I move—

There are a few points which I would like to ask the hon. Minister at this stage to have regard to and to consider in the light of the fact that this Bill will be going to the Other Place; I want to ask him whether some amendments might not perhaps be necessary in the Other Place. The first matter which I wish to ask the hon. the Minister about relates to Clause 14 of the Bill, which repeals Section 32bis of the principal Act, which provides that only attorneys, notaries and conveyancers may, in the expectation of a fee, do certain things. They relate to such matters as the drawing of documents relating to contracts, wills, articles of association, companies and so on. When this Act was amended last year the hon. the Minister was given the power to make regulations providing for the reservation of certain jobs for attorneys. I appreciate that in terms of this Bill the hon. the Minister has the power to bring certain sections of the Act into operation at times different from other sections, and one must assume that the hon. the Minister will not bring this repeal into operation until such time as the regulations have been promulgated. What I would like to ask the hon. the Minister is whether he has any idea as to when the regulations are going to be promulgated and what matters are going to be included in the regulations, by which I mean which matters will be reserved for the attention and the service of attorneys only.

The second matter relates to the latter part of the Bill, that part of the Bill which does not amend the Act of 1934, those matters which deal with the constitutions of the various law societies. There is one aspect to which I hope the hon. the Minister will give some attention in the Other Place and that is the provision that these societies, after having investigated complaints as to the conduct of their members, may impose punishment. It is not clear at all what sort of punishment they may impose, and I think it ought to be stated clearly, but it certainly includes a fine.

Of less than R200.

This does not appear to be clear. There is no maximum provided for in this Bill. This is an aspect to which I hope the Minister will give his attention.

The third and last matter refers to Clause 7, which provides that no application may be made to be admitted or re-admitted unless the application is made before the expiration of the period of three years. I appreciate that this is an extension of the period. Before this Bill came before us it was two years. Sir, this appears to be an absolute bar. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will indicate why there is an absolute bar and whether he does not feel that the courts should have a discretion to decide in special circumstances which one cannot foresee at the moment to extend the period.

The hon. member firstly asked me a question about regulations which may be issued in terms of an Act we passed last year, in terms of which certain work can be reserved for attorneys. The hon. member will remember that on that occasion I said that before those regulations came into operation I would give all interested parties the opportunity not only to take note of them but, if necessary, to make representations to me and to have consultations with me. This is also a matter with which the attorneys did not want to deal over-hastily and then possibly be reproached for just grasping everything for their profession while they had the chance to do so. The hon. member will also understand that this is a matter which must be carefully considered. Since we assembled last time, it has been thoroughly considered by the attorneys; a thorough investigation was made by them and they held many consultations not only with me personally but also with the Department. We are now in the process—in fact, we have almost finished—of drafting those regulations as they have now been evolved as the result of our deliberations. The procedure will then be to send it to the attorneys’ societies for their consideration. They will probably, after having received it, again have consultations with us, and only then can the regulations be published, and I expect that representations will then be made to me. I will then arrange consultations with the various interested bodies, as I promised to do last time. Nothing will be done in this regard without first consulting the persons who want to make representations and hold consultations in this connection. I cannot even at this stage guess when the matter will be completed or when the regulations can be published.

But this Bill will not come into operation until such time as that has been done.

I cannot reply to that at the moment; I think so, but I shall give the hon. member the information.

In regard to the fines, it is of course not an unusual principle for people belonging to the same profession to impose fines on members of that profession. As the hon. member knows, the Medical Council, for example, takes disciplinary steps against its members and all kinds of sentences can be passed, e.g. that a person may not practice for a certain period or that he may not do this or that.

This is purely a domestic matter. As I told hon. members in the beginning, I do not think that the penalties prescribed here are unreasonable. In any case, it is a private concern of the attorneys and they have all agreed to it. Just as I take it that a medical man, if there are mala fides or if unreasonable steps are taken against him, has the right of recourse to the courts to air any grievances he may have. In regard to the third aspect mentioned by the hon. member, I shall go into the matter again. As far as my memory serves me, the position which applied formerly was that it was an absolute prohibition for two years. The concession is now being made of making it three years. Nevertheless I shall go into it again.

While I am on my feet, I may just inform hon. members that the Law Society has asked for certain amendments and that I shall move them in the Other Place. If in the meantime hon. members feel, because we dealt with the matter so speedily yesterday, that they want to raise other matters, then they are at liberty to consult me or my Department in that regard.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The House has now accepted the principle that the Minister has power to appoint an unlimited number of justices of the peace …

Have you not had enough?

At this stage of the debate I shall therefore deal with the duties and responsibilities which will fall on these additional justices of the peace. And to my friend who asks whether I have not had enough I want to say that I think, by the time I have finished, he will be sorry that he made that interjection.

I want to draw attention to the problems which the justices of the peace whom the Minister is now empowered to appoint will face and ask the Minister to deal with this issue in relation to whether he himself will place any limitation or issue instructions in regard to the exercise of their powers. Yesterday the hon. the Minister made a lot of play in regard to the fact, firstly, that these justices of the peace would not be faced with any real problem of malpractices. But it was overdone. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. Schoonbee) and the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Van den Heever) quoted from the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Postal Vote System. They tried to create the impression that there were no real malpractices; that the Commission of Inquiry had found that they could not prove any malpractice and that therefore we were making a lot of fuss about nothing in regard to our doubts about this measure. I now want to quote from paragraph 91 of the same report from which hon. members chose …

Order! I am afraid the report is not under discussion. I want to point out to hon. members that this is a one-clause Bill containing the principle that the Minister may appoint justices of the peace also beyond the number of six for one ward. Hon. members must confine themselves strictly to the clause.

May I ask your ruling in regard to this, Mr. Chairman: The Minister has been granted power to appoint additional justices of the peace. That is the principle which has been accepted. He has stated the purposes for which those justices of the peace are to be appointed. Are we not entitled to discuss the problems which will face these additional appointees appointed for a purpose which the Minister himself has announced?

The hon.

member may discuss that during the third reading. He must now confine himself to the clause.

May I ask whether we are not entitled to discuss what a person who we are now being asked to authorize to be appointed is going to do with that appointment?

No, the hon. member will be attacking the principle.

No, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend attacking the principle. I intend to seek a detailed limitation upon the power of these additional justices of the peace who are now to be appointed. I seek to argue why we are entitled to ask the Minister to place restrictions in regard to certain aspects of the duties of these appointees.

Order! That is not covered by the clause.

Mr. Chairman, you have pointed out that this is a one-clause Bill. Surely we on this side of the House are entitled to vote against the clause which itself contains the principle of the Bill. That being so, Sir, can we not state our reasons for voting against the clause? I can hardly conceive that the reasons can be stated without objecting to the principle contained in the clause.

That is the proper procedure. The hon. member can briefly state his objections to the clause but thereafter he must exercise his right by voting against it. He cannot attack the principle.

I shall try to deal then with our objection and the reasons why we intend to vote against this clause. In doing so I trust that you will permit me to substantiate the reasons for our objection. The reasons for our objection are that we believe the hon. the Minister, when he appoints this unlimited number of justices of the peace, will be appointing people who will be required to perform certain duties which a commission appointed by this House found had in the past been consistently and generally abused and in regard to which four out of the five electoral officers of South Africa stated in their evidence before that commission the only solution would be to use full-time public officials.

Was that why you recommended that each candidate should appoint 12?

The hon. the Minister is telling a half truth in regard to this matter. By quoting half of a recommendation he is trying to create a false impression …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the statement that the hon. the Minister is trying to create a false impression.

I withdraw the statement, Mr. Chairman, and I say that the hon. the Minister quoted only half of the recommendation of the Commission …

That is not true; I quoted the full recommendation.

The hon. the Minister quoted one recommendation from which he tried to imply that I and members on this side of the House had been in favour of the appointment of commissioners of oaths at the behest of party candidates and that therefore we were being illogical in opposing this measure.

Exactly.

The Minister dealt only with one aspect of the recommendations of the Commission, which recommended two types of postal voting. Why did the hon. the Minister not tell the House that?

I read out the whole recommendation and you know it.

The Minister failed to tell this House that in the introductory paragraph to that resolution the Commission stated that it believed, as a basic principle, that anyone handling a postal vote should be under the control of and in direct and close liaison with the returning officer. I refer to paragraph 144—

In the course of the deliberations on this matter, the idea took shape more and more that the way to check malpractices would be to appoint presiding officers at a higher level and with a higher status than at present, who would in every respect be accountable to the returning officer and would be under his direct control in their official duties.

Why did the Minister not quote that? Because that is fundamental to our concept. Our recommendations went on to suggest a completely new system in which only public officials would be used and the Minister did not tell the House about that. He quoted our recommended retention of the existing system whilst the new system was being tested.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to state his objections; he must now confine himself to the clause.

We are being completely logical, Mr. Chairman, in our objection to allowing ballot papers out of the control of officials. We then continue to object to this clause …

Order! The hon. member is not observing my ruling.

Sir, I say we object to this clause …

Order!

May I say why we object to it?

Order! The hon. member has already stated his objections. He must now resume his seat.

The hon. member has now made certain accusations against me. I am afraid that if the hon. member had only thought first, he would not have done it, because he is now making his case much worse. The hon. member has now referred to something and he has accused me of not having read it. He should be very grateful that I did not notice it yesterday, because this is what they say here—

The hon. the Minister should not now make himself guilty of the same thing.

With respect, Sir, I just want to reply to the argument which you allowed the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) to use. After that you will have no further trouble from me. With respect, the hon. member read it out and I think you will just allow me to reply to it—

That is the point the hon. member now wants to make, and the “higher level” is that the candidate should nominate these people.

Read the following two lines.

I shall do so—

… and with a higher status than at present.

In other words, the people nominated by the candidate now have a higher status than the justices of the peace had in the past. You therefore see, Sir, that the hon. member has not improved his case; on the contrary, he makes it much worse.

Read the following line.

Yes—

… who would in every respect be accountable to the returning officer and would be under his direct control in their official duties.

That is the point.

As if not a single one of the persons now indicated are under the control of the Electoral Officer! If the hon. member reads the Electoral Act he will see that the whole object is particularly to exercise that necessary control.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. the Minister to discuss the Electoral Act or the report of the Select Committee.

I should like to move the following amendment—

In other words, the clause will then read—

Remember the general election is also in the offing.

I shall explain it to the hon. member if he would only be patient enough to listen. We have had a battery of interjections and I am trying to explain the Bill. At the second-reading stage I tried to suggest to the hon. the Minister that this authority which is being granted should be divorced from any consideration of a provincial election, that it should not appear, on the eve of an election, that the hon. the Minister might be creating justices of the peace to take part in the election and assist one party or another. The hon. the Minister, in his reply, said I had come forward with a pious countenance, with a “vrome gesig”. I came forward with a honest, straightforward suggestion to the hon. the Minister.

And the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) replied to that.

Yes, Sir, but I am speaking of the hon. Minister’s reply to the second-reading debate. When a member comes forward with a contribution, and I thought mine was a constructive contribution, he does not like to be sneered at. I want to make the same suggestion now. I want the Minister to have the authority but not to exercise it before the Provincial election so that we can use this Provincial election as a test period to test the recommendations of the Select Committee and the legislation that went through last year.

Before I put the amendment I shall have to consider whether it is not destructive of the principle accepted at the second reading.

I would like to support that amendment. I do not think this House adequately appreciated yesterday, when we discussed the second reading, the immense power already available to create additional people to be presiding officers for absent voters. If hon. members would look at Section 1 of the Electoral Consolidation Act, under the definition of “presiding officer of absent votes” they would see the very wide power which is given there, and I should like to read it to the House—

In other words, virtually any officer of the Civil Service—I imagine on the permanent staff—can be appointed. In the light of that provision, who can say that we cannot immediately appoint adequate people in the Civil Service to do this job? I say that more particularly since the hon. the Minister, when he replied to the debate, went a long way—perhaps, to do him justice, he had hinted at it in his introductory speech—to suggest that it would be necessary to appoint relatively few people.

There is also this point, that where this power exists surely we are not going to throw away all the work done by the Select Committee in this matter, we are not going to throw away the work done by the Commission, we are not going to throw away the whole new system of postal votes introduced whereby it is in the hands of State officials. Surely we are not going to throw all that away where there is this power to appoint anybody in the State service to act on his behalf and under his supervision.

I do suggest that by accepting this amendment we shall meet the situation in respect of which pleas were made by hon. members opposite, namely, that there had been insufficient people in certain wards, that the whole division of the wards was outmoded and that this was largely a measure to bring that position up to date. If this amendment is adopted this question of an election being right ahead disappears. This power would be available to the Minister. He would thereby get away from the need of hasty appointments of justices of the peace in the face of an election, something which would undoubtedly change the character of this venerated office.

I therefore ask the hon. the Minister, more particularly in view of his argument that so many postal vote applications have already been received, applications which have to go to the existing authorities, to accept this amendment.

Indeed I would not be surprised if certain of the arguments the hon. Minister used, inter alia, that these postal votes are already going to others, escaped the attention of the hon. the Minister of the Interior when he asked the hon. Minister of Justice to introduce this amending Bill. I do not doubt that the Minister of the Interior himself is aware that this amendment will be of much less value to him than he thought.

Surely this is a price worth paying to preserve so much that has been built up both in respect of the office itself and in respect of the new postal vote system.

I have decided that the amendment is in order.

I wish to give a further reason why the amendment which has been moved is one I believe the hon. the Minister should consider and accept. This arises from a practical problem, a practical problem which has arisen only this week in that a dispute has arisen as to the rights and powers of justices of the peace appointed in terms of the clause we are now amending and authorized thereunder to take postal votes. It was a point the hon. the Minister dealt with in his reply to the debate yesterday when he stated that justices of the peace would only take votes in their offices during fixed hours and would not go out to do votes. I am correct in saying that the Minister said that?

That was the argument across the floor of the House.

I understood the Minister to state it. It was certainly stated by various members. This matter was tested in a Cape constituency, where a magistrate gave a ruling in regard to the right of a justice of the peace to go to a voter. The matter was taken to the chief electoral officer of the Cape, who refused to give a ruling. It was then taken to the Secretary of the Interior, who refused to give a ruling. He refused to give a ruling as to whether a justice of the peace was entitled to take a postal vote to a voter. The matter was then referred back by letter to the returning officer of the constituency asking for his ruling and whether he would accept or reject a ballot taken by a returning officer other than in his office. The returning officer has refused to give a reply to that letter. We therefore have the situation that justices of the peace can now be appointed, if this Bill is passed, when even the Secretary of the Interior, no political party and no justice of the peace knows what their powers are in regard to the taking of a postal vote. I believe that if the Minister would postpone this issue until after the election it would give time for either a test case to be brought and the matter settled or for a ministerial ruling to be given to clarify the position.

But as long as the Department of the Interior, through the Secretary of the Interior responsible for elections, refuses to define the powers and privileges of a justice of the peace I believe we would be doing a disservice by now summarily authorizing the Minister to appoint a further unlimited number when the existing ones do not even know what their powers are. I dispute and contradict flatly the allegations made by Government members that either the law, which I have here, or the regulations, all of which I have here, in any single instance deal with this question and either forbid a justice of the peace to go out to a voter or, on the contrary, instruct him to take a vote in his office. Nowhere in the law or in the regulations are these rights and powers defined. I believe it is an injustice to the parties, to the candidates and to the justices of the peace to go on appointing endless numbers of them when there is no clarity on how they may act and when the very safeguard the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) claimed to be the safeguard against abuse is in doubt. Because if the ruling is that a justice of the peace may go out to a voter then the whole principle of a watchdog of which so much play was made by Government members falls away.

Order! The hon. member must not go beyond the argument of clarity.

I am saying that if the clarity is resolved in one way then the protection which was offered by the Minister no longer exists. The Minister stated that a justice of the peace could not go out to a voter. He would be in his office and therefore political parties would be protected. My submission is …

Order! The hon. member is going beyond the clause and the amendment.

I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I say the Minister owes this House a duty, a duty he is not able to perform because it is not within his power. He cannot answer this question. He pretended yesterday to know the answer. He gave it as he thought, but he cannot answer it for it is not within his jurisdiction. He is therefore not able, before we vote on this clause, to give a categorical definition of those powers. Therefore I submit that preferably this clause should be rejected but failing that it should at least be held over until after the provincial elections.

I shall try to refrain from discussing the powers of a justice of the peace or the principle of the Act we have already dealt with, or the contents of the electoral laws. I rise to make a very urgent request of the hon. the Minister not to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore). The principle that the Minister will have the right to appoint more justices of the peace, i.e. more than six, has now been adopted.

The hon. member for Kensington asks that these appointments should not be made before 1 April this year. That was also the argument of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) towards the end of his speech. It is quite clear that those hon. members have now let the cat out of the bag in connection with the allegation I made yesterday already when I took part in the second-reading debate. I want to ask the Minister, instead of adopting this amendment, in fact to see to it that the appointments are made, if and where necessary, before 24 March. If this Bill is passed the result will be that we will in fact have confidence in those people who are appointed.

But according to the hon. member’s amendment, they have to be appointed particularly after a certain date. In other words, he is in advance expressing a lack of confidence in the way those people will perform their function, whatever that might entail—not necessarily the handling of postal votes only. It clearly shows lack of confidence in those people if they are to be appointed after a certain date, in other words, after the provincial election is over. It will have the effect that if they are appointed after 1 April they can then perform all the functions of a justice of the peace, and further that also in 1966, or whenever the next election is held, they may probably be appointed to do the work in regard to which those hon. members now have fears. It is quite clear to me that the hon. members are afraid that the work can be done; it is not because they have no confidence in these persons, but because there will be sufficient justices of the peace to do the work which must be done in regard to postal votes at an election.

May I also ask the hon. the Minister when he is dealing with the question that has already been put to him, to clear up another point which is also part of the same pattern? I speak from personal experience in this matter where in previous elections certain returning officers have held that a justice of the peace who is appointed for a particular ward or magisterial district is only permitted to exercise his authority on election matters as a justice of the peace within the limits of that area. In other words, according to some returning officers at least, he cannot deal with the attestation of votes say of an area falling outside his magisterial district.

He administers an oath and he is only capable of administering an oath in the ward for which he is appointed.

That is the point I wanted to have made clear because in certain cases rulings had been given by returning officers who have accepted postal votes certified and attested by justices of the peace in another district altogether, dealing with their own voters in another area. There is a complication and I think it is a point which calls for clarity. In heavily congested areas, even such as the Cape Peninsula, you get people from one particular area, where the borders are so closely interlocked and interwoven, going to a justice of the peace in another more convenient area, the adjoining area. It applies even more so if the hon. Minister’s statement is correct that it would be necessary to set up a room where a justice of the peace should do such work. That would make it even more difficult, and I hope the hon. Minister will be able to clear up that point.

I merely wish to emphasize the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Durban (Point) because in my submission that goes to the root of the arguments advanced on the other side of the House. Mr. Chairman, the arguments advanced by the hon. Minister and hon. members who have taken part in this debate during the second reading amounted to this that the doubts which were expressed on this side of the House in regard to the supervision (if I may put it that way) of the operations of justices of the peace in regard to postal votes were not justified because these justices of the peace would have to have offices in which they would be throughout the day.

Order! The hon. member is going beyond the clause now.

Mr. Chairman, may I briefly address you on that point. In my submission it is a valid argument because it goes to the root of the justification made by Government members …

Order! The

hon. member would be attacking the principle, and I am afraid I cannot allow him to go on on those lines.

Mr. Chairman, I will abide by your decision. I should like next to deal with the approach of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) in asking the Minister of Justice not to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore). The only argument advanced by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad was that if the hon. Minister accepts the amendment, it will amount to no confidence in the persons appointed. In my submission that cannot possibly be the case, because this House is perfectly entitled to pass a law and say that for one reason or another that law shall be brought into effect on a particular date, and if it does so, it does not indicate any lack of confidence in the persons concerned who are to be appointed on a future date, because the reason for doing so is made clear. The reason which we suggest from this side of the House for doing this, Mr. Chairman, is that by not using these extra justices of the peace during the provincial elections, it will be possible to test the law which was passed last year, a law which both sides of the House thought would give an adequate number of presiding officers to deal with ballot papers. I would point out that to adopt the amendment of this side of the House would be in accordance with the point of view expressed by the hon. Minister of the Interior when he introduced the Bill last year. I refer to Col. 5405 of last year’s debates …

Order! I have allowed the hon. member a great deal of latitude to put his point, but he is now again attacking the principle.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to attack the principle. I merely want to point out that the hon. Minister himself adopted the attitude that we should not press our amendment, we should wait for the outcome of the provincial elections and see what the position was during the elections, and then to review the position afterwards. I wish merely to point out this passage in the hon. Minister’s speech—

This was said in My 1964, and presumably the position was carefully considered by the Government and by the hon. Minister before he made such a statement. He then went on to say—

And that was with the provision whereby six justices of the peace could be appointed by the Minister. The hon. Minister said—

That is precisely what the object of this amendment is. It is to keep the position as it is at present until after the provincial elections. If the hon. Minister does not accept this amendment, then I submit he will in fact be going contrary to what his colleague, the Minister of the Interior, stated and contrary to the whole spirit in which his colleague asked us on this side of the House to approach the legislation which was passed last year.

I do not want to reply now to the last speaker because he reminds me very much of a Model I Ford which one always fears will backfire when it comes to a hill.

