laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Provincial Government Bill [B 96—86 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning).
2. (2) Land Bank Amendment Bill [B 97—86 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Finance).

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning, dated 3 June 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Transport Affairs, dated 26 May 1986, relative to the Motor Vehicle Accidents Bill [B 68—86 (GA)].

Report to be printed.

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I was told, and I agree, that my amendment had expired as a result of the fact that the amending Bill has been read for the second time, but I trust that, in accordance with the usual practice during the Committee Stage, you will give me the opportunity to cover a wide field so that I can react to the hon the Deputy Minister’s reply during the Second Reading debate.

Order! I shall give the hon member for Brakpan an opportunity to put his argument, but he will concede that as the argument develops, I shall decide whether or not he may proceed with the argument.

As you wish Sir. In the first place I merely want to point out to the hon the Deputy Minister that he criticised the CP quite heatedly as being racist and narrow-minded and looking at this legislation with blinkers on, because we said the Broadcasting Act should fall under the control of the Minister of Education and Culture. I take it the hon the Deputy Minister has taken cognisance of what the hon Chairman of the Minister’s Council of the House of Delegates said during the discussion of the Vote of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. His words were: “The SABC treats the Indians like dirt.” Our argument in the first place is that this Act should be under the control of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, and in the second must be taken away from the portfolio that deals with propaganda, because our argument is that the SABC’s chief function is a cultural one.

Order! I am afraid the hon member will have to associate his argument with the clause he is discussing.

I am associating it with the clause. The amendment I placed on the Order Paper was to the effect that where it says “Minister” … [Interjections.] I do not know whether or not that hon member is the Chairman, but if he is I can address him.

Order! You may ignore that hon member’s remark.

I wanted to move by way of amendment that where we read “Minister”, it should not be the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but the Minister of Education and Culture for own affairs. That amendment is out of order, but, Mr Chairman, I asked you whether I could cover a slightly wider field in my address to the Committee in reply to the hon the Minister’s arguments. One of my arguments is that the SABC is a cultural concern. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Brakpan is in the process of addressing the Chair on the problem that the Chair had with his argument. The hon member for Sandton must give the hon member for Brakpan an opportunity to address the Chair.

*The hon member for Brakpan may continue to address the Chair, but I have a problem in permitting him to advance arguments which should really have been advanced during the Second Reading debate if he had wanted to do so. It creates a problem for me if he cannot associate it with what is stated in clause 1.

Mr Chairman, I do link it to clause 1, and I request your permission to give me a slightly freer rein, since I have the same problem with clause 2 in that that amendment is out of order as well. If it pleases you, Mr Chairman, I should like to reply to certain aspects of the hon the Minister’s speech. I know you will rule that the amendments to those two clauses are out of order and I concede that, but I am asking for the opportunity, while we are talking about clause 1, merely to give my motivation for the fact that I requested that it be the hon the Minister of Education and Culture.

Order! I cannot permit the hon member to motivate a proposed amendment which he himself concedes is out of order. I am prepared to give the hon member an opportunity to discuss the clause as it stands at present. If he can associate the argument he wants to present in reply to the hon the Deputy Minister with the clause, he may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I link it to that by saying that “Minister” is defined as the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. That is not in order as far as the CP is concerned, because the SABC is now becoming part of the propaganda ministry of this country. In other words, it is becoming the NP’s propaganda ministry and therefore its instrument of propaganda.

I do not think the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs read the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Matters relating to Television. The commission recommended that broadcasting be regarded as a cultural matter. If this were the case, we would not have those crippling advertisements on Radio Suid-Afrika and Radio South Africa. Those radio services would have had a purely cultural function.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

I only have 10 minutes, Sir, so I hope the hon member will be quick about it.

Mr Chairman, even if one concedes the hon member’s argument that the SABC should not be under the control of the Department of Foreign Affairs, would it also not be wrong to put it under the Ministry of Education and Culture because that is a White own affairs department? Should the SABC not fall under the Department of National Education?

That is why my amendment was out of order.

*The reason I placed it on the Order Paper, was that I regarded broadcasting as part of one’s self-determination. That is why I grant Bophuthatswana its right of self-determination to have its own Bop-TV.

What about the Coloureds and the Indians?

They should have their own channels. Even the hon the Minister, Mr Rajbansi said: “We are treated like dirt by the SABC.”

Order! I think the hon member for Brakpan has discussed his proposed amendment fully enough.

I was merely replying to the hon member for Sandton’s question, Sir.

I want to emphasise that, if the hon the Deputy Minister regards it as racist if we ask that the SABC be taken away from the propaganda ministry, his hon colleague in the Cabinet, Mr Rajbansi, is also a racist, because he merely wants for his people what we want for our own people. At this stage that will suffice.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan has made the amazing request that the SABC be taken from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to fall under Education and Culture. If there is one affair that is pre-eminently a general affair, it is the SABC and its radio and television service. [Interjections.] In terms of the Broadcasting Act and its broadcasting licence, the SABC has a responsibility to educate, inform and entertain all the communities of our country. [Interjections.] To suggest that the SABC be fenced off within the narrow field of education and culture in effect means the SABC is being placed in the service of a single community or a selection of communities. If the hon member for Brakpan’s request were to be accepted, it would infringe upon the general purpose of the Broadcasting Act and the broadcasting licence, viz that the SABC should serve all the communities of the country.

If the SABC were to fall under Education and Culture, one aspect of the SABC …

Order! That amendment is out of order and I do not think it requires any further arguments. The hon member should confine himself to the clause as it stands.

Mr Chairman, then it will suffice to tell the hon member for Brakpan that if he contends that the SABC is a propaganda body, he is making a very big mistake. The SABC is an organisation which throws light upon the whole South African scene, in a very responsible way. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, this clause amends the principal Act so that the words “and Information” fall away merely to read “the Minister of Foreign Affairs” instead of “the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information”. In the past one could say it had to fall under that Minister because “Information” included the interior. Now it is purely the Minister of Foreign Affairs, however. What does the internal information service, the SABC, have to do with foreign countries? Does the NP really want to admit, in saying that, that the Republic is an additional American state and that that is why the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs should be the head of the SABC? If we remove it from there and transfer it to the Deputy Minister of Information’s department, one would still have a case. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister of Information is never in the House, however. That is why we say the SABC is the NP’s propaganda machine. They cannot get away from that. I should like to know why the SABC has to fall under the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. That hon Minister deals with foreign countries and not with domestic affairs. Or is the NP, by saying this, admitting that we are simply one of America’s little colonies or something?

Mr Chairman, I think the argument raised by the hon member for Brakpan was answered very well by the hon member for Bloemfontein North. That is why I merely want to add that the argument that hon member tried to raise was covered very well in the Second Reading debate. In addition I want to point out to the hon member that I said his party was prejudiced. I never said they were racist. That was his own interpretation, but if the shoe fits, he must wear it.

I should also like to point out to the hon member—this also ties up with the hon member for Sunnyside’s argument—that there would be duplication if a TV or other SABC service were to fall under each Minister of Education and Culture. It would not be cost-effective, and would become an own affair in any case, something that would create many problems as the hon member mentioned.

Hon members should take cognisance of the fact that TV2 and TV3, which were established as a service for the Blacks, are showing a loss of R50 million at present.

[Inaudible.]

Go and have a look in Hansard. A loss of R50 million per year is not cost-effective at all.

In regard to the argument put forward by the hon member for Sunnyside, I want to point out to him that it is the State President’s prerogative to decide which function or legislation falls under which Minister. At present he thinks it is a good idea for the SABC to fall under the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I think the hon member’s argument is very weak, however, and that he has no positive motivation as to why it should be removed from the control of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

As far as the Bureau of Information is concerned in this respect, it is possible that the State President may take such a decision one day. He may decide that the SABC should fall under this side. The most important fact, however, is that the prerogative is the State President’s. I therefore suggest that we agree to this clause in its present form without amendment.

Mr Chairman, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon the Deputy Minister said, with reference to the question of propaganda, that we simply make general statements and do not refer to specific incidents. All the speakers of all three opposition parties as well as the hon member for Sasolburg, mentioned incidents and examples, but what is strange is that the hon the Deputy Minister said inter alia that it was not necessary for him to reply specifically to these matters since the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs had done so during the discussion of his Vote. When we discussed the Vote of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, however, he told us that we were being unfair and that he would arrange talks for us with the Director-General and the members of his staff. We then spoke to the Director-General—it appears that the hon the Minister did not know this—and we did not manage to achieve anything. When we talk about it here in the highest legislative body in the country, we are referred to the SABC, while the hon the Minister does not know that we have spoken to them already. [Interjections.]

We are talking about propaganda, about positive identification of the SABC with the cause of the NP. We have mentioned a number of examples in that respect, and that is why we say the Deputy Minister should implement what the Government’s own commission recommended, viz that it should be a cultural concern. It operates within the ambit of culture. It should not fall under a propaganda ministry.

Order! The hon member for Brakpan seems to be returning to his envisaged amendment.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to say, as you rightly pointed out, that the hon member is dealing with a second argument. What he is saying now is quite different. In the first place they felt it should be an own affair and not a general affair. As I have already explained, it is the State President’s prerogative to decide which Ministry it should fall under.

The second argument about the so-called partiality and prejudice of the SABC was inquired into thoroughly during the Second Reading debate. The hon members simply do not want to accept the logical argument we on this side of the House advanced!

I want to conclude by telling the hon member that in my reply to the Second Reading debate, I promised hon members that they would get an opportunity to speak to the members of the board if they were not satisfied with the outcome of the first discussion they had with the SABC. We made it clear to the hon members that they would get the opportunity to take up that matter with the SABC.

Mr Chairman, with reference to the question my colleague the hon member for Sunnyside put to the hon the Deputy Minister, I want further information about why the SABC falls under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The hon the Deputy Minister says it is the State President’s prerogative, but we want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister, as the State President’s representative here in the Committee, whether he could not have asked the State President why he had made use of his prerogative by entrusting it to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and not to another Minister, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning for example. That is the question put here in the House, after all.

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply to the hon member for Rissik on that question. I merely want to draw it to his attention that of all the ministries in this House, it is only the Department of Foreign Affairs that actually makes taxpayers’ money available to the SABC, and that is for the shortwave foreign broadcasting service. We are the only ministry, therefore, which has a direct financial link with the SABC. It is a limited link, but it is a link.

The Bureau for Information has no such link with the SABC. In terms of the budget, we are therefore responsible for that section, which is a foreign broadcasting service. The SABC finances itself from its own sources—its revenue comes from licence fees as well as from money paid for advertisements. This link between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the SABC is the most direct and the most logical link, therefore. [Interjections.]

Order! The reason this clause is being discussed at all, is that the hon member for Brakpan placed an unacceptable amendment on the Order Paper. I cannot permit a wide-ranging debate on a clause which would not otherwise even have been put. The hon member for Pietersburg may proceed, but I would appreciate it if he would confine himself strictly to what is stated in the clause.

Mr Chairman, I want to confine myself only to what the hon member for Bloemfontein North and the hon the Deputy Minister have just said. The hon member for Bloemfontein North argued that the SA television and radio service is the only impartial instrument with which …

Order! I am afraid I cannot permit that argument under this clause of the Bill. The hon member for Sunnyside put the question as to why the definition “Minister” in clause 1(b) of the Bill was replaced only by “the Minister of Foreign Affairs” and not by “the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information”.

That question has been debated in detail, and I believe it is really the only discussion which has been relevant to the specific clause thus far.

Mr Chairman, I should like you to guide us please. I have the Order Paper before me, on which the first order of the day is the Committee Stage of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. You put clause 1 of the Bill inter alia. As usual, each hon member has three speaking turns of 10 minutes each. [Interjections.] There is nothing on the Order Paper, however, to say that I am not permitted to discuss clause 1 or say anything about it. You must please guide us in this connection. If your ruling is that we may not debate it any further, what is the case with the further clauses of the Bill and future Bills?

Order! According to the Standing Rules and Orders, each hon member is entitled to take part in the debate on a specific clause three times, but they also determine that hon members must confine themselves strictly to clause in question. That is what the ruling is based on. Clause 1 is under discussion for the sole reason that an amendment to the clause appeared on the Order Paper.

This amendment is not acceptable, however, but I gave the hon member for Brakpan—who was to have moved the amendment—the opportunity to motivate it briefly, which he did.

The hon member for Sunnyside then raised another argument which, in my opinion, was also relevant in terms of the clause. I permitted debate on that subject too, but I cannot permit a general debate on the SABC’s partiality, impartiality etcetera under this clause. Nor am I prepared to do so.

Mr Chairman, will you permit the argument that it should be only “Minister of Foreign Affairs” and not “Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information”?

This argument was raised by the hon member for Sunnyside. I permitted it, and it has already been debated. If the hon member can add anything new to it, he may do so.

I do want to add something new, Sir, in that since we began conducting this debate, we have had a very blatant example of how foreign affairs was favoured in a programme. The programme was broadcast last week and has reference to the events at Pietersburg. Hon members of this House took part in that programme, but the ambassador in London had quarter of an hour to take part in that programme. To me that indicates that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs gets preference to hon members of this House, even in the State set-up, and we are in fact dealing with the matters of the day. That is why we argue that it should definitely not fall under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Mr Chairman, I shall reply only briefly since that argument was raised in the Second Reading debate. I merely want to tell the hon member that what he is arguing about now, is not the legislation, but in fact what is or is not relevant news. He can raise that argument with the SABC Board.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party and Herstigte Nasionale Party dissenting).

