Order! Before asking the Secretary to read the first Order of the Day, I should like to make a statement on the reprinting of Bills which have been amended in this House or the Other Place.

At present when a Bill has been amended, it is reprinted in full with the amendments indicated by means of square brackets and underlinings.

As members will appreciate, this procedure greatly increases the expenditure on printing. In view of the recent steep rise in printing contract prices and the need in the national interest to reduce State expenditure wherever such reduction is compatible with efficiency, the question whether it is essential in all cases to reprint amended Bills in full has been considered through the usual channels.

In the case of a Bill which is extensively amended by the House in which it originated, it has been decided that the Bill will be reprinted in full as in the past. However, if a limited number of amendments have been made, a list containing only the amended clauses, subsections, etc., will be issued with the amendments indicated by the present method.

*I should like to make it clear, however, that although the amended clauses, etc., will be printed separately from the Bill and transmitted in this form to the other House, they will be regarded as being part of the Bill and the right of that House to debate or to amend the Bill further will not be affected.

When a Bill which originated in the one House, has been amended by the other House, and the Bill is returned for concurrence in the amendments, debate and amendment are strictly confined to the amendments made by the other House. It has therefore been decided that in such cases the Bill will not be reprinted, but a list of the amendments made by the other House will be issued. This procedure has been adopted for the first time in the case of the amendments made by this House to the Magistrates’ Courts Amendment Bill, which originated in the Senate (see B. 47B—’76).

The proposed changes will not detract from the efficiency of the present system or cause members any inconvenience, while a considerable saving in printing costs will be effected.

Mr. Speaker, at the start of my reply to the Second Reading debate on the budget, I feel it to be a privilege and a heart-felt need—and I am convinced that here I speak on behalf of everyone in this House—to extend a hearty welcome to our greatly respected and popular Prime Minister and his wife, Mrs. Vorster, on their return from their outstandingly successful visit to Israel. Everything we have heard and read about this visit indicates that the hon. the Prime Minister has once again struck a major blow for South Africa and that he has once again shown very clearly the quality of his leadership and statesmanship, not only to his own country, but to the whole world as well. We thank him for this and congratulate him on the exceptional way in which he is carrying out his great and responsible task in the interests of all.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to testify that in spite of the increased taxes which had necessarily to be imposed in the budget, this budget has been exceptionally well received. In fact, the most responsible and knowledgeable critics are virtually unanimous in saying that the budget displays the degree of realism and financial insight and discipline which has become so essential in the conditions that prevail throughout the world. This sound grasp and understanding is something to be grateful for. I shall not, of course, read to the House the encouraging letters and other messages I have received in connection with the budget, but, Sir, you will perhaps allow me just to refer, in all modesty, to one telegram, since it is from a person of exceptional standing and experience in the field of state finance. It reads as follows—

I want to tell the House that, of course, I value that message highly.

I listened carefully to every speech made in the Second Reading Debate and it was clear to me that the hon. speakers in the ranks of the Opposition parties found it somewhat difficult to level any well-founded criticism at the budget. I believe I can substantiate this statement.

By way of introduction I want to remind the House what I said were the main aims of the budget. I said that the aims of the budget were three-fold: Firstly, we had to make sufficient provision for the defence of the country; secondly, we had to maintain our economic preparedness, and in particular secure our balance of payments and contain inflation; and, thirdly, we had to ensure that our economic growth was maintained and that the interests of the lesser privileged people were seen to. I added that it was not easy to reconcile these three aims with each other, but that I believed that the budget maintained the necessary balance as far as possible. I want to emphasize once again that the proposals contained in the budget must be seen against the background of the most serious economic depression since the great depression of the early thirties and also against the background of the most sustained, intentional and, in my opinion, the most unjustified attack on the gold price and on the historical and fundamental role of gold in the international monetary system and system of payments. I say this because after one has listened to the Opposition speakers, one can barely appreciate these facts.

†In a few words, what did I have to do in this budget? I had to provide adequately—that is to say, on a sufficiently large scale—for the defence of the Republic and at the same time I had to safeguard the economy. I had to do these things at a time of world depression, world-wide inflation and an unprecedented onslaught on the gold market.

I do not intend saying very much at this moment about gold, except once more to confirm my faith in gold both as a monetary asset, and indeed, as a monetary metal. I believe that when the uncertainty which has been introduced into the world gold market is settled, once we know what precisely the International Monetary Fund intends doing about selling gold, how precisely the mooted auctions are to take place, when they are to start, what the quantities are to be and so forth, gold will once again reassert itself and in the longer term we shall see a recovery in the gold market. I think it is necessary that we should keep a sense of perspective. I made one or two calculations in regard to the funds needed to buy up the International Monetary Fund’s gold. They are talking about selling 25 million ounces over four years. If that is done on a regular basis, it might mean approximately 6,5 million ounces per year. The funds required to buy up that quantity of gold are not excessive relative to the financial resources of, for example, the French, the Swiss, the Germans or the funds of the Bank for International Settlements. If you take a price of $135, for example, it will cost about $850 million to absorb the IMF’s projected first year’s sales, which I am taking as roughly 6,5 million ounces. In that connection I could perhaps just point out that the French and the Italians have reportedly spent far more than $2 billion in support of their own currencies so far this year alone and that these two countries have remaining exchange reserves of something like $4 billion to $5 billion and $0,5 billion respectively.

The Germans and the Swiss together have approximately 30 billion dollars in foreign exchange reserves. Furthermore, the value of the non-gold assets of the Bank for International Settlements is approximately 14 billion dollars. Therefore, if there is indeed a will to support gold—even the American Government has stated that it does not intend to disrupt the world gold market—I suggest there is most definitely and most undoubtedly a way to do so in view of the scale of the funds that are available.

Coming to the budget as such, I think one can say that the main thrust of the Opposition’s financial criticism really comes down to saying that the economy is not all they would like it to be, that whatever is wrong with the economy can be blamed on the Government and that the budget is going to be inflationary in its effect. I do not propose to spend much time on the first two criticisms I mentioned, although I will come back presently to the sort of attack that is made along the lines that our problems arise largely from our ideologies.

Coming to the criticism that this budget will be inflationary, I must say that I find this one of the most remarkable criticisms that could have been levelled against the budget. One has got to see the budget as a whole. If ever there was a classic case of not seeing the wood for the trees, I think this criticism is such a case. Obviously, we have raised certain excise and sales duties and as a result of that certain prices will increase or have already increased. However, that is just one part of the picture. In so far as that might affect certain individuals and consumers, one regrets it.

But if one looks at the budget as a whole, if one looks at the scale of control of Government spending and the extent to which we are holding the line against an increase in Government spending—to the extent that, if defence spending is taken out, there is an increase of only 6% over last year, which is very much less than the rate of inflation alone—and if one looks, furthermore, at the way in which this budget’s requirements are being financed, viz. substantially non-inflationary, and also at the scale of those requirements, I say that this budget must have an anti-inflationary effect. I was most certainly taken aback at the criticism that this budget was going to be inflationary. The hon. member for Constantia, for example, said this budget would press very hard on many people and that the rise in the cost of living was causing real hardship particularly among the members of our Black population. Yet, according to the latest statistics we have of salaries and wages, for the first three quarters of 1975 the increase in the wages of Blacks in all non-agricultural sectors of the economy was no less than 25%.

How much of that was related to mining?

The increase was 25%. The hon. member for Johannesburg North came with certain calculations which I found extremely difficult to follow. The fact of the matter is that this is the overall increase for that large group of workers. This increase of 25% is more than double the rate of inflation. I think that serves as a very adequate reply to that particular point.

The Government does have the interest of particularly the less privileged people of this country very much in mind all the time. I think its record proves it. Let us look, for example, at the position of pensioners. We know that many of the pensioners living on fixed incomes are having a hard time of it. It is always like that with inflation. I have some comparative figures here. The old-age pension in April 1947 was exactly R120 per annum, or R10 per month. That was at a time when the Opposition was in Government.

How much was it in 1933?

In 1970 it had risen to R420 per annum, in 1974 to R624 per annum and this year it will rise to R864 per annum.

What a ridiculous argument!

In other words, there was a sevenfold increase against a threefold increase in the cost of living.

What of the value of money?

If one compares that with the record of the Opposition as regards pensions, one does not know whether to laugh or to cry. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, another interesting thing that has emerged from the speeches by hon. members of both Opposition parties, is that, when they run into a cul de sac with their arguments, they increasingly and repeatedly fall back on the old cry of the problems that arise in this country, or that they think arise, reputedly due to this Government’s ideology. They invariably revert to their old cries, for example that labour is being restricted, that there is job reservation and that there is influx control. On this point, however, they are very careful. The hon. member for Constantia was not so careful on that point a little while ago, but the fact of the matter is that that is the sort of thing that is trotted out.

I would like to ask hon. members opposite whether this Government does not in fact have an overwhelming mandate from the electorate of this country to apply the policies which it is applying in this country today. [Interjections.] We can just take the question of the Transkei. We voted special moneys for the independence of that region …

Why did you not put up a candidate in the Transkei?

We have voted several million rand extra. Is the Opposition cavilling at that? With respect, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Walmer spoke enough nonsense when he delivered his speech. In my opinion he ought to give others an opportunity of talking now. He has had his opportunity. I do not think his speech really made a great impact on this House.

Secondly, there is the question of education. This Government has instituted compulsory school education for Indians and for Coloureds, something which costs millions of rand. That is ideological expenditure, if you like, but expenditure of which we are very proud. Does the hon. Opposition cavil at that? What about that? [Interjections.] It is in this budget. It is part of the expenditure …

That is not ideological.

But of course. Mr. Speaker, when one puts the facts to them they realize themselves how completely ridiculous they appear. Thirdly, there is the Government’s official policy of narrowing the wage gap among the different national groups. That is costing a great deal of money. It is part of our ideology. Is that something that must be criticized?

Part of U.P. policy.

Of course not. The hon. member for Maitland is very quick to say “no”, because he realizes how sensible it is.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that a number of hon. members on the other side have, during the course of this debate, referred to the fact that there was no mention of increased salaries for civil servants. They wanted to know what the position was and why I had not said something about it in my budget speech. The position there is perfectly clear. We are conducting an anti-inflation campaign and we have succeeded in obtaining the co-operation of all sectors of the economy in supporting this very worthwhile objective which, I believe, is paying very worthwhile results. We have never said that we are going to freeze wages and salaries. We have had this matter under constant consideration and I can assure this hon. House that the matter is under consideration by the authorities at this moment. I can also assure this hon. House that there will be an announcement on this important issue quite soon. There is no question, therefore, that this matter is simply being left in abeyance. It is something which the Government is watching, one can almost say, from month to month.

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is not here. It is a pity, because I have been wanting to deal with some of the points he made. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South had a good deal to say about the allowances—investment allowances, initial allowances, depreciation allowances and such like—being granted to manufacturers and asked why farmers were by comparison being treated so badly as regards taxation. Of course, there is nothing of the kind. I think everybody knows that farmers are allowed to write off, against their current incomes, expenditure of a capital nature normally incurred in their farming activities, such as expenditure on farm buildings, dams, pumping plants, fencing and many other things. They can in fact write it off in full. They can write off the full value of that capital expenditure and then, of course, further than that, it is a fact that farmers, if they can put up a case to the Receiver of Revenue, they can in fact ask to be allowed to write off their wear and tear on the basis of the so-called straight-line method. It is a fact that the straight-line method enables you to write off your depreciation more quickly than for instance the diminishing balance method, and you can write it off completely too. That is another very important concession which is made to farmers. The hon. member spoke about farmers having to pay an additional R40 to R400 per month on fuel and he made some very remarkable calculations. He said the cost of production of the farmer had gone up by a minimum of R150 per month as the result of this latest budget. The fact of the matter is of course that we have exempted the farming community from the duty on diesel fuel, which is after all the fuel mainly used by farmers, and it is therefore quite incorrect to say that their additional fuel bill will be between R40 and R400 a month, as the hon. member said. We also exempted them from the duty on power paraffin used for farming purposes. I think it is equally wrong to allege that directly as the result of this budget the farmer’s average cost of production will go up by R150 a month, because no sales duty is payable on any agricultural implements, fuel costs will be virtually unchanged, intermediate products should not be more expensive and no tax is payable, under this budget at any rate, on labour, water, electricity and so on.

You know, Sir, the argument which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was trying to advance was that the Government was doing very little for agriculture, but I would just like to draw your attention to the fact that direct spending by the Government on various types of expenditure which are of direct benefit to the farmer, are evident when you look at Agricultural Technical Services, Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Agricultural Credit, Water Affairs and the Land Bank, the bulk storage facilities which are allowable under the Land Bank. The amount there is something like R150 million alone in this financial year, and if you look at the amount spent on subsidies in matters relating to them, it comes to over R200 million in the budget we are dealing with. So there alone you have R350 million being spent directly to the benefit of the farming community, and that is quite apart from the advantages they have under the tax laws of this country.