I really want to make the point that by moving this amendment now the Opposition has clearly nullified all the previous arguments they advanced and that their whole case now collapses. It knocks the bottom out of all their arguments against the principle of this Bill, and it is now clear that they merely want this legislation postponed until after the provincial election. For the rest, they have no objection. This legislation must just not come into force before the election. All the other arguments in regard to the working of the Electoral Act, etc. do not weigh with them in the least. Let us look at one reason advanced by the hon. member for Durban (Point) as to why it should be postponed. He says that an electoral officer refused to give a decision and that the Secretary for the Interior also refused to give a decision. But, Sir, those people have no power at all to express an opinion as to the task of a justice of the peace. Justices of the peace do not fall under them. They have nothing to do with it. Why then should they give a decision in regard to people’s politics or powers if they have no say over those people? The law is there to provide what the powers of justices of the peace are. It is only foolish people like the members of the United Party who would ask those people for a decision. And that is now advanced as a reason for postponing this legislation. They might as well have asked “hubbard squash”. He is just as little able to say what a J.P.’s duties or rights are. That is the task of the court. Therefore the reason advanced by the hon. member has no basis at all. I want to emphasize that it is now clear that they themselves are now destroying all their previous arguments by means of this amendment. They simply want the Bill postponed until after the election.

I can only think that the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) was out of the House yesterday when we discussed this matter, because our whole argument was that the whole idea of the new Electoral Act was to place the postal vote system in the hands of officials and not in the hands of others. And by accepting this amendment that will be ensured. We said also that the whole character of this venerable office would be changed, and that because it was being introduced on the eve of an election it would obviously bring these people into party political work. Those two aspects will be safeguarded if this amendment is accepted.

However, I want to get back to the question of this power which the Electoral Act gives to electoral officers, returning officers, magistrates and many others to appoint other officers of the State service …

Order! That is not under discussion now.

Mr. Chairman, I merely want to be sure that the hon. Minister when he replies to this debate will tell us whether at all material times he was aware of this power and whether in the light of it …

Order! That is not under discussion now.

Well, Mr. Chairman,

perhaps you will allow me to put it this way that where he is given this power now to appoint an unlimited number of justices of the peace, whether he appreciates …

Order! The hon. member is attacking the principle.

Mr. Chairman, I only want to point out …

Order! The

hon. member must observe my ruling.

I will, Mr. Chairman, but this is a most important point …

I think the hon. member should resume his seat.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) moved an amendment and he also reproached me yesterday for having described his contribution to the debate as being pious. I told the hon. member by way of interjection that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) had effectively disposed of his argument, viz. that if we are to regard this as a test, as the Minister of the Interior said in this House, the sooner we make that test the better, and that we will have that test with the provincial election. If we do not test it then, we will simply never do so. But the hon. member of course realizes how much his amendment conflicts with the standpoint adopted in principle by the Opposition. The Opposition is in principle totally opposed to the appointment of justices of the peace. In principle they are totally opposed to J.P.s playing any role whatever in elections.

The principle has been adopted.

But those hon. members are opposed to it.

Yes, and we are still opposed to it.

All that the hon. member now asks is that it should come into operation on 1 April, i.e. just after the provincial elections. Any by-election which may be held thereafter can then be subject to it. But if it is wrong in principle to have justices of the peace, it is just as wrong to have them after 1 April as before 1 April.

But that was accepted at the second reading.

Yes, my standpoint is that there is nothing, in principle, wrong with this matter, either before 1 April or after that date, and therefore it is obvious that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Now take the argument of the hon. member for Durban (Point). He supports the hon. member for Kensington because, he says, there is now no clarity about the functions of justices of the peace and therefore we should not appoint additional J.P.s now. But then the hon. member knocks at quite the wrong door. Then he should complain against J.P.s as a whole, and he should make representations, and there are many ways in which he can do so, and he should try to adopt measures to eliminate J.P.s completely. But my task and function is only, seeing that the law in principle accepts justices of the peace, and seeing that Parliament accepts it, to ensure that there are sufficient J.P.s to do the work entrusted to them. That is the only duty I have in this respect.

The hon. member also tries to tempt me to give decisions on behalf of the electoral officer as to the functions of justices of the peace. That is not my duty, not even in this debate. If the hon. member wants to know what the duties and functions of J.P.s are in terms of the Electoral Act, he should look at the Electoral Act, and if the Act is not clear to the hon. member he knows what channels to follow in order to get clarity. The courts are available to him if he wants an interpretation. I am now giving an interpretation according to what the law advisers tell me, and for what it is worth, namely that a J.P. is deemed to do the work in his office during the normal times he may be there. That is the interpretation given to me and I accept it as such. If the courts later give a different interpretation, that is their own affair. But it is not the function of this Committee to decide the matter now.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) again raised the argument that the electoral officer can appoint people. After having read the Electoral Act, hon. members have now shifted their ground. But again this is a ridiculous argument. At first their argument was that he could appoint any person. Now it has become clear to the hon. member that he can appoint only officials. And my problem is particularly to cover the cases where there are not sufficient of these officials to do the work. Of what use is it to tell me that I can appoint officials if there are no officials to be appointed? It is for that eventuality and for that eventuality alone that I have to make provision. It therefore does not help the hon. member to advance the argument that officials can be appointed. I know they can be appointed. The Electoral Act says they can be appointed. But if circumstances require it in places where it simply cannot be done, surely other provision must be made, and I am now making provision in terms of the principle adopted by Parliament that justices of the peace can do that work.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) asked whether a justice of the peace can function outside his ward or not. The position is that a justice of the peace is of course also a commissioner of oaths. If he acts as a commissioner of oaths in the ordinary course of events, then he can only administer the oaths in the ward in which he has been appointed. But where he is appointed under the Electoral Act, I am told, to act as a presiding officer, then he can preside in the magisterial area for which he has been appointed, because then he does not act by virtue of his appointment under the J.P.s Act, then he acts by virtue of his appointment under the Electoral Act as a presiding officer, and as such, according to the Electoral Act (I am told) he can preside in the magisterial district for which he is appointed. He cannot act outside the magisterial district. I am told he can act within the boundaries of the magisterial district for which he has been appointed.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister: In the case of the existing justices of the peace, the special justices of the peace, appointed under the old Act, in terms of this legislation now before us, and where they in terms of the legislation are appointed as presiding officers in the case of absent voters, would then confine them …

Order!

Sir, I only want clarification.

The hon.

member must seek clarification at some other time. That is not under discussion now.

I want to deal with this question of the relative merit of dates. I think the hon. Minister has made an important statement. He has stated, if I understood him correctly, that legal opinion is to the effect that these justices of the peace would only be able to act in their office during normal office hours. Have I understood that correctly?

You heard correctly.

I think it is important that we should know that, because that is an indication and a guide which will play an important part.

It is not of course conclusive at all. That is my opinion.

And that of your advisers?

I want to point out that the functions of justice of the peace are not under discussion under this clause. I allowed the hon. member to argue the point that there is not sufficient clarity, but I cannot allow him to develop that point.

I want to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that it affects the dates …

Order! The hon. member has already made that point.

The hon. Minister has said that this matter must be settled in the courts, and the point I want to make is that such a decision by the courts could not possibly be obtained between now and a certain date …

Order! I must ask the hon. member to advance a new argument.

Right, Sir, then I wish to deal with the aspect of whether it is practically possible for this measure to pass its final stages through this House, to be assented to, gazetted, for the Minister then to receive recommendations and to make appointments which would be of effective use before 21 March. Because if that is not so, then we are wasting time in rushing it through, and the Minister might just as well accept our amendment.

Order! The hon. member must advance those reasons at the third reading.

Then, Mr. Chairman, I merely reiterate that we are firstly opposed in principle to the use of justices of the peace. We cannot argue that because that has been accepted. Therefore, since we cannot deal with the principle, we support the amendment which will at least postpone the application of this measure till after the provincial elections.

Ayes—38: Basson, J. D. du P.; Cadman, R. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw. W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Noes—71: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Die-derichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—70: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Botha, M. C.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J.; Frank. S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotz6, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Malan. W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree. G. de K.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder. C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw. J. S.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. E.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smith, H. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk. M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Noes—37: Basson, J. D. du P.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

Remaining Clause and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

I move—

To add the following sub-section at the end of the clause:

1. (4) Whenever—
2. (a) any fact ascertained by any examination, diagnosis or process requiring skill in the practice of medicine or surgery or the knowledge of anatomy, physics, bacteriology, biology, chemistry or any science; or
3. (b) any plan or report made by a police officer in the execution of his duties, or any record kept in a hospital, which would be admissible if produced by a witness in court,

This is an amendment of which notice was given in the second reading. The effect of it is to extend the operation of the present Clause 22 which provides that certain facts may be proved by affidavit. Those facts are facts ascertained by an examination or process requiring skill in bacteriology, biology, chemistry, etc. It is a very good provision, if I may say so, because the object is to enable persons to give this evidence on affidavit without the expense and the inconvenience of Government officials having to come to court. The provision in Clause 22 is taken over from the Criminal Code and it is a provision which is long overdue. The amendment proposes to extend this same facility to persons who are skilled in the practice of medicine or surgery, etc., many of the same practices that are now contemplated, the difference being that the person making the affidavit need not be in the employ of the State. As I have indicated before, it is a provision which without any doubt at all will lead to a considerable saving in the costs of litigation. I do not know of any practitioner, anyone who might be skilled in these matters, any surgeon or specialist, who would come to court for less than 50 guineas a day. That means that if he is subpoenaed to come and the trial lasts for several days and he is called on the third day, his fees will be at least 150 guineas. The provisions of the amendment I am moving are fairly straightforward. The Minister has had notice of it and has had time to consider it, and I think it is self-explanatory as it stands. Therefore I do not propose to deal with it at any length, unless the Minister has any objection to it. I hope the Minister is in a position to say whether he can accept it or not.

In supporting the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), I would like to say that this amendment contains a great deal of merit. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to one interesting aspect of our litigation where it would be of great value, and that is in accident cases where it is necessary to call expert evidence of medical men and surgeons on both sides, which can be an extremely costly procedure and can also lengthen the proceedings. We have been faced from time to time in negotiations for settlement in accident cases, when dealing with insurance companies, as legal practitioners, and we are confronted with the fact that the saving of costs, because of the time that would be spent in the examination and cross-examination of these witnesses, is enormous, and that if these costs were to be incurred it might well be a deterrent to people not to have their case heard. The saving in costs is an incentive to litigants to settle the case. That is a very important aspect. By amending the clause in the way suggested we could avoid these costs which are involved if the proceedings last longer than they would otherwise have lasted. The big advantage also is that it enables both sides to show reports to each other, which is a very helpful thing. A lot of it is being done as the result of certain amendments of the Insurance Act last year, where certain discoveries have to be made and information has to be disclosed before one proceeds with litigation. But when litigation has started, a clause of this nature can be very helpful. I am almost sure that the Minister may find this very pleasing and he may find in practice that it can be of very great value.

I am grateful to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) for having raised this matter by way of an amendment. Before I state my standpoint in regard to the amendment, you will allow me, Sir, to say a few words about the background of the Bill, and in the light of that we must decide whether we can accept the amendment without further ado.

Hon. members are aware that, as far as our civil law of evidence is concerned, we now have to deal with a new provision which did not exist before. Previously evidence could not be adduced in court by way of affidavit. Now we make that possible; in other words, we are breaking new ground with these provisions. Now my difficulty in regard to the amendment is this. It is true that the suggestion contained in the hon. member’s amendment, as far as my memory serves me, was originally contained in the recommendations made by the Bar Council. All the recommendations made in this regard were sifted by the Department and the Bill, as we now have it before us, was circulated to the General Bar Council and the law societies and the judiciary because they are all interested in it. I may say that the judiciary accepts it as it stands here. The Law Revision Committee also accepts it as it stands here. To the best of my recollection, I received no representations from the General Bar Council to make an amendment such as this one now moved by the hon. member. By that I do not mean to imply that the standpoint of the hon. member is without merit. In fact, judging superficially at the moment, I would say that I have no objection to the hon. member’s standpoint, because in principle I personally cannot at this stage see any objection to it, and secondly because it is possible and also very probable that it will result in a reduction in costs, and from that point of view one of course welcomes it. But my problem is this. I cannot foresee now, firstly, because I have not had the opportunity to consult with the various bodies who were consulted in the first instance, whether problems will not arise in that regard if I accept the amendment now; and, secondly, because personally I have been out of practice too long to be able to judge whether it will be an advantage or not. The hon. member therefore realizes the difficulty in which I find myself. But as I said, I am glad the hon. member raised the matter pertinently in this way because that will enable me to consult with the bodies I have mentioned and to hear from them what the merits or demerits of the hon. member’s amendment are. If those persons, as well as my Department, then come to the conclusion that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, I shall of course have not the slightest objection to taking up this amendment on a later occasion. Therefore I am glad that he has raised the matter now, and although because of the reasons I have mentioned I shall not be able either to accept or refuse the hon. member’s amendment, I shall adopt the course of referring it to the Law Revision Committee. They will probably, after this section has come into operation in our law of evidence for the first time, be better able to judge as to whether we should extend it further or not. I will therefore give the hon. member the undertaking that I will consult further, and then we can take the matter up again next session. If there are other hon. members who perhaps want to state other standpoints in this regard, I shall be very glad to hear them.

I appreciate the attitude adopted by the hon. the Minister, and I appreciate the practice the Minister has established in his Department in submitting all matters affecting the profession and the courts to the members of the profession and the courts. The Minister has made out a very reasonable case that while he has no objection to it it would be only right and proper to submit this matter to the persons whom he has always consulted. Indeed, perhaps that is the best way of legislating on a matter like this, in consultation with the person affected. So, with the leave of the Committee, I ask permission to withdraw the amendment.

With leave, the amendment was withdrawn.

On Clause 27,

I should like to move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker)—

This is self-explanatory. It is provided at the moment that entries in ledgers, day books, cash books and other account books of any bank, including a savings bank, shall be admissible as prima facie evidence of the transactions recorded therein. The effect of this amendment is merely to extend this very proper provision not only to savings banks but to other deposit-receiving institutions and also building societies. The effect of the section is only to provide prima facie evidence, and not evidence which cannot be rebutted, and it would seem in the circumstances to be a very practical and helpful amendment, there being no suggestion that the records kept by such other deposit-receiving institutions or building societies are any less well kept or accurate than those of a bank. In those circumstances I move.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) I have to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

I move—

1. (a) co-ordinating all research in this connection under the direction of a central body; and
2. (b) planning the research programme in this connection more imaginatively.

Let me say at once that this topic is a very broad and contentious one, and in the short time at my disposal I do not wish to attempt to give a thorough and scientific motivation of my case in any way; I prefer to state my case in a somewhat popular way. In the first instance I wish to point out, by way of contrast, that the world is to-day spending millions of rand on space research. The major powers of the world are to-day matching their prestige in space against one another, and it remains a question why man does not in the first instance direct his attention to the oceans, which cover approximately 71 per cent of the surface of the earth.

The hon. member for Edenvale (Dr. Koornhof), in his maiden speech here the other day, discussed the theme that “land does not increase”. That is indeed the position, Mr. Speaker, and it is true that in future man will have to undertake more conscious planning in regard to his future existence, and in this respect one could ask the question: Where are our oceanographers’ and our marine biologists’ launching bases that can in any way compare with Cape Kennedy to-day? This question becomes even more important if we consider the fact that according to the calculations of demographers the world is to-day faced with the largest population explosion of all time. It is calculated that by the year 2000 there will be approximately 8,000,000,000 people on earth. At the moment the increase is already approximately 45,000,000 per annum or 125,000 per day, and in the case of South Africa the population will have reached nearly 32,000,000 by the year 2000, which is approximately twice as much as the present figure. It is against this general background that I want to pose the question whether South Africa, with its coastline of nearly 2,000 miles long, should not come forward with a huge marine project in respect of the maritime industry in all its facets.

Why, of all countries, cannot our beautiful country co-ordinate all our efforts in an imaginative project and surprise the world with our own Houston-Huntsville, or Texas-Alabama, as far as the maritime industry is concerned? One could wax lyrical over the possibilities in this field. I do not have the time to point out all the aspects, but to stimulate the thoughts of hon. members I only want to mention in passing a few facets which to my mind are deserving of our immediate attention. In the first instance there is the fishing industry itself. It is estimated that the sea is teeming with more than 20,000 species of fish to-day, and just the migratory habits of these more than 20,000 species of fish constitute a study in itself. It is true that the fishing industry in South Africa has shown spectacular development since the Second World War. In 1963, with a total catch of 1,248,230 tons in the Republic and in South West Africa, a record was established for the sixth consecutive year. In order to make possible, to process and to market our large catches more than R60,000,000 is at present invested in boats and in approximately 50 factories and storage depots. But the future possibilities in this important aspect of our maritime industry are clearly still unlimited.

I just want to point out to you that significant progress has recently been made in two directions in particular, viz. the catching of tuna, where the hon. the Prime Minister has also set us an example, and the new direction, the catching of shrimps. Then I also want to mention that at the moment a Spanish factory ship, the Galicia, is lying just outside our territorial waters off the West Coast, and that the fishermen along the West Coast are astounded at what is to-day being done on this factory ship in regard to the preservation of fish. It is evident that in this respect we are still a long way behind in South Africa. It is particularly in this field of our maritime industry that we have to organize matters much more imaginatively in order to be able to compete with the best in the world.

A second facet that I just want to mention without giving any detailed motivation is the rock lobster industry. At the moment this industry already has a turnover of approximately R7,500,000 per annum in South Africa, but here the question arises: What about the artificial breeding of rock lobsters? Cannot this industry, with the necessary scientific support, become one of the major assets of our country? Cannot rock lobsters for the rock lobster industry, which is at present subject to severe restrictions, be bred artificially in the lagoons along our coast line?

In the third place I want to mention sea algae. What about the possibility of large-scale processing of sea algae to supplement bread supplies? Significant research work has been done in this connection, and it is evident that this is one of the directions deserving our serious attention.

In the fourth place I want to mention the various types of seaweed. What about the possibility of cultivating seaweed artificially? Would it not be possible for South Africa, with the necessary scientific support to this particular facet of the maritime industry, to start its largest conservation farming project in the sea? This is the question that excites our curiosity to-day. The establishment of our own “gardens” and our own “fields” in the sea where seaweed and other marine plants can live in optimum conditions for the benefit of man, should not present too great a challenge to science. What about artificial fertilization of the oceans in order to increase their carrying capacity? Mr. Speaker, these things all represent challenges to marine science.

I want to mention a fifth example, viz. oyster farming. Oyster farming is an age-old industry. It was already known to the Romans, and in Holland, France and Japan it has become a well-established industry. America annually produces oysters to the value of approximately 10,000,000 dollars for export. I want to suggest that, with the necessary scientific support in this facet, the possibilities in South Africa are still quite unlimited. Later in the debate a colleague of mine will furnish more details in this connection.

The sixth example I just want to mention in passing is that of sea minerals and sea salts. In our country we have in actual fact only scratched the surface as far as this important facet of the maritime industry is concerned. Noteworthy financial investments have been made in the past few years, but where is the conscious planning and scientific support on the part of the State in regard to our sea minerals in general? That remains an open question.

I want to mention a seventh example, viz. the artificial utilization of plankton. The plankton in the sea to-day is calculated to represent more than 9/10ths of marine plant life. This plankton can increase at a rate of approximately 200-300 per cent per day to provide the necessary feeding grounds to marine life. The question I want to ask here is this: Is it not possible for man artificially to utilize this plankton for his own benefit?

I want to mention another example, merely as a facet of this industry, and that is the question of quick-freezing. Quick-freezing, which is an ideal method of preserving perishable, foodstuffs, and sea foods in particular, is one of the most important new developments in food preservation. It is true that particularly since 1951 significant progress has been made in South Africa in regard to the quick-freezing of sea foods and sea products in general, and this very method of preserving fish and sea foods for the benefit of man is probably another aspect that, with the right type of research and the right scientific support, holds quite unlimited possibilities for the future.

I want to mention a further example, viz. the training of fishermen. To-day it has become simply essential to provide scientific training to our fishermen so as to import greater impact to the maritime industry in future years. Our fishing craft are becoming larger and more expensive, and millions of rands have already been invested in this respect in our country. But increased knowledge is required for handling this expensive equipment on the boats; this is a requirement resulting from the use of this equipment. If we look at the large, well-equipped fishing vessels that visit our shores from countries such as Russia, Japan and Spain, then we realize that we in South Africa are still a long way behind in this regard. Particularly as regards the technology of fishing we are still very far behind in South Africa. This is an aspect that requires new research and planning on our part at this stage. Mr. Speaker, let me say at once that important preliminary work in regard to the maritime industry has already been done in South Africa. We do not want to fail to appreciate what has already been done in this field. In this connection one thinks, in the first instance, of what has been done by Fishcor. This Corporation was established by Act 44 of 1944 and remarkable progress has been made: I just want to mention a few examples. This Corporation, inter alia, played an active part in the establishment of the Fishing Industry Research Institute, which plays so important a part in solving problems in connection with the technology of fish processing. In the second place I want to mention the Sea Fisheries Division under the Department of Commerce and Industries, to which Fishcor has imparted a significant stimulus in recent years. Fishcor has also provided a strong stimulus to the development of our fishing-harbours during the past two years. I am thinking of the fact, for example, that they have appointed their own engineering corps and have come forward with conscious planning as far as our fishing-harbours are concerned. In this way, Mr. Speaker, examples can be mentioned to show that Fishcor has in recent years played a fairly active part in our fishing industry. But, in spite of the progress that has been made in our country as a whole, I immediately want to make these two statements. In the first place I want to suggest that, in relation to the challenge and the possibilities of the maritime industry, Fishcor has simply remained a small organization. In the second place I want to suggest that a lack of variety in the exploitation of our coastal waters remains a significant feature of our South African maritime industry. In spite of the significant progress that has been made in regard to the maritime industry in our country I want to suggest that the time and the conditions in South Africa have never been so ripe for more thought and action on the part of the Government as they are now. Let South Africa come forward with a huge marine project and set an example to all the rest of the world. Let our beautiful country be the one to utilize the sea in all its facets for the benefit of man in a dramatic way; let our efforts be imaginative and co-ordinated. I do not wish to discuss the form to be taken by such a project and the details; I do not possess the knowledge for doing so. We could consider direct leadership under the C.S.I.R.; we could consider undertaking and planning such a project under the leadership of our two southern universities; we could consider starting such a project from the ground so that it could stand on its own feet. I do not want to make any suggestions in this regard; I leave that to people who have a broader knowledge of and background in these matters. As regards the launching base for such a huge scientifically-supported marine project I have my own clear and conscious view, namely, that it should be situated on the West Coast. In the first instance consideration should be given to the West Coast with its rich fishing-grounds and its marine diamonds. I wish to point out that in an area such as Saldanha an academic atmosphere has already been created by the presence of the Military Academy there, and the question is whether it would not indeed be possible for such a project to fit in with this atmosphere in this area.