Clause 2:

Mr Chairman, clause 2 is an amendment of section 11 of the Broadcasting Act, and section 11 determines the objects of the corporation. The objectives of the corporation are—

1. (a) to carry on a broadcasting service in the Republic;
2. (b) at the request of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may determine, to broadcast programmes for reception in a country or territory outside the Republic;
3. (c) to transmit programmes by means of cables or wires …

The issue now, concerning the implementation of these objects, is whether this is being done in an objective and unprejudiced way. Our indictment against the State, and therefore against the NP, is that the objects of the corporation are not being implemented objectively and impartially. During the course of his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon the Deputy Minister made a few strange statements.

Order! Has the hon member for Brakpan moved his amendment?

Mr Chairman, I was informed that it was also one of the amendments which were declared out of order.

Order! The amendment placed on the Order Paper by the hon member is not completely inadmissible. That is why the hon member should first move his amendment.

I then move the amendments as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 3, in line 13, after “amended” to insert “(a)”.
2. 2. On page 3, after line 17 to add:
   (b) by the addition of the following subsections, the existing section becoming subsection (1):
   1. “(1) The objects of the Corporation shall be pursued with due consideration of the interest of the the listening and viewing public in a spirit of unbiased neutrality, impartiality and fairness with regard to the diversity of opinions and political views in South Africa.
   2. (2)(a) The office of ombudsman is hereby created and the person occupying that office shall act as arbiter in the application of sections 11(2) and 12(3).
      1. (b) The ombudsman shall be a judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa and his term of office and remuneration are mutatis mutandis as provided in sections 5 and 6(1) and (2) of this Act.
      2. (c) The powers and duties of the ombudsman and the way in which complaints are lodged with him and heard by him, shall be determined by the Minister by way of regulation in the Government Gazette.”.

Then I just want to go further and argue this matter.

I rule that the portion of the amendment which reads—

1. 1. On page 3, in line 13, after “amended” to insert “(a)”
2. 2. On page 3, after line 17 to add:
   (b) by the addition of the following subsections, the existing section becoming subsection (1):
   “(1) the objects of the Corporation shall be pursued with due consideration of the interest of the listening and viewing public in a spirit of unbiased neutrality, impartiality and fairness with regard to the diversity of opinions and political views in South Africa.

is in order, but the remainder of the amendment is unacceptable as it seeks to introduce a new and important principle not contemplated by the Bill as read a second time, The hon member may therefore proceed to discuss the first portion, which is acceptable.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I maintain that the corporation does not pursue its objects with due consideration of the interests of the listening and viewing public in a spirit of unbiased neutrality, impartiality and fairness. The authority on the basis of which I placed my amendment on the Order Paper was the hon the Deputy Minister himself. On 16 May he said in his reply to the Second Reading debate:

He continued:

Therefore the hon the Deputy Minister himself conceded that the SABC was not impartial and unbiased. The hon the Deputy Minister will therefore quite probably accept my amendment to the effect that this aspect be written into the Broadcasting Act. One asks oneself what criterion one should apply to determine whether the SABC is doing its work impartially. The first criterion which the hon the Deputy Minister applies is the “market place”. He says the SABC will not make a profit if it is not impartial and unbiased. However, he himself concedes that the SABC is suffering a loss of R60 million on TV2 and TV3. According to the annual report of the SABC the loss it is suffering is so great that it wants to increase the licence fees. The hon the Deputy Minister went on to say that people who were dissatisfied with the SABC need not renew their licences, and need not buy TV sets. Surely it is not an argument to say that people need not renew their licences or buy TV sets, while he himself has a monopoly of the broadcasting industry and TV! That is no argument. I do not think the hon the Deputy Minister, who is an intelligent person, can get away with such an argument.

His second reason is that Parliament is the body that should make certain the SABC is not exceeding its powers. But how does Parliament function? We bring accusations to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and then he tells us we must talk to the Board of the SABC. But the SABC Board is the accused, which then listens to your case and in due course it is also the adjudicating officer. How is it possible to obtain satisfaction in this way?

In this connection the SABC acts in accordance with the interests of the governing party, and therefore the governing party will not call it to order if it helps the governing party to stay in power. Although Parliament as such theoretically has the right to reprimand the SABC, the SABC acts in accordance with the wishes and interests of the governing party. In effect it means that the SABC will not be criticised.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs made the amazing point that we as hon members of this Committee could, by way of letters to newspapers, complaints and on public platforms, play the supervisory role which he thought was necessary to keep the SABC within bounds. It seems to me that the hon the Deputy Minister does not know what an ombudsman is, because he said for example that such a man would gain control over the whole of the SABC.

If a person refers a case to the court to decide a dispute between two parties, then that court does not make the laws of the country. It simply decides whether the objects of the legislation have been complied with. We and all the other opposition parties are not happy about how the SABC is complying with the objects imposed upon it in terms of the Broadcasting Act.

†The so-called checks and balances which the hon the Deputy Minister suggests are simply not adequate. There must be some other way of controlling the SABC, especially in these troubled times.

I would like, therefore, to put forward to the hon the Deputy Minister the suggestion which I made earlier and which I am not allowed to move in the form of an amendment. I hope he will consider it when next he proposes amending the Act because South Africa can no longer tolerate the way in which the SABC is treating its listeners, especially on controversial subjects. That is the motivation for our amendment.

Mr Chairman, it is not often that I rise to support the hon members of the CP but I feel obliged to do so today.

The hon member for Brakpan should, however, disabuse himself of a rather dangerous illusion which he appears to be harbouring. He said that there had to be some way in which the Government could control this matter. The Government does not wish to control this matter and is not about to appoint an ombudsman …

Order! I cannot allow a discussion of an ombudsman.

The Government is not about to introduce any forms of control because, after all, nobody in his right mind would ever have accused the SABC recently of being impartial or neutral. That is one accusation we could never level at the SABC!

There are many examples of this lack of neutrality. One just has to watch television every night to see Minister after Minister, heavy-jowled and with dark rings under their eyes and somewhat sombre expressions, trying to explain away the policies of their Government. [Interjections.]

When there is criticism of the Government, the SABC will lead the story not with the criticism, but in the following manner: “Today the hon the Minister of Law and Order, in answering the unfounded criticism levelled on this subject, said the following …”. Then the hon the Minister comes on for 10 minutes. So, that is how the rather selective reporting takes place, and seldom, if ever are opposition viewpoints given.

The CP complains about the treatment which the Government, or at least the SABC, has meted out to the CP. I think the PFP can share the view of the Conservatives insofar as the treatment of this party is concerned. However, I must say that I find it a little ironic that the CP is only, so recently, coming up with these viewpoints. After all, for many years those hon members sat in the Government benches and watched the opposition being virtually obliterated by the SABC without saying anything at all.

When we were there we had a proper government.

However, now that they are also on the opposition side and have finally experienced the wiles and the bent reporting of the SABC, they move this amendment. I want to support the amendment nonetheless but I want to put this point to them. This amendment which they have moved reads as follows:

This does not only relate to the views of the CP being given some scope. If that amendment is taken seriously, it means that the entire spectrum of political opinions must be given a fair chance on SABC radio and television. That means not only the opinions of the White right wing but also the opinions of the Black left wing. It means the opinions of people who are not in Parliament—Whites, Coloureds and Indians. It means parliamentary opinions and extra-parliamentary opinions and, in fact, it means—as I read this amendment—that the entire spectrum of political viewpoints in South Africa should be given a fair showing by the SABC. So, if that is the intention of the amendment, I think that we can support it.

I also want to say that I believe the Government should not be frightened to support this amendment because it sets out very clearly what, I think, is a laudable objective which should be one of the objectives of the SABC. If the Government believes there is nothing wrong in the spirit or the content of this amendment, it should be accepted and included in the Broadcasting Act. Therefore, we shall support this amendment.

Mr Chairman, we too shall be supporting the hon member’s amendment, but we just want to make the observation that if hon speakers in the Government benches are sincere in what they have been telling us throughout this debate, and if the hon the Deputy Minister—I do not doubt his sincerity—really wants to put the stamp on his sincerity, then this is the way to do it. Embodied in this amendment are the very ideals and the very things which we are assured by hon Government members are the facts of the matter appertaining to the SABC and its bias. Surely they will have no objection to having their utterances printed in the Bill. I know that the hon members of the NP may feel a little indignant at the fact that the amendment comes from an opposition party; I can understand that. However, I think that they should on this occasion just quietly put their hands over their hearts and say: “Well, we did not think of it, but we must congratulate the hon member for Brakpan who has thought of it and who has expressed it so eloquently.” He has told the Government what they have been telling everybody in South Africa. They have been telling everybody that the SABC is unbiased and presents everybody’s point of view; and that the SABC pursues its objectives with “due consideration of the interests of the listening and viewing public in a spirit of unbiased neutrality”. Is that not what all these hon members have been telling us?

When one reads their speeches, one sees that they have been telling us the SABC is “impartial” and “fair” with regard to the diversity of opinions and political views in South Africa”.

Now, let us put the stamp on it. I am sure that, this afternoon, with all these expressions from both sides of the House, that the Government is going to rise to the occasion and say that they are now for once not even going to argue about it and that this is going to be written into the Bill, because at long last all of us understand exactly what the SABC stands for.

Mr Chairman, some of the previous speakers who participated in this debate said that the SABC was not impartial. This is not correct. [Interjections.] The SABC enjoys great credibility among the public of South Africa. On what basis does it enjoy that credibility? It is because it is impartial and gives a very well-balanced reflection of the South African situation. [Interjections.]

The SABC does not act on behalf of a group, a party or a political school of thought. The commentators at the SABC try to put matters in the right perspective and give the listener and viewer the necessary background and information so that he can form his own opinion. The SABC does not reflect a party standpoint or Government standpoint. It is consistently the objective and guideline of the SABC to give a proSouth African standpoint, with due regard to the political diversity which exists in the country.

It is an age-old accusation which we hear time and again in this Chamber that the SABC is a propaganda instrument of the Government. It is a time-worn old story. There is not a broadcasting service in the world which is not accused at some time or other of serving the government in power. The BBC has been taken to court in this regard, but it won the case, and the court ruled that it was not biased.

The opposition parties must accept the fact that the government in power is the newsmaker, and that the newsmaker gets more attention than other people. The Government makes more news because it takes the decisions and because it implements those decisions, whereas the opposition parties concentrate mainly on counteraction. The words and deeds of Ministers can influence the lives and the existence of a people, whereas the members of the opposition only offer an alternative. And then that alternative offered by the opposition is frequently entirely without imagination and impossible to implement. Then the hon members of the CP have the audacity to ask that the SABC take more notice of them!

The hon member for Brakpan advocated a control mechanism for the SABC. I want to tell the hon member that the SABC has so many built-in control mechanisms and watchdogs that what the hon member is suggesting is not necessary at all. It would be totally superfluous.

Parliament is constantly informed about the activities of the SABC by means of annual reports …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether the SABC is a member of the Press Union?

The SABC is not a member of the Press Union, and it is not a member of the Media Council either. Although it is not a member of the Media Council, the constitution and the working procedures of the Media Council make provision for the SABC constantly to be put under the magnifying glass too regarding how well-balanced and fair its reflection of the South African scene is. The task of the Media Council is, in fact, to act as an arbitrator between the media and the public. It already plays the part of a control mechanism, or an ombudsman, which that hon member wants.

The hon members of the opposition allege that the public is unhappy about the SABC broadcasts. In order to keep abreast of the public’s opinions, complaints and wishes, the SABC regularly undertakes opinion polls and market surveys, as well as monitoring panel surveys to ascertain how the public feels about what the SABC presents. What is more the Director General and his management team are really on their toes as far as this is concerned. [Interjections.] They hold discussions with individuals and with groups so that they can keep abreast of the times.

Hon members know that the Director General of the SABC comes to Parliament every year. He sits around a table with them and asks them in what respect things are bothering them in the SABC. [Interjections.] This is another built-in control mechanism whereby he affords them an opportunity to say what is bothering them in the SABC. That is why I want to tell the honmember for Brakpan that to ask for even more control mechanisms to be built into the SABC would be ridiculous.

Mr Chairman, one can accuse the hon member for Bloemfontein North of many things, but one cannot accuse him of being logical. He does not understand the elementary principles of logic. [Interjections.]

I want to say that the arrogance of the Government simply astounds me. That hon member, who is also the chairman of the particular standing committee, made a whole series of statements, but he could not substantiate any of those statements. The problem is that when a party has been in power in a country for so many years, after 20 or 30 years the hon members of that party lose all contact with those people who originally put the party in power.

In this dilemma the Government party must just come and sit on this side of the House for a moment. [Interjections.] They must come and sit here for a moment and view the behaviour of the SABC from the opposition side. [Interjections.] I just want to tell that hon Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs that he became a Nat so quickly that he no longer remembers the days when he sat here. This is merely a reply in passing to the hon member for Bloemfontein North.

I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that a matter we feel very unhappy about—I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister this frankly—is that the responsible hon Minister is not here. The responsible hon Minister is a “hit and run” artist. He comes to this House now and then, like Halley’s Comet [Interjections.] Only the hon the Deputy Minister is here.

We very specifically asked for the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be here when we discussed these matters. In our arguments we put certain pertinent questions to the hon the Minister. He replied to them vaguely and we were under the impression that when all the amendments to this legislation were discussed the responsible hon Minister would be here in person. Consequently I now want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that we will not leave them alone as far as this matter is concerned. Nor will we leave this hon Minister alone who is responsible for this. He must come and sit here himself and pull the chestnuts out of the fire.

Our problem is in fact that we cannot understand why it is the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs who must bear this specific responsibility, because he is not here to answer for his actions. That is why I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister again that the reply he gave earlier on in the debate regarding why the State President had entrusted this matter to the hon the Minister simply did not hold water. It does not hold water, and consequently I want to tell him that we are very worried about the way in which the Government is using this particular medium.

Mr Chairman, I also want to refer to the statement made by the hon member for Bloemfontein North, namely that the SABC undertakes surveys. I am not in a position to judge, because they do not show us the results in such a way that we can see whether the surveys were undertaken correctly. Let us assume that from their point of view, they were undertaken correctly.

