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

I wish to dwell briefly on the wording of the motion. What is contemplated here is something quite unique and therefore I believe the wording of the motion calls for some form of explanation. Recently it has become practice in Afrikaans to use the word “vinoteek” when speaking of a collection of wine. Unfortunately I could find no official derivation, recognition or definition of the term. I searched the French, Italian, Latin and German dictionaries for a lead, but without any success.

*“Vinoteek” is an impure compound. “Vino” is not Afrikaans. Consequently the word “vinoteek” would be meaningless. “Vintique” would also be wrong as the suffix “ique” simply indicates that the grammatical gender of the word is feminine. Under the circumstances I thought it fit not to regard it as my cultural right to create another Afrikaans word. Consequently I decided to consider the word “museum”.

†Another problem in this connection is the fact that the word “vinoteek” does not translate properly into English. I believe we should have a term which exactly describes that which we contemplate to establish. If the word “vinoteek” were allowed, the correct English translation would be the word “vintry”. “Vintry” is the old archaic English word for a wine shop or a wine vault Should we then insist on using “vinoteek” I believe the correct English equivalent would be “vintry”.

Finally, on this point allow me to read into Hansard the dictionary definition of the word “museum”. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines the word as “an institution devoted to the procurement, care and display of objects of lasting interest and value”. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica a museum is “an institution that collects, studies, exhibits and conserves objects for cultural and educational purposes”.

*The Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal—generally known as HAT—-defines a museum as “ ’n gebou waarin voorwerpe van kuns en wetenskap versamel en uitgestal word”.

†However, Mr. Speaker, because what I am going to suggest has a narrower meaning than the meaning one usually attributes to the word “museum”, I would be quite happy if we term that which I am going to describe today as a State Wine Collection—“Staatswynversameling”—or State Cellars— “Staatskelders”.

When one looks back over one’s technological shoulder into the past and into the history of the wine industry of the Cape, one looks back into almost total darkness. One looks back into almost total darkness as far as the physical characteristics of the actual product of the vine is concerned. Very recently a bottle of wine from the cellars of the Duke of Marlborough was sold at Sotheby’s in London. A bottle of Groot Constantia wine of 1835 popped up out of the blue. This bottle of wine became an object of intense interest. I can recall that the South African who bought this bottle of wine and brought it back to South Africa, took it to Stellenbosch. There it was displayed on a table with a group of people gathering around it. They discussed it, looked at it and finally opened it and tasted a very small quantity of the wine before resealing the bottle. In spite of the fact that our wine industry is over 300 years old, and therefore still quite young— South Africa is indeed one of the youngest wine producing countries in the world—it is astonishing to note that we have practically no information at all on the history of our white wine in South Africa. Certainly, physical specimens of our white wine are few and far between and hardly in existence at all. However, what is even worse, is that in recent history, even in the 1950s, when the quality of our wine improved tremendously as a result of new production methods, no specimens were kept in inalienable collections. The number of bottles of wine serving as examples of wine produced during the 1950s are few and far between. They hardly exist at all, and then in private collections where they may be consumed. These are products of an industry which is actually a great cornerstone of our culture, an industry which has had a profoundly civilizing effect, an uplifting effect, on the Cape and on South Africa, as a whole.

If we look at the enormous contribution being made to South Africa by the wine industry, we find it to be quite astounding. We only have to look at the architecture and the beautiful and orderly villages that have come into being by virtue of the wine industry and to the impact the wine industry has had on the environment in general, to realize how remarkable this industry is. Usually, when an industry is placed in a natural setting, that natural setting is reduced in value and the quality of life in that natural setting is reduced. But the wine industry came to and found itself among the valleys of the Cape and actually enhanced the already natural beauty of these valleys. That can be said of very few industries.

The economic contribution of the wine industry to our society has been enormous. I believe that we must do everything to foster, encourage and develop this industry. We must also develop the civilized use of wine in South Africa.

It is for these reasons that I have pleasure in calling upon the Government to collect a national or State collection of wines that is fully representative of all the wines, of all the vintages, of all the wine-producing regions of South Africa, and to assemble that collection at one central place, where all of these wines can be kept under the same ideal conditions so that we can study, observe and subject them to the same technical tests, including the same taste panel so that a truly comprehensive and comparative analysis can be made of the wines of South Africa.

The collections which presently exist are very small, at best regional, are often only in private hands and can therefore be broken up at any time. No central data bank for wines in South Africa exists where we can really satisfactorily monitor the wines of South Africa on a national basis in order that the national matrix of information be built up so that the progress or retrogression of the industry can be preserved, thereby enabling us to measure the progress of the industry and to provide the technical building blocks to build up this industry further in the future.

The function of this national wine museum, or State wine collection, is primarily technical although it would also make a great cultural contribution in the passage of time to the industry as a whole, because the making of wine is not only a science, but also an art. Therefore the wine industry is not only an economic activity, but also a cultural activity.

In my view the State wine collection which I contemplate, should be assembled at Nietvoorbij in Stellenbosch. The reason I say Nietvoorbij in Stellenbosch, which is the headquarters of the Oenological and Viticultural Research Institute, is that it is well placed to house such a collection, technically able to control and evaluate such a collection, and because it is a State collection, it will be malignable and permanent. It can therefore be kept for posterity.

Nietvoorbij already has a fine wine collection which can form the basis of this national or State collection which I contemplate. It also has the correct atmosphere; it finds itself amongst the valleys of Stellenbosch and has a sufficient capacity to house such a collection. That is very important, because I know that in the times in which we live the cost considerations of establishing such a collection are of major significance. At Nietvoorbij the cellars already exist where such a collection could be housed without any appreciable additional costs whatsoever.

As a point of interest and as a mark of courtesy I discussed the proposal which I am making with the hon. member for Stellenbosch, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs. He encouraged me to move this motion in the House today and for that I am very grateful to him. I also discussed the matter of Nietvoorbij with other members of the wine industry, and the consensus is that this would be the correct place to house such a collection.

I believe that such a collection should not only be created and assembled, but also established by an Act of Parliament, because that would give this collection the necessary recognition and the status. I believe that this collection should have its own budget, albeit a small budget, and that this museum be given the right to acquire up to 24 bottles of any wine produced at any winery at normal retail prices.

Just as the S.A. Library and the Library of Parliament are able, under the provisions of section 46 of the Copyright Act, to obtain a copy of all books published in South Africa, so I believe this State wine collection should have the right to acquire all types of wine that are produced. I am not suggesting that they should be enabled to obtain the wines free of charge, but they should at least have the right to acquire the wine at the normal retail prices. The fundamental strength of this collection will lie in the fact that it is completely comprehensive. I have every reason to believe the wine industry would co-operate and that they would be happy to provide the wines, but nevertheless the collection should have the right to acquire the wines which it wishes to acquire. I believe the collection should be managed by a control board or a management committee that would sit under the chairmanship of the Director of Oenological and Viticultural Research at Nietvoorby, Stellenbosch. In my view the legislation should provide that producers or manufacturers in the wine industry may be able to become “members” of this State wine collection and that in return for their membership, they would automatically provide the wines as required, i.e. up to 24 bottles of any type, as I mentioned earlier on. In return for that they would then have automatic access to the results of the tests that is to be performed on the wines on a confidential basis. This would be of enormous help to the smaller wineries who do not have the necessary technical skill. It would also help the larger wineries as it would provide additional control over the in-house tests which they themselves have to do.

At this point I want to state quite categorically that I do not believe that the information gathered through such a wine library or State wine collection should in any sense be used for advertising purposes. If it is used as such, the collection would be counterproductive. It would destroy the whole idea if such a State wine collection were to set itself up as a national umpire or referee of the wine industry. Therefore I think that its information-gathering should be confidential and that the information should be given to a member on a confidential basis, only if it concerns any of his wines.

Seen in the light of the extraordinary range of vintages, regions and production methods that exist in South Africa, and when one looks at the high image of our wines abroad, then it might be seen to be vital to protect this treasure for the succeeding generations. Can hon. members imagine what, if we had done this 100, 50 or 25 years ago, it would have meant to us now and what it would mean to new generations of farmers, cellar masters and consumers in 25, 50 or 100 years’ time? It would contain enormously important and comprehensive information.

We know that Napoleon, Marie Theresa, Jane Austen, Baudelaire, the Duke of Wellington and the Duke of Marlborough drank the wines of the Cape, but we do not precisely know what kind of wine it was. We only have a vague idea from the written records.

A collection like this would be the pride of our wine industry and would enjoy immense international prestige, which will further lift the already high image of our wine industry in foreign countries and, from the economic point of view on foreign markets. I believe that at the inception of such a State wine collection, an appeal could perhaps go out to the public so that people already owning private collections, which might range from one bottle to many hundreds, should, if they possess more than one bottle of a kind, present it to the State wine collection. They can also, if they wish to do so, present the whole collection to the State wine collection. It might be done on the death of a person who has a fine collection of wine. In my own family we had a very fine selection of port which was collected over a long period, but this was broken up on the death of the member of my family who collected it. If it is at all possible this type of collection should not be lost.

The objective of the museum should therefore be, firstly, to retain fully representative examples of South African wines for posterity. Secondly, it should study the ageing and maturation of wine over a long period and record that information. The third objective should be to utilize these wines for research purposes, such as the study of cultivars, vintages, regional differences and trends and to build up this information in a data bank in order to monitor the progress and changes in the industry over the years. Another strong reason why Nietvoorbij should house this collection, is that they already have the computer facilities available there to accommodate these requirements which I have mentioned. The fourth objective would be to establish a supporting comprehensive wine library to support the collection. I say this because there are many theses lying around gathering dust in universities, as well as objects, books and documents of interest which could well be housed in such a library.

While browsing through some old documents I came across a book entitled Viticulture in South Africa by Th. Hahn, which was published in London in 1888. He was a visitor to the Cape and spent some years here studying the wine industry. In 1888 he wrote—

I am afraid that the position has become compounded since then. He continues by saying—

I do not know, however, how seriously we can take the author, because in another chapter he writes about the Cape wine merchants, about whom he has the following to say—

For such a wine museum to function efficiently, wines would be donated by a member or could be acquired by the management committee of the national wine collection. This wine would then be marked with regard to the exact geography, the cultivar and all available information of a technical nature—such as the yield, the sugar and acid concentrations, whether there was skin contact, what the temperature of fermentation was, what the yeast strain was, whether it was matured in old casks or new casks and any other relevant information which the supplier wants to make available. As with blends, there are many cellar masters’ secrets which they would not want to disclose, but they would be able to disclose any information which is not of a confidential nature. Then the State wine collection staff could, on receipt of the wine, carry out its analysis. It could do tests for total acid content, residual sugar content, percentage alcohol content, SO content and volatile acid content. Then the wine could be given to a “taste panel” of six to ten people with good technical knowledge and judgment. They could then record their views on a taste card designed by the management committee. The results could then all be fed into a data bank.

The management committee could also evaluate well-motivated applications for making wines available for research purposes. I envisage our tasting the white wines for a period of 40 to 50 years and the red wines for a period of up to 80 years.

At any particular point in time the management committee could decide, as in the case of the Archives, that a particular test has run its course. They could consequently decide, as far as that particular cultivar is concerned, to keep a few bottles for historical purposes and destroy the remainder.

What would make this wine collection of immense interest is the fact that in all the research I have been able to carry out, and the information I have called for from the industry and have obtained in the library of Parliament and in the S.A. Library across the road, I have found no precedent for such a State wine collection in any other country. As far as I can ascertain, there is none in existence this side of the Iron Curtain. There are regional collections and there are large private collections, but there is no comprehensive national collection in the form contemplated here. I therefore think that the establishment of such a collection could become the object of great international interest As I said earlier, the interest in that collection will certainly grow year by year, taking on ever increasing dimensions from generation to generation.

Before closing, I think it would be interesting to make a further point. Imagine what it would be like for an author to try to write a book without access to a library. One can also imagine how difficult it would be for a composer to compose music without any access to written music or to an orchestra. The same applies to the wine industry. If we look back, we look back into nothing. We know of the skills of our cellar masters, but I think we can enhance those skills enormously by giving these people a very comprehensive national matrix of information from which to study and work. I think the scheme would give depth and perspective to this industry of ours.

Sometimes people tell me that I am inclined to take a very long-range view of things. I am not, however, one of those South African pessimists. I am an optimist about South Africa. I know that the history of South Africa has always been difficult. The history of South Africa is a history of struggle. So, too, the history of the wine industry is a history of struggle and difficulty. With God’s guidance, however, I think we have always been equal to the challenges of history. There is one thing I know, and that is that one cannot build a future without a past. That is true technologically and it is true culturally …

Viticulturally as well!

And I think that this museum, this State wine collection, would make a great contribution to the industry as a whole. It would illuminate the wine production methods and show the impact of new technology. It would show the impact of new methods and new cultivars in areas that are only now being opened up for the wine industry. These trends could become very interesting to the scientist, the farmer and the wine lovers in South Africa and all over the world. It could provide the backdrop or canvas on which the cellar masters of the day could work.

Finally, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for assisting me and encouraging me to move this motion today. I am very well aware of the fact that he is indeed a friend of the wine farmer in South Africa.

This year is the 300th anniversary, the tercentenary, of Stellenbosch, one of the cradles of the wine industry. I consequently think it would be wonderful if we could, on this 300th birthday, give the people of Stellenbosch, the people of the Cape and the people of South Africa that wonderful collection.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is no doubt about the fact that everyone who is well-disposed towards agriculture and viniculture in particular has listened to this motion with interest and will for the most part support it. Nor is there any doubt about the fact that such a wine museum is actually a fairly important research project, and any research in the wine industry deserves our support. In addition, this wine museum will of course be of cultural interest as well, because the public takes a great interest in the culture of wine and also realizes that it is closely connected to the history and development of the Western Cape in particular.

The hon. member also referred briefly to the cost factor. I think that we may have to give more attention to this factor at a later stage, because we cannot pretend that this enterprise would be inexpensive. I have discussed this idea with quite a number of people in the industry, at the KWV and in the private sector as well, and I have found that virtually all of them favour the idea. However, they asked who would foot the bill and how the necessary money would be obtained. I should be glad to know whether the hon. member for Maitland will perhaps have a little more to say about this aspect at a later stage.

I have a slight problem with one aspect of the motion, i.e. that the museum is to be controlled by a controlling body. Controlling bodies are no longer popular in South Africa. Perhaps that particular aspect of the motion should be reconsidered. I also believe that the staff at Nietvoorbij have the organizational ability and also the enthusiasm to control such a wine museum and to perform the necessary functions so that no controlling body need be established.

What have you got against a controlling body? What is wrong with the Maize Board?

A further point is that it has been proposed that the research information should be kept confidential or secret to a large extent. I have a problem with that As the hon. member said, it is expected that the trade as well as the public will support this museum. I simply cannot see why it will not be possible to make that information fairly readily available to the trade as well as the public. One must bear in mind that the liquor trade is intent on making a profit, and for this reason the information which will have to be made available is bound to be used by the trade in marketing their products. The public will also want to know the results of the research projects which have been undertaken, because their decision whether or not to buy a product will be based on that.

