Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned last night, I replied to the general arguments of the hon. members of the Opposition. In conclusion, I should now like to concentrate on certain specific aspects only.

The hon. member for Sea Point maintained that the Professional Engineers’ Act had not significantly affected the intake of engineering students at universities. Of course I do not wish to suggest that it is only the Professional Engineers’ Act which can be held responsible for the increase or decrease in the number of students. However, the statistics prove the hon. member to be wrong. The fact of the matter is that the number of first year students in the engineering faculties increased from 1 375 in 1968, i.e. just before the promulgation of the said Act, to 1 841 in 1973. This means an increase of 33% for that period.

What was the increase in the number of students during the five years prior to that?

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the figure available at the moment, but I shall let the hon. member have it. However, the hon. member wants to ask me a question and base an argument on it, without having the facts at his disposal himself. In 1979 there were almost 2 000 first year students in this specific discipline. Moreover, I wish to argue that we should not just take cognizance of the quantity. We should not only take cognizance of numbers. I think that it is important that we also take cognizance of the quality of the students who register for the various fields of study when we do so the resulting information is very interesting. Research has shown that in medicine, engineering and the natural sciences, the break down of students who obtained a total mark of more than 60% in matric, is as follows, and the hon. member would do well to take cognizance of this: Engineering, 77%; medical and paramedical, 75%; pure natural sciences, 46% and applied natural sciences, 37%. In my opinion, this does not look promising for the future technological development of the country.

I maintain that the natural sciences should be capable of attracting the best brain power, especially when one takes into consideration that high intellectual abilities are required in these fields.

Next, the assertion was made that the envisaged legislation would have a restrictive influence on commerce and industry. I have already pointed out that organized commerce and industry, as stated in their representations to me, have no objection to either the council or registration, but that their objection centres mainly around the question of those in the employ of a specific company, in other words, those who are not in private practice.

The opposite of this assertion is in fact true. In striving for high standards, training and in rendering a service, which is one of the objectives included in the legislation, I believe that commerce and industry will not be restricted, but, in my opinion, will be assisted. I think that it is important that we bear in mind that the proposed Council for Natural Scientists, which will determine the policy in this regard, will in fact have the interests of the private sector at heart as well. After all, they are dependent on this sector.

The constitution of the council also makes ample provision for representation on the council by the private sector.

In the third instance, it was alleged that a debate was being conducted in the ranks of the natural scientists on the question of whether legislation was the best means of regulating the profession. Firstly, I furnished the hon. members with the facts, viz. that after a survey carried out among natural scientists, it came to light that approximately 90% were in favour of this legislation. The people in the profession want it. It is therefore not being forced on them by the State. It was also alleged that the legislation would have a restricting effect on the freedom and initiative of natural scientists. This leads me to the following question: Did the legislation with regard to engineers have this effect on their freedom and initiative? Did the legislation with regard to doctors compel them to give up their freedom and inhibit their initiative? The facts bear testimony to the contrary. I maintain that the legislation has been drawn up in such a way, that it provides the greatest measure of individual freedom possible, while at the same time high ethical norms and moral standards are maintained.

Then the hon. member for Sea Point, and the hon. member for Green Point agreed with him, wanted a “crisp” definition of a natural scientist. As an example of what he probably wants, I want to point out that the word “architect” is a specific concept. The hon. member gave a definition of it. He said that it is a person who plans buildings and who supervises. However, there are many other people as well who plan buildings and supervise, but who are not architects. This is therefore a superficial definition of that profession. If I were to do it as simplistically as the hon. member does, I would have said that a natural scientist is someone who studies the laws of nature. Surely we cannot argue with one another in such a superficial way. The simplistic approach of the hon. member is not acceptable. I have a comprehensive definition here, but I do not want to take up the time of the House with it. We can discuss it again during the Third Reading, if the hon. member would prefer to do that. However, I can give the hon. member the assurance—and this is important—that the natural scientists are, after all, the people who will regulate this profession, and they will know exactly what is involved, and anyone who does not know what is involved, does not have to take the trouble to find out. In any introductory study to the natural sciences, this matter is always important and many books and encyclopedias have been written about it. I should like to recommend that the hon. the member consults them, but perhaps it would help if I gave a short definition of natural science and natural scientists? In the first place the natural scientist practises the natural sciences. Natural science entails an intellectual search for order in the pattern of the external world as perceived by the senses, and is distinguished from all other intellectual searches for order and patterns in the external world, for instance, the art of painting and poetry. If the hon. member does not understand this, I cannot help him. The hon. member knows that the method natural scientists use are the following, viz. the gathering of facts by reliable observers; the qualifying of the facts of a field of study; the devising of theories which reflect observations in terms of rationally defined concepts.

I could continue in this manner, but let us deal with the last assertion, namely that of the hon. member Prof. Olivier. He claimed that the legislation places too many powers in the hands of the Minister. Let us see if this is true. The powers which the hon. Minister will have in terms of this legislation, are no more than those which apply in the case of professional engineers, architects and quantity surveyors. And not one of the hon. members argued about that. Except in certain cases—and I shall refer to these—the Minister may, in the execution of his powers, act only on the recommendation of, or after consultation with, the Council for Natural Scientists. In fact, as regards, the types of work which are reserved for natural scientists for example, the Minister may only act after the consideration and approval of a relevant recommendation of the council. In other words, he cannot do this on his own. The Minister may not even amend the recommendation. If he does not agree with it, he has to refer back to the Council with his objections and ask them to make another recommendation. The single instance where the Minister may act independently, is when he is given discretionary power to dismiss a member whom he appointed to the council, as a result of the fact that such member has been removed from a position of trust because of improper conduct, or has been guilty of conduct which is of such a nature that, in the opinion of the Minister, he is not a suitable person to be on the council. Even in such a case of course the Minister would, as a matter of ordinary practice, first have discussions with the council. This power is vested in the Minister because only the one who appoints may cancel such an appointment.

In conclusion I want to thank the hon. members on this side of the House for their contributions. Hon. members will understand that three of the members who spoke on our side, are natural scientists and they were of course able to speak with greater authority about and on behalf of the profession.

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

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the definitions and in doing so it defines which Director-General shall be involved with the affairs of this technikon. It also provides for the Minister who is to be involved with supervising the affairs of this technikon. In both cases it is the Department of Internal Affairs, the Director-General in the one instance and the hon. the Minister in the other instance. This Bill is continuing to entrench on a tertiary level the system of divided departments in our education system, a system which we oppose.

I want to refer briefly to a few of the aspects why, particularly in relation to the Peninsula Technikon, we on this side of the House feel that this is inappropriate. If one looks at the range of responsibilities of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and his department, one sees that they are very wide indeed. I do not intend listing them all, but they include what were previously interior matters, like immigration, an increasing involvement in constitutional matters, certain aspects of planning, Coloured affairs, Coloured education, Indian affairs, Indian education, etc. I would suggest that it is not possible to expect that education is going to get the treatment it deserves by having a Minister responsible for Coloured education who has as many responsibilities as these.

But in fact the hon. the Minister is capable of doing that in an efficient way, surely an obvious step towards rationalization would be to do away with the portfolio of Minister of National Education and to incorporate his portfolio into the portfolio of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs as well. I do not think one can suggest that one needs a special Minister for national education for Whites if with a whole range of other portfolios one Minister can do justice also to Coloured and Indian education. It simply does not make sense.

Secondly, there is the question of having a separate department of Coloured education as opposed to White education. Although I am specifically referring to the Coloured population, many of my remarks also apply to other racial groups. Often the argument is advanced that one needs this and that it can be justified because aspects of education are culturally based, and when one looks at the various Black groups in South Africa, one can argue certain cultural and ethnic differences. However, when one talks about the Coloured population—particularly at the tertiary level of education—I think it is impossible to justify culturally-based education. This is even more so in the technical field. After all, if the Department for National Education and the hon. the Minister of National Education are capable of coping with Afrikaans and English-language education where substantial cultural differences exist, there is no reason at all to believe that English and Afrikaans-speaking Coloured students have a different cultural base.

I want to make a third point in this regard, namely that by having separate Ministers one does not get uniform standards, no matter what one tries to do. Irrespective of the theoretical aspect, the student input into a racially exclusive technikon such as this will be of a lower academic quality than those of students at other technikons. Hon. member on that side of the House often argue furiously that the syllabi and examinations are of the same standard. That may be so, but in actual practice, when one speaks to Coloured educationalists, White educationalists or employers, it is an accepted fact that, given the whole milieu, given the per capita expenditure, given the whole system, Coloured education is not equal in real educational terms to White education, even though theoretically a Coloured child gains the same matriculation certificate as that of his White counterpart.

Over and above that, if one does not have uniform standards—and it is impossible to have uniform standards in separate institutions and departments—the inference will inevitably be that the standards of technikons such as this are inferior. That would be the inference that would be made, if for no other reason than the fact that other technikons, in their guises as colleges for advanced technical education, have been in existence and have had a wider base of operations for a longer period. The inference will therefore automatically be that something falling under a separate department is bound to be inferior.

Fourthly, I think it is important to recognize that for an institution or a system of education such as this Peninsula Technikon to succeed is not only dependent on the quality of education that is provided there. It is equally important to look at the credibility of both the system and the institution, and there could hardly be anything more discredited in South Africa today, amongst the so-called Coloured people—in fact, amongst most employers—than separate education, particularly at the tertiary level, and equally separate Departments of Education. Therefore that stigma, that lack of credibility, will make life harder for students that come from there.

Accordingly I wish to move as amendments—

1. (1) On page 3, in lines 11 and 12, to omit “Internal Affairs” and to substitute “National Education”;
2. (2) on page 3, in line 19, to omit “Internal Affairs” and to substitute “National Education”.

If the hon. the Minister and this House as a whole support these amendments there are certain other consequential amendments on further aspects of the Bill that I should like to move when the occasion therefore arises.

Mr. Chairman, whilst I have the greatest respect for the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, I cannot help but support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, because we have made it clear that we in these benches support the concept that tertiary education should be under the auspices of a single department. I am perfectly well aware of the fact that during the Second Reading debate yesterday the hon. the Minister made the point that with mixed groups in similar educational institutions, the people of the Coloured and other communities evidence a lower pass rate. In other words, they were not as successful as they had been in their own racially-orientated institutions. I cannot help but feel, however, that whilst this is so—and I happen to know that it is so, because we did a similar investigative exercise in Natal about three years ago. However—it might be because the people concerned are not put up against proper competition. I think this is true in most realms of activity. In sport, for example, if a country is non-involved in international competition, there is a tendency for the standards of this sport to be given a set-back in the country concerned. Similarly, in their own racial institutions the competition is not as fierce, I believe, as it is in an integrated educational institution, and this in itself may have a detrimental effect on their efforts. So, without saying anything further, I wish to indicate that we support this amendment because we believe that tertiary education should be under one head.

Mr. Chairman, you will allow me to digress from the subject of the legislation for a moment to tell you what a pleasure it is to be speaking during the Committee Stage under your chairmanship for the first time. I congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker and as Chairman of Committees.

Sir, I listened to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens with a great deal of amazement. At one stage I could scarcely believe my ears. When he started, I was under the impression that he thought I worked too hard …

Yes, definitely.

… and that he was sympathetic towards me because of the multiplicity of my obligations.

Yes.

He confirms it. I am concerned about this type of approach. It could do a great deal of damage to my political image. The hon. member should rather not do that to me.

Let us look at his arguments that covered a fairly wide field. I want to begin by saying that there is a difference of standpoints between the hon. member and myself. I dealt with this fully last night and I do not intend to repeat those arguments today. However, I want to look at the hon. member’s conclusions and to a lesser extent at those of the hon. member for Umbilo.

What did the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens actually say? He said that the tertiary educational institutions for the Coloured people were inferior. I want to say to him in all seriousness that this really is a contemptible statement. The hon. member should go to Mr. Sonn …

I have.

… who is the head of the technikon and tell him that the training at his technikon is inferior. I challenge the hon. member to obtain confirmation from Mr. Sonn of the statement that he has made here today. I also want to ask the hon. member to go to the rector of the University of the Western Cape which is a tertiary educational institution, and tell him that he thinks that the training and education at his institution is inferior.

Let me take my argument further. Why should we criticize and degrade institutions in this House? What is the aim of this? The aim and consequence of this is to place a question mark over the students who have completed their studies at these institutions as far as their future employers are concerned. I do not want to fight with the hon. member today, but I want to say with all due respect that I think that this was scandalous behaviour.

It happens to be the truth.

Yes, it is true that it was scandalous behaviour. I want to tell the hon. member that in spite of the fact that these institutions have been degraded and besmirched—I still recall the terminology: it was “bush colleges”—the University of the Western Cape and the technikon that is now being established, have built up a community prestige that is comparable with that of any other tertiary institution in the country. It has given more students the opportunity of undertaking advanced studies and furthermore it has drawn lecturing and professional staff from the ranks of that population group. I have already said this on several occasions and I want to repeat it today. Up to and including the time of the establishment of these institutions there were in fact full opportunities, at the institution where the hon. member studied as well, for appointing people of colour as heads of universities. Why did it not happen? Because we pay lip service to equality, but when we have the control, we exclude those people from the positions. I want to tell the hon. member that most observers are sick and tired of the double standards in this regard. They are tired of the forked tongue with which people talk.

However, the hon. member goes further and says that the standards at these institutions must inevitably be lower because they have not been in existence for as long as the other institutions. What is the implication of that? The hon. member says the other institutions are older and since they are older the quality and content of their training is better. At least that is how I understood him. The most recently established university for Whites is the Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit, and according to the hon. member’s attitude the training at that university must be inferior in comparison with that at the older universities. Surely this is absolute nonsense. According to that approach we should not establish any new universities because their training is going to be inferior. What an argument to use in order to score debating points! Let us argue with one another on the essence of the matter. The hon. member believes in an integrated community. He believes in an integrated political dispensation. I do not believe in that, and nor does this side of the House. That is why the hon. member’s amendment is not acceptable. It is his right to differ with me with regard to this point, but it is not in the interest of orderly debating to debate with one another on the basis of such false premises.

†I should now like to come to the hon. member for Umbilo. The hon. member confirmed what I have said, and that is that the failure rate of the various groups at other institutions had on average been high. However, do you know how the hon. member argues, Sir? He says he has an explanation for this phenomenon, and that is that there is less competition.

