Mr. Speaker, I emphasized yesterday afternoon that the extent to which the legislation under discussion would infringe on the freedom of the Press was negligible. If hon. members consider the amendments proposed by the hon. the Minister—they appear on today’s Order Paper— particularly the amendments to clause 4, they will come to realize that the extent of infringement is very small indeed.

Although it is not being done in this Bill, the time will arrive when the Government will also have to give consideration to a clean Press in this country. I think this will become imperative in future. As far as this Bill is concerned, however, the important question—a very important question—is whether the Press should undertake an investigation into alleged irregularities and then reports thereon one by one in their own good time and for their own gain. On the other hand, the question is whether we here in Parliament are still wearing the breeches in South Africa. This is a very serious question which we have to ask ourselves. Should an official of Parliament not rather inquire into alleged irregularities in the country? Surely such a person will investigate them thoroughly. If, in that case, the Press does not obtain permission to publish, it will obtain such permission as soon as that official’s report has been tabled.

The Advocate-General will still have to report to Parliament. That will be his responsibility. Now one asks oneself to whom the Press is accountable. It is accountable to no one; only to itself. It is not accountable to Parliament To operate through the Advocate-General to arrive at the truth, will be a rapid process. After all, that is what everyone in this country desires. Everyone wants to arrive at the truth. It is easy for the Press to apologize after it has published incorrect statements or after it has accused a person unnecessarily. Then it suits them to publish an apology. What they do not realize, however, is that such a person continues to carry a stigma. It is difficult for him to rid himself of that stigma. Because of that, he is a branded man for many years to come. This is something we ought to bear in mind.

My time has virtually expired. In conclusion, therefore, I just want to refer briefly to one or two statements which hon. members of the Opposition made yesterday. The hon. member for Durban Point said the Bill was “a slap in the face of the Auditor-General”. Subsequently he also said: “It is a slap in the face of the police.” Far from it. In my opinion the Bill supplements the Police and the Auditor-General very effectively, and I believe that they welcome it as the necessary investigation will be undertaken by the Advocate-General, whereupon they will be able to institute legal proceedings, if necessary.

As far as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, he said the Bill was introduced “without consultation with the Opposition”. Does he think for a single moment that we would consult with McHenry of the USA through them? After all, that is precisely what he would have done: He would have telephoned McHenry at once to ask him for his opinion of the Bill. Surely we cannot allow that.

So much drama was built up around the Bill by the newspapers over the past week, that one was surprised to see the public gallery absolutely deserted yesterday after the debate had been in progress for approximately 45 minutes or an hour. There was hardly anybody in the public gallery. All interest in this debate had disappeared by that time.

Yes, but you were the one who was speaking at the time.

In view of that, we feel that the Bill does not affect the freedom of the Press as those hon. members wanted to suggest. On the contrary. I think they will still be very glad in future for the fact that we introduced the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to participate in the debate directly after the hon. member for Potgietersrus. I should like to emphasize the fact which he mentioned, viz. that fundamental to the Bill at present under discussion is the question of whether Parliament will continue to govern this country, or whether we will in the future be governed by members of the Press, some of whom do not even know who their own owners are, and none of whom had been elected by the voters. Consequently they are not accountable to anyone. I should like to emphasize this statement of the hon. member with approval.

The hysterical outburst of the Press against the Bill—the hon. the Leader of the House referred to this yesterday during the course of his introductory speech—met with a clear response in this debate from hon. members of the official Opposition as well as hon. members of the NRP. But this response put me involuntarily in mind of the Latin saying parturiunt monies nascetur ridiculus mus which translated means—

Yes, it is a laughable little mouse which you have brought forth.

The hon. member of the Opposition vied with one another in using the strongest and most damning words of antipathy and condemnation. In this process they forfeited all claim to fairness, objectivity and realism. They stand revealed once again as a party which has such a consuming hatred for the NP and the Government, that it will stop at nothing if it thinks that it can get at the NP and the Government, even if the interests of South Africa also have to suffer in the process.