Now, to come very briefly to one or two other criticisms—I do not propose to deal with them in too much detail—the hon. member for Constantia said that the Minister admitted that Government expenditure was mainly responsible for the growth of the economy last year. Perfectly correct, Sir. If it had not been for the Government’s expenditure when things got slack, where would the growth rate have been at the moment? The Government did this quite deliberately and a very large part of that expenditure was on essential infrastructure which therefore must be classed as productive expenditure, and the result is to be seen in the development of the economy as a whole. The hon. member also criticized me for the fact that the loan levies carry, according to him, the “iniquitous” interest rate of only 5%, but the hon. member knows that that is tax free and if he were to look at the various income levels to see what that in fact amounts to he will find that in the case of the top level, R28 000, that 5% becomes an effective interest rate of 18%. But that is the sort of thing that the hon. member left out of account. You can also compare it with other income levels and each time you will have to add to the 5% to obtain the effective rate of interest.

I now come to the hon. member for Yeoville. That hon. member started his speech in what I thought was a rather noisy manner. He gave me the impression that he was rather rattled that day. I do not know why. He became very personal although later he seemed to settle down a bit. You know, Sir, on a previous occasion in this House I had the opportunity to draw attention to the sartorial grace of the hon. member for Yeoville, and last night I happened to be reading …

You are being personal now.

No, this is quite pleasant. I happened to be reading a monthly magazine in which the writer was talking about people being well dressed, and he referred to a particular person. Let us call him Mr. X. The writer thought that this Mr. X was rather overdoing it. By the way, Sir, this is not the hon. member for Yeoville, but somebody else. The writer said this—

Anyway, Sir, this is just by the way. The hon. member for Yeoville accused me of indulging in window-dressing. There will be opportunities in the discussion of the various Votes in this debate and there will be opportunities in the Third Reading debate, and I want to ask the hon. member to tell the House then exactly what he means by this allegation he levelled against me, of having indulged in window-dressing in this budget. I regard this as a serious attack and I think it is up to the hon. member to tell us exactly what he means. I know of absolutely no window-dressing. I put my cards completely on the table and I want the hon. member to tell me.

How much did you hold back in payments in February and March?

The hon. member also said a rather remarkable thing when he was talking of taxation and the way to finance this budget. You will remember, Sir, that after taking into account loan income and all the income on the existing basis of taxation, I still had to find R953 million. Of that I took R240 million out of the Stabilization Fund and R713 million out of taxation. [Interjections.] Just a minute. May I put my case? The hon. member must listen now. I am stating the facts. R713 million had to be found from additional taxation. I am merely giving the hon. member the facts of the budget now.

You are not giving the facts.

Sir, the hon. member seems to be rather sensitive. He then said: “We would not have increased the sales tax except on luxury items”, which is a very small part of the sales tax income; “we would not have increased the petrol tax or the income tax on companies or the income tax on persons, but would have used the money transferred to the Stabilization Fund and would have borrowed more money overseas.” That is how he would have financed that R700 odd million. Sir, it means in fact, if you make a conservative calculation, that the hon. member would then have had to find something like R450 million, which he is not going to raise by means of sales tax, except on luxury items, or on petrol or by direct taxes on companies or persons. So he is going to take out of the Stabilization Fund something like R450 million, plus the R240 million I am drawing from that fund.

That is not what I said.

Sir, I am going to show the hon. member that it is so, because I have budgeted on the loan side just as far as all my best advisers warned me to go. They advised me not to go beyond what I budgeted for in raising loans at home and abroad.

If that is true, it means your facts are wrong.

That means that the hon. member has to take about R450 million out of the Stabilization Account in addition to the R240 million.

You are making an untrue statement.

It is no use his arguing against the facts.

No, I am not arguing against the facts.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville has had his opportunity to address the House.

The hon. member has forgotten something. He has forgotten that the Stabilization Account is there to finance the National Supplies Procurement Fund, which is standing at something like R900 million at present. That is where we fund our basic strategic materials. We have got to use it for that. What does that mean? We will have to borrow all that money from the Reserve Bank. That is the most inflationary way you can finance anything in any country, namely to borrow from your central bank. The hon. member says that the budget is inflationary. Can you imagine what the budget would have looked like if he had his way in financing it?

It is not what I said.

It is no use the hon. member saying it is not what he said. I have read his words.

Read what I said about borrowing elsewhere.

When one subjects these matters to careful scrutiny, the hon. member says that he did not say it. Of course he said it!

That is a careful twisting of the facts.

Order! Does the hon. member suggest that the hon. Minister is twisting his words?

I said that the hon. the Minister appeared to be twisting the facts.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. The hon. the Minister has carefully changed the facts.

I should now like to refer to one or two things the hon. member for Johannesburg North said when he spoke in the debate. I do not want to waste any time on his remarkable accusation against me that I sold my birthright for a mess of pottage. I would merely remark that if there is any hon. member in this House who cannot afford to talk about selling his birthright, it might be the hon. member for Johannesburg North. But let us leave that rather personal matter there.

What do you mean by that?

Just what he says.

The hon. member says that I have reneged on an undertaking given by my predecessor to overseas investors that the gold tax formula would not be varied, that it would not be tampered with. That is exactly what he said. I challenge him to tell this House where my predecessor gave the undertaking that he would not change the tax formula at any time. I also challenge him to say how I have reneged on any undertaking.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he has read the presidential address to the Chamber of Mines, 1968, pages 15 and 16?

I have not read that address, but I have spoken …

You had better read it.

If the hon. member asks me a question, he might have the courtesy of allowing me to reply to it. There is a sensitivity about that party today which I think could most probably be due to the effect of their losing their nerve at Durban North. However, we can talk about that later. I have talked to the senior officials of the Department of Finance and the Treasury who were there in 1968 or at any other time, running back many years. Not one of them knows anything at all about an undertaking given by Dr. Diederichs that he would never change the gold tax formula. In any case, how can one Minister of Finance bind his successors into the future? I want to add that I have in fact not touched the gold tax formula in this budget. So what is the hon. member talking about? I have not changed the gold tax formula. The hon. member should know that.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member can speak on another occasion. The hon. member made these statements, and it is a very serious thing to say that a Minister of Finance has reneged on an undertaking. I reject it out of hand. What will the House think of an hon. member who says, amongst other things, the following in his speech?—

The figure which I gave was 10,5%.

If you include the pensioners, it is 11,1%.

He said—

He said that the Minister said that. But I spoke of 10,5%.

Other people can add.

This is what one is up against. You will remember, Sir, that I said that as far as overseas loans were concerned, there was an amount of R55 million which you might say we had already got. It was there to be drawn on. Then I said that there were renewals of R90 million, loans to be renewed this coming financial year, the year we are now in. Regarding new loans, I said that I budgeted for an extra R175 million. Altogether this amounts to R320 million. The hon. members says, and I quote—

How on earth does anyone work that out from what I said? Each time he criticizes, it is something which is derogatory to the interests of the country. I said we were going to raise R320 million, but the hon. member says I said that I was going to raise only R120 million. In dealing with the increased taxation of the gold mines, which is the one thing that he singled out and is the one thing that really hit him hard—this little extra tax on the gold mines—he said that this tax on the gold mines would …

I thought you said that you did not change the tax.

No, it is not a change in the formula at all. The tax formula remains intact.

Really!

If I could give the hon. member some quiet advice, I would advise him to go back to his mining community and his mining friends and study the gold tax formula. He will then see that I have not touched it. He says that this increased taxation on the gold mines will have “a severe impact on the marginal mines”. This, Sir, comes from the director of a very big company in the gold mining industry who ought to know that there is no tax on the marginal mines at all. So what does this mean? Just to wind up this matter, and this will be my last example, he said that I said that the provinces were in “dire trouble” financially. I said nothing of the kind. I want to state that clearly and put the record straight. I never said it. All I said was that I had to reduce the amount of money that would be voted to them, with their approval.

There was another point of criticism made in this debate and that is that there is a creeping socialism setting in in the economy under this Government. I want to refute that criticism for once and for all, because I think it is a mischievous criticism and I do not think that it is based upon the facts. In the first place, it must be noted that there is a world-wide trend towards a relative increase in State activity, in one country after the other. This is presumably so because in times of rising incomes there is an increased preference for goods and services which can only or most advantageously be supplied by the State. There are many reasons for this, but I cannot go into all of them. I think that it is readily understandable that a greater proportion of such increased income should be spent for example on better universities, better schools, better health services, better communications and the like, to say nothing of course of defence and all the requirements that go with defence in the modem day. If you take as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the current expenditure by general government in South Africa—this is covering everything—it has increased from 9,2% in 1960 to 12,4% in 1970 and to 12,6% in 1974.

I admit it is an increase, an increase from 9,2% to 12,6% over a period of 14 years. However, in judging these figures it must be remembered that the latter figure, 12,6% includes the very steeply increased defence expenditure on the stockpiling of strategic and defence commodities. If allowance is made for these special increases, which are very high today and I do not think I need justify them, there would in fact be little, if any, increase in that percentage at all. Furthermore, as a percentage of total gross domestic investment, the gross domestic investment of public authorities actually declined from 30,4% in 1960 to 29,5% in 1970 and 26,3% in 1975. A similar decline is to be seen in the case of gross domestic fixed investment. I should like to add that it is true that the investment of the public corporations has shown a relative increase. As a percentage of total gross domestic fixed investment the figure for the corporations rose from 6,3% in 1960 to 10,6% in 1970 and to 13,7% in 1974, but this is of course where we are dealing with an absolutely essential infrastructure. We are dealing here with new deep-sea harbours, we are dealing with enormous capital-intensive expansion projects of Iscor and Escom and we shall very soon be seeing sizeable figures coming in the shape of a new Sasol 2. These are projects which we believe are absolutely essential to our future prosperity. If one takes the Department of Statistics—I want to quote one last statistic—according to the estimates prepared by the Department of Statistics—this is on a slightly different basis from those previously mentioned and therefore one cannot simply make a direct comparison, because there are certain allowances and adjustments one has to make—the total contribution of the public sector to the gross domestic product increased from 22,8% in 19£P to 23,4% in 1970 and declined again to 22,8% in 1974— the same percentage as 14 years earlier. If one takes all these factual things into account and I believe that these figures are extremely relevant to this argument—then it cannot be said that allegations of creeping socialism have any foundation in fact in this country.

There was another very strange point that was raised by two or three speakers and I wish to deal with it very briefly. It is the allegation that South Africa ought to be, should be, the workshop of Africa, while allegedly under this Government it is not. If this country is not the workshop of Africa, I would very much like to know what a workshop is and what a workshop of Africa looks like. I have an article here which was written in 1966—ten years ago. Since then this country has made enormous strides technologically, industrially, in the mining field, in communications—in practically every single field of development. In 1966 an extremely distinguished American writer who is known to be highly intelligent and perceptive, John Davenport, visited this country and had a very good look around. He wrote what I regard to this day to be one of the finest single articles on South Africa that I have seen in many a long day. It appeared in Fortune of December 1966. John Davenport is a completely objective writer. I have met him several times and I have found him a most impressive person. In 1966 he wrote an article on South Africa under the heading “The Only Real Industrial Complex South of Milan”. He wrote—

He also wrote—

He says that there are, of course, breath-taking scenic views and other attractions and to this he adds that a growing volume of Western visitors are attracted who come to view our game parks, dams and irrigation projects which may lift the inhabitants in a more ample way of life. “South Africa possesses all these things and a great deal more,” he said. He also said—

Davenport then says—

He is now looking at the whole African continent—

He is referring to 1965—

So one can go into the details set out here. One comes to one clear conclusion, namely that if there is one country on this continent that can be called a workshop of the continent, this must be South Africa.

To give the hon. members an indication of how we have developed in the ten years since 1966, I would like to point out that our gross domestic product per capita increased tremendously; and here we have to take into account our population, which is growing at one of the fastest rates in the world. I have the latest statistics which the World Bank has issued on population and national income. Out of 126 nations we are among the seven with the highest population increase. This, of course, makes things very difficult as far as per capita average income is concerned. But despite this our gross domestic product per capita of the whole population increased from R413 in 1966 to R978 in 1975. I think that we can take it in all fairness that it will top R1 000 per head of the whole population, of all national groups, man, woman and child, this year. The only other country in Africa that can come anywhere near us is Libya, whose whole economy is based on oil. They have vast oilfields. That is the extent to which our economy has grown and we can see it by looking at a single index over ten years. If, then, the position was as Davenport put it ten years ago, how much more would that be the position today? We are indeed the workshop of this great continent.

Before I conclude I do want to refer to what I thought was an extremely unfortunate speech in this debate, the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point. Why the hon. member for Sea Point should have chosen this opportunity again to speak in such denigrating terms of his own country is something which I have ceased trying to understand. Sir, you will remember how, when speaking of communism and apartheid, he said, “Hulle is twee perde van dieselfde stal.”