To put it briefly, this field presents us with an opportunity of thinking ahead imaginatively in future years, and I wish to make an appeal to the hon. Minister to think ahead imaginatively in this connection. The hon. Minister who will reply to this motion has in the past years imparted a significant stimulus to the maritime industry in South Africa, and I hope that he will now come forward more dramatically with planning in regard to this industry and will cause us all to think ahead imaginatively in this connection.

The hon. member who has just sat down has introduced a motion which, as he rightly says, covers a tremendously wide field. It covers so many points requiring expert knowledge that it is not for us to go into any great detail but just to make constructive suggestions. He tried to give a picture of the tremendous value to our country of the assets which exist on the ocean bed or in the waters above the ocean bed. I think he has put forward suggestions and facts which merit the very closest examination and study, because there is not the slightest doubt that he is correct in stressing the terrific importance of its maritime industry to the Republic as a whole. He specifically asks in his motion for the co-ordination of all research in this connection under the direction of a central body and for a more imaginative planning of a research programme in connection with ocean bed and the maritime industry. I think everyone in this House would support the hon. member’s appeal for a better co-ordination of existing research and for a more imaginative planning of the research programme, not only more imaginatively but also more energetically and more extensively in relation to the area of our coast. When however it comes to the proposal that the research programme should be under the direction of one centra] body, there I think that whilst we also agree in principle, I think our approach rather differs in that we are completely opposed to empire-building, to the setting up of another colossal body, particularly with regard to our maritime industry, which in itself covers a great variety of industries whose interests do not fit in and cannot possibly be fitted in one with the other. On the one hand there is the important sea-borne side of the industry and on the other the also important land-based operations of the industry, the one dependent on the other, and it would be difficult to bring these industries all together under one central body, much as it is necessary that there should be some over-all co-ordination. I would like to associate myself with the hon. member in paying tribute to the research work which is being done by our universities, assisted by other bodies and people interested in that type of research. I think we can take off our hats to the universities for the terrific amount of research work carried out by them, particularly in the fishing industry. We know that in the last few days again they have made a further advance in ordering an up-to-date, modern research vessel. The assistance given by the State and other bodies interested in the industry, all goes to show the value which is set on that particular industry. One cannot exaggerate the value of the fishing industry, and we must take off our hats to the universities which are the natural base for conducting these experiments and research. I would urge that one of the practice steps that can be taken by the State, in furtherance of the research, which does not apply only to the fishing industry but to many other aspects of the maritime industry, is to be far more generous and perhaps far more active in assisting those bodies which have the facilities for carrying out research on a large scale and which in their turn can help the State so effectively in that particular field of the work. I think the line of demarcation comes between the actual research and the commercialization of the findings of that research. As far as research is concerned, I believe that that falls within the sphere of universities and bodies of that nature which possess the resources including necessary personnel. When it comes to the commercial development of results of such research then, since we are exploiting what might be called national assets, assets of the State, in our own territorial waters or in the territorial shelf area off our coastline, it assumes a national character and the State itself determines the extent of the commercial exploitation of these assets by private enterprise. That, Sir, is most important because as I said at the beginning there is a great conflict of interests as between one industry and another. Irreparable damage can be done to one important industry by ill-advised action on the part of another industry, or by not even ill-advised action but action necessarily taken by another branch of activity. Very careful consideration in allocating new fishing quotas, for example, to the effect that such allocation may have upon other existing allied industries. Here I would cite as an instance the enormous sea diamond industry which is being developed and the effect of this industry upon the fishing industry. If you destroy the sea-bed or the structure of the sea-bed, as it inevitably is by the extraction of diamonds, because you have to pulverize the rocks and break up the matrix in the crevices of the rocks in order to get at the diamonds below them. When you do this you destroy a certain amount of marine growth and marine life. That marine growth attracts a certain type of fish: it is their home and their food. Crawfish, for example, inhabit areas of the sea-bed near rock. Once the bait fish disappears from the area which is their natural habitat, you start a circle which goes out in ever-increasing rings, like the effect of a stone in a pond; you start with the destruction of the feeding area, or the living area of the bait fish and eventually the big commercial shoals themselves are affected and disappear. I have not the slightest doubt that the sea-bed will recover in time but all the evidence we have with regard to fish, whatever kind it may be. shows that they are very nervous, easily frightened creatures, and once you frighten them away from a particular area or move them from their natural habitat in a particular area it takes quite a long time before they come back again. I think this is a field in which a great deal more research can be done and in which much greater care should be exercised in the allocation of quotas and the determination of the fields of operation of the industries concerned.

Sir, the hon. member’s motion deals with the maritime industry. One is not quite sure to what extent he intended the maritime industry to be considered because he himself dealt mainly with certain aspects of the fishing industry, with crawfish, diamonds and things of that nature. You see, Sir, the oldest maritime industry that we have is our shipping industry, and the shipping industry too is definitely concerned with the ocean bed, not only from the point of view of the cargoes that they carry, cargoes which in some cases are made up of products that we get from the ocean bed, but they are also concerned from this point of view that when the ocean bed gets too near the surface, then there is trouble as far as shipping is concerned. There also they have a research department which, through the navies of the world, including our own South African Navy, carry out research work for a considerable distance off-shore, co-operating right across the oceans, research work in the form of charting depths and obstacles on the bottom of the ocean bed, and it is on these charts that the whole maritime fleets of the world, both commercial and naval, operate. We as a country with a long coastline, having to depend very largely on shipping, both to carry away exports and to bring in imports, have a substantial interest in the shipping industry; we have a substantial interest in it ashore because of the employment it brings to our people, and because of the development that it brings to our own industrial life in this country. There, too, we have special needs of shipping in the maritime industry which we cannot lose sight of when we talk about putting the control in the hands of one central body. I believe that activities which have a main thread running through all of them, something which is common to all of them, could perhaps be grouped together and that there could be much greater co-ordination than there is at the present moment, but the difficulty is that in the case of some of these industries or activities there is no common thread running through all of them. Sir, take the fishing industry which the hon. member dealt with. The boats could not operate at their sea-fishing nor could sea-fishing prosper unless factories are developed ashore in order to deal with their catches. As soon as you have the fishing factories, you immediately need tins and bottles; many thousands of tons of tomatoes have to be grown for the fish-canning industry: you need hundreds and hundreds of tons of salt, and there are all the other things that such an industry uses. You cannot leave out the textile industry which manufactures the nets, ropes and the sails; nor ignore the paint industry, the boat-building industry, the machinery industry which produces the engines that have to drive these craft and the vehicles on shore. Sir, all these things are so interrelated and so inter-woven that no portion of the industry can function unless the remaining portions also operate, efficiently. Therefore when we deal with the maritime industry, we are also concerned indirectly and in many cases directly with our shore-based industries. These industries are interrelated and there again I believe that there is plenty of room for research and examination not only to assess the extent of the connection between the various industries but also to co-ordinate their activities so that the one does not clash with the other.

Then there is another factor that we cannot lose sight of and that is the sea-bed itself. Far removed from the fish themselves or the crawfish, there are so many other potential assets available there that when one begins to study that problem there appears to be no limit to the extent to which a country such as ours with such a long coastline could benefit by a more careful and a more scientific exploitation of that wealth. Take seaweeds, for example. One of the biggest troubles with seaweed, except in small areas where it is being developed to-day, is that it is looked upon as a handicap when it washes ashore on the beach. You have to get rid of it. But seaweed in the majority of countries in the world which have advanced beyond us is not wasted—not a scrap of it. It is one of the finest components of fertilizer for agricultural purposes that one can possibly get. It has tremendous medicinal value which can be exploited and is exploited in other parts of the world on the chemistry side. Then there is the food value of it. In the old Cape days it was utilized a great deal more when jelly-types of food were made from local seaweeds. We have been told by medical science that these foods are of considerable value in combating tuberculosis. We have millions of tons of seaweed all along our coasts, seaweed which to-day is a nuisance. To-day it seems to be developing faster than it ever did before in certain areas. In other countries the collection and commercialization of seaweed is a major industry.

Let us look at this motion from another point of view—from the point of view of water. Sir, I was on Ascension Island in the latter part of last year. That island to-day has to carry a much bigger population than hitherto as a result of development which is being initiated there both by the United States of America and Britain, but their difficulty is fresh water. We actually took to them a very large shipment of distilling machinery, condensing machinery, which will enable them to distil and condense sea water. The island will then be able to carry a much bigger population and will therefore be able to develop so much faster. We ourselves have tried the same thing in a small way in South West Africa; it is still an expensive job but it is getting cheaper to-day, with the improved machinery that is now available. Here again we have something which can be of direct benefit in the country if we provide water in the arid areas where water is so desperately needed. It so happens that some of our richest fishing waters adjoin these arid areas, and, with the development of the diamond industry also in that part of the coast there is an ever-increasing need for fresh water.

I want to touch on another aspect with regard to exploiting the assets we have below the sea-level for commercial use. I believe there too that the hon. member’s motion has a substantial amount of value in that it talks about co-ordination as far as research is concerned and more imaginative planning. What we are utilizing are natural resources, which, like the diamond and gold mines inland, are part of the national resources of our own own country. I therefore think the utmost care must be taken when those resources are exploited. We must ensure not only that the nation as a nation gets the fullest material value from them, either in food or whatever the product is. Where the result is purely a financial one, that the nation as a nation gets the maximum value attainable. In other words, we must ensure that none of the assets which are there are wasted by being inefficiently exploited and developed.

When a concession is given for a particular commercial activity or individual to develop one or other of these resources the factors I have mentioned should be taken into serious consideration. The undertaking should not only provide an adequate financial return to the commercial company or individuals concerned, the company or individual who take the risk and in the case of the sea, it is a very substantial risk (we saw that only the other day in regard to diamonds. It is a risk provided by nature herself), but would provide the nation and the public with the maximum long-term benefit attainable either materially or financially. In other words, by the utilization of our country’s natural resources we, as a nation, should get an adequate return for them. One maritime industry should not be safeguarded to the detriment of another one. This does not only apply to maritime industries but to shore industries. We had an example of that only the other day in the Pollution of Water Bill. You can get pollution from our sea industries as well as from land industries. One industry should not be allowed to do anything that will damage or jeopardize the long-term security of any other type of industry. If they do overlap we shall have to decide which one is of greater benefit to the country before we decide which one shall be allowed to go on. Let me give an example. Peculiar reasons, or no reasons, were given recently for the allocation of certain diamond concessions. One company with millions invested in the country, a company with all the know-how, with all the machinery, a company that could be guaranteed to get the absolute maximum return from the concession, was refused the concession on the ground that it was already too big and too heavily employed in that particular type of diamond industry. It seems a queer sort of argument, Sir, because it would seem that that is the type of company you would want to get going in order that it, in turn, could produce the maximum possible pay back to the nation.

Are you referring to sea concessions?

All concessions. This example was mainly in respect of land concessions. But the people concerned are so involved, one with the other, that it would be impossible to develop their sea concessions without also considering their land concessions. As I say it seemed queer to argue that because they were so efficient and heavily involved they should be turned down and the concessions with considerable potential value granted to people without anything like the background or the resources. People who cannot be expected by themselves to give the return to the country the bigger company would have given. Consequently the country as a whole is likely to lose by it. The only ones eventually to gain in full will be the concessionairies. They will gain at a later stage without the full benefit possible to the country as a whole ever materializing. The hon. the Minister mentioned sea concessions. The position there is parallel in regards to sea concessions where cray fishing rights, oil concessions and other types of fishing rights are given to companies or individuals who have not the development plans or resources at the moment, or likely to have those development plans. They then dispose of their concessions, as the Minister knows, to somebody else. That introduces a sort of middleman which, as far as a national industry of this sort is concerned, is quite undesirable. If co-ordination, research and examination were carried out in that direction, we might be able to eliminate some of those middlemen and deal directly with principals. We would then get a better concessionary and the country itself would get better results from it. But I do not think we can entertain the idea of bringing all this activity under the control of one body. I do believe there is a vast difference between the different types of activities. Take, for instance, the oil concessions. The discovery of oil is of such tremendous importance to this country that nothing should stand in the way of endeavouring to find it. When we talk about the sea-bed we have to consider not only the sea-bed as such but the area under the sea-bed. Only this week we have had examples of certain concessionairies having developed machinery which can probe for anything up to 20,000 ft. into the sea-bed. That is something we have to encourage because oil is of such vital importance to us as a nation. But the interests of that company, if the company were successful, could clash diametrically with the interests of fishing companies. It is therefore most important that we keep the national balance between the two so that the country get the benefit from the one which is most beneficial to us.

There is our shipping industry, our own S.A. Navy which is responsible for the charting. We have had close contact with the whole of the world. We are participating in a geophysical year. World-wide survey work is being carried out in every ocean. All these things cover such wide and different fields that I find it difficult to see how we can bring them all under one control. I do support the idea most fully that we should try to coordinate them more satisfactorily and see that the one fits more tightly into the programme of the other. But I am sorry I cannot give support to the idea of bringing them all under the control of one body when we have so many unfortunate examples in our own country and other country that that results in somebody immediately setting out to build another empire.

In conclusion I want to touch very briefly on the fishing industry, not the commercial fishing industry so much, because there, I believe, the Department of Fisheries is doing a great deal of work. But there again, Sir, they have not got the resources to look after the industry as it requires. We have had questions on the Order Paper in this House with regard to their control of fishing. They have not got the craft to do it. We have the problem of other nations encroaching on our fishing grounds. And we are using the navy which has cost the country millions and tens of millions of rand, in fact it runs into hundreds of millions of rand, to provide the security to the country being used to control this fishing. No other country in the word uses its navy as such for that purpose. They have a special branch of the navy developed as a fishery patrol. I believe the time has come for thought to be given in that direction. The fishing industry is here to stay and we want to protect and safeguard it. That can be done just as well by smaller vessels specially designed with a specially trained crew for that purpose than by the very expensive method of using the navy. It is like using a razor to chop wood. These are points where improvement is necessary. We have the R.S.A., the vessel specially built to go to the Antarctic. It does three or four voyages per year and for the rest she is lying idle. That is the ideal type of vessel which could be adapted for use during its idle period to operate on fishery patrol. But there are too many different departments concerned. The one falls under Transport; the other under Agriculture; another belongs to this or that Department There seems to be no co-ordination between them. Each goes its own sweet way. We are duplicating and triplicating the basic expense of setting up these little departments. There is room for much greater co-ordination in that connection. The navy have fast craft to patrol the coast and the harbours. They also have a number of coastal minesweepers. Most of them have to be laid up. Under normal circumstances they have to be laid up in peace time, but they are the type of vessel utilized by other countries for fishery control; vessels we could use as a fishery patrol officered by White men and crewed by Coloured men, the same type as the fishermen they are controlling, only of a higher standard of training; similar to our Cape corps. They constitute the ideal answer to fishery control. We have the skilled sea manpower to do it, the Coloured people. The sea is their life. We have the naval craft if they are properly used for it. They will be kept in condition and in operation. In using them for fishery control we shall not only be protecting our fishing industry but we shall be building up a sea force which, in time of hostility, would be invaluable to this country as a reservoir of trained seamen for operating the minesweepers and coastal defence vessels. But that needs co-ordination. It needs some special central co-ordinating body. There I will agree with the hon. member. But there are too many different departments and too many sections of departments who are dealing, each in its own little pocket, with the same type of problem. I believe that if we had some form of co-ordination with regard to our sea activities between the navy, Railways, Transport, Agriculture (guano), and the Fisheries Department itself, we shall not only have a bigger pool of vessels to draw on but it would result in a substantial saving to the country and also permit of substantial development of the control, co-ordination and research which the hon. member so rightly asks for. I think that as the House we would be well justified in expressing an opinion in that direction. I think it is something which is going to go quite a long way towards helping the exercise of the control which is becoming more and more necessary as we develop each separate asset from our sea-bed.

One very last point is the exploitation of our game fishing asset. That is one of the biggest tourist attractions any country can have. The hon. Minister knows, as a matter of fact he is concerned in it, a fishery inquiry is going on at the moment, an inquiry which has been advocated for a long time. One hopes that some results will flow from it. We are jeopardizing a tourist asset worth millions of rand to this country by a foolish policy of allowing the commercial fishing boats to over-fish a section of fish life on which this particular big game fish depends. Only the day before yesterday the hundredth bluefin tunny was caught in False Bay for one season. That was a fish running into about 600 lbs. weight and a new record of a hundred of them were caught this season. Six hundred probably got away because we still lack the skill and technique to catch them. But they are there. Properly exploited game fishing can become a wonderful asset to this country. But instead of that what is happening? Immediately the fish come in, the trawlers come in behind them and clean up the bait fish by which these fish are attracted. So we chase them out to sea again. That is another matter which calls for co-ordination, for thinking-ahead, for long-term thinking, so that the one portion of the industry does not damage the other. I cannot too strongly advocate that all these points, and the points raised by the hon. member, in introducing his motion, should be given the most serious consideration by the departments concerned to see what amount of co-ordination can be brought about, what amount of encouragement can be given to those people interested enough to do a certain amount themselves, and what amount of over-all control can be exercised without overlapping and without the one section damaging the other.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

The atmosphere that prevailed when business was suspended, Mr. Speaker, was an excellent one in which to catch fish, and I hope that this atmosphere will continue in this House. In lending my support to the motion moved by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais), a motion which has received a large measure of support from hon. members on the other side as well, I wish to welcome that atmosphere. Herbert Hoover once said—

I hope that the Minister in his reply will show the sympathy due by one fisherman to another in such calm waters as these. Herbert Hoover went on to say—

I want to begin by disagreeing with Hoover. This may have been the position in bygone days when primitive apparatus was used. Today, however, all men are not equal in the eyes of a fish. To-day it is the man with the best equipment in the line of boats, nets, fish-finding apparatus, mechanical aids, radio equipment, etc., who catches the most fish, and to-day the fish do indeed discriminate between one man and another. Then there is also the jealousy between the professional fisherman and the man who fishes for sport, a jealousy that was strikingly revealed in the speech by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). Let us not pretend, Sir, that these things do not exist. Everybody wants to have restrictions imposed, but everybody would prefer to have the restrictions laced upon the other person rather than upon himself, just as happens in the case of the professional hunter and the one who hunts for the pot. We all agree that the fishing industry is the oldest industry in our country. In the book “Sea Fisheries of the Cape” by a certain Mr. Thompson the author says that a few days after Jan van Riebeeck dropped anchor in Table Bay he issued an edict prohibiting everybody to catch fish without his permission. But within three years four men sailed up along the West Coast, made good catches in the neighbourhood of the electoral division of the hon. member for Moorreesburg, returned and sold these catches to the boats here at a very good price. If we consider this matter in terms of the application of restrictions, it is essential that restrictions should be based on knowledge. Interest in the fishing industry dates back many hundreds of years in this country. That such interest was displayed even by rulers or former rulers is evident from the fact that after his retirement in 1711 Simon van der Stel had a monopoly for five years to catch fish in Saldanha Bay in association with a certain Fyfer. Five years after the five years had expired, however, that bay was thrown open to the public. At the end of the 18th century all restrictions were lifted. Within 25 years, however, there were 200 full-time fishermen with 40 boats who sold salted fish to Mauritius for the huge sum of R856 per annum. A decade later this figure had risen to R8,000 per annum. As long ago as 1892 the old Cape Government appointed a commission of inquiry with a view to introducing legislation. If you read those debates, Mr. Speaker, you will see that even at that time restrictions were insisted upon. Restrictions are there to prevent us from being misled by greed into making use of the capital itself when in actual fact we are only entitled to make use of the interest. I do want to plant the thought here, in spite of our plea for more research and scientific knowledge of the sea and of marine life, that, as in all other spheres of life, we should not lose sight of some of the knowledge gleaned from practical observation. Fishermen can tell very good tales amongst themselves. Many of these tales are far-fetched, but not all of them. I remember the old fellow whom I came across along a sandy stretch and who, while pulling out galjoen, dug a hole in the sand and threw a fish into it. When I asked him why he was doing so, he replied: “I was catching fish here the other day and the first time I did not cover up one it caused the fish to stop biting immediately.” Then there was the man who said, when oars were superseded by engines: “Now the fish will never bite again, for the smell of the oil and the oil on the water will drive them all away.” These stories have been proved to be untrue. But it does not follow that all the notions held by people who have been engaged in the industry from generation to generation necessarily have to be rejected.

We find, for example, that at the beginning of this century the snoek never put in an appearance in Walker Bay for more than a decade, and that was 50 years before the advent of trawlers. The fishermen then had to go and work on the Railways to keep body and soul together. Later the fish again made their appearance, without it being possible to give any explanation for it. Mr. Speaker, you have probably seen the two newspaper reports this week to the effect that record catches of galjoen, white steenbras and geelbek have been made in that area. And that is the position after the sardine season has been open for a few months already!