That the official Opposition is not bona fide in its criticism of and opposition to the Bill, is nowhere more apparent than in the words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he opposed the introduction of the Bill. I quote (col. 6534)—

In spite of the fact that the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition, on his own admission, had not perused the Bill and was in addition unable to deduct from the short title or the long title of the Bill what the Bill entailed, he was nevertheless prepared to pronounce the most damning censure on the measure. I shall quote what he saw fit to say (col. 6536)—

It turned out to be completely true.

This is what the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition had to say about the Bill which, by his own admission, he had not yet seen and at a stage when he could not deduce from the short title or the long title of the Bill what it entailed. This is certainly the most blatant example of political cynicism and opportunism that I have ever encountered. It is hardly possible to conduct a meaningful debate with people who are blinded to such an extent by their prejudice and who are so ensnared in their liberalistic views. Add to that the instructions which they have been receiving during the past few weeks from the Press which supports them and no-one need be surprised that the official Opposition is acting as it has done. Then, too, there are the hon. members of the NRP, who in turn are vying with the official Opposition. Of course, they dare not be left behind.

The Bill under discussion is now being represented as an unpardonable onslaught on the existence of Press freedom in the Republic of South Africa. Let us consequently pause for a moment to consider the concept of “Press freedom” and establish what it entails so as to be able to judge whether the Bill indeed constitutes a threat to Press freedom in South Africa.

According to liberalistic views the freedom of the individual is a basic human right, a right which ought not in any way to be subjected to any form of restriction, and just as the individual has the right to know, and in that way to form his own opinions, the Press has the “right” to present news without any restriction. This “right” recognizes no bounds whatsoever. It embraces the whole of society and has no consideration for the privacy of the individual, the family or the group. Liberalism, which on the one hand advocates the rights, the freedom and the privacy of the individual, advocates on the other hand the right of the Press to meddle in the private affairs of the individual and the group. Consequently the exercising of the right to untrammelled presentation of the news, in fact constitutes a threat to the rights and freedom of individuals and groups.

According to the Dutch author De Volker in his book De Ethiek van de Pers, liberalism consequently concedes that the freedom of the Press may sometimes be abused, but then adds that—

But surely that is good advice.

It is liberalistic advice. If you wish to join that camp, you must say so. Then you must rise to your feet and declare that to be your intention.

That, again, is fascistic advice.

Another author, De Tocqueville, advocates complete impunity for the Press in the presentation of news for it would then prevent more harm than it would create.

Liberalism harbours an ingrowing mistrust of the authorities. This is seen as follows by De Volker—

This is the approach of the liberalist to the authorities. While the authorities, according to the liberalistic view, must guarantee the rights and the freedoms of the individual and the Press, the Press reserves to itself the right to control and even to undermine the authorities.

Where do you read that?

If the hon. member had been listening, he would have heard it when I read it out.

Let us see what another authority has to say about Press freedom. I am referring to the publication A Free and Responsible Press: A General Report on Mass Communication, by the Commission on Freedom of the Press. This is an investigation carried out by an authoritative group of experts in this sphere.

Do you believe in Press freedom?

I shall tell the hon. member now in what kind of Press freedom I believe. In fact, this is exactly what I am doing. I quote from page 6 of this work—

I take it that all of us agree with that. I shall quote further—

Do we still agree?

This is the crux of this Bill, as I shall indicate in a moment. [Interjections.] The man publishing the statement must at least be “trying for truth”. I shall quote further from this source—

The following is particularly important—

The Commission on Freedom of the Press goes on to state—

When new methods are found of invading the personal rights of people in a way which existing legislation cannot counteract and clamp down on, further legislative measures are consequently justified, according to this source. My argument is that this is in fact the situation at which the present Bill is aimed.