It would be impossible to discuss this subject without referring to the history of the wine industry in South Africa. It is interesting to know that the first grapes were pressed in Cape Town on 2 February 1659. There were fewer than a hundred vines in that little vineyard and the number of vines has since grown to the point where we have more than 324 million vines today. Vineyards cover approximately 112 000 ha of land today and approximately 6 000 farmers make their living from this industry. Production, too, has increased over the years from about 6 000 leaguers of wine in 1659 to more than a million leaguers of wine today. We also see that the industry pays approximately R133 million in excise duties to the State. It is interesting to note that 150 years ago, the product of the vine already represented 11% of the State’s income.

When one looks at the industry and the development of the industry, it is also interesting to see that it has had its problems. The hon. member for Maitland referred to some of them. I want to talk about the problems in connection with the cultivation of the vine. I do not want to refer to marketing problems at all, because these have been very great as well.

The first major problem experienced by the viticulturist was the effect which vine-weevils had on the young vine. In the early 18th century, the wine-growers found it very difficult to keep this weevil plague under control. In 1824, a serious plague occurred for the first time, namely anthracnose, which ravaged the Cape vineyards. The powdery mildew, or oidiun, which broke out at the Cape around 1850, was much more serious, however. This powdery mildew caused tremendous problems and the Cape winegrower really did not know how to handle the situation. A vine disease commission consisting of 16 members was immediately appointed, as it would be today. Fairly soon it was established that the application of vine sulphur was the only effective means of combating this problem in the wine industry. In spite of the fact that the farmers were told to use sulphur, they hesitated to do so. As is still the case today, the Government was somewhat unwilling to import the sulphur required for fighting the oidiun. This unwillingness on the part of the Government we find even today in certain respects and after certain events. I am sorry to say that when the problem recurred in Franschhoek two years ago, after the use of certain insecticides, the Government was again rather unwilling to act.

You are digressing very far from the subject now.

The next important plague which afflicted the Cape winegrower was round about 1880, when bacterial blight broke out. This problem destroyed almost the entire wine industry in South Africa. Many vineyards were completely destroyed. Many farmers had to change over—and fortunately they did—to the fruit industry, so that this was to a large extent the beginning of our healthy fruit industry in the Western Cape. It was only after the American root-stock had been imported that wine production prospered again.

In our own era we saw downy mildew assume serious proportions in the wine industry 10 or 12 years ago, and once again the wine industry was saved by research and quick action by the industry. We therefore see that research has been conducted continuously through the centuries to improve the quality of the vine as well as the wine.

We come now to a situation where one is standing on the threshold and one has to spell out certain priorities for the industry. The hon. member for Maitland has stated the establishment of the wine museum as one of his priorities. I think it would be appropriate to refer to some of the other priorities in the wine industry. Firstly, production costs have soared and one would hope that the Land Bank would even show itself willing to assist the wine-grower. Because of the rising production costs, old vineyards have to be removed and new vineyards planted. The cost of this is enormous. Research has to be continued into better and more effective and economical methods for combating downy mildew. Improvements and improved plant material must be made available as rapidly as possible with a view to increasing production as a means of combating rising production costs.

We support the motion moved by the hon. member for Maitland, but we do have a problem with his choice of words. Therefore I should like to move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, my reaction to the speech made by the hon. member for Wynberg is one of regret. I regret to have to say that the hon. member tried to make political capital out of a subject which you and I, Mr. Speaker, could wax lyrical about. This subject is good wine. The hon. member wanted to make political capital by voicing all kinds of criticisms to the effect that not enough research was being done with regard to vine diseases and other aspects affecting viticulture.

The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is a man who knows his wine. I therefore want to ask him to listen carefully to my little speech. Then he will develop an even greater love for this product of the vine. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Wynberg also expressed his concern about the cost involved in a wine museum, as well as its control and other related matters. I want to request the hon. member only to ensure that we agree about the principle. The organizational problems can be thrashed out on a later occasion.

Before congratulating the hon. member for Maitland on his motion, I want to be provocative and say that I am going to support this motion and that I shall do so with enthusiasm; however, I want us to see whether this splendid idea cannot be realized on the other side of the mountain, in the most beautiful valley there is, the Breë River Valley. [Interjections.] It is true. There was a time when so-called wine connoisseurs often referred rather contemptuously to the wines from the Breë River Valley. Some of them even referred to them as palmiet brew. In recent years, however, we have been winning first prizes at the Good-wood Wine Exhibition. Therefore I say that if we want to examine the idea of a wine museum, a wine museum in which research will also be done, we should consider establishing the museum on the other side of the mountain, in the Breë River Valley. [Interjections.]

There may be hon. members, as well as people outside, who will ask why we are so concerned about wine and why we are making such a fuss about a wine museum. It may be asked why the hon. member for Maitland wants to propose such a grandiose scheme. I believe that we should congratulate the hon. member. The hon. member is a city-dweller and therefore only a consumer. Still, he is a man who loves the soil and the product of the vine. For that reason I am grateful that he as a young man also supports us when we discuss the fine product of the vine in this highest Assembly in the country. There are people who will ask whether there has not been enough research into wine, the qualities of wine and the problems of wine. My answer is that this is so. It is true that a great deal of research is being done into the subject. However, wine is not just another agricultural product like a corncob or a potato or a peach. Nor is wine only the refuge of some people who want to drown their sorrows. It is not just a source of consolation or a tonic. Wine is civilization. It has many benefits. The famous physician and disciple of Hippocrates, Aspeplediades, had the following to say about wine—

His tutor, Hippocrates, said the following about wine—

Therefore wine is civilization. In this connection I want to quote someone who probably knows what he is talking about. The Secretary of the Economic and Law Commission of the International Vineyard and Viticulture Office is here discussing the countries and civilization around the Mediterranean, and what he says about that region is surely applicable, too, to the part of our country where the wine comes from and where the vineyards are found. He writes—

Those fine words can also be applied to this part of our fatherland where the vineyards are found, a civilization established and spread by the vine, and those who worked with it. In talking about this wine museum or oenothèque envisaged by the hon. member for Maitland, one may think of the fact that the wine culture has also played and is still playing its part in spreading civilized norms in South and Southern Africa. Over the centuries, our ancestors who opened up the country spread this civilization, and that they were able to do so was in part due to funds obtained in this industry.

Because wine means civilization, we despise the abuser, the exploiter, who is intent on profit only. I want to underline that this product is a noble one which must be treated with love and reverence.

What is the primary objective of such a wine museum or oenotheque? I should say, and it is spelt out by the hon. member for Maitland, that one function would be to give a full background or history of every bottle accommodated in that museum. I shall say more about that presently. Secondly, such a wine museum could promote an understanding of wine among all our population groups. Thirdly, a wine literature could be created. Fourthly, a collection could be built up, whether privately or by the State, with examples of all wines of all regions, cultivars and vintages.

Of course, there are commercial considerations as well, because we want to improve the quality of the product. There is the idea of giving the full background or history of this product in the bottle. We cannot improve the quality of wine if we do not engage in constant research, not only to combat vine diseases, but also with regard to the cellar techniques and the final destination of that product within the container in which it is matured—the bottle or the vat. Constant research cannot be conducted if that product is not constantly being tested. At such a wine museum, there can be an intensive study of all relevant factors which operated during a specific year when the farmer and his labourers worked and pressed wine on the farm. I am now referring to the relevant factors which operated during a specific year: The year when the vineyards were tended, when the wine was pressed, when the cellar-master took over the farmer’s product, when the cellar-master watched over the wine vat with loving care for nights on end, while nature was performing its mystical, almost inexplicable task of further perfecting wine. Such a product could become the personification of man’s striving for the unattainable, the perfect synthesis between the wine-maker’s art and nature. Without this, we cannot improve the quality of our wines, nor can we do so unless the public has the opportunity of testing what man has achieved with the aid of nature. The test entails the evaluation of indefinable qualities such as the delicacy, finesse, elegance, complexity and perfect balance of our wines. In this way one comes to know wine, one becomes acquainted with wine and one learns to love and appreciate it.

†Whether one is an ordinary wine lover or a connoisseur, there are certain qualities that attract one when one enjoys a glass of wine. Let me mention a few of these. There is for instance the bouquet, or nose, meaning the fragrance or the flavour of the wine. In the second place one wants to know whether it is a warm wine, not because it is hot, but because it possesses vinosity and fire—in other words, perhaps too rich in alcohol. Warm wines do not count among the best wines. In the third place one perhaps wants to know whether it is a full-bodied wine, a wine that leaves a particularly consistent taste on the tongue. In the fourth instance one wants to know whether it is a complete wine, a noble wine, displaying the most subtle and elegant qualities of a real pedigree wine.

*So wine is not just another agricultural product which can be harvested and which, like a potato or a peach, is immediately ready for the consumer. Hon. members know that apart from the farmer, his labour, science, technology and the cellar-master with all his little secrets, there is also mother nature, who, after the pressing has been completed, plays her part in the process of maturation of the wine. Here, time is important to allow certain fine qualities to develop. Research is important, especially with regard to wine which has already been bottled or which is stored in other containers, for in this way, knowledge is acquired which will be of vital importance to the future producer, cellar-master and consumer.

This wine museum will not only be a source of knowledge. The opportunity can be created—I believe the hon. member for Maitland also had this in mind—for an international wine-tasting to be held there about once every five years. The world experts can be invited to attend, so that they can test our wines and express an opinion about them and so that we may conduct further research in that way. I cannot speak on behalf of the KWV, but I believe I am right in saying that the KWV, which is the parent organization of our wine industry, and which celebrates its sixtieth birthday this year, may be interested. The KWV has already worked wonders in stabilizing the wine industry, making it prosper economically and in conducting research. I believe that this parent co-operative would like to make a contribution, as in other fields in the past, to enable this idea to get off the ground and to become a reality. I believe that the KWV will support it in principle. In fact, I want to go further and say that the KWV, which is prevented by legislation from marketing its products in this country, may perhaps be persuaded, or may even offer, to present its products to such a wine museum as part of the totality. As I see it, such a wine museum would be a place where South Africa’s wines would be tested by international experts and, if necessary, improved by research and the implementation of better methods in the field and in the cellars. Collections could be built up, as the hon. member for Maitland explained to us in such an illuminating way. Then we shall know that in a hundred years or more, posterity will be able to enjoy with gratitude what we have stored here for them, or even that, as a result of research, we shall be able to offer them wine which can be kept for a very long time.

I have already said that wine is civilization. Because wine is civilization, we should never hesitate to make this noble product of the vine an even nobler product. The greatest achievements and the greatest setbacks in the history of civilization were lived through, perhaps even caused, by individuals and nations around the Mediterranean. Therefore it can be said that viticulture played an important part in the development of the Western European culture. Often there was cause for celebration, and people returning from the battlefield certainly celebrated. Often there was cause for grieving, and then people took a glass of wine to console them in their sorrow. So whether one was rejoicing or grieving, this civilizing substance could always console one and keep one company.

Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that as Western civilization has been established at the southern tip of Africa over the past 300 years, especially by people who came from the wine-growing regions of Europe, this culture is strong enough, will remain strong enough and will be kept strong enough to carry the light of civilization deeper into Africa? I ask myself whether it is presumptious of me to say that a wine museum could make an important contribution in the long run towards performing this great task of helping us to spread further the light of civilization. The person who uses this product in a civilized way is a person of character, integrity and idealism, someone who is willing to take the initiative, to stand fast and to help others to become better people and to live a better life.

I want to conclude with the idea I began with. I am now speaking under correction and I may be saying dangerous things, but if it is so, I shall just have to accept a scolding. I am told that research about wine which is done on this side of the mountain is not of much value to people on the other side of the mountain, i.e. in the South Western districts and the Breë River Valley. If this is so—I hope that my information is wrong—then this wine museum or oenothèque should be located in the largest wine-producing area in South Africa, where the best wines are being produced at the moment, namely the Breë River Valley.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to start my speech with a small quip I read in The Natal Mercury of yesterday. It reminds me of how I feel today after having listened to the three hon. members who have just spoken. The quip was the following: A well-known MP has decided to quit politics and has applied for re-election to the human race. That is how I feel today, and the reason why I feel that way is because the three gentlemen who have just spoken know their subject intimately, in fact so intimately that they could wax lyrical. When I heard the hon. member for Worcester talking about the fragrance, the nobility, the elegance and the full-bodied qualities of wine I immediately started thinking about women. [Interjections.] I immediately thought that perhaps I could discuss that subject, but I think that if I did you would rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker.

You have a one-track mind.

I know! Who does not?

*The previous hon. speakers are all experts in their subject. However, I must honestly say that my knowledge of the wine industry is very limited and very dangerous. I would much rather discuss bananas, sugar or cattle.

What about banana wine?

However, I think I must attempt to make a constructive contribution here. I shall, therefore, confine myself to the motion and refrain from discussing all the wonderful wines, the diseases to which grapes are prone, etc., that really have nothing to do with the motion.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Maitland sincerely on this well motivated theme. I think he has put forward an excellent idea here. In truth it is a unique idea. I think he is also correct in saying that nowhere in the world has anything of this nature been established. In my opinion it would mean a lot to this country to establish this kind of thing here. The idea of a wine library is a good one. However, I do not like the word “museum”. I think the hon. member for Maitland also mentioned it To me the word “museum” is completely foreign in this context. If one thinks of a museum, one thinks of something which does not work, something with no meaning. If we speak of meat, we often speak of the Meat Board as a museum. [Interjections.] That is how we regard it, but this wine library must work. Therefore, I gladly support this idea. [Interjections.] I hope the hon. member sitting behind me is not of the opinion that the dairy industry also requires a museum.

Order! The hon. member must not allow himself to be misled by other hon. members.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Though we support this motion, we do not do so without certain reservations. I shall deal with the reasons for that later. There are, in fact, a few minor problems I wish to discuss.

The idea of a data bank and information centre is an excellent one. I also think that the hon. member for Maitland discussed it in sufficient detail. Such a wine library or “vinothèque” could keep special books on wine. It could be a centre where ideas may be exchanged. It could also house and preserve theses, statistics and other documents pertaining to the wine industry. In my opinion it could in the first instance serve as a showcase for the industry. I do not mean a marketing place, but a showcase, a place where overseas visitors may obtain all the statistics and information, for example the chemical ingredients of wines. I think it could be of great value to us in future, and the longer something such as this exists, of course, the more complete the available data will become.