I wish to leave the subject of fish for a moment—I just wanted to mention it briefly—and say a few words about the abalone industry. To those of us who know it abalone is probably one of the most sought-after seafoods. Gathering abalone is an excellent sport. It entails hard work and it can also be dangerous. The man who is allowed to gather five abalone of 4½ inches in size for himself gets a little sad when restrictions are imposed upon him while the abalone diver is allowed to gather thousands right next to him. I shall not venture to recommend a practical solution for this problem. On the other hand the abalone industry has declined to such an extent that where ten to 12 years ago there were 14 canning enterprises operating 17 boats and providing employment to between 300 and 400 people, many of them have had to withdraw from the industry. No one can really answer the question as to whether the abalone are increasing or decreasing in quantity. Everybody wants to interpret the position in such a way as to suit his own ends.

Then I wish to express a few thoughts in regard to the culturing of oysters. You will see from the debates of the old Cape Parliament, which passed the Fish Protection Bill in 1893, that already at that time the hon. member for Peddie complained about the terrible manner in which oysters were being exterminated along the eastern coast of the Cape Province. This industry is still in its infancy in South Africa. In the Netherlands oysters have been cultured since 1850, and from 20,000,000 to 50,000,000 are marketed every year. The largest European culturists and consumers are of course the French, with Japan and America close behind them. In America the revenue from this industry runs into many millions of dollars. In the latter half of the seventeenth century oysters were imported into our country and planted in Table Bay on two occasions, apparently with little success. In 1894 two consignments were brought out here for the purpose of conducting experiments along the West Coast, at Saldanha and the Berg River mouth. These experiments were repeated in 1913 when 4,000 were gathered along the coast of the southern part of the continent and planted along the West Coast. They made good progress initially, but this apparently came to an end, for the view is held that even to-day there is not a single oyster to be found along the West Coast. The shell-banks and the formations along this coast, however, suggest that in former times very rich oyster-beds must have been present there, and there is a theory that some change, some natural disturbance or other, must have taken place as a result of which the cold currents were brought nearer to the shore and that the oysters were killed in this way. Huge oyster shells are also found in the vicinity of Danger Point, which suggests that here, too, there were oyster-beds in former times, whereas there is none to-day.

In expressing our appreciation of the work that has already been done in this field by the Sea Fisheries Division we do want to emphasize that in view of the enormous demand for this commodity this industry still deserves a great deal of attention. Since 1948 many experiments have been conducted in the Knysna Lagoon. In 1950 500,000 Dutch and French oysters were imported there, and they are thriving there. Mention should be made of the fact that the European oyster has a much softer shell, a more attractive shape and a larger quantity of meat than the South African species. In addition it can be marketed after three years, while the indigenous oyster often takes up to five years to become marketable. With the assistance of a certain Mr. Harry Thesen, Dr. von Bonde, Director of Fisheries, started an oyster farm there, and the assistance of a certain Dr. Korringa, a famous Dutch ichthyologist, was also obtained. After studying the problem in the vicinity of Knysna, the Keurbooms River, Rondevlei and so forth, he declared that as far as temperature, the formations, the salinity of the water and the currents were concerned, those parts were very suitable for oyster culture. We know that the oyster likes a rocky bottom that is free of mud and that it wants a constant degree of salinity—it is very fastidious as far as its environment is concerned. This expert found that this was an excellent place for oyster culture.

The three local varieties that we have here were also tested one against the other, and the work that was carried out for us by this expert is of inestimable value. It has also been proved that if Portuguese oysters are imported at the age of 14 to 18 months and survive the journey, they adapt themselves very quickly and reach marketable size within a very short space of time, sooner than in their home country. I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to express thanks for the work that has been done there. I have brought this matter to the notice of the Minister, and I hope that this aspect of marine life, viz. the shell-food resources and the other riches of the sea, will not be forgotten when he is so kind as to help us in the future, as behoves one fisherman in dealing with another.

I wish to make the point that it has not yet been proved that the Cape Agulhas area is the only place where oysters are found. Oysters are still fairly plentiful in that area, they are at home there, but there are other parts of our coast where in my opinion this industry can be successfully undertaken.

Before concluding I just want to say that there are many other aspects that we do not have time to dilate upon. For example, there are the rich sole fishing grounds along the South Coast, where the people operating there have to go far away from safe harbours to catch the fish. Between Walker Bay and Mossel Bay, for example, there is no place where they can take refuge, and they have to operate over very long distances under difficult circumstances. In regard to the line-fishing industry, too, I wish to make a plea here that the Minister should pay attention not only to the major harbours, but also to the smaller ones where line fishing is practiced to the benefit of our country as a whole.

Before resuming my seat I just want to mention the problem of law enforcement in regard to safety measures in the case of sporting craft, and even where fishing boats operate and there is no control exercised by a harbourmaster. I know of cases where the safety measures have been ignored and where the lives of men have been endangered when they have put out to sea. Sir, I can engage your attention for a long time still by discussing the danger of stripping bare our rocks, by discussing the extermination of bait, worms, mussels, red-bait and the like, as well as the problem of seals and penguins and a great many other aspects, but I wish to leave these topics to other hon. members and to the imaginative approach that I hope the Minister will adopt towards the whole of the industry as a result of this motion.

It is with some pleasure that one can join in this discussion of a constructive suggestion and be able to speak in a co-operative way in what we hope will be a co-operative effort, not necessarily exactly as the mover of the motion wishes it to be, but nevertheless something in which we can help the country as a whole. Because, Sir, the State has in many respects failed to appreciate the importance of the sea to this country, and this is strange because the people of Europe from whom we spring have all, at some time or other, been great mariners, and in many instances really for a time ruled the seas. Three-quarters of the earth is covered by water and of all the countries to which the sea is important, there can be few (which are not islands), which have a greater interest in the sea than this country. We have long exposed coasts and we are connected with three oceans, the Southern Ocean, the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean, and we have three important currents which rub our shores, and affect the waters which move around us, the Benguela, the Agulhas and the West Drift. We have recently discovered that we have rich deposits of gems close to our shores. We have also found rich fisheries. I think I need say no more about the diamonds, because we can rely on the companies which have been given the concessions to get the last diamond out of the sea.

But I would like to mention other aspects of the fruits of the sea and the qualities of the sea which are of great importance to us. A lot has been said about fisheries, but the fisheries have not had the attention they deserve, nor have the country’s resources been employed to reap the full fruits. It is almost only at this moment when we see our fishing grounds invaded by foreigners that we suddenly wake up to their importance. As a supply of food; rich protein food and a supply of feed for cattle and of fertilizer. These need protection. We have already lost—and I do not accuse the Government of neglecting this aspect—the rich whale fisheries, except on the East Coast to a limited extent. The whales have disappeared and the great factory ship belonging to this country which used to go out with its whale catchers has disappeared from the South African scene, likely never to return. It looks as if the huge mammals of the Antarctica will follow the fate of those in the Arctic. Be that as it may, I have asked people with some authoritative knowledge in this respect as to what is likely to happen to the fauna of the Arctic and to fauna of the seas around us when this huge mammal disappears entirely from the seas. A professor of oceanography told me that of course nobody can foresee what will happen, but he says that he feels that the plankton from which these huge mammals formerly gained their food and produced their oil and fat and meat will now be available to some other form of fish, and we may find some other of our fishes increasing in numbers. It is a question of food supply. Now this food supply which was used in the Arctic and Antarctic only reached these shores, as I say, as the product of the destruction of this mammal. Now it will reach the shores, we hope, in the form of phyloplankton, zooplankton and of other fish. But what are we doing? We have a broad expanse of oceans to our south. Our nearest neighbours are many miles away, a very long way away. In other words, if we search, and even more, if we research this huge area and find what is changing and what is happening and be in a position to foresee what will happen, then we will be in a position to profit from this huge garden—because that is what the sea is, it is a huge agricultural area producing without cultivation, producing without work, and the only thing needed is to find the crop and send your ships to reap the harvest. The Government in this respect has been lax. They have not taken advantage of the services at their disposal. The Fisheries Department has its research department and it conducts careful investigation along our Western Coast. The Western Coast is fortunate in the respect that the cold sub-Arctic flow as it moves north is deflected close inshore on our West Coast and it is this deflection of the cold Arctic waters laden with plankton which causes and produces the rich fisheries on the West Coast. But what are the companies doing there? They are reaping the harvest. Less than one-fourth of this field has been really investigated. The whole of the vast Cape Basin, bounded on the west by the Walvis Ridge, and along the south by the Indian Atlantic Ridge which moves from south of India down about 600 miles south of Port Elizabeth and swings away towards Patagonia—this large area between those two and the West Coast of our country, the northern area which must be rich and which theorists believe to be rich, richer than the southern area which is now being exploited, this rich area has not been exploited, and the recent investigation further out from the West Coast by the University of Cape Town, investigating the Vema Seamount, has shown that this is a rich area and that other equally rich areas can be expected to be present. The university through the generosity of the Collins group received the loan of a ship from about 5 to 17 January 1964 roughly about 10 days, and in 10 days they went deliberately to investigate the Vema Seamount and found that they had discovered a completely untouched fishing ground. The fishes were of the same character as those of Tristan da Cunha, but they had never been disturbed. They found in the short period that they were there, that these fishes had taken forms and shapes and bred differing varieties. They hoped that they here had an area from which the university researchers would be able to study how fishing over the years varies the variety and what varieties tend to reproduce more rapidly and what tends to disappear.

Unfortunately, the ship took with it two reporters and these two reporters published the news of this discovery before the ship had even returned and the result is that two of the fishing companies from the South West coast (I do not quite know which they are), have already exploited with great profit this fishing ground. There is no reason to blame them, the profits were there, and if they had not taken them sooner or later some other company or some other country’s ships could have taken it. But it is a pity that this opportunity for investigation over the years has been denied to the oceanographists. That is past. But if one studies the charts of the South-Eastern Atlantic and the South-Western Indian Ocean, one will find that there are numerous other seamounts, and numerous other ridges of mountains which exist in this area, and the universities should be given the opportunity to research them. The university has acquired a ship on which it owes a great deal of money and it needs money for a research department and money to train researchers, and the grant to the University of Cape Town should be increased enormously to do this work.

In the short time left to me I want to draw attention to another most important ocean research; more important even than the fruits of the sea is, what are we doing to the sea? I draw attention to the research which is now going on at Durban, assisted by the municipality and by various commercial firms, but to only a limited extent by Government funds, and those possibly channelled through the C.S.I.R. That is the disposal of effluents. It was some years before the efforts of two members on this side of the House, the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) were able to convince the Government that the discharge of effluents into the sea was dangerous and harmful. I wish to point out that it is most important that the Government should at once introduce a programme to study the inshore tide of the whole of our shores. All along the shores there are municipalities, there are industries, which are going to discharge into the sea. The worst features of course are around Durban, near Verulam and down the Umkomaas River, but those are only the start, and unless we take much more interest and are able to guide these industries to show them where their effluents must be discharged onto the floor of the sea, we shall find ourselves with the whole of our shores polluted, as are most of the European countries at present. It is said that the estuaries of England are sewers. Bathing in those areas is dangerous and should not be permitted. We do not want this to happen. But we cannot expect that commerce on its own will carry out the investigations of this huge area. The effluents must be disposed of. Some of these effluents are sewerage. Well, you may say there are other methods, and I agree. But the effluents of industries such as the effluents of the nylon factory on the Umkomaas River are not disposable by any other means, nor the effluents from the Titanian Mine at Umgababa. These are things which must be discharged at a point where they will not return to the country, where they will not reach possibly some other shore of this country.

That titanian factory has been closed.

It does not pay at the moment, but they can start again. Why must the huge titanian mine outside Durban not be mined?

They were stopped by Water Affairs.

I know they were stopped. But this country must help them to come back and be able to dispose of their effluents in another manner. I know they were stopped. This side of the House urged the Minister to stop them. It was this side of the House which represents the Natal coast, which fought the battle for the inhabitants there, but these industries will come back. Umgababa is closed temporarily, it is not destroyed, it is still there. This country must make a study of the close-shore tide and the movement of the water around those areas so as to find out at what distance effluents can be safely discharged.

I wish to support the motion introduced by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) by emphasizing a few aspects in regard to the development of our sea industry along the West Coast. We all admit that our fishing industry has developed tremendously over the past two decades and when you consider the location of the various fishmeal factories, fish-canning factories and crayfish-canning industries, Sir, you are struck by the fact that those factories are mainly situated in the Saldanha Bay-Stompneus-Velddrif-Laaiplek complex. There are a few factories further north; two at Lambert Bay and one at Doring Bay and one at Hondeklip Bay etc. During the past few years it has also been discovered that there was an extremely rich potential in the development of our sea industry. That is the position in regard to the development of our fishing industry but recently the development in regard to extracting diamonds from the sea has drawn considerable attention. Mr. Speaker when we look at the problems confronting our fishing industry and this new industry of extracting diamonds from the sea we realize that there are a few factors which have a very hampering effect on the development of our sea industry. I want to refer to these few factors this afternoon and make a few requests to the hon. the Minister in that regard. Firstly, I would point out that the West Coast generally is a very barren area. It is practically only Saldanha Bay which has a natural harbour and which offers a natural shelter from the sea. The Government has established reasonable harbour facilities at Lamberts Bay, particularly with a view to the fishing industry, and recently a start has been made to open the estuary of the Berg River, and this holds out new prospects. But when you go deeper into the matter it strikes you that a complex like Stompneus, where there are no fewer than eight factories, there is not a proper sea wall or safe shelter for the boats of that large number of factories. When you go further north of Lamberts Bay you find that there is a stretch of sea coast practically 300 miles in length which hardly has any harbour facilities or even any shelter from the sea for the fishing boats. That means that it is practically impossible to develop the sea industry along the West Coast. It has recently become clear that considerable risks attach to the development of the diamonds-from-the-sea industry and one can tell a stirring tale about the development of this industry for the very reason that the West Coast is so barren and offers so little shelter. I have on numerous occasions had the experience of a wife asking me please not to encourage her children also to go to sea, because, they said, to know your people were along the West Coast and to see a storm approaching without knowing where they were or where they were sheltering, made life just one suspense. I merely mention this to emphasize the fact that we do not fully appreciate how barren the West Coast is. We talk about the coast of death and we refer to only a certain section of the coast line of South West Africa but the entire coast from Lamberts Bay is a coast of death. Even to-day anybody who is shipwrecked along the West Coast in summer runs the serious risk of dying of thirst within a day or two if he has no water with him. We can therefore say that there are only two reasonable harbours along the South West coast for a distance of approximately 1,000 miles. In other words, there is a coast line of approximately 1,500 miles along the West Coast with only three or four places where boats can shelter. In addition I want to emphasize that not only is the West Coast dangerous because harbours and shelters are so few and far between, but also because of the serious shortage of water. Sir, you will be surprised to learn that at a place like Springbok people are to-day still paying R1.25 for 1,000 gallons of water. That is five or six times the amount we pay for water here in Cape Town and there are places where water is even more expensive.

At Lüderitz water is more expensive than beer.

Yes. I merely emphasize that the shortage of water, harbours and shelter along the West Coast constitutes a serious hampering factor as far as the development of our sea industries is concerned. That is why I want to make a threefold request to the hon. the Minister in the few minutes at my disposal.

In the first instance I ask for planning in respect of the West Coast with a view to providing shelters from the sea at strategic places. We are not asking for the construction of a proper harbour every 30 or 40 miles because that area is very sparsely populated, but we are asking for harbours at appropriate places and at least proper shelter for fishing boats at other places, simply a sea-wall behind which people who have gone out with boats which travel at about 15 knots per hour and which cannot possibly run for shelter over a distance of a few hundred miles within a limited time can find shelter. I trust these facilities will in due course be provided there so that the development of our fishing industry, our sea industry, as well as this new industry of extracting diamonds from the sea can be tackled systematically and with confidence.

My second request is for a planned survey of the sea-bed along the West Coast. Nothing much has so far been done in regard to a proper survey of the sea-bed along the West Coast. When I say that I not only have in mind the fishing area in our sheltered waters but even the areas beyond. If people come from Russia and Spain and other countries to exploit the riches of the sea along the West Coast I think it is worth while South Africa giving serious attention to those riches and exploiting them herself. That is why I ask for a planned survey of the sea-bed along the West Coast with a view to the development of our fishing industry, our crayfish industry and the diamonds-from-the-sea industry. I think the Government can do a great deal in this regard because it will be a costly undertaking. There will have to be co-ordination and the necessary technically trained personnel to do the work will have to be found.

In conclusion I want to ask that with a view to the future expansion of our atomic power development plans the West Coast should also be borne in mind. When you think of a project like the desalting of sea water, the prospects that hold out, and the costs connected with it I think the West Coast forces us to give serious consideration to the development of our atomic power industry along the West Coast also with a view to supplying electric power. I did, on one occasion, raise the question of providing electric power in the constituency which I represent and I was told that sufficient power was not available under the existing scheme to enable such an undertaking to be tackled at the moment and that the only possible prospect would be for such a project to be undertaken when water was available from the Orange River scheme. I think the only possible source of power along the West Coast will have to be atomic power. In addition we ask for research to promote the active development of the riches along our West Coast. We trust the hon. the Minister will give serious attention to these matters because we are very confident that in time to come the West Coast, sparsely populated as it is, will make a substantial contribution to the prosperity of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with one or two matters, some of which have been dealt with before, and I want to start by giving the House some information which was given to me by an eminent oceanographic scientist who was in America recently conducting research with the authorities there in connection with a scientific study and exploration of the flora and fish life of the ocean and the effects of effluent on this flora and the fish. The work was done mostly by skin divers, and we all know how humanity has conquered the depths of the ocean by this means in recent years. One most important fact was discovered. A particular factory had been established and it came into production and discharged its effluent into the sea. This happened just during the period of this official investigation, and the result of the discharge of the effluent was devastating. In a short while great quantities of vegetation on the seabed were destroyed, huge banks covered by vegetation were completely denuded, and due to this denudation marine life almost completely disappeared, and not only over the small area at the point of discharge. The deleterious effects spread for miles along the coast on either side of where it came out, probably due to the movement of the local waters. I speak here in support of my colleague, the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford), and I say that this matter is definitely of great importance and must be studied together with all the other matters relating to the sea and its products.

Any fisherman who has fished along our coasts for as long as I have, knows the effect of the destruction of the bait near the rocks. The black mussel and redbait have been removed and it is almost impossible to catch a fish anywhere unless one goes to the most inaccessible places. All fishermen know that where the rocks are the bait is, and where the bait is the little fish are, and where the little fish are the big fish are. If human beings can cause all the trouble they have done by removing the bait from the rocks along the shore, and if we are going to allow our factories to discharge their effluent into the sea without making a full study of all the implications, it is highly likely that we will ruin altogether the fishing around our coast. This subject is one of the greatest importance.

While on the subject of the damage being done to the flora and fish life, I want to spend a moment or two discussing this continual controversy in regard to the trawling going on over our breeding-grounds. An official investigation will soon show which side is right. For myself, I am quite satisfied that there is trawling going on over the breeding-grounds, and it has had a very bad effect on the fishing in certain areas. I remember 35 years ago an old gillie at Hermanus telling me he had served on trawlers and he had seen them trawl over breeding-grounds, and that it was a terrible sight to see. The fish did not come up by the thousand but by the ton, all little ones, and they were simply dumped overboard. The seas are wide and that can happen anywhere and under present conditions we cannot control that sort of thing altogether, but this is another respect in which the knowledge gained could be co-ordinated. Once the whereabouts of the breeding-grounds are established, I am quite satisfied that we should be able to control this matter much better than we can at present. I am told, for instance, that the soles in Walker Bay have disappeared; that it has been completely denuded. They have been trawled out. Most of the boats have now left the area and a sole in Hermanus is now almost a museum piece. That is the effect of trawling over our breeding-grounds.

I want to turn to one other point. This research is something that cannot be dealt with by the expenditure of modest amounts; it will necessitate the expenditure of considerable amounts. The University of Cape Town estimates that the expenditure on its new all-purpose research vessel will total R2,400,000, and they estimate that the expenditure annually will be about R420,000. We on this side would be quite happy if the Minister could persuade the Minister of Finance to support this. In Canada they have four such ships and they plan eventually to have ten. The Institute building alone cost 4,200,000 dollars and then they still have to pay the staff. In the U.S.A. they have a staff of 400 plus aircraft and they are spending 13,900,000 dollars a year.

I have time for only one more point which I would like to mention. When this gas was so unexpectedly discovered in the Sahara, nobody thought much about it, but it has turned into such an industry to-day that one deposit is estimated to be worth 1,000,000,000 tons of coal, and this gas is being used so extensively in Europe that they have actually built tankers for the specific purpose of taking it to Britain and the Northern European countries. It was largely due to that that the exploration around the shores of Britain and in the North Sea, all the drilling that is going on for oil and gas, was started. Now, our continental shelf belongs to us and to nobody else and I do not think our investigations should be limited only to marine life or the sea-bed only. It should also be directed to discovering what is under the sea. We do not know what minerals there are. This is a tremendous proposition. It is not a matter one can ask private enterprise to tackle unless they know a lot more about it. It is something which should be started by the Government. There should be boring done by a Government vessel. We know that they have now evolved pontoons which can be used for boring in deep water. There must be possibilities on our continental shelf, which as far as the minerals are concerned belong to us. We have no control over the fish outside the 12-mile limit, although we must do our best to protect our breeding-grounds, but the continental shelf and what lies below it belongs to us. I hope this Minister is big-minded enough to give thought to this, and I can assure him that he will have all the support of this side of the House if he decides to go into this matter in a big way. I want to mention Mr. Sam Collins to whom we are all very grateful, who is getting diamonds off the sea-bed. He may be disturbing the marine vegetation but I think that will come back when he goes away. It is quite possible that there may also be oil or gas below the sea-bed. We must retain control of that until such time as we find out whether such assets exist or not, and then we can decide how private enterprise can come into the picture.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) for having moved this motion, and for the way in which he did so. He has led to the fruitful discussion and quite a number of positive proposals. In the nature of things it will be impossible for me to go into each of those proposals in detail, but I hope nevertheless to cover a fairly wide field in the course of what I have to say.