The only examples we had were a few non-Whites at a White institution.

Yes, I am talking about that. The hon. member says the reason for the high failure rate is that there is less competition at the institutions of their own group than at those of other groups. However, the reverse must be true because the fiercer the competition, the stronger the motivation. In actual fact, however, one does not find that. One finds the reverse.

I should like to conclude by saying that the amendment moved by the hon. member is intended to bring about a state of affairs where the education of all our peoples falls under the same ministry. We have already indicated that that is not acceptable to us, and therefore any amendment that will lead to that is also not acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, may I first of all take the opportunity of also congratulating you on your elevation to the position of Chairman of Committees.

Responding to the arguments of the hon. the Minister, I think a couple of points have to be made by way of rebuttal. Then there are also perhaps one or two new points I should like to introduce. It is obvious that I am supporting the amendment which has been moved.

Firstly, there can be no doubt—at the end of last year this was made very clear—that there must be, in the minds of educationists, parents, all of us, a very real concern at the poor results attained by Coloured pupils at matric level. That was at the end of 1981. We all know that a commission of inquiry has been appointed to look into that matter. Therefore I can obviously not take it any further now. I do, however, simply point to the fact that there is a deep concern about this, a concern shared by all of us. I think that is the point which the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens was trying to make.

Those of us who are in various ways involved in commerce and industry—in training and in consultancy work in those sectors—again and again receive complaints from employers that even though they are trying very hard to encourage employees and recruit more workers amongst the Coloured and Black population groups, the quality is very often not nearly as good as is found amongst the Whites. There are a number of reasons for this. This is not the time to go into it, however. Nevertheless, I do believe that this is a point on which there will be agreement amongst us.

The third point which, I believe, is much more important, is that it is quite clear that in the practice of budgeting in South Africa we face a very difficult time. There are cuts that are being made. Looking into education and training we found that we simply did not have enough trained personnel, trained teachers, to do the jobs. Therefore they were able to save and to spend more money on capital expenditure. The matter was not debated, however, because the time ran out. I can assure the hon. the Minister, however, that he will find that in the department’s own explanatory memorandum. If he does not take my word, he must certainly take the word of the Department of Education and Training, although there is no Minister in that portfolio at the moment.

It is true that the provinces find it very difficult indeed to give enough money to technikons in particular. The major point I should like to emphasize—which, I believe, helps me to support this amendment—is that it is incongruous at this time in our history, when we are facing these problems, to have separate educational institutions for various race groups. It just does not make sense at all. We are duplicating. I am not saying that we should not extend as many opportunities as possible for all groups. That is obviously not so. There are, however, ways and means, given the experts and the personnel that we do have amongst educationists, builders, architects, scientists, etc., for us to create institutions which would be open for all. In that way we can save the State a great deal of money, and also introduce a time in which people can study together because they are going to be working together at factory level in commerce and industry. This makes good sense.

In conclusion I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that I have no doubt whatsoever—even if he may have such doubts— that in perhaps the next five years, to be conservative, technikons will be open. They will no longer be confined and restricted to one race only. This does not mean to say I think the Government is going to do a somersault and accept our policy of integration. That is not what we are talking about now. I do, however, have no doubt whatsoever that that is the direction in which we are moving, and I would hope that the hon. the Minister would accept that behind the desire to have the Minister of National Education looking after this is our belief that if a Cabinet Minister gives all his time and all his energy and ability to caring for the education of all it could in the end be better for all concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I must apologize if I put my point across badly. The way the hon. the Minister expressed it, it appears that I did. What I was trying to illustrate was that the students of the various ethnic institutions, particularly the Coloured, Indian and Black institutions, had been educated in an organization which had had less money spent on it only amongst their own people, and that competition amongst their own people had not been as fierce as it would have been elsewhere. That is what I was trying to put across. Then, when they went into a mixed tertiary institution, they were handicapped by the situation that they had endured or enjoyed—whichever way you like to have it—in the past. I hope that does explain more logically what I was trying to get at.

Mr. Chairman, there is not much that I would like to say in rebuttal of what the hon. member has said. However, let me refer to the poor results of 1981. Naturally I too was concerned about it. If I had not been concerned, I would not have had an inquiry. Without intending to prejudge the outcome of that inquiry, I would venture to say that there are many other reasons, cogent reasons, apart from the fact that it falls under a different department than White education.

I accept that too.

The hon. member accepts that. I am going to take hon. members into my confidence when I get the result of that inquiry, because I think hon. members are entitled to know in so far as it does not affect facets which I do not think should be discussed in public. The point I am trying to make is that if one looks at this historically one will find that for the longest period of the history of this country the education of all our people, all the groups, was under one department, and the evidence that we have is—and I am now talking in relative terms—that these groups were worse off then than they are today. Of course I concede that there are deficiencies. I do not hide them. I try to do something about them. But if education had been under one Ministry—no matter which one—it would not have resolved my problem of inadequate numbers of teachers.

You will spend more money; yes, very definitely.

Fine, but it would not resolve my problem of not having properly qualified teachers. What I do suggest, because there is a particular responsibility on particular Ministries, is that the position has improved considerably. When one deals with this matter in practice, and if one Minister is to make the allocation from one budget for the education of groups, one puts him in a most invidious position because he will always be accused by one or the other for not having done sufficient for their specific group. I am quite prepared to argue with the hon. member on philosophical grounds about this issue as long as we do it in such a way that we do not do a disservice to these groups. And we are doing them a disservice when we question the quality of the education and training of their graduates and the status of their diplomas. It is not justified. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that there is no exact yardstick by means of which to measure the quality of education. It differs from one school to another under the same Department of Education. Would it be fair to say that when employers want to employ people from one school they question the quality of that school? I submit, Sir, that that would not be fair because that sort of action does not analyse the reasons. If I have to follow that argument, then I must take it right through. How many schools are to be closed? Let me make this point. It is of course a fact that when the enrolment at any school is small, the number of teachers is limited, the choice of subjects is limited and these factors must affect the education of the children at that school. However, we should not question the quality of that education. That is all I am pleading for today. I do not know what the future holds but, as at the moment, I have a job to do, as we all have. This technikon can admit students of other groups. Here again I want to concede once more that it is difficult to deal with these matters by means of permission. However, there are other considerations as well which represent the reality of life in this country. The fact that it is difficult and the fact that it is emotive does not detract from the reality with which I have to deal and with which we all have to deal. All I am trying to suggest is that when we consider this particular matter we must admit that we have every reason to be grateful. The position is improving. This technikon has a proud record up to the present and it has now asked to become autonomous. The principle of this Bill seeks to attain that end and it is in that regard that I seek support.

Mr. Chairman, I refer to subsection (4), which reads—

This subsection defines the institution as being an exclusively Coloured one. I believe that by making an institution like this—or for that matter any tertiary institution— racially exclusive, that institution is robbed of the educational and academic strength that comes from diversity. My argument not only applies to this specific institution, but to every institution of this kind in South Africa.

I think it is fair to ask whose decision it was to include this subsection in the Bill. Last night, during the Second Reading debate, I made a number of quotations from the De Lange Committee report. The hon. the Minister did not reply to one particular critical and crisp quotation. As it is a brief quotation I wish to repeat it because it is particularly applicable to this clause. I quote from page 216 under the main heading “Recommendations on priorities”—

That is a specific and crisp recommendation and is not qualified by all sorts of other things. In fact, it is specifically highlighted as something which should be done without further ado.

In the course of the hon. the Minister’s reply to the various matters to which I referred in the De Lange Committee report, he referred to the interim memorandum which the Government published with the report. I had read the memorandum a couple of times prior to last night and I have read it once again. I see no reference whatsoever in it so far as this is concerned, whether it is acceptable or not. If the hon. the Minister has such a reference, I shall be glad to hear it. He did not mention it last night. The references he did quote related to schools and not to tertiary institutions. So I would like the hon. the Minister to comment on that, because we are entitled to know who in fact is opposed to this. The Coloured people and the Coloured educationists are certainly not opposed to allowing their own council to decide who is to be admitted to their technikon.

It is an institution for the so-called Coloured people, and surely if they want it to have a certain character, that should be their decision. Surely that is what co-responsibility is all about. If we as members of a White Parliament, the Government as a White Government and the hon. the Minister, as a man who represents part of the White electorate, are telling the Coloured people who they have to have in their tertiary institution, it is either a case of no confidence in the council of that institution which the hon. the Minister is himself setting up in terms of this legislation, or else it is nothing more than White “baasskap”. We are telling the Coloured people what is good for them, whether they like it or not, because we are Whites, we have the power and we know best. It is one or other of those things, and I would be interested to learn which of the two it is. Let me therefore repeat my straightforward question: Does the Government accept that priority recommendation of the De Lange Commission? We in this party certainly do, and I therefore move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, in principle I must, of course, again support the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, but I wonder whether his amendment does, in fact, totally cover the eventuality. I say that because if one omits clause 2(4) there is no indication that anyone can be admitted to the institution. I know that that might sound a little illogical—I have not previously seen the amendment—but that is in fact how things might look.

I sent it to you 20 minutes ago.

I have not seen it. Oh yes, here I have it now. As far as I can see, however, the omission of clause 2(4) means that there is no authority to admit anybody in particular.

Look at clause 2(3).

The normal thing would be to admit students of a particular educational standard or something like that, that is if one does not want to mention the question of race. So because I support the principle of what the hon. member has put forward, I shall be supporting the amendment, provided it is legally correct.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the amendment I sent across to the hon. member for Umbilo went astray, but I do suggest that he looks at clause 2(3), where it is stated—

So if it is going to fulfil that function, it is hardly likely to be able to do so without admitting students. I therefore suggest that supporting the amendment to delete clause 2(4) would not prevent the technikon from admitting any students.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday in the Second Reading debate I told the hon. the Minister that although my colleague has already quoted from the De Lange Report on education in general, there was also a specific report which deals with technical education for Blacks. I quoted from the report of that committee. It, too, is a committee appointed by this Government. The committee came to the conclusion that the potential of technikon education is not utilized to the full. I quote (page 173)—

They then come up with the following recommendation:

As I have said, this is also a committee appointed by the Government, and the recommendation of the committee is very clear, but perhaps because it conflicts with the ideology of the hon. the Minister, he does not accept it. I should like to have a specific reply to this. I did not get it yesterday. There are no facilities in the Western Cape where local Blacks can undergo technical training. Although I am aware that the specific training centre is already filled to capacity by the Coloureds in this area, at least this once again afforded the opportunity to start with the normalizing of technical education. I gladly support the amendment of my hon. colleague.

Mr. Chairman, due to the same reasons I advanced against the previous amendment, this one is not acceptable either. I do not intend debating it further. I just want to say that if the hon. member were to read the interim memorandum again, he would see that a standpoint was adopted in regard to certain matters, whereas there are reservations in regard to other things. However, in regard to the principles a standpoint was adopted. Secondly, certain reservations were expressed. I quoted them last night. Thirdly, there is a continuation committee which is investigating all the recommendations of the De Lange report.

†I should like to refer the hon. member to paragraph 5 of the interim memorandum. There it is clearly indicated that—

That includes the one to which the hon. member has referred.

So you are in actual fact not prepared to answer.

But surely the hon. member will understand …

No, you cannot…

Well, I cannot give the hon. member the intelligence to do so. I was not present when intelligence was handed out to him. In any case, I am busy with the hon. member of Cape Town Gardens.

†Let me proceed. We have indicated what our point of view is in this regard. I shall repeat it again. For the co-ordinated consideration and possible implementation of the recommendations we have decided that the Minister of National Education will be the co-ordinater and other people will work with him. I am not prepared to prejudge the issue. The point is that I have argued the case—I am not suggesting that I can persuade the hon. members—of what the realities are and what our approach to those realities is. I have nothing to add to that.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is aimed at making the SABC a more streamlined and efficient organization, and to enable and implement certain concessions to our public. I shall confine myself to the main aspects of these broadly stated aims, which are given in greater detail in the Bill at present before this House. In the first place, the board of the SABC will be able to appoint the person already appointed chairman of the board by the State President, as Director-General as well. This provision is not unusual. Hon. members are aware that the board of directors of the Industrial Development Corporation may appoint the chairman appointed by the State President, to the post of managing director. In terms of sections 12 and 12A of the Atomic Energy Act—Act 90 of 1967—the president of the board is the chairman and chief executive officer of the board, and in terms of section 6 of the Scientific Research Council Act— Act 32 of 1962—the president of the council is both the chairman and the chief executive officer. However, the Bill confirms ex abundanti cautela the State President’s continuing authority to appoint another person as chairman of the board at any time.

A result of the new arrangement is that the Bill now officially introduced the office of Director-General and defines his powers. His conditions of service will, however, still be determined by the SABC, and in consequence of this he will have no voting rights on the board, which can be seen as a sound principle.

Apart from various essential technical amendments to the Broadcasting Act, 1976, and certain consequential amendments to the Radio Act, 1952 and the Post Office Act, 1958, we also formulated amendments connected with the management and administration of the SABC. For example, it is considered a more practical arrangement and in accordance with sound business practice for the chief executive officer of the SABC, namely the Director-General, to have a seat on the board ex officio, an arrangement which will promote stronger links between the board and the executive staff of the SABC.

It is also considered a more practical arrangement to replace the provision for a Black Programme Advisory Board and a Television Programme Advisory Board with a provision for the establishment of one or more boards which may be established with reference to the needs of the corporation as they are identified by the board from time to time. Of course, such a step also reduces the possibility of further amendments to the Act.

In the past standpoints have been adopted, sometimes with a certain degree of petulance, as regards the question whether the chairman of the SABC should occupy this office on a full-time basis. My standpoint on this matter is simply (a) that the Broadcasting Act does not, and should not, contain any specific provision in this regard and (b) that the chairman of the SABC has certain powers, duties and obligations in terms of the Act. What is expected of him is that he must meet and carry out these duties and obligations in an efficient and dedicated way. If he is able to do so without occupying the post on a full-time basis, well and good. As the activities of the SABC expend and escalate in the future, it may occur at a given point the chairman will indeed have to be concerned with the SABC obligations on a full-time basis. Therefore such a possibility is not entirely ruled out. On the other hand, if the board appoints the chairman as the Director-General as well, the question as to whether the post of chairman should be a part-time or a full-time one will become completely academic. One of the most important innovations is the possibility that is being created for the board of the SABC to be enlarged from a maximum of nine members to 15 members. Given the premise that the activities of the SABC has expanded a great deal recently and will continue to do so in future, the idea is that provision must be made to involve more expert persons in the control function of the SABC.