There is no question whatsoever of a threat to or invasion of Press freedom in the generally accepted sense of the word—in contrast to the liberalistic concept of Press freedom—in the Bill under discussion. The only effect which the Bill will have in this connection is that the person who makes allegations such as those referred to in the Bill, must indicate that he indeed intended to publish the truth—that he is actually trying for truth. That is what is required by this Bill. Is the official Opposition now saying that this is too much to ask?

The background to this measure and the object of the Government with it, viz. to establish a method and the necessary machinery to keep the promise of the hon. the Prime Minister of regular and honest national administration, has been repeatedly emphasized in this House and elsewhere. Firstly, I want to quote what the hon. the Prime Minister said here in this House on 16 March. I shall not quote it in full, since the hon. the Minister of Transport has already referred to it. The hon. the Prime Minister said, inter alia (Hansard, No. 6, col. 2695)—

Do you believe that?

Of course I believe it, unshakeably, because I am not one of those hon. members who are prepared to question the words of others, least of all of the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa, if I have no justification whatsoever for doing so. [Interjections.] During the First Reading debate on this Bill, the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications placed the Government’s object with the legislation beyond all doubt. Yesterday the hon. the Leader of the House, in his introductory speech, once again confirmed the bona fides of the Government. However, the hon. members of the Opposition pay no heed to these official statements. They are simply too obsessed with their own preconceived views. They do not believe anyone. However, I now wish to ask the hon. members of the Opposition: Where is it stated in the Bill, expressly or by implication, that the Press will in terms of this measure not be accorded the same treatment as any other person? The Bill refers to “any person”.

Consequently everyone is in trouble.

The hon. member says that consequently everyone is in trouble. In other words, the hon. member concedes that the Press is not being accorded different treatment to any other person.

Everyone is being restricted.

If hon. members then concede, as I believe they must concede, that the Bill does not seek to accord the Press different treatment to any other person, I want to ask them: On what ground do they expect the Press to be accorded different treatment to other persons and bodies? [Interjections.] If they do not expect the Press to be accorded different treatment to any other person, why are they kicking up this fuss about so-called invasion of the freedom of the Press?

A Van Rensburg can do better than that!

Has the Press become such a sacred cow to them that it should be allowed with impunity to denigrate persons and bodies by way of questioning, insinuation and word play without any supporting facts whatsoever?

This approach to the Bill is of course entirely in line with the attitude which hon. members of the official Opposition have adopted throughout in connection with the Information affair. Time and again, when they were challenged to testify before the Erasmus Commission, their defence was that they could not go and testify because they did not have the relevant facts at their disposal. The hon. member for Green Point stated this repeatedly by way of interjections. Meanwhile their lack of information did not prevent them from sowing suspicion to their heart’s content by way of questioning, insinuation and unjustified comment. On 8 December 1978 the hon. member for Pinelands admitted this unequivocally in reply to a question by the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister had referred to the reprehensible conduct of the hon. member for Pinelands by dragging the Smit murders into the Information matter. I quote (Hansard, 8 December 1978, col. 515)—

The hon. member for Pinelands then interrupted the hon. the Prime Minister by saying—

That was a blatant admission. While he had no shred of evidence whatsoever, he nevertheless asked questions and in that way created a specific impression. This is precisely what cannot be allowed to continue. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members are making too many interjections. The hon. member may proceed.

Now the hon. members of the Opposition want the Press to receive a blank cheque to speculate, wonder and question as much as they wish without a shred of evidence or proof, despite the frequently serious prejudicial consequences which that could also entail for the innocent parties concerned. Hon. members of the Opposition are now asking the absurd question why newspapers which publish untruths are not charged. [Interjections.]

Is the Bill necessary? That is what I want to know.

The hon. member’s question, i.e. whether the Bill is necessary, implies that he wants to know why newspapers which publish untruths are not charged. At least the Press is not as naïve as hon. members of the Opposition are.