The proposal that there should be coordinated action in connection with research into our seabed is one which is of importance to us. because it is clear that hidden in the seabed there are assets of tremendous value awaiting exploitation but as yet undiscovered.

Reference has been made here to our long coastline of more than 2,000 miles from the Kunene to Kosi Bay. It has also been pointed out that we have discovered rich fishing grounds, but that other countries are also concentrating to-day on their exploitation. We have already discovered diamonds on the seabed and it is a well-known fact that there are rich deposits of phosphate. We are strategically situated here at the three oceans, the Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. The sea contains very important natural resources. Just as research in mining and in agriculture has played an important role in bringing to light mining and agricultural resources and in the proper exploitation of those resources, so too it is essential that an intensive campaign be embarked upon to investigate and to exploit these oceans. However, before we can judge to what extent there should be coordination it is necessary to review just briefly which bodies are already undertaking research in our country and precisely what their functions are. In summarizing what has already been done, I do not take into account the important work which has been done by the Department of Transport mainly in the Antarctic region. There are some ten institutions which are already undertaking maritime research in one form or another. In the first place there is the Oceanographic Research Group of the C.S.I.R. in Durban, which concentrates on coastal oceanography with special reference to the pollution of coastal waters from a chemical and biological point of view, the conveyance of sediment and the energy reaction between the atmosphere and the sea. This work is limited to a small area there. Two speakers on the other side have referred to this question of pollution. There is already a division there which is investigating the various aspects of pollution. The two hon. members in question have also put forward valuable suggestions. The hon. member for Durban-North (Dr. Radford) referred to Umgubaba. This division gave its active assistance in an attempt to solve the problem of pollution there, and a stop was eventually put to the processing of titanium there through the intervention of the Department of Water Affairs. But the factory also had economic problems; it was closed down because of economic considerations and not because of the action taken by Water Affairs. If it does become possible to process titanium economically, there is a possibility that the problem of pollution there may be solved. But titanium is one of the raw materials which is very plentiful in the world, and it is doubtful whether it can really be exploited economically. But the C.S.I.R. actively assisted in solving the pollution problem there. Sir, I have already mentioned this one research group in Durban. The pollution of our waters is an extremely important matter, and a few years ago we passed legislation here which gave extensive powers to the Minister of Water Affairs. The C.S.I.R. is also actively engaged in trying to find a solution to the problem which has arisen at Umkomaas. Then there is also the Oceanographic Research Institute in Durban which concentrates its research mainly upon behaviour studies and the taxonomy of sharks while limited attention is given to plankton studies and work in connection with primary production in the sea. Then there is the Department-of Ichthyology attached to the University of Rhodes, which concentrates entirely on the taxonomy of fish found in the South African waters as well as in the Western Indian Ocean. Then there is the South African Navy’s Hydrographic Office at Simonstown. This division makes bathymetric surveys, in other words, its measures the depth of the continental shelf around South Africa; moreover, it also plots out the topography of the seabed. One of the matters mentioned here by the hon. member for Piketberg is the necessity to make surveys of the seabed. We have a division already which is engaged in this task. Then there is the Naval Oceanographic Research Unit of the S.A. Navy at Youngsfield. This unit does oceanographic research insofar as it relates to the defence of our South African coast and shipping routes. The S.A. Museum, Cape Town, is exclusively a taxonomic institution which concentrates its activities mainly on fishes and marine invertebrata, as well as abyssal and bathypelagic fauna. They are also doing a limited amount of work in connection with plankton. Then there is the Department of Oceanography of the University of Cape Town, where biological, physical and geological research is done with special emphasis on the Agulhas current. This work is of a purely academic nature, but in this regard they have done important preparatory work. The University has a Chair of oceanography. Reference has already been made here to the announcement with regard to the boat purchased by them. The work that they are doing is important. Then there is the Fisheries Development Corporation which concentrates mainly on the development of fishing harbours and fishing vessel research. Its other duties are perhaps not specifically under discussion here but the hon. member for Piketberg also put forward a plea here for larger shelters. I can say that important work has been done recently by Fishcor, particularly after the Corporation’s expansion and now they have their own engineers to institute investigations and to plan harbours. The harbour at Lambert’s Bay was completed two years ago. At the moment the Corporation is giving its attention to improvements at Saldanha Bay and to the establishment of quay facilities there. The mouth of the Berg River is being dredged at the moment. The hon. member referred to the importance of Stompneus Bay. I agree that that is where we find the biggest concentration of fishing industries. As far back as two years ago already Fishcor investigated the possibility of bringing about a shelter there and also went into the question of the most desirable place for such a shelter. The report which has been completed already has been submitted to and considered by the Government. We realize the necessity of constructing such a shelter. Moreover, Cape Town harbour is also beginning to take shape, and extensions have been brought about at Hout Bay as well as at Hermanus and Kleinmond. Attention is therefore being given to the question of shelters and better facilities for our large population of fishermen and their boats, and as far as Stompneus is concerned this matter will probably receive attention in the near future.

Then there is the Sea Fisheries Division at Cape Town which does research in connection with the natural resources of the sea along our coasts. This includes physical, chemical and biological environment studies as well as research in connection with the biology, the distribution, the numerical strength etc. of all types of fish and other marine animals which are of commercial importance. Then there is also the Marine Research Laboratory of the South-West Africa Administration at Walvis Bay, which limits its activities to the important South-West Africa waters and which does the same sort of work as the Oceanographic Research Group of the C.S.I.R. All these groups are undertaking important research of one kind or another. The research undertaken by some of these groups is academic to a large extent and others are concentrating on more practical research. Reference has been made here by a number of speakers to the various aspects of the fishing industry, and perhaps I should say a little more about the activities of Fishcor, because Fishcor has already made important contributions towards solving the problems which have been mentioned here.

The following matters all fall within the scope of Fishcor’s activities: It makes routine observations in the area between Lambert’s Bay and west of Cape Infanta in the south in order to determine the changes of current and the chemical, physical and biological milieu. Deep-sea voyages are undertaken every year with the object of making a survey of the oceanic waters within a radius of approximately 1,000 miles from our coast in order to determine the influence of the waters of this area upon our coastal waters. The survey of the area on the West Coast up to a depth of approximately 200 miles has already been completed, and the programme covers a depth of 1,000 miles. Fishcor has now been doing this survey for some years. Then there is also the aspect of the most important pelagic shoals which can be developed commercially, such as sardines, maasbankers, mackerel, anchovy, snoek and tunny to which the hon. member for Hottentots Holland referred here. I want to draw attention to the fact that one of the terms of reference of this commission of enquiry which is sitting at present under the chairmanship of Dr. Yates is to enquire into the occurrence of abalone and the problems connected with its exploitation. In this regard the hon. member put forward certain positive ideas. It may perhaps be desirable to consider the question of submitting those ideas to the commission. Then there is also the important question of bait surveys. At the present moment the investigation is concentrated mainly upon mussels but the scope of the investigation will be extended. Then there is also the investigation into the bionomy of shrimps; there is also whale research and line-fishing research. The research that can be undertaken in connection with our commercial fish covers a very wide field. The fishing industry has a direct interest in research into trawling and fishing surveys generally. Then there is research in connection with other things such as the fauna and flora which appear in certain zones. There is the possibility of research in connection with rock lobster on our east coast in the Transkei area; there are also the biological aspects of line-fish. Then we have our east coast tunny and marine mammals. It may be interesting, Sir, just to indicate how wide this field is, to refer to some articles which appeared with regard to the fishing industry in one of our local newspapers. In this one issue of the paper there are four articles which indicate the scope of research into the fishing industry. Here one finds the following headlines: “Russian research vessel reports on South African waters;” “Indian Ocean survey cruises by Afrikaner I” “More food from fish by farming the sea” “British research station works to improve the quality of fish”: The scope for research into the fishing industry is unlimited therefore. Since 1948 our fishing industry has expanded so enormously that the total catches of fish in the waters of South Africa and South-West Africa have increased by almost 800 per cent and the value of processed fish products has risen from R8,000,000 to something like R60,000,000. These figures indicate the importance of this industry. The Fisheries Division has done important research already and hon. members may rest assured that it is their intention to expand their activities in this connection.

But I want to point out that it is not only the fishing industry which is of importance to us. Reference has also been made here to our continental shelf which is of very great potential value to us, not only because of the fish to be found there but also because we have the rights to the natural resources on the continental shelf. We know already that there are diamonds. We are aware of the fact that there are rich deposits of phosphate in the neighbourhood of the Agulhas shelf, and I am convinced that if further reconnoitring is done there other mineral resources will definitely be discovered in this area.

As far as the continental shelf is concerned, I can only refer to the international convention to which we have subscribed and which gives us certain rights outside of our territorial waters. In terms of international conventions the continental shelf of a country is defined as follows—

This also applies to our islands. In terms of this international convention the continental shelf also falls within our jurisdiction. The continental shelf of the Republic extends just a few miles from the coast on the south-eastern side, but in a westerly direction it becomes wider and extends about 150 miles from the coastline at its most southerly point thus forming the well-known Agulhas shelf. In the Atlantic Ocean our continental shelf extends 40 miles (in some places probably farther) from the coast. We have full control over the continental shelf, therefore, as far as mining is concerned, precious stones, metals and minerals, as well as oil which may be discovered there. Reference has been made here to oil and the possible exploitation of oil, and I can only say that one of the matters to which the recently-established Southern Oil Exploration Corporation (Soekor) will give its attention is this question of some co-ordinated effort to search for oil on the continental shelf. This land is State-owned land and all prospecting and exploitational rights therefore belongs to the State.

As far as research is concerned, I want to point out too that the Government has already done a good deal to render assistance in connection with oceanographic research. But this is not a matter which one organization, however big it may be, can tackle. Reference has already been made here to the scope of it and the great diversity of projects to which studies can be devoted. It will be impossible for one organization to tackle a project of this nature single-handed. The best results will definitely be achieved by means of a co-ordinated and purposeful effort in which we make use of all our available manpower and facilities. The C.S.I.R., some of the universities and a number of other organizations have realized the value of sea research and have already made valuable contributions in this connection. Good progress has already been made with the plotting out of our seabed in the south-western part of the Indian Ocean, and in this connection the Government has also made its own contribution. This task has been undertaken by the National Institute for Naval and Oceanographic Research (Cape Town) in co-operation with other countries. The project is known as the International Indian Ocean Expedition which started in 1961 with the plotting out of the seabed depths to which I referred a while ago. We have made our contribution and approximately 50 per cent of the depth determinations has been done by South African ships. Before this Expedition commenced with its activities in 1961, the topography of the southern portion of the Indian Ocean was still comparatively unknown to us. The information that was gathered was broken down and indicated on a chart which has since been published by the S.A. Naval Hydrographic Office. Important information which we did not previously have at our disposal was brought to light by this survey. The chart now gives us a more reliable and useful indication of the depth of the seabed at various points and of the most important basins, reefs, terraces, etc. The existence of a hitherto unknown submarine mountain range was discovered in the course of this investigation. Recently there was an expedition, in which the Oceanographic Research Institute of the University of Cape Town took part, to one of the mountain ranges and some interesting discoveries were made there. As a result of the wide interest which was aroused by the publication of these charts, a very important symposium was held last year at the University of Cape Town with the assistance of the C.S.I.R., and an attempt was made there to take stock of the value of this scientific data. This symposium was held at Cape Town and it was decided there to establish a South African National Committee for Oceanographic Research, with specific instructions to the Committee to formulate an effective national programme for oceanographic research, based on the requirements of the country as a whole and the exceptional opportunities offered by the oceans within our reach. This committee consists of the nominated representatives of all interested bodies which voluntarily undertook to co-operate in this national programme. The following bodies are represented on this committee: the S. A. Navy, the Sea Fisheries Division, Geological Survey, the Fisheries Development Corporation, the South-West Africa Administration, the C.S.I.R., the Bernard Price Institute for Geophysical Research, the Oceanographic Research Institute at Durban, the Institute for Oceanography of the University of Cape Town, and the South African Museum, Cape Town. There are a few people who are serving on this committee in their personal capacities, as well as a few other bodies. Dr. Naude of the C.S.I.R. was chosen by the committee as chairman with Professor Jackson as vice-chairman. The secretariat is being provided by the C.S.I.R., at the request of the committee.

The research programme will be confined in the main to a purposeful physical and biological study of the two most important ocean currents, the Agulhas and the Benguella, and of the influence of these currents on local circumstances at the coast, accompanied by an extensive exploration of the seabed and the continental shelf in particular. In view of the fact that it is physically impossible to cover the whole of the coastline it is proposed to carry out intensive, co-ordinated observation programmes from the four most important harbours, Durban, Port Elizabeth, Cape Town and Walvis Bay, so that the joint results can then be used in formulating the nature and the characteristics of these currents. Observations will also have to be made from time to time in the hitherto uncovered as well as in the deep-sea areas outside of the continental shelf.

As far as the geological and geophysical programmes are concerned, it is proposed to undertake a systematic exploration of the seabed along the whole of the coastline, with more intensive studies of those areas which hold out the prospect of unique or promising results. Sir, the Government has considered the representations of the South African National Committee. The committee asked for recognition and for assistance to be given to them so as to be able to tackle this project on a national basis. The Government has decided to recognize the establishment of this National Geophysical Research Unit, and the existing committee will now be asked to submit proposals in connection with the matters which they propose to tackle, in connection with their composition; how they propose to fit in with the Department of Planning, and where the headquarters are to be situated. It has been said here by the hon. member for Moorreesburg that this project can be tackled by the C.S.I.R. or by the universities, or by the C.S.I.R. and the universities jointly. It has not yet been decided where the base will be, but the hon. member’s representations in this regard will certainly be taken into account.

In view of the high cost of such an undertaking. as far as equipment, exploitation, staffing, etc. are concerned, it will also have to be ascertained to what extent the private sector can be drawn in to take part in this project. It has been pointed out that in the course of its investigations this undertaking may make very important discoveries of minerals, or other materials, materials which can be exploited economically. It is anticipated that it may well be possible to arouse interest on the part of the private sector so that the private sector too can play its role in this joint effort. If this project leads to important discoveries of minerals or other materials which can be exploited, then the private bodies which have co-operated from the beginning in this research project will also have the opportunity to share in the economic exploitation of these minerals. The private sector will therefore have an opportunity in the years which lie ahead of us to take part in this project, and we are giving our attention at the moment to a co-ordinated effort to improve the research in connection with our oceans.

On behalf of the hon. member for Moorreesburg, I ask for leave to withdraw his motion.

Motion withdrawn, with the leave of the House.

Mr. Speaker, most thinking people will agree with me that it is indeed a sad commentary on the Government of South Africa that in these days of great scientific achievement, of rocket research and of medical miracles, it is necessary to come to this Parliament of the Republic of South Africa and plead with the Government to introduce one of the most modern, one of the finest mediums of education, information and enlightenment, namely television. In this respect it is fair to say that this Government is more backward than some of the most backward states in the world. It is more backward than Ghana, which already has television. Sir, a witch-doctor in an African jungle can see television and look on it with less suspicion than the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. In the French Congo to-day the inhabitants can enjoy television; in South Africa it is impossible for an enlightened electorate to do so.

Sir, I firmly believe that the attitude of the Government in this respect has made our country a laughing stock in the eyes of the rest of the civilized world, and unfortunately but inevitably it has made the name of this Government and of the Nationalist Party that it represents a by-word for ignorance, stupidity and backwardness. We believe that this shame—yes, I call it a shame—which the Government has brought on the country is not necessary; we believe that this shame can and should be removed. We would like to see it eradicated; we would like to see our name in this respect honoured again amongst the countries of the world and it is for that reason that I am bringing this motion before the House with the full permission and approval of the United Party, the official Opposition in this House, and at this stage 1 formally move:

To-day no less than 97 countries throughout the world either have television or are on the point of getting it. There are more than 130 million television sets throughout the length and breadth of the world. No single Western civilized nation is without television, except South Africa itself. On the Continent of Africa the following countries have television: Algeria, Egypt, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, Rhodesia, Ghana. Sierra Leone, the French Congo, Gabon, the Ivory Coast, Sudan and even Upper Volta. I am sure there are many hon. members who do not even know where some of these countries are and yet those countries have television, while our country, our South Africa, is denied this great educational and entertainment medium. Sir, let there be no question whatsoever about the extent of the backwardness of the Government and its leaders in this respect. Let us not forget the hon. the Minister has called television a little bioscope which is carried into the home where the parents have no control over it. Let us not forget that he has ridiculed television as a dangerous little black box. Let us remember that last year he said in Parliament that there was no question of television being introduced in South Africa. Why, Sir, on one occasion in Parliament he even refused to tell us whether he had ever seen a television programme. I would like to ask him that question to-day: Has he ever in his life seen a television programme? Has he seen this evil medium which he professes to criticize so severely to-day? He told the Bellville Skakelkomitee some time ago that the mass of television viewers were low and uneducated (“laagontwikkeld”); that television mainly presents what is low and animal and that it keeps sinking lower and lower; that at its best television has given America and Britain nothing which is worthwhile. Sir, nothing which is worthwhile? The great drama of the Churchill funeral which came over television, was that not worthwhile? The wonder of the Olympics at Tokyo, was that not worthwhile? The sight and sound of Maria Callas at the Metropolitan Opera, was that not something worthwhile that came over television? Day after day these programmes come over the television networks of the world. The splendour of the the inauguration of President Johnson, which millions of people could see, was that not worth while? No, the hon. the Minister says it is not worthwhile. It is debasing, it is low and it is sinking lower and lower. Anything from the entertainment of seeing the heavyweight boxing championships of the world, right up to seeing the launching of the rocket putting the first human into orbit around the world—these things are to the hon. the Minister not worth while; why should people see them? Why should a civilized person want to see and hear a ball game, according to him? Sir, he is not alone in this. If he were alone one could still understand it, but there is a strong group, a clique, in Government circles who are hardening their hearts more and more against this idea of television. Here I have in mind the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Muller) who actually had on record a motion in this House thanking the Minister for keeping the evils of television away from South Africa. Sir, I see the hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) is here. Sir, you should have read an article that he wrote last year in Die Transvaler in which he said:

Sir. what terrible evil is this?—

Sir, the hon. member for Innesdale is a very suspicious hon. member. But, Sir. there is one bit of light in this. After all, the hon. member for Innesdale is prophesying that we are not going to get television. I remember that on another occasion he made the very brilliant and logical prophecy that the next President of the United States would be Senator Barry Goldwater. May his prophecy with regard to television prove as correct. Even the newspapers supporting the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the Prime Minister are going out of their way to decry television. The Vaderland, a paper in which the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has a very large interest, with its customary delicacy and elegance of language, compared the majority of television programmes with “worked-out chewing gum sticking to a set of false teeth”. That is not my language, Sir, it is the language of the Vaderland. It is clear, therefore, Sir, that there is a section of this Government which is to-day trying bitterly, blindly and irrationally to kill the idea of television in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, when reading these statements, considering the opposition to television, anyone would really think that the Government must be suffering from some form of midsummer madness. But the most fantastic feature of all this is that on every hand one can see preparations being made for television. In South Africa itself there are preparations—there is talk about closed circuit television for commerce and industry and certain Government Departments, to be followed by closed circuit television in the schools and ultimately television throughout the whole country. One has to see these steps and preparations against the background of certain very significant statements which have been made, amongst others by the hon. the Minister himself. Only a few days ago, Sir, I asked the hon. Minister in this House whether the Government had taken any steps to prepare for the introduction of television. His reply was an abrupt “No”. Now, Sir, I mentioned mid-summer madness; I mentioned how fantastic the whole thing seems to be; let us look at some of the things that have been happening. It is one of the craziest phenomena of the topsy-turvy world of South African politics. If Lewis Carroll lived to-day he would write a sequel to “Alice Through the Looking Glass” and I would call it “Albert Through the Television Glass”.

Or “Malice in Blunderland”

The hon. the Minister tells us that no steps are being taken. Does he not realize that there is a Copyright Bill before Parliament to provide copyright protection for television programmes produced in South Africa? Does he not know that the architect of most of the FM towers in South Africa has said that provision has been made in these towers for the installation of television? Yet no steps are being taken, the hon. the Minister tells us. Does he not know that the chief engineer of the S.A.B.C. went to Britain on a television fact-finding mission and said on his return that the S.A.B.C. was keeping abreast of television developments? Has he not heard and does he not know that his own Department has given permission for closed circuit television to two Government Departments, and four Provincial Departments and that prominent industrial and commercial undertakings in South Africa are to-day making use of closed circuit television, including the South African Pulp and Paper Industries, in which I believe the Government also has a large interest? There was even a Bill which was published in the Gazette for information towards the end of last year in regard to the registration of title deeds of certain flats which are to be jointly owned, providing that in those flats joint services may be supplied for water, for gas, for light, for electricity, for telephones, for wireless, and television. We have these two Bills being introduced by this Government, yet the hon. Minister says that no preparations are being made. Does he not know that the South African Film Board has spent thousands of rand on making television films for television programmes for the television section of the Department of Information? Does he not know that the Planning and Development Engineer of the S.A.B.C. said last year that television was borne in mind when they selected the site for the FM transmitting station? Does he not realize that the C.S.I.R. are using closed circuit television to-day and that it possesses some of the most sophisticated television equipment in the whole world? He should know that his Department has sent over officials together with the S.A.B.C. to international television conferences where the question of wavelengths and other important television factors were discussed. Does he not know that the S.A.B.C. already has its own television film unit, a good unit, which is very jealous of its own rights, as was proved when an American television company tried to take a film of the opening of the Transkei Parliament and was refused the right to do so and priority given to the S.A.B.S.’s own television unit? Does he not know that South Africa was represented at the International Television Congress in 1962 and that it sent representatives to a similar congress of television engineers and others at Montreaux and a subsequent one in Geneva? Surely he knows that micro-wave repeater stations have been ordered and that money has been voted by Parliament for that purpose? Does he not realize that the Department of Information in one year made 48 television films of which 40 were shown abroad? Surely he should know that the Administrator of the Transvaal last year sent two senior officials of the S.A.B.C. overseas to investigate the use of television for educational purposes? He cannot deny that television equipment worth thousands of rand has already been bought by the S.A.B.C. At a conservative estimate I would say that if one takes into account all the expenses in connection with this preparatory work, the taxpayer has already paid more than R500,000, if not much more. Sir. what is happening to this money? Is it all being wasted for a hobby of the S.A.B.C. or a silly little past-time? Is that what is happening to the taxpayers’ money or is something serious happening to it? Sir, I am quite sure what the reply of the people of South Africa would be if they were to be given the choice between, on the one hand, R500,000 or more going down the drain, or on the other hand the Minister going the same way.