Actually I should like to enlarge the scope of this idea so that the museum will benefit all dealers and wine buyers. I think that it should be possible for the trade to use it daily. If a person arrives from overseas and wants to know what South Africa has to offer, he should be able to obtain all the relevant statistics and information there. Consequently he will not have to deal with a salesman. He will be able to view a whole range of wines there and the prices and available quantities of each wine. However, he will not have to negotiate with a salesman. It ought also to be possible for him to ascertain what the local consumer patterns in respect of the various wines are. He ought, for example, to be able to ascertain what the trend is in Natal: Do the Natalians drink only cane spirits or do they drink red or white wines? We should also have information about what the Coloureds and other race groups in South Africa drink. This type of research and statistics is, in my opinion, of importance.

What about “Delmas-brew”?

That is made from maize.

Graphs ought to be drawn with regard to the production of various wines, the production in various regions and the sale of the various types of wine. Prices are also of importance. It may perhaps be asked why prices are being mentioned when we are dealing with a museum. However, I think that the museum should also serve a practical purpose. That is why it should be regarded as a “vinothèque”. Prices have everything to do with it Supply and demand are determined by price and price alone. In other words, we must have the price range of the various wines and the production capacity of regions available. The data on colour, flavour and fragrance, to which the hon. member for Maitland referred, are important but production capacity and supply and demand are as important to a person who wants to purchase wine, pack it and send it overseas. Prices are, therefore, equally important. We may, for instance, produce a fantastic wine in South Africa which is, however, so expensive that nobody can afford it. That wine will then be of no value for the future. Economic considerations do, therefore, play a role.

As already stated, we are well disposed towards the plan and support it gladly. However, there is a big “but”. I considered the matter very carefully last night. I do not want to dampen the enthusiasm of the hon. member for Maitland. On the contrary: I want to encourage it. However, I do not think that the taxpayer in South Africa should pay for this. It is not right that he should pay for this. I want to give three reasons why it should be financed with Government money. The first is the question of priorities. I think that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that there are so many matters in agriculture which deserve priority that this matter cannot be given priority. These days thousands of farmers are going bankrupt. We cannot afford to establish a wine museum while thousands of farmers are actually dying of hunger. [Interjections.]

There at Vrekver.

I withdraw those words, Mr. Speaker. I thought I might be able to get away with them. [Interjections.] Millions of rands are still required to purchase farms in the border areas. These purchases are essential and I definitely think that they ought to be accorded top priority. There are other agricultural products in respect of which a great deal of assistance is required. The hon. the Minister will probably also view it in that way.

The second reason why I think that Government money should not be spent on this, is that it will create a precedent. The producers of all products will want the same. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs will at once say: “What about the sugar farmers? They will also want a museum.” The tobacco farmers will also ask for it straight away.

They have one.

But do they have a museum?

Yes.

Was it approved by Parliament?

That is not necessary.

The hon. Minister says it is not necessary, and I agree with him. It is not necessary for this matter to be discussed in this House.

Yes, but wine is something else.

What about tobacco? If one has had years of experience with tobacco, one can also compile statistics in regard to the flavour and texture of tobacco leaves. [Interjections.] That fellow is talking … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must say “the hon. member”.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.

†We also have to look at the position of the Temperance League. The ladies of that league have a say in this matter. The hon. the Minister is going to encounter a serious problem. How is he going to convince the lady, who is a frontbencher of the Temperance League, to pay tax when she is fighting—and she may be right—something which is in her opinion an evil in this country? There are thousands of people who are in a serious condition due to alcoholism and other factors relating to drink. Under those circumstances I do not think it is fair to tax the taxpayer in order to erect this museum or monument.

*I think it would be unfair to those people. But I do not want to obstruct this idea. I do not think that this project should be regarded as a lost cause; it must stand on its own feet. The State can help in this regard. There is no doubt in my mind that Nietvoorbij is eminently suitable for this purpose. The hon. member for Worcester just wants us to drive through his tunnel to Worcester. Nietvoorbij is more favourably situated near to the universities of Cape Town and Stellenbosch.

It is even situated in the right constituency too, Helderberg.

That is correct. The State must put the ideas in order and bring people in the wine industry together to launch this project. It is a sound project. The State must serve as a catalyst but should not make any funds available for this project. The people connected with the wine industry will certainly be able to pool their resources in order to finance this project—one will simply have to apply the law of the Transvaal to them. The wine industry will undoubtedly do so, provided it entails short-term as well as long-term possibilities for them in the economic sphere. It will have to be a complex which has a data bank, and there should be no secrecy, as the hon. member for Maitland is proposing. I do not think that we should try to hide things; secrecy is unnecessary. Every wine-grower should be proud of his product. We do not want him to divulge the secret of how he blends his wine, but the statistics relating to the wine industry ought not to be kept secret. They should be open to inspection by anyone.

There ought to be a place where wholesalers can from time to time taste the wonderful wines of South Africa and they should be able to obtain figures and statistics there so that they can decide there what kinds of wine they want to purchase then and in the future. This “vinothèque” will most certainly be able to compile the market research data on sales, prices and trends in the various economic sectors.

In my opinion the word “museum” is a bad word; I think that the word “vinothèque” or even “wine institute” is better. I do not think that any State funds should be made available for it—most certainly not any secret funds. I see no reason why the State should obtain the approval of Parliament for it either; I think that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services can undertake this project at Nietvoorbij. I think that Nietvoorbij can be made available to a suitable organization on a 99 year leasehold basis. Such an organization can then develop the project further, and I am certain that the private sector will support it.

There is something else I want to tell the hon. member. If he begins to collect statistics, he must try to establish who that little demon is with the big hammer in the bottle which torments a person to such an extent the next day after one has been drinking wine. He must really get hold of that statistic. Where does that little demon come from?

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South I am not an authority in this field but, true to my former profession, I must issue the occasional word of warning.

In the first place, I want to say to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that I do not agree with him when he says that we cannot or may not use State funds for this purpose. He refers, for example, to a person who is a teetotaller, who is opposed to the use of liquor, whose money would then be used. However, many things have been done in the past that have also been supported by the State, things which are not in my interests or in the interests of other people, but which do serve a larger purpose. The motion of the hon. member for Maitland is not in the interests of the wine farmer alone, it is in the interests of trade, it is in the interests of the consumer, it is in the interests of the people who really take an interest in this industry. Moreover I believe that the proposal concerning the oenothèque will not really get off the ground if there is no Government support. On the other hand the farmers are not having quite so hard a time of it as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South sought to make us believe. I think that we need have no hesitation whatsoever in using Government money for this purpose.

I take great pleasure in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Maitland and I have various reasons for supporting it. The first is not relevant to the debate or the motion, but I do just want to say that I take great pleasure in supporting the motion because the hon. member has succeeded in making the constituency of my birth a Nationalist one. One can always give one’s support to the motion of such a good man.

I support the motion because we are dealing here with an industry which is probably the oldest and finest industry. We find it on the very first page of the Bible. We see that just after the flood, Noah was very quick to plant a few vines and later he was also quick to drink the product.

Wine farming is probably one of the finest of industries. If one keeps an eye open one will see that as soon as they have succeeded in getting a vine to bear a bunch of grapes in the Transvaal, they will use the whole programme “Uit en Tuis” on television to show it to the whole of South Africa. The northern province would also very much like to have that industry.

Are you on the warpath now?

No, I am not on the warpath. In such a debate one cannot make war; it is dangerous to do so when one is discussing wine.

A second reason for my support of the motion is that we are dealing here with an industry that is proud of its product. The wine farmer is proud of his product and is very keen to improve that product I do not believe there is a single wine farmer in this country who wants to place an inferior product on the market. That is why the hon. member for Maitland and other hon. members who have taken part in this debate have laid emphasis on the research to be carried out by such an oenotheque. I think it is very important that this be stressed, that it should not merely be a museum where wine will be stored but that the results achieved by research will be made available to everyone. In this regard I agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that the results achieved by research should also be put at the disposal of the industry and the trader. I also agree with him entirely when he states that the trade must be able to taste that wine. I think that if we are not going to permit that then it will become a dead, cold museum, of value to no one. I do not believe that the wine farmers will take an interest in anything of that kind.

In South Africa and throughout the world we have two kinds of people as far as wine is concerned. We have the wine connoisseur, and we have the wine drinker. I think there is also another group which is not a credit to the wine industry. It is that group which often says: “It does not taste so good but it makes you feel so good!” It is that group of people that all wine farmers are hostile to. I believe that when we discuss wine here this afternoon we should not do so with such an attitude.

I know that there will of course be people who will criticize us because we are discussing a motion of this nature here this afternoon. The issue here, however, is really the wine connoisseur, the man who knows his wine, who knows the difference between various wines and who wishes to expand his knowledge of wine. Last but not least, it concerns that man who is concerned about the quality of the product of the vine. That is what we should like to achieve by establishing a wine museum. We want to bring about a consistent improvement in the product entering the industry. I think we should also very much like to create a product in South Africa, a type of light wine with a low alcohol content so that we can also combat the problem of the abuse of liquor.

Then, as I have already said, we also have the wine drinker, the man who drinks wine because he enjoys it and who also knows its value. Wine is recommended in the Book by the apostle Paul for people suffering from stomach disorders. It is recommended to them as a medicine. We must therefore get away from the idea that when wine is discussed, wine is merely a way of getting people into a certain condition.

And what does Solomon say about the wine?

Solomon rightly warned about looking upon the wine when it is red. Solomon did say that. I think that that is just why we want these things, things like research in the industry, a good product in the trade, etc. We want it so that we can do away with the ugliness that sometimes attaches to wine.

However, I also support the motion of the hon. member for Maitland because the Little Karoo region, a region which I, too, represent in this House, also produces wine, in addition to its innumerable other fine products. It is true that we in the Little Karoo already have our own wine show, a show at which wine of quality is tasted and exhibited. I am reminded this afternoon of the words of Dr. Costa. He said—

Montagu is also part of the Little Karoo—

That is true. The Little Karoo region is known for its muscadel, known for its sweet wine. However, it is also known for its dry wines, wines that have been produced there recently. Consequently we should welcome such an oenotheque because further research could be carried out there and because further useful information could be provided to the farmers of the Little Karoo region to enable them to do justice to this product.

If there is anyone who disbelieves me when I quote what Dr. Costa said they would do well to make a note in their diaries that another muscadel festival is to be held in Montagu in April. Hon. members can go and taste for themselves …

Is there a queen?

No, but we can crown the hon. member for Bellville as queen. [Interjections.] Then of course there is also a route through the Little Karoo which I should also like to recommend to hon. members. It is a route which is not only of value to tourists but which could also be described as a wine route. Some of the finest wines are obtainable along that route. That is why I should like to support this motion, and I believe that at some time in the future, even if it does not happen soon, the wine museum or oenotheque will become a reality.

Mr. Speaker, after all the rich and historical records which have been recounted this afternoon, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn did well to remind the House that the history of wine dates back to the very beginning of the Old Testament. I would like to remind him what Noah said when he was on the Ark and I quote no less a historian than G. K. Chesterton—

This is a record from the Ark, and I feel it is a sentiment with which all of us who participated in this debate will readily agree. Perhaps on another occasion the motion should be stated in the words used by Noah himself.

I want to touch first of all on the question of the word “museum” and explain why it is that we suggest another word. Firstly, in common speech “museum” refers to a place where records are kept, where antiquities are kept, all of which are dead objects retained as records of the past. As I understand it, what we are proposing in the House today is not a record of dead objects. Wine is a living thing, a biologically and chemically changing thing, and because it is biologically and chemically changing, we wish to have a research unit of a particular kind. Because it is not a museum object, but a living object, we wish to have a record and a source of reference such as we propose to establish.

The hon. member for Maitland said he had some difficulty with the word “vinothèque”, difficulty in finding a record of this word in any Italian, French or German dictionary. I am not surprised that he had trouble, because he was looking for the wrong word. Etymologically one cannot bastardize Latin and Greek words. Vino comes from the Latin word vinum and tekne has a Greek origin. Therefore they don’t go together and don’t mix. They must be kept apart, like water and wine.

The Greek word obviously is oenos. The word “enologies” is used in Afrikaans and “oenological” in English because oenos and logos go together. They both derive from the Greek. If one wants to make a word to describe the kind of institute we are looking for and wish to establish, then the word “oenothèque” has to be used. The hon. the member will find that word in the French dictionary, and this is the word we propose this afternoon. The Afrikaans translation is perfectly obvious, viz. “enoteek”, because the same rules apply to the Afrikaans word formation. Oenos and tekne, can make “enoteek” just as “biblioteek” which is an accepted Afrikaans word derived from biblos and tekne. I strongly recommend this and I can guarantee that etymologically it is a very kosher word.

The Opposition’s amendment is really an endorsement of a view already expressed by the hon. member for Maitland. Our minds were running in parallel lines when we decided upon this this morning. We think this particular institute or “oenothèque”—if I may use the word—should be established at Nietvoorbij. The reasons are strong and obvious. Firstly, Nietvoorbij is well situated, well-established and has personnel who are skilled in precisely the kind of thing we want this “oenothèque” to serve. It also has space. I telephoned Nietvoorbij to find out what the position was and if any additional buildings would be required. I was told that they have vacant cellar space.

*They have underground cellar space for 5 000 dozen bottles, cellar space which is vacant at the moment. Therefore the space is available. If one bases ones estimates on storing possibly two dozen bottles of each kind of wine each year, and that there are approximately 100 kinds of wine we shall want to store—after all one does not want to store all the cheaper wines, but only some of the best—we have space at the moment to meet our requirements for a period of 25 years. This means, of course, that the establishment of such an institute can commence immediately without more money having to be spent. Therefore I believe that the arguments in support of availing ourselves of this opportunity to attain our objective, are very strong.

†There is a point that needs to be made very firmly. The scientific facilities that exist in respect of wine in the Cape are of a high quality. I believe that not only at State level, but also at private level, a great deal of work and research is being done in regard to the growing of vines and the production of wine. In my view—and I speak mainly as a discriminating consumer—enough work has not yet been done in regard to the maturing of wine. In the maturing of wine both the producer and the consumer have a great need of more knowledge. For example, one tries to build up one’s own cellar by carefully selecting wines and allowing them to mature for a number of years—be it five, 10 or 15 years. There is nobody, or very few people, who can tell the consumer exactly how long he should keep certain wines. Let us assume one buys a particular kind of cabernet, believing that it will improve over a period of ten years, and occasionally opens a bottle to see just how it is improving. It might be that the wine continues improving for ten, 12 or 15 years and, after having reached its climax, starts degenerating rapidly by losing its quality, its taste, so that by the time one opens it, it is in fact worthless and that after having been stored for 15 years. It would be most useful, both to the producer and to the consumer if, through an oenothèque of this kind we could have a record for the guidance of all people who are interested in wine, for example as to how long they should keep particular kinds of wine before they are properly matured. I believe that most wines in South Africa, particularly the red wines, are drunk far too young. Most South Africans who buy their wine in restaurants and in hotels never savour the full quality of the wine, because red wines—they represent some of our best wines—are sold and drunk at the age of only three years or four years. That is far too young for a Cabernet. I believe that if we, the restaurants and the hotels have better guidance in this respect, we and they will know that by keeping a particular kind of wine for a few more years, customers will be served with the best possible product at the best possible time. They will also avoid the danger, which I myself have experienced, of being too ambitious by keeping a wine for too long and then finding that the wine has gone off by the time it is opened. I believe that an oenothèque of this kind could in fact render a most valuable service in giving guidance as to the quality of wine, the wine habits of South Africans and the better enjoyment of wine through a better knowledge—from an authoritative source—as to how long each kind of wine should be kept to best advantage. I believe this could be of enormous advantage to the wine industry, the producer and certainly to the consumer.