But we have submitted evidence in this debate that people who do not work for the SABC have also undertaken surveys. The HSRC undertook surveys. Prof Thomaselli, from a distinguished institute of the University of Natal, also undertook surveys. Their surveys indicate quite the opposite of whatever surveys the SABC can submit. [Interjections.] What about the letters, and what about the telephone calls?

There is no way in which the public can ascertain to what extent we objected by telephone or by letter, because only the SABC has the results, but it does not reveal that fantastic result. I think it is absolutely unfair! I want to tell the hon member for Bloemfontein North who came and told us that the SABC undertook surveys, that this gave evidence of the ultimate in dictatorship. All the other surveys suggest the reverse. But the SABC does not reveal the most valuable survey it has! [Interjections.]

When I had the privilege of having a discussion with the top officials of the SABC, it was my argument, coming from a party with only one representative and that does not enjoy much support here, but that has come a long way in public life—I also want to mention this to the hon the Deputy Minister today so that he can consider it, because he was not present on that occasion—that when one finds oneself in the position in which the SABC finds itself, in that they have an absolute monopoly, and because we have no choice in South Africa but to rely on their services, owing to the fact that there is no CBS, ABC or NBC like in America, one should lean over backwards and be accommodating in order not to create the impression at all among the public and the opposition parties that you are being unfair to them.

I now want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister—I am sorry that I have to report this myself, but he can get confirmation from the top officials in the SABC that I did put this point to them—that when we right-wingers come into power, we are also going to use the SABC in a way which will obviously be to the advantage of the right-wing government. I admit that we will also do this, but we are not going to be as stupid as they are. This Government goes so far that they actually waste the advantage they have to be able to use the SABC, and ruin their chances by taking the matter so far that the public gains the impression that they actually only do this and nothing else. [Interjections.]

We want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that the man who exercises control over that powerful medium—it is the most powerful institution in South Africa after the Defence Force and the Police—must be lenient to his opposition members so that they cannot score that point against him! At the relevant discussion the senior officials of the SABC admitted to us that all the opposition parties in the whole of South Africa were furious with them and not only the HNP.

There is another source of the problem, and this is another reason why the SABC must go out of its way to accommodate the opposition parties. For the first time the chairman of the board of the SABC is not a person from the cultural sphere. He is from the Public Service and was never fully part of the Afrikaans or English cultural life of South Africa. A man who has been in the service of the State all his life, is consequently now at the head of an institution which is supposed to be objective. This gives as the impression all the more that no channel no exists in the SABC through which the standpoint of the general public can be reflected. The standpoint of the general public simply cannot weigh up against that of the Government.

In conclusion I am also very unhappy—I hope the hon the Deputy Minister will convey this message—that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is not here to handle the debate himself. It took me a long time to get here … [Interjections.] If there was one thing I really looked forward to it was to see the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs in action. One of these days I will have been here five months, and I have not yet seen the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs in action, except for the time he told the story about Renamo. On the other occasion he sat there without saying a word while the State President repudiated him. [Interjections.] Those were the only occasions on which I saw him here since I came to this House. This is more than a disappointment! To this day I do not know what abilities our hon Minister of Foreign Affairs has when he must participate in a debate here. He has never handled a debate. We simply do not get to him.

As far as foreign affairs are concerned, he can ask us what we know about foreign affairs. He could say that Stofberg has never been abroad—although I have been beyond the borders of the country—and that I should consequently keep quiet about foreign affairs. But the hon the Minister cannot tell me that I know nothing about the SABC.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that this is a terribly serious state of affairs. I wonder whether the SABC, its board and management realise what boundless rage is building up against them among the public, because we feel helpless. We can vote the Government out, but with all the power we have, we can do absolutely nothing about the almost brutally dictatorial standpoint of the SABC. We lodge this complaint because if there is one thing which flies in the face democracy in South Africa, it is the almost contemptuous attitude which the SABC, the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs adopt towards the entire public of South Africa, irrespective of their standpoint.

Mr Chairman, this afternoon we had a repetition of the Second Reading debate regarding the so-called bias of the SABC. [Interjections.] I want to ask hon members of the CP one question only, which I also put to them during the Second Reading debate.

I quoted Dr Connie Mulder, while he was still serving as the Minister of Information in a former Cabinet of the Government. He gave a very clear exposition that one must distinguish between party information and Government information. I now want to apply that same argument to the SABC.

I want to tell those hon members that the SABC also has a duty to make known what the Government does, as the actions of the Government and not those of the NP, to the nation and the people outside, because everything the Government does affects every person in this country every day. The people outside ought to know what this Government is doing, and they ought to be informed about it.

I am now asking those hon members who are so full of themselves today, to tell the Committee whether Dr Mulder was right or wrong when he drew that distinction between State information and party information.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member for Turffontein be so kind as to quote Dr Mulder exactly?

Mr Chairman, I was not prepared to participate in this debate. But there is going to be a Third Reading debate on this Bill. I can nevertheless ask the hon member for Rissik to refer to my Hansard during the Second Reading, because the quote appears there.

However, he is not going to get away with that, because hon members and the leader of the CP always say that they will get back to an argument or will reply to something, but one never hears from them again. All those hon members do is attack and criticise. [Interjections.] I challenge those hon members to tell the Committee what their standpoint is with regard to State information on the one hand and party political information on the other. They owe us an reply in this regard.

If there is one member or party that gets hopelessly too much attention from the SABC it is the hon member for Sasolburg. There is only one hon member of the HNP here, but what happens every time a Government statement is issued or a standpoint of the Government is under discussion? The SABC then goes to every opposition party, and then the hon member for Sasolburg is suddenly the chief spokesman of his party on every aspect. [Interjections.] But time and again the SABC must come and say that this or that is the reaction of the chief spokesman of the HNP in Parliament. [Interjections.]

Those hon members say that all the opposition parties are angry with the SABC. We also have our criticism of the SABC. We have asked the SABC a hundred times why the NP’s chief spokesmen—not the Government’s spokemen—are not given an opportunity to react to a Government statement too. [Interjections.]

The SABC is more than fair to the opposition. If there is anyone entitled to complain it is those of us on this side of the Committee. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, many of the arguments raised here this afternoon by various opposition speakers were, as far as I am concerned, based on a completely false premise. [Interjections.] That premise is that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs controls the SABC, and can prescribe to the SABC what it should broadcast and what its policy should be. That is of course not the case at all. In accordance with the Broadcasting Act the SABC is controlled by an autonomous board appointed by the State President. That board, and not the hon the Minister for Foreign Affairs, determines the general policy—financial and otherwise—of the SABC. Since the board of that statutory corporation—the SABC—is also accountable to Parliament, and since not one of its members has representation here, it must obviously have a member of this House to be held accountable here on its behalf.

In that regard it therefore does not matter which hon Minister fulfils that role. In the reasonably short time in which I have been a member of this Parliament, that person who had to answer here on behalf of the SABC, has in fact, been in succession, the previous Minister of Post and Telecommunications, the Minister of National Education and now the hon Minister for Foreign Affairs. It does not matter in any case which hon Minister is appointed by the State President to fulfil that function. It will not make any difference whatsoever to these subjective accusations of bias. [Interjections.] It would not make any difference whatsoever.

†I want now to refer briefly to what the hon member for Umhlanga had to say. I want to tell him too that for the very same reason—whether this amendment moved by the hon member for Brakpan is incorporated into the legislation or not—it will also make no difference at all to this kind of debate, which we will have perennially, until the cows come home. That is because it is simply a matter of subjective judgment.

Let us refer now to the question of bias. In connection with bias we say that the SABC—and I want to make it quite ciearis certainly not unbiased in every respect. It also makes no pretence at being unbiased in every respect. [Interjections.]

Order!

No wait! I will qualify that. [Interjections.] I am trying to define the argument … [Interjections.] For example … [Interjections.] No, let me make it quite clear! This country is unashamedly anti-communist, and it is unashamedly anti-revolutionary, and it is unashamedly against dictatorships. Not only are both the ANC and the SA Communist Party banned but, as a reflection of this country’s national attitude, the SABC is also unashamedly biased against the Communist Party, biased against the ANC, biased against revolutionaries, biased against public violence, biased against public disorder … [Interjections.] There are various biases on the part of the SABC … [Interjections.] … and that brings me to another question in relation to which one has to try to define the difference between what is bias and what not in this country as far as the SABC is concerned.

As in most countries, the SABC reflects in a general way the policies of the Government of the day, and that is a perfectly natural expression of democracy.

No court of law will grant you that!

The SABC is not biased against Stoffies! [Interjections.]

Having said that, however, I must point out too that the SABC has a policy code in terms of which it is not supposed to be biased in a party political sense. I want to make the statement that one has to draw a distinction between the Government of the day that once elected and formed—for the duration of its mandate, speaks on behalf of the State and speaks for all the people in the country irrespective of who voted for or against it or who did not and could not vote at all—and the governing party which is in a different category altogether. That is the situation throughout the world. The governing party is in the same category as each and every other political party in the country. It speaks only for its own supporters. That is why political parties—including the governing party, when it speaks as a political party—all have views, opinions and so forth, whereas what the Government does or fails to do during its mandate affects the lives of all its citizens. If the Government increases GST or abolishes influx control, or whatever it does, that is a fact of life that will affect the lives of people. That is then, of course, an act of the State. The NP can comment on it, the PFP can comment on it, and so forth.

The SABC’s policy code on this is also quite clear. It reflects the official policy statements of the various political parties. That is why, on a given subject, it always approaches the various parties’ official spokesmen on that particular subject, and broadcasts their views on it. This, however, is where the NP—since we are talking about bias—falls short. The Government has a spokesman who acts on behalf of the State. He makes his statement to the whole country on behalf of the State. Then the official spokesmen of the political opposition parties make their statements. The NP’s official spokesman, however, is not given a chance to make his comment. [Interjections.]

Let me make it quite clear that in the context in which I am speaking now, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is the Government’s spokesman. The NP’s official spokesman, who is the equivalent of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition or the hon member for Soutpansberg or the hon member for Umhlanga, is the hon member for Bloemfontein North. As far as the Finance portfolio is concerned, the position is the same. The hon the Minister of Finance is the Government’s spokesman on finance. He, however, is not the equivalent of the hon member for Yeoville or the hon member for Sunnyside or the NRP’s official spokesman on finance or—much less so—the hon member for Sasolburg. The NP’s equivalent of those hon members is the hon member for Smithfield.

One must, therefore, draw a distinction between the Government of the day and political parties. If one wants to, one can continue this argument until the cows come home, but whether that clause is included or not, once that has been done there will still be the same argument as to whether the control mechanism is biased or not since this control mechanism will be introduced by the Government in terms of a law that has been passed by the Government. This is a silly and fatuous argument, and I do not think one should waste any more time on it, particularly because, as I have indicated, it is built on a particularly false premise.

*Finally I want to say this: Since the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has only a representative say in the House according to which he has to account to Parliament on behalf of the SABC Board, he also has powers of delegation. If he therefore wants to delegate his responsibility to his hon Deputy Minister, what on earth is wrong with that. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Benoni as well as the hon member for Turffontein put the point that the Government was the newsmaker. I conceded this to them in my Second Reading speech! I therefore cannot understand why the hon members for Turffontein and Benoni are repeating the argument as if we do not accept that the Government is the newsmaker. We accept it as news when an announcement is made about the AWB, when the Government has turned somersaults on some matter or other, when section 16 of the Immorality Act is abolished or when some concession or other is made again. [Interjections.]

Let us get to the programmes, however.

But you have been on television yourself!

Yes, I have been, but once in a blue moon! Then the Chairman, Mr Van Coller, stopped us while we were talking and allowed the hon member for Turffontein to speak. [Interjections.] He did it the other day to that student of the University of Pretoria. [Interjections.] Then there are also the leaders of the Hervormde Kerk with none other than Dr Wimpie de Klerk cross-questioning them. Programmes like Netwerk are riddled with this type of thing. What does Dr Dennis Worral know, for instance, about what happened at Pietersburg? Can the hon member provide me with any good reason why Dr Dennis Worral should appear on television during Netwerk to comment from time to time on events occurring in this country? This is the type of matter which puts our backs up.

And then the hon member for Benoni comes here and speaks of “subjective judgement”! Why was Professor Mouton fired? He was kicked out as the Chairman of the SABC Control Board because he would not do what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs told him to do. [Interjections.]

Nonsense!

It was because he would not genuflect to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Mr Chairman, may I request the hon member to quote Professor Mouton to enable us to hear the origin of his allegation.

The newspapers were full of a clash between the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Professor Mouton. [Interjections.] The hon member for Benoni spoke of a “subjective judgement”. That is precisely the point we are making.

†We want to get away from a subjective judgment.

You will not with this amendment.

The point is that we are suggesting that after this amendment has been agreed to, this Act will have some instrument by which one can gauge whether these conditions have been complied with.

*The hon member for Bloemfontein North said the SABC did not belong to the Media Council or the Press Union. The method a person follows who has been injured by occurrences in the SABC—I am not speaking of libel now but of other matters to which he objects—does not include that his complaints may be brought to the attention of the Media Council or the Press Union. He has to raise the matter with the accused. The accused then refers him to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs after which he is referred backwards and forwards. These are the aspects to which I wish to allude concerning the speeches of the hon members for Benoni and Turffontein.

†As far as the hon member for Sandton is concerned, I want to say that I am pleased that he supports the amendment. I just want to refer him to my speech in the Second Reading debate where I said that if there was one person who could really objectively form a picture of the partiality of the SABC it was a person who had been in the Government at first and then in the Opposition. One can form a much clearer picture of the partiality and prejudice in favour of the Government when one has been a member of the Government party and then leaves it.