Although it was of course possible in the past to appoint members of population groups other than the White population group as members of the board of the SABC, one of the reasons for the enlargement of the board is the Government’s intention to appoint experts from the ranks of such population groups without its being necessary to sacrifice the existing expertise represented on the board.

I have indicated that at a time where the consumer public is faced with inflation, rising prices and financial adjustments that are difficult to assimilate, I am privileged to be the bearer of good news today. Before I come to that, I think it is fitting to praise the SABC for the fact that its financial policy and management have made this good news possible.

I want to give a brief explanation of the financial concessions which will be implemented as a result of the amendments. The most important concessions are the abolition of radio listeners’ licences and the provision for concessionary television licences. Once the proposed amendments have been approved the relevant regulations will be amended to introduce a concessionary television licence fee of R24 for certain groups of pensioners, namely the groups that can be identified by the Department of Health and Welfare. Every household in the country in the FM areas in possession of a radio and a television set, will save R2,40 per annum from 1 October 1982.

At present R8,40 is paid for a radio listener’s licence and R36 for a television licence, totalling R44,40. From 1 October 1982 only the television licence fee of R42 will be paid.

Households or persons who only have a radio set, will not have to pay anything in future, and will therefore save R8,40 a year.

At present there are different categories of concessionary radio listener’s licences, but most of the pensioners who qualify for them pay R2. At present there are no concessionary television licences. From 1 October 1982 the saving for this group, as against what is paid at present, is therefore R12, comprising a sum of R36 less R24 for television and R2 for radio—in most cases, therefore, a saving of R14 for the licence year for this group. There are also plans to enlarge the categories of pensioners in line for concessionary television licences. However, there are certain problems involved in implementing this practically and efficiently.

Certain categories of institution and hospital can now be exempted by regulation from the obligation to licence additional television sets in their possession once a licence has been taken out for the first set. In addition, the head of a family who is already in possession of a television licence is exempted from the obligation of taking out a further licence or licences for the use of a television set or sets at an address other than that mentioned in the licence, which is considered the temporary or additional address of the head of that family.

In conclusion I have a few remarks on the consolidation of funds for which the Bill makes provision. Placing funds in clearly defined categories can limit considerably the elasticity of financing over the long term. The new arrangement represents a more modern business and financing approach and will make it unnecessary for the SABC to issue shares it takes up itself in order to make funds available for use by the corporation itself. However, as the need may still arise to accumulate funds for a specific purpose, funds can still be created in terms of the proposed amendment.

Annexure 1 to the existing Act was inherited from the old Electricity Act of 1922 and many of its provisions are archaic and impose unnecessary obligations on the SABC whereas there is no mention of such obligations in more recent legislation for similar organizations. Moreover they are not in accordance with modern bookkeeping practices. The provisions of Annexure 1 concerning the security of shareholders will, however, be incorporated in the Act itself, with the result that they will not lose the rights and protection they enjoy in terms of the Annexure.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that this Bill will enjoy the support of this House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has introduced a Bill here today which is primarily a Committee Stage Bill. It consists of a large number of clauses and embodies an equally large number of principles. Before we go on to consider the various clauses contained in this Bill we first have to consider a certain amount of background in regard to what precisely the SABC is.

I think one must immediately make the comment—and I think that one has to examine legislation in this regard—that the SABC is in fact a monopoly. It has a monopoly of broadcasting services over radio and television throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. This places it in a rather special position and I believe that we on the Opposition benches have to examine all legislation dealing with the SABC in this light. Regrettably we have to say that we do not believe that the SABC fulfils the function of being a body that is above reproach. As a monopoly, it should be, like Caesar’s wife, above reproach.

In order to clarify my point I should like to quote from a report that appeared in The Cape Times on 29 July of last year. This was a report dealing with a study by the University of South Africa of the role of the media during the past general election. The report stated, inter alia, the following—

This was what the report stated. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the University of South Africa is a body which is, at the very least, from the Government’s point of view, likely to give a fair report. If they then say that it did not give fair reports in all ways, obviously something in the whole picture is not correct and I think that the hon. the Minister should take note of this. He must do his best to ensure that the monopoly which the SABC has in respect of television services does not continue along the lines that have been reported upon here. We have many, many instances which we can cite in this regard. There have been tremendous numbers of staff resignations over the last few years, and the information is that those resignations have not entirely been divorced from politics.

The amount of propaganda that is published through this medium is somewhat frightening. I have only to draw attention to the news cast one evening that referred to a situation as regards the Coloureds here in Cape Town and the totally one-sided presentation that was made over the television service in terms of decisions made by the Cape Town city council in so far as the voters’ roll was concerned. I believe that that was one of the most distasteful displays …

Why? Because it reflected the truth?

… of one-sided reporting that I have ever seen. It was absolutely scandalous.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I respectfully suggest that the hon. member’s speech is totally irrelevant to the Bill which is before the House. I maintain that there is no clause in the Bill on the basis of which the hon. member is entitled to make a general attack on the SABC at this stage. The Bill deals with an administrative matter. When the hon. member began his speech, he viewed it in the right light, because he said as the Bill was actually one which should be discussed in the Committee Stage because it dealt with administrative details concerning the SABC. Now, however, he is taking this opportunity of making a Second Reading speech in which he is attacking the SABC in general terms. I suggest that this is unjustified.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Pretoria Central? With great respect to the hon. member, I do not think he has read the Bill. I refer the hon. member to the fact that in terms of the Bill a board is to be established. Furthermore there is an advisory board which is to be established in terms of clause 5. Those boards are to determine policy. I refer the hon. member to the provision which deals with the canvassing of advertisements. I can also refer him to provisions dealing with the programmes which are to be presented by the board. All this has to do with the policy, the programmes, the advertisements and the presentation, matters which are within the purview of the board and the purview of the advisory committee to be established in terms of the Bill. With great respect, I would argue that what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is submitting to the House is perfectly relevant to the Bill before us.

Order! The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I trust that the attempts to muzzle the Press in other respects will be as unsuccessful as the attempt of the hon. member for Pretoria Central.

The next point I want to touch on is the manner of reporting, particularly of course, of that master of the interview in South Africa whom the hon. members sitting opposite must know fairly well. I refer to Cliff Saunders. He is an interviewer who is only interested in putting one side of the debate and who does not really ask probing questions. [Interjections.]

If one looks at the recent elections which have taken place in Johannesburg, then one must also realize the great role that television has to play in terms of elections which take place in this country, whether they are municipal or national.

Against this background I believe we have to be very, very careful in inspecting legislation such as this Bill. One can look at headlines on a number of occasions. “TV 2 offensive propaganda, says Percy Qoboza” is a headline which appeared in the Rand Daily Mail. There are others, like “White views on television”, “The Government did not like the SABC-TV production Parliament”, and in this regard we may ask the hon. the Minister when that production is going to see the light of day in South Africa.

Finally I want to come to the last point which particularly concerns me in relation to the SABC. It is a report which appeared a very short time ago about the celebrations of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut where apparently the SABC picked up the bill at something like R8 a head for entertaining a great number of people. If the hon. the Minister when that production is going to see would be most grateful.

When one considers the individual clauses of the Bill, and this is primarily a Committee Stage Bill, one finds that while there are some very good clauses there are also some clauses which we do not like at all. Obviously, we welcome the news that radio licence fees have been done away with. This is going to make a very great difference to a large number of people, especially the elderly. We believe this is of even greater importance than the concessions to pensioners because, regrettably, pensioners in many instances are unable to afford television sets. The saving to them on television licence fees is therefore purely a kind of pie-in-the-sky affair and does not mean anything real to them because they cannot afford television sets in the first place. So I do believe the abolition of radio licence fees will make a very big difference. We welcome, particularly on their behalf, the news that in future no radio licence fees will be payable.

We in these benches did not until we heard the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading address know quite how to deal with clause 2 which increases the board from nine members to 15 members. We were going to look at that with caution, but I want to say here and now that we welcome this provision on the understanding, as the hon. the Minister has said, that this can be utilized, and we hope will be utilized, for extending membership of the board to people of other racial groups.

I said that.

Yes, I did listen, that is why I am welcoming the provision. We obviously believe that this is a step which should have been taken a long time ago. In any event, it is happening now and as it represents an advancement we believe that we must welcome it. Let us hope that the inclusion of these people on the board will as far as the other racial groups are concerned, improve the kind of television and radio fare which has been presented to them and that the whole situation will be a lot more acceptable to them.

The item which we intend to discuss further in the Committee Stage and which gives us a certain amount of problems is the one in regard to the Director-General. We can find no fault with the provisions as they appear in the legislation and we particularly welcome the fact that the Director-General shall be appointed by the board. We want to hear say that we believe that this is the right step and that the less the Government of the day and the less the hon. the Minister and his department have to do with the appointment of a Director-General, the more pleased we in these benches will be. Despite reports in the Press that it might not be the case, that it would appear that more governmental control with the institution and formalization of the post of Director-General, it would, however, appear that this is not to be the case. I am very glad that it is the board that does the appointing. However, the Director-General can also be the chairman of the board. We are not at all certain that we totally approve of that at this stage but we will give our views more fully in the Committee Stage.

We find no fault at all with the provisions relating to the advisory boards whereby the Black Advisory Board and the Television Advisory Board are being done away with, nor do we find fault with the fact that the Postmaster-General will now be able to determine fees by agreement with the corporation.

I have already welcomed the news as regards the concession to pensioners, but I want to make one other comment in this regard. There are other pensioners than merely State pensioners. The means test as we have it in this country is a test which is outdated. From what happened only yesterday, when the Transport Services budget was introduced, we know that inflation is going to go a lot higher, though we hope, quite obviously, that the means test is going to be altered this year. The point I want to make, however, is that there are many people who are not entitled to a State pension and are therefore very badly off. I am referring to elderly people who miss getting their State pensions by a very small margin. I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister. If there is any way he can see of extending the concession of cheaper television fees to those people, he should please do so.

There is another worrying provision in this Bill that the hon. the Minister has not referred to, and I should like him to comment on it. I am referring to section 18 of the Broadcasting Act being repealed. Section 18 of the principal Act relates to the issuing of listeners’ licences free of charge to hospitals and other institutions. I quote—

1. (1) The corporation may, on the conditions prescribed by regulation, issue listeners’ licences free of charge to such categories of hospitals, charitable, educational or other institutions and persons as may be prescribed by regulation.

This Bill, however, repeals that specific provision, and we cannot agree with this being done. Why should hospitals, educational and other institutions have to pay for television licences when they have been entitled to get them free of charge in the past? I should like to know from the hon. the Minister where in this Bill he is allowing those institutions such licences free of charge. There are, I admit, concessionary licence fees of R24, but I would like the hon. the Minister to expand on that point a little further.

They have never had TV licences free of charge.

I have just quoted from the Broadcasting Act, No. 73 of 1976, which deals with the …

Yes, go on.

… issue of free listeners’ licences by the corporation.

Yes, listeners’ licences by the corporation.

Fair enough, I take that point. But why should these institutions not be entitled to get free television licences, or will they be entitled to do so?

I have indicated in my Second Reading speech that what we are doing is making concessions to them which they have never had before. They will now not need radio listeners’ licences at all.

But then why is this provision being removed from the Bill?

Because radio listeners’ licences will no longer be required at all, not by anyone.

Yes, but why could we not have substituted free television licences in the place of the previous free listeners’ licences?

What are you talking about?

If I have misunderstood the legislation, the hon. the Minister can get back to me, but as I understand this legislation, there is no provision for the issuing of free television licences to institutions such as those mentioned in section 18(1).

But they never had them free of charge before, so no rights are being taken away from them.

So they have never had them free of charge. Fair enough.

But they are going to get other concessions, which they did not have before.

They did, however, have listeners’ licences free of charge, and that is, I believe, a principle we should see extended to television licences. I therefore certainly do not understand what the hon. the Minister is getting so uptight about. If one can give them the same television licence concessions in the future as they had in regard to listeners’ licences in the past, I believe that we will have taken a step in the right direction.

The last item I particularly want to comment on relates to clause 20 on page 19 of the Bill. This is a clause relating to offences. Section 28 of the principal Act reads—

1. (a) contravenes or fails to comply with any regulation; or
2. (b) after an inspector has produced his written authority referred to in section 21 to such person, fails without good reason (the onus of proof whereof shall be upon him) to comply with any requirement made by that inspector …

and so on.

As the present section stands, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R200. In terms of the amending legislation in front of us the fine is being increased to R500. I think that, bearing in mind inflation and escalating costs, that is fair enough, but clause 20 then goes on to insert: “or to imprisonment not exceeding six months”. We in these benches do not believe that one should be entitled actually to imprison a man for simply not appearing before an inspector. We do not think that this is a good principle in any law. By all means, if one can prove fraud or corruption, let those responsible be imprisoned, but we do not believe that on the strength of the offences set out in section 28 anybody should be imprisoned. We shall therefore be seeking to delete those words in the Committee Stage.

With that I have dealt basically with the Bill. As I have said, it is a curate’s egg. There are good clauses and bad clauses. We shall not be voting against the Bill at Second Reading, but we will be voting against various clauses in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has an unerring ability to act like the proverbial bull in a china shop even when completely uncontentious legislation is under discussion. The hon. member really put his foot in it when he spoke about the repealing of section 18. Apparently he did not realize that that section deals exclusively with listeners’ licences and that all listeners’ licences are now being abolished. Then he tried to make up for his blunder by suddenly advocating free television licences. Does the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central realize that, as is indicated in the most recent report of the SABC, television licences represent R64 million of the total revenue of R171 million of the corporation? This is one of the largest sources of revenue for the corporation. I think it is already a tremendous concession on the part of the Minister to have done away with listeners’ licences.

How would he know? He never watches television unless he is on it himself.

I should like to return to the question of listeners’ licences and the concessionary tariffs for television licences a little later on.