Order! I just want to point out that the hon. member withdrew those words.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but, with great respect, I should like to make this point, because you did say a little later that you wanted “to give the hon. member an opportunity to put his case and that the hon. member who followed him, or another hon. member, could then reply and state the other side of the argument”. I regard this as so important that I hope you will allow me to say something in this regard. Although the hon. member withdrew the statement that apartheid and communism were “perde van dieselfde stal”, he also said this: “Ek verkies nie die kommunisme nie en ek verkies nie totalitarianisme nie …” That was after he had referred to “apartheid en kommunisme”. He said further: “To apply either of them involves totalitarianism and authoritarianism”. That is what is worrying me, Sir. I accept your ruling and I shall not refer now to apartheid and communism being “perde van dieselfde stal”, but this further attack, that they both involve totalitarianism and authoritarianism, is just as serious and I shall try to show why. Today, when you talk of totalitarianism, you clearly mean communism. There were, some years ago, three forms of totalitarianism, namely Fascism, Nazism and Communism. The first two are no longer talked about and they do not really exist in practice, but communism exists, and if you say today that a certain ideology or policy involves totalitarianism, you can only mean that it involves communism. [Interjections.]

Nonsense.

Yes, it does. I have taken the trouble to read this with great care and I take the liberty to say here today that that is the only interpretation one can put on this statement.

That is absolute nonsense.

That is what is disturbing me very much indeed. I think that the hon. member for Sea Point and the coterie of hon. members who sit around him, who are inclined to be very sensitive when one quotes back to them what they have said only a few days before, should start weighing their words. They must start making up their minds whether they are in fact speaking for South Africa or against South Africa. That is what it amounts to. [Interjections.] For a small group of hon. members who represent a couple of per cent at most of the electorate …

Only five.

Even less. I think it is absolute impertinence for the hon. leader of that group to get up in this House and say that in fact this Government’s policy embraces totalitarianism.

Is the hon. the Minister suggesting that the only authoritarian régimes in the whole of the world are communistic régimes? [Interjections.]

I am dealing with totalitarianism.

He is dealing with you.

I am dealing with totalitarianism and, as the hon. the Prime Minister says, I am dealing with the hon. member for Sea Point. Mr. Speaker, I make the statement that when he says that this policy of ours is a question of totalitarianism, he is saying an extremely grave thing, and something which cannot be justified, because he knows as well as I do that there is no freer Press in the whole of Africa and, indeed, probably in virtually the whole of the world, than the South African Press at this moment. That has been attested to by people from outside who are not particularly sympathetic to the South African Government. We have a judiciary which is the envy of the world. No one can deny that fact. We have freedom of speech and we have freedom of worship. So one can list these things.

Even the hon. member for Johannesburg North is here in Parliament.

Yes, that is a fact. The point is that the hon. member who says these things and poses here as the leader of his party in the South African Parliament, knows that he would not be able to say these things in many other countries in the world. Why, then, does he say them in his own country when they are not true? Let me repeat: To say that South Africa is totalitarian is a disgraceful smear of his own country that cannot be justified. I am not prepared to leave this matter there and I therefore challenge him to justify the statement.

Why are you running away from apartheid?

Why am I running away from apartheid? The Speaker asked me not to mention the subject because the hon. member had withdrawn that statement.

Is apartheid the official policy of your party?

Is the hon. member saying that he has not withdrawn the statement? I am quite prepared, let me say, to deal with that issue if necessary. However, the country is sick to death of this underhand attack on South Africa by people who should know better, people who make their livelihood in South Africa and who live under the protection of the South African flag in this dangerous world, people who are safe in this country and who are living better than they could live in any other country, but who come along, day in and day out, with such libellous statements about their own country. The electorate of this country have seen through their tactics. That party will never ever establish itself in this country, because the electorate of this country have a far better sense of values.

We already have.

The hon. member for Constantia was the first speaker after the introduction of the budget, so I shall refer to him briefly in conclusion. The hon. member for Constantia likened me to a medical doctor ministering to an alleged very sick patient, the patient being the South Africa economy. If I were a doctor, all I can say is that if all my patients were as healthy and full of life as the body economic in the Republic today, I would very soon be out of a job. However, I should like to extend the metaphor. If the hon. member for Constantia would for one moment see himself in the role of an undertaker—and I think his doleful and very sad contribution to this debate might justify that view—an undertaker dependent upon the demise of his patient, i.e. the South African economy, a strong and healthy economy, he would realize that he would be out of a job even sooner than I would.

*In conclusion, I just want to point out that there will be problems in future, in the uncertain world in which we are living. However, we have much to be grateful for; as a matter of fact, more reason to be grateful than almost any other country in the world I know of. Provided each one of us in the public as well as in the private sector exercises the necessary restraint, especially in respect of spending and wages and salaries, and provided we are prepared to work hard and by so doing ensure that production and productivity increase, I have no doubt that a golden future awaits our country and all its people.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—106: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koomhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree,G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. G; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. G; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treumicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—35: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Kingwill, W. G.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton. Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Committee Stage Schedules 1 and 2:

Vote No. 2.—“Parliament”, agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate on this Bill was interrupted on 9 April I was indicating briefly why the Opposition’s amendment was not acceptable to us. Therefore I need not go into the question of the amendment any further now; it would be an unnecessary repetition.

I should like to refer to certain points raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville. He said that his party had no objection to this proposed new university, Medunsa. That is an attitude which I welcome. He motivated his standpoint by also emphasizing that there was a great need for more doctors among the Black people. Unfortunately the hon. member then raised a small matter which, even with your permission, I cannot go into any further, Mr. Speaker. He referred to the alleged closing of the medical faculty of the University of Natal. No provision in this Bill refers to that in any way. Consequently I shall not elaborate on it. I want to content myself by saying only that the training of Bantu students at the medical school of the University of Natal is not being summarily discontinued. That institution will continue to train Bantu medical practitioners for several years. As far as Indian and Coloured students at the medical faculty of the University of Natal are concerned, I shall make no comment at this stage. The hon. member for Rosettenville also asked what students would be trained by that faculty in future. The hon. member will realize, that I cannot reply to that question at this juncture. As is already the case, the matter will nevertheless receive the necessary attention from this Government.

The hon. member alleged that the Government, and I as Minister, did not want the said medical school in a White area. On a subsequent occasion he even asked why the Government had not thought of linking the envisaged medical training centre with the large Bantu hospital at Baragwanath, outside Johannesburg. Although the hon. member does not support the policy of the Government, surely he is acquainted with it. After all, he has come to know it here over the years. In consultation with the other three universities for Bantu in South Africa the foundation has already been laid for the establishment of this medical university. It will be a university which, like many other institutions, will be regarded by the Government as being a very important stimulus and a body of which it will be possible for the Bantu people of South Africa to be justifiably proud. This institution will stimulate development. This applies to spiritual development, as well as to development in the sphere of health and economy. This is already the reason why the Government is establishing as many institutions as possible—and these also include the contemplated medical university—in the Bantu homelands. As a member who has been sitting in this House for many years and as a person who pays thorough attention to his work, the hon. member for Rosettenville ought to realize that the policy of this Government is in fact a policy of nation-building. In terms of this Government’s policy of separate development all the Black nations of South Africa must ultimately be able to provide their own services in all spheres of their national life. If possible they must ensure that their services are provided by their own people. That is why the Government is trying to stimulate the nationally orientated development of the Bantu in commerce, mining, industry, agriculture and all other spheres, and is trying to make them nationally orientated. I hasten to add that the ideal situation would be to make an immediate start with a medical school, or even a university, for each separate Bantu nation.

However, Rome was not built in a day. Surely we all know that. But we are working in a specific direction and that is why we are able, at this juncture already, to express our gratitude at being able to make a start with nation-building as far as medical training and particularly as far as veterinary science and dentistry are concerned, two spheres in which nothing whatsoever has as yet been done for the Bantu nations of South Africa. In these spheres the Government is therefore able to begin to establish something specific in which the Bantu are able to share on an organizational as well as participatory level from the outset.

I hope the hon. member for Rosettenville will understand the situation better now. It is for that reason that the Government will not want to consider linking this contemplated institution with a hospital, for example the hospital at Baragwanath. If the contemplated university were to be linked with the hospital at Baragwanath, the question arises whether the hon. member would want the institution to be an independent university, as will be the case in terms of this legislation, or whether he would want the institution to be merely a branch of the university of the Witwatersrand or of RAU.

Does RAU have a medical faculty?

The hon. member is replying in the affirmative right away. However, he is not bearing in mind that RAU is also in Johannesburg.

It could be either.

It could be either. I know that the hon. member for Mooi River would say that. But I wonder whether the hon. member could tell me what sense there would be in closing the medical faculty of the University of Natal and transferring its functions and activities to the University of the Witwatersrand. Surely there would be no sense in doing that. However, there is sense in allowing a medical faculty for the Bantu peoples to begin in embryo, for all of them at the same time, and in due course allowing it to develop into faculties and institutions for all the various Bantu nations, as such a development can be justified. I have already gone into this in my introductory speech.

The hon. member asked—and it was a very fair question—whether the Medical Council was consulted in this matter. The Medical Council—and the hon. member, being a medical practitioner, might be even better aware of this than I am—must not be asked whether another institution is necessary, and the hon. member did not say that either.

†The hon. member did not say it. It is not for the Medical Council to say whether an additional institution like this is necessary, but the Medical Council must be consulted with regard to recognition for the training of doctors and others at these faculties, and that we will do at the appropriate time. It is not right to do it before we have the framework, viz. the necessary legislation.

*At the appropriate time we shall consult the Medical Council fully on this matter. In any event, we know very well what the recognized criteria and requirements of the Medical Council in this regard are, and we are being advised and guided in this matter, by some of the best members of the Medical Council itself, by experts from the two universities of Pretoria and Witwatersrand, as I have already said when I introduced the Bill. The hon. member asked what Pretoria has to say about the fact that this new institution will train veterinarians. Sir, Pretoria welcomes it, to such an extent that the dean of the faculty of veterinary science at Onderstepoort, the head of Onderstepoort, is serving on the committee which is assisting us with our preparations for this new institution. He and others are helping with it. Therefore, Pretoria welcomes it fully. The hon. member also asked what the other universities have to say. He said that we did not consult the universities in regard to this matter. May I remind the hon. member, for it seems to me he was not listening when I said this in my Second Reading speech, that I mentioned two universities specifically, and I have mentioned them again today: The Universities of Pretoria and of the Witwatersrand. These are the two universities in that vicinity which are able to assist us with this new university in practice—not theoretically, but in practice. We wrote to them and we received letters from them in which they welcomed these plans of ours. The University of the Witwatersrand consented to its dean of medicine and its dean of dentistry—I do not want to mention the names of these persons— serving on the committee, and the same applies to Pretoria. The deans of medicine, of dentistry and of veterinary science are serving on the committee in order to be of assistance to us. Several meetings have already been held, and all five of them have already rendered very valuable services.

We informed both these universities that we do not only want assistance from them now, in the preparatory phase only, by helping us to consider the building plans and courses and all that preparatory work; we also told them that we should very much like to have their patronage, their protection and assistance once the institution is functioning, and for that reason we hope that we shall be able to succeed—and I think this will happen—in getting some of the lecturers of these two universities to be of very practical assistance to us at the outset perhaps with syllabuses and the maintenance of standards for internal and external examinations and also with the teaching at this new university. We have received indications from both these universities that they should like to do so. The hon. member will understand that it is unpractical to speak of a distant university such as Cape Town or Stellenbosch because they are too far to be conveniently involved, but distant universities such as Stellenbosch and Cape Town will certainly still be approached to be of assistance to us in other ways, for example by nominating people to the senate of this university for the sake of the standards, as is being provided for in this Bill. In this respect we shall make use of the other universities. In fact, we received a very fine offer only a few weeks ago from the head of all the universities, Prof. Marais of Port Elizabeth, who was with us here in Cape Town and indicated that the Committee of University Principals as a whole wished to be of assistance in the establishment of this new undertaking. In fact, his offer does not apply only in this respect, but to other university work as well. Sir, I am looking forward to a period of very sound and fruitful and, may I say, very necessary assistance from the other universities in regard to this matter.