*The hon member for Sandton added that he hoped I had referred to all Opposition parties and all people within and outside this Parliament. It is a fact that we are in favour of having all aspects illustrated. We say, however, that it is a fundamental part of the right of self-determination of peoples that each people at least have its own broadcasting corporation and television service. That is why we say it is fantastic that there is something like BOP-TV—does the hon member for Bloemfontein North not agree with this—and that there are special channels like TV2 and TV3. It is a pity that TV2 and TV3 are not profitable at this stage but we hope that profit will ultimately also accrue from these when the programmes improve as the hon the Deputy Minister said.

I want to tell those hon members the NP should decide now whether the SABC is biased or not. Not until 16 May did the hon the Deputy Minister react to accusations by hon members of the CP and say:

Three or four sentences later he referred to the hon member for Umhlanga and said:

One moment he said it was absolute nonsense to say the SABC was prejudiced and biased. The hon member for Bloemfontein North said it was unprejudiced and there was no question of its impartiality. Subsequently the hon member for Benoni called it “biased” and referred to revolution and that manner of thing. But he was using a Std 6 argument. The hon the Deputy Minister has to tell us in clear and categorical language whether he concedes that the SABC is prejudiced and biased to a lesser or greater degree. If he does not concede this, we may argue the case further. If he does concede it, he should accept the amendment. If he concedes this, he should concede further that there has to be an instrument to judge it otherwise there is no objectivity on the side of the Government or admission on the side of the SABC that it has to be objective and unbiased.

Mr Chairman, Prof Mouton’s name was introduced into this debate and I think we should put the matter into the right perspective.

Order! As far as Prof Mouton has been made part of the debate, I request hon members wishing to elaborate on that theme to do so within the limits of the amendment. The hon member may proceed.

Prof Mouton held a part-time position with the SABC as the Rector of the University of Bloemfontein.

Order! I cannot permit the discussion here of matters other than those covered by the amendment.

All right, Mr Chairman, then I shall revert to the question of the partiality or impartiality of the SABC.

Oom Sporie, you have gone off the rails!

Wait a bit. Let me speak civilly now—to that hon member as well. [Interjections.] He should not make interjections now because I did not do so during his speech.

I first wish to talk on the question of the attack on the hon the Deputy Minister. There was no objection when the former hon Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, who now deals with Information, replied on matters concerning the SABC but I think hon members feel the hon Minister of Foreign Affairs should be here whereas he is not always able to be.

I wish to get to the question whether there are sufficient control mechanisms ultimately to answer the criticism regarding partiality or impartiality. Whenever the annual report has been submitted to this House, hon members have had adequate opportunity to speak in the presence of the hon the Minister on what they feel is biased or unbiased. Hon members have always had the opportunity of putting questions. One need only look how many questions on the SABC they themselves placed on the Order Paper.

Hon members may go to the Media Council and address their representations to the chairman who is a judge to boot. He is assisted by professional people who are representative of all strata of the population. This Media Council is independent to the highest degree and its doors are open to all to deal with their objections with the utmost measure of fairness. The Media Council maintains absolute fairness. An appeal may even be lodged if a complainant is not satisfied with a ruling.

Furthermore, there is the Publications Control Board to which submissions may be addressed if someone is dissatisfied with the broadcasts. In addition opinion polls are conducted on a scientific basis and this includes all racial and language groups. An evaluation of programmes also takes place daily.

If anyone still feels he is being treated unfairly, he may make representations for the matter to be put right. I think the hon member for Johannesburg North once felt he had been treated unfairly by the SABC. As far as I can recall, the SABC put that matter right over the radio a number of times.

Adequate opportunity is offered in parliamentary debates and deliberations of standing committees for incisive discussions on the SABC. The Media Council and the Publications Control Board are relentless watchdogs. I think an attack is being launched on the SABC here which is unjustified. As a body the SABC sees to the interests of all. I think the hon the Deputy Minister is altogether competent to reply to all questions too. I do not think we require further control mechanisms.

Mr Chairman, I wish to put one case very clearly. If there is one action we in the CP want to carry out, it is to see the SABC in such a position that it cannot be attacked from any side—neither from ours or that of the NP. It should be an unbiased, proper body which provides news impartially and in an unbiased way. We have to be able to view the news as well as all other programmes with pride. All kinds of vulgarity and immorality should not be screened, regardless of the nature of the programme. This is the way we want it and that is motivating our arguments.

I want to tell the hon member for Rosettenville the SABC is attacked for certain reasons and we shall continue attacking it until they are put right.

The hon the Deputy Minister said here very clearly this afternoon that the State did not pay for the SABC except for foreign services. That is right; the money comes from licence holders. If that is the case, however, why is the Government prejudiced against them? If the money comes from licence holders, they should all be treated fairly and equitably but this does not happen.

Nonsense!

It is just like the Metropolitan Life affair. A number of Ministers obtained shares in advance so that they could make an extra profit.

Nonsense! [Interjections.]

That happened!

I now get to the hon member for Turffontein. He said he would quote Dr Connie Mulder but he omitted mention of the time when Dr Mulder sat on Government benches and the hon member was a member of the old United Party. He attacked Dr Mulder violently but I have to concede that he did not say about Dr Mulder in those days what he said about the present State President.

[Inaudible.]

Dr Connie Mulder said at the time there was a difference between Government policy and NP politics but why did the hon member not also quote Dr Mulder when he told the UP to bring him their policy and he would broadcast it over the SABC? Hon members who sat here at the time will recall this. [Interjections.] This is a fair comparison because they are licence holders.

I now wish to ask the hon the Deputy Minister something. If licence holders are 50% Government supporters and 50% supporters of the Opposition, may Opposition parties also have 50% of the time concerned on the SABC to put across our policy on the referendum, elections and whatever? We are now dealing with shareholders who pay the same licence fees except for our older people. We are grateful that licences are cheaper to the aged. Is it possible for us as licence holders, that is shareholders, to be treated on a fair basis?

Mr Chairman, I should like to draw hon members’ attention to the fact that the clause we are now discussing deals with the technical aspect of the SABC’s broadcasts. I should like to refer to section 11 of the principal Act in order to explain to hon members the object of the proposed amendment.

†It is interesting to note that the Government’s intention in introducing the amending clause is to increase the scope of broadcasting by the SABC. According to section 11, the SABC is limited to the transmitting of programmes to particular places or categories of persons “by means of cables or wires”. All that clause 2 does is to allow the SABC to do the same “by means of radio”.

I therefore find quite ingenious the mechanisms used by the opposition parties to try to criticise the SABC in terms of this clause for so-called bias and distortion of the news.

The hon members for Bloemfontein North, Turffontein, Benoni and Rosettenville who spoke on behalf of the NP did an exceptionally good job of replying to the allegations of bias in the SABC levelled by the hon members of the opposition. I must, however, reply to certain comments immediately in order not to leave the record incomplete.

As far as the part of the amendment which you have allowed, Mr Chairman, is concerned, in respect of what the hon member for Brakpan has proposed, we have no difficulty in agreeing with the sentiments expressed in that amendment, no difficulty at all. The question really is whether the SABC fulfils the tenets of that ideal, or whether it does not. Therefore, if the SABC is accused of not fulfilling the tenets of impartiality as far as possible—because it is a subjective matter—then the question arises whether the mechanism for adjusting that bias is adequate. That is really what the argument is all about. It is not about whether there is bias or not.

I admitted during the second reading debate—and every other hon member who has a reasonably good perception of the world has done the same—that every channel of media communication, whether it is printed or whether it is television or whether it is radio, does have a modicum of bias in it. What I said in my second reading speech which was not quoted by the hon member for Brakpan, is that there is bias in what the SABC broadcasts because it reflects the realities of life outside. It is that second part which the hon member did not read. He should have quoted me completely, then he would have seen what I said there.

Therefore, we as a Government are concerned that there should be an adequate mechanism for adjusting that bias if that bias goes beyond reasonable norms and standards. That is what the hon members miss in their arguments there. We agree that the ideal as expressed in the amendment of the hon member for Brakpan is acceptable, but it is not an adequate mechanism for adjusting the situation. The mechanisms are already contained in the principal Act, the Broadcasting Act of 1976.

I just want to add that when the hon members of the CP are unable to win their arguments in this House, they become personal and insulting towards the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. That is a complete giveaway of the inadequacy of their arguments.

[Inaudible.]

If we follow the hon member for Rissik in his argument that a Deputy Minister should not be delegated these powers, he is suggesting that we should only debate with front-benchers, and he as a second-bencher would then be only a second-rater, as he is. [Interjections.]

A good argument, Daan.

We believe that the sentiment expressed by the hon member for Brakpan in his amendment is already incorporated in the attitude of the Board of Control, and there are many mechanisms available to the listeners and members of Parliament in order to redress their grievances with the SABC. I should like to mention a few, because they have been raised here again and there has been such a tremendous amount of argument about the so-called bias of the SABC.

Firstly, there is Parliament. Every single member can get up here, and there is the world’s media available to them to express their opinions. Secondly, the hon member for Umhlanga was quoted by the hon member for Brakpan as having said it is not possible to withhold one’s licence fee, but of course it is. One does not have to buy a television set, and if one does not buy a set, one does not have to buy a licence. If one does not want to listen to a radio programme, one can turn it off.

However, the hon member for Umhlanga’s argument in the second reading debate was fundamentally that he objected to not having a choice of different channels, the same as he had a choice of newspapers. It is interesting that these hon members are voting against this amending Bill because this Bill will empower the SABC to provide them with more channels. Therefore, he is illogical in his argument.

Order! The matter of channels is not part of the amendment. The point was just raised in passing that in the absence of alternative channels, people were subjected to subjective reporting. I do not think that the hon the Deputy Minister should dwell unduly on that matter.

Mr Chairman, I am merely addressing the terms of clause 2 of the amending Bill which now allows the SABC to broadcast radio programmes to special categories of people, and that will increase the number of channels available to the hon member. However, I do not want to dwell on that too long, except that I think there is one accusation which was made and has to be answered specifically. That is the question as to why the SA Ambassador in London addresses certain problems on SABC-TV. That is the Ambassador’s job. He must represent overseas the opinions and the views of this Government and the people of South Africa, and that is newsworthy. That is why we give the South African public the opportunity to know what our ambassador is saying overseas. That is what it is all about.

In the final analysis I regret we cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon member for Brakpan. We reject the accusation that the SABC is biased. We also reject the standpoint that the mechanisms available for adjusting alleged bias are inadequate. We believe they are adequate and therefore I have pleasure in proposing the adoption of this clause without amendment.

Order! Before I put amendment 1 I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that if amendment 1 is negatived then amendment 2, which was also moved by the hon member for Brakpan, will automatically fall away.

Mr Chairman, as I indicated during the Second Reading debate, we have problems with the provisions of this clause which extend the functions of the corporation as far as the dissemination and use of material are concerned.

Section 13(h) of the principal Act relates to material produced by the corporation, and it is a restricted provision. The proposed new section 13(1)(hA) sought to be inserted by clause 3(b) of the Bill gives the corporation fairly extensive rights to make, compile, print, manufacture, buy, hire or acquire by any other means sound, visual or audio visual recordings etc, and goes on to say that it may—

Paragraph (c) of this clause then deals with the whole situation allowing the corporation to establish a corporate body and company in association with other people or shareholders.

What this in fact means, as I indicated during my Second Reading speech, is that this clause provides the SABC with the right to enter into what is really the video field. The SABC can now buy, distribute and hire videos, and we believe that this is not correct. In view of the advantageous position which the corporation has, we believe that this places it in a position where it has an unfair advantage over its competitors. This is the case particularly when one relates the provisions of this clause with the provisions of clause 6 of the Bill which exempts the corporation and its associate companies from having to pay taxation. This is a benefit which the private competitors in the field of the distribution of videos and other material will certainly not enjoy.

We on these benches cannot subscribe to that. We believe that the video business in South Africa has become a very important industry. It is popular and is very widely supported by the general public. We also know that it is a highly competitive industry at the present time. While the SABC-TV services has a monopoly on television broadcasting and services, it is the public’s right to be able to look at videos which in many ways compensate for some of the very dull, unimaginative and outdated programmes of entertainment which the SABC provides. We believe that the video business does not deserve the sort of unfair competition which is going to result from the acceptance of the provisions of this clause, particularly, as I have said, when those provisions are read with clause 6 of the Bill. It will result in unfair competition and, therefore, we are not prepared to vote for this clause; we are going to vote against it.

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

1. 1. On page 5, in line 6 after “unincorporate” to insert:

One of the objects of this clause is to extend the powers of the SABC further. Clause 3 provides:

There is a further insertion that:

As regards the company to be formed, we should like to insert the words included in the amendment I have moved. Its purpose is—this is the same reason we put forward regarding the previous clause—to ensure a certain degree of balance regarding that product.

The hon member for Berea mentioned with justification that there might be unfair bias in a case involving a private company. Clause 3 lends itself particularly, however, to making improper political influencing of the radio and television even more effective such as having videos made by outside companies as happened during the referendum when the propaganda video was used which was referred to by my colleague the hon member for Brakpan in the Second Reading debate. I find that a typical example. I have serious reservations whether there were legal powers already extant at the time for making that recording, the purpose of which was to propagate the “yes” vote. From my information and according to a reply the hon the Minister of Defence furnished to a question at the time, that film was made by an outside company. It was then used by the Government in promoting the “yes” vote at various Defence Force bases. [Interjections.] I should very much like the hon the Deputy Minister perhaps to make that recording available to us today to test the facts, as they were put at the time, against the actual situation which was ultimately created. Hon members would be amazed at the difference in factual material.

I wish to cite a further example. If the amendment is not agreed to and the existing clause therefore approved, videos may now be made by the SABC for instance of a collection of Network programmes or a series of other incidents. I shall mention the incident at Pietersburg on 22 May again as an example.