I cannot allow the attempt by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central yet again to accuse the SABC of party political bias to pass without comment. It is an old custom of the hon. members of opposition parties to accuse the SABC of being biased in its presentation of political news. This is particularly true just after a general election. If one looks at the numbers of the official Opposition, one sees that they constitute but a small portion of this House. If you also consider the number of votes cast last year you will see that they only just polled more votes than the HNP, that does not have a single representative in this House. In spite of this, hon. members opposite always try, in and outside this House, to demand equal coverage from the SABC. I should like to refer briefly to what the latest report of the SABC has to say about political news coverage. The corporation says—on page 64—that the coverage of political news is a hazardous task and that detailed directives for ensuring objectivity are issued from time to time. The corporation says it is particularly hazardous because party-political connotations are attached to the mere appearance before the news cameras of newsmakers in the political sphere.

When one comes to things that can be measured, they give an example of the coverage received by the various political parties during the year under review. The NP congresses received a total of 44 minutes and 56 seconds of television news time in the year under review, and that included a great deal of news relating to the actions of the Government departments. In comparison the congresses of the Opposition parties received 31 minutes and 6 seconds. Measured against the number of votes cast for NP candidates last year, and those cast for official Opposition candidates, and measured against their numbers here in this House, say nothing of quality, the Opposition parties received far too much coverage by the SABC. For be it from them, therefore, to complain here about political prejudice on the part of the corporation.

If the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central had taken a little trouble he would have seen in that same report how much trouble the corporation takes to cultivate goodwill among the various interest groups in respect of its activities. Of course it also does so by means of receptions, but the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central singled out a specific function which involved the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. He had a great deal to say about this. However, he did not mention the hundreds of thousands of rands spent by the corporation on promotions to cultivate the goodwill of other organizations. However, I do not want to waste any more time on the tirade by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. In my opinion this is an excellent piece of legislation. As the hon. Minister said, it is legislation which will have a few important consequences. I believe that in this legislation we have elements that will help to strengthen the administrative structure of the SABC. Further confirmation is being given to the independence of this semi-autonomous corporation, while methods of financing and the machinery for financing the corporation have been modernized and made more streamlined. In addition there are also concessions to the public to which reference has already been made.

I have already referred to the latest report of the corporation. When one looks at it, one is impressed by the tremendous expansion in the activities of the SABC. One also realizes to what extent the corporation has become a large and important factor, a wonderful institution, and how the coverage by radio and television programmes is becoming ever larger in this vast country of ours. One is impressed by the constant attention given to the quality of the programmes and to technological advancement. When one reads the report one also realizes that there is an increasing burden on the shoulders of the nine members of the board, and for this reason I believe the provision contained in this legislation, i.e. that the number of members of the board may be increased is essential. This will help to distribute the work load and at the same time it will be possible to retain the expert knowledge of the present members of the board. Not only will the workload be distributed, but it will also be possible for the various population groups that have to be served in terms of the existing legislation, to have representation on the board.

As the previous speaker did, I also wish to refer briefly to the fact that the administrative structure of the board of the SABC will now be strengthened, inter alia, by the provision that the Director-General will now be a full-fledged member of the board, and that the board may now appoint its chairman as Director-General. This provision increases the discretion of the SABC, and if it therefore makes its chief executive a member of the board, this also strengthens the autonomy of the corporation and is therefore to be welcomed, particularly by hon. members opposite, who are constantly voicing their misgivings about the influence of, or direct interference by, the Government in the affairs of the corporation. I think it is also important to note that the initiative regarding the appointment of the chairman as Director-General will be taken by the SABC itself; this is a further indication of the strengthening of the autonomy of the corporation. As a matter of fact, in terms of this legislation such an appointment need only be made after consultation with the Minister. This therefore means that the SABC can in actual fact continue to look after its own affairs.

Other hon. members can refer to other aspects of the legislation. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said—and in this respect I am in agreement with him—that this legislation will probably be discussed in greater detail during the Committee Stage. In conclusion, however, I just want to express a word of thanks for the concessions— the many real concessions—that are being made to the public in terms of the legislation under discussion.

I have already referred briefly to the abolition of radio listeners’ licences. As a result of this, and in spite of the increase in the television licence fee from R36 to R42, there is a saving of R2,40 per annum for the vast majority of families in the country. In some cases, with the introduction of concessionary television licences—when the regulations have been promulgated—there will be even larger savings for certain families, particularly our senior citizens. These concessions to senior citizens, as well as to institutions and hospitals in regard to more than one television set, are to be welcomed. However, when it comes to the abolition of radio listeners’ licences I believe that there are other considerations. If we take into consideration that more than 11,5 million people listen to the radio programmes of the SABC every day, we cannot but realize what an important role this service plays in the entertainment and guidance of people, and what an important civilizing role the SABC plays in our country. The State must therefore see its way clear to making this service, as far as its radio programmes are concerned, available to all South Africans of all population groups and all age groups.

The abolition of radio listeners’ licences means that anyone who can buy a radio for as little as R15 will in future receive this great service of the SABC free of charge. If we expect possible criticism because the abolition of radio listeners’ licences is accompanied by an increase in the cost of television licences, it is important to remember that television licences can still be classified as a luxury today. After all, a television viewer has to pay in the region of R1 000 when he buys a colour television set. His television licence therefore costs him only about 4% per annum of the cost of his television set. If it is true that our television service is to a great extent still a luxury service, at least it is a great giant step in the right direction that another branch of the SABC service—the radio listeners’ service—will in future be available free of charge and that all South Africans can say that a part of the service supplied to South Africans and to overseas countries is available to them free of charge.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hon. members on the Government side I take great pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umlazi has covered a great number of points and I shall probably be making reference to some of them in the course of my speech. He, like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, has suggested that this is more a Committee Stage Bill. I agree wholeheartedly with that. In the light of an earlier ruling from the Chair in regard to debating the bias or otherwise of the SABC, I want to say that it is not my intention to touch on that subject now. I believe this is not the occasion to do it, but I shall certainly take up this issue with the hon. the Minister during the discussion of his Vote.

We have no argument about the transfer from the Ministry of National Education to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Information of the SABC and its affairs. We hope that this will now become a permanent arrangement and that we have now seen the end of the shuffling around of the SABC from one portfolio to another, because in the short space of time that I have been here, we have seen it go from the Department of National Education to the Department of Posts and Telecommunications and then to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information. Therefore I sincerely hope that the arrangement that we have at the moment is going to be a permanent one.

We naturally welcome the fact that radio listeners’ licences are now being eliminated. We welcome this not only for the pensioner, but also for the millions of Blacks in South Africa who have radio licences and who enjoy the comfort of the radio, especially the portable radio which some years ago was the status symbol. We therefore welcome the fact that they are no longer liable for listeners’ licences, which I think must have been very difficult to collect and to monitor in any event.

We obviously see the increase in the membership of the board as a means of catering for other race groups. We read this into the clause when we saw it in the Bill and we sincerely hope that the opinion of other race groups will be well represented amongst the 15 people who will make up the board. We have no argument with the fact that the chairman may also be the Director-General, although, like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, we would possibly like to ask a question or two during the Committee Stage as far as that particular position is concerned.

The abolition of the Black Advisory Board is consequential and is obviously an attempt to streamline the functioning of that board as envisaged from this day forward.

It is also interesting to us to see a major change in that the Postmaster-General and the SABC will now determine fees by agreement in respect of licence requirements that fall under section 7 of the Radio Act and section 78 of the Post Office Act. We believe that this delegation of authority is a good thing, although we notice too that it can become the affair once again of the hon. the Minister. However, we do feel that these are the gentlemen who should have this power. Delegation of authority of this nature is always something that we in these benches will welcome. The extension of powers as well is generally welcomed.

The aid to pensioners of the SABC is an excellent thing to see. We heard yesterday how the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is trying to assist pensioners of his department, and it is good to see that the SABC is also ever aware of the needs of its pensioners. The regulations in respect of television licences and the penalties in respect of the payment thereof are noted, and there are many others. However, clause 7(e) is of great personal interest because it covers the provision of advertising other than advertising by radio or television. This covers the sort of advertising that I believe the rank and file of people in South Africa do not welcome. I am referring here to the advertising by mail shot that is enclosed with one’s TV licence reminder. I am simply making this point because I know it to be true. I have heard this said by many people. I believe that there is considerable resentment on the part of a large section of the public in this regard because it is looked upon—I am not saying that it is so; I say it is looked upon by a large section of the public as being so—as favouritism in respect of two particular organizations on whose behalf advertising material has been enclosed with the TV reminders over the past two or three years. I want to refer to them by name. They are Nationwide Television Services and Lewis Stores. Whether these organizations tender for this facility or how it comes about, I do not know and, quite frankly, I am not particularly concerned about it. However, I do believe it is something which the hon. the Minister would do well to have another look at. There are many ways in which the Corporation can sell advertising. It does not have to sell advertising by means of radio and television alone. It also has its own magazine in which it can sell that type of advertising. I honestely feel that that sort of advertising accompanying the bad news—the account—is not welcome. After all, this is a captive market and there is a great temptation to advertise in this particular way because one knows that one’s message is reaching every TV viewer who is liable for a licence in the country. I am simply making the point that I believe that this is something that should be looked at. I shall be speaking about this again during the Committee Stage because I really feel that this is something that the hon. the Minister could possibly reconsider—the method of that particular type of advertising. I should like to hear his comments in this regard.

It goes without saying, Sir, that pensioners’ concessions are always welcome. It also goes without saying that concessions to hospitals and other institutions are equally welcome. We have discussed them over the years and I personally have addressed myself to this problem during the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote. This is something that we have been calling for ever since television was introduced in South Africa. I can only say that I think that this is one of the nicest aspects of this measure before us. I think this is something which South Africa is indeed going to be grateful for. I hope that perhaps as time goes by and the hon. the Minister sees his way clear to doing it, further concessions will be made. I hope that we will see increases in the extent of the concession. I realize, of course, that the hon. the Minister could never entertain the idea of a completely free television licence. I accept that. It would not be possible for him to introduce such a concession because the SABC relies very heavily on television licence fees for a very large portion of its income.

With those few remarks I want to say that we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill and that we look forward with great interest to the Committee Stage when many aspects of it can be discussed in greater detail.

Mr. Speaker, as the second speaker from these benches this afternoon, I had rather hoped to have had the unique experience of speaking after the spokesman of the new independent NP. [Interjections.] However, I see that there are no members at all on the benches occupied by that party. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, any Bill introduced into this House relating to the SABC must, I think, be examined against the fact that the SABC has the image among a very large section of the community of being the Svengali of Auckland Park. A large section of the public is deeply suspicious that the SABC is a sectional service, that it is manipulated by sinister personalities, mainly representing the Broederbond, that it serves the sectional interests of the NP and that it does not reflect the heterogeneous and diverse nature of South African society. In its report the Steyn Commission draws attention to an aspect of this when they point out that the SABC has a mandate to serve the nation as a whole.

In chapter 5, paragraph 3.b, page 132, the commission says—

This is the point—

Against this background my point of departure for this debate is the same as specified in paragraph 3.c—

I ask myself whether this Bill is going to strengthen the SABC’s autonomy and credibility or weaken it, and I am not at all sure that it is going to strengthen that autonomy.

Firstly there is the question of combining the posts of Chairman and Chief Executive. This is actually in conflict with a recommendation of the Steyn Commission. Paragraph 5.d reads—

This is the point. There is a very strong case to be made out for a separation of the policy-making function vested in the chairman of the board of the SABC and the executive function correctly vested in the Director-General or equivalent chief executive. A combination of these two functions in one post in the hands of one person, raises the spectre, if I may say so, of the bad old days of Piet Meyer. While it is theoretically possible that an all-powerful single individual making policy and executing day-to-day functions could be independent of the Government, the fact that the Government makes that appointment and actually creates that all-powerful individual raises the spectre that that individual, far from being more independent of the Government, will be far more dependent on the Government and will in fact be a creature of the Government. As I say, the bad old days of Piet Meyer raise their head again as a possibility. If we want to make good law, I believe good law in respect of the SABC should be to entrench as much autonomy as possible and the separation those functions would be one correct step in that direction.

Another problem area which comes to my mind is the question of the advisory boards. The Bill provides that the Minister shall establish an advisory board with such names as determined by the Minister. On top of that, just to strengthen the point, it says that the chairman of the board—that is the Board of the SABC—shall also be the chairman of every advisory board. Therefore this potentially all-powerful individual not only directs the policy and the day-to-day functions, but also chairs the bodies which are supposed to advise him. He is appointing his own advisers and then he sits as chairman of his own advisers. I am not sure that that strengthens the desirable autonomy of the SABC.

The Steyn Commission also supports this kind of thinking. I do not think that the clause should be left as it stands. I think we should rather move to a situation where advisory boards are seen to be independent. They should be established on a basis of independent representation by cultural bodies and other persons and institutions that may be affected. I want to refer to a report which appeared in Rapport on 24 January this year which referred to the hon. member for Florida. I am not quite sure if these words were attributed to him or whether it was simply that his name appeared in the report and that other sources were responsible. The report says—

If it is official policy that we are going to establish a language orientation and that the advisory boards would therefore be boards that would advise on the direction of the SABC in the language and cultural areas, so be it, but then true representatives of these groups must be put forward by the groups to advise the SABC on the directions which have to be followed. It should not be left in the discretion of the hon. the Minister to appoint these people on his own initiative.

There are also a number of other points which come to mind as issues involved in this Bill. There is the question of expanding the boards of the SABC from nine to 15 members. There was speculation in the Press and it was in fact authoritatively reported, together with pictures of the hon. the Minister and Prof. Mouton, that the expansion of the board was in order to accommodate Coloureds and Indians. This article was also published on 24 January. However, today the hon. the Minister made no reference to race groups at all and I think this is a crucial point. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he envisages the appointment of Blacks to the board. He mentioned in his speech that the aim was “om lede van ander bevolkingsgroepe as die Blankes te betrek”. The question of the admission of Blacks to the Board is a fundamental point of policy and I am sure a point on which the public will be eager to receive an answer.

Power-sharing!

As the record stands, it is only for Coloureds and Indians. If that is the case and the hon. the Minister does not deny that that is the case, then I want to make a plea this afternoon for the inclusion of Blacks as a matter of principle on the main board of the SABC. I am not alone in that view. In Press articles round about the same period senior leaders of the Coloured community such as Mr. Franklin Sonn and the Rev. Alan Hendrickse were quoted as calling for the expansion of the membership of the board also to include Blacks in order to make the service a truly national one, as it should be. We certainly do not want to see the SABC becoming another creature of the apartheid thinking of the Government. The latest chapter of apartheid thinking is to co-opt Coloureds and Indians to White apartheid and to keep Blacks in a separate arena.