The hon. member let the cat out of the bag little by asking that all non-Whites should remain in the medical faculty of Natal University, and that in addition Whites should also be admitted. But that is not relevant here. However, Sir, the cat is out of the bag. The hon. member had political objectives with what he said in regard to university training. The hon. member for Edenvale, I think it was, also referred to that. Perhaps I am doing the hon. member for Edenvale an injustice and this point was also made by the hon. member for Rosettenville, namely that the other White universities should preferably all admit non-Whites, and that the permit system should be abolished. This is still the same political motivation which the hon. members had years ago and which they still have and through which they reveal no understanding of the intrinsic value of and the recognition which there should be for each of the Bantu nations, i.e. that they should receive their own medical training, should develop their own economies and their own agriculture, etc., as befits any nation in the world which desires to be independent. That is what we are doing here, but the hon. member loses sight of it completely. Now, the hon. member has asked what ethnic groups were consulted, and what their reaction was. The hon. member for Edenvale also put a question in this regard. We made a formal approach to all the Bantu homeland governments and put the whole matter to them in principle and explained it to them down to the minutest detail, and we provided them with this Bill at an early stage, and I may say that each of these Bantu homeland governments welcomed this new university institution for medical training. All of them, without exception, welcomed it. A single homeland said that it would be a pity if Black people could not continue to be trained in Natal as well, but apart from that all of them welcomed this new institution. The hon. member for Edenvale complained that I had not mentioned this in my introductory speech. Well, I could perhaps have said something about it, but surely it goes without saying that we always consult the Bantu Governments when we introduce legislation which affects their people here. We do this as a standing rule. But I owe him a vote of thanks for having raised this small point, for perhaps more justice is being done to this matter now than would otherwise have been the case.

What about the name of this university?

I am coming to that. That is my next point. The hon. member for Rosettenville said that the name of this institution was a “misnomer”, but floundered about to such an extent that I could not understand very clearly what he was actually trying to say. He asked whether we had consulted the other universities about the name. Sir, I do not know where anything of this nature is done, i.e. that everyone a should be consulted about a name. But there was in fact considerable discussion concerning the name in the circles in which the Bill was prepared. We discussed it and we decided that the name should be “the Medical University of Southern Africa”. If the hon. member goes back to the original Greek meaning of the word “medical” he will find that the word “medical” has a very wide meaning, much wider than “human medicine”. “Medical” includes everything. Therefore we decided that it should be the “Medical University of Southern Africa”. We said “Southern Africa” specifically because the impression should not be created that it will in a narrower sense be for the Republic of South Africa only. We are prepared to render this service in a wider sense. With this name we touch upon the two essential elements of such a university institution. The first is that we call it a “university” not a “medical school”. According to our South African view a medical school is a branch of a large, existing university. However, one finds universities abroad, and particularly on the Continent of Europe—I have seen them myself—which are medical universities only and which are universities for veterinary science only. Therefore we are not engaged in anything unique here in South Africa. In South Africa it is in fact unique, but not in terms of what one sees overseas. We are describing this institution as a university to demonstrate that the quality of its work will be of university level. Secondly, we are offering it a wide scope for its service by saying “of Southern Africa”. We are prepared to enrol people from beyond the borders of South Africa at this university, under certain conditions and circumstances of course. The hon. member would perhaps be pleased to hear that at present there are 24 or 25 students from other Black states in Southern Africa who are already studying at one of the three non-White universities which we have. We therefore allow them to be admitted here; this has been the case for years. Therefore we do not want the narrow connotation here that it will be for the Republic only. The hon. member must also realize that some of our Bantu homelands— one very soon perhaps—is going to fall outside the constitutional scope of the Republic of South Africa. It must still be possible for that homeland, the Transkei, as well as any other which is going to become independent, to continue to be served by this University of Southern Africa. That is why I think it is a very appropriate name.

The hon. member also said that he did not like the ministerial control for which provision is being made throughout this Bill. I do not know whether the hon. member has compared this Bill thoroughly with the other legislation i.e. that of Fort Hare, that of the North and that of Zululand. If the hon. member had done that, he would have noticed that the role of the Government in those laws is prominent, but is merely worded differently. In this Bill we state, inter alia, that the rector is appointed by the Council with the concurrence of the Minister. In other words, the initiative, the main thrust of the action which is required, is entrusted to the Council and the concurrence of the Minister is requested, while the pattern in the other three Acts is that the Minister shall fill this post, the Minister shall approve of that, and the Minister shall do the other. We shall in the course of time, and I hope very soon, effect changes in this regard in the legislation of the three other universities. That is why we have devised the pattern as it is in this Bill. I think the hon. member will admit that since we are dealing with such a university as this one, which is in every respect dependent on the State for its finances, the State should at least have a firm say in the important matters—and finances are probably one of the most important. If the hon. member were to make a study of overseas universities—particularly on the Continent of Europe—he would discover that many universities are out and out State universities. Every professor is appointed by the Minister, every administrative head is appointed by the Minister and the Estimates are approved by the Minister. Such things do not occur in our pattern at all. In other words, this university has something in it of those elements which one finds in State universities, but it is by no means as drastic as the hon. member might wish to imply with the question he asked.

The hon. member for Edenvale also raised a few points. I have already dealt with several of them in passing. For example: I have already discussed the homelands as a whole and stated that their reaction was positive. The hon. member discussed the institution in Natal because the Chair graciously permitted him to do so. However, he did not present his figures entirely correctly. The hon. member went according to figures which had not been calculated entirely correctly. Or let me rather say that he had in fact calculated correctly but on a much lower and simpler level than he should have done. The hon. member mentioned the figure of 100 or 160, and included in that all three non-White groups. The calculation should, however, have been based on the calculation which is made for this institution, namely a second year intake of 200—all of them Bantu. The hon. member therefore approached the two sets of figures which he compared on different bases. The calculated figure which we have, was an official calculation made by the department concerned.

The hon. member asked a strange question, and he will not take it amiss of me if, to his disgrace, I have to set him straight. He asked his question with reference to an observation made by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Lydenburg, when he referred to the need to draw the staff and students of the universities from a single ethnic group, which he had quite justifiably held up as a good criterion or objective. The hon. member for Edenvale then asked what the Government would have done if Natal, for example, had wanted to appoint non-Whites to the staff of the medical faculty at Wentworth. Apparently the hon. member is not aware that three have already been appointed, and that the Government has approved of this. Three Black medical practitioners as lecturers, have already been appointed in Natal, and the Minister concerned approved of the appointments. The hon. member was probably not aware of this. We know that the hon. member for Edenvale knows a great deal, but he does not know everything.

The hon. member also referred to the question of land ownership. It is true that the Trust, although it may do so, is not supposed, as the hon. member said, to own land for perpetuity in a White area. It is not correct to say that the Trust owns land in the White area; the Trust does in fact own land in released areas. For all technical purposes released areas are no longer White areas. The hon. member must realize—and this is stated in the relevant clauses of the Bill—that the university possesses full-fledged juristic personality and that the university itself may own the land. Therefore there is nothing to prevent the Trust from transferring all the land of the university and the hospital to the university, which possesses such juristic capability at a given juncture. This is entirely possible.

The hon. member objected to the racial exclusiveness of the university. The hon. member is very race-obsessed. He was not always this way inclined. If one examines his previous writings, one will see that he was not always this way inclined. Of course, he became this way inclined since he came under the influence of the race-obsessed United Party. The United Party is very race-obsessed.

Completely wrong!

Yes, the United Party is race-obsessed. Even their policy is called a race federation. They engage in politics for all the Black people as though all of them, the seventeen to eighteen million of them, were a homogeneous group. The politics of the Government, on th other hand is not based on race, but the politics of the United Party is. Our politics is based on a national concept. That is why we distinguish between the various nations which exist. Our policy is based on anthropology. It is beyond comprehension that a former anthropologist like the hon. member for Edenvale cannot grasp this, but should refer to racial exclusiveness. I accept that it is the new atmosphere in which the hon. member finds himself which causes him to utter such statements. It is a great tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister why, since he has referred to a national a basis, the University of Stellenbosch, which was established primarily for the Afrikaans-speaking sector, also admits non-Afrikaans-speaking persons?

Is the hon. member not aware that we as Whites are, in the words of one of our poets, engaged in the very difficult process of becoming a nation? Is the hon. member unable to perceive how difficult a task it is to combine an Afrikaans and an English element together into one nation? Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member caused me to digress, but perhaps this is something which is good for him to know.

I think that I have now gone into all the important points of the Bill. I should like to thank hon. members for their support. It is perhaps very significant—and perhaps I should place my gratitude in this regard on record once again—that we heard nothing whatever from the PRP in regard to this matter. I therefore want to assume that, since they did not even participate in the Second Reading debate, they did this with a large measure of concurrence. If this is the case, then I thank them for it. But if it is not the case, I shall not be terribly disillusioned.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I do this at the request of my colleague, the Minister of Defence and Leader of the House, who, unfortunately, could not be present today, but, fortunately, will be here soon. This Bill is a non-contentious measure and is the result of representations made by judges of the Supreme Court of South Africa to the Department of Justice to the effect that they, too, be admitted to some medical aid scheme. As hon. members probably know, members of Parliament and of the provincial councils are not public servants and neither, of course, are judges. Accordingly they cannot become members of the Public Service Medical Aid Association. On investigation it became clear that Panned, the medical aid scheme for members of Parliament and members of the provincial councils, was the most suitable scheme to which judges, too, could be admitted. After the management committee of Panned had given this matter their due consideration, it was decided to recommend at the annual general meeting of Panned that judges be admitted to the scheme. The annual general meeting approved this admission. As a result, the existing Act is being amended to make membership of Panned compulsory for judges in office on a permanent basis.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House also regret that the hon. Minister of Defence and Leader of the House was unable to present this Bill to us this afternoon. We wish him a speedy recovery and hope that he will soon be back in the House to resume his duties. We on this side of the House welcome the judges into Panned. Therefore we will support this Bill. We sincerely hope that the admission of the judges will strengthen this medical aid scheme and that we will, in due course, find it possible to admit also other people who request this right should they be in line with the position of judges.

Mr. Speaker, may I associate myself with the words of the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Rosettenville in extending good wishes to the hon. the Leader of the House as a result of his unfortunate accident. I hope that he and his daughter will soon be in good health and that he will be able to resume his duties very shortly. Parmed has been a most successful scheme and provides a valuable service for members of Parliament and the provincial councils. I am sure that the reasons stated by the hon. the Minister for including judges in this scheme, are extremely valid and therefore we will support all stages of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to members on both sides of the House for their support of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

BROADCASTING BILL (Committee Stage resumed)

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, the amendment standing on my name on the Order Paper on this clause is a purely consequential amendment and in view of the fate of the amendment moved cm clause 18, this amendment falls by the wayside. I am therefore not moving it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I mentioned the question of inspectors to the hon. the Minister. I notice from the way this particular clause is worded at present, that inspectors will be authorized by the corporation in writing, to do certain things. In terms of the Radio Act they are entitled to question radio dealers and to enter upon any land. They have fairly broad powers, which are clearly set out in this particular clause. It would seem to me as if there is an omission here, as there has been in many pieces of legislation in the past, something which, on the other hand, has not been omitted from some pieces of legislation which has been passed during this session. I refer to the fact that although the inspector is authorized by the corporation in writing, it is not stipulated in this clause that the inspector shall produce his authorization to the person, organization or body which he is inspecting.

I realize that in clause 28, the offences clause, there is a particular provision which reads, “ … after an inspector has produced his written authority referred to in section 21 to such person …”, but as I read this clause, it deals merely with a situation where an offence has been committed. In clause 21, however, there appears to be no provision whatsoever for anyone who is being inspected, to question or to be enabled to establish the bona fides of the inspector by asking him to show his letter of authority. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that perhaps in the Other Place he will accept some sort of amendment which will not only regularize this position in so far as other legislation is concerned, but which will also take it a step further, to ensure that the public themselves are protected by stating also that the inspector shall be issued with a certificate which he shall present before undertaking any inspection in terms of the powers conferred on him by clause 21. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to do this. I believe that it will make for better legislation and that it will bring this legislation into line with other legislation. If the hon. the Minister wishes me to repeat the list, which is a growing list, of Acts in which this principle has been accepted, I shall willingly do so, but I think I have made my point.

Mr. Chairman, the idea is as the hon. member for Berea has just put it. A person will not allow an inspector to have access to premises if he cannot furnish the necessary evidence that he is entitled to do the work of an inspector. It is the intention of this clause that he should have that authorization and should have a document at his disposal and should produce it. Therefore, I will agree to the hon. member’s request and have inquiries made in this regard. If it should be necessary to effect an amendment to bring the posit on into line with the other Acts to which he referred, I shall do so with great pleasure in the Cther Place. I thank him for his contribution.