What does the Afrikaans Press say?

The Press is careful enough to seldom, if ever, publish substantive allegations which can be proved to be false.

You have not replied to my question yet.

I am replying to the hon. member’s question. A far more subtle approach is adopted by making use of questions and innuendoes, and one cannot charge a newspaper for publishing questions and innuendoes. They do not make a substantive allegation which can be proved to be false.

I want to emphasize that a person who wishes to publish a report or allegation within the scope of the Bill is not expected to prove the truth or correctness of the allegation, whether beyond reasonable doubt or on a preponderance of evidence. All that is required from him is to disclose to the Advocate-General by way of an affidavit, or rather an affirmation: (a) the nature of his suspicions; (b) the grounds, in so far as they are known, on which the suspicion is based; and (c) all other relevant information known to him. He is not even expected to disclose the source of his information if the source is unknown to him.

Yesterday the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition alleged here that “this Bill is going to open the door to maladministration and to increase corruption.” I challenge the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition and all other hon. members of his party to substantiate this extreme allegation. Inherent in this allegation is the statement that corruption exists at present in the State administration. [Interjections.]

Why are you so worried then?

After all there can be no question of “increased corruption” if there is not “corruption” already.

There is.

Very well. The hon. members say there is.

There has been.

Do not run away now. The hon. member said there is. I challenge the hon. members to adduce proof of such existing corruption.

Who says there is not?

Order!

If the hon. member tells me that machinery already exists to deal with it, I challenge him to go to those organs with his allegations of corruption. If he finds that he cannot get satisfaction there, I challenge him to be the first to go to the Advocate-General with his proof of corruption in the State administration at the present moment.

If there is no corruption, why then introduce this legislation?

I conclude with the statement with which I began; The mountain will be in labour, the birth will be a mouse.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very fascinating debate, and I think the hon. member for Mossel Bay is part of the fascinating scene which has developed here, because what is quite remarkable is that the speeches of the last two speakers on the Government side, were almost entirely, with the exception of about a minute of the speech of the last speaker, not actually related to the Bill. They did not consider the Bill itself. The hon. member for Mossel Bay asked: How does this measure deal differently with newspapers and ordinary people? I do not know whether we are discussing the same Bill, but mine contains a definition of a newspaper and mine contains a clause which lays down certain prohibitions in respect of newspapers. I do not know whether the hon. member has the same Bill, but to suggest that the legislation has no bearing on the Press in South Africa is, to my mind, living in a dream world.

I never said that.

The hon. member then puts forward the argument of “trying for truth”. What is happening in South Africa is that we are getting a new definition of the truth. I was brought up—and interestingly enough, also the hon. member for Mossel Bay and the hon. member for Potgietersrus— with the truth being tested in an open court where the public could see it, where there was the right to be confronted with the charge and the evidence against one and where one had the right to cross-examine. That is how traditionally the truth is tested. But here the truth is to be tested by an Advocate-General at a hearing which is closed to the public, where one does not know the charges against one and where one is not allowed to cross-examine.

Where do you get that from?

From this Bill. Has the hon. the Prime Minister not read it either?

Read it out.

It is stated in the Bill that the Advocate-General is entitled to close the hearing to the public.

So is any court.

Furthermore, he does not allow cross-examination of witnesses on the other side.

So does any court. [Interjections.]

I am sorry, but the hon. the Prime Minister’s knowledge of defence is better than his knowledge of the law, of this Bill. I say it with great respect.

I want to say that this new definition of the truth is one of the dangers that exist for South Africa.