In regard to the proposal to establish this oenothèque at Nietvoorbij, I believe that there is no need for great expenditure. The hon. the Minister no doubt has knowledge of the facilities which are available at Nietvoorbij, but I am sure that his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, when he hears what we have been doing in this House this afternoon, will be somewhat relieved to learn that this proposal need not incur any great expense. The only real expense which one can foresee, is that wine will have to be acquired every year. The hon. member for Maitland mentioned that approximately two dozen bottles of each type of wine should be stored. I think that is a reasonable quantity. If one is going to store say 100 types of wine, this means 200 dozen bottles, which obviously does not need a vast amount in the way of expense. In order to realize this project one of two things can happen. Firstly, either through negotiation or by legislation or regulation it can be arranged that every farmer whose wines are required for storage in this fashion should annually contribute 2 dozen bottles of each type of wine which he produces and which is required by the oenothèque. The second possibility is that Nietvoorbij buy those wines. That may of course require a small enlargement of the budget of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. However, this will not be a large sum. I believe that the value of the wines will appreciate as they grow older and I believe that the service rendered will be to the benefit of the taxpayers and the producers of the wines. So actually we are talking about a relatively small sum to provide a relatively large advantage. I do not believe that this is one of those cases where we need to go into a trauma over the taxpayers’ money, because this would be done to the great advantage of the taxpayer for a very small sum indeed.

If one wants to sell an idea or make something sound acceptable, it is very important that it should be correctly named. I believe that the name must say what it does. Therefore I strongly recommend the name “oenothèque”, an authentic expression which is acceptable to both English and Afrikaans. It is also a word which has currency in other languages. If we are going to use a word to describe this project, I recommend that it should not be the word “museum”; it should not be a bastard word, but an authentic word which has international acceptability.

I have pleasure in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Maitland.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Maitland and congratulate him on the motion he has submitted to the House, particularly since Stellenbosch is 300 years old this year. The hon. member serves on the board of Constantia, as I have already indicated. He is a friend of the wine industry and therefore his intentions in submitting his motion are only of the best. We need not discuss this motion at length because both sides of the House agree that such a need exists. Arguments have been advanced about the name. I agree with the hon. member for Constantia that the name “museum” has the connotation of something dead. Wine is a vital, energetic and fine sort of thing which does not die. Therefore one should not link it with a museum. Moreover, if it is a museum it will not fall under the Department of Agriculture but under the Department of National Education. That is not what the hon. member for Maitland has in mind. He could just as well have referred to a “State wine collection”, for the purpose for which he wants it. The Research Institute for Oenology and Viticulture has already made substantial progress along these lines under its present directive. The hon. member for Maitland has made certain proposals which certain other members have embroidered on. These proposals will be followed up by Dr. Johan Burger and Dr. Immelman and we shall also discuss it with the people concerned because we have already done work along these lines.

The hon. member for Wynberg said that such a project should not be controlled by a control body. I agree. If we place it under the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, we shall achieve our aim. Then he raised a very important aspect. He said that the industry would support us. At the moment we have already made such good progress that the present oenothèque—call it what you will—has had promises of donations of R40 000. Moreover, furniture to the value of R4 000 has been donated by the Co-operative Wine Cellars alone. Everyone in the industry, the KWV, the State wine producers and cooperative wine cellars—it does not matter who—is prepared to contribute towards this noble cause, and with the support we are getting here today I am sure that if we approach those people they will donate even more generously.

Just look at the growth in the wine industry! I associate myself with the enthusiasm expressed by the hon. members for Maitland and Wynberg because we have 110 000 ha under vines today and 6 000 farmers producing this fine cultural product. I therefore feel that it is essential that a product such as wine should be preserved in this way. As our experts have already informed me, we want to take samples from time to time for experiments which could extend over 20, 30 or 40 years, samples of perhaps 24 bottles or 36 bottles at a time, to enable us to determine the character and good characteristics of a specific liquor.

The hon. member for Worcester would like this industry to be established in the Breede River Valley. He also accused another hon. member of playing politics.

It was merely a joke.

Will hon. members believe that I encountered a man from Worcester the other day who drank cane spirits. [Interjections.] I am not saying who it was! He said: “Cane for pain!” [Interjections.] It was not the hon. member for Worcester! [Interjections.] Particularly towards the end of his speech the hon. member for Worcester sang the praises of the good properties of wine. It was one of his best speeches, and he has made good speeches in the past I wish every wine farmer would read that speech and I wish they could see in what spirit the speech was made. The hon. member said one very important thing: “The man who uses wine in a civilized fashion is a man of integrity, a man who can be a leader.” Then the hon. member for Oudtshoorn referred to his former profession. I myself, as a believer, believe that one encounters certain temptations along one’s path.

That is true!

No one can tell me I need a religion if I am not faced with temptations. The very reason I need that religion is to keep me on the straight and narrow. There are of course certain temptations in life. One man will behave wrongly if he is presented with a delicious dish of sheep’s offal. He will simply carry on eating. [Interjections.] Another man may overindulge in cigarettes. Then, too, there are those who overindulge when it comes to women—if they have the energy, of course. [Interjections.] Then too, there are those who go too far with liquor. That is why I say that the hon. member is quite right. In the past I have sat and watched with fascination—chiefly in the Boland, but also in the Transvaal now—how people consume liquor, particularly red and white wine, in such a civilized way that it is a matter for pride to see how a man can resist the temptation to misbehave. The test of a man’s faith is whether he knows where to draw the line. That is why I say that one must not condemn.

†The hon. member for Constantia referred to Noah, Genesis 9, verse 20.

He was my great great-grandfather.

Yes, he was your great great-grandfather. He wore skins, didn’t he? [Interjections.] What did Noah do? He was the first tiller of the soil and he planted a vineyard.

*He did not plant maize or wheat; he planted a vine.

He was a Bolander.

It is interesting to note that references are made to wine in 176 texts. In Genesis 49, verses 11 to 12, one reads—

His eyes shall be red with wine and his teeth white with milk.

What Bible is that?

It is my Bible.

†I must say that I agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South while I differ a bit from other hon. members. While the wine industry, including the co-operatives and the KWV, are prepared to contribute to this, I do not think that this is the right time to approach the Minister of Finance and ask for a State subsidy for this undertaking. I do not think it is the right time to pay for such an undertaking with Government money. There are technical men available who have the know-how and who take something like this in their stride with the aid of money contributed by the private sector, co-operatives, etc. It is said that Nietvoorbij is the right place for such an undertaking.

*The hon. member for Maitland will not take it amiss of me if I request that we accept that amendment, because Nietvoorbij is the right place. The foundation has already been laid and we have already made a start with this. I therefore think that it would be appropriate to carry on with the good work already done at Nietvoorbij.

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn referred to the Little Karroo as a wine-producing area. It is indeed a hard part of the world, and yet people manage there. It is true that fine grapes and many good estate wines are produced in that region. I must agree with the hon. member in that regard.

†The hon. member for Constantia said that oenothèque is the right word in this connection. We can investigate the matter. I was told that the Afrikaans word “vinoteek” is the word to use.

That is a bastardized word.

Well, what is wrong with that? Do you know, Sir, the best possible breed of cattle is obtained by crossing one breed with another and thus creating bastard cattle. [Interjections.]

*However, I shall not argue with the hon. member on that score because he is an authority in that field. We have however already accepted the word “vinoteek”. We shall take it up with the language experts. We could consider using the word “oenoteek”, although “vinoteek” sounds easier to me.

†The hon. member said there is enough space at Nietvoorbij to meet our needs for the next 25 years. I fully agree with him. That is why we want to retain Nietvoorbij, but as far as possible we shall implement the proposals of the hon. member for Maitland.

*Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude because I want to give the hon. member for Maitland an opportunity and another motion is also to be discussed here this afternoon. Reference is often made to teetotallers. I want to say that I do not take alcohol. However, I have another complaint, namely tobacco. I condemn no one. I appreciate the ideas expressed here and since you are discussing a noble product I want to say that I really find it moving to read what Solomon said. The Song of Solomon, chapter 7, verse 9 reads as follows—

That is really beautiful. If the late King Solomon with all his knowledge of women, hon. members of this House with all their knowledge of wine, and I with all my knowledge of the Bible talk about these things together, then we are on the right track. I thank the hon. member for Maitland for his fine motion.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister for the support he has given to this motion. I am sure we are taking a very big step in the right direction as far as the wine industry of South Africa is concerned.

†I should like to comment very briefly on a few of the points made by hon. members in this debate. Firstly, I want to thank the hon. member for Worcester. I think he made an important contribution. He sketched a very interesting background to the wine industry, also in his region. He is very obviously a man au fait with wine culture. His constituents are very important wine producers in South Africa and I think he represents them very well.

*He came forward with bright ideas. His idea that the wines of the KWV should also form part of this “vinoteek” are very important and very fine ideas.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said that, when he listened to the hon. member for Worcester speaking about the nobility, the velvetiness and the softness of wine, it made him think of ladies. I hope he is not like the patient who visited the psychiatrist and who, after having been shown differing objects, said that they all reminded him of sex; and when the psychiatrist asked him why that was so, he answered that everything reminded him of sex. I hope the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South does not fall into that category. I also want to thank him very much for his support of this motion. I appreciate it I think the comments he made in respect of the value of such a collection to our marketing effort abroad are important. I think he is right I think that we can certainly also utilize this collection from a marketing point of view.

However, he also said that such a museum is not a national priority. Of course, one must accept that, but I think that the sooner one starts with this kind of collection, which will be a living thing, the better. I am reminded of Louis XIV who was walking in the garden of Versailles and on seeing his gardener, the great André La Notre, instructed him to plant an elm tree on a certain spot, after which he walked on. A week later he and La Notre walked through the garden together and the king saw that no elm tree had been planted. He asked La Notre why he did not plant the tree as he had been instructed to do. La Notre replied: “But, Sire, an elm tree stands for 200 to 300 years; what is the rush?” To that Louis XIV replied: “All the more reason why you should have planted it last week.” In that sense I think that the sooner we commence with that collection, the better.

I should also like to thank the hon. member for Constantia for his very civilized contribution to this debate. He spoke in keeping with the tradition we have all come to expect from him, and I appreciate that Lexicographers are, of course, driven quite mad by the technocrats of today who invent words right, left and centre, with the result that nobody can quite keep up with them. I have suggested the terms “Staatskelder/State Cellars”, “Staatswynversameling/State Wine Collection” and so on. I think his contribution is a good one. I think his suggestion is the purest and most correct and would gain international acceptance. I shall be quite happy to go along with it. I think that the body or the persons whom the Minister will instruct to investigate this whole matter and to bring it about, should give due recognition to the word suggested by the hon. member for Constantia. Perhaps they will, however, also find alternatives that may not have occurred to the House today. I like his idea very much.

With those few words I thank all hon. members who have participated in this debate, a debate which in my opinion has been a fruitful one. I think Stellenbosch is going to get a present it will remember for several centuries.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz. That this House calls upon the Government to establish a national oenothèque at the Oenological and Viticultural Experimental Farm at Nietvoorbij, Stellenbosch.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (1) the share ownership of each major newspaper group in the Republic, including nominee shareholdings, trusts and other forms of disguised shareholdings, with a view to establishing the identity of the beneficial shareholders;
2. (2) the extent of effective control, both within a newspaper group and between newspaper groups;
3. (3) the measure of concentration of ownership and control, financial and technical, as established above, and its effect on editorial opinion, comment and the presentation of views;
4. (4) tendencies towards monopoly formation or the concentration of control in regard to—
   1. (a) the collection of news for internal and external dissemination;
   2. (b) the distribution of newspapers and periodicals; and
   3. (c) generally, the extent to which the publication and distribution of newspapers are interlinked;
5. (5) the extent to which any findings under the above headings militate against a free press and the formation of an informed public opinion on political issues; and
6. (6) any steps deemed necessary, in the interests of all South Africans, to combat factors found to militate against a free press in the Republic,

I shall not have time this afternoon to answer questions or to deal with interjections. The motion I have moved asks Parliament to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the actual share ownership of our newspapers, the seat of effective control in newspaper groups and as between groups, and the consequential effect of ownership and control concentration on editorial opinion, comment and the presentation of views. It also asks for an inquiry into monopolistic conditions in news collection, newspaper distribution and the extent to which publication and distribution are interlinked. The motivation for my request for an inquiry is my very real concern with whether we have truly free newspapers or not and, if not, what can be done to combat factors militating against a free Press in the Republic of South Africa. I want to tell the House immediately that the wording of my motion has been especially carefully chosen so as to follow fairly closely the terms of reference of the Press Commission which was appointed in 1950, reported in 1964 and which covered much of the historical background of what I wish to have investigated today.

What really must be done, is to bring things up to date, taking into account the numerous changes that have taken place in the Press world during the last 25 years, and then for the Government to take action if the present situation is found to militate against a free Press in the Republic. Furthermore, I should point out in the first instance that the terms of reference of the Press Commission itself were very closely related to the wording of a private member’s motion moved in the House in 1948 by that well-known liberal member of the United Party—Dr. Bernard Friedman—at the behest of the S.A. Society of Journalists which, at that time at any rate, was concerned at the concentration and control tendencies which were manifesting themselves in the South African Press. In the second instance, the terms of reference of the Press Commission, especially those concerning monopolistic conditions, closely follow the terminology used by the late Dr. Van Rhyn, the former editor of Die Burger in his private member’s motion in 1950.

In preparing for this motion today, I have read a great deal of the Press Commission’s reports written by Judge President Helm van Zijl, because I believe this is essential to an understanding of the present Press situation. Very luckily—because the reports are voluminous—the excellent and detailed indices to the report enable one to study almost any aspect of the Press without much difficulty or delay. In addition to overseas Press Commission reports I have read most of the books published since 1947 on the Press in South Africa, whether written by “insiders”, like Morris Broughton, or by left-wingers, like Ainslie and Potter. Today I have neither the time nor is there the need to elaborate on my belief in such a basic freedom as the freedom of speech. It is surely a sine qua non, like freedom of religion and access to impartial courts of justice, in any society which fashions itself on democratic principles. It is so obvious that it does not require repetition by me today.