Mr. Chairman, may I express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for his sympathetic consideration of this point. I should like to take this a step further by asking him to see whether it is possible for this legislation to be brought into line with the present tendency, that an inspector shall produce his authority not on demand, but before he carries out any functions in terms of this Bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23:

Mr. Chairman, this clause empowers the corporation to make certain regulations. In replying to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister did not react to the remarks and submissions which were made by the hon. member for Durban Central. Unfortunately the hon. member for Durban Central is not here today, and I must apologize for his absence. The problem which the hon. member for Durban Central referred to is that although certain of the regulations which the corporation may make, namely those in terms of subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c), which relate to licences, the payment of fees and exemptions, are subject to the Minister’s approval, the actual regulation-making is to be done by the corporation. I am aware of section 17 of the Interpretation Act of 1957, which states that when the State President or a Minister is by any law authorized to make rules or regulations for any purpose in such law stated, copies of such rules and regulations shall be laid upon the Tables of both Houses of Parliament within a certain period, but that does not apply, in terms of the interpretation I have of this clause, to regulations made by the corporation, the corporation being neither in the position of the State President nor in the position of a Minister. That being so, it seems that unless this clause is amended, the corporation will be in a privileged position in relation to the position in which the State President or the Minister find themselves. It is I believe, in any event necessary to contain not only the first portion of the amendment on the Order Paper …

Order! Is the hon. member therefore only moving the first portion of the amendment?

No, Mr. Chairman. I move the amendment to clause 23 standing in the name of the hon. member for Durban Central on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (5) Any regulations made under subsection (1)(a), (b), (c) or (d) shall be laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament within 14 days after promulgation thereof if Parliament is then in ordinary session, or if Parliament is not then in ordinary session, within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session, and shall remain on the said Tables for at least 28 consecutive days, and if Parliament is prorogued before the necessary 28 days have elapsed such regulations shall again be laid on the said Tables as aforesaid within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session.
2. (6) If both Houses of Parliament by resolution passed in the same session (being a session during which such regulations have been laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament in terms of subsection (5) disapprove of any such regulations or of any provision thereof, such regulations or such provision thereof shall thereafter cease to be of force and effect to the extent to which they are so disapproved, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done in terms of such regulations or of such provision thereof up to the date upon which they so ceased to be of force and effect, or to any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred as at the said date under and by virtue of such regulations or such provision thereof.

The proposed subsection (5) regularises the position, since in terms of the Interpretation act rules and regulations should be tabled. The proposed subsection (6) affords Parliament the further right to take into review any by resolution to amend any of those regulations.

In reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister undertook to lay all his cards on the table with reference to the SABC, SATV and this House. He undertook to give us a new experience of what a Minister could do who is in charge of this corporation. He said he had no intention of shrinking away from a single question that might be put to him in regard to the activities of the corporation, and I would therefore suggest that if regulations made by the State President under the Radio Act, which remains, are subject to this form of publication, i.e. being laid upon the Table, with this enacted right of Parliament, there can be no reason whatsoever why the hon. the Minister should not accept that a similar provision should apply in the Bill before us with regard to regulations made by the corporation. I therefore hope he will accept this amendment and allow it to go on to the Statute Book.

Mr. Chairman, I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere along the line about this particular clause and this amendment. If I am correct, I hope the hon. Opposition will see my point. I stick to what I said; I shall do everything in my power to prove that I mean to put all my cards on the table in all circumstances.

I first of all want to refer the hon. member for Green Point to clause 23(4) which reads as follows—

In other words, it is very clear that no regulation can be promulgated without the permission of the Minister of National Education. That is very clear from clause 23(4).

*This is the first point which I want to put to the hon. member. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about this matter, because I think that is quite unnecessary. Furthermore, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that section 16 of the Interpretation Act (No. 33 of 1957), reads as follows—

I emphasize the word “shall” which suggests an obligation—

In other words, section 16 of the Interpretation Act imposes an obligation. It does not merely state that this “can” or “may” happen, or that it is necessary in certain cases. Regulations made under clause 23 of this legislation, shall in all cases be published in the Gazette. Now I want to quote section 17 of the Interpretation Act, which reads as follows—

The Minister of National Education is therefore obliged to publish it in the Gazette and to lay it upon the Table in Parliament. I have discussed this matter at length with the law advisers and they have informed me that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point. I have just given the reason for my being unable to do so. If there is still reason for misunderstanding in spite of this, I must point out that when the regulations are laid upon the Table in Parliament in terms of the provisions of the Bill, a member may put questions about them and the matter about which he put questions may be raised during the discussion of the Vote concerned. I hope that the hon. member understands the position. As he knows, I am not an unapproachable person and I would very much have liked to accommodate in this regard, but this is the legal position as the law advisers have put it to me and as a result I cannot see the necessity of accepting the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, with all respect towards the law advisers, I cannot agree with the argument which has just been advanced by the hon. Minister. In the first place, section 16 of the Interpretation Act relates to regulations made by an organization.

†Section 16 therefore provides merely for a notice to be published in the Government Gazette containing regulations made by some subordinate body with the approval of a Minister or Administrator. In other words, section 16 highlights the fact that where a provision exists, as is contained in clause 23, that an organization may make regulations, certain of which will be subject to the approval of a Minister, the Minister is not the originating authority for those regulations. The Minister cannot make regulations; he only has the right to veto regulations, if he so desires, which the corporation may make.

I have to approve them.

The hon. the Minister should read clause 23 which provides that the corporation makes the regulations, certain of which require the approval of the Minister. The Minister therefore cannot initiate regulations; he has no power whatsoever to go to the board of the corporation with the instruction that it introduce a regulation to provide for certain issues. That is my problem. The power to make regulations is vested in the corporation and the corporation has to publish such regulations in the Government Gazette for general information. This is the position in so far as section 16 is concerned.

Section 17 of the Interpretation Act deals with the procedure to be followed when an officer of the Government or of Parliament does something. The provisions of the section are therefore applicable to the State President or Ministers. If the State President or a Minister makes a regulation, the regulation must be laid upon the Table because it affects Parliament. It affects the functioning of Parliament through one of the arms of the law-making process which Parliament has. That is why regard must be had to section 17. If the argument of the hon. the Minister is correct, section 17 of the Interpretation Act serves no purpose at all. What is of the utmost importance is that the corporation has a monopoly and is empowered to enter into the home of anybody who possesses a receiving set. Furthermore the corporation is empowered to make certain regulations but the Bill contains no provision to empower Parliament to take cognizance of the regulations which the corporation makes. There ought to be provisions which will make it compulsory that those regulations be laid upon the Table so that the time-honoured procedure which makes it possible for both Houses of Parliament to pass a resolution rejecting a regulation or commenting thereon, can be utilized. I believe there is substance in the argument I have put forward. I appreciate that the hon. the Minister is acting on the advice of the law advisers. However, following the hon. the Minister’s own approach of playing open cards in regard to this matter, I am sure if the State President is required to do what is stated in my amendment under the Radio Act, there is absolutely no reason why the corporation should not be obliged to do the same thing under the Broadcasting Act.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to support the hon. member for Green Point. I have found that when lawyers start arguing, it takes a sea-lawyer or a layman to settle the problem. I do not want to get mixed up with legal jargon, but I can understand words. Subsection (4), to which the hon. the Minister has referred states that—

If one looks at paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1), one will find that they cover the fees payable, the conditions subject to which licences may be issued and the exemption or granting of exemption from any obligations respectively. However, none of the other matters concerned here are covered by this. Subsection (4) does not cover subsection (1)(d) concerning “the exemption or the granting of exemption to any person who, in terms of any television licence … is entitled to use a television set in a particular place …” etc., nor does it cover paragraphs (e) and (f) of subsection (1) or subsection (2) concerning the different categories of fees that may be prescribed. None of those matters require the approval of the Minister. Therefore it is not correct that the Minister must approve the regulations. In terms of the interpretation dealt with by the hon. member for Green Point, the approval of the regulations that may be made does not even require to be tabled. Only when regulations are actually made by the State President or a Minister, must they be tabled. Specifically and by design, organizations are excluded from this measure. Only in terms of section 16 is an organization required to publish certain information in the Gazette. However, organizations are specifically excluded from section 17. It is only the State President and the Minister who have to table the regulations they make. What we are aiming at is that Parliament, which is the ultimate authority, and the Minister himself should have knowledge of this; they should receive the information and, have authority if necessary, to make alterations. Unless such matters come to Parliament, the Minister has no say because he cannot interfere except in regard to the matters contained in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1). He cannot interfere with regulations made in regard to the matters stipulated in the other paragraphs. We are, in fact, trying to protect the hon. the Minister from any capricious act of the corporation. In terms of our amendment these matters would come to Parliament and be tabled so that, if something was done that could be regarded as capricious and unreasonable, Parliament could correct it and could protect the Minister against an act of his own corporation. [Interjections.] Parliament would have to have the right to approve, amend or reject. If the hon. the Minister or Parliament did not like something, it could amend it. Unless it comes to Parliament, the hon. the Minister will have no control or say at all other than in regard to the matters contained in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1). If this is as clear as daylight to a layman, should we allow ourselves to be involved in legal quibbles between the hon. the Minister’s advisers and people in the legal profession? Should not we as laymen make things clear enough for Parliament to understand what it is enacting, and for the people who will be subject to this to understand it as well? However, if legal people do not understand it, how on earth will the public understand it? Surely, we must be reasonable. If lawyers are arguing over it, the poor public will have absolutely no concept of what legislation we are passing. Let us therefore make it so clear that, as my hon. friend says, even a farmer will understand it. [Interjections.] I speak as an ex-farmer. Let us put it so clearly that everyone will be able to understand it. Let us make it clear that regulations must be tabled in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to repeat everything I have already said, but I do want to point out that it is quite unnecessary to argue about this matter in this way yet again. A senior official of the Post Office has informed me that as far as he can remember there has been no real discussion or debate since 1952—and now hon. members must remember that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point, comes from the old Radio Act, word for word—for carrying into effect what is proposed in this amendment. For the very reason that it has become apparent that this wording has become archaic over the years, the law advisers believe that it is not necessary to include it as a provision in the new legislation. As I have said at the beginning, the intention is to round off and to modernize this legislation as far as possible. According to information which I have obtained from the law advisers, it would be a retrogressive step if this amendment were to be accepted in its present form. It would mean that we would be introducing a provision from the old Radio Act directly into the new legislation.

Furthermore, I want to assure hon. members that a regulation of this nature is drawn up in close consultation with the Minister concerned and his department. I repeat that I shall not give my approval to regulations which in my opinion will not be in the interests of all. I do not want to go into details once again, but want to emphasize once again that hon. members of this House will have the opportunity to put questions in connection with regulations of this nature and also to debate them under the Vote concerned. Hon. members will not be left in the dark about a single aspect.

Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed with the attitude of the hon. the Minister. I know that he is relying on advice as to what has happened in the past. The hon. the Minister will be aware of the fact that the amendments which are effective to the Radio Act under the schedule to this Bill, transfer certain regulatory powers from the State President to the corporation. This is not a re-enactment of the existing powers of the corporation. It is an extension of the powers of the corporation. Where those powers would have been exercised by the State President under the Radio Act, the State President was bound by the provisions stated in this amendment of mine. If we are to extend the powers of the corporation, I can see no reason why the hon. the Minister should not accept the amendment which he has before him. It does no harm. What is the difference? It is a speeding up procedure whereby this hon. House can have surveillance over regulations which are brought about by the SABC.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister reminds me of the person who said that a sweater girl is somebody who pulls one’s eyes over the wool. I think somebody has been pulling the wool over the eyes of the hon. the Minister with regard to this matter. As far as this matter is concerned, there is a vast change in this Bill. There is a vast difference in the powers of regulation as they were in the original Broadcasting Act, and for those reasons I believe the hon. the Minister must accede to the request made by speakers on this side of the House and accept this amendment. There is no vast principle involved, but it does tidy up a procedure in keeping with the hon. the Minister’s own undertaking of bringing the SABC more into contact with Parliament, to enable Parliament to know what the SABC is doing. It is for that reason that this amendment has been moved.

Mr. Chairman, there is another aspect which I do not think we can just let slide like this. When the hon. the Minister stood up to answer the first time, his standpoint was that the amendment was unnecessary because in terms of the Interpretation Act in any case these regulations would have to be tabled. Am I correct? That was the Minister’s case.

Yes, in regard to (a), (b), and (c).

