantageous for this measure to have been referred to a select committee. The hon. member for Virginia has not answered the point I made earlier. He said that sometimes we ask for a select committee and that at other times we say we do not want one, but that is not an answer. I am saying—and there is no use the hon. the Minister telling us and reassuring us that changes are not going to come— that when one changes legislation one is taking the first fundamental step and that first step is a step in the direction of parents paying more for the education of their children. It is ridiculous to assume and even to assert that parents do not pay now. We have made this point over and over again. There is no such thing as free education. Even in the case of my child who attends a Government school in Cape Town they levy a fee. It is voluntary but I pay it.

What do we pay taxes for?

That is the second point. The first point is that parents are already paying, but now the hon. the Minister wants them to pay more. Secondly, we pay taxes. I pay a huge amount in taxes. I do not mind doing so when the money is used for the education of children. Therefore it seems to me to be unreasonable to introduce a measure which is going to bring about a lot of changes and then to say to us: Do not worry, we shall take care of it. No, we want to know how the Government is going to take care of it and we want to be absolutely assured that this is not going to be a step in the direction of more parents having to pay for books and for education itself. We do not quite know where the line is going to be drawn. I say therefore that the Government has taken its first step in the direction away from free and compulsory education. We believe it is a retrograde step and that it is going to affect not only White children but also Black, Coloured and Indian children in the future. Therefore we believe it is wrong.

Amendments put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. J. Clase, W. J. Hefer, J. H. Hoon, N. J. Pretonus, H. D. K. van der Merwe and A. A. Venter.

Amendments negatived.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: P. J. Clase, W. J. Hefer, J. H. Hoon, N. J. Pretorius, H. D. K. van der Merwe and A. A. Venter.

Tellers: G. B. D. McIntosh and A. B. Widman.

Clause agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.