What about Butler?

I wish to say categorically this afternoon regarding the clip shown on television of the incident on the evening of 22 May that hon members would not believe that it was the same meeting if they were to view a complete private showing with me of the same incident. Of the 4 000 to 5 000 people present not even one was aware of the minor tussle which took place there. The video recording is therefore an absolute misrepresentation of the actual events. The only factually correct version we saw was the absence of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs concerned and the hon the Minister of Manpower. That is right. [Interjections.]

In consequence, the amendment we move is particularly an effort to attain a degree of balance when it comes to the making of videos and other products which the SABC may now do in conjunction with other companies. A further object of this clause is—as it is stated in the memorandum—to grant the corporation new powers in a movement towards privatisation. Clause 3 therefore specifically empowers the SABC to move in the direction of a degree of privatisation.

I now wish to ask the hon the Deputy Minister up to what level the SABC will privatise because the general cry for privatisation concerns one. What strategic department, what strategic commodities will finally be sold by the State to private companies which will ultimately obtain control or a measure of control in our national economy? This causes real concern to this side of the House and I should like to know of the hon the Deputy Minister how far the Government is prepared to go regarding privatisation as well.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry to hear from the hon member for Berea that the Official Opposition is adamant that they will not support this clause because, as I indicated during the Second Reading debate, their argument is based on a false premise. I should, however, like just briefly to point out to them the advantages of this clause and thereby indicate the erroneousness of their argument.

In the first instance I want to make it very clear that this amending clause now gives the SABC the right to sell surplus programmes and programmes it produces itself to the retail outlets in South Africa in order to distribute those throughout the country. This will be of tremendous advantage to the SABC because at the moment—as I have indicated to the hon member previously—we are compelled from time to time to go overseas and buy packages of programmes. There may be three programmes in a package only one of which is suitable for broadcasting. We then sit with the other two; we can do nothing with them, but now we can dispose of those to the retail sector. [Interjections.] It is not the intention of the SABC to compete with the retail end, but to improve its own profitability by selling off surplus products which it cannot use or, perhaps more importantly, to sell SABC productions, such as Shaka Zulu, overseas and locally in order to gain more funds for itself which will stimulate the local theatrical and production units. That is one of the cries by the PFP, viz that we should involve more people in South Africa in SABC productions. By voting against this clause, however, they will in fact be inhibiting that particular objective of the SABC. Everybody agrees that we should have more South African produced products rather than products from abroad.

Mr Chairman, could the hon Deputy Minister tell us whether Shaka Zulu has been completed and whether it is now generating income for the SABC? Or are we paying money in terms of penalty stipulations?

Mr Chairman, if the hon member had listened to my reply to the Second Reading debate he would in fact have heard me compliment him on his speech. I think he was so taken up with my complimenting him that he forgot to listen to what I actually said. Shaka Zulu has been completed. It is being shown in Cannes, in France, at the moment, where it can be watched by the international community. In that way we hope to gain orders for it. The indications which the SABC has had so far are that even though it might not break even it will still make a lot of money for the corporation.

I should like to come now to the second part of the argument of the hon member for Berea, that is, the taxation part of his argument. Partnerships the SABC will be able to enter into in terms of this amending legislation will allow the SABC to retain the privilege of not being taxed on its income whereas the partners will not enjoy the same privilege. The partners will be assessed for the purposes of income tax in accordance with the normal company tax system. If they suffer a loss they will not pay; if they make a profit they will pay. The reason for that is that it is the responsibility of the SABC to conduct programmes and maintain channels which are unprofitable at the moment. I told hon members earlier that SABC-TV 2 and TV 3 are being run at a loss at the moment of R50 million a year. That loss has to be made up somewhere. If we were still to tax the various channels which the SABC has, I am afraid they would be exposed to severe cash problems. They also have responsibilities in relation to education, news, entertainment and other non-profitable activities, and as a semi-State corporation it would be futile to tax the SABC. That, however, does not give the SABC an unfair advantage. The M-Net channel will be run by the M-Net group, and it is for them then to decide what sort of profitability they want to accomplish in terms of their own management expertise. I hope that answers the hon member’s question.

*Mr Chairman, I just want to tell the hon member for Pietersburg briefly that what he seems to be worried about—this is how I interpret his amendment—is that certain persons or bodies will be excluded from the process of competing with the SABC on the basis of privatisation. I think that is his major source of concern. Apparently he suspects that we are now going to establish a kind of clique there, which will prevent other people from being allowed to become associates of the SABC in a partnership or a company. Of course that is not the case. Every individual or organisation is free, in terms of the authorisation this statutory amendment now gives the SABC, after consultation, to form a company or a partnership together with the SABC. This applies to every individual or organisation defined in terms of the statutory amendment. Each such undertaking will of course be dealt with according to merit. If the board or management of the SABC is of the opinion that it will in fact be to the advantage or profitable to the SABC, everyone who is interested is at liberty to approach the SABC with a proposal in this connection.

Mr Chairman, specifically with regard to the case to which I have referred, I should like to put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister. I am referring to that video which was manufactured by an outside company. Is it correct that the SABC also had a share in the manufacture of that video?

Mr Chairman, that is of course not really what is at issue here. The hon member is now asking whether the SABC was involved in a certain production. That question he must of course put to the SABC itself. The principle contained in the clause under discussion boils down to the SABC now being authorised to establish a partnership or a company with outsiders who are at present not involved in the SABC. In addition I also want to mention to hon members of the CP that there is no sinister meaning implicit in this. It entails only an authorisation which the SABC does not possess at the moment. Those hon members are at liberty to approach the SABC—through Die Afrikaner or Die Patriot; I do not know which one of the two is still in existence …

Both of them!

… in order to establish whether they cannot perhaps carry on a profitable business in conjunction with the SABC. They are absolutely at liberty to do that. [Interjections.]

In the second part of his question, however, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg wanted to know whether we are not dealing with privatisation here, which would ultimately mean that the State would lose its control over certain strategic institutions. In terms of the present principal Act—and it is not affected by these statutory amendments—the SABC reserves the right to broadcast. It is only in the manufacture of a programme and in the sharing of the profits from the presentation of such programme that the partners are involved. However, the SABC retains the right to broadcast. No one else acquires that right. I think that is actually what the hon member is concerned about. I just want to tell the hon member, if he agrees with me that no one is being excluded and that the matter is assessed according to merit, that the wording of his amendment is just an ideal. It is not a mechanism to ensure that people are not excluded. Unfortunately, therefore, we cannot accept the hon member’s amendment.

Amendment negatived (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 7:

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

1. 1. On page 5, in lines 43 and 44, to omit subsection (2).

Almost exactly a month after I had placed this amendment on the Order Paper, the hon the Minister placed another amendment on the Order Paper which actually means precisely the same. I now want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister why he did not approve my amendment in the first instance but came up with an identical amendment a month later and placed it on the Order Paper. Subsection (2) of clause 7 provides:

This also deals with the agreement between the SABC and the consortium of Press companies regarding subscription television.

When the hon the Minister made the announcement on this on April 1985 he said (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1985, col 4201):

The hon the Minister gave the reason further on. He said:

Later in his speech the hon the Minister said they had decided to award it only to the Press consortium and not to the entertainment world. Mention was then made of a shareholders’ agreement entered into mutually by the various Press groups. The Press groups were then mentioned too. They are the Argus Group, Perskor, SAAN, Nasionale Pers, The Natal Witness and the Daily Despatch—all Press groups and newspapers representing the leftist political opinion in South Africa. It is now envisaged to give an Act retrospective effect. My question is therefore whether an agreement exists or existed between the SABC and this Press consortium. They entered into a mutual agreement. We asked in the Second Reading debate why we could not examine that agreement between the SABC and this Press group. I now want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do not think there is a quorum in the Committee.

Order! Would the secretary please ascertain whether there is a quorum present.

As the secretary has indicated that there is a quorum present, the hon member for Pietersburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Rissik, the CP Whip, entitled to mislead the Committee like this? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Pietersburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, before the interruption I was telling the hon the Deputy Minister that the impression which existed in terms of clause 7 was that an agreement was already in existence between the consortium of Press groups and the SABC. I wish to ask him whether the fact that he has now come with an identical amendment—in effect, he therefore approves the CP amendment—means that up to the present an agreement has not been entered into between the SABC and the consortium of companies. I also wish to ask whether no agreement has been concluded with other companies up to today as regards the manufacture of videos and other material as stated in these clauses. I should like to have the hon the Minister’s reply to that.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to explain to hon members why clause 7(2) was originally inserted in the legislation. Prior to the parliamentary session there were already negotiations between M-Net and the SABC. We originally expected that the agreement would be concluded long before the legislation was passed by Parliament. Consequently we made provision for the possibility of a retrospective effect. This was merely to make provision for the possibility that matters would proceed in such a way that the negotiations would be completed and agreements would be concluded before they could be ratified in Parliament by this legislation. That is all. There are no sinister intentions, it was simply a practical precautionary measure we took.

I just want to refer to the agreement itself. I have indicated in the Second Reading speech that at that stage there was not yet an agreement between M-Net and the SABC. While we were dealing with the Second Reading debate in the House, they were still engaged in negotiations. I understand that the agreement is on the point of being finally concluded and that they are only waiting for the ratification of this amending Bill. Whether we were to put tomorrow’s date or yesterday’s date on it would make no difference to them. It was simply a provision to ensure that they did not have to negotiate again. As it worked out in practice, they carried on with their negotiations while we were debating here. We are reasonable people, and are quite happy to delete the retrospective subsection from the clause if the hon members think this fit and proper.

The question arises why an amendment of mine appears on the Order Paper, which corresponds exactly with the amendment of the hon member for Pietersburg. There are two reasons for this. The first reason is that we cannot predict what the hon members of the CP are going to do. They change their minds from day to day. [Interjections.] In the standing committee we were unanimous on the amending Bill as it is now before us. But when we got to the House, they turned a somersault and decided to vote against the Bill and to move another amendment. Consequently one cannot predict how reliable the hon members of the CP are, and I placed my own amendment on the Order Paper to make sure that this amendment was in fact debated in the House. This is the reason.

If those hon members can give me the assurance that they are going to be consistent and that what they do in the standing committee will correspond exactly with what they do in the House, I assume that we can in fact take their word in future that they will stick to their amendments on the Order Paper. The actual reason is the untrustworthiness of the standpoints adopted by the CP in the standing committees and in Parliament, respectively. [Interjections.]

We are reasonable people, and because we agree that it is of no consequence and not at all sinister to remove this amendment, I am prepared to accept the hon member’s amendment, because it is precisely the same as our own.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister’s words are strange when one thinks that yesterday he was still a member of another party. [Interjections.] It is strange that the hon Deputy Minister can say so readily that we can change our views or opinions so easily. [Interjections.] That is what the English would call adding insult to injury.

If it was true that we were inconsistent, the hon the Deputy Minister would have seen that the amendment had been removed from the Order Paper. The way the Rules of the House work is that if we were to remove our amendment from the Order Paper, he himself could still move another amendment today if he wanted to. It is unheard of for the Government to name an amendment a month later with precisely the same wording as that of an opposition party’s earlier amendment.

The hon the Deputy Minister simply does not want to admit that he was fast asleep, and now he advances an absolutely infantile argument and says that he is doing so because he is afraid we will change our standpoint. [Interjections.] He is judging others by himself, because tomorrow he may be back with the NRP or with Dr du Plessis’s middle party. [Interjections.]

I object most strongly to an hon Deputy Minister who always has an objective opinion on matters, using such a petty argument in the dying moments of this debate. We reject it with the contempt it deserves.

Mr Chairman, the hon members cannot argue against the facts, and it is a fact that they have changed their standpoint from the time they were in the standing committee up to the time they entered this debate. Even if their amendment appears on the Order Paper, there is no guarantee that the amendment is going to be moved. An hon member has the right to withdraw his amendment up to the last moment. Because that amendment has already been agreed to in the Committee stage of the other two Houses, we must be consistent. If those hon members withdraw their amendment, I can move my amendment, and then we can be consistent.

The hon members need not have a lot to say about this, because this is a practical matter. There was no certainty that those hon members would not withdraw their amendment. We only wanted to take the precaution to be consistent in this Committee.

Mr Chairman, I want to single out one other aspect to which the hon the Deputy Minister referred. This is that we have changed our standpoint since we were in the standing committee. It is a practice in this Parliament for hon members to accept the explanations given by other hon members. The hon the Deputy Minister heard the hon member for Soutpansberg say—this was also admitted by officials—that he received that Bill when he walked into the meeting of the standing committee. Consequently he had absolutely no opportunity to study the Bill before it was discussed. He gave that explanation, but the hon the Deputy Minister continued to say that we had changed our standpoint. That is not true.

In the discussion of the matter we adopted this standpoint from the start. We have had these amendments on the Order Paper since February. We also reject this allegation by the hon the Deputy Minister.

Mr Chairman, all I can do is repeat what I said in the Second Reading debate, namely that I cannot deal with the personal problems of the hon members here.

Mr Chairman, in his reply to my proposed amendment the hon the Deputy Minister indicated that the SABC and the M-Net consortium had concluded an agreement recently. May I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether hon members of the committee will be entitled to examine such an agreement?

Mr Chairman, I replied to that question during the Second Reading debate. The Act does not stipulate that such agreements must be discussed in this House, and it will consequently not be possible for hon members to examine them.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment to the Title printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 3, in the second line, after “year;” to insert “and”.
2. 2. On page 3, in the third line, to omit all the words from “and” up to and including “clearly” in the fifth line.

The reason for this is purely a practical one.

The standing committee decided unanimously to eliminate clause 4 from the Bill. Through an oversight, the principle of that clause still appears in the Title of the Bill. That is why it is necessary to affect a change in the Title by means of this amendment.