He did not say in regard to (a), (b) and (c). He said in regard to the regulations. His case was that in regard to the regulations they would be tabled and he quoted from sections 16 and 17. This was obviously an in accordance with the advice given to him, but when one talks about pulling the wool over people’s eyes, the Minister was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of this House, because we were told not to worry; this was not necessary. When the hon. member for Green Point and I took it further, the hon. the Minister changed his ground completely and then said it had not been used since 1952 and therefore it was antiquated. What is the truth? [Interjections.] Sir, you cannot have the argument that they are going to be tabled anyway and, when we point out that they are not, then say it is not necessary to table them. This, to my mind, is serious. It is trifling with Parliament. You tell Parliament in one breath that it does not know what it is talking about by asking for this amendment because these regulations will be tabled, and then you come back 10 minutes later and say: “No, if we table them that will re-enact antiquated provisions of the Radio Act which has not been used since 1952.” I think this is serious, that the Minister should first try to tell us that the amendment is unnecessary and then say that if he accepts the amendment he will be reintroducing something which is unnecessary. Whoever advised the hon. the Minister has put him in a very embarrassing situation. [Interjections.] Surely the Minister is embarrassed when he has to swallow his own words, when he has to swallow his own argument and say it only applies to three paragraphs and the rest he will not lay on the Table. But what are the things he does not have control over? There is excluded from this paragraph (e), which refers to regulations. I quote—

Clause 14 deals with the engagement of officers such as the corporation may deem necessary for the attainment of its objectives; to determine their duties, their salaries, their wages and allowances or other remuneration and their other conditions of service in general, and then it goes on referring to housing funds and all the rest. That is a matter over which the Minister has no say. One would have thought, and it normally is so, when finances are involved, that the Minister would be recognized. But he is specifically excluded because this is not one of the regulations made under (a), (b) and (c), and these vital matters flowing from clause 14, are excluded from ministerial scrutiny. Therefore surely it is all the more important that regulations made in regard to matters of this nature should be laid upon the Table. Otherwise there is no parliamentary control and the board can pay anybody anything it likes. It can have uneven, unfair or unreasonable salaries. It can buy houses for R¼ million, because clause 14 provides that it may establish a housing fund or in any other manner provide for the provision of housing for its officers.

Now we know what this Government does in regard to the provision of housing. We know of R¼ million mansions bought for commissioners-general, for judges and for other people, but we know of them because they are subject to the authority of Parliament. We know of the tens, the hundreds of thousands, of rand that are spent on luxury homes for a small band of selected people. Now here we are giving that authority which the Government itself abuses to a corporation over which Parliament has no control. It can put up a R½ million mansion for the director-general if it wants to, and neither Parliament nor the Minister can control it. It can even have chandeliers. Those chandeliers, Sir, could be in a private home and not only in the office buildings of the corporation. These are serious and far-reaching powers. It is essentially part of the duty of Parliament, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will now have a fresh look at this and that he will recognize that his first argument is wrong and that his second argument is invalid. I hope that he will therefore agree that this House, this Parliament, through the only means it has available, through the tabling of regulations, will obtain control over these matters which are otherwise delegated to the corporation uncontrolled and unlimited and without any reference back, not even to the Government, let alone to this House. I would ask the hon. the Minister to have another look at this and I think he will realize that the arguments we have advanced are of such importance that if the Minister does not accept them he will in fact say to South Africa and to the taxpayers of South Africa: I am abandoning parliamentary control over the right of the corporation to hire and fire, to fix salaries, to provide housing and do matters covering a wide range of important things. He will be saying to South Africa: I am giving them this power and I am abandoning it myself and I am removing it from Parliament although it has been there since the Radio Act was enacted. We say it should be carried over and that the same reporting to Parliament should apply in this case.

Both the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Green Point have now advanced several arguments here which, in my opinion, are not quite relevant to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point. The amendment of the hon. member for Green Point provides that “any regulations made under subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) …”. It therefore refers specifically to clause 23 and in clause 23(4) it is stated that a regulation made under subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) shall not be valid unless it was approved by the Minister. In other words, the substance of this particular amendment is in any event provided for in the existing subsection (4), in that the Minister must, in any event, lay any regulation, in respect of (a), (b) and (c) on the Table. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Durban is now making such a fuss about all these other matters because they are not relevant to their own amendment which has been moved here. For this reason I cannot agree with it, and I also want to put it clearly that what these gentlemen want is already contained in this clause 23(4), in terms of which the Minister must give approval and that is why this Parliament has the control desired by the hon. members. Therefore I cannot understand why the hon. members are complaining.

What about (e)?

But this has nothing to do with it because this amendment only deals with (1)(a), (b) and (c). It does not deal with (d) and (e). Where is that stated? Can the hon. member for Durban Point show it to me?

I put the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. the Minister not going to reply to our argument?

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 26:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Wynberg on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (2) The auditor may prescribe that the accounts of the corporation shall be compiled in the form prescribed by the Auditor-General as defined in the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975 (Act No. 66 of 1975).
2. (3) The auditor shall have the right to investigate whether any moneys spent have been spent in an advantageous and and efficient manner.
3. (4) The auditor shall draw the attention to—

1. (a) any grant which has been exceeded or which has been utilized for a service or purpose other than that for which it was intended;
2. (b) any utilization of money that was wasteful or inefficient or not conducive to the best interests of the corporation;
3. (c) the use or custody of any stores in a manner detrimental to the interests of the corporation; and
4. (d) any other matters in the public interest.

This amendment aims at widening and considerably expanding the scope of the audit of the SABC. I believe it is not only in the interests of the public that the audit should be so expanded, but also in the interests of the corporation itself. After all, the corporation is a large public body, owned by the public and run on public funds—to the extent of nearly R90 million according to the latest accounts. It is important that it be seen that its affairs are properly and efficiently conducted in the financial realm. For that reason I think it is advisable that the accounts and the audit of the accounts should conform to the requirements of the Auditor-General and that the auditor’s report, which in its present form is a rather prosaic and formal document, should be much more informative than it is at present. At present the auditor’s report merely certifies the existence of the securities, that all the information that is required has been obtained, that proper books of accounts has been kept and that the balance sheet and revenue and expenditure accounts are in agreement with the books of account, etc. I think it is important that the auditor should have power to do what we ask in paragraph (3) of our amendment. This is a provision of the Exchequer and Audit Act and I believe it is a very good feature of that Act. As a State corporation and as a State monopoly the SABC is not subject to the normal disciplines of competition or of the profit motive. As such, additional disciplines and safeguards are required. I believe that giving the auditor the power to investigate efficiency and waste is a most important safeguard and is one required by the public. After all, the public is interested in an efficient broadcasting corporation and in the service that it provides. The report of the SABC is informative in respect of technicalities and the service provided. It also contains other things, such as pictures members of the board, something which I do not think is so important. The report is, however, very uninformative as far as its accounts are concerned and as far as the auditor’s opinion on the running of the corporation is concerned.

It is for this reason that I move the amendments so that the auditors can have power of investigation. Furthermore, having investigated they should be obliged to include in their report the matters set out in paragraph (4) of our amendment. I believe that if the hon. the Minister were to accept these amendments, it would lead to an improvement of the accounting and audit procedures of the corporation. I hope the hon. the Minister will therefore favourably consider these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I have given the necessary consideration to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia. I would like to assure hon. members that I am just as interested as any person could possibly be in the fact that the SABC and SATV should be effective. I am also interested in all the other things the hon. member expressed about this service a moment ago. However, if one looks at the clause, one finds that the wording, almost to the word, is the exact wording as found in the principal Act and which has been in existence for ever so many years—I believe from 1936. The auditing required in terms of the Bill has definitely been effective since 1936. It has provided for the necessary information and assurances. If the hon. member should want extra information in regard to accounts, then I can arrange with the SABC that it be made available. There is no doubt about that. I have already given this assurance during the Second Reading debate on this Bill. Why it should be necessary to change the wording of an Act that has worked very well since 1936, I do not know.

It must be understood that the SABC is not part of the civil service or responsible to the Auditor-General. As far as that is concerned, the SABC and SATV fall into a different category. This must not be overlooked. This is why clause 26 has been worded as it has been worded since 1936. The auditors of the SABC are, to my mind—and I think hon. members will agree—independent professionals who certainly are very capable of determining the system and method required. These auditors belong to a professional body which adheres to agreed and accepted standards. For these reasons I cannot accept the amendment. I do not want to be difficult at all. I think I have proved beyond any doubt why I cannot accept the amendment. I will have another look at the previous clause and if arguments can be put forward why we should alter it in the Other Place, then I shall gladly do so. However, for the reasons I have advanced there is no necessity for the amendment of this clause moved by the hon. member for Constantia. I hope hon. members will understand my point of view. I will go out of my way—and I promise this once again—to assist as far as is humanly possible in seeing to it that the necessary information will be forthcoming to hon. members when they ask for it, including information in regard to the accounts.

Mr. Chairman, I do not question for one minute the fact that the hon. the Minister will make available on request further information that we on this side of the House may require with regard to the accounts of the corporation, nor do I question for one minute the professional competency of the auditors of the SABC. However, I cannot see, now that we are passing a measure that sets out how the corporation shall be run and how it shall be controlled, why that measure should not be the best measure that this House can devise. To be a better measure than is contained in the Bill I believe that it should contain this obligation upon the auditors to investigate what we as members of the public are interested in as far as the SABC is concerned, viz. that it is being run efficiently and that the moneys that it is spending are not being spent in any way wastefully. It may be said that this is not an auditor’s job and that auditors would be interfering unnecessarily if they poked their noses into such matters.

I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that in practice if auditors examine the possibility of waste, they will be extremely careful before they make a report that money is being wasted. If that report is made, it is one that could definitely be accepted and it is one that should be of great value to the hon. the Minister and to this House. We are not setting a new precedent in asking for this type of procedure. This type of procedure was included in the Exchequer and Audit Act which this House passed last year, and which permitted the Auditor-General to examine and investigate the functioning of State departments and incidentally also of statutory bodies to an even more intensive extent than is proposed in this amendment. Therefore, I would seriously ask the hon. the Minister to give this matter further consideration because I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that if he accepted this amendment it would be an improvement on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I just briefly support the hon. member for Constantia in his appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment. The hon. the Minister—and I accept his statement—said that any information which was required could be obtained by way of a question. I accept that the hon. the Minister would honour that and that we would get as he said, any information which the public were entitled to receive. What is the situation where a question is asked about wasted expenditure when the Auditor-General’s attention has not been directed towards the investigation of that particular matter? The information would not be available. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, if he looks at the proposed clause 26(5)(a), (b), (c) and (d), which relate to matters to which the auditor should draw attention, he will say that any of those is not in the public interest and that the public should not be entitled to information on matters of that nature. It is correct, as the hon. the Minister says, that this Bill is based on the 1936 Act. But that is like comparing an ox wagon with a Cadillac. After all, in 1936 we had crystals only in crystal sets, and not in chandeliers in the SABC building. There has been a great change between 1936 and the present time. The amount of expenditure, the amount of money involved, the licence fees, all justify the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Constantia. I do ask the hon. the Minister to consider and accept this amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 27:

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

I should like to refer to clause 27(1)(g) which reads as follows—

That particular paragraph, in terms of clause 27(1), should indicate that these particulars are to be printed in the annual reports of the SABC. I understand from remarks made during the Second Reading debate that this particular provision which existed in the old Act has never or not recently been put into force. As far as we are able to establish, the information required under the provisions of clause 27(1)(g) has not in fact been provided. The object of my amendment is to ensure that not only shall this apply to broadcasting, but that it shall apply to television programmes as well. It would then mean that the report would have to indicate the name of the party of which a person was the representative, the time allowed for the broadcast or the telecast of the speech and the hour at which the broadcast or the telecast took place. Obviously, when the drafters of this new legislation went through the old Acts and drafted this particular Bill, they must have in their wisdom felt that this particular subsection had merit because they included it. I think that if I refer briefly to what the hon. the Minister said during his reply to the Second Reading debate, he will see that there is merit in my amendment to include television as well. There was a lot of discussion during the Second Reading debate on the question of political parties having time to broadcast or having time on television. I shall quote briefly from Hansard, col. 4354, to show what the hon. the Minister had to say. He said—

He said that and I believe that he was sincere when he said that. However, it is quite obvious that in the past there have been broadcasts made by members of political parties and I think that they feature in almost every newscast. Surely Cabinet members are members of political parties? I believe that it is only equitable and just that this provision should not only include “broadcast”, but that it should also include “television”, and I ask the hon. the Minister to give favourable consideration to the suggestion embodied in my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to support the hon. member for Berea and I want to urge the hon. the Minister to look at this in a responsible way and with a balanced view. The hon. the Minister has adopted the attitude that there will be no party politics on television. Towards the start of this session the SATV was giving a balanced picture. It was presenting a Cabinet Minister introducing legislation and it was presenting spokesmen of other parties replying to it. Suddenly there was a complaint from the Government benches and the practice was discontinued. Now we have a provision here which requires that where members of political parties speak on the radio, it shall be reported, but television is excluded. Why should it be excluded? The other night, Mr. Chairman, 11 Cabinet Ministers appeared on television. There were 11 of them in one night. It was sickening. The hon. the Minister of National Education himself was, I must say, the star of the show. He comes over like a performer, but some of the rest of them were nauseating to watch. If we are going to be subjected to this continual parade of Ministers, then let it be reported so that the public can see the absolute abuse of television in order to put across the views of only one political party in South Africa. Let the people then read about it; let it be reported. Let me say—[Interjections.]—yes, I have been on television as well, but then the hon. member for Boksburg complained. He stood up and urged the hon. the Minister not to allow the Opposition to be shown on television. Was this because the truth hurts and because some facts were getting through to the public?