The freedom of the Press, which is an extension and a manifestation of the freedom of speech, is not a licence to the Press to do as it pleases in a society. It is a freedom that is exercised by the Press on behalf of the society it serves, i.e. us, we who make up the society. If this argument is correct and it is indeed a community possession exercised on behalf of the community, then it surely follows that the Press is answerable to the community for its conduct and behaviour, just as any individual is responsible to the community for his conduct and behaviour. If, therefore, the price of freedom is everlasting vigilance, then as Pringle said a century ago—

There is no thought more dangerous than the idea that people who happen to own and run newspapers are above all criticism and should be answerable to no one but themselves.

Let us take a general look at the structure of our Press and its allied agencies and see to what extent they prima facie have the freedom we would like them to enjoy if they are to serve our society properly. “You are only as free as your newspaper” trumpeted that Press knight in shining armour, until not so long ago the hon. member for Parktown, when he was editor of The Star. So, let us have a look and see how free our newspapers actually are.

I begin with the Afrikaans Press. There are two groups, Perskor and Nasionale Pers. The Perskor group publishes the Transvaler, the Vaderland, The Citizen, Hoofstad and Oggendblad, and has a 50% stake in Rapport. The Dagbreek Trust stands at the head of the Perskor group and is a holding trust. It has 400 “B” ordinary shares in Dagbreek Trust Beperk, and 33 000 extraordinary shares which have voting control in Vaderland Beleggings.

Dagbreek Trust Beperk is a registered company and its assets are 800 000 “A” ordinary shares, or 14,5% of the shareholding in Afrikaanse Pers.

Vaderland Beleggings is a quoted company with a steady dividend record. There 7 703 448 ordinary shares in issue, which are widely held. Among the corporate investors in Vaderland Beleggings are Liberty Life, Old Mutual, U.A.L., Senbank, General Mining and Hill Samuel. Between them Vaderland Beleggings and Dagbreek Trust control Afrikaanse Pers with a 59,9% shareholding, of which Vaderland Beleggings hold some 44% and Dagbreek Trust some 14%. Afrikaanse Pers has a major investment of an 84% stake in Perskor, with Voortrekker Pers holding the remaining 16%.

Voortrekker Pers was formerly the publishing company of the Transvaler. Now it holds 16% of the shares in Perskor and is itself 100% controlled by Dagbreek Trust.

Therefore, to sum up, prima facie it seems as if the Perskor group is controlled by Dagbreek Trust and owned by Afrikaanse Pers and Vaderland Beleggings and very many other shareholders among the investing public in South Africa.

I now move on to Nasionale Pers. Here I have to say I am indebted to The Cape Times, which did a very thorough job on the 700-page Nasionale Pers register of shareholders which was made available to it by Die Burger for its inspection. I am also indebted to Die Burger itself, from which I obtained a copy of Die Statute van die Nasionale Pers. The Cape Times says of Nasionale Pers shareholdings that they are for the most part held in small parcels by 3 435 people in many walks of life and residing throughout the Republic of South Africa. Dr. Albert Hertzog holds 12 370 shares, Mr. C. L. Marais of Cape Town holds 5 500 shares and Mr. R. D. M. Parker of Constantia, 4 000.

The major corporate shareholders are Fedgroei with 64 950 shares, Homes Life with 28 140 shares and Santam Bank with 10 000 shares. The Managing Director of Nasionale Pers stated to The Cape Times that there is a strong element of, what he called, patriotic duty involved in investing in the company’s shares which offer a meagre return of some 5%. Naturally, I would agree with him. Presumably in order to prevent any individual or any institution from becoming too powerful in the Afrikaanse Pers group, no shareholder is entitled to more than 50 votes, irrespective of the number of shares he holds. Prima facie, therefore it seems that Nasionale Pers shares are widely held and that change of control is prevented by limitations on voting rights.

Is there any interlinking between Perskor and Nasionale Pers? Here I am indebted to none other than Mr. Joel Mervis who wrote in the Sunday Times last year about the appointment of a successor to the editor of Rapport, Mr. Wepener, in which Nasionale Pers and Perskor have a 50% holding each. He wrote—

If I may sum up, the picture is that of two fiercely competing newspaper groups with little love for each other, both supporting the NP in all their newspapers, except The Citizen which has only just been acquired by Perskor and still pursues a refreshingly independent line … [Interjections.] … and I sincerely hope will continue to do so in the future.

Now I move on to the English Press giants of the Saan and Argus groups. I am not once again going to disclose to this House, and interpret, all their shareholdings. This I did in speeches in this House in 1974, 1976 and 1978. Those speeches are on record for any member who would like to read them. What I am going to do, however, is refer to what their own newspapers have recently said of their own shareholdings. Where Saan is concerned, I am here again indebted to The Cape Times and its financial editor for information on Saan shareholdings. It will be remembered how The Cape Times bitterly resented being swallowed up by Saan, and this probably accounts for its scarcely veiled criticism of Saan’s disguised shareholdings at a time when The Cape Times is proclaiming, in its editorial columns, its complete abhorrence of a cover-up in other quarters. Perhaps The Cape Times is also becoming sick of double standards!

The Cape Times stated, on 6 January 1979, that Saan owns The Cape Times, the Sunday Times, the Sunday Express, the Rand Daily Mail and the Financial Mail, as well as having a controlling interest in the Eastern Province newspapers, publishers of the Eastern Province Herald and the Evening Post; a 50% stake, together with the Argus group, in the Pretoria News, a stake which I think has been increased by the Argus group, and a one-third holding in The Natal Mercury.

According to an up-dated Cape Times list of Saan shareholders in the middle of December 1978, accounting for 90% of the issued shares, 40% of Saan shares are owned by nominees on behalf of secret shareholders. Of these, the largest nominee shareholding was by the Advowson Trust with a 20,9% shareholding held in the name of Barclays Bank nominees. The major shareholder in Saan was, in fact, the Argus company with 39,23%.

The picture then is prima facie that of the 90% of Saan’s shares held, 40% are held by unknown people and 39,23% by the Argus group. Who are behind these unknown people? We now know of one group because shortly before the no-confidence debate the trustees of the Advowson Trust saw fit to make a statement of their intentions and of the reasons for the foundation of that trust. Hon. members will remember—and I have referred to this before—that the Advowson Trust was created almost overnight to prevent Mr. Louis Luyt and Sir de Villiers Graaff from buying Saan in 1975.

That is not true.

According to The Cape Times, previously unpublished information revealed an unnamed trustee of the Advowson Trust who told a Cape Times reporter that the money raised to create the Advowson Trust, which amounted to R1,6 million, had been provided by Mr. Harry Oppenheimer and the Anglo American Corporation.

It was possible, he said, but not likely, that this amount of money had since been replaced by other investors. Yet another trustee of this trust said that he personally borrowed almost the entire amount and had put it into the trust, and that he was horrified that anyone should possibly suggest that Anglo American had funded that body. The other three trustees approached by The Cape Times said they had no idea where the money came from. In other words, three trustees said they had put no money of their own into the trust, another that he had borrowed the lot, while one trustee actually said that he had put in a small amount Nevertheless The Cape Times claims accurately to have sourced R200 000 of the trust funds to two businessmen. What a cover-up by such honourable men, with such altruistic motives, as the trustees of the Advowson Trust! Incidentally, none other than the man most admired by the PFP, Donald Woods, said of the Luyt and Graaff bid for Saan: “The fate of a large group of important newspapers surely cannot be decided by secret deals excluding other interested parties.” It is strange that after the creation of the Advowson Trust, the same was not said of that Trust by Mr. Woods.

Let us move on to the Big Daddy of the Press world, i.e. the Argus group, which publishes nearly all afternoon newspapers in South Africa, one Sunday newspaper and almost all Rhodesian newspapers through the Rhodesian Printing and Publishing Company, which is a subsidiary of the Argus group. It also publishes the two major Black newspapers, the Post and the Week-end Post. At long last, after years and years of trying, Mr. Slater, the chairman of the Argus group, on 9 January of this year, a few days after The Cape Times published the list of Saan’s secret shareholders and after the chairman of the Argus group had been publicly challenged by The Citizen to publish a list of the Argus shareholders, said in a Sapa statement that there were no secret shareholdings in Argus. That statement was withdrawn a few hours after it was made to Sapa as being incorrect and Mr. Slater then issued another statement in which he stated that there were no major shareholdings in Argus which were secret He then continued to state that J.C.I. owned 17,9% in Argus. I had previously said in the House that 17,9% of Argus shares had been registered in the name of Standard Bank nominees. Mr. Slater then went on to say that 10% of Argus shares were held by the Charter Consolidated, an overseas interest. These shares are also held by a nominee company called Amosite, a fact which I previously disclosed to the House.

Then he broke new ground by saying that the largest block of Argus shares is held by the Argus Voting Trust which controls 26,8% of Argus shares through shareholdings in the Argus Pension Fund, Argus Provident Fund, CNA Investments, Rhodesian Printing and Publishing Company, Saan and the Star Seaside Fund. At long last the public was given some information by Mr. Slater. It had taken approximately five years since I first raised the matter in the House.

There has probably been a very good reason for this secrecy by the Argus Company. The Argus group was denied the right to buy Saan in 1968 by Government intervention. Since then the Argus has been engaged in a take-over of Saan by stealth, and only under the pressure in recent years has it confirmed that it now owns almost 40% of Saan. I need make no better comment on disguised shareholders in newspapers companies than that of a man known as the ombudsman of the Rand Daily Mail, James McClurg, who wrote the following on 18 January 1979—

If Press freedom is in fact primarily a citizen’s right—as seems generally to be conceded—then it is only an indirect right of the industry itself, and the public has the right to be properly informed on the issues of the day and to know who owns and controls the companies which publish their newspapers and influence their daily lives and their judgments on issues of national importance.

Together Argus and Saan, prima facie at least, own and control 90% of all English-language dailies and all the English Sunday newspapers. If ever there was a monopolistic combine then, prima facie, this is it. Worse still, no one knows who are the real beneficial shareholders in each of the two groups, i.e. Argus and Saan. If the Government was prepared to step in and stop Argus from taking over Saan in 1968, then I maintain that the Government has a clear duty to investigate this state of affairs from the point of view of an inter-group monopoly of English-language newspapers and also to discover who really own the Argus and Saan shares, and thus the whole of the English Press. Such a situation would never be tolerated in any overseas country of which I know.

What a cover-up!

Let me refer briefly to Sapa. In regard to news gathering, Sapa was created in 1938 by the owners of existing newspapers to provide the South African and Rhodesian Press with a country-wide news gathering service. It is today the only such service in the Republic. It has members; it does not have shareholders, and all major newspapers in the Republic are members of Sapa. It elects 17 directors and the SABC nominates one of the directors. According to Sapa’s constitution due regard has to be had to claims based on territorial divisions and proper representation of the language groups. The chairmanship alternates between English and Afrikaans directors. Important decisions have to be passed by a 75% majority, which in practice requires the support of both Englishand Afrikaans-language newspapers. I should therefore say that prima facie Sapa today seems to provide a truly South African news gathering service.

Let us look for a moment at the distribution channels of the English-language Press. The Argus group and Saan have combined to establish the Allied Publishing Company which distributes their newspapers. The Argus group has a majority control in the Allied Publishing Company and can thus dictate the circulation policies of its satellite, Saan. Since Argus and Saan together control 90% of the English-language newspapers, the power of the Allied Publishing Company in the distribution field should be obvious for everyone to see. Argus also owns the CNA, which is the largest distributor of periodicals in South Africa. Newspapers are sold through the CNA with an obvious advantage to those emanating from the Argus and Saan stable.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members may ask what my reasons are for asking the House to approve an inquiry. Firstly, as the Sunday Times wrote at the time of the Luyt and Graaff take-over bid for Saan—

This being so, in my opinion it is absolutely imperative that the owners and the controllers of newspapers should be both known and identified and not hidden by the anonymity of nominee companies and trusts. [Interjections.] If the hon. member will listen, I think he will hear the more interesting part of my speech in so far as it affects him and his party. [Interjections.] When all the available evidence points to the head of the Anglo American empire with its world-wide interests—and it is thus subject to world political and business pressures and objectives—having a controlling interest in Argus and thus in Saan, it makes a full disclosure of Argus and Saan shareholdings absolutely essential because the Republic’s very safety is involved in this matter. Secondly, as The Cape Times wrote in 1968 on the Argus option to buy Saan—

Today there is wide public dissatisfaction with the Argus and Saan hold on English-language newspapers. There is virtually no free English-language Press in South Africa. The Argus and Saan monopoly is a very negation of a free and independent Press. English-speaking South Africans are deprived of a choice of newspapers and uniformity of policy is imposed on them through a virtually monopolistic machine.

Dr. Friedman and the S.A. Society of Journalists as long ago as 1948 agreed that real Press freedom was hampered by a concentration of newspaper ownership in so few hands. They went on to say that the close association of the English-language Press with mining interests was detrimental to a free Press. Only an inquiry will reveal if what Dr. Friedman and the S.A. Society of Journalists feared as long ago as 1948 is true today.

I have given my reasons for asking for a Select Committee to examine the disguised shareholdings and monopolistic conditions in our Press as a whole. Now, I want to ask: Who in this House today is going to put a case for the maintenance of a system of secrecy in Press affairs? Who is going to defend Press monopolies as being only, for example, a rationalization of Press interests in the search for greater efficiency and lower costs? Will this be an assignment to be entrusted to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? I think not, because it is far too important for him! Will it be Harry Oppenheimer’s man in the House, the Angloble member for Parktown, Dr. De Beer? I think not because he sits far too close to the fire! Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that it will be The Argus' weekly legal Mr. Know-all, Mr. Bamford? I think not because his facts may be out of date like his issue of Butterworth was recently. Do you, Mr. Speaker, think it will be the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the man who used the columns of the Sunday Times to erode the stature of Sir De Villiers Graaff, his leader, and then modestly offered himself as the Leader of the United Party? I think not, though he certainly deserves recognition for the services he rendered, but those services are long past and his “account rendered” will, I am certain, never be paid!

So I think it will be Mr. Harry S, the hon. member for Yeoville, the man chosen by Saan, and the powers behind it, as the leader of the United Party’s Trojan horse, the Young Turks who smashed nation-wide opposition in the Republic. I think he will have to defend secret shareholdings and explain how a 90% monopoly of English-language newspapers constitutes a free Press in the Republic. Knowing him as I do however, and knowing how intensely he feels about exposures and cover-ups, I think it is quite possible that he will support my motion. [Interjections.] I want to warn him, however, that if he does support this motion here today, he runs the risk of his pals in the Press saying: “Et tu Harry!” He would, of course, also be accused of chickening out, just as his party will soon announce that it has chickened out of the Swellendam by-election as soon as the first canvass returns come in!

So with these few wholly malicious words, I put the motion before the House, repeating the words of Parliament’s former Press knight in shining armour, the gentleman sitting up there in the gallery watching me this afternoon: “Individuals are only as free as their newspapers.” In the light of what I have said today, I can only ask: How free are our newspapers?