As far as advisory boards are concerned, I should like to touch upon what the advisory boards should advise the Government on. The advisory boards should also include Blacks. A point that one should bear in mind is that—as has also been reported in the Press—the latest survey shows that 583 000 Blacks are regular viewers of TV1. That may have changed somewhat in recent times with the advent of TV2 and TV3—I do not have figures available for that—but on the basis of this figure more Blacks watch TV1 than Coloureds and Indians. The figure given for Coloureds is 482 000 and that for Indians 209 000. The figure for Blacks is almost more than those for the Coloureds and Indians combined. This point alone supports the inclusion of Blacks on the advisory boards. However, not only that; if we can have the input of Blacks in respect of the direction and presentation of television programmes for the other population groups, we can present a more real picture of South Africa to the public at large. There is an air of unreality about it, because when I watch TV I see almost no Blacks ever appearing. It makes one wonder what kind of country one is living in, a country in which one denies, by way of one’s programmes, the existence of some 80% of the population.

When did you last watch TV?

Watch TV2.

There are no White people on TV2 either.

Well, that in itself is a fault. The inclusion of Blacks in an advisory capacity, their inclusion in the administration and their involvement in TV programmes as a whole—and their inclusion in the programmes themselves—would help to break down the present Black/White interface which is mainly a master-servant interface. If one sees articulate Black people in TV programmes doing normal things at all levels of society in the presentation of programmes in general, one would be presented with more real relationships for the people of this country to get used to.

The SABC may, in its cultural orientation, be moving in various directions. In that connection I should like to say, as an English-speaking South African who does look at the TV programmes from time to time, that any advisory board that may arise from this legislation for English TV needs to effect some improvement in those programmes. They are, to say the least, stupifyingly boring. I hardly look at the programmes these days…

How do you know then?

They invariably have an interest-level that is virtually zero. Speaking as a member of the community that I come from, let me say that controversy should be the life-blood of our TV and would generate a high level of interest in Programmes. What kind of controversy, however, are we presented with on SABC-TV, the English programmes in particular? We get a boring, one-sided, dull, lifeless series of programmes. They are mind-bendingly boring. The kind of programmes that are dished up to us at the moment creates a general scepticism about the independence of the SABC’s services. If one only hears one side of the story continually it engenders disbelief in what is being dished up. It is a golden thread running through English culture, at least, that one should always hear both sides of a story; that one might disagree with a person, but should nevertheless give him the right to state his point of view, etc. I therefore appeal to the SABC—and I am not the only person to have made this appeal, it has become from all quarters—to let us have some controversy. Let us have some discussion of really interesting and controversial issues. Let us, in particular, confront politicians on the box and let there be cross-questioning, and let us involve the public in the public life of South Africa.

Andries on TV.

There would be a tremendous public response to that. I would, for example, love to see a three-way discussion on TV between the hon. the Prime Minister and the leaders of the two main Opposition parties, and I am not including the NRP in that.

They are not an Opposition.

No, not at this stage. They may, however, still come to light!

There is another thing I should like to touch upon in connection with the SABC programmes. Since I have been urging the SABC to improve its service, let me say that I welcome the news that I read in the Burger this morning about there being some relaxation of the policy on the Sunday coverage of sport. The Sun City Classic, which had coverage on the Friday and the Saturday and was watched by millions of viewers, gives a classic example of the sort of frustration that people are subjected to. At the climax of that event, transmission was blacked out because it was a Sunday.

What does McIntosh say about that?

Everybody was watching it there.

This is an example of hypocrisy of the highest degree. There are thousands upon thousands of people who take part in sport on Sundays, and they do so after having gone to church. They are decent, upright citizens. To my mind there is no conflict whatsoever between a decent, God-fearing person’s moral life and healthy outdoor activities on a Sunday. That is my view, and I believe it is a view that is shared by thousands of decent, upright citizens in South Africa. At long last we have the Government bending a little. They are now going to allow, if the report is correct, selective coverage on an ad hoc basis of certain sports events. I want to make an appeal: Please, do not spoil it again by giving too little too late; let us have regular scheduled sports programmes. They need not be in conflict with church services. The public will enjoy them and they will certainly not lead people into mischief. To suggest that the whole nation does not play sport on Sundays when major Currie Cup events are played on Sundays in most parts of the country, to imply that that is not happening, is hypocrisy of the worst kind.

The final point I should like to raise under this Bill concerns something that worries me greatly. I hope the hon. the Minister can throw some light on it. It relates to the proposed section 13(1)(e) as set out in clause 7(a). In terms of that the SABC is to be given the power to—

In the same article with which the hon. member for Florida was associated, although not directly—he can say whether it is his view or not—the following was specified—

I agree with that wholeheartedly. We cannot have a publicly funded State corporation moving like a juggernaut, as it is capable of doing, into the sale of advertising in the free-enterprise arena in competition with other publications and publishing houses and, in fact, steam-rollering some of them out of business or acting in a manner that will be of great disadvantage to them. I should like clarity on what is envisaged here and what the SABC actually wants to do in the commercial arena. I should also like to know in what kind of publication these advertisements are going to appear and what kind of publications the SABC is going to publish. Advertising is, of course, the life-blood of most publishing organizations.

I have a final point to make, which may or may not be a valid point.

That is your third final point. I hope it is the last.

The SABC says here it is now going to grant itself the power to produce material of various kinds. Here again, this is a public body taking upon itself another function which in the past, I presume, has always been carried out by free enterprise, viz. the production of certain material for publication. I presume that the actual machinery and staff are going to be acquired if this power is granted. I should like to hear more about that because I believe that that could be an unwarranted interference in the free enterprise system.

Those are the reservations I wanted to express.

Mr. Speaker, normally in debates on broadcasting we have the hon. member for Sandton as the main speaker for the PFP. He is obviously elsewhere this afternoon, but knowing him as I do, I am sure that we would have had from him more or less the same tirade against the alleged lack of impartiality of the SABC that we did have this afternoon from the hon. members for Port Elizabeth Central and Constantia. But since he is the main speaker on SABC affairs for that party, I am sure he would probably have had his facts more correct than was the case with the two hon. speakers we have had the pleasure of listening to this afternoon.

First of all, apart from the faux pas which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central made about the question of free radio listener’s licences, he also welcomed with great enthusiasm the fact that the Director-General would henceforth be appointed by the Board, i.e. the Control Board of the SABC which in future is to be known as “the Board”. He made this point because, apparently, he was under the impression that the Minister appointed the Director-General. He said he welcomed it because “the less the Director-General has to do with the Government, the better”.

Why did he say that, Sir? The fact is that all directors-general up to now have been appointed by the Board, just as any future director-general will be appointed by the Board. So as far as that is concerned there is absolutely no change in the Act. Therefore I think that that was a very misplaced attempt to cast aspersions on the degree of Government control over the director-general and over the SABC. It was, in any event, factually incorrect.

Similarly, the hon. member for Constantia then made great play about the fact that the Minister would appoint the programme advisory boards. He also saw something sinister in the fact that the director-general would be the chairman of all these boards. Either the director-general is appointed by the Board and is therefore not sinister and under Government control, or he is. I think that those two hon. members of the official Opposition should clarify between themselves exactly which argument they support in this particular context. The fact of the matter is, however, that the provision dealing with the programme advisory boards is not a new provision as such. There were, in fact, always two programme advisory boards. There was a Black Programme Advisory Board and a Television Programme Advisory Board. What there was not, was a White Programme Advisory Board. What this legislation does, is that it abolishes the two advisory boards that were appointed in the same way as the new advisory boards will be appointed, namely, by the Minister and under the chairmanship of the director-general. There is, therefore, absolutely no change in that regard. The only change is that the existing boards fall away and that the Minister has in future the option if he wishes to appoint programme advisory boards to do so if the need arises.

One of the reasons why the existing advisory boards fall away and why the appointment of future advisory boards is optional, is obviously related to the question of the expansion of the Board, which I will come back to later.

I found it most interesting that the hon. member for Constantia should, of all commissions, cite the Steyn Commission in support of his argument that the autonomy of the SABC is not sufficiently strong and in raising the question whether this legislation would in effect strengthen the autonomy of the SABC. He quoted the relevant recommendation of the Steyn Commission in support of his argument, and this is what I find absolutely astonishing on the part of the official Opposition. The hon. member for Sandton also spoke about the Steyn Commission during the special debate on 15 February, and this is what he had to say about it—(Hansard Col. 900)—

He then went on to quote an article by Ken Owen in which he pleaded—

Who said that?

The hon. member for Sandton.

No, he said 90% of it should be.

He did not say 90%; he said the whole of it should be consigned to the intellectual trashcan. Then he cast the report from him here in the House, and said: “And I say: Amen!”

If one rejects the report in toto, then I do not see with what consistency and with what justification one can then quote arguments from it in support of what one has to say. That kind of opportunism, however, is characteristic of hon. members of the official Opposition. It is not the first time that this happens. They come along and boycott an institution which has to report to this House. Then, when the Government does not implement fully the recommendations of that institution—be it the Steyn Commission or the President’s Council, in the case of District 6 and Pageview—the official Opposition has the effrontery to forget about the fact that it has totally boycotted the institution and start boycotting the Government, [interjections.] This, of course, is political opportunism of the worst kind. [Interjections.] It is indeed laughable, but it also is a vindication of the standpoint I have often held in this House, namely that South Africa has, without any qualification, the most irresponsible official Opposition Party in the world. [Interjections.]

*As other hon. members mentioned earlier, this amending Bill is in essence a committee stage Bill. It is also, in essence, an omnibus Bill in miniature. The recommendation that the chairman of the board may also hold the post of Director-General if the SABC deems this to be desirable, is in line, on the one hand, with a recommendation by the Steyn Commission of a part-time chairman and, on the other, with a whole series of precedents in the public and private sectors. For example, the chief executive officer of Escom is also chairman of the Electricity Supply Board. In addition, there are innumerable large private companies the managing directors of which are also chairmen of the board. With regard to the new measures relating to the acquisition of funds, over drawn accounts and loans, this is in accordance with sound business practice and will facilitate and streamline the administration to a greater extent. If I had still been a member of the staff of the SABC then I, too like the hon. member for Umhlanga, should have welcomed the envisaged pension relief with regard to those members of staff affected. Therefore I do so on their behalf in this House.

The question of the abolition of radio listeners’ licences and the concessionary television licences has already been dealt with at length by the hon. the Minister Despite that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central came up with a lot of nonsense in this regard. Like hon. members opposite, we on this side of the House also welcome the abolition of radio listeners’ licences and we welcome it for various reasons. The phenomenon of illegal listeners had already assumed such proportions in South Africa that to try and trace them was to attempt the impossible. As far as illegal television viewers are concerned, that is a different matter For various reasons, better control is possible in this regard. Accordingly we welcome this new system from the point of view of efficiency, but also due to the social benefits this entails for the elderly, pensioners and the less well-off section of the population, people who find it difficult to keep their heads above water in these difficult economic times. Therefore it will mean a great deal to them if their listening pleasure can m future be free.

The question of the envisaged extension of the membership of the board of the SABC from 9 to not more than 15 members is also in line with the recommendation of the Steyn Commission. The recommendation of the commission has a specific context, it is true and I quote from what the commission has to say in Vol. 3, paragraph 21 on page 1107—

In the principal Act which is to be amended, and in the amending Bill in question, there is no reference whatsoever to race, colour or language as far as the members of the board are concerned. Therefore there has never been any restriction on the appointment of people of colour to the board of the SABC, although up to now this has not been the practice. However, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs gave an indication some time ago that he intended appointing people of colour to the board if a vacancy were to occur. The fact that the board is now to be extended makes this possible before vacancies occur. I can of course well understand why the hon. members opposite welcome this development. They do so, of course, because they see it is a step in the direction of their integration policy. However, I can give them the assurance that this should by no means be seen in the sense of power-sharing as they interpret it. In the first place, the SABC is not a power-wielding institution, but rather a cultural institution which, in terms of section 12 of the principal Act, which is not being repealed here, has an obligation to look after the cultural interests of the country s various population groups. This is summarized as follows on page 1104 of Vol. III of the Steyn Report—

1. (a) By statute the SABC is obliged to “afford all the national communities of the Republic the opportunity of achieving full realization within their own cultural and social spheres.”
2. (b) The Corporation is further charged “with due regard to the prevailing conventions and customs of the different national communities to encourage and promote cordial and sound relations between these communities.”
3. (c) The Corporation is thus called upon to ensure that the interests of one population group are in no way advanced at the expense of another, i.e. it must at no time subscribe to any one sectarian influence or affiliation.

The SABC has been broadcasting programmes for every population and language group in the country for many years. Therefore it is only logical that they should acquire a say in the controlling body of this corporation. This must be at the highest level and not merely in an advisory capacity. The appointment of representatives of other cultures in an enlarged board can only further realize the above-mentioned aims of the Act. Therefore there will also be consultation and co-responsibility at the highest level in this multi-national institution without infringing upon the cultural heritage of any group. In my opinion this is a meaningful approach and therefore I, too, support it.

The hon. members opposite referred to the absence en bloc of the independent Nationalists this afternoon.

Tell us why.

I began to wonder why that was so, and I wondered whether it could be ascribed to the fact that when we discussed this legislation in our party, they raised no objection. It would therefore have been difficult for them to object to the last aspect I dealt with here. It was therefore better for them not to enter the discussion.

Be that as it may, because I find this legislation entirely meaningful, as I have tried to indicate, I take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Benoni has alleged that the hon. member for Sandton has rejected the recommendations of the Steyn Commission on the Mass Media in toto, and wanted to know how in the circumstances we can accept certain recommendations which the hon. member for Constantia referred to here today. With great respect to the hon. member for Benoni, as I read the statement made by the hon. member for Sandton in so far as the recommendations of the Steyn Commission are concerned, he referred to the restrictions on the Press, the restrictions being placed on journalists, and in so far as that muzzled the Press he rejected it in toto. The hon. member for Sandton stated very clearly with regard to the recommendations concerning the autonomy and the independence of the SABC, that that was a matter that this side of the House supported very much. I think the hon. member must be fair in his remarks in this regard. The hon. member for Benoni also mentioned the fact that members of other groups can now be appointed to the Board. We also welcome this fact. The hon. member went on to say that the extension of membership in this way will mean that all cultural groups will be represented as far as programmes are concerned. I have to cross swords with the hon. member on this point as well. As far as TV1 and TV2, which is the new Black-oriented TV programme, are concerned I have seen very, very little time devoted to the cultural life of the Indian community of South Africa, for example. I seem to remember that there was one short series and that was all. I also seem to recall a short series on the Coloured people some time ago. With the greatest respect to the hon. member for Benoni therefore, I do not think it is fair to say that the SABC covers the cultural life of all groups. I think it should be a little fairer to the Indian community and to the Coloured community of South Africa.