Since then the Minister has placed a ban on the Opposition appearing on television. That was the last time an Opposition member appeared live on television. Since the hon. member for Boksburg complained, not one member of the Opposition has appeared on television. What has happened, however, is that night after night and week after week we have seen nothing but this political picture gallery, one after another! After they had used nine of them once in the first newscast, they even switched four over so that new ones could be shown in the late news and, as I have said, we saw 11 of them in one night. Is this what South Africa is going to have to suffer? Is the television news going to be a parade of Madame Tussauds?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he is aware that when I objected to his appearance on television, it was not the Opposition I objected to, but him personally owing to his poor performance? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I would have been able to understand it if that hon. member had ever been used on television, because then it would have meant the end of his Government, but why, then, should he complain if I put up such a poor performance. Surely, he should have been pleased if I put up such a poor performance. However, I want to come back to my argument.

†If, Mr. Chairman, we are going to have a Madame Tussaud display night after night, then let it be put into the Bill that this will be reported, and let the report say: “On this night we had seven Ministers; on this night we had eight.” Let them not hide behind this nonsense that Ministers talk on matters of State.

It is the “Light, Light Show”!

It is a very dark show sometimes. It is quite untrue to say that these are matters of State and that they are therefore not political. When Ministers get up and defend Government actions and praise Government actions and announce Government policy, that is a political speech. When a Minister announces Government policy, that is a political decision taken by the Cabinet. It is part of the political mechanism of government and therefore it is a political decision. Mr. Chairman, we will then be able to gauge the so-called impartiality of the broadcasting and television services. Therefore the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea is essential. We do not want to test the sincerity of the Minister, because I accept that; he is a beautiful performer on TV. They used him three times one night. They used him at a bowls event, at some other sporting event, and they then showed him presenting something somewhere else. Three times in one night is not bad. We are not directing this amendment at the hon. the Minister, because I am sure he is sincere, but I am not so sure that whoever is pulling the strings is quite so sincere in presenting a balanced picture. We want South Africa to be able to know about it and therefore I ask the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if I thought for one moment that paragraph (g) of subsection (1) was going to keep even one Cabinet Minister off the screen every night, I would support it with all my heart, never mind all of them. My problem with this provision, however, is that I do not think that it is going to help us to keep anybody off the television screen. I do not think it is going to help us keep the balance in this matter, because the problem is how one is going to establish what is a political speech. The provision refers to “any political speech”, and I think the point implicit in what the hon. member for Durban Point has said is absolutely valid. One Cabinet Minister after another appears on the television screen but I do not think any of that is going to be regarded as a political speech. It will merely be said that their appearance is in the broad national interest. [Interjections.] I really think that, if we have to have this provision, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea is absolutely logical, because if you have it for radio you have to have it for television. My difficulty, however, is that I believe that it is completely impractical. I do not see how this is going to be implemented. It is a provision which existed in the old Radio Act and it has been a dead letter for all these years. How in fact are you going to decide who is a member of a political party? Will this be confined to official members of political parties? Are the host of commentators that we have on radio night after night official members of political parties? I do not know, but, heaven knows, they express a very decided party political point of view. I take it that they will not be monitored in terms of this provision. How are we in fact going to decide the name of the party of which a person was a representative? It seems to me that the whole thing is completely pointless. If we thought that this could be implemented, that it was practical and that it would help to hold the balance between the parties, we would say, “Yes, certainly”, but under the circumstances it seems to me to be a completely pointless provision. I hope the hon. the Minister will see the purposelessness of it all and will withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pity that what has just taken place was not recorded on television so that the public could see how the UP and the PRP have acted in regard to this amendment. The public would then have noticed that hon. members opposite do not know the legislation at all, because what the hon. member for Berea has suggested in his amendment is already embodied in this legislation, in that television is included as far as reporting back to this House by the SABC is concerned. I want to refer hon. members to clause 1(1)(ii), which reads as follows—

In other words, when this is read together with subsection (2) of clause 1, it includes television. [Interjections.] Sir, now the hon. member for Durban Point sees what a big fool he has made of himself.

I made my point anyway.

The other evening, when the hon. member for Durban Point appeared on television, a small boy of five years was with my party. The little chap looked at the television and then said to his father: “Gee, Dad, isn’t he enormous!” [Interjections.]

And he makes a big impression!

Then his father said to him: “Yes, that is a big United Party supporter, my son.” The little chap replied: “Oh”, as though he quite understood.

†Clause 1(2) clarifies the position even further, and I quote—

1. (a) be deemed to be a sound radio set, if it can reproduce the transmissions in the form of sounds only;
2. (b) be deemed to be a television set, if it can reproduce the transmission in the form of images or other visible signals, with or without accompanying sounds.

*I do think the hon. member’s request is a very reasonable one, but what the hon. member requests has already been embodied in the Bill and therefore hon. members will be able to obtain reports of Ministers appearing on television on various evenings. The fact that they appear so frequently, does indicate that the Ministers are very active. This is one thing the public is surely beginning to realize. Because hon. Ministers do their work well, they surely cannot but be popular with the public.

Put that hon. member on TV.

Yes, he too will appear on television.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

The hon. member may put a question shortly. I just want to discuss this matter seriously for a moment. The question hon. members touched on is, of course, an important matter. Hon. members should not, therefore, think that I do not regard it as important. However, we should learn from what has happened in other countries. We should utilise television in South Africa in such a way that it really will be to the benefit of the country. All I meant when I spoke about this matter on a previous occasion, was that other countries found that it really was not in the interests of a country to conduct party politics on television. Many countries regret ever having allowed party politics to be conducted on television. We must and will guard against that, but that certainly does not …

But surely that is what you are doing.

No, just give me a chance to make my point. This certainly does not mean that only Ministers should appear on television. It is undoubtedly essential that other members of Parliament of all parties appear on television at times. It is definitely essential, too, that the public should be properly informed on matters, and this will happen. That I said in my Second Reading speech. However, hon. members should remember that we are dealing with a new service here. Therefore, we have to make our way carefully. We should not like to make mistakes. Therefore, we would prefer to move forward somewhat slowly but surely, rather than do the opposite. I can give the assurance that we shall examine the matter carefully, because there certainly is such a thing as “over exposure” and, as we know, it can be very harmful to a person. I have asked that the senior officials of the SABC come and see me as soon as possible so that we can examine certain of these aspects thoroughly. We shall therefore discuss these matters on a suitable occasion. I therefore ask hon. members to exercise some patience as far as this matter is concerned.

In conclusion I just want to say that I am pleased for their part that the television cameras did not observe how those hon. members made fools of themselves today in connection with this clause because they did not read clause 1, which would have enabled them to realize that television was included in any case. It would certainly not have counted in hon. members’ favour if their speeches had been broadcast on television this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his lucid clarification of clause 27(1)(g) but I think one should consider its implementation in view of the fact that this is embodied in the legislation. The hon. the Minister seems to approve and support its intention.

Of course.

He has told us that he is going to place all his cards on the table as far as is humanly possible, and I take it from the way he nods his head that in future he will make every effort to see that this particular clause does become operative when the report is published each year.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply briefly to the hon. the Minister. I think he is misreading public opinion if he thinks that they want politics as such in the broader sense kept off the television screen. What they want is an intelligent discussion of politics and they want the balance evenly held. This is the real problem. I think this is one question to which the hon. the Minister has not yet replied. I do not know how, in terms of this clause, he is going to determine what a political speech is. This is the real problem.

Order! I think the hon. member is going too far.

Mr. Chairman, with the leave of the Committee I should like to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Schedule 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The South African Railways and Harbours have difficulties from time to time, on the short term, in handling the total amount of freight offered for transportation on our railway system or for handling in our harbours. Some doubt exists as to whether there is any legal authority in terms of which the Government may issue directions in respect of the creation of priorities according to which priority will be given to the handling of specific kinds of traffic in using the available railway and harbour facilities.

The State departments concerned with the matter have investigated this and have proposed that the National Supplies Procurement Act be suitably amended to enable the Government, if circumstances should require this, to institute a priority system for the various kinds of traffic that may be handled by the railway and harbour facilities available.

The Bill provides for the insertion of a section 2A into the National Supplies Procurement Act, and for certain amendments to section 18 of that Act, consequent upon the insertion of the abovementioned section. In terms of the proposed section 2A, the Minister of Economic Affairs, or any person authorized thereto by him, may, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law contained, whenever the Minister deems it necessary or expedient for the security of the Republic or in the public interest, by notice in the Gazette or by notice in writing to the person or persons concerned, regulate, control or prohibit the use by any person or any category of persons of any transport service or any other service supplied by the State, or the transport of any goods by means of any transport service supplied by the State.

†I must explain that, in accordance with existing rules of law, the Minister is required to evaluate honestly and objectively the circumstances in which he is to exercise his powers under both the existing Act and this proposed legislation. The decision to take action under any given set of circumstances would, therefore, lie solely in the discretion of the Minister.

However, whereas the connection between the security of the Republic on the one hand, and the preference granted to the transportation of any particular commodity which has no obvious strategic value on the other, could be remote, it would be open to doubt as to whether the Minister could in fact deem the granting of preference to the transportation of such a commodity to be necessary or expedient for the security of the Republic. In the circumstances, it is felt that the grounds on which the Minister may exercise his powers under the proposed legislation should not be limited only to conditions which may affect the security of the Republic. That is to say, it is now proposed that the Minister should be empowered to take action in the relevant circumstances on the gounds of the public interest as well.

*Section 18(1) of the National Supplies Procurement Act lays down at the moment that its provisions shall not detract in any way from, inter alia, the powers and activities of the Minister of Transport in terms of the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, 1957, and the Railway Board Act, 1962, nor from those of the Minister of Agriculture, the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the National Marketing Council in terms of the Marketing Act, 1968. The insertion of the proposed section 2A into the National Supplies Procurement Act will mean that section 18 of the latter Act will have to be suitably amended.

†The proposed section 18(2)(b) of the National Supplies Procurement Act will provide that the Minister of Economic Affairs shall exercise his powers under section 2A of the Act in consultation with the Minister of Transport in so far as the exercise of such powers relates to a matter entrusted under the Motor Carrier Transportation Act, 1930, to the Minister of Transport, the National Transport Commission or any local transportation board; under the Air Services Act, 1949, to the Minister of Transport or the National Transport Commission; under the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, 1957, to the Minister of Transport or the South African Railway Administration; and under the Railway Board Act, 1962, to the Minister of Transport or the Railways and Harbours Board.

*I want to emphasize that the State already performs certain activities in terms of the Acts set out in section 18(1) of the National Supplies Procurement Act. Consequently it would be illogical to introduce measures in respect of those activities in terms of the National Supplies Procurement Act. However, circumstances arise in practice which require the Government to take action when the powers in terms of certain of those Acts may be inadequate. It follows from this that when, as is provided for in the proposed amendment of the law which is before the House at the moment, the Minister of Economic Affairs exercises any powers in terms of the National Supplies Procurement Act which require him to enter into fields allocated to the Minister of Transport in terms of other laws, it is desirable that he should act in consultation with the Minister concerned.

I do not think there could be any objection to the principles of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the movement of goods round the country and in our harbours is an important aspect of our national life and the economic security of South Africa and ranks highly together with the country’s military security. The National Supplies Procurement Act of 1970 clearly gives the hon. the Minister tremendous powers over our economic welfare, and also over the procurement of necessary goods and services for the security of the country. In the Act the operative words are that the hon. the Minister should be acting in the security of the country. He has explained in his speech today that he wants to go further than that, because of the fact that at certain times bottlenecks occur, certain priorities have to be established for the movement of vital economic goods, either by our transport services or through our harbours.

The hon. the Minister, in his capacity as Minister of Economic Affairs, may have to, in a certain sense, overrule, or certainly work in collaboration with the hon. the Ministers of Transport and of Agriculture in their specific fields. We are going to support this Bill because we believe that we are living in times in which the hon. the Minister should have what we regard as exceptional powers. The hon. the Minister has made it quite clear that in common law, as in this Bill and in the existing Act, he has to act in the best interests of the country and after due consideration to the circumstances ruling at a specific time.

Therefore we believe that in giving this Bill our support, we are acting in the best interests of South Africa. At the same time we hope and we know that the hon. the Minister will himself act judiciously and with certain circumspection, because we realize that certain vital interests can be adversely affected. There may be certain trading interests who may feel aggrieved from time to time, but having regard to the serious times in which we are living, where bottlenecks do occur due to transport facilities and other requirements being inadequate at times, we believe that the State should have the right to decide priorities in the national interest.