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this House and the country are indebted to the hon. member for Simonstown for placing the question of Press freedom, and the nature of the control of the Press, in the forefront of political consciousness and for bringing this motion before the House this afternoon. For several years that hon. member has been a lone voice, in our public affairs, warning of the dangers inherent in the concentration of Press ownership. In moving this motion this afternoon, he has demonstrated the breadth and depth of his background knowledge, the work he has done and the balance he can bring to this particular issue. We are grateful to him for the historical background he has sketched, and we are also indebted to him for having sketched the capital and corporate structure involved in the South African Press. Mr. Speaker, this debate could quite easily turn into a Press bashing. As politicians we could launch ourselves critically at the Press and lose sight of the major issues at stake. However, from this side of the House, that is not going to happen. The fact is that we, as politicians, have a very intimate relationship with the Press. Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, when the Press Lords Rothermere and Beaverbrook had attacked him particularly viciously, responded in a political speech from a platform by saying that what “the proprietorship of those newspapers want is power, power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot down the ages”. No doubt every politician, every hon. member of this House, has at some time or another reacted in the same way to individual newspapers or the Press as a whole.

On the other hand there is probably not a member of this House who cannot in all honesty say: “Among my best friends there are also journalists.” The reason for that is that our relationship is the relationship of adversaries. On the one hand the Press needs the politician because so much of politics turns on speculation, on conjecture, on rumour. It is to the politician the journalist turns because it is not hard facts that constitute much of the interesting part of political comment and political reporting. On the other hand, the politician needs the journalist. The power of the Press is there. He needs the journalist to put across a particular message—which the journalist very frequently cannot do or will not do.

It is also a relationship of adversaries in another sense. It is so in the sense that the politician who is concerned with action, who wishes to change things, is or ought to be judged as much by his intentions as by the consequences of his intentions. However, because the politician deals with human nature which is unpredictable, intractable and which is an unknown, because he cannot with certainty say that he will be able to carry out his intentions, and that he will achieve the end result and the consequences he envisages, he tends not to speak of his intentions but rather to cover them. The Press finds this frustrating because they cannot get at what the real objectives are or what the projection of the course of action may in fact be.

That is the relationship of adversaries that exists between us. Despite the fact that we acknowledge that our relationship is indeed that of adversaries, the fact is that we recognize the importance of the Press. We recognize the importance of newspapers not simply as communicators or a very essential part of the communications process in our society, but we recognize the free Press in particular as the hallmark, as one of the characteristics, of a free society. It is pleasing to hear the hon. member for Simonstown make this point in such bold and ringing terms.

In fact, freedom of the Press is not something that is simply tolerated as was indicated by the hon. member for Simonstown. As a matter of fact, it is a necessary condition of a free society. The fundamental assumption underlying this freedom of the Press is the belief that, where one has conflicting views and opinions, in the competition between those opinions the truth will ultimately prevail. That, however, assumes that the Press is independent; it assumes that the Press is free. That is in any event the fundamental assumption, the rationale, underlying the importance of a free Press. That may not be the easiest or most comfortable course to follow, but it is certainly the safest course to follow.

Our society is a very dynamic society and the importance of the Press in this respect was stressed by Mr. Justice Corbett in a speech delivered in Cape Town some weeks ago. In his speech he focused attention on the role of the Press in informing the judiciary, the Bench, of what is happening in society. We accept that in a dynamic society like ours, which is probably one of the most dynamic societies in the world, the Press has a very important role to play in reflecting what is happening in that society. But, again, what is important is that if the Press is to fulfil that role properly it must be independent, free and honest. Despite the restrictions which there are in our society and which result from our generally embattled international situation, the fact is that the Press is free and should continue in its vigorous pursuit of what it believes to be the truth.

We have a free Press as an institution, but whether in fact our individual newspapers are independent is another matter altogether. There are two kinds of threats to the freedom of the Press and of individual newspapers. There are what one might describe as external threats. An example of this would be the actions of governments. There are certain governments in the world that do not tolerate a free Press. There is, for instance, the Soviet point of view on the freedom of the Press. There are trade unions which, as we have recently seen in Great Britain, have constituted a major threat to the freedom of British newspapers. Then there are big advertisers who, by virtue of their subsidization of newspapers through advertising, can influence editorial policy with respect to those newspapers. However, these are the external threats to newspapers and our newspapers in South Africa are, despite the restrictions which apply to them, relatively free in that regard.

Then there are also the internal threats to a newspaper. Here one needs to pause and consider the nature of Press freedom as such. The hon. member for Simonstown spoke of the community character of newspapers. Another way of describing this is to say that Press freedom is an institutional freedom, just as university freedom attaches to the university as such, to the corporation. It is not a freedom which is enjoyed by individuals. The individual journalist enjoys this freedom by virtue of his association with a newspaper, just as the individual academic enjoys his freedom because of his association with a university. In that kind of situation, however, it implies an obligation and responsibility on the part of the practitioner, whether he be a journalist or an academic, to conduct himself in a manner which does not jeopardize the freedom of his institution. There are therefore certain constraints which apply to the journalists. These have been spelt out I wish to refer just to one which was drawn up in the USA by the Society of Professional Journalists and which was adopted at a national convention on 16 November 1973. With respect to accuracy and objectivity, the following guidelines were laid down—

1. 1. Truth is our ultimate goal.
2. 2. Objectivity in reporting the news is another goal which serves as the mark of an experienced professional. It is a standard of performance towards which we strive. We honour those who achieve it.
3. 3. There is no excuse for inaccuracies or lack of thoroughness.
4. 4. Newspaper headlines should be fully warranted by the contents of the articles they accompany. Photographs and telecasts should give an accurate picture of an event and not highlight a minor incident out of context.
5. 5. Sound practice makes clear distinction between news reports and expressions of opinion.
6. 6. Partisanship in editorial comments which knowingly depart from the truth, violates the spirit of American journalism.

So one can go on stating these basic principles, which are part of a code of ethics to which journalists in the USA and elsewhere subscribe. This is so because they recognize the importance of constraints which operate within their profession. In the final analysis the main guardians of Press freedom are in fact the journalists themselves. In this respect one of the most important checks which a journalist can apply to himself, is a little bit of modesty and humility in regard to the certainty of the views he espouses.

The fact, however, is that there is another kind of threat to the freedom of the Press. It is also an internal threat. It comes from concentrated ownership or concentrated control. It is fundamentally economic. Given the cost of establishing newspapers today and the costs of breaking into established newspaper circulation, the fact is that this happens to be an extremely important threat and danger to the freedom of newspapers. It is probably more insidious and probably more dangerous than the external threat to newspapers. This is the threat to which the hon. member for Simonstown with his motion is referring. He made the point that nowhere else in the world would the situation be tolerated which exists in South Africa. Others with more experience in this field and with a great sense of civil liberties in regard to the Press have pointed to the danger of corporate control or concentrated ownership of the Press. I refer in this regard to a commission on the freedom of the Press of 1947 in the USA which reported in these terms—

They then go on to say—

One might pause here and just consider the relevance of the danger referred to in that statement to the corporate structure of the Argus and Saan groups in particular as set out by the hon. member for Simonstown. I quote further—

There one has the consequences stated very clearly of this concentration of ownership on editorial policy, the fact that it leads to squeezing out of other voices in the Press world. As a matter of fact this particular commission in dealing with contemporary problems of principle said right at the end of its report—

This is a concern in the USA; it has been a concern in the United Kingdom and it is a concern in South Africa today. The statistics which have been revealed and disclosed to this House today by the hon. member for Simonstown, the report which appeared in The Cape Times of Saturday, 6 January 1979, under the heading “Political aims in newspaper shareholding”, a report which is to the credit of that newspaper, reveal a disturbing picture, a picture of which Die Burger could quite correctly write in its editorial—

Then it goes on to refer to the extent of the shadow which this casts, that it does not simply affect The Cape Times, but that it affects all the newspapers which are owned by that particular group. As a matter of fact, the implications of this Cape Times report and the implications of the statistics mentioned by the hon. member for Simonstown are serious for journalism, because these statistics cast doubt on, first of all, the political independence of the journalists of those newspapers and hence on their objectivity. In the second place, these statistics place in doubt the ability of those journalists to serve the public interests courageously, honestly and with an independent judgment.

Thirdly, those journalists cannot play the important umpiring role which, it is accepted, newspapers should play in the conflict between political parties. Fourthly, it raises the question of the advancement—if newspapers in fact have political objectives— of young English-speaking South African journalists who do not happen to share the political assumptions and political views of the official Opposition. The final implication of this state of affairs is a serious economic one. We have here a situation which cuts right across the fundamental principle of a competitive or free-enterprise economy. For that reason, and for that reason mainly, the hon. member for Simonstown is quite correct in bringing this motion.

As a matter of fact, this situation, the concentration of ownership, which has been described to us by the hon. member for Simonstown, is not new. Morris Broughton, for many years editor of The Argus, referred to it in his outstanding book Press and Politics in South Africa. This book was published in 1960, and this is what Morris Broughton wrote. He was a man who was very proud of the newspapers for which he worked. He had this to say—

He spoke about the newspapers and their achievements—

He refers here to the success of the English-language Press—

That was at the time he was writing—

In any ordinary business concern …

I believe this is the important point that needs to be stressed in this debate—

That is the important point. These are not the normal workings of business, this growth of corporatism and of corporate control and of concentration of ownership. This is not normal business and these are not normal business activities. These are newspapers with an obligation to society, with an important role to play, not simply a communications role, but in fact a role in which they shape attitudes, opinions and expectations. And I believe, given the facts which have been presented to us, a prima facie case has been made for the Government to inquire into, not the editorial side of newspapers so much, as the economic control. And the form this inquiry should take should be left to the Government to decide.

Mr. Speaker, it is of course not surprising that the hon. member for Simonstown should receive support for this motion from the Government side, as he received in his constituency when he fought the election; but for that support he would, of course, not be gracing us with his presence here today. Therefore, I am not at all surprised at what the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said in that respect, but I am a little surprised at some of the other things which the hon. member said because it is quite remarkable that his attack upon the corporate control of newspapers did not include the corporate control of media, an aspect mentioned in the book he was quoting from. I say this because the same principles referred to in regard to one aspect of the media, viz. the newspaper, in that particular report on America he was dealing with, applied equally to broadcasting and television. We can have no greater example of the hypocrisy of the approach of both the SAP and the NP to this issue than the fact that they apply one set of standards to one aspect of the media and another set of standards when it suits them to the Press. [Interjections.] Another aspect is the whole concept of attacking corporate control. What has happened to these great champions of free enterprise, to the people who believe in the capitalist who can do what he likes and who believe in that kind of capitalist system? What has happened to them? What has happened to the hon. the Minister, who will perhaps participate in this debate, with his championship of free enterprise? What is the new approach now?

Free enterprise is only good when it suits us. It is no good, however, when it does not suit our purpose. That is the message the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens saw fit to put across. What is, in fact, interesting, about the attack the hon. member for Simonstown launched, is that it is necessary to examine the political credentials of the people who advocate this kind of inquiry. Let us deal with those political credentials, because in those political credentials the motives of the hon. member must be judged. [Interjections.]

Order!

… I am prepared to be judged on my political record. Let us, however, consider the political credentials of that hon. member. On 7 February 1979 he asked that South Africa enter upon a period of deliberate isolation; on 29 January 1979 he asked for the closing down of the United States Information Office; on 11 September of last year he asked South Africa to pull out of the United Nations; on 31 July 1978 he told us there must be no further negotiations on South West Africa.

He was right all along.

So he was right all along. That only proves the point.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Are the matters which the hon. member is dealing with relevant to this debate?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you. Now one last matter I want to deal with on this heading, and I can understand how much of a problem it must be for the hon. member to hear all this. In April, last year, he said that South Africa should approach Rhodesia with a view to joint action against Botswana if an inquest were unsatisfactory.

Those are the political credentials of a man who said, without being ashamed of it, that we shall destroy everything we built up in South Africa and turn this part of the world into the jungle that it was before the civilizing influence of our forefathers came to this land.

That is where you belong.

That was the threat of the hon. member. Those are the remarks that he made, and it is not the first time he has presented those objectives. [Interjections.]

*You speak of the scrap-heap. Yes, the scrap-heap is the SAP.

†I think it is now clear that the public should know what the SAP is all about; they should know what the hon. member for Simonstown is all about and not have to put up with this pretence, this holy objectivity, this champion of the free Press who abuses the very word “free” when it passes his lips. Let me quote him again. He is on record as having said—

Dead right.

That’s right. This hon. member has an obsession and this is due to his and his party’s association with Gary Allen and the ultra-right wing, the people who believe, in the same way as he has spoken today of the international conspiracy of Harry Oppenheimer, in the Wall Street conspiracy. He believes, together with Gary Allen, that Kissinger is a Russian spy. These are the sort of people who project this kind of nonsense to this House and to the public of South Africa. [Interjections.] The time has come that the political credentials of these right-wing mavericks were exposed so that we can know exactly where we stand in regard to this situation. [Interjections.] There is no question that this is part of the same ultra-right wing philosophy which seeks to destroy any institution that stands in the way of this kind of right-wing nonsense as projected by these people. What does the hon. member really mean by the word “free”? He loves a free Press while that free Press agrees with him, lauds him, and when The Citizen says he is a marvellous fellow, it is a marvellous newspaper. However, the test of a free Press is that one must be prepared to take criticism and that one must be prepared to accept the situation that the Press is not always on your side. One must also accept the situation that freedom is also the right to criticize, even though one does not like that criticism. We have all had to suffer from it in one way or another …

That applies only to your side of the House. [Interjections.]

It is marvellous to see how the whole mass of hon. members on the other side come to the hon. member’s rescue. They need it, without any doubt. The hon. member for Von Brandis—like me—an ex-United Party member is interjecting and the hon. Minister of Community Development was interjecting earlier on saying: “What a cover-up!” The hon. the Minister forgets what he said when he sat on this side of the House in 1950 in regard to the then endeavours of a member, Mr. Serfontein, to introduce a motion on similar lines. The hon. the Minister should read that speech, because Mr. Serfontein then gave reasons which are today as valid as they were then. He said that when one deals with criticism of the Press, one should remember that it is the wrongful act that causes harm to South Africa, and he proceeded to give a long list of such actions by the NP. It is not so much the reporting of those actions which does harm to South Africa. It is the perpetration of those actions, and I gladly acknowledge and pay tribute to the hon. the Minister of Community Development for that profound argument on this issue. That is what this is all about.

What is a free Press worth to South Africa? I believe it is one of our major assets. It is used abroad by the Government and by the Opposition alike to demonstrate that freedom and democracy are not dead in South Africa. A comparison of the Press in South Africa with the Press in some other country which attack and criticize us, shows this country in a most favourable light. In this regard I can mention no greater protagonist of this point of view than the former Department of Information and its successor. As an example I want to read the following from the Year Book—

Then follows a very interesting piece which appeared in the 1976 edition of the Year Book, but which had been deleted from the 1978 edition. It reads—

This piece is now being left out for some reason best known to the people concerned. What does real freedom of the Press mean? It means to have the right to express opinions, the right to espouse causes and it also means that the Press can be a watchdog against corruption, oppression and against abuse of power. The Press can in fact protect the under-privileged, give a platform to minority opinion and fight for justice. I have never pretended that the Press in South Africa is perfect. It is run by human beings with all the attributes and faults of ordinary human beings.