In the Bill before us there are certainly some positive aspects which, as we have stated quite clearly from these benches, we welcome. For example, any concession that is made to pensioners at the present time when they are struggling to make ends meet because of increased GST, increased cost of living and increased rentals is most welcome.

As far as radio licence fees are concerned, I think we will all agree that the collection of this fee was something of a nuisance. The question of having to produce a radio listener’s licence when buying a portable radio worth R10 is certainly not in my opinion conducive to good administration either in respect of the purchaser or in respect of the organization issuing the licence. It is more a nuisance than anything else and I think we all welcome the fact that radio listeners’ licence fees are being done away with.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister did not quite understand the point that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central was trying to make this afternoon. His point was that in certain cases, and particularly as far as pensioners are concerned, provision should be made whereby no television licence fees should be paid at all. I am referring here to the aged, to pensioners and to the many, many institutions that accommodate these people. A large number of these people may, for example, be invalids or bedridden and their only form of entertainment is to watch television. It goes without saying, Sir, that television today is one of the most powerful media that we have. As we all know, it has a tremendous impact upon everyone. I think we have passed the stage where, with the advent of television, the Government was afraid that the newspapers would suffer because their advertising revenue would dwindle to such an extent that they would have to close down. They were afraid that the newspapers here would follow the pattern of the newspapers in America and Great Britain as well as other countries on the advent of television which took over the media resulting in newspaper organizations having to combine in order to avoid having to close down completely. This has not happened here and the policy that has been followed by the South African Government in that respect is commendable. I think we can accept the fact that the newspapers have proved that they can survive. In fact the media generally have proved that they can live side by side with the SABC without suffering any advertising loss. I say, therefore, that we can be a little bolder now in our approach as far as television is concerned, as far as our television programmes are concerned and as far as advertising itself is concerned. We cannot get away from the fact that SABC-TV is a creation of this Government and the link between this Government and television has been forged so closely that in the eyes of the world they are one. With great respect, in regard to many of the programmes that have been broadcast by SABC-TV it has clearly given the impression that it will side and in fact does side with the Government. The observation made by the Steyn Commission to the effect that the SABC should become more autonomous is, I think, one to which the hon. the Minister must give very careful consideration.

I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that as recently as 8 June 1981 a report appeared in the Rand Daily Mail from which I should like to quote. The report stated—

I did not want to import the word “propaganda”, but is has come from the quarters of the NP, from the Nat editor himself. Therefore, clearly there is this import of propaganda.

At the moment I am dealing with clause 5 which very clearly provides that an advisory board or boards should be established. I accept what the hon. member for Benoni has said. He has pointed out that this boils down to a reconstruction of the advisory boards. Such an advisory board or boards should be appointed to advise the board in regard to programmes broadcast by the corporation.

I say that we have advanced in television and we are not scared any more of closing down newspapers. Have we not become a little tired of the head-and-shoulders of which we see so much? Is it not time that our broadcasts got into the news, into the scenery and that we moved away from the head-and-shoulders news services which we get? News, of course, is one of the most important items on the agenda and it is very important that it be given as realistically as possible and in such a way that everybody can see what has happened. Everybody can read and everybody can listen to a radio. One wants to see what has happened; one does not want to listen to an announcer or just see his head and shoulders.

I think we have reached the stage where we can be a little critical of ourselves as well. Have we not reached the stage where we can have a little insight by means of television? Only a week ago we witnessed in this House one of the most dramatic and traumatic events that has taken place in many years, but what was South Africa told? Very little was told. We were told that some members were leaving and that those members were given until 11h30 the following Wednesday or else they would be expelled. That was all we were told.

One of the troubles is that the SABC is a monopoly. It has no one to rival it. If this incident had happened in the USA where they have several channels and several different broadcasting services, one would have had an insight into the whole affair. One would have had the insight which everybody in America can have by looking at an ABC programme on Sunday mornings. On that programme virtually everything that has happened is shown. I and some hon. members, including the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, had the opportunity of watching this programme when we visited America during the presidential election. If we had had such a programme here, we would have seen individual members who had broken away from the NP. The hon. member for Waterberg would have been interviewed to establish the reasons for his breaking with the NP. Those who eventually went back to the NP would have been interviewed too and they would have had the opportunity of explaining why they returned. There would even have been a discussion as to what power-sharing means to South Africa.

Our television has to be fair, analytical and critical. What are we afraid of?

Seeing is believing.

I think the television should be a bit bolder in its criticism and I think there should be more insight in the programmes. Our programmes ought to get to the heart of our people so that they can know exactly what is happening. Let us inform them. It does not matter whether a man is for or against something, as long as he is properly informed. We should leave the decision to the good judgment of the citizen; he can make up his own mind. The Government does not have to make up the mind of the citizen; the citizen himself can decide for whom he must vote.

Talking about voting, let me remind the House what we witnessed the night before last. The name of a certain NP lady who stood in one of the Johannesburg wards was mentioned practically all the time. Virtually all we heard was, “Mrs. Cameron, Mrs. Cameron, Mrs. Cameron”. Another NP candidate also received a lot of publicity. We heard and saw quite a lot about Carel Venter. [Interjections.] I think that was a little bit of bias on the part of SABC-TV. With due respect, such a little bit of bias is not fair at a time when it is crucial that people make up their minds and decide for whom they are going to vote. The television is a very powerful medium; it should not be used to the advantage or disadvantage of certain people. The television service should be fair and both sides should be shown. I want to say with regard to advertising that I do not think the amount of time given to advertising is unfair. I also think it is a good thing that it does not cut into the actual broadcast of the programme. We now virtually have queues of people waiting for advertising time and I think the hon. the Minister will confirm that. The SABC is now in a position where it can choose which advertisers or advertisements to allow and which not because they have queues of people waiting. With the high cost of commercial advertising on television— something of the order of R12 000 for half a minute—there is no problem in regard to income. However, is it really necessary to have all these liquor advertisements on television? I think the SABC should have a look at this.

We are now dealing with the Board and with programme policy. As I said a moment ago we witnessed a division of opinion as regards power-sharing recently. What would for example be the Board’s view on power-sharing? Are some members of the Board going to take the view of power-sharing in accordance with that of the Prime Minister and are others going to take the view of power-sharing in accordance with the views of Dr. Treurnicht? I do not yet know what the name of his party is going to be.

It is the Nationalist Party!

As I have said, problems could arise. That is why it is so necessary and important for both sides to make up their minds. However, we have now reached the stage—what recently happened in this Parliament proves it—that it is absolutely essential that the Board be independent in terms of the commission’s recommendations. I also believe autonomy should be given to them so that they can be disabused of any bias attributed to the broadcasting corporation. It must be completely autonomous to enable it to reflect news in the same way as a newspaper. I think the time has come for that to happen.

I want now to refer to one or two other details in the Bill. The television licence referred to in clause 13 is only valid for the year in respect of which it is issued. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can give us more clarity on this point. Does that for example mean that if a licensing year ends on 31 December and a licence is taken out in November, that one will be paying for a full licence for the remaining one month or will the system function on a proportional basis? If it does not operate on a proportional basis it will be grossly unfair.

The last clause which I want to discuss, clause 20, deals with a very serious problem. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also referred to it. This clause deals with the higher penalties which the hon. the Minister is asking the House to approve. The hon. the Minister is asking us to approve of a penalty of a period of six months imprisonment as an alternative to an increased fine. The initial fine of R200 is now to be raised to R500. With great respect, we are creating a very dangerous precedent, if we are going to apply prison sanctions in a case such as this. I believe it will be a dangerous precedent in law for us to approve of the proposed amendment because it is quite far-reaching. I want to quote from section 28 of the principal Act which deals with offences and I want to draw the hon. the Minister s attention to the following—

Any person who—

shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R200.

The penalty on conviction for the above offence is to be increased from a fine of R200 to a fine of R500 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information—he is a lawyer and he argued South Africa’s case at the world court—whether it is not a maxim of our law that no man may be compelled to answer questions which may incriminate him? Is that not so? Is that not a maxim basic of our law?

He has forgotton the law.

He is not listening.

I do not know where the hon. the Minister’s thoughts are at the moment. If it was merely a question of the person not appearing, that is one thing, but it goes further by stating: “… refuses or fails, without good reason … to take the oath”. The person may, however, have religious objections about taking the oath. That is just one side-issue, but I quote further: “… or to reply to the best of his ability to relevant questions put to him or to produce to the auditor any book or document With great respect, are we not allowing ourselves to get a bit heady about this sort of thing? What serious matter does the hon. the Minister contemplate will happen in the SABC, so serious in fact that an auditor cannot obtain the required information and the person therefore has to be imprisoned for six months? If a person fails to reply to questions or fails to produce certain documents, and one puts him in gaol for six months, what is one achieving? Has the evidence been produced? Have the documents been produced? Has one come to light with the auditor’s report? No! What has one got? One has merely imposed a punitive measure on a person who, for some or other reason, is unable to produce documents or reply to certain questions. I think that this is a bad precedent in law, and if we agree to this, the same principle is going to creep into other legislation that comes before this House. We certainly cannot be a party to this kind of thing. So we on this side of the House have stated our case, and in the Committee State we shall be dealing, in more detail, with various individual provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely trust that when it comes to discussing the Vote of this hon. Minister we shall not have to listen to all this again.

You will.

I am pretty sure we could have had a much more fruitful debate on this topic.

What topic?

The hon. member for Hillbrow made a very interesting observation. He requested the establishment of a special Indian radio service, or some service catering for the Indian people in this country. I must say that I was very pleased to hear that. At last that hon. member is beginning to understand the effects of the cultural diversity of South Africa. [Interjections.] When we argue about other matters involving the cultural diversity in this country, I trust that we shall be able to count on his particular support.

He also suggested that much more time should have been allocated, by the SABC, for what he called the dramatic events of the past week. That is also a very interesting comment, because their main quarrel with the SABC has always been the question of equal time. However, what on earth could the PFP have contributed that would have necessitated equal time for them as far as that issue is concerned? This is not a frivolous comment I am making. It is a fact that an event such as that, such a sensitive party-political matter, has very correctly been treated in a very circumspect manner, bearing in mind the present situation in our country. [Interjections.]

Who decided that?

I do not know whether the PFP would really have come out of that kind of situation as well as they think they would. [Interjections.] If one analyses the SABC and its tremendous success as an organization over the years, one realizes that the very fact of its success belies the fundamental standpoints on which the members of that party base their particular policy. [Interjections.]

I want to comment on something that was said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. I think that hon. member should be ashamed of himself, because whenever he tackles a particular topic, he always does so in such a way as to cause embarrassment. All I can say to him about his remark about the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut and the SABC is that jealousy makes one nasty. The SABC is, in fact, an autonomous body and has the specific task of promoting its own image in this country. With the consent of the House and of all the previous Governments the SABC has allocated certain funds for the promotion of its own image. Now the coincidence of the luncheon given for certain office bearers of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut has caused the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central to make such nasty remarks in the House. The fact is that in the very near future the SABC will also be entertaining Assocom. I should like the hon. member to be so consistent in his attitude that he will now write a letter to Assocom saying that, if Assocom should ever be entertained by the SABC, Assocom should pay for their own lunches. It is so ridiculous, Sir! If one is motivated, as we have so often in the past identified it in the hon. member, by a basic nastiness, then one makes the kind of statement he made today. I think he should take stock of himself and analyse his attitude towards his colleagues, Afrikaners and the SABC and that he should then base his attitude on basic good manners.

Secondly, I want to say—this concerns all the hon. members who spoke on behalf of the PFP—that when it comes to the programme content of both the radio and television services of the SABC, again jealousy makes them nasty.

That does not make the programmes good though.

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

No, Sir, I do not want to answer that hon. member’s question. [Interjections.] The SABC reflects very successfully, and has been doing so for a very long time, the cultural diversity in South Africa. In fact, the SABC has problems coping with the demands and requests of the various ethnic groups in this country adequately to provide for their cultural activities on both radio and television services. That is a fact.

What is more, recently there was a survey conducted in Soweto and the outcome of that must have been a stunning blow to the PFP. A certain professional body conducted a survey in Soweto with regard to viewership of TV2 and TV3. What was the result of that survey? The result was that, although the people who have sets can of course watch TV1 as well as TV2 and TV3, as the report showed overwhelmingly—this is very important—the Black people of Soweto preferred watching television in the medium of their own language. This is a fact.

It is an outdated report.

What is outdated about it?

Therefore, if we on this side of the House argue that one has to take into account the ethnic character of this country in planning, for example, the broadcasting services, it is terribly important that the PFP must remember the outcome of, inter alia, this particular survey.

I also want to add to what the hon. member for Umlazi said that, when it comes to the division of time between the Government and the PFP with regard to services broadcast by the SABC, I think that, as the hon. member said, the PFP and other Opposition parties are totally over-represented because, if one subtracts from the total time that portion which is of necessity related to the governing of the country and not so much to the party-political activities of the Government, one sees that disproportionate attention is given to the activities of the official Opposition. [Interjections.]

I want to comment briefly on the objections raised by hon. members on the Opposition side about the management structure of the SABC. As regards the possible merging, when appropriate, of the positions of Director-General and Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia said this will result in the appointment of a man who will be potentially all-powerful. He also objected to this man being chairman of advisory boards of the SABC.

Could he be a Coloured?

At this very moment in time the two advisory boards have as their chairman the chairman of the Board. This is therefore not a new provision that is in the legislation before the House. The chairman of the SABC will in terms of this legislation also be the chairman of all boards that can possibly be created in the future.