†The Bill contains the following words in lines 3 to 5 of page 3:

As clause 4 of the Bill, as introduced, has already been removed by the standing committee, we merely have to remove the related passage from the Long Title.

Amendments agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr Speaker, in the few minutes I have left I merely want to say that I tried to put the CP’s standpoint about publication control as clearly as possible last night. I also pointed out a few problem areas, and raised some points of criticism. Some of my colleagues will elaborate further.

I want to conclude by drawing it to the attention of the House that we must be very serious in being prepared to introduce even more drastic measures if it is necessary in future, for two reasons.

The first reason is that we are living in a world in which the liberal spirit is increasing. We cannot check that spirit with moderate measures.

My second reason is that the Government’s integration policy will force us to take drastic measures in future.

That is why I want to conclude with a word of warning from the Apostle Paul, from the letter to the Galatians. This is the first time ever I have heard people sighing at the thought of a quotation from the Bible.

They are NP members!

The hon members of the NP are sighing! My quotation reads as follows:

Mr Speaker, it is a pity the hon member for Koedoespoort has managed to get in a dig at the Government towards the end of his speech.

But it was well-deserved!

You were asking for it!

He assumed a very responsible standpoint last night and I can share his sentiments in every respect, and also express the anxiety of this side of the House. In fact, this resulted in the hon the Minister’s giving instructions for the drawing up of a Bill to ensure that we consider this Act once again to eliminate any weaknesses which may be found in it. For this reason it is a pity the hon member for Koedoespoort did not serve in the standing committee about this legislation himself, because then he would have come very thoroughly under the impression that in that standing committee, which had many sittings, we in fact tried—the hon member for Umlazi referred to this—to ensure that all the loopholes in this legislation were eliminated. If he did not receive reports about the efforts that were made, it is not the fault of this side of the House.

There is one point on which I want to differ with him—this also came out in the standing committee—and that is that the State cannot accept sole responsibility for the control and the norms and standards that have to be applied.

The State can improve upon them.

I agree that we can improve upon them, and that is what this Bill attempts to do.

But he did not say the State alone.

From our two respective professions—his is the Church and mine is education—he will know that the church and the school can scarcely make sufficient improvements in trying to cover this field.

Our fundamental problem is the decadence of the parents. That is where the greatest sin is committed. It became a serious issue on this standing committee. The problem is that many of the things that happen in the world at large sometimes happen visibly, mostly without the parents’ knowing what is happening. Even if the State were to include whatever clause in this Bill, but attention was not paid to these things in the parental home—seen from the perspective that most of these onslaughts are aimed at the youth of our people—no clause in this Bill can give absolute certainty on what is going on here.

With those few pieces of commentary about the contribution of the hon member for Koedoespoort, I want to associate myself with the hon member for Umlazi in his word of thanks to the hon the Minister, the hon chairman of the standing committee and every hon member of the standing committee, for their participation in this matter. I want to thank the hon chairman of the standing committee in particular for the way in which he guided this standing committee in really covering a wide area in this inquiry. The Director-General and his staff supported us very strongly in this. We could also rely heavily on the details from the Publications Board and Prof Coetzee, as well as the head of the Appeal Board, Prof van Rooyen. I also want to make special mention of the officials of Parliament. I want to tell the Secretary of Parliament that the officials who were appointed to this Committee, and who worked in Pretoria under reasonably difficult circumstances, really went to a lot of trouble to make sure that we got the necessary information up in Pretoria. Sometimes they had to work through the night to get everything we needed for the inquiry of this matter, to Pretoria.

I want to conclude by referring in particular to a clause which did not appear in the concept legislation, and which, under the leadership of our hon chairman and everyone who took part in this inquiry, led to the creation of a new clause.

I am referring to clause 22 in the standing committee amendments, according to which section 29 of the principal Act is being replaced by a new section. Hon members of the House are welcome to read that new section 29. This new section 29 was drawn up in co-operation with the whole industry, because they themselves felt that they were not happy about what was happening in practice. They themselves were unhappy about the poor quality of the films and videos they had to distribute. They themselves were worried about the decadence displayed in those films and videos. The members of the industry came forward themselves and asked, as it were, for this new section to be included in the principal Act. This section 29 is included in the final Publications Amendment Bill by clause 18 in the principal Act.

I believe we have succeeded here in involving the industry itself, which is responsible for distributing these videos and films, to ensure that there is a discipline in this industry. In fact, this clause which has been included in the amending Bill defines the punishment for anyone who transgresses in this respect. I think it is a unique punishment in that the industry itself insists that such a person’s membership is withdrawn by the director. The industry itself will ensure that he no longer manages his particular enterprise. This means that a person who has acted irresponsibly in this industry is losing his bread and butter completely, instead of receiving a punishment in the shape of a fine of R5 000 or R10 000. I think this is a fine’ principle. We are proud to submit this clause and all the other precautionary measures which have been contained in this amending Bill to the House, and we support it wholeheartedly.

Mr Speaker, I am not going to comment on what the hon member for Brentwood has said here this afternoon. I think he will find that some of my observations will cover the points he has made.

If ever there was an exercise to show just how a standing committee on portfolios in this Parliament can and should work, I believe it is this particular standing committee. This Bill was the first major piece of work any standing committee had to do in the recess. I hope the chairman of the standing committee will forgive me if I make a few observations in this regard.

A few things became apparent as we worked our way through this Bill. It certainly became apparent to me that there was the closest liaison at all times between the chairman and the hon the Minister. I never discussed this with the chairman. I merely mention it as an observation of my own and I do not think I am far off the mark. It became obvious that the chairman was aware of the argument that was taking place and of the difference of opinion that was being expressed in his committee. He obviously found that the hon the Minister had told him that his door was open at all times and that he was welcome to come and discuss his problems. And we had problems! This Bill was originally tabled in 1985 and, because of circumstances, we were not able to look at it until October, after it had vanished off the Order Paper in the 1985 session.

In its original form it contained a very contentious clause, namely clause 7. By agreement that clause was scrapped entirely from this Bill. The hon member for Brentwood has just made reference to the new clause 18 which was born out of the deliberations in the standing committee. I think the standing committee had 16 or 17 sessions in Pretoria. It has produced a report which, by its size, is indicative of the amount of work that was done and the evidence that was heard. An hon member has made mention of the fact that there were some 47 memoranda and 27 witnesses. There were 27 witnesses who came well prepared and gave us the benefit of their views. During the course of the discussion on this Bill, I think we effected almost 20 changes to the original Bill. I therefore say that if ever there was a measure before this House that proved the efficacy of the standing committee system, then this was it. [Interjections.] I also compliment the chairman on the tremendous role he played, and I compliment the hon the Minister on the fact that he obviously maintained liaison at all times. This is a lesson for us all to learn.

During the time this enormous quantity of evidence was being heard and led, all aspects and opinions were canvassed, and it is quite remarkable to note that in the various quarters from which we heard evidence, there was a uniform attitude toward control. I must tell this House this afternoon that my eyes were opened, because I came to realise that when it comes to publications and the control thereof, there is an incredible level of agreement across the spectrum of South African opinion. I am referring to publishers, authors, magazine people, newspaper people, video and cinema people—top people, middle people, whatever you will. Moreover, we found that out of all of this, videos and video distribution seemed to come to the fore. It became apparent that videos and video distribution comprised the nettlesome issue that we had to grasp. It therefore took up an enormous amount of our time and I think this is where we agreed that control had to be of the highest order.

There is a substantial amount of money to be made today in the video business. There is a substantial amount of easy money to be made by those who would dabble on the fringes; for those who would touch on the pornographic; for those who want to get into the sleazier side of things and who are able to market it and, of course, to call for a higher price. The committee was unanimous in its opinion that there had to be stringent conditions in regard to the registration of video outlets and video distributors; there had to be stringent conditions in regard to censorship; and, above all, there had to be adequate penalties for those who believe that they can operate outside social norms.

The strongest voice of all in support of this thought came from the organised video trade. They were the most vociferous in calling for control. They were unanimous in this regard. They want control; they asked for control, and they also asked for penalties. They say that the penalties cannot be severe enough in order to keep out those who, because of the fact that they can see a bit of easy money, indulge in the peddling of pornography. To my mind, making money that way is as bad as peddling drugs. The penalties for people who do that sort of thing can never be severe enough.

Another clause of the Bill provides for a list of all undesirable publications, films and videos. This list will be open to public inspection and I believe that here we have something that will be of great benefit to all those who are associated not only with the video industry but also with publishing, as well as the general public.

This is indeed a very interesting measure and I have no doubt that we shall continue to amend the Publications Act. As social norms and mores change, so our outlook will change. We can only try our best, however, and in conclusion I would like to place on record this party’s appreciation of the work that is being done by the Directorate of Publications because another thing which came to the fore, was an awareness of the magnitude of their task and the efficiency of that organisation. I think all of us were quite astounded at how all sectors and all those who gave evidence had nothing but praise for the work of both the directorate and the appeal board. However, above all, there was absolutely unanimous support, encouragement and praise for the work of the chairman of that appeal board. I think that should be noted. I think that gentlemen must obviously be doing an outstanding job in his particular field.

We will support this measure. We believe that people who would perhaps like to enjoy a little light reading should read through the report. It makes interesting and thought-provoking reading. I think it will give all of us a better appreciation of the concern that is being felt, not only in this House but also outside, for the morals of the society in which we live.

Mr Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon member for Umhlanga. I do not differ with him about the general opinions he expressed, and for that reason shall not elaborate further on what he said.

Publications reach an enormous number of people in our country, even in the most out-of-the-way parts. Old and young get hold of publications. That is why it is imperative that we have a watchdog which can keep an eye on the nature of publications and videos, which are such powerful communication media and are distributed so widely, so that they can establish the advancement of society and not demoralise it.

The influence of publications is felt in all spheres, but I should like to single out one of these. I want to take hon members back to the role of women in society. The quality of a people depends on the quality of its women. This is a fact that has been proved through the centuries. Women is the central point around which the whole family revolves. To a great extent she has an influence on the characteristics of her family, and she determines the norms of her family and their way of life and what it should be.

It is good, fundamentally sound families that build up the state and the church. That is why we can rightly say the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that governs the country. I also want to say women has an immensely important responsibility as the central figure in the spheres to which I have referred.

It is important, therefore, that the image of women is not harmed. Many publications, videos, and even television violate the image of womankind, however. They violate the essence of womankind—in person and body. The mystery surrounding womankind is broken down and denigrated. Women are humiliated. Of course the greatest culprit in this respect is the world of commerce which sometimes strips women of all her clothes for material gain and uses her in advertisements to promote any conceivable product, whether appropriate or not.

Writers and manufacturers of videos are also blithely contributing to this disintegration process of the essence of woman. Nothing concerning the woman is a secret any longer. Nothing that evokes respect, admiration or appreciation remains. This is a fatal process, because it has robbed women of respect, and will have far-reaching results in many other spheres. It is an assault on her place as wife and mother in her family and in society. It is to the detriment of her authority as an educator.

In many cases these publications and videos also make another side of our society ridiculous. They make a mockery of marriage. Living together and illegitimate relationships are described to such an extent that they even look acceptable and later become acceptable. In the process institutions which promote orderliness are replaced by disorderly conduct which no longer looks so bad, because people become conditioned and get used to it. I think too little emphasis is placed on the maintenance of marriage as an institution, an institution which should be respected. Even the church as an institution is mocked and ridiculed in many publications.

The description of events which do not promote sound moral standards, has recently become high fashion. It is becoming worse and worse in order to be popular. I think violence, cruelty and abuse are used too much to capture the imagination. Many young people are beginning to develop an admiration and veneration for brutal violence and daredevilry. They find crime, particularly if the criminal can outwit the Police, very interesting.

Who suffers most from this violation of the family and the child? It is the children who have to grow up without the security of a family and marriage. What then are the foundations upon which the people of the future is to be built?

Another aspect which I should like to mention, is terms of abuse and banal expressions which are becoming more and more common. In their publications, writers try to outdo one another with daredevil deeds, words and themes.

It is the State’s calling and duty to guard jealously the morale, morals and habits of its subjects. We on this side of the House will therefore give our support to legislation which is made more effective in combating these evils every time, because we feel the quality of a people is very important for its continued existence. That is why we are in favour of the Bill. We shall support it, and when it is made more effective in future, we shall support it as well.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Germiston District will forgive me if I do not follow the arguments that she offered here this afternoon, because we actually have a different point of view. While her party is going to support the Bill we are opposing it.

Are you now a Zambian?

I was born a Zambian. [Interjections.]

During the course of the debate the hon member for Umlazi said that the points of view offered by the hon member for Green Point were irrelevant. It is unfortunate that he made those remarks and I am sorry he is not here today, but I think it is important that we should state our point of view and that is why the hon member for Green Point set out why we were opposed to the Bill.

I doubt whether many hon members on that side of the House understand the real meaning of the word “irrelevant”. I would recommend to many of them, as has been done on previous occasions, that they should travel to townships in and around the cities of this country where they will certainly find out whose political view is irrelevant.

During the course of his address the hon member did quote a large number of memoranda which had been submitted to the standing committee. There were a large number indeed. It is quite correct, in fact, that the Bill was improved during the course of the deliberations of the standing committee. In fact, it was my first experience of a Bill being handled by a standing committee; I had not previously been a member of such a standing committee and I found it a very interesting experience. As has been mentioned, the committee met 37 times. This measure is quite considerable and we all had to apply our minds to it. At the end of the deliberations I approached the chairman, the hon member for Innesdal, to express my appreciation for and satisfaction with the experience that I had obtained during the course of those meetings.

The whole range of publication control was discussed, and evidence was received from a wide range of interested parties. As has been pointed out, 18 amendments were accepted during the course of those deliberations and the original Bill was improved. In particular, the Draconian measure which provided that a publication could be confiscated for up to 72 hours, was removed from the Bill. This certainly pleased us very much.