Who are they?

Who are they? Everybody knows who the directors of the companies are, who the editors are and who the journalists are. This pretence of not knowing who these people are is utter nonsense. The Press makes mistakes; it sometimes abuses its rights; its actions can hurt people and causes. Editors are no supermen but they are a breed of people who by training and tradition display courage and honesty of purpose. Journalists are brought up in beliefs which are founded in the history of fighting for the right to publish and to be the first with the news. The Press, warts and all, is vital to South Africa. It is vital, so that people may know of the events shaping their destinies. It is vital to the public for sound opinion forming. It is vital that the voice of dissent from conformity may be heard when it is necessary. There are forces in South Africa that strive for conformity in thinking, in the blind following of causes, and only when it is too late will folly be found to have existed. The Press must be vigilant; it must be prepared to swim against the stream when circumstances require it to do so, and continually to hear the word “free” being paid lip service to, like the hon. member for Simonstown, who opposes everything that is meaningful in the term “free” in so far as the Press is concerned, is nauseating in the extreme. “Free” also means that the Press can publish something which some people do not like. It means also publishing the unpopular, and in this respect South Africa has a history of which we can all be proud. The Government, in its year book, proudly refers to the birth in 1824 of the free Press. It proudly mentions the names of Greig, Pringle and Fairbairn, who challenged the authority of the State in the form of Lord Charles Somerset. In this matter we have a history in South Africa. The constitution of the Orange Free State Republic laid down that freedom of the Press was guaranteed provided the law was not contravened, and the liberty of the Press is vital…

Don’t read so fast which editor wrote that for you?

I can at least read, which is more than the hon. member for Von Brandis can do. [Interjections.]

What is the real motive behind this motion? The real motive is that the Press has just had one of its greatest successes—in fact, a success in world terms—in the field of investigative journalism. One must ask whether the Information scandal would ever have been fully exposed had it not been for the investigative activities of the Press. A newspaper secretly conceived in sin with taxpayers’ money, to espouse a party political cause, was exposed for what it was. We had a take-over bid for Saan—ostensibly a business venture—with all the fanfare and effort by a self-made man seemingly trying to rescue the fair Press maiden from the clutches of the robber barons with progressive thought. What was happening in reality, and what has now become public, was that by stealth and deception the taxpayer was having his money used to serve a party political purpose. What is the reaction to this? We do not find a sense of relief coming from the Government benches that the evils were exposed, or congratulations to the Press for the part it has played, but a counter-attack during which we in file Opposition are being maligned.

That is rubbish!

We have once again seen the diversionary tactics against the English-language Press. We have had allegations of monopoly, bias, falsehood and harm to South Africa. But we see these attacks for what they are: reactions of anger at having been exposed. They are designed to divert public attention, and that is all that is required.

Tell us about the shareholders.

The question arises as to what is actually sought by this proposed inquiry? The hon. member for Simonstown listed the shareholdings at great length. If one were to total the actual figures given publicly—not as the hon. member claims by him, but given publicly, over a period of time, by the people concerned—one would see that Saan has given the shareholdings of 84,95% of the people who own its shares, and this is a public company whose shares are listed on the Stock Éxchange. The Argus group, however, has given more than 75% of its shareholdings, and if one were to total up the hon. member’s figures, one would see that that is what they are.

So what does the hon. member actually want? What does he want disclosed? What does he want to know that he does not already know? Does he want the newspapers to do a political striptease? What does he really want? If I understand him correctly, he already believes he knows what he wants to find out, i.e. that the villian of the piece is Harry Oppenheimer who controls the entire English Press and is a part of a big international combine, with the result that South Africa is being prejudiced! That is what he says is taking place! If that is so, if he believes that and if he says he has the proof, why does he want an inquiry? [Interjections.] Let us assume that we have the inquiry. Let us assume that we find out that Mr. Oppenheimer owns 100% of the shares of Saan. What are we then actually going to do?

Then we know it?

You know it, sure! He has told you, has he not? Does that hon. member not believe the hon. member? He is obliged to believe the hon. member in the House, whether it is true or not. That is the obligation that hon. member has as an hon. member of this House. He has told him, so what does he really want to do? Does he want to dismember the company? Should they be owned by separate entities? What does he really want to achieve? That is the honesty he now has to display before this House. What is the objective? What he really wants is a lot of little tame Citizens running around publishing propaganda in favour of the NP and occasionally patting the hon. member for Simonstown on the back. That is what those hon. members are looking for. That is what they want to achieve. I have no great interest in the hon. member for Simonstown moving this motion. I have a far greater interest in the hon. the Prime Minister because I think he is the one who must tell South Africa what is going to happen. I think he has to be challenged today to let us know where he really stands on the Press issue. The hon. the Prime Minister cannot take credit for a free Press existing in South Africa and attack and threaten that very freedom at the same time. One cannot continue using the Press to divert attention from the Government’s own shortcomings. That is harmful, not only to the Press but also to South Africa. Although newspapers publish hundreds upon hundreds of facts that are correct, the hon. the Prime Minister pounces, as if it were the end of the world, upon the Press when it makes a single mistake. What does the hon. the Prime Minister mean when he speaks of “rumourmongering” legislation? South Africa wants to know. My following question is not directed at the hon. member for Simonstown, but at the hon. the Prime Minister. What would be the purpose of such an inquiry? Does he want a free Press in South Africa or does he want a servile Press? Does he want all English-language newspapers in the same mould as The Citizen, following a party line, or does he want a critical, alive, active and invigorating Press? What is, however, even more important than what the hon. the Prime Minister wants, is what South Africa actually wants.

A South African Press.

I believe South Africa wants a free Press. South Africa is not concerned about the hon. member for Simonstown’s nit-picking about Saan’s shareholdings. South Africa is concerned about the realities of the Press. Let me therefore tell the hon. the Prime Minister that if he wants a good Press overseas, if he wants to have the impression created overseas that South Africa should be supported, he should make the changes in South Africa so that the local and overseas Press can report South Africa as it is. He must not, however, when the Press reports South Africa as it is, say that that is prejudicial to South Africa. [Interjections.] That is not the answer. It is for the hon. the Prime Minister to tell South Africa what his party’s intentions are as far as the Press is concerned, because that is the crucial question for South Africa, the question that the people want answered.

Before I sit down, I should like to move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell the House that the hon. member for Yeoville is one of the most articulate and able speakers we have in Parliament. Therefore it is most interesting to the casual observer and especially to those of us who sit here day after day to note that the hon. member strayed away completely from the motion before the House. At no time did he get down to the real nitty-gritty of the motion. Rather, he concentrated the full force of his attack on the person of the hon. member for Simonstown and he spent the rest of his time …

You are covering up?

… defending the monopolistic Press which exists in South Africa at the present time. I should like to ask the hon. member why he did this. It has been asked: Is it a cover-up?

The hon. member for Yeoville asked: What is it the people of South Africa want? The people of South Africa want to know who it is behind the Press which prints the Press stories people have to read when they purchase a newspaper. I need not tell the House that many people today are losing confidence in the newspapers they read. The only thing on which I should like to agree with the hon. member is that it is not sufficient just to criticize the monopoly in the English-language Press, but that we also have to criticize the monopoly the Government has in the TV and radio services in South Africa. In this respect I agree entirely with the hon. member.

The motion before us is a very wide-ranging motion. Studying it, I find that there are two issues which stand out very clearly. The first is contained in para. (4). It is that a Select Committee should be appointed to investigate “tendencies towards monopoly formation”. We have Acts dealing with monopolies in this country. If we know who the shareholders are in a particular industry and we find that it is monopolistic, we have the necessary legislation to correct this monopolistic trend. Therefore I do not intend to talk about that particular leg of the motion.

I should like to talk about para. (5) which I believe to be the crux of this whole motion. In terms of para. (5) a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into and report upon—

i.e. findings of monopolistic trends—

This, I believe, is where we have the real guts of this motion. Therefore I am going to use the time at my disposal to discuss this. A free Press and an informed public opinion are, I believe, the crux of this particular debate.

We have heard much today about a free Press. We have just heard the hon. member for Yeoville wax eloquent on it Certainly, Sir, a free Press is an essential element of the democratic system. There is, however, another more important and more basic element of democracy we all have to consider, viz. the right of people to basic political freedoms. It is not only a free Press we want in South Africa: We want the people of South Africa to be politically free. For democracy truly to work effectively as a political institution, people not only have to be free to be able to vote for the candidate of their choice and, in so doing, be free of any threats of bodily or physical harm—this goes without saying—but what is probably most important of all is that a truly free and democratic people must also enjoy the right to think freely on political matters in an informed manner. I should like to put a question to hon. members: Is it not essential in order for democracy to really flower and blossom forth in South Africa that the minds of our people be truly impartially informed on political matters in this country? If this is so, should we not ask ourselves just how well-informed the average South African is today on political matters, on the political philosophy and principles of the various parties represented in this House and on the policies in respect of such things as the constitutional development in South Africa? The fact that this motion is before the House is surely evidence that all is not well in South Africa in this particular regard. How can a people be truly free politically and how can a nation’s political system be truly democratic when a politically motivated section of the community, a small section, gains a monopoly on the newspaper medium and also, for that matter, on radio and television in South Africa and surreptitiously uses those as propaganda media for its own selfish and sectional political ends?

It is clear from what has already been said that, with the exception of possibly one or two daily newspapers, all South African newspapers are controlled by large groups which are in turn controlled by small groups of people who have strong political motives. Regrettably for South Africa these groups, which oppose one another politically—we have seen an example of this in the House today—have aligned themselves along language lines. A Government-supporting group controls the Afrikaans-language Press while the Opposition—motivated group controls the English-language Press. I believe this is most unfortunate because it is not conducive to good political understanding and debate or to good political relationships between the two language groups in South Africa.

We in these benches can speak feelingly on these matters, because in recent years we have experienced the power of the political bias not only in newspapers but also on television and radio. We have seen and experienced the power of the politically motivated editorial policy of certain newspapers. We have also experienced the power of what I could call the malign neglect by certain newspapers, especially over the last few days just before the election. Editorial policy determines not only what goes into a newspaper, but also what is left out, as we have found to our cost. For the sake of a truly free Press, of the political freedom of the individual and of democracy in South Africa, we believe that the time has come for the public to be made aware of exactly who owns and who controls the Press in South Africa. South Africa should become aware of the political motives of the major controlling shareholders of our various newspaper groups and of the motivation behind the editorial policy of individual newspapers. After all, is this not the case in most other democracies?

Let us look at the United Kingdom. Their Parliament is the mother of all Parliaments. When one buys a Daily Telegraph, one knows and one is told by the man who is selling it, should one ask, that it is a newspaper which supports the Conservative Party. If one buys the Daily Mirror from him, he will tell one that it supports the Labour Party. By reason of this knowledge people can discount certain parts of any report, depending upon their own political thoughts, motivations and instincts, thereby becoming more politically free and independent.

I do not think it is necessary for me to go to great lengths as far as the rest of the motion is concerned. However, on behalf of my party I should like to move as a further amendment—

In conclusion I should just like to say that we believe that, had such legislation been in existence over the past few years, this debate need not have taken place and the Information scandal, which involved Government funds being used to promote the formation of The Citizen, could not possibly have taken place.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that with the exception of the contribution by the hon. member for Yeoville, the contributions made during the discussion of this motion deserve the earnest attention of this House and the Government. In contrast to the reasonable formulation of standpoint and in contrast too, I believe, to the very calm and factually correct motivation given by hon. members, the emotional tirade of the hon. member for Yeoville naturally stands out. The hon. member for Yeoville never dealt with the true essence of the motion before us. The hon. member for Yeoville quite probably anticipated to a certain extent what would be said and on that basis probably asked the former member for Parktown to prepare his speech for him. I can hardly imagine a better mouthpiece for the ideas of the former member for Parktown than the hon. member for Yeoville. What is more, the hon. member for Yeoville referred disparagingly and insultingly to the hon. member for Simonstown. I am not here to defend the hon. member for Simonstown, but what I do want to say is that a person with the record of the hon. member for Yeoville can hardly arrogate to himself the right to discuss the credentials of other people and other hon. members in this House. What is his record? What are his credentials?

That is right; put them.

Within three years he has belonged to no fewer than four parties. He has destroyed three of them and he is destroying the fourth as well. Let me, too, make a prediction now. Next time, we shall find him in Inkatha, if they admit him.

I want to tell the hon. member that one does not win a debate with an ad hominem argument One does not uphold a standpoint by launching a personal attack on another hon. member. One does not win an argument if one replies to a case which is not being broached by any hon. member in this debate. The hon. member arrogated to himself the role of defending the Press against an attack which was not made on the Press. It is easy to understand that. That hon. member is a member of various Select Committees and commissions and instead of doing his work on the Select Committees and on the commissions, he is now doing the work of the Select Committees and commissions in public.

Disgraceful!

I think the hon. member ought to go and sit somewhere alone and consider very seriously the role he is playing. In the second place, he ought to give very serious consideration to what he is doing to this Parliament as an institution.

What are you going to do about it?

Coming now to the motion itself, I want to say that there are components of the debate, and quite probably also in the motion as the hon. member for Simonstown formulated it, which do not all fall into the sphere for which I am responsible or fall under my departments. I refer specifically to the general principle of the place of the Press and the role of the Press in our society. I refer specifically, too, to the codes of conduct expected from the Press, a matter which forms the subject of a discussion between the Government, the hon. the Prime Minister and the Press Union. Discussions are taking place about these and related matters and I feel that I would be at fault if I were to anticipate or attempt to anticipate the outcome of those discussions.

Consequently, in the time at my disposal I should very much like to confine myself to the other aspects or facets of the motion of the hon. member for Simonstown. If I interpret the essence of his motion correctly, if I understand the hon. member correctly, what his motion entails, in the first place, is that owing to the financial structure of certain newspaper groups and owing to the fact that they also use the company as an organizational form, a situation has arisen which operates specifically as a restriction on the freedom of the Press.

That is 100% correct.

I wish to argue, with great respect, that what we have to consider today are circumstances of a financial and structural nature relating to the Press and relating to certain groups of newspaper companies, which specifically neutralize or have a prejudicial effect on the aim the Press has set itself and the function it has to perform. Basically, therefore, the issue is whether, owing to the financial structure and the use by the company or organization thereof to ensure anonymity for people who could perhaps control a newspaper group, factors have developed which could have a limiting effect on the concept which we in this country endorse and which we, in our economic system, have made our own. That is, whether there is full competition or whether there is freedom in the market situation, also as regards the Press. That is what is important.