Mr. Speaker, we therefore ask the hon. the Minister to act in good faith as he has indicated in his Second Reading speech. We have pleasure in supporting this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches are also going to support this Bill at the Second Reading. We have no problems with the phrase “for the security of the Republic”, and when the hon. the Minister should deem it necessary or expedient for that purpose. However, we must state that we have certain considerable reservations about the phrase “or in the public interest”, because we have heard from the hon. the Minister of Finance this afternoon that National Supplies Procurement Fund amounts to some R900 million. That is the value that is being covered by this particular piece of legislation. Obviously we would have thought that, by definition, that should fall under the security of the Republic. Therefore we have some difficulty—though, as I have said, we support this measure—when the hon. the Minister says “or in the public interest”. I do not believe that “the security of the Republic” is in all circumstances synonymous with “or in the public interest”. Obviously, if they were synonymous, the hon. the Minister would not have put them both into this legislation. Therefore we would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would consider qualifying the powers he is taking unto himself under this legislation, to the extent that he must come back to Parliament in the normal way, which is within 14 days if Parliament is in session, or within 14 days after it reconvenes if it is out of session. We simply want the hon. the Minister to report to Parliament because, as I have said, he is taking extremely wide powers under both these headings. Indeed, under the first heading, I would have thought that it was a matter of such importance that it should be reported to Parliament. Under the second heading I find it even more difficult to accept that the hon. the Minister will have any problem in reporting back to Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to thank hon. members for their support of this legislation. I agree with the statement by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens to the effect that this legislation makes provision for extraordinary powers for the Minister. However, I want to give the hon. House the assurance that I shall use these powers with the greatest circumspection. I shall do so in consultation with the other hon. Ministers who are involved and to whom I have referred and also, in all fairness, in co-operation with the private sector, the interests of which will also be affected by the exercise of the powers for which provision is being made in this legislation. I believe that this assurance will be sufficient. In any event, it appears at this stage that a specific system will have to be worked out in terms of which the powers in question may be exercised when necessary. It will probably be expected of me to discuss this, too, with representatives of the private sector, in the course of negotiations which take place from time to time between my department and the private sector. To the extent that I am able to do this without the security of the State being endangered, I shall do so.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the hon. member for Johannesburg North that I understand that differences of opinion may occur with regard to the concept “national or general interest.” That is why matters should rather be left to those people who have to take the decisions and who, furthermore, have to carry them out in accordance with the common law responsibility which, in law, is given to members of the Cabinet by way of discretion of this particular kind. The hon. member for Johannesburg North asked whether I would not agree, in these specific circumstances, to decisions of this nature being reported to this House within 14 days. However, I want to request the hon. member to leave the legislation as it is for the time being. The fact is that when I have to take steps under this legislation, it will be known immediately. That is why a further statement, tabling or reporting of this matter will in fact be superfluous. However, I want to suggest at this stage that the hon. House accept the legislation under discussion in its present form and that I be afforded the opportunity to negotiate with the private sector with regard to the methods, the principles and so on which will be at issue when the legislation is applied. If, therefore, I find in the course of time that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North is, in all fairness, applicable, then—I assure him now—I shall in fact consider it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, it is true, of course, that when the hon. the Minister takes action in terms of this Bill, it will be immediately known. In some respects it may even be quite widely known. Presumably, however, the details of the action and various other aspects thereof will reach the vast majority of people by hearsay. Does the hon. the Minister intend to set forth a clear confirmation or promulgate the notice in the Gazette regarding such action? Obviously, I appreciate that there are certain difficulties when one talks again about “the security of the Republic”, but when one simply talks about “in the public interest”, as opposed to the former phrase, part of our reservations will fall away, provided the hon. the Minister will undertake to set forth details of the priorities, will give reasons therefor, and will be prepared to receive representations from those who may be injuriously affected by the intended actions. However, I shall appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would confirm that we are correct in drawing this distinction between what is generally known throughout and precise details to third parties—in the public interest, and not for public security— who may suffer injury as a result of such actions.

Mr. Chairman, I have already indicated during the Second Reading debate that the connection between the security of the State on the one hand and the preference that might be granted in terms of the powers in respect of the transportation of any particular commodity, might be very remote. Therefore I cannot accept the one principle only, viz. that I can use the power only for purposes of the security of the State in the narrow sense of the word. Therefore we take it a bit further and say it must also apply to the interest of the national public. What I have said is that I would—and I trust that it would not be necessary to make use of this power—timeously discuss the implementation of the Bill before circumstances arise where I have to use it with the private sector, organized industry, organized commerce, etc., to see how this could best be implemented to achieve the object of the Bill itself without disrupting the business world in general terms. I give the hon. member the assurance that we shall try to work in the closest co-operation with the people who will be affected by the Bill, except in certain circumstances—which I do not envisage, but which might arise—where I have to do it immediately for the security of the State. The hon. member will understand that I will then not have the time for consultation. I hope that satisfies the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to get those assurances from the hon. the Minister. We can fully take the point that the public security goes much broader than the natural phrase. Our difficulty arises when one steps out of that much broader sphere and comes to what is simply described as “the public interest.” The public is served by the S.A. Railways and Harbours, various other organizations and they deal with their clients. If one takes the question of national security out, can the hon. the Minister tell us in what circumstances it can possibly be visualized that he would want to take these powers, in this restricted category of the public interest.

Mr. Chairman, this is very difficult for me because the hon. member will understand if I were to give him examples now, I would be saying in advance which circumstances were circumstances which could be anticipated. In the general interest, I should prefer not to do so at this stage. This legislation has certain connotations which, in fact, cause me to argue with my hands tied, but I am quite prepared to give the hon. member examples in private. It is difficult for me to give examples here in the House without spelling out possible contingencies which this legislation must provide for. I hope the hon. member will accept my bona fides in this particular connection.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The task of the Fuel Research Institute of South Africa is an important one, and in the present age of more expensive fuel and dwindling supplies of known fuel resources, the task of this institute becomes greater and more important almost every day. To give hon. members an indication of this I may furnish them with the figures regarding the reserves, production and exportation of South African coal in recent times. According to the report of the Petrick Commission—which was recently published—the exploitable coal reserves of the Republic amount to 25 milliard tons. The estimated maximum annual production figures are 66 million tons for 1974; 86 million tons for 1980; 179 million tons for 2000, and 70 million tons for 2070. Similarly, the value of coal exports has increased considerably and it is expected that at the present prices, the value of the exports will be R80 million in 1976 and R113 million in 1977.

The increase in the price of oil emphasized once again all over the world the importance of coal as a primary source of energy. In South Africa the sudden new interest in coal as a primary source of energy was not so dramatic because approximately 80% of the Republic’s total energy is already being provided by coal. The great demand for South Africa’s coal which has since developed abroad proves that the importance of coal as a source of energy in the place of oil has increased once again in Europe and elsewhere. Consequently it is essential for the Republic to devote more attention to the better utilization of its coal resources than merely burning them. For this reason, advanced research is essential with regard to the utilization of coal in a refined fluid form for the generation of energy and the provision of raw material for the plastics industry. This is a task which is receiving very concentrated attention, not only in South Africa, but in the rest of the world as well. Although no definite information is available, it is estimated that the USA alone has earmarked approximately R200 million a year for the purpose of reseach.

Against this background, the Government decided that certain steps should be taken with regard to the energy problem. The first was the building of the Sasol 2 project for deriving oil from coal; the second was the establishment as from 1 April 1975 of a mineral bureau to advise the Government in formulating a realistic policy which will ensure the optimum utilization of all South Africa’s mineral resources, including coal; and the third step was that the Fuel Research Institute would expand its research functions in all spheres, which will mean that an experimental plant will be constructed at an estimated ultimate cost of R1,9 million.

For the information of hon. members I may mention that the institute will undertake a project for beneficiating fine coal and coal dust. It is known that the coal industry will produce large quantities of both small coal (6 x 0,5 mm) and fine coal (– 0,5 mm) in the immediate future. In this way, for example, I may mention that only two of the coal mines involved in the contract for the exportation of low-ash coal will produce approximately 1 million tons of fine coal every year. This supply of fine coal will only be marketable if it can be beneficiated. If a low-ash export product is envisaged, it is estimated that approximately 300 000 tons could be produced every year without any additional mining of raw coal. Research has shown that South African coal cannot be purified by means of simple techniques and that relatively complex systems are required for this. Such an experimental system is presently being constructed at the institute at a cost of approximately R300 000, which is a minor expense compared to the enormous advantages this could hold.

In terms of the objectives of the Fuel Research Institute Coal Act, 1963, it is the task of the institute and its board to exercise control over the safeguarding of the supply of coal for public purposes by investigating and studying the Republic’s fuel resources, to undertake the grading of coal for export purposes, and to undertake research concerning coal-mining and the utilization of fuel and by-products of fuel.

There is a need for closer consultation between the Department of Industries and the institute, for additional funds to be obtained for research purposes and for the Government’s wishes in connection with this important matter to be stated to the Fuel Research Board on a more continuous basis. Clause 1 of the Bill proposes, therefore, that section 3(2) of the Act be amended to provide for the Secretary for Industries or his deputy to serve on the board ex officio. The initiative for this amendment came from the board of the institute and not from my department. The need was felt by the former body.

†Mr. Speaker, funds for the financing of the activities of the institute are obtained in terms of the provisions of section 7 of the Act, which inter alia empowers the State President to impose a levy on all coal sold by collieries in South Africa. Clause 2 contains three amendments, namely:

1. (1) It is proposed that instead of the State President the Minister of Economic Affairs, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, be given the authority to impose levies. The State President should not be burdened with matters of detail such as this, and while the Minister can perform this duty in accordance with the principle laid down by Parliament in more recent legislation in this regard, the proposed new procedure will save unnecessary administrative work. I think hon. members will agree with this.
2. (2) In terms of section 7(1) of the Act a levy may be imposed on all coal produced and sold in the Republic by collieries producing more than 10 000 tons per annum. The maximum amount of this levy remained static until 1973, when Parliament agreed that it may be increased to 1,1 cent per ton. In terms of this provision the actual levy imposed at present amounts to approximately 1 cent, leaving very little scope for further increases. Hon. members will agree that taken over a period of 46 years, the increases in the levy imposed were unbelievably small and having regard to the high rate of cost escalations which are being experienced of late, coupled with the growing demands on the Fuel Research Institute as far as research and the rendering of services to the South African coal industry are concerned, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the maximum of the levy that may be imposed be increased from 1,1 to 2,0 cent per ton.
3. (3) In terms of section 7(5) of the Act the Fuel Research Board is allowed to use the proceeds of the levies on coal in terms of section 7(1) for running expenses only, while section 7(5) also stipulates that any surpluses at the end of each financial year may be utilized for such purposes as the board may direct. This still leaves the board with the problem that also the reserves which are built up within reasonable limits may not be used for capital purposes. At present the latter can only be financed with moneys provided by Parliament, and as there does not seem to exist any valid justification for this limitation, it is proposed to amend the existing section 7 of the Act so as to empower the board, with the concurrence of the Ministers of Economic Affairs and of Finance, to utilize the levy funds in question for both running and capital expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, it is a commonplace these days that the survival of modem civilization depends on the maintenance of energy supplies. This has become very apparent since the oil crisis which occurred two years ago and I believe there is a growing consciousness throughout the civilized world that unless major research is done into fuel resources of all kinds, especially the fossil fuels such as coal and oil, Western civilization as we know it will, in fact, be jeopardized. During a visit to the Federal Energy Administration of America I have seen for myself the enormous amount of attention that is being devoted, and the very large amount of expert skill that is being applied, to the development of energy resources, including coal. The anxiety and the urgency of the matter go so deep and so far that even in countries like Britain, France and Germany as well as some parts of America where coal mines had been closed down because of the cheapness and availability of oil, the entire policy has been reviewed and attempts made at enormous costs throughout the Western world to reopen coal mines which had been regarded as obsolete and uneconomical. I believe that hand in hand with this effort to revitalize coal resources goes the need for finding new ways of utilizing coal. A lot of coal is not suitable for metallurgical or chemical purposes, but can, in special circumstances, be used through a process of burning in special devices to generate electricity, to produce gas and to be employed as a secondary means of providing energy in the form of heat and in other ways.

I believe that all these things need to be done in South Africa. We do have considerable reserves of coal, but not all of it is of a very high quality. Although we think we are fairly well served with fuels in general, the fact remains that our resources are not unlimited. There are many growing needs. I have very little time, but I would like to quote one such example. I would like to point out to the House—I think it is also mentioned in the Petrick report—that there is an enormous opening and rewarding possibilities for the development of gas from low grade coal in order to supply heat and light to many of our Black townships which, at the moment, as everybody knows, are enveloped in a cloud of smoke throughout the winter and a great part of the summer as well. The provision of fuel to our Black townships by means of gas instead of the highly smoke-producing coal could, in fact, make a major difference to the quality of life in our Black townships. These are the sort of things that need to be investigated.

I believe that the Bill before us is a consequence, possibly, of the report and the recommendations of the Petrick Commission itself, which recommends that the Fuel Research Institute should be given exactly these powers and the financial means to develop the kind of research which I have indicated. I believe that it is the purpose of this Bill to do precisely that. It is something which, as the hon. the Minister knows, I have pleaded for in many related respects when I have asked him to integrate the fuel policy. From this side of the House we therefore have the greatest of pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.