As has been mentioned by a number of speakers, the video industry also made repreprentations, and the original Bill was amended to accommodate their suggestions and recommendations. In spite of all that, however, we remain opposed to the Bill because of the retention of the whole system of political censorship.

Many changes to the Act—it came into effect in 1974—have been brought about, but attention has not been given to the question of the control of publications containing political material, and this concerns us very greatly. To place a prohibition on political publications, we believe, is very dangerous.

Selective reporting too is very dangerous. I must point out to the House that this happened to the Whites in Rhodesia prior to 1980. They were fed political news selectively and ended up being totally unaware of the real situation in their country—to such an extent that when the independence elections were held in 1980 the result came as a great surprise to all concerned. Very few people, if any Whites at all, expected Robert Mugabe to win that election. They had been kept in the dark and were surprised at the result. The reason for this is that in the last few years before 1980 the Smith government deliberately kept from the Whites the reality of the situation in that country. Our concern, then, is that a similar situation should not be allowed to develop in South Africa. One has only to look at the weekly lists that are published in the newspapers and in the Government Gazette of those items or publications that have been banned or found undesirable, to realise that a whole section of the political spectrum is being kept from the public.

I am not supporting the points of view that may have been put forward in those documents that have been restricted, but I have no doubt that because of their continual prohibition, those publications could very well become more radical. This is the danger—that if a point of view is constantly suppressed, it could become more strident and the public would remain unaware of this development. Because they are kept in the dark, the public remain unaware that week by week the publications that have been suppressed or restricted become more vociferous in their point of view.

This relates particularly to the ANC at the present time. Just this week the Bureau for Information published a booklet entitled Talking with the ANC. The reporting in this booklet is selective and, by its very nature, one-sided. So I ask myself why the ANC are not allowed to talk for themselves. Surely they should operate in the market place in the same way as the rest of us. [Interjections.] In this way they will have to seek support as any other party would have to. Any excessive statements would be rejected by the electorate in the normal way. In this way people will be made aware of all points of view and can judge matters on merit.

As my colleague, the hon member for Green Point has indicated, we are concerned about the effects of publication control and the way in which information is withheld from members of the public. It is for this reason that we will oppose the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I understand the hon member for Johannesburg North visited Lusaka. I want to tell him we could have saved him a lot of trouble if we had been given the opportunity of presenting him with this little booklet I have here in my hand. That would have saved him the entire trip to Lusaka. [Interjections.] I do agree with the hon member, however, when he states that the whole system of standing committees is functioning very well, and also when he points out the fact that quite a number of important improvements to this Bill were brought about during the deliberations of the standing committee. For that reason I must tell the hon member that I regret to hear that in spite of all those improvements, which he, too, acknowledges, he and his party are still not prepared to support this measure.

*Mr Chairman, there has been detailed discussion of this Bill, and I do not intend to repeat arguments which have already been advanced. I want to associate myself with the hon the Minister, however, in the statement he rightly made in his Second Reading speech, viz that legislation in respect of publication control should merely be a manifestation of the demands of the population. I am also absolutely convinced, in view of all the evidence heard by the standing committee, that this is in fact an example of legislation which is not merely being introduced at random, but which is clearly a product to which all the involved parties made a through contribution. I therefore believe we can rightly contend that this legislation was formulated with the co-operation of everyone involved in it. That is why I believe it will receive wide support. It is a pleasure for me to support the measure in question.

Mr Chairman, the Herstigte National Party also supports the legislation under discussion, particularly because we are convinced that it will eliminate a number of loopholes, and that now for the first time there will be real control over pornography, specifically when it comes to videos. Having said that, however, I must also refer to the very important fact that when legislation is not implemented effectively and with a sound approach, no improvements which are effected to it will benefit the overall situation in any way and will not lead to an improvement in the state of affairs.

In the first place I want to refer to the fact that in his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister himself emphasised that the State should not be seen as the custodian of the moral values in this country. He also said the State was not the sole protector of peace and orderliness among its people. The churches, the schools, the parents and so on, as the hon member for Germiston District also emphasised here earlier, also have a major role to play in this respect. But then the following very important sentence occurs in the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech, and I quote it as follows:

Mr Chairman, that is precisely where the problem lies. [Interjections.] Yes, that is precisely where the problem lies, because neither in the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech nor in the Bill itself is the vaguest indication to be found of what the “demands of the population as a whole” really entail. The respective population groups, to which the hon the Minister of National Education is constantly referring—and which he emphasises whether it is appropriate or not—differ from one another so fundamentally that according to our conviction it is simply impossible to arrive at what the hon the Minister described as “the demands of the population as a whole”. In this respect I want to illustrate my statement by referring to only one example from the hon the Minister’s own province. I want to make it clear that I am not delivering a tirade or making an attack of any nature now. I am merely stating the facts.

On 23 February this year an article appeared on the front page of the Sunday Tribune under the headline “Ban this dirty Bible”. This article was compiled by the Islamic Propagation Centre, and accepted for publication by the Sunday Tribune. I am speaking under correction, but I think that this article was removed from the subsequent editions of the newspaper in question. But the fact of the matter is that it did appear. This afternoon we do not want to engage in a debate or join issue with what is probably the Mohammedan community. Here we have a very good indication of the major, fundamental and unbridgeable differences in our population. The one community rates the Bible as the one norm above all norms which must serve one as a guideline in one’s life. In another community the same “highest norm” is described as a “dirty Bible”.

My argument is that in this amending Bill, as far as control over publications in South Africa as a whole is concerned, there is no such thing—the hon the Deputy Minister stated it as a hope or as an expectation—as “the demands of the population as a whole”. The various components of the population differ too extensively from one another and adhere to differing values, ideals and norms. It is therefore not possible to state this as a premise or a norm.

Therefore I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister today, if he possibly can, to give us an indication during the present debate of what he means by “the demands of the population as a whole”. Can he therefore give us a set of relatively uniform norms or standards which he reckons are the demands of the population as a whole. As far as I know, no such explanation has ever been given by the Government.

According to our view the biggest single problem we have to contend with as far as publications are concerned is the very important provision stated in section 47(4) of the Publications Act. I am quoting the English version because I was unfortunately unable to get hold of the Afrikaans wording in time:

It was this very provision which was used as a reason by the Publications Appeal Board when the ban on the possession of the Freedom Charter was lifted in November 1983, under the chairmanship of Prof Van Rooyen. The view held by Prof Van Rooyen of the Appeal Board was that one should not consider the purpose or motive—this is also in accordance with the provision of the Act I have just quoted—in determining whether a document may be in the possession of any person in society. This applies in particular to documents relating to prohibited organisations. I am broaching this matter because it is of the utmost importance in the times in which we are living. The Freedom Charier was specifically mentioned by the hon member for Green Point and, if I am correct, it was also discussed in the Press yesterday or today. The hon the Minister of Law and Order also said that they would pay very close attention to the members of UDF. They are being monitored to see whether their conduct is in any way a danger to the State.

I just want to refer to the Freedom Charter for a moment. Of course this is without doubt a communist document. In that regard no one will take issue with us. I shall quote two short sentences from the Freedom Charter:

This is a very concise summary of what may be considered to be fundamental communist and socialist views.

It is also socialist.

In this case it is communist. Mr Justice Rumpff also states in a judgement he pronounced at the time of that famous treason trial:

The judge then quoted other matters. Mr Justice Rumpff therefore said it was a communist document—not in so many words, but he indicated this by what he said.

A man like Dr Henry Pike stated in his work A History of Communism in South Africa, which appeared in 1985:

In addition Gerard Ludi, who was a successful infiltrator of the SA Communist Party, wrote in an unpublished document on communists in South Africa:

That is his evidence.

Then we have the very interesting evidence of a Black man, a certain Bartholomew Hlapane. He was an eminent member of the central committee of the Communist Party of South Africa, who turned against the communists and in the early 1980s gave evidence under oath before the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Security of an American Senate Committee. His statement was:

At first this document was a prohibited document. The Publications Appeal Board adopted a new resolution on it in 1983, in terms of which it may now be freely distributed and passed around in South Africa.

I have now briefly submitted the irrefutable evidence to this House that there is no doubt that it is a communist document. For the purpose of my basic argument I must point out to the House that it is not merely a communist document. It is not something of the nature of Das Kapital, in which the philosophy of communism is set out and that is the end of it. It is not even something like the Communist Manifesto of Engels. This Freedom Charter cannot in any way be compared with the basic philosophical works on communism by Mao Tse-tung, Georgi Dimitrov, Che Guevara, and so on. In South Africa it was distributed as a propaganda document, and here I am now coming closer to the point I want to make.

In a document entitled The Freedom Charter, which appeared in an ANC publication, the Freedom Charter was presented as a propaganda document. They commented on the Freedom Charter, and I quote:

That is the point. Not only in South Africa, but also abroad, in Zimbabwe, the Freedom Charter is directly linked to the essence of the communist movement and to communism as such.

I want to refer to another instructive matter. A South African Black man by the name of Jeffery Bosigo, who received terrorist training in Russia from 1976 to 1979, testified before the abovementioned American committee. I quote:

My argument is that terrorists had to be conversant with it, not in order to teach a class of students or in a library to serve the public who for scientific reasons want to know what it contains; they had to learn it because they not only had to fight a war, but also disseminate propaganda.

The next quotation from the excellent White Paper recently circulated by the Department of Defence makes it easy for me to substantiate my argument further. It deals with the major onslaught on South Africa, which the Government is very concerned about, with a view to 16 June. We find ourselves in a situation which could explode into a crisis. It is therefore very important to know what position the Freedom Charter occupies in this situation:

Again it is stated here that the Freedom Charter is being propagated. When a person propagates something, it means that one distributes it and brings it to the attention of the masses, not for the sake of science or of research, but to influence the masses in your direction and for your cause, in an effort to win them over.

That the Freedom Charter is an out and out communist document is quite clear. It is linked to the South African Communist Party and the ANC, which are banned organisations, and to their fellow-travellers. That it is also being used as a propaganda document I have substantiated with sufficient evidence before this House this afternoon.

I now want to ask the hon the Minister: How could the Publications Appeal Board lift the ban which previously applied to this document in 1983? The earlier view was the correct one. It is not a document which we can allow to be distributed among the masses in South Africa, because it contributes to the overthrow of the State.

In the HNP we undoubtedly draw a distinction between scientific and propagandistic activities. We have no objection to any communist document, of whatever nature, being available in libraries for students, professors, researchers and people such as the HNP who want to know who and what our enemies are, what they look like, how they think and what their plans and techniques are. However, we rebel against the fact that it is being distributed as propaganda. That is the distinction we draw. We say it is a crime against South Africa that the Freedom Charter may be freely distributed among the masses today.

Nadine Gordimer, who is regarded in all quarters as an extreme left-wing authoress, makes the following interesting point: “You get away with more in fiction”. The communists will use fiction, videos, radio and any other medium to promote their cause. The words of Nadine Gordimer are sufficient proof of that.

I make this contention to the hon the Minister. The Appeal Board must not be naïve, but must be on its guard. It must seek for and perceive who and what is communistic, and whether they are being used for propaganda purposes. If they do that they are playing the role which the whole of South Africa is entitled to ask them to play. I make so bold as to say that not even the PFP is likely to have any objection to this basic approach.

The HNP, after all, takes cognisance of everything, and we are not pleading for a South Africa in which a person is denied knowledge of certain things. We say that South Africa must know about everything, but we draw a line when the Freedom Charter is used as a propaganda document.

I know the hon the Minister is not as far to the right as I would like to see, but I think the reasonableness of my standpoint is going to persuade even him to comply with the request I am going to make to him this afternoon. I am asking for steps to be taken to delete section 47(4) from the principal Act.

The hon the Minister is a lawyer. I was also one. And when a person assesses a document, one must assess it on the basis of its contents, on the basis of all the evidence relating to it, on the basis of the motives of the author and on the basis of the object of the author. One must not, as the Bill states, examine the document, but not the motives and the object. That is nonsense. I cannot believe that such a section was included in this Act, unless there were people who thought that they could in this way calmly and quietly—almost cunningly—open the door to the communists.

If one may not assess the object and motives of the compilers of the Freedom Charter, one is helpless. That is why, when that section was first included, Prof Van Rooyen and the Appeal Board were almost compelled to lift the ban on the Freedom Charter. I know the hon the Minister cannot remove that section straight away. That is why I am asking the hon the Minister for a second thing.

I want him to ask the Appeal Board to reconsider the entire matter, particularly in view of the times in which we are living. If one saw how the hon the Minister of Law and Order had to plead in the House of Representatives this afternoon, and we know what condition he is in, I just cannot imagine that we are able to make any further progress in South Africa unless we place a ban on the propagation of communist documents, with the exception perhaps of Das Kapital, because that is too bulky and heavy and fortunately they cannot distribute it, but just about everything else.

I should have liked to have raised another point, but my hon Whip has asked me to say nothing further now. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sasolburg sometimes has a very uneasy Whip next to him. It must seldom happen in a parliament that one sees in the case of two parties so far removed from each other that one has to be so greatly influenced by the Whip of the other. I also realise, in casting my eyes over the NP, that there is a restlessness there. Obviously the hon the Minister wishes to finish off.

I want to say it is actually a pity that, in spite of all the good work done in the standing committee—I also wish to make a few comments on this—we sometimes have to move so fast over these important and burning matters. Although our relations with the Whips on the other side of the House are not too good, I shall also attempt abbreviating my speech here and there to give the hon the Minister the opportunity of concluding this Bill. I should appreciate it if the hon the Minister would merely give me an indication of how much time he requires to reply.

You have only two minutes!