You are talking nonsense.

Sir, the most grotesque thing in this whole mummery is the following: A couple of days ago I asked the hon. the Minister whether South Africa is or was a signatory to any regional agreement for broadcasting and, if so, what agreements have been signed and when were they signed? He replied, “No.” In other words, South Africa, according to his reply, had not signed any regional agreement for broadcasting, sound or television; that South Africa was not a member of any such agreement and if it had been a member, there was no question of its ever having ceased to be a member. Sir, I have here a book with a golden yellow cover in front of me. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister recognizes this book. I believe there are only two in South Africa and the other one is in the vaults of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Sir, this is a public document; it is called “The Regional Agreement for the African Broadcasting Area”. It was published by the International Telecommunications Union in Geneva, a union of which South Africa is a member. This agreement was signed by 35 nations in Africa in Geneva and came into force in October last year. One of the signatories—you will not be surprised, Sir, to hear this, is the Republic of South Africa, yet the hon. the Minister tells this House and the country that South Africa is not a signatory to any regional broadcasting agreement! If the hon. the Minister would care to have a look at this agreement I have it here. I can show him facsimiles which have been published and printed in this agreement of the signatures of the people who signed on behalf of South Africa. This regional agreement which the hon. the Minister denies ever existed, was signed by Mr. W. G. Browne, who is a Grade I Engineer in the Post Office Department of which the hon. the Minister is in charge and with Mr. Browne at Geneva was Mr. Vollmer, an engineer of the S.A.B.C. and several other important engineering men in the S.A.B.C. and the Post Office. Sir, there is a regional agreement, which the hon. the Minister denies exists. One could have expected the denial if it had been a secret and not a public document, but if you look at this document you will see that it is signed by, inter alia, the delegates of Ghana, Nigeria. Somaliland, and the Congo. The citizens of those countries in Africa know about this agreement, yet the hon. the Minister comes to Parliament and denies that such an agreement exists.

Let us look more closely at this agreement, Sir. What is it about? It is nothing less than an agreement granting South Africa the international right, at the request of the hon. the Minister and his Department, to erect more than 190 television stations or television relay stations in the Republic of South Africa. These localities are specifically mentioned in this agreement itself. I have all the names here. This is no vague agreement. It gives South Africa the right to erect television stations; it specifically empowers the Government to erect television stations at 190 different localities in South Africa. Let me take one example to show you how specific this is. I see the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) is here. He is the chairman of the Post and Telegraphs group on the other side. Does he realize that permission has been granted for the erection of a television station at Bethlehem of 1,000 kilowatts? Is he going to vote for my motion? I hope so.

Only for a F.M. tower.

Listen to that. Sir, “Only a F.M. tower”! Shall I read from the Agreement to the hon. member?

Would he like to see it himself? I shall make this available to him. I turn to page 236 where it says—

For F.M.

It is not for F.M. This agreement deals specifically with television stations. They give the television wave lengths as well as the sound wave lengths. Most are given. Will the hon. member please come read this? I shall explain it to him. It says that a certain system can be used in the Bethlehem station, namely “system I”. It says“system I” may be used in the television station, giving 625 lines per picture per frame with a field frequency of 50 fields per second, with a line scanning sequence from left to right and a field scanning sequence from top to bottom. What have lines on a screen to do with F.M.? This is permission to erect a television station. Where does the hon. member for Bethlehem get his wrong information from that this is only for a F.M. station? The only possible reference to F.M. is the fact that they even go so far as to say that the maximum height of the television antennae must be 300 metres above the general level of the surrounding countryside. Here we have the hon. the Minister, on the one hand, saying there have been no agreements while, on the other hand, his delegates at Geneva have signed such an agreement. How can we ever understand or believe the protestations of the hon. the Minister in this regard? Again I say this is not a secret or a confidential document. It is a document which can be bought from the International Tele-communications Union in Geneva and any hon. members opposite can buy it. But the people of South Africa are denied this knowledge by the hon. the Minister. Is this not proof that preparatory work is being done and that the Government is entirely wrong in stating that no such work is in progress? Notwithstanding all the bluff and all the talk on the part of the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs preparatory work on television is going ahead. I believe that television will come in South Africa, not because of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs but in spite of him. I believe it will come not because of the Nationalists and their party but because of the pressure of public opinion led by a responsible United Party. A call has come from all parts of South Africa, from all types of bodies, from women’s organizations, from cultural organizations, from chambers of commerce, even from the agricultural society of the Eastern Province, and even from the Railway Staff Association. They have all asked for television. What is more, Sir. the people of South Africa are demanding it individually and in general. The people of South Africa are not, as the hon. the Minister would like us to believe, ignorant, moronic, destined to drool over a hypnotic little black box. No, Sir. the people of South Africa are intelligent citizens. They include professors, they include educators, teachers, people who believe in the educational value of television and are pressing for its introduction. It includes men in commerce and business who see in it a great incentive to economic growth; it includes parents of children who know television to be a fantastically, almost incredibly, effective means of education in schools. And last but by no means least, there is another group asking for television. I particularly mention this group because I have had more letters and more telegrams from the representatives of this group than from any other group. I refer to the pensioners, to the old-age pensioners, the lonely, the disabled and the sick who cannot get out of the hospitals or out of their rooms, who cannot afford a cinema ticket, people who, in their loneliness are asking please to be given that one form of entertainment which is available throughout the rest of the world to other old-age pensioners, the disabled and the sick.

May I ask a question? Where will they get the money from to buy a television set if they cannot even afford to buy a cinema ticket?

I think that is a stupid question but I shall reply to it in this way: I am quite sure there is an old-age home in the constituency of the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. J. J. Rall). There is one in mine. If television is introduced I am prepared to buy them a television set. Is he prepared to do the same?

My time is limited. I think we all know what is holding television back to-day. We believe it is vested interests vested in certain of the great publication firms supporting the Nationalist Party. It is selfishness. It is a blind fear of the unknown. It is the fear that people’s vision will be broadened. Who is the gremlin in the works? Who, if I may use the vocabulary of a neighbouring state, is the tokkeloshe in the television kraal? We know who it is.

There is one final thing I wish to say to the hon. the Minister. I believe that he is committed and bound, heart and soul, to opposing television with all his might. For that I respect him although I cannot agree with him. But he must realize one thing, as each and everyone of us realizes it, and that is that if he is a man of integrity and honour, as no doubt he is, he cannot in all conscience, remain Minister of Posts and Telegraphs once the Government should decide to introduce television. What is more he dare not remain a member of a Cabinet and a Government that does introduce television. That is my challenge to him and I trust he will respond to it.

Order! I am sorry the hon. member’s time has expired.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member has introduced a motion. Is there any time limit?

The hon. member may proceed.

I know there is an agreement about the time, Mr. Speaker, I shall not be long. I want to conclude with this final sentence that too long we have had this Government on the issue of television groping in the twilight world of its own prejudices while, on the other hand, around this world telestars and T.V. satellites are circling, and man is reaching for the stars with his spirit, with his intellect and with his technique. Let there be no mistake that when we request the hon. the Minister to introduce television we are not asking him, we are telling him.

We are all used to the fact that the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) lowers the level of every debate in which he participates to such an extent that one is actually ashamed to take part in such debates. He has done exactly the same thing again this afternoon. He did not advance logical arguments but accused the State and the Government of being more backward than the Black Africa States. I do not want to try to sink to the depths to which the hon. member sank. I want to reply to one point which he raised and then I shall try to make a positive contribution to this debate. The one matter which he raised with much gesticulation was the matter in connection with the yellow book on the International Telecommunications Union, which he held up for us to seee. I want to say immediately that the question which the hon. member placed on the Order Paper dealt specifically with the question of whether the Government had a regional agreement in connection with telecommunications. I have seen that book. I know that the words “Regional Agreement” appear in that book but it is also stated clearly in that book that it is the International Telecommunications Union which handles Africa on a regional basis. When he asked his question and used the terms “regional basis” neither the hon. the Minister nor the Department thought that he meant this international development. One does not speak of a region when one talks of international agreements, unless one has the I.Q. of the hon. member for Orange Grove. Because of this fact the hon. the Minister stated, quite correctly, in reply to the question of whether there were any regional agreements that there were no regional agreements. If the hon. member had used the word “international” in his question the hon. the Minister would immediately have told him that such an agreement does exist. We are not ashamed in that regard; we are aware of that fact; we know precisely what is going on.

I want to go further in connection with this matter. The position is this: The International Telecommunications Union held a meeting at Geneva in November, 1963. Various Africa states including the Republic of South Africa were present on that occasion. Various other countries which have interests in Africa and other parts of the world were also present. The hon. member gave us to understand that it was a conference which was confined to countries on the continent of Africa. That document was also signed, if he will only look at it. by Spain and France and also by Britain on behalf of her foreign territories. South Africa was also present. In case the hon. member does not know it, at a conference of this nature various frequencies are allocated to various countries. If South Africa does not take the frequencies which are allocated to her, if she does not accept them, it will mean that those frequencies will immediately become available to other countries, to nearby Black States, the Protectorates perhaps, for use in their television systems or whatever the case may be against South Africa in order to overwhelm us with their propaganda. In other words, South Africa has to accept those frequencies so that they do not, in the first place, fall into the hands of foreign and hostile nations and peoples. That is why they are in our name. [Interjection.] The hon. member must please not interrupt me. I only have 20 minutes while he spoke for more than half an hour.

The second point that I want to make is that these frequencies are not available exclusively for use in television programmes. These frequencies, particularly the ultra-high frequencies, can also be used for various other purposes which have nothing to do with television. Television is a possibility as far these frequencies are concerned but they can also be used for many other purposes. We can use them for military purposes; we can use them in connection with satellites; we can use them for two-way radio purposes and so forth. We would be stupid to refuse to accept these frequencies because by so doing we would give other countries certain opportunities. We do need them and by taking them we prevent their use by other countries. I think that it is very clear that, as usual, the hon. member has the wrong end of the stick.

We are dealing here to-day with a fourth private motion of the Opposition which is aimed at winning votes. The first one dealt with pensions. They hoped to win a number of votes thereby. The second one dealt with a state lottery. They hoped to win a number of votes before the election by means of this motion. The third dealt with unfavourable conditions in agriculture. They hoped to win votes in this way as well. Because they felt that a certain section of public opinion was in favour of television, they have introduced this motion to-day and hope to win votes by this means. This is the fourth private motion aimed at winning votes. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will have noticed that all the other motions introduced in this House, no matter in whose name they may be, use moderate terms such as “this House requests the Government” or “this House urges the Government” or “this House asks the Government to take steps” and so forth. But this hon. member has come along in his typically self-important way—which precisely reflects his personality—and has moved a motion which states that “this House demands of the Government”. This is the only motion which contains the threat of a demand.

I want to return to the motion. I leave the hon. member at that. I have no illusions in regard to the possibilities of television. Television is a modern invention and it has its pro’s and con’s. Every modern invention is not always a blessing in all respects. When we as a responsible Government approach a matter like television we must give full consideration to every aspect of the matter, its advantages and disadvantages, the interests of the country and of the public, and then decide whether the time is ripe for it, or whether it is desirable, or whether it is necessary under the present circumstances to introduce an innovation of this nature into the country. I want to say immediately that there are two methods by which television can be introduced both of which are at present, in my opinion, undesirable in South Africa. The first is State-controlled television, fully controlled and financed by the State. The other possibility is an independent semi-State body, or a utility body like the S.A.B.C., to control television. There is yet another alternative and that is commercial television which will be completely in the hands of private enterprise.

State-controlled or State-financed television contains a number of implications which I feel we must discuss. In the Republic of South Africa we shall be compelled, if we do not want to discriminate between the two White sections of the population, to introduce bilingual television in the first instance and not unilingual television as is the case in England and other countries. This immediately increases the cost of television tremendously. It will make our television service far more expensive than is the case in most countries of the world. The second argument is that South Africa is a far-flung country with great plains, mountains etc., which fact also makes the introduction of television into this country a more expensive process than in the case of a small country like Britain which is extremely densely populated. Thirdly, we have the rural population. If one wants to be fair, one cannot withhold from the platteland what one gives to the city-dweller because everyone who is a taxpayer has the right to that privilege. An estimate of what it would cost to introduce television into this country has been worked out. Initially it will require a capital investment of some R40,000,000 for technical equipment. buildings, land and so forth. The hon. member must not tell me that this amount is too high. I think it is very conservative. Programmes, officials, salaries, wages, artists—R18,000,000 per annum. These are current expenses. I have perused the figures for Canada. Television in that country costs R80,000,000 per annum. How does one finance an initial expenditure of R40,000,000 plus current expenditure of R18,000,000? Let us accept the fact that the amount of R40,000,000 will be borrowed from the State, a loan on which interest and capital redemption will have to be paid. Let us go further and make the position even more favourable by saying that this amount of R40,000,000 will be a grant from the State. This money would then in any case come from the pocket of the taxpayer. So much for the amount of R40,000,000. Let us take the amount of R18,000,000. Let us imagine—and this again is merely an estimate—that we will have 200,000 licence-holders who will pay a reasonable licensing fee of R25 per annum. These licensing fees will bring in R5,000,000 per annum. A sales tax will have to be levied on every set in order to obtain increased revenue. Let us imagine once again that this sales tax is a reasonable one—it has to be reasonable otherwise one will put these sets beyond the reach of most people—and that it is fixed at R40 per set. This will bring in a further R8,000,000 per annum. These two sources of income therefore will bring in R13,000,000 per annum while the annual current expenditure is estimated at R18,000,000 per annum. There is therefore a shortfall of some R5,000,000, not to mention the interest and capital redemption payments on the original loan. Let me take the matter a little further in order to make the financial picture clear. The cost of 200,000 sets at an average of R200 each—this is the price, more or less—means that an amount of R40,000,000 which is at the moment being used by the public to buy the necessities of life will be withdrawn immediately and utilized for a luxury article of this nature.

Must it be an annual grant from the State? Once again then, it will come from the pocket of the taxpayer. I want to ask then: Who is going to buy a television set? Who will be able to afford it? It will be the capitalist and the rich man, the man who is able to afford it along with all his other luxuries. The poor man will not be able to afford it. This means that an additional amount of R5,000,000 will have to come from the pocket of the poor man annually in order to subsidize the rich man and enable him to acquire more luxury articles. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the position is quite clear from the figures if only the hon. member will take the trouble to study them.

The second alternative is a commercial service. This service will produce a few immediate problems. The number of viewers must be as large as possible because, if this is the case, higher fees for advertising can be charged. The advertisers will want as many viewers as possible. Experience gained in various countries teaches us that the more viewers one wishes to attract the lower must be the moral standard of the programmes. I have the figures here in connection with one of the programmee in America. The National Association for Better Radio and Television in America studied programmes for a week and drew certain conclusions from what was shown to viewers in regard to the lower moral standards that were introduced in order to attract the masses. They like that sort of thing. During this one week’s programmes, on one channel of television alone there were 141 murders, 143 murderous attacks. 36 cases of robbery, 6 cases of theft, 13 kidnappings, 11 cases of extortion, 6 burglaries and so forth. It was a mass of violence, sex and immoral acts of a similar nature. It is very clear that one must set one’s standard as low as possible in order to attract the mass of viewers, otherwise the advertisers will not be satisfied. [Interjections.] It is not I who say this, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member wants to know from me what the position is. A Commission was appointed in Britain to inquire into the question of television. This commission sat for some time and various people gave evidence before it. I have here their report in which they say that, inter alia, the following appeared before them—

These are the people who the hon. member for Orange Grove says will ask for the introduction of television. It is the teacher who, according to the hon. member, sees the advantage of television; who sees the use of television as an additional method to teach children! How do they put their case? They say—

I want to go further. They are speaking here about children—

These are the teachers who will welcome television because it is such an excellent medium of education! My time is almost up and, unfortunately, I cannot make any further quotations.

What is the date on that report.

The date is 1960. Does the hon. member think that since that time the standard of programmes has been raised? I could make a number of quotations in this regard but unfortunately my time does not permit me to do so.

I want to make my case clear. I do not think that South Africa needs television at this stage. It is unnecessary. We are no poorer as a result of the fact that we do not have television. We are no worse off as a result of the fact that we do not have television. Television holds a number of possibilities which can develop in the wrong direction. The money which is spent on television can be used far more productively in South Africa at the moment in ways which can produce far more than television which is only a luxury for some people. I think that the South African people can make better use of their time than to sit and watch television for hours. We can make better use of our time by spending that time in the open air, by exercising, by working for our country. We dare not waste our energy and money on television. The Opposition is continually complaining about the manpower shortage in this country and yet they have come forward here with a motion that television should be introduced immediately, a fact which will result in a further drain upon our manpower because the services of so many people will be required to provide us with so-called entertainment while there is work to be done. We do not have time for games in South Africa. Who will derive benefit from television? The capitalist, the large advertising companies, the dealer who sells television sets and the “pop” singers, but the man who will have to pay for television will derive no benefit from it. Mr. Speaker, our task in South Africa is far too important to allow of our tying ourselves to television. We cannot accept such a far-reaching mass medium with all its resultant problems and complexes until we are in a position to combat all the detrimental effects which it might have. Our money, our time, our energy, our mental ability is required for greater things—the role which we have to play in South Africa and also in the outside world. We can do without television. Nobody is the poorer because of this fact. Nobody will be the poorer because of this fact. On the contrary, we will be better off financially and spiritually, and also more mature without television.

Mr. Speaker, in order to persuade the hon. member not to pursue his futile quest any further I want to make the following amendment—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House, mindful of—

1. (a) the steadily increasing evidence and proof of the demoralizing influence of television on a nation and particularly its youth, and of the destruction of family life;
2. (b) the wastage of manpower which will undermine the economic growth of the country; and
3. (c) the resultant heavy financial burden which must of necessity increase the living costs of the worker and of the population generally,

The hon. member who has just sat down has spent his whole speech in an attempt to explain away the Government’s close-fisted, narrow, negative attitude in not giving television to South Africa. The hon. member in his amendment has used the same arguments that were used by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs for quite a number of years. He has used the arguments that have been refuted time and again by this side of the House, and I will begin with the argument of the shortage of manpower. The hon. member for Randfontein evidently agrees with the hon. the Prime Minister who said (I am quoting from Hansard)—

That was said by the hon. the Prime Minister last year. My answer to that is that it is for this very reason, for industrial development, that we use television here in South Africa not only in the closed circuit line which is granted to-day to very many mining companies and other organizations, as already pointed out by the hon. member for Orange Grove, but that we should use television in the way that 97 countries are using television to-day for education. for entertainment, for world-wide news and for cultural and adult education. Sir. 97 countries do not believe that television is a demoralizing influence. I would like to ask the hon. member for Randfontein and also the hon. Minister if they believe that a modern bioscope can teach modern mathematics when they condemn it. That surely is not a demoralizing influence, it teaches the family in the home, and if a small country, our neighbour, Rhodesia, can afford a television service, with a population very much smaller, both Black and White, than ours, a country with an economic Budget that does not stretch to a surplus of R120,000,000, then I feel that South Africa can afford television. Australia has television, the U.S.A. has television, and they have distances and difficulties far greater than South Africa would have.

We have over these years put a series of questions to the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs always asking for information about the introduction of television into South Africa and to date we have received nothing but evasive replies. The hon. Minister refuses to take the House into his confidence. He parries the questions by stating that the S.A.B.C. is an independent organization whose planning and actions have little to do with his Department, and we are faced with the position to-day, Mr. Speaker, that we have a deadlock in which, on the one hand, we have the hon. Minister who says that the S.A.B.C. is an independent organization whose planning and actions have nothing to do with his Department, and on the other hand we have the S.A.B.C. itself and its mouth-piece, Dr. P. J. Meyer, saying—

This is the present deadlock that exists. For years, the Minister has been playing hide-and-seek about television, and I think it is time now to stop this game and face the facts. My colleague, the hon. member for Orange Grove, in putting forward this motion asking for television for South Africa has repeatedly pointed out this afternoon the unmistakable signs about preparations made by the S.A.B.C. and by South Africa for the introduction of television in South Africa. I do not want to repeat similar proofs, but I suggest it would be very much more dignified for the Minister, and also compatible with his responsible position, to show some sign of constructive approach to the introduction of television in South Africa instead of evasion and negative denunciation of the usefulness of television in its three main spheres of entertainment, and education and sport and world news.