The Press also renders services to the community. Those services consist chiefly of factually correct reporting. Secondly, they consist of the responsibility to ensure unbiased opinion-forming on the basis of factually correct reporting. If there are elements in the newspaper group or organization that clash with the concept of freedom and that clash with the concept of free competition, and proof of this can be advanced, then there is immediately a case for investigation.

The second element I see in the motion of the hon. member for Simonstown is that the concealed shareholding in certain newspaper groups is a method by which to conceal the real power behind certain Press groups, and that it further restricts freedom and also further limits and restricts the concept which forms the basis of our economic system. If we now take cognizance of the economic system which we in this country strive to maintain and which we are committed to, we find of course that there are often conflicting interests among groups, that clashes also occur between targets we should like to achieve. Allow me to explain this.

There is a need in our country for combining the capital of various people within the society for the purposes of greater wealth. A case has been made—or a case could be made—for the fact that there may also be anonymous shareholding in companies. On the other hand, such a concentration of financial power, and anonymous shareholders, more specifically those in newspaper companies, may be to the detriment of freedom and of correct reporting and of the aim of plain, unbiased and unrestricted opinion-forming. If such a set of circumstances exists, the question occurs as to whether we should not adopt a different point of view in regard to anonymous shareholding as regards the newspaper world and newspaper companies, as opposed to ordinary companies. Let us acknowledge in all fairness that it is quite probably true to say that the Press deals with the most sensitive articles on the market. They deal with ideas. They deal with the spirit of people.

With the morale of people.

They deal with the standards of society. Moreover, I want to point out that…

What do you think about The Citizen?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Groote Schuur must please realize that when other hon. members were speaking, I did not interrupt anyone. He must please give me the chance to formulate my standpoint. As far as The Citizen is concerned, the Government had to adopt a standpoint.

And what was that?

The Government condemned the fact that public funds had been used for the financing of a newspaper with political aims. However, I do not wish to take that any further.

I have listened to the speeches by hon. members and have taken careful note of what they have said. There are various reasons why I was so careful. I was careful specifically because the subject of the motion is, in the nature of the matter, an emotionally loaded one. The hon. member for Yeoville did not disappoint my expectations. He did only what we expected of him. He once again used the occasion to drag the circumstances surrounding the former Department of Information into the debate. I can of course understand his temptation to try to make political capital out of every possible situation. After all, he is unable to make political capital out of a statement of his policy or point of view. However, my standpoint is that it suits us to keep within reasonable bounds the emotional temperature with regard to this Bill, as all other hon. members have done. With the exception to which I referred I must concede that this debate has been to the credit of this hon. House. It is of course true that there is no-one in this House and indeed, no one outside of it either, who does not think in emotional terms as far as the Press is concerned, let alone hon. members of this House.

After all, the Press made a contribution towards the election to this House of certain hon. members and has of course also done its best to prevent others from being elected. Naturally, then, it expects from those that it has brought here the price they have to pay in return. As far as the rest are concerned, the image which certain newspaper groups have created of other hon. members of this House must of course be maintained at all costs. We are judged by the Press—and I accept this without complaining about it—in accordance with what they expect of us, particularly of those who have been supported by them. On the other hand, we are judged according to the image of us which they have projected or sketched. But should we not try to avoid the subjective element and the emotional reaction in our discussion of this motion? And can we not consider the motion within the broader framework of the economic system of which we, like other Western countries, avail ourselves.

There is no one, least of all the hon. member for Yeoville, who ought not to agree that it is essential for the proper functioning of this system that there be competition and freedom. If that is not the case, the State will have to keep a watchful eye on the activities of the private sector and if necessary, carry out its regulatory function if it is not to evade its responsibilities.

The question now is: Where one is to find the best witnesses to this standpoint, a standpoint which the hon. member for Yeoville did not accept this afternoon. I find the hon. member saying the following in Hansard (Hansard, Vol. 69, col. 9166)—

There is only one institution of society which he wants to exempt from the specific standpoint he stated, and that is the Press. In my opinion, the valid standpoint which this House ought to adopt has been very effectively and appropriately summed up by the American economist Okin as follows—

I have repeatedly given the assurance on behalf of the Government that this system, the market economy, has a place in South Africa and that it ought to retain an important place. This implies that everyone, in whatever form and whatever activities have to be performed, must obey the rules of the game. Apart from the protection of freedom on the one hand, the Government has of course, in the nature of the matter, to keep an eye on the deficiencies, “the ugly face of the system” to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred on previous occasions. Surely then, the Government has a regulatory function in this specific regard.

When it suits him the hon. member for Yeoville pays lip service to the concept of the judging of certain newspaper groups on the basis of the principles of this system. Is it not appropriate that in the light of Okin’s terminology we should formulate his question to you, Mr. Speaker, somewhat differently: “Whether certain Press groups should have a place in the market, and on the other hand, in the same breath, whether certain groups might have to be put in their place?” I am not talking here about the Press, but the groups.

The Press has a place and no one disputes that. The Press has an important place and function, because without it, democracy would die. However, if the Press does not meet the high demands it is set, it destroys the democracy which gives it its existence. Just as the place of private enterprise in this system of ours cannot be an unfettered one, newspaper groups cannot have unlimited freedom either, nor can newspaper groups claim for themselves an undefined place in the system. Surely, then, it remains the responsibility of the Government to keep a watchful eye on newspaper groups as well, just as on any other group, if it should be necessary to take action.

I have listened to the evidence and in the nature of the matter it is not expected of me to make a final judgment in this regard. On the contrary, the question that I must reply to is simply: Has a prima facie case been made for an investigation into the financial structure of and the anonymous shareholding in certain newspaper groups, in the sense that there is a possibility of monopolistic conditions? Let us reply to the first question. I find it very simple to reply to, because in the first place we must decide whether newspaper groups should be dealt with in a different way to other companies and groups in the private sector that produce certain goods or services. This means that we must look critically at the special nature of the product at issue here and we must also consider whether there is not perhaps the question of a captive market situation in this regard, because that is important.

I concede at once that monopolistic conditions do not necessarily conflict with the furtherance of the general welfare of the community at large. However, one must adopt the point of departure that where monopolistic conditions do prevail, there is a danger of a possible violation of the public interest. Over the past year we have heard ad nauseum about excessive and uncalled-for interference by the authorities in the sphere of the private sector. I do not wish to debate this specific point of dispute this afternoon, but I should like to put a question to hon. members: Is the contrary not also true? Does it not also frequently occur that companies in positions of great power abuse this power to interfere and trespass in the political sphere?

That is a dangerous point.

We have evidence that certain oligarchic conditions prevail within certain large newspaper groups that control the Press. What is important in this regard is the fact that newspapers have to deal with articles that are sensitive with regard to the maintenance of democratic institutions and the Western way of life to which we are bound and committed.

The Press forms opinions, because the opinions of other people are often formed on the basis of their reporting. With our population structure a large part of our population is dependent on the reporting and the opinion-forming which is conveyed in only one of the two official languages of the country. This affords these newspaper groups which make use of this language medium, a most exceptional monopolistic position. If this monopoly were to be restricted as to the reporting and opinion-forming in South Africa itself there would perhaps be less reason for action by the Government in this regard. However, I am convinced that it is an indisputable fact that English-language newspaper groups have a real monopoly on the transmission of news abroad. This occurs by way of the existing newspapers and also by way of free-lance journalists who publish their articles in overseas newspapers. I maintain that it is against this background that we must consider the hon. member’s proposals. I want to repeat this question: In this regard are we not dealing with a captive domestic market as well as a captive overseas market? If one takes into account the language structure of the population of our country, I want to maintain that this matter has a bearing on the newspaper groups, on the position of power they are in and on something else as well. It has a bearing on the position of power which another partly secret or anonymous capital power has in certain newspaper groups so that they can misuse the newspaper groups to better the Press, to interfere with its freedom or to direct the newspaper in a specific direction and to ensure that there can be no question of unbiassed opinion-forming. If there is prima facie evidence of such a situation, then that is not in accordance with the concept of freedom and free competition which underlies our economic system. According to the argument of the hon. member for Simonstown and other hon. members, the undesirable power structure of certain newspaper groups—owing to the financial control over them—forms part of a more comprehensive problem of an excessive concentration of power which may exist in the South African economy. Put simply: Do the financial and economic institutions which are alleged to control certain newspaper groups, not already occupy a position of power in the South African economy or in other spheres? Does it not already represent a law unto itself? Are we not in fact dealing with a monopoly within a monopoly? Are we not dealing with a monopolistic situation in one of the spheres of our economy, a monopoly which seeks to transfer and expand its position of power from this sphere—if this is not already being done—to all spheres of our society and our economic life? Are we not dealing here with a well-known term? Are we not faced with a hypermonopoly which is spreading its interests further and which places further restrictions on freedom and competition?

Mr. Speaker, I have no choice but to reach the conclusion that a case has been made for an investigation. The question that still has to be answered is: What is the best method of subjecting this specific form of alleged monopolistic concentration to the necessary investigation? We have certain choices. We have a choice between the proposal of the hon. member for Simonstown in accordance with which a Select Committee may be used as an instrument to carry out the investigation, and the appointment of a commission of inquiry to do so.

But would it not be preferable, since we aim at a specific economic system that requires that there should be competition for it to succeed, and since we have legislation to prevent the creation of monopolistic conditions, to make more effective use of the methods contained in that legislation? If a Select Committee is appointed to achieve the purpose of the hon. member for Simonstown, then evidence has to be obtained and if a witness refuses to furnish the information required to make factual findings or reach factual conclusions, then the Select Committee has to request this House for a directive in regard to further action. I do not think we should place this House in that position. I am therefore of the opinion that we should rather avail ourselves of the mechanism we have to institute investigations into harmful monopolistic conditions. It is general knowledge that we intend to introduce legislation relating to competition. It is also well-known that a competition board is to be established by this legislation, whose function will be to carry out the type of investigation which the hon. member for Simonstown advocates. The Government accepts in principle that on the basis of the evidence a case has been made to carry out an investigation into the two important facets contained in the motion. Firstly, there is the facet of secret or anonymous shareholding in newspaper companies as against the freedom of a newspaper, of its opinion-forming, as an instrument to report what is factually correct, in order by so doing to afford its readers an unbiassed opportunity to draw conclusions. Secondly, a case has been made that a monopolistic situation exists as a result of the financial control of newspaper companies, a situation which may have a restrictive effect on the freedom of competition. In these circumstances it is the task of the Government to take action since—owing to its vigilance—it has seen the danger signs due to the violation of the freedom it seeks to defend. In view of this I want to say on behalf of the Government that we accept the purport of the motion of the hon. member for Simonstown in so far as it relates to the two facets I have dealt with specifically and that this will be subjected to an investigation at a later stage.

Mr. Speaker, it is customary at the end of the debate on a private member’s motion for the mover to thank all hon. members who took part in the discussion. This is a pleasant duty for me to fulfil on this occasion. Everybody, bar the hon. member for Yeoville on behalf of the PFP, sympathized with the spirit of this motion. Everyone else, the NRP included, agreed with much of what I said. It is encouraging and good to know that this House generally shares the sentiments which I have expressed. It was entirely predictable that the PFP would not share those sentiments.

I am not going to attack the hon. member for Yeoville. He is a street fighter. [Interjections.] For him, attack is the best method of defence.

You will come off second-best if you try!

I have known the hon. member for Yeoville for many years. I know his tactics. I know how he operates. His performance in the House today was for me therefore entirely predictable. He quoted things which I have said over a number of years. I am grateful to him for mentioning them in this House, and I am glad that they are now recorded in Hansard. There is not one single statement which he quoted me as making with which I am in disagreement at this moment. I stand by everything I said. I have held those views for many years and so far, I have had no reason to change them. I will not be surprised if in the course of time I shall once again be proved right, just as I was right when I went to Sir De Villiers Graaff when the hon. member for Yeoville was opposing the present Minister of Community Development for the leadership of the old United Party in the Transvaal. I told Sir De Villiers Graaff then that if he admitted the hon. member for Yeoville and his young Turks to the inner circle of the United Party it would end the Opposition in South Africa. They would smash the party to smithereens. I was proved right [Interjections.] I want to warn the Government that the hon. member for Yeoville has itchy feet. I see the signs … [Interjections.]

I think one of these days the hon. member for Yeoville will try to find some way of changing his present political home for another political home. He did not say a word about the secret shareholdings, and the monopoly of the Argus and the Saan groups in the English-language Press. The reason why he and his colleagues are opposed to this motion is because an inquiry of any kind would expose the powers behind the PFP. The PFP and the English-language Press are like Siamese twins. The English Press is their life-blood, and if something happens to destroy the monopolistic grip they have on the English-speaking people of South Africa, it will be the death-knell of the PFP. They can brook no opposition whatsoever from anyone in the English-speaking community in which they move. They violently objected to The Citizen. The Rand Daily Mail, for example, treated The Citizen in a way I can only describe as being similar to the policy that was prescribed by the former member for Randfontein in this House: no rules applied.

In the Vaderland a letter appeared which was addressed by an American to that newspaper and in which reference is made to a letter written by the manager of the Rand Daily Mail one Fairbairn to another American, asking him for his assistance in combating the proposed newspaper which subsequently became The Citizen. However, what is most interesting, is that in one of the paragraphs of his letter, the manager of the Rand Daily Mail refers to the reason for there being dissatisfaction amongst English-speaking South Africans with the sort of newspaper service they get from the Argus and the Saan groups. I want to quote what he writes of how they feel about the R.D.M. and we must bear in mind that it comes from the manager of the Rand Daily Mail—

I cannot agree more with the manager of the Rand Daily Mail in his fears he expressed to the American about competition from The Citizen. There has never been a greater need for English-speaking newspapers in South Africa to write in the same sort of terminology and project the same sort of fair image about South Africa as is projected by The Citizen.

Even if it is done with stolen money.

South Africa needs The Citizen and newspapers of that kind. I have here pages and pages of letters from ordinary, decent and sound South Africans who ask for The Citizen to continue. These letters have appeared over a period of weeks.

They were mostly written by you.

Those people are ordinary, decent South Africans and they want a newspaper that is pro-South African, not like the Rand Daily Mail and its other stablemates which are anti-South African in every single respect.

At the end of this debate I want to tell hon. members that in the light of the fact that the hon. the Minister has announced that there is to be an inquiry—he has argued cogently for his form of inquiry in preference to the one I have proposed—I am prepared to withdraw my motion. In doing that, I just want to say a final word to the Government. In 1974, when I started speaking about the Press in this House, I warned the Government that what had happened to the United Party at the hands of the English-language Press in South Africa could equally easily happen to the NP and, much worse, to South Africa. What we are seeing today in the newspapers of South Africa shows that what I said five years ago was absolutely correct and true. There is an urgency for an inquiry. I think I have established a case. So I withdraw the motion and urge the Government to institute the inquiry as soon as possible.

With leave, amendments and motion withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.