Only two minutes? Mr Speaker, that is not fair of him! [Interjections.] In that case I am afraid we shall have to finish this tomorrow. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sasolburg made a very interesting and illuminating speech. I think it important that we in the CP obtain support from the hon member for Sasolburg’s side so that the Government party, which has become a centrist party, is not bombarded by standpoints from the side of leftists but that there should also be perspective on the basic principles on which the old NP built long ago. [Interjections.]

As a member of that standing committee I wanted to testify and say this afternoon that I found it a particularly interesting and positive experience to have been a member of that standing committee. We listened to a variety of evidence and the quality of evidence given was very good. All the representatives of various institutions came well prepared and the way in which they put their cases to us really elicited very good discussion. After listening to the variety of evidence given, there was actually no difference between the attitude of the standing committee and that of the people who gave evidence on the question of pornography, cruelty, terrorism and anarchy propagated by publications and so on. Obviously the people giving evidence were protecting their interests. This is quite natural and I believe it is their right. Nevertheless I gained the impression throughout that those giving evidence had really come to be helpful and furnish a service, not only to themselves but also to the community in which they live. That is why the position of the video was very well handled.

I want to say that when one is dealing with man as a being creating culture—not only culturally creative spiritually but also materially—one very often encounters the problem that modern man—who has made such enormous progress technologically—is not always assisted for the best by that technological progress. Consequently it is not only those people who wish to promote the good in society who are assisted by human technological skills but also those wishing to promote evil. According to old customs we therefore have both good and evil in our community but, owing to the technical creations of man which effect improvements, it is not only the good which is enabled to accomplish its task but unfortunately also the bad. [Interjections.]

Although we are dealing with an amending Bill here, it is always important in a fresh examination of legislation, in which the State is actually intervening in ethical and moral values, that we re-examine the position of the State and ask ourselves whether the State is obtaining the right and authority to interfere in these aspects of our society.

I do not wish to pause here any longer because it is a wonderful experience to read about the concept of the State, constitutional law and so on in the history of man over a few thousand years. All I wish to say is that human culture grows from certain basic principles and that there is a sort of natural discipline appearing in specific cultural societies. In the course and dynamics of the cultural creativity of man, however, there are always those individuals who query certain principles and values.

Sometimes people who query those norms succeed in changing the standards of the community but they frequently fail. I am sometimes sceptical of those who are so exaggeratedly critical of the existing norms in the time in which we live. Not all who question the existing standards do so to improve the community. The consequence of their query is often a deterioration in them.

All facets of society are questioned. We who are in politics do this from the nature of the case. That is why my hon colleagues of the CP are critical toward control of political publications. It interests me, as a person who has studied literature somewhat, to see how writers like Molière and others in particular were able during that excellent era in French writing to use their literary ability in a surprising way in querying the norms of the Church and State at the time.

The reaction one sometimes finds is that the State or those who to a specific degree control the structure of the State or other facets of the living pattern of a specific community very frequently are not only sceptical toward people questioning their norms and standards; they sometimes adopt a defensive and even hostile attitude toward them. I can therefore understand that a government is sometimes exceptionally sceptical toward those questioning its norms and standards.

The next point I wish to make—I do it as a conservative—is that I am extremely aware of the fact that, when one has power and authority in one’s hands, one has to deal with it very calmly, normally and responsibly. I think every responsible person will realise—perhaps when the hon PFP members are in a position of power and authority one day, I think they will realise too that power and authority should be used very responsibly.

Well said, Daan!

As the hon member for Turffontein is praising me so highly now, I should like to make a little political capital by way of the following comment. I find it amazing that, when we abolished section 16 of the Immorality Act, the governing party used the argument that it did not require that Act. The Government then argued that it did not require such legislation to protect its identity or community. Today the Government says, however, that it and the community do require the legislation and I support them in this. [Interjections.]

The Government argument was therefore not altogether logical. In this case we are definitely intervening. Today the NP is not telling us that it does not require the legislation on the control of publications or videos. I could put forward the same argument. The CP is consistent in its approach to the right and the responsibility of the State to intervene in morals just as it is responsible for promoting peace, safety and prosperity throughout the community. It may therefore sometimes intervene in the sovereignty of an own circle or in the sphere of authority of other facets of life. I shall leave it at that although I should like to take the discussion of this much further with the Government.

Furthermore, I should like to refer to Prof J C W van Rooyen. I wish to put it that I have very great appreciation of the officials working with the control of publications and what attends that. This is no easy task. We discuss this Act once every six months or even once in two years but these officials have that responsibility throughout. I wish to refer hon members to the book written by Prof Van Rooyen entitled Publikasiebeheer in Suid-Afrika. I had better not quote from it now as I should have liked. It is a brilliant book. Prof Van Rooyen would probably have liked to effect certain changes or improvements to the book today but it is really one of the standard works on publications control. In spite of everything I have said on the responsibility of the State, we take pleasure in welcoming this legislation. Yet I want to inform the hon the Minister—this is no accusation of anyone as we are part and parcel of it—that I gain the impression that a relaxation has crept into the application of the Act. In saying this, I am doing so as someone who was invited approximately 20 years ago as a member of the Internal Affairs Study Group to view certain films and other material. Incidentally, that was one of the last duties the present hon Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and I did together. As I have said, I gain the impression that the application of the Act has been moderated. My family consists of reasonably adult and also smaller children and nowadays I can sometimes hardly attend a film show outside with my children especially where the trailers are concerned. There are just as many age limits which of necessity had to be instituted. When we went to see Bonny and Clyde 20 years ago, for instance, it was regarded as a shocking film. It was shocking to see Bonny and Clyde’s goings-on with their shooting and so on. Today, however, Bonny and Clyde is regarded as a film one may even show to Sunday school children in comparison with some of today’s films.

Consequently, I tell the hon the Minister sincerely we should guard against merely saying that times have changed, that renewal and refinement have taken place and that adjustments are necessary because we can be dragged long into a slackening of our standards. In the light of the Preamble to the Constitution and also that of the principles of the old NP, I appeal to the hon the Minister to assure that standards are not relaxed to the extent that we ultimately cause the situation to arise in which the public is exposed to material bordering as closely on pornography as one could find. To my mind there is a gradual slide from our old standards and we should resist this even if we have to move a little to the right again—if I may put it like this—in this respect.

In these words I wish to indicate our support for this Bill. It was pleasant to debate on it. In passing, I may tell the hon chairman of the standing committee that the meetings of that committee on this Bill were certainly some of the occasions I enjoyed being in his company.

Mr Speaker, I welcome the measure before the House. When one considers that 47 memoranda were submitted to the standing committee, 27 individuals or organisations gave evidence and 18 amendments were moved to the measure in the standing committee, I wish to express my exceptional appreciation in the first place to the hon members of the standing committee who really went to great lengths to ensure that the amendments effected to the Publications Act were of such a nature that the loopholes found in the Act were definitely closed by them.

I should also like to express my exceptional appreciation to the hon the Minister who accepted the amendments effected by the committee. The committee system has been proved to work. The reason why it works is that people have become involved in the system who have the will to make it work.

When we look at what occurred when the measure was inscribed in the Statute Book in 1974, we see that on that occasion 100 memoranda were submitted and 30 individuals and organisations gave evidence. This is proof to me that publications control is taken seriously in our country. I think it important that we should record the purpose of publications control again. It is included in the guidelines applied by the Publications Control Board. I quote:

To prove that the Government takes publications control seriously in our country, we may notice that, since the Publications Act was passed by Parliament in 1974, it was amended in 1977, 1978, 1979 and also in 1982. This is proof of the Government’s seriousness about the control of publications in South Africa.

This afternoon I wish to tell hon members of the Opposition Parties, especially the CP, that it is true the hon the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that publications control was not the responsibility of the State. If hon members had only read the speech in full, they would have seen very clearly that the hon the Minister said in it that the responsibility for publications control was not only that of the State but that other organisations also had to accept responsibility for it.

I wish to refer the House to a single paragraph in the Second Reading speech of the then Minister of the Interior on 12 August 1974 when the principal Act was placed on the Statute Book. I quote from col 467 of Hansard:

That remains the Government’s standpoint.

If doubt exists among CP members that the Government is not fulfilling its obligations regarding publications control in our country, I wish to refer to the speech made by the State President in the President’s Council on 15 May 1986. He referred especially to norms and values and then continued:

That is the point also raised here this afternoon by the hon member for Sasolburg—

I shall quote only one of these which applies this afternoon in our discussion of the Publications Amendment Bill:

Consequently there should be no doubt about this among our people.

It is also important that the Church accept a responsibility regarding publications control. In 1947 Dr William Nicol, a very well-known church leader of our time, headed the first deputation of a church to the then Minister of the Interior to appeal for publications control in our country. The Church therefore became involved in publications control from earliest times. In saying the Church should become involved, we should not think of a building somewhere in a town or a city in which a congregation gathers on a Sunday. Nor should we see it as the place where the offices of the Church function and the sacraments are served. This deals with the Church which moves from a religious service into the community. Consequently the Church is present in the community every day; in the same way it is also present in the House of Assembly. It is important that we take note of this.

The hon the Minister also referred to schools in his Second Reading Speech. Our children who receive their education in these institutions are in reality placed like clay into the hands of the potter. The school therefore has a great responsibility to guard against a corrupting influence on our children from material used daily in schools.

It is also important to note that the parent bears a responsibility too. It is unfortunately the case—let us admit this to one another—that the parents of our time are more involved in public life which results in our children’s being left alone at home frequently. It also happens that, when parents attend a function together and take their children to another house, a video is hired for the children. The hon member for Koedoespoort referred to this last night and said that what the video dealer presented to one regarding the content of the video he was offering frequently differed from what was really shown on it. The parent therefore also has a responsibility to see that his child is not corrupted within his home by material he brings into it.

It is therefore very clear that the State, Church, parents and schools have a responsibility to ensure that the spirit of our people is not corrupted. To my mind these measures will definitely contribute to effective publications control in South Africa.

The responsibility for publications control definitely does not rest with the authorities. It is the duty of the legislator in a Christian country to take steps to exorcise a canker in the moral life of people. It is saddening but unfortunately true that we live in a time in which sex is exploited for financial gain as well as for lascivious purposes. Modern people seem to know how to apply man’s strongest urge for filthy lucre and for the indulgence of human weakness. It has therefore been happening for years in our country, and especially in urban centres, that the most repulsive photographs and films imaginable are in circulation in spite of their being illegal. Most of the photographs and films are probably smuggled into the country for subsequent distribution and trade among clients which the smugglers acquire in some way or other.

It is especially disturbing that many young people are involved in this corrupting pastime. White and non-White take part equally eagerly and it is nothing unusual to find such photographs and films in the possession of groups. It can hardly be doubted that those who own such photographs and films do not keep them for their own perverse entertainment but also corrupt the morals of others with them and that a flourishing trade in them is probably one of the motivating forces behind them.

I hope that these measures will contribute in closing another loophole found in the Act. I believe this is a matter on which there should be no difference of opinion in the House so I find it a pity this afternoon that the PFP is not prepared to support this measure.

I take pleasure in supporting the measure just as I should any measure which would prevent the morals of our people from being eroded and corrupted.

Mr Speaker, this was a very interesting debate, and I thank all the hon members who took part in it. What struck me in particular, was the fact that there is an almost unanimous concern to ensure that since the State is involved in the control of publications and these sensitive matters, they will be considered with great circumspection and great seriousness.

I shall deal with the arguments of each hon member who took part in the debate. It is a pity that I shall be interrupted, but I shall definitely not be able to finish off tonight.

In the first place I want to refer to the hon member for Green Point, who gave a good review of the development that has taken place since the Act in question has applied. It is clear to me, not only from what I heard from the hon member for Green Point, but also from all the hon members who took part in the debate and especially those who took part in the standing committee, that they also acquired very good knowledge in this period and that they encouraged their colleagues and made them interested in this very important matter.

I think I should also refer in particular on this occasion to the activities of this standing committee, which hon members spoke about.

I think this standing committee probably did pioneering work. In my opinion, the report they submitted shows clearly that they did good work, and spared no pains in inquiring into the matter in depth. Apparently the members did quite a bit of follow-up work, and were not satisfied with the result of a specific inquiry if only one or two witnesses had given evidence about a matter. I am also very pleased to hear that they received the co-operation of the department.

I want to express a particular word of thanks, not only to all the members of the standing committee, but also to the chairman. I know he went to a lot of trouble, and as befits a good chairman, he ensured that the interest and initiative of the members of the committee were kept alive.

The hon member for Green Point referred in particular to political censure, as defined in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of section 47(2) of the principal Act. I requested details in this connection, since the hon member is worried that problems may be experienced with reference to the consideration of political publications in terms of the system we apply. I noticed that no publications had been declared undesirable in terms of paragraph (c) in 1985. Only four were found to be undesirable in respect of subsection (2)(d) and in respect of subsection (2)(e)—which was the hon member’s main topic of discussion—292 were found to be undesirable. I must also point out that these figures were taken from a total of 1393 cases which were referred to the Appeal Board in 1985. The impression I get from this, is that the problem is not very big one, but the hon members for Green Point and Johannesburg North must consider the magnitude of the problem.

In addition I inquired about possible delays in the case of appeals and whether or not there is an accumulation of appeals. I went to look at registered appeals for 1985, for the same period therefore. In respect of subsections (2)(c) and (2)(d) there were no appeals and in respect of subsection (2)(e) 11 appeals were granted, 12 were rejected and one appeal is still pending, but I do not know whether this one appeal falls in the abovementioned groups. I therefore want to reassure the hon member. It appears that there are really not good grounds for anxiety at this stage.

I must also point out, with reference to a question I was asked earlier this year, that the panel of experts is made up of people who are knowledgeable in this sphere. There are people with training in politics, philosophy, law and similar backgrounds, for example. All these people serve on a panel from which various committees are made up on an ad hoc basis.