In the rather limited time at my disposal I want to deal with one aspect particularly in which television shines to-day and that is television in education. Sir, expert educationists in Britain and in the United States to-day, in 1965, believe that within 10 to 15 years, television is going to be an integral part of all educational programmes in the schools. There is an urgent need in South Africa to keep abreast with this latest development in using television in education. In urban centres, in scattered smaller communities, in the primary schools, in the high schools, in the universities and in adult education there is an urgent need for the introduction of television. But unfortunately owing to the Government’s present very negative attitude regarding television here, nothing up to now has been done to promote the use of educational television, and in this way South Africa is placed at a disadvantage in comparison with the rest of the world. I want to demonstrate this fact to the hon. Minister and to give an idea of what is going on in advanced nations, in the other 97 nations of the world regarding educational television. It forms a part of every programme in these 97 countries to-day, and this great invention is used as a teaching aid—it does not displace the teacher, but is used as a teaching aid in these countries and it is used in tele-schools in Italy, it is used on a whole channel in Japan where the Japanese broadcasting company, the N.H.K., uses its second television channel only for education, and the U.S.A. has direct teaching broadcast beamed from Manhattan and other stations, school broadcasts, and in the State of Illinois the television station there beams its television up to an aeroplane which then flies round in a square covering five states, beaming television to the schools, to the American children. In this way television is replacing the age of talk-and-talk. Education in Britain has 57,000 schools and 45,000 of those schools are wired for radio and 8,000 as well are wired for television and have television sets, and the B.B.C. spends three-quarter of a million pounds, that is R1,500,000 a year on its television programmes to the schools and these television broadcasts range from farm sessions right through to home-dressmaking. All this is beamed every year on vast programmes to all the schools, with a council to guide it and inspectors to check it. and on adult education alone the new programme advocated by that very report that the hon. member for Randfontein was quoting, the Pilkington Report of 1960, advocated that a second television station should be instituted by the B.B.C. in Britain, which was done at the beginning of this year, and this station runs one programme only for adult education on Tuesday nights, called Tuesday Term, and it gives you economic advice, physic teaching and Brain and Behaviour, and Wealth of the Nation and Economics of Growth, Research on the Frontiers of Science, and the U.S.A. political programme and Education in Africa. I have seen all these programmes myself. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I can understand that perhaps the Minister and his colleagues would not care for the type of programme series being run on television in Britain to-day “For Home Students with an Educated Mind” and a series entitled “A Sociological Enquiry into the Manipulation of Power by Political Parties”.

Sir. we had together with the B.B.C. close co-operation with a unit called Ceto, the Council for Educational Television Overseas—overseas for the under-developed nations, and not only in Africa, but also in Latin America and other parts of the world, they have twice annual training course to train teachers in the use of television in the schools, either through close circuit or through the films that are broadcast over their radio stations, and, Sir. when the day is coming within three to five years—and I have seen this—then television transistor sets will be available, which will be very shortly now, then it will not even be necessary for people to have these large expensive television sets.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister: Surely the Minister and his Department should be able to plan out and to disclose to this House the constructive use of television in these fields. The extra channel that was advocated by that Pilkington Report is now going to be put into operation for education only in Britain, where they have the university of the air. and where they are going to have a university with its own vice-chancellor with the power to award degrees over the air. They had an enrolment on the commercial programme of 1,500 students for a pilot programme they put out and a quarter of those were housewives, they were women, and there is a twice-weekly news service both in America and in Britain for deaf and dumb people, which is visual only on television with somebody explaining next to the picture in the deaf and dumb alphabet to those who can’t speak and those who are unable to hear what the pictures are about, in world news. That is also something that could be of benefit to South Africa. I feel that the hon. Minister should disclose to this House the constructive use of television, and he should also provide suitable safeguards and organizations to eliminate the very evils which the Minister’s statements about television and also the statements of the hon. member for Randfontein’s statements contain, because I feel that hon. members on the other side are obsessed with the dangers to family life, with national policy and with morals, and the hon. Minister knows that these are inherent in all means of communication in the Western world. Here I am thinking of print and radio and television. Of course printing and speaking so far avoided the sphere of the Minister’s influence and therefore these means of communication are still in use, they are with us. If. however, the rest of the Cabinet perhaps shares the Minister’s attitude we should be forbidden to print or to speak in South Africa, but this is obviously not the Government’s policy, and therefore it would be logical if the whole subject of television was removed from the jurisdiction of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs as we feel is necessary and hand it over to a member of the Cabinet who could realistically face the demands of the modern times and the irresistible march of progress. The possible misuse of the various means of communication are already controlled in other fields. As hon. members know we have a Publications Control Board, we have a Film Censorship Board.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the hon. Minister’s interview given to the Nationalist Party’s organ the Vaderland, last November. I feel it presents an opportunity for plain speaking on our side. First of all, according to the interview the Minister said—

I feel here that surely the Minister’s fears are contradicted by the dynamic resurgence of all the Western nations after the last war where television is fully used, and I would like also to quote that the Minister said words to the effect that the English Press in South Africa became mighty institutions (according to what the Minister is supposed to have said to the Vaderland) to mislead the public and that television would be even a mightier instrument to destroy the White people, for the system would be mainly dependent on British and American films, drenched with liberalistic and demoralizing propaganda. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this accusation against the English Press in South Africa discloses blind fanaticism by the hon. Minister, not only against the English Press, but against the English-speaking South Africans in general whose voice the English Press represents, and in truth I feel that the hon. Minister’s remarks about the Press is an insult to English-speaking South Africans.

Why?

In answer to that hon. member I want to say that the hon. Minister gives away the long-hidden reason against the introduction of television in South Africa when he says that the television system would be mainly dependent on British and American films. So at last we have reached the truth that one of the Minister’s objections to television is that the original material would come from Britain and the U.S.A. Of course we know this without being told, but here I want to voice and put on record that the English-speaking South Africans demand that we be kept in contact with the culture and cultural material of the Western nations and America, and I am firmly convinced that the majority of our Afrikaans-speaking people realize and believe too that contact with cultural material coming from English and American origin is not in conflict with the pride of either of the language groups in this country or their culture. Mr. Speaker, the trend in English science, arts and literature is similar to that in other countries, and I feel that this attitude regarding television is not only narrow-minded but it seems that while the party that the hon. Minister represents are flaunting the empty word of “unity” in order to attract votes, the Minister’s duty is to find constructive means for fulfilling properly a constructive television service in English and in Afrikaans, a bilingual service for entertainment and education and for news.

I am fully convinced that in the coming months when the American space craft, Mariner IV, is within 5,000 miles form Mars on July the 14th next, taking television shots of the planet, as in the case of the moon probes, certain parts of the film will then be beamed to 97 nations in the world, but not to South Africa. South Africa together with Togoland and one or two other minor and obscure countries in the world still have no television and the attitude of the Government towards television, and the attitude of the hon. Minister surely show that the Government, as is the case in so many other respects, is living in the world of Rip van Winkel. Sir, this is another price for apartheid, apartheid between us and the outside world through the denial of television, and it seems to me that this negative attitude adopted by this Minister and by this Government towards television is another example of the Government trying to stop progress and detach itself from the rest of the Western world. The Minister’s fight against television reminds me of Don Quixote, tilting against windmills, with the result that it is difficult to decide whether to be moved by mirth or sadness or both at this tragic comedy of the moment in which our whole country is denied such an important factor as television in the disseminating entertainment, news, world sport, teaching and culture. Therefore I wish fully to support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Orange Grove to introduce television in South Africa immediately.

The hon. member who has just sat down said towards the end of her speech, if I understood her correctly, that she fully supported the motion of the hon. member for Orange Grove, but, listening to her, I was under the impression that she was advocating television for educational purposes. She devoted most of her time to discussing the television channel which is available in Britain for educational programmes. The hon. member for Orange Grove did not advocate the introduction of television for educational purposes. I want to ask the hon. member for Orange Grove whether he was advocating the introduction of a commercial television channel in South Africa.

Both.

Two channels in South Africa simultaneously. The motion demands that television be introduced immediately and the hon. member has now told us that he wants two channels.

Within a reasonable period of time.

The motion demands that the Government introduce television “immediately”. “Immediately” has never normally meant 14 or 18 months, as the hon. member now gives us to understand. It is very clear to me from the actions of the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) that notwithstanding all the grandiloquence with which they have stated their case, the hon. member for Orange Grove does not know at all what he wants and what the possibilities in this regard are. If he did know he should have said that we should introduce a commercial television service immediately and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) should also have advocated its introduction if she supported him in this regard. What she has advocated is something which we cannot at all afford.

No, this whole motion of the hon. member for Orange Grove is nothing but United Party propaganda. I was amazed that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) could stand up in this House to-day and speak of the “narrow negative, tight-fisted attitude of the Government”, and ask us to have “a constructive approach” to this matter. It is that side of the House which accuses us of being “narrow, negative and close-fisted” in connection with television. What was their attitude in this country when important matters were at stake, when we wanted to establish Iscor, when we wanted to establish Sasol and when South Africa was to become a Republic? They were then the ones who were “narrow, negative and close-fisted” and now they are trying to give the impression that they are the high-minded ones who are in favour of progress and that there is nothing narrow or negative about them!

This is nothing but propaganda. The wording of the motion and the clumsy way in which they have stated their case here to-day proves this fact quite clearly. Let us take the word of the hon. member for Orange Grove that he is in earnest when he says that we must introduce television immediately. This means that we must then introduce black and white television. Does the hon. member agree? If we introduce television now, it can only be black and white television? It cannot be colour television. Colour television is reaching such a stage in Britain, America, Germany and Japan to-day that black and white broadcasts are becoming obsolete. If we are to introduce television to-day, it cannot as yet be colour television. The result is that if at a later stage we consider the introduction of colour television, all the receiving sets will become obsolete because they will not be able to receive broadcasts in colour. The hon. member for Orange Grove must bear in mind that this is a loss which every ordinary man in the street who buys a set is going to have to bear, not the State. There are many people who say that colour television broadcasts will soon be introduced. In 1957, a Mr. Schlesinger wrote as follows in the Electrical and Radio Journal—

This was said as long ago as 1957 and we know that experiments are being conducted by the B.B.C. in Britain at the moment in regard to colour television; we know that Germany has made a great deal of progress in this regard and that Japan already has a number of colour broadcasts. America has had colour television broadcasting since 1955. All that I want to say to the hon. member is this: When he demands the introduction of television, he must remember that television is a mass communication medium which technically speaking is still completely immature, and not only technically. There is no reason for haste in this regard, in fact, there is every reason for biding our time.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) referred with so much pride to the English-medium newspapers. She will probably accept what they have to say. I should like to quote from the week-end supplement of the Cape Times of 3 February 1962, in which the following report on television appeared—

I also have here the Sunday Express of 19 June 1960 in which a certain Mr. Murray Lane says …

That was five years ago.

Yes, anyone can count. What did this Mr. Murray Lane have to say, according to the Sunday Express? He said—

He went on to say—

This was said by an American television star who visited South Africa and who knows much about and has had a great deal of experience of television. This immaturity of television can perhaps best be seen against the background of the situation in which Britain finds herself to-day. Britain was the first country in the world to have television broadcasts. These were started in 1936. To-day black and white television is broadcast on V.H.F. with 405 lines per picture. But as far as colour television is concerned Britain is to-day far behind Germany, Japan and America because she wants to change over to the 625 line standard of Europe and she cannot do so unless she first changes over to U.H.F., the ultra-high frequency, because on V.H.F. at present just about the entire spectrum is in use for radio transmissions and for ambulances, taxis, aircraft and so forth. The radio space which is occupied by the 625 lines as against the 405 lines is too large to broadcast the 625 line picture on V.H.F. The number of transmitters will, moreover have to be increased from 20 to 150. This is not the only financial problem because viewers’ fees will have to be increased and the prices of receiving sets will rise. Then there are still the technical problems which have to be overcome. France for example, using a method to-day of codifying colours for the transmission in such a way as to make the receiving set much cheaper. This method is more effective in preventing the colours running into one another and also facilitates the upkeep of the sets. A.B.C. Television in Britain has been experimenting along these lines for some time. Although Britain is the oldest television country in the world today, she cannot compete with the other countries I have mentioned. There is only one reason for this and that is that she started with television at the wrong time and is paying the price for her mistake to-day. This is what the London Sunday Times wrote in 1962—

This is sufficient to show how wise this Government is in not acting overhastily and “immediately”, as the hon. member for Orange Grove wants it to do, by introducing an immature medium which can only result in trouble and expense and other disadvantages if we do not wait until it has been developed properly as a medium.

Besides the immaturity of television, which I have dealt with simply to show how clumsy the motion of the hon. member of Orange Grove is, there is the other important factor to which the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) referred, and that is the fact that television is an expensive medium of mass communication. The ordinary black and white broadcasts are five or six times more expensive than sound broadcasts. One can treble this figure in the case of colour broadcasts which means that these colour broadcasts will probably be 12 or 15 times more expensive than our sound broadcasts. And because television broadcasts are expensive, one cannot operate it in a thinly populated area. It must be operated to meet the needs of the cities. Indeed the whole question of television is governed by this fact. Its values are metropolitan. Its judgments are standard. Its standards are professional. It has to treat its audience as though they are all part of a single community and have, as it were, been standardized. It cannot take into account regional differences and cultural distinctions and by this disregard for differentiation, television strengthens and confirms the conception of mass. I do not want to deal with these matters but I want to quote what a very well-known American, Professor Root had to say in American Opinion regarding this aspect of the matter. He said—

If an educated American who lives with television has this to say then I think that I shall be more inclined to follow his judgment than, with all respect, the judgment of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor). Because television is so expensive, and notwithstanding what the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Johannesburg-North had to say, we can at best afford the introduction of a one-channel transmission if this channel is subsidized by advertisers. We can, of course, have commercial television if we want anything of that nature. Commercial television can be described in numerous ways but briefly it is a sort of sub-economical entertainment. This is evidenced by its completely sub-economic standard. This is something which one cannot afford to have but which one then receives in a sub-economic form because it is subsidized. If this were all then it might perhaps be quite good enough. But commercial television is not only entertainment. It is actually only a means of selling the product of the advertiser. Hon. members are continually asking us if we have been overseas and have seen television broadcasts, so we have to rely on the evidence of foreign authorities. In advancing this argument, I should like to quote what was said in Time in this regard. They said—

And then they come to this conclusion that as far as Britain is concerned, which has a commercial transmission which is different to that of America—

If we introduce a commercial television service, it will from the nature of things be a service which makes provision for Afrikaans-speaking as well as English-speaking people. In this the Afrikaner must of necessity be left with the thin edge of the wedge. But because of the pressure which will be exerted on a one-channel transmission of this nature to obtain more and more viewers, the advertiser will also of necessity wish to offer programmes to include the non-Whites as well; and in order to make the programme attractive for the non-Whites, the next logical step will be to have White and non-White participate in a programme together in order to obtain the maximum number of viewers.

These will be the consequences of, a one-channel commercial transmission. I say that this is what the United Party want because this treatment of the South African nation as one community to be served by one sort of programme is fundamental to their political view of South Africa. It is fundamental to their race federation plan gradually to integrate South Africa’s population into one community. It fits in with their policy that all races should sit together in the same legislative body and have the same social values.

I say that, in our view and bearing in mind South Africa’s diversity of population, expense is an important consideration, but it is not important to the United Party because they want to cater for everyone in the same way as far as television programmes are concerned.

The precipitate way in which the hon. member for Orange Grove and the United Party want television to be introduced into this country, notwithstanding all the financial and technical considerations involved in such a move, convinces me that it is part of the politics of the United Party, as evidenced by its entire policy, to reduce the South African nation to one society in which the barriers between the various communities, the differences which exist between cultures and subcultures which are fundamental to the view of this side of the House, as reflected in our radio services for the various communities, will be destroyed. I think that that is what motivates the United Party in its approach to this matter.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for Innesdale (Mr. J. S. Marais) and Randfontein (Dr. Mulder), who moved the amendment to this motion, have contributed nothing towards the solution of the simple question which was posed by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan), which was that we want television, we want it forthwith, and is there any reason why we cannot have it? There have been no real reasons advanced by either of the hon. members who spoke on that side. Whenever I go overseas, which is not very often, I spend my first few days gawking at television. People ask me why I sit in front of that box so long, and I tell them that we do not have this in South Africa and it just fascinates me for the moment. Then they ask why we do not have it in South Africa, and then I do not really know what to say. I cannot say that we cannot afford it because Ghana, Kenya and Southern Rhodesia have it, and if they can afford it surely we can. So I cannot say that we cannot afford it, because I know it is not true in any event. I cannot tell them that my Government in South Africa—because God help us, when we are away from South Africa we have to refer to it in those terms—thinks that if we have it we will be depraved by it. Look at the lengths to which the hon. members have gone. Here is the hon. member for Innesdale, a most responsible member of this House. He seriously asks this House to consider what a terrible thing this would be, to have television, because inevitably the Bantu would have to have it and inevitably you would find White and Black people appearing on the same programme. Sir, what a terrible thing that is! Goodness me, does he believe that there is one White person or one Bantu in South Africa who, when he walks down the street, does not see White and Black people together? Does the hon. member for Innesdale think that if we have television we would not show the opening of the Transkeian Parliament, for example? What is it that worries the hon. member if we reflect something which is here? [Interjection.] Yes, why cannot we reflect National Senators having tea in Zululand? I cannot say that is something which the viewers would miss very much, but the hon. member for Innesdale uses a strange argument when one looks at the amendment moved by the hon. member for Randfontein. He says television is just in its infancy and at the moment colour television is becoming the thing, and if we have black and white television in South Africa the time will come when we will have to convert to colour and the expense will be tremendous. From that argument he does not seem to object to it on the basis on which the hon. member for Randfontein objected to it, viz. that it is demoralizing. I do not suppose that one is any less demoralized or more demoralized in technicolour than one is in black and white. It becomes so ludicrous that one wonders whether the hon. member wants colour television instead of black and white television, because if it were black and white television it would probably have to be relayed on separate frequencies one for the white and one for black parts. Soon we will be talking about the pollution of the atmosphere and we will say that we cannot have television because we cannot segregate the audiences! That is the type of argument used by that side of the House. Sir, television is in its infancy. Everything in this world is in its infancy. Every modern invention is in its infancy. Everything grows, everything has to develop and everything is flexible. What is the hon. member so afraid of in regard to television?

But let me deal with the hon. member for Randfontein. I hope we will have the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs replying. I want to say how sorry I am that the hon. the Minister has left it so late before coming into this debate. [Interjection.] It may be, as my hon. friend here says, that he does not want to reply to it, but he has an awful lot to answer for. The hon. member for Orange Grove has made out a case here to-day which has so far not been controverted by hon. members opposite. I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to come and read us a moral lecture about television once again, and tell us that such is our morality and such is our self-control, as he has in the past, that we will not be the same people with television. The hon. member for Randfontein talks about all the programmes there were in some Digest of some Royal Commission he quoted from, and he told us how many murders and thefts and sex cases there were. I wonder whether the hon. member has ever read any fairy stories? I wonder whether he reads fairy stories to his children? Has he ever analyzed the fairy stories of Hans Andersen and of Grimm? It would make a very interesting analysis. I think there are more murders and mutilations and depravities in those stories than in television programmes, but we still read fairy stories to our children. If hon. members are so concerned with our morals, if there is anything which breaks down our morals and family life, surely it is liquor. The effects of liquor can be disastrous for the family and for the individual. The most horrible things can happen to people if they drink excessively, but we do not ban drink. In fact, this Government has done all it can to give it to everyone in the country and to encourage everyone to drink. But has anyone ever suggested that because there are people who do not use liquor properly, therefore all people should stop drinking? The hon. member talks about family life which will be broken up by television. Sir, is this not exactly the thing which keeps the family together? Is this little black box with the tokalosh in it, which the Minister does not like, the one thing which keeps families at home at night in America, for example? I think it is a very pertinent question to ask whether sitting at a drive-in in the back seat of a motor car is conducive to the morality of the young man or woman? Is it worse than sitting in an arm-chair at home watching television. It also gives a common interest to members of the family.

But the hon. member for Randfontein goes further. He says only the rich families can afford it. What nonsense! Who has all the radios to-day? Let the hon. member ask anyone he knows in the furniture trade to tell him to whom he sells the most expensive radiograms. It is not sold to the rich people. What is the experience of the people in Europe and America? Everybody has television. In fact, I go so far as to say it is the poorer people who have it first and the richer people who do not need it get it last because it is often a status symbol. That is the way it is. But this is what worries me. Here we have a Government which is determined to control everything in South Africa. From the cradle to the grave they want to control every action of the individual, and they are doing everything they can to do it in every aspect of his daily life. And when one considers the way they handle the S.A.B.C., if one considers the way this Government abuses this medium of the S.A.B.C. to serve its own political ends, and you consider what a more powerful medium television is, then there is some reason why we are not going to have television, some reason we have not heard to-day, some reason we have never heard from the Minister and. I have no doubt, will not hear to-day. Sir. there is something else behind this. You are not going to get any demoralizing programmes. You will not get a lot of sex perverts doing a jig somewhere where they should not be doing it, on television, if it is controlled properly, and surely the Minister can control what happens on the air, and if he cannot then there is something about television which radio does not have which is going to elude him; and if that is so, I must say I want it more!