The hon. member asked whether certain positions can be filled by Coloureds. Obviously, because of the absence of these two very vociferous hon. members, the other members who stayed behind were not aware of all the facts and made a number of faux pas today in regard to facts relating to the SABC and to this legislation. A Coloured as well as an Indian serve on the Television Programme Advisory Board, and at present two Black people serve on the Black Programme Advisory Board for cultural programmes for Black people. The hon. member for Constantia did not even know this.

Of course I knew it. I was talking about the main Board.

Then why did he not say so? He created the impression that he did not even know that that position existed.

I just want to say this about the possible combination of those two positions. The fact is that there are many precedents, not only in the State structure, the corporate bodies, State corporations and other statutory bodies. It is normal practice in everyday business that at a given time, a particular individual can be both the chairman and the managing director of a company. That depends on the particular person. In the legislation before the House it is not mandatory. If the hon. member had studied the legislation he would have seen that there are safeguards and mechanisms built into it that will enable the State President, after having combined the two positions, to separate them again and appoint a separate chairman of the Board of the SABC. In my view that is a positive step. There need not be any suspicions about it because there is nothing sinister about it. I think it will make a very real and constructive contribution towards making the management structure better geared to the everyday needs of the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation.

In regard to the financial matters of the SABC, I want to say that few statutory bodies can boast as sound a history of financial management as the SABC. The legislation before the House will make it easier for the SABC to manage its financial affairs. It is therefore a positive step and well warranted. The House can, in fact, support the Bill with great confidence.

Something that has up to now not received any attention and which, in my view, is very important, is the fact that this legislation also enables the SABC to render aid to countries beyond the borders of South Africa. I personally regard that as a very important provision. Constitutionally we in South Africa are moving in a certain direction, and the first indications are there that we will be moving very rapidly into a confederal structure and eventually into a structure of a constellation of States. I think that the role the SABC as a body of great expertise can play in aiding our neighbouring States and those States that become independent as a result of the policies of this Government, can make a positive contribution towards the viability of those particular States. In the future, more than ever before, it will be very important for broadcasting networks to be utilized for educational purposes. Indeed, I am aware that some of the independent national States are at this moment in time paying very close and constructive attention to the utilization of both radio and television for educational purposes. This can make a very real contribution towards the improvement of educational standards because we all know that we do not only have a shortage of teachers in those areas, but that we also have a real shortage of properly qualified people, and that this medium can make a substantial contribution towards supplementing the standard of education. In this regard this very small stipulation in the legislation now before the House can play a major role in the future of our country.

South Africa to develop their cultural assets to the level at which one would be justified in saying that even if there is a small minority group in South Africa, it still has the right to be proud of its culture and also has the ability and the media at its disposal to vie in the cultural sphere with other minority groups in South Africa. In this way the SABC has a definite contribution to make in this country by engendering in us a high regard for and respect of one another’s cultural assets, and an awareness that we shall have to make provision in our political structure for the preservation of the precious cultural treasures of even the small groups. I therefore take pleasure in associating myself with the legislation under discussion and with the confidence in the SABC which is evident from this legislation.

Just before I resume my seat I should like to afford the hon. member for Groote Schuur the opportunity to put his question to me.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the moment is gone, but I should still like to put the question to the hon. member. Does the hon. member contend that the SABC shows no bias towards the Government?

Really, Mr. Speaker, that is a silly question. It is an absolutely ridiculous question. Could it be regarded as bias if the television service of the SABC allows the hon. the Prime Minister or other hon. Ministers considerable time to explain certain matters to do with the handling of their portfolios? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, there is one very important matter which those hon. members forget. [Interjections.] If they would just listen to me, they might remember it another time.

†A long time ago the BBC came to the conclusion that there could be no such thing as an unbiased opinion. That is to begin with. There can be no neutral opinion on anything. In any event beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. Therefore, if two people describe the political happenings in the country over the past week—even if they happen to be outwardly of exactly the same political convictions, background, etc.—one will still, I am sure, end up with two entirely different versions altogether.

[Inaudible.]

The first thing to understand when one attempts to evaluate the accusation that the SABC is biased … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

The first thing to remember them is that there can be no such thing as a totally unbiased person or institution. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Constantia must please restrain himself.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, when one accepts that in reality there can be no such thing as an absolutely neutral opinion or a neutral person or body, one has to ask oneself two questions. In the first place, the question is what corrective action can be taken to eliminate the degree of imbalance which does exist, and to afford everyone a reasonable opportunity. In this regard there are a variety of criteria, which are, of course, also applied by the SABC itself. This is a matter we have often debated in this House in the past. In the first place it is a question of time. Apart from that it is also a matter of quality. This is a very important aspect which one must bear in mind.

If it is a matter of quality, the PFP ought not to be granted one second. [Interjections.]

All the real quality is sitting on this side of the House, of course.

The second question one has to bear in mind concerns the norm applied to determine whether a person is supposedly prejudiced or not. Accordingly I repeat in this House today that as far as the SABC is concerned, no one can take it amiss of the SABC for being unreservedly pro-South African in its standpoint, its views and its commentaries, based on the realities of South Africa. This is a very important matter which the hon. member has touched on. What he regards as bias is, for example, when the SABC provides separate services to people or makes a reference to them. It does not suit their political point of view to see it in this way . The equalization of everyone in South Africa is their aim. It galls them that the SABC stresses diversity and gives expression to it, which also, in a sense, affords substance to and is evidence of the logic of the political development. This galls them, and this is the norm that they will apply when they contend that the SABC is prejudiced. I say that the SABC, has proved itself over the years. Throughout the most sensitive times it has proved itself to be, in a balanced way, unreservedly pro-South African. I think they deserve our praise for this. History will accord recognition to the SABC as far as this is concerned. Then we shall also see that the foundation on which the official Opposition has based its politics will be proved to be fundamentally wrong.

Speaker, the hon. member for Groote Schuur has nosed an interesting question.

Will you broadcast a little louder please?

Is that hon. member interested in keeping contact with the debate or not?

I am very interested.

Are you?

Of course.

I have listened to hon. members and I have not interrupted any of them. May I now go on with my remarks or do hon. members not want me to do so? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Groote Schuur raised an interesting question. It is a fact that we on this side of the House are certainly not very happy with some of the programmes of SATV, with the way that it often portrays news or with the time that it allocates to members of the Opposition under circumstances where we think that time should not have been allocated because, after all, we are the governing party of this country. If one compares our situation with that pertaining in the USA or in Great Britain—of this I have a little knowledge—one will find that whenever Government leaders in those countries say something—it does not really matter what they say—if they make statements or comment in public, like for example in the USA, the President’s words will be carried on all three channels immediately.

Independent TV.

But that does not mean that other politicians and leaders in the USA who oppose the President will be given exactly the same time or facilities. In this regard I can also refer hon. members to various European countries. I want to state my point of view very clearly here today because we are faced with a sophisticated tactical move on the part of the PFP. They think that by proclaiming their anti-SABC views publicly they will intimidate the SABC to the extent that it will show more bias in their favour than it has done up to now. And already the SABC is showing too much bias in favour of the PFP. [Interjections.]

*The SABC is far too good to the PFP. [Interjections.] There are several examples which I am prepared to furnish to the House later, during the discussion of my Vote, of the SABC admitting that they have made mistakes in this regard, one example being a programme during which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition appeared on TV while the Minister of Co-operation and Development did not. They themselves said that that was a mistake. In a communication to me they tendered their apologies and said that it was a mistake, a definite mistake. If we are to single out mistakes today then I am prepared to show you that the SABC is hopelessly too much in favour of the PFP. [Interjections.]

And the world is flat!

In my opinion they ought far rather give a little more attention to the NRP. I think they could give somewhat more attention to the NRP, but as far as the PFP is concerned they certainly should not give a second more. [Interjections.] What they already get they do not deserve, either by virtue of the support they receive in South Africa or by virtue of their interest in South Africa or Southern Africa. [Interjections.] Therefore it is ridiculous to speak about “bias” here when one has no norm which one applies, or if one totally overestimates one’s own importance.

†The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also mentioned the subject of resignations. I should like to tell the hon. member that the staff turnover of the SABC for 1981 was only about 8%, one of the lowest staff turnovers of any organization in this country. For that reason I do not quite see the point that the hon. member was trying to make.

Can’t you include Cliff Saunders in that number?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is good manners to speak in derogatory terms of people who are not present in this House and who cannot defend themselves.

He hasn’t got any manners.

I invite the hon. member for Bryanston to arrange a meeting with the gentleman whose name he mentioned and face him there like a true South African. I shall also wish to invite a few people to that meeting. The hon. member can then face him man to man. [Interjections.] That hon. member must act like a man and face him because that gentleman is not here to answer him.

Put us on television … [Interjections.]

Order! I must warn the hon. member for Bryanston that I shall have to take steps against him if he continues to interject in this manner.

With respect, Sir, the hon. the Minister made me an offer to meet Cliff Saunders and I have accepted it.

Order! It is not in order for the hon. member for Bryanston to carry on a debate with the hon. the Minister across the floor of the House.

The hon. the Minister must also be rebuked because he is being very rude.

Order! Is the hon. member for Sandton questioning my ruling?

No. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to a reception which the SABC gave for the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. What that remark has to do with the Bill before the House I do not know. I simply do not know.

Nastiness!

The SABC has nothing to hide in this regard. They invited the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut as their guests on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of that important body which was an occasion for celebration. I may say that the SABC will shortly be inviting me English-speaking counterpart of that organization to be their guests in a similar fashion, as well as other groups with which contact is important in view of SABC programmes. What is more, these induced in the recent past a delegation from the PFP! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central made much of section 18 of the principal Act which is being repealed in respect of radio listeners’ licences. He asked why hospitals cannot be granted free TV licences. I stated in my introductory speech—and it is also in the Bill—that hospitals will now need to take out only one TV licence and thereafter can have any number of TV sets. Is that not a major improvement? An organization like the SABC cannot for the sake of popularity give away millions and millions until it has no funds at all with which to run its service. This is a major concession that was made. With respect, I do not think that the hon. member understood the import and the effect of that particular provision.

The hon. member also dealt with the penalty of R500 or imprisonment for a period of six months. If hon. members can suggest to us some other means that we can use to combat pirate viewing then I shall most certainly consider it.

The hon. member for Sandton, recently asked a question concerning the number of unlicensed radio and TV sets. If hon. members would care to read my reply they would notice what amount is lost as a result of pirate viewing. Pirate viewing, of course, is tantamount to theft. Furthermore, the result is that people who are not themselves guilty of pirate viewing are required to pay more. I do not think it is fair that certain people have to pay more so that others can listen free. However, if there is another way in which to combat this, we shall most certainly look at it.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also suggested that the categories of pensioners qualifying for concessions should be extended. If additional pensioners can be adequately identified, consideration will certainly be given to allowing them certain concessions. The problem is a practical one. How can one identify them? How can one provide and have documentation available throughout the country so that one can introduce a workable system?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will consider granting concessions on television licences—I put this question to facilitate an easy manner of doing it—to all persons over the age of 65?

Yes, certainly. I shall ask the SABC to consider it because I am sympathetic to the suggestion. We shall investigate the matter and maybe the practical result could indicate that that would be a feasible way of doing it.

And what about Harry Oppenheimer?

I said that we would consider it, because perhaps it could be done in such a way. We shall have to look at the statistics.

The hon. member for Umhlanga referred to the issue of advertising by the mail shot included with the licence renewal notice. I can assure the hon. member that this practice has been discontinued since October 1980 and the clause as it now reads is intended precisely for the sort of advertising of which the hon. member approves. We are therefore bringing this matter into line with the thinking of the hon. member in regard to, for instance, the programme publications. I want to thank the hon. member for his very constructive and positive contribution this afternoon. His whole approach to this measure was one of constructive engagement, and for that I want to thank him.

The hon. member for Constantia was concerned about membership of the advisory boards. I should like to remind him that there is nothing in the Bill which precludes the Minister from consulting the SABC, cultural groups and organizations before deciding on whom to appoint. As far as his figures are concerned for Black viewing of TV1, I should like to remind him that the figures quoted by him refer to a period prior to the introduction of TV2 and TV3. No definite figures are as yet available, but there is no doubt that Black viewing of TV1 has declined sharply in favour of TV2 and TV3 since these services were introduced.

I am not quite sure whether the hon. member for Constantia now agrees with the hon. member for Hillbrow on the matter of advertising. I gathered that the one said that we should not have advertisements while the other said that we had reached a comfortable stage in so far as advertisements are concerned. If that is the case, I should like to ask the two hon. members to make up their minds which line of action they would like the SABC to take.

The hon. member for Hillbrow asked that more time should be allowed for and more attention be given to South African Indians. The policy of the SABC, as has been clearly and publicly stated, is that the interests of the Coloured and Indian communities of South Africa will be catered for. Those interests are catered for, also on TV1. On radio they participate in the Afrikaans and English services, the regional services, Highveld, Good Hope and Port Natal as well as Springbok Radio and Radio 5. In addition, an FM service for South African Indians in the Durban area is envisaged for the near future. We hope that such a service will assist in this respect.

*The hon. member went on to ask certain questions about the period of validity of licences. If I understood him correctly he wanted to know up to what stage a licence issued in the middle of the year would be valid and what the cost involved would be. The answer is that proportional licence fees will be payable for the unexpired portion of the year.

The hon. member also wanted to know whether it was not a tenet of our law that one cannot be compelled to answer incriminating questions. In general, this is indeed so. I have never been an attorney, but my colleagues who have practised as attorneys and are better acquainted with the implementation of the Insolvency Act, tell me that in terms of certain measures a person cannot refuse to answer a question during examination on the grounds that his answer could incriminate him. I can recall that in the discussion of legislation on the introduction of the State Trust Board the same questions cropped up in this House, and on that occasion I referred in my speech to two or three examples where this kind of procedure had existed for years in South African law.

I should like to reply frankly and clearly to certain questions put inter alia by the hon. member for Durban Central concerning the meaning of “population groups” in terms of the legislation. The hon. member or another hon. member even used the term “population groups” in his speech.

†He also used the term “population groups”, and I wonder what he had in mind when he used that term?

*When I use the concept “other population groups in South Africa” I mean all the other population groups.

Are you referring to Blacks too?

Of course; that goes without saying. After all, there are Black population groups in South Africa.

But are you going to appoint them?