The hon. member for Orange Grove raised the question of the elderly people and the pensioners, and nobody opposite has answered this. This is the only medium for elderly people, for the pensioners, to keep them in touch. You do not get the same thing from the radio. You know, Sir, there is one thing about old people which everyone who deals with pensioners should remember. The one thing they want is their independence, and if there is anything which can keep them independent and yet keep them in touch it is a television set. I sometimes wonder how many of the hon. members have ever seen television, because if they have I wonder how they can say the things they say. Have the hon. members for Randfontein and Innesdale ever watched television? [Interjections.] But we have been given all kinds of reasons. We have had the reason about bilingualism, that we have to have it in both languages. Sir, in Canada, where they have one province which is French-speaking, they have non-stop, continuous bilingual television. You do not have to have it non-stop in both languages. That is not necessary. Of all the media that are known to the educationist for teaching languages, the audio-visual method is the most successful and the quickest. Take the audio-visual method of teaching. Many of us were privileged to go during the last two recesses on a tour of the mines in Johannesburg, and one of the things that impressed me most of all was the way in which they taught their underground language, Fanigalo. They taught it to Swazis and to people from the Portuguese Territories, and to the Basutos, and the Basutos’ language is so different from Fanigalo that they are as much at a loss as the White man is. In six weeks, by the audio-visual method, they can teach these people to speak Fanigalo and to be completely fluent and conversant in it, to the extent that they can react in an emergency in Fanigalo. You cannot do it by any other method but by the audio-visual method. My answer to those hon. members is that if you want bilingualism in South Africa you can get it quickest by the audio-visual method, and the only way you can do it is through television. Goodness knows what a service it would render to South Africa in the field of communication between the various race groups. There is no communication now; there is a language barrier, and here you can break this barrier down. By the audio-visual method you can get to all race groups in South Africa. Sir, imagine the immigrants who come to South Africa. Whether they are German or English—no matter where they are from—we could teach them through television, which they had at home, one or both of our official languages in a few months. We could teach them to communicate. Coming back to the subject of education, where do we find the most terrific manpower shortage to-day? In the Education Department, amongst teachers, and in Bantu education the shortage of teachers is even more acute than it is amongst the Whites. In that field you can do more to uplift the minds of the non-Whites than through any other medium. In fact, it is the only medium through which you can do it. You are dealing here with a people whose language, culture and traditions are based, very often, upon images, and the radio just does not get through to them. But give them audio-visual training and you will get much better results, and you will get them much more quickly. And when the hon. member talks about the poor man being left out of this, let me ask him about university training. What is our national university, in the sense that it has no seat? It is a broad South African university where people who cannot normally afford to take the time off to go to university can be trained—the University of South Africa. Sir, the University of South Africa, through the medium of television, could bring to all South Africans a university education which otherwise they would not have had. I do not mean that you have to throw away your notes. You will certainly have your correspondence courses still, but once or twice or more often every week you can have a lecture over television. There is no substitute for hearing and seeing the person at the same time.

Hon. members talk about the cost. I have not worked out the cost and I am not going to try. but I say to the hon. member that he should be ashamed of himself to suggest that we in South Africa cannot afford a television service when Southern Rhodesia and Ghana and Kenya can have it.

Why is there no television in Israel?

I do not know. Perhaps the hon. member can tell us. Of course, one does not know whether the Minister they have there is just as obstinate as the one we have here. But I am not concerned with Israel; I am concerned with Ghana and Kenya. In any event there is nothing in this world in the field of modern communications which South Africa cannot have and pay for. Surely every service of this sort which is started is paid for. Consider, Sir, how many telephones there are in South Africa. Consider how much is paid for those telephones by private individuals.

And look at the service we get!

Yes, look at the service we get, that is probably because the hon. the Minister is dreaming about not giving us television. But, Sir, consider what you would pay for a television set. Sir, a country like America, with a purely commercial television does not charge anyone a cent for a licence. I am not suggesting that we should do that, but I am saying that no case has been made out for the proposition that we cannot have television because we cannot afford it.

Sir, I congratulate the hon. member for Orange Grove. He has brought a motion to ask for something which I believe the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa want, and if this were put to the vote to the people of South Africa—it will not be put to the vote in this House to-day; I just hope the hon. the Minister will get up and reply before the end of the debate—there is no doubt whatsoever that 75 per cent of them at least would vote in favour of it.

One expects to hear arguments in a debate like this and one expects a man who states a case to adduce proof to support it. We have had a peculiar volte face here this afternoon. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), who has just resumed his seat, has done the very opposite. He told us that we should prove why television should not be introduced. Just imagine, Sir, the Opposition wants to spend the country’s money; they want the state to pay, or the public to be taxed for it …

They want to pay for it.

They want an amount of R44,000,000 per annum to be spent on television, which comes from the Exchequer or out of the pockets of the public. If one takes as a basis the cost of television in countries like Canada, America, Germany and other countries, one can estimate that R44,000,000 is the amount which television costs Britain. In Germany in costs about R52,000,000, in Canada $53,000,000, just to serve the Canadian element. The I.T.A., if I remember correctly, costs about R52,000,000. The hon. member and the united Party now want to plunge the country into this tremendous expenditure; either the State must provide this service or else the public must be indirectly taxed to an amount of R44,000,000 per annum, and then they advance their argument that we must prove why we do not want to spend that money. Have you ever heard of such a business transaction, Sir? I have always understood that if a business man starts something he first satisfies himself that it will be a profitable undertaking; he does not expect anybody else to come and prove to him why he should not start it. This unbusinesslike way of approach is something I, and I think all of us, find surprising. The businesslike thing to do it for the Opposition to prove its case; they should not ask us to prove why we cannot introduce such a service.

Mr. Speaker, this debate takes place every year. Let us analyze the arguments advanced here. The first person who really advanced arguments was the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss). It is a pity that while stating her case so well she adopted the tone of the hon. member for Orange Grove; I think she is on the wrong road, but I leave it there. In her speeches in the past in this debate she was the only one who really advanced arguments as to why television should be introduced, and in the last portion of the speech of the hon. member for Durban (North) he also advanced a few arguments in passing. He comes along with the peculiar proposition that he is not concerned with the immorality of the matter; he is not concerned with how wrong it is; it does not matter to him whether it undermines the youth or the nation. No. he is not concerned with that. He says: “The Minister should not preach a moral lesson to us again”. He is willing just blindly to introduce anything at tremendous cost to the country or to the public. It does not matter to him what harm it may do. That is the mentality with which we are dealing here to-day. The hon. member repeatedly comes with the argument that other countries have television and he asks whether those countries are then so bad. Sir. I am sure of one thing. Many of those countries, if only they had been able, would have liked to wipe out their deeds in regard to television; there would be very few countries in the world to-day with television if they could have done that.

The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Muller) referred here to the report of the Pilkington Commission. Practically the whole of the British public thronged together to give evidence before that Pilkington Commission.

Evidence was given by all the teachers’ associations and all the educational institutions and all the various churches in Britain. Numerous women’s organizations, city councils and private individuals came to give evidence, and all complained about the misery in which England had been landed as the result of television. I do not wish to go into details, but I just want to quote to hon. members extracts here and there from this evidence. Witnesses said: “We are appalled at the let-down”. The British people feel that they have been left in the lurch. They were simply led by the nose and they feel “let-down”. Witnesses referred to the “abysmally low standards of television”. Witnesses referred to the “apalling violence and degrading of sex” which continually go on. Bodies which gave evidence before the commission said that “television is corrupting the judgment of the whole nation”, not merely of the youth, but of the whole nation. They say, further: “It has a pernicious effect upon everybody, upon those who watch them …”. The position in England is so bad to-day that some eminent families regard it as an honour not to have a television set in their homes. That is what is taking place there. Prominent families in Britain are ashamed to have a television set in their homes. Sir, that is not what I say. There are reports which hon. members can read and in which they will find this. There are the Himmelweit Report and the Pilkington Report. Hon. members can read those reports, but they do not want to. That, however, is typical of the United Party. They are always busy saying irresponsible things and adopting irresponsible standpoints. They are prepared to land the whole country in misery, without even knowing what they are talking about, without considering the consequences of their actions.

The hon. member advanced a few arguments with which I shall deal systematically when I come to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North). But he did advance one argument which appeared as if it might perhaps be a good one. He argued this way: He says that one can take one’s children to a cinema in South Africa; why may they not sit in front of a television set? The reply is that there is a world of difference. The cinema to which one takes one’s children is dependent on the money one pays. But television—I am assuming now that it will not be maintained by the State—is run by the advertisers. Hon. members should understand that television is infinitely expensive. I want to mention what it cost in England in 1963—and the costs increase every year. In 1963 it cost £4.600 per hour. In addition, hon. members should remember that the I.T.A. (Independent Television Authority) which have to recover that money from the advertisers, get it back in only six minutes’ advertisements. In other words, it in fact costs almost £4,600 for six minutes. Now hon. members can see how tremendously expensive it is. One automatically comes to the conclusion that unless films are allowed to be made in Britain which will attract the masses so that the advertiser will get his money back from those people who buy his products, then those people simply refuse to advertise, and the television company must go insolvent. As the result of the fact that the masses have to be attracted to pay for these enormously expensive installations, the Governments of those countries are forced simply to allow this low type of film to be exhibited. That is the difference. If one sits before a television set with one’s family, one sees something totally different from what one sees in the cinemas in South Africa, because there one sees films which have been approved. Over television one sees the most gruesome things, and it is this fact which has led to numerous organizations and movements in England, which are in despair over the moral deterioration of the whole nation, giving evidence before the Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I shall return later to the other arguments advanced here, but I first want to deal with the hon. member for Orange Grove. That hon. member has a very interesting hobby. That hobby is the same argument he always advances here. It seems to me that it is the only argument he can evolve, and that is that Ghana and other African countries, like Kenya and Northern Rhodesia, have television. Sir, have we fallen so low that we must take Ghana as our example? Does the hon. member really want us to emulate Ghana? You will remember that Ghana, this wonderful country which the hon. member holds up as an example to us. had reserves of £250,000,000 when it received its so-called freedom, or rather when it was handed over to the little group which now controls it, and to-day Ghana, after only a few years, is on the verge of bankruptcy. But Ghana is held up to us as an example. The hon. member perhaps does not know of everything that goes on in Ghana. If he has read his newspapers he will know that Ghana has already adopted the course that when a judge there acquits a man, contrary to the wishes of Nkrumah, the judiciary is dismissed and a new judiciary appointed to convict that person who was acquitted. Are we to follow that sort of example in our country?

The funny part of it, Sir, is that if one goes back and looks at the speeches made by the hon. member over the years, we see that every year he has held Ghana up as an example to us. Northern Rhodesia is also held up as a wonderful example.

Southern Rhodesia.

has the hon. member forgotten what is going on in Northern Rhodesia? Does the hon. member not know that a little while ago 800 Lumbas were cruelly murdered because they refused to join the political party there? Is that now the example he holds up to us?

Is all that due to television?

It all reminds me, Sir, of Uganda, which has made itself so ridiculous in the eyes of the world. Just let me read this to the hon. member—

That was said in October last year. The Chinese in China could not refrain from laughing. The Chinese Morning Post wrote the following about it—

That is the sort of mentality also revealed by the hon. member to-day. They simply ask for television. It does not matter to him what the cost is, nor what the consequences of it may be—just as it does not matter to the people of Uganda whether they even have food to eat, but they must have television in every home. I do not know what to call it; is it naivete on the part of the hon. member for Orange Grove to say in his motion that it must be done immediately? Does he not know what is going on in South Africa? If he agrees with us in no other respect he must at least have thought about one thing, namely that South Africa is at the moment busy with enormous development plans. There is development in the production capacity of South Africa. We are busy with the development of all those things which can make our people more prosperous. Our people are not rich. There are many rich people, but as a nation we are not rich. We must work hard in order to live decently. There are masses of our people who even live on the breadline. We must try to give them an income and a way of life which will make their lives pleasant. Surely that is our primary duty. Surely our first duty is to develop South Africa until it can produce riches. If some of us have enough money, we should still remember that there are many people in South Africa who do not have enough. Surely it is our duty to assist them, and we are doing so. I think that if ever there was a Government which has consciously succeeded, by means of planning, to set in motion the development in our country, then it is this Government. The hon. the Minister of Finance explained the other day that it was as the result of planning and the careful consideration of every step and its consequences that we are experiencing this prosperity and development.

In this development we need technicians. We need engineers and artisans. We have a shortage of manpower. The Post Office has a shortage of electrical technicians; there is a shortage of artisans and engineers. The Railways also has a shortage. The Railways is increasingly becoming an undertaking which uses electricity as its tractive power. It needs increasingly more electrical technicians. It needs increasingly more scientists. At the moment there is a tremendous shortage of this type of person. But while we have the shortage this hon. member proposes that we should introduce television in South Africa, for which we will require a large number of technicians. Not only will we have to have those technicians in the Broadcasting Corporation, or at every station from which broadcasts are made, but we shall have to have them in every town and city. The hon. member wants to introduce television, which is a form of amusement, something which produces nothing. It is just a waste of money and something which has tremendous disadvantages, as other countries have already discovered. The hon. member now wants to use for television these men who are urgently required to give our population better standards of living, to teach our people to be better people, to do more for our workers in the Public Service, the Post Office, industry, etc., which will place a burden on everybody’s shoulders. One is really astounded at this irresponsibility.

The National Bureau for Educational Research estimated in 1960 already that this year we would have a shortage of 2,800 engineers. If we take into consideration that our needs are probably much greater to-day because of the development which has taken place, it surprises one that the hon. member seeks to create a still greater need by wanting to withdraw these technicians from those producing industries and employ them in an industry which is simply a waste of money.

Dr. Rousseau of Sasol pointed out just the other day that the Orange River scheme would cost R450 million over the next ten years. For that one needs numerous highly specialized technicians of all kinds. Iscor is on the threshold of a R600 million expansion, and Escom is on the point of spending R400 million on expansion. For just one of these developments one needs an enormous number of technicians. One needs experts, highly skilled people. The two oil refineries are on the eve of a R75 million expansion, Phalaborwa faces an expansion of R70 million. Together these few bodies are facing an expansion of R2,300 million. That is how great the development in this country is. As the result of this development, which is productive development, we shall be able to raise the living standards of the people. But in spite of this tremendous development, which requires many technicians, where not a single man can be spared, this hon. member has the temerity to tell us: “You must start now; you must, in other words, withdraw your young men and your technicians from other places and employ them on this, so that the country may waste money instead of producing”. Sir, it really makes one wonder. But I do not wonder why those hon. members are in the Opposition. The irresponsibility, the shortsightedness and the wilfulness of hon. members opposite are so great that I can understand no intelligent person having much confidence in them.

Let me now reply to the question which the hon. member for Durban (North) could not answer. Do you know why Israel has no television to-day? Israel does not have television because she says: I must make my people more prosperous; I need manpower and capital, and I will not waste it.

Who said that? Moses?

I always thought the hon. member was living in the time of Moses. He does not even know what is going on in his own country.

There is one argument we should consider carefully, namely the argument advanced by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) and also by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). They stated that one should regard television as a medium of education. By means of that story—it is nothing more than a story—that it is a medium of education, they now try to advance a reason as to why television should be introduced in South Africa. Let me remind hon. members that Dr. Himmelweit of the Nuffield Foundation undertook one of the most important investigations in regard to television which has ever been done in England.

Dr. Himmelweit said the following—

It is not I who says this, but one of the greatest experts in England.

Then why did you enter into this agreement?

I really thought that after the splended exposition of the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) this would have been clear to the hon. member. But it seems to me that it will still take weeks before we can make him understand it. Dr. Himmelweit says that what one can see on television one can see in the cinema and hear over the radio, and that is true.

You cannot take a cinema into your home.

That is the only difference. One wants to see in one’s home what one can now see in the cinema. That is the only difference. Am I wrong then when I say that for the most part it is simply having a cinema in one’s home. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) laughs, but he has not been listening. It is not I who says so; it is Dr. Himmelweit. One cannot get away from one fact, namely that 95 per cent of what one mostly sees on television is films projected from the studios. The greatest percentage of what one sees on television is therefore things which are filmed and when are then transmitted from the studios. Dr. Himmelweit says: Why do you want to see it in your homes? You can see it in the cinema; you can see the funeral of Mr. Churchill in the cinema; you can see the launching of projectiles in the cinema; news films are exhibited in the cinemas. Why do you want to see it in your homes?

Why?

That is not for us to say. It has not yet penetrated to the hon. member’s mind that if he wants to spend R44,000,000 he should at least prove his case.

What one does in bringing a television set into one’s home is of the greatest consequence. What one brings into one’s home has an effect upon oneself and upon one’s family. Or do hon. members opposite have no regard for their children? Can the children just deteriorate without hon. members being concerned about it? Is the welfare of the children of no value to them? Does the next generation mean nothing to them? If hon. members are intelligent people, they must pay attention to what they bring into their homes and the effect it will have on their children. As the hon. member for Randfontein has said, in order to attract the masses the films must be of the lowest standard, depicting immorality, murder and homicide. Just listen for a moment, not to me, but to what Stuart Cloete said last year when he returned from a visit to Britain and America. He said—

Shakespeare also did that. Crimes were committed in Shakespeare’s works, but Shakespeare did not show in detail how those crimes were committed. Now Stuart Cloete says—

It is shown in detail how these things are done—

In America they show precisely how people put poison into someone else’s cup. Some time ago a parent told the following story: There was trouble between a man and his wife, and the child said to his father: “But Dad. surely it is easy; you can easily solve this.” His father asked how, and the child said: “Just put poison into Mom’s coffee.” [Time limit.]

I am sure that all hon. members will share my regret that the hon. Minister’s time expired, because he had opened up a very interesting vein of speculation by posing the question which time unfortunately did not allow him to answer. It would have been very interesting. He says that according to one Stuart Cloete—who once upon a time was tarred and feathered for his views, but to-day is praised in the highest forum of the nation television teaches you how to poison a person, how to use a knife—the methods and all the details. Now, has the hon. Minister ever seen a presentation of Macbeth or Hamlet, or King Lear when certain murderous incidents are shown …

What are you trying to say?

The hon. member obviously has never seen these plays. The hon. Minister to-day produced only two arguments which are new. I have had the pleasure of listening to him, in the four or five years I have been here at least twice a year, on the evils of television. The two new arguments are. firstly, that Israel has no television; and secondly, that there is such a tremendous dearth of technicians in this country that it would be utterly stupid of the Government to drain off any of the sources in that field in order to make something like television popular here, because it will be completely unproductive. Now. as far as the first argument is concerned, he says in effect that just because the Jews followed Moses into the promised land, we must now follow the Israelis into the T.V. desert. This is his attitude, Sir, although I do not know what the validity of the argument is, when you consider that there are 97 other countries, including every country from which the White people of South Africa derive, where television has become the normal method of education, of entertainment and all the other facilities that are transmitted to the public through television. Why follow the example of Israel, in this case? The hon. Minister did not give us any reason why we should. Why not follow the example of the majority of the Western and civilized nations, even if you will not be persuaded by the argument that some of the less civilized nations, such as Ghana, also have television? The other point, in regard to the dearth of technicians, is very interesting, because the hon. Minister made an admission this afternoon of a fact which all his colleagues in the Cabinet have sought to cover up. When we have complained of the shortage of manpower, of skilled personnel in South Africa, we have been told that we are exaggerating that position—there may be a shortage of a few shunters here and a shortage of a few post office technicians there, but there really is no shortage; that this is what happens as a result of prosperity and expansion. Now the hon. Minister spends about 15 minutes this afternoon dilating on the tremendous dearth of skilled people and he says that is the reason why we cannot have television. Why cannot we import television technicians, for example? At present we cannot import them because there is no livelihood for them here, but under our immigration scheme many of them might, for a change of scene, be prepared to come here from any one of 27 civilized countries in the world. Considering all the arguments that we have heard from the other hon. members on the Government side, I must say that these two were the only new ones, from the hon. Minister himself, and I could not help thinking of a child—it happens to be my child, and she is seven years old—who came to me last night and said: Would I listen to the new song that she learnt at school yesterday afternoon? I said “Yes”—because I listen to all sorts of things all day, I am a good listener. The song, it turned out, was called “The Fairy Doctor”, and there is a line in it which stuck in my mind, Sir: “Mumbo-Jumbo is my name, to one and all I say the same.” And that is all I can say of the hon. Minister’s speech.

I want to deal very briefly with a point made by the hon. member for Randfontein. He talked of the cost of television, and he said in effect that it will cost R40,000,000, the capital cost to introduce television, and then there will be an annual cost of R18,000,000, and then he offsets the licence fees and other revenue, and he comes to the conclusion that it would cost the State a subsidy of R5,000,000 per year. The hon. member, apparently, did not discuss these figures with the hon. Minister, because the hon. Minister talked of hundreds of million of rand being drained off every year in a country where, he said, we should all be devoting all our time and resources in building up the standard of living. But have we not boasted of the effect that we have a very high standard of living? We tell the world that the Africans in our country have the highest standard on the Continent of Africa. Yet according to the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs we cannot even afford R5,000,000 a year for a service which is regarded as essential in every civilized country, and in some uncivilized countries.

Why essential?

For the reason, Sir, that it is a means of public communication which is ideal from many points of view, although it has some disadvantages. I have seen television programmes, and I hope the hon. Minister has, too.

Aren’t you clever?

As for the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. Bekker) if I could only get him under contract and present him on television in America, I would never work again.

I want to deal with another point that the hon. member for Randfontein made, and it was supported by the hon. member for Innes-dale. He says in effect: This is not the time to introduce television. Now I want to tell the hon. member that the colour television position is not as described by the hon. member for Innesdale at all. He would have the House believe that colour television is the norm wherever it is available in the country and that black and white is dying out. In similar vein, the hon. Minister cited an authority who, I think, wrote an article in 1960. I have here the New York Times of Sunday, November 29, 1964. I happened to buy this when I was in New York and I kept this particular article, because I know that somebody was going to come up with that rather silly statement about colour television. Here are the facts: In the United States at the moment there are about 2,750,000 colour sets in use, and the number of black and white sets in use is of the order of 55,000,000. So you see, that even to-day, in the country which has the greatest television industry in the world, with the largest television viewing audience in the world, the percentage of television sets which can receive colour transmissions is less than 5 per cent. So that to say “Let’s wait until colour television becomes universal” is tantamount to saying as somebody might have said in 1924 for example, when South Africa began to take an interest in commercial aviation: Don’t fly, don’t use these turbo-prop planes, because someday somebody will develop a jet!

Debate having continued for two-and-a-half hours, the motion lapsed in terms of Standing Order No. 32.