But that is exactly what I said. I cannot understand why the PFP is unable to escape from its obsession with racism. There is a latent racism in the PFP which is becoming so ugly that … You would be amazed, Sir, how many overseas visitors and how many responsible people overseas accuse the PFP of a deep-seated racism of a policy which, deep within itself … [Interjections.] Yes, I am speaking bluntly to hon. members on that side of the House.

You have been talking to some funny people.

In general, the PFP is made up of the well-off people in South Africa and belongs to the well-off groups of the country. The PFP is not really interested in the large-scale upliftment of the Black people. Nor is the PFP interested in large-scale investment in the backward regions of Southern Africa, and I shall tell the hon. members why. The PFP’s own supporters ask us—I know, because I have to do with this: What happens if the Blacks nationalize? I shall speak to that party today and I shall speak to it further next time to bring the truth home to them. We must beware of being sanctimonious. I shall talk to hon. members about Zimbabwe, the miracle referred to by one of the members of the PFP where private property is now being nationalized and people are being detained without trial and where there is no more freedom of speech. I shall take hon. members to that “miracle”. [Interjections.] I shall tell hon. members what the problem is. According to the PFP, Black people in the rest of Africa can be governed tyrannically and they can starve. They need have no real prospects of elections; they need have no newspapers, freedom of speech or any independent system of law, because they are Black.

†So it does not matter. [Interjections.] It is of no concern to the PFP because they are Black. So do not, it is said, quote them as examples, because Africa should not be an example and we are not concerned with it. The same, however, will eventually apply here. [Interjections.]

*Those hon. members could play a constructive role if they would only begin by getting rid of the pharisaical sanctimoniousness (“Fariseëragtige hoogheiligheid”) and the arrogant liberalism in terms of which they want to think for other people. They want to force their thinking, their ideas, down the throats of the Whites and also the Blacks and Coloureds in this country. [Interjection.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to use the words “pharisaical hypocrisy” (“Fariseëragtige hoogheiligheid”) in connection with hon. members on this side of the House? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister did not say it about a member. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister directed those words at members sitting in these benches, and he should therefore be asked to withdraw them.

Order! What did the hon. the Minister say?

I said they should refrain from their pharisaical sanctimoniousness and not display the intellectual arrogance of forcing their ideas down the throats of other people—and also those of Black leaders. [Interjections.]

Order! With that the hon. the Minister means that the Opposition is pharisaical. The hon. the Minister must please withdraw that.

I withdraw it. [Interjections.] Perhaps this was not the right time or place to discuss this further, but they started it I wanted a businesslike discussion of the legislation. The fact is that all that this piece of legislation seeks to do is to make the SABC more streamlined, to provide for and introduce more effective and modern managerial practices, to consolidate various funds and to afford the SABC greater independence and freedom of movement. Because there are no vacancies on the board, the intention is to incorporate a greater measure of expertise on the board by making use of members of our Coloured community, our Asian community and our Black people who can qualify, and who in my opinion will qualify, so that the diversity of South Africa may be represented thereon, because what are the basic aims of the SABC? They are to provide news and information and, as the Act indicates, to take into account the cultural diversity of South Africa. We ought not, therefore, to politicize broadcasting. The SABC enjoys a high degree of credibility far beyond the borders of our country. This is proved by its audience statistics. The SABC also enjoys a high degree of credibility in this country. Six million Black people listen to its radio programmes daily, and that is not to speak of television, for which the figure is 6 million people above the age of 16 years. This is a powerful instrument, of which we can all be proud. I want to make an appeal, viz. that we should stop complaining because one person does not like one programme and another person does not like another programme. I do not like all the programmes either, but only consider the task the SABC will have if one person only wants to watch hopscotch for two hours, while another person wants to see something else for three hours. Their problems would be endless. Those hon. members know that they are constantly approaching the SABC to complain, because they feel that they are being treated unfairly. The HNP complains of the same thing, as does virtually everyone in this country who is on the extreme side, and who think they must force their ideas down other peoples’ throats. However, I have pointed out that we have our own complaints, and I do not think it will serve any useful purpose to argue about what may or may not be wrong. There are ways of approaching the SABC. Let me ask: If it is expected of me and of the Government to rectify all these matters—hon. members have heard how much is wrong according to the PFP—then may I take control of the SABC to rectify that which hon. members want to hold me responsible for? [Interjections.] They do not want that.

No way!

Why, then, do they raise it here? Let them approach the management of the SABC. They are independent.

But it is your policy.

No, we have appointed people of the highest integrity to that board. I wish to make a friendly appeal to hon. members opposite to provide me with one name of a person on that board who, in their opinion, does not meet the highest standards of integrity and objectivity. I invite them to do so. Those are the norms applied when people are appointed to that board. Those norms will continue to be applied in the future. The SABC has an outstanding management. There are hon. members in this House who watch television overseas now and again, and I want to say that there is not one television service that is much better than ours.

[Inaudible.]

As far as advertisements are concerned, I want to say that if the hon. members want us to make further concessions with financial implications, I can have the advertising time increased to 15% as the PFP requests. If hon. members agree then they will have to go and explain that to the Press Union, not me. However, in principle I should be happy to increase the advertising time and let the SABC have that money. Then we could make all the concessions for which the hon. members have requested. If they do not want that, then we should at least be realistic about these matters. They have had the opportunity to speak to the SABC. It was arranged. Today, however, we hear political speeches about a matter which ought to have nothing to do with politics. It ought to fill us all with thanks and appreciation that such an institution should exist here on the southern tip of this continent which tells and reflects the truth about South Africa with such courage and integrity, without antagonizing this country with regard to matters such as colour. The SABC plays a unifying role. It plays a constructive role unrivalled anywhere else in Africa. But instead of the SABC being given credit for this, we have endless moaning about legislation which the hon. members ought by rights to be able to support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is being moved in order to empower the Electricity Supply Commission to finance the production or provision of raw materials that are essential for the generation of power. This does not mean that Escom is now entering the capital market as a competitor; nor that Escom is being empowered to depart from its primary objective and functions. On the contrary, the motion is aimed at—

1. (a) ensuring that the supply of water and fuel, both indispensable components for the supply of electricity, are not short-circuited by a lack of adequate financing for the development of the sources in question and the concomitant facilities; and
2. (b) keeping the financing costs of fuel and water, and in this way the cost of electricity, as low as possible by making use of cheaper Escom financing without it influencing the profitability for the suppliers of fuel and water.

As hon. members know, the provision of electricity is a long term industry that has to show constant growth in order to provide for the increasing requirements for electricity. For instance, it takes up to 14 years to put a power station with a production capacity of 3 600 Megawatts into operation. Every expansion programme of this kind requires almost R2 100 million in capital alone and hon. members will therefore agree with me that it is extremely risky to initiate such capital intensive projects without being assured of a stable supply of natural resources and a constant flow of raw materials when such a power station is put into operation. In order to be assured of this, there must be stability in the formation of capital for the development of raw material resources. However, experience has taught us that this is not always the case. It is a basic economic phenomenon that capital formation is influenced by the cyclical course of the economy. The suppliers of raw materials—mines—therefore experience problems in times of economic unpredictability in obtaining adequate capital at competitive rates on the capital market. For instance, this was the case during the mid seventies.

Such a situation, i.e. inadequate development of raw material resources due to inadequate formation of capital, inevitably leads to future shortages of raw materials with the result that costs are increased due to the undersupply of fuel for the generation of power. The power consumer pays the price for this.

However, it is true that on the strength of its favourable position with regard to loan funds, Escom is in a position to take supplementary action in times of economic downswings with regard to the provision of capital for the development of raw materials. In this way, Escom can therefore fill a gap and in doing so ensure that raw materials will in fact be available when its expensive capital programmes approach completion.

The objectives of this Bill can therefore be summarized in a single sentence as follows, viz. to build stability into the total process of electricity supply from the productions stage of essential raw materials, whatever they may consist of, to the stage where electrical power is supplied to the consumer. The rates at which Escom obtains capital and at which it can make it available to developers, are generally lower than the rates that have been built in as a component in the coal price. This advantage of course implies cheaper raw materials, and cheaper raw materials in turn mean cheaper electricity. The proposed financing of the provision of raw materials by Escom therefore also contains a direct long term benefit for the electricity consumer. The Bill also implies no interim increase in electricity costs in order to make the proposed financing possible.

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very short Bill and consists basically of only three clauses. We in these benches will be supporting this legislation because we can see the need that Escom ensure that they have adequate sources of basic fuels for their very major undertakings on which enormous capital sums are spent. It is obviously correct that they should be able to ensure the provision of adequate fuels, be those fuels coal or other fuels. I am glad to see that the phrase “or other fuel” is included in the legislation because with the possible proliferation of nuclear powerstations—which is apparently not yet on the cards—additional fuel substances will be needed.

We particularly welcome the thought that the hon. the Minister expressed at the end of his speech, namely that providing cheaper financing for these undertakings could mean that supply of cheaper fuel and thus cheaper electricity overall. I think that we must welcome that. At the same time, however, I think that we should also whisper a word of warning in the hon. the Minister’s ear. The hon. the Minister has mentioned that in many cases it is easier for Escom to obtain funds on capital markets, not only in this country but beyond its borders as well, at reasonable rates. We accept this totally, but I think that we should ask the hon. the Minister to give us the assurance that the moneys used in terms of the extension granted in this amendment Bill, will not come from internal sources of Escom. I think the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that we in these benches believe that a very high percentage of the electricity charge made to the consumer in South Africa, goes towards the internal financing of future projects. We believe that that ratio is inordinately high, and we would not like to see it become any higher. We would not even like to see those funds used, in terms of this amending Bill, for the financing of private enterprise operations.

A further word of warning that we should like to utter from these benches is that we believe it should be the intention in every case that when once again funds become more readily available to these particular enterprises to which Escom has lent money, and when they can perhaps actually borrow those funds at approximately the same rates of interest, arrangements should be made as quickly as possible for the organizations to repay their loans to Escom. In other words, I believe, one should try to look at it as bridging finance used to overcome a problem that might exist on a short-term basis, and that it should not be used for long-term financing if it could be avoided. I understand the difficulty that can arise in his regard. I do believe, however, that it is desirable that the private organizations that are financed in terms of this legislation should actually finance themselves from sources other than Escom if it could possibly be done on an economic basis.

With those few words, Mr. Speaker, we express our support of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to extend my hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for the support that he has granted to this short amending Bill on behalf of the official Opposition.

In connection with the consumption of internal capital for the expansions that are to come, the hon. the Minister will probably furnish the hon. member with a satisfactory reply. I believe that the hon. the Minister will be able to set his mind at rest in this regard. What is very clear to me, is that we should not view this matter as a new competitor that is being created in the capital market. We actually view it as a good example of healthy power-sharing in the capital market. People with a “verligte” attitude will therefore clearly interpret it as such. [Interjections.]

We cannot afford even a relative shortage in the supply of electricity to arise here. After all, it does not take only a week or two, or a month or two, to erect a power-station and put it into operation. Consequently, as the hon. the Minister also stated very clearly, the basic concept in this regard is also advance planning in order to bring about stability. Of course, this means one thing only. This is that as far as the provision of capital for these purposes is concerned, all possible methods must be utilized, and that there should also be planning, which is being done now in the case under discussion.

With these few words I should like to grant my support to this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a relatively short Bill. Nevertheless, the implications of this piece of amending legislation are quite considerable. Before deciding whether we in the NRP will be supporting this legislation or not there are various important aspects we should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister in the hope that we will receive some replies from him.

First of all, why did the hon. the Minister find it necessary—perhaps he will be able to tell us—to amend section 4 of the Electricity Act, 1958, in the way it is being done now? Why does he find it necessary to do so when it is well within the powers of Escom to do a number of things? They can certainly not do all these things in combination, but they can certainly do many of the things intended by this amending legislation. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that in terms of section 4 of the principal Act—that is the section that is being amended now— section 10 already allows Escom to raise funds by way of loans, and of course by way of self-financing as well. Section 4(1)(e) of the principal Act allows them—

It is not too clear to us why the hon. the Minister wants to extend the powers which Escom has in terms of the legislation now before the House.

Secondly, we would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether Escom is contemplating entering the coal mining field as such. Do they intend competing with private enterprise in the actual mining of coal? It is quite clear from what the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that the intention is also to provide financing to other organizations through Escom and, therefore, to acquire and pass on the benefits which Escom may obtain in the capital market. We should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether Escom actually intends to go into the coal mining business.

We should like to point out, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has pointed out, that there is, of course, an inherent danger when Escom or a State corporation such as Escom starts becoming involved in the capital market. What the hon. the Minister intends doing and the controls which he thinks there may be may result in distortions in the market place which are going to cause Escom to have to increase its tariffs to the consumer. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that it is highly unlikely that Escom will at any stage reduce tariffs for the supply of electricity, but what is quite possible is that they could slow down or keep relative control of increases in electricity charges.

Even that is a fairy story.

Even that, as my hon. leader says, is improbable. It is not likely to occur.

The proposed paragraph (v) to be added to section 4(1) by clause 1 indicates that the funds raised on the capital market by Escom will also be utilized for the storage or supply of water. We fully appreciate the difficulties that Escom had when it decided to build the pump storage scheme in the Drakensberg, a scheme which we believe is a very important innovation in that it will make a considerable difference not only in respect of the water supply situation in South Africa but also in respect of the generation of electricity. Only because this was a joint venture between the Department of Water Affairs and Escom was it possible to use the facility properly in that particular area. Also here I believe that it is already within the rights of Escom to become involved in the building of dams and the storage or supply of water. I refer specifically here to section 4(1)(f) which states—

The same question that I posed in respect of coal will apply to the water storage side. We look forward to hearing what the hon. the Minister has to say and during the Committee Stage we shall probably take it a little further.

I should also like to point out to the hon. the Minister that as things stand at the moment Escom is required to finance a large number of its capital projects through its own revenue. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be kind enough to tell us whether he contemplates a change in the ratio imposed on Escom for internal and external revenue generation in the light of the proposed amendments contained in the Bill. We believe that Escom has experienced its current problem of shortage of generating capacity primarily because of inefficient long-term planning in the early 1970’s, particularly in 1976, and that there is a desperate need for Escom to build more generating capacity. Hopefully South Africa will move as fast as possible out of this era where large sectors of the consuming market are suddenly cut off from their source of electrical supply which causes very considerable damage and inconvenience to the people who normally rely upon electricity. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that the provisions of this amending legislation will not make very much difference to the actual construction costs of generating capacity as such.