The other thing that is fascinating, is that the hon. member says that we use extravagant language. I want to say that what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, what the hon. member for Musgrave has said and what the hon. members on the NRP benches have said, is no more exaggerated than anything which has been said by the official organs of the NP and their Press. If anything, I think these hon. members have been modest in comparison with the language used in those newspapers concerning these measures. What I think has to be remembered is that despite the fact that we get stories such as “Party NP-LVs ook teen muilband”—and they whisper quietly in the passages of Parliament Building that they are also against this Bill, but also say: “Please do not tell the Prime Minister”—not one of them has shown courage today to stand up and tell this House how they feel. When the history of South Africa is written, it will be said that not one NP member of Parliament was prepared to stand up, not even for his own Press in South Africa. That is the truth. [Interjections.] Let me paint the scenario, a piece of Alice in Wonderland, a crazy tale, but with tragic implications. Let us take a look at the average citizen, John Citizen, of the 1980s who opens his newspaper or his Government Gazette and reads of rumours of corruption being investigated by the Advocate-General—because obviously he did not know about this rumour before and hears of it for the first time when he reads about it in the paper. The Advocate-General has to publish the fact that he has an affidavit which says that there is a rumour alleging that something or other is happening. And John Citizen is startled to hear about this and says to himself: There must be something in it; why else should I be told in the Government Gazette that there is a rumour that something or other is happening? He will ask himself: Why should the publication be prevented if there is nothing in it and why should a man with the status of the Advocate-General and the vast machinery that we are creating in this legislation, be brought into operation to investigate this matter? Little does John Citizen know that there are strange people who have suspicions of non-existent scandals. There is no shortage of people like this. Even today there are people who allege that there are rumours which exist, rumours which no politician or newspaper take up. Hon. members know that full well.

If one wants the machinery of the State to move today, one must lay a charge and allege facts. Under the provisions of this new law, however, the affirmation can be on hearsay, no facts need be within the deponents personal knowledge, and on lodging the hearsay affidavit the Advocate-General is obliged to act He is obliged to act on any affidavit, on any piece of scandal. There has to be an investigation and the report has to be tabled in Parliament. Imagine the rumour-mongers’ paradise which is being created by this piece of legislation. Let me give an example. [Interjections.] I see the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is laughing …

I am laughing at you.

If I may suggest it to the hon. the Minister; I think he should be laughing, or crying, for South Africa. In that hon. the Minister’s own constituency a man might get fed up with the Receiver of Revenue merely because he is cross with him. What does he do? He has a drink in the pub, tells everybody that the Receiver of Revenue is a So-and-so. His colleague might be able to arrange to put up an affidavit, and in terms of this Bill that poor official has to be dragged before the Advocate-General, there has to be a notice in the Government Gazette … [Interjections.] That is the truth, and I challenge hon. members to disprove it. All one needs to do, is to get a friend to make an affidavit. That official will then have to endure the whole procedure, and in the end the rumour will have to end up in Parliament, where it will have to be tabled as an official report. Then comes the new rumour: “How did it come about that there was an investigation at all? Surely the State would not spent all this money if there was smoke without fire? What is really going on?” The Government is therefore creating a new breed of informers, of scandal-mongers, and they are being given new weapons to disturb the society and to disrupt relations within the society, a society which has far more serious problems to deal with.

Let me give the hon. House an example of this: There might be hon. members in this House—it might even be the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, who is enjoying this debate so much—who might want to write their memoirs one day. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs might want to write about the Information scandal. But he would not be able to without submitting his book to the Advocate-General, and that will lead to a report being tabled in Parliament before he, as a member for Parliament, he will be able to publish his memoirs. This is so because by definition a book is a newspaper if it is published here. [Interjections.]

Let us take as an example maladministration in a State department. It is even the case if one wants to write about the collection of hospital fees and state that there is incorrect administration involved, not even dishonesty, just maladministration. One must not refer to it in a pamphlet during an election, because then one would go to gaol since one has committed an offence. That is what is happening. One cannot do it One has to submit one’s pamphlet to the Advocate-General, have it reported to Parliament or get his consent. One does not have to say that there is State money being misapplied. We are talking about maladministration, and the Oxford Dictionary says that is “faulty or improper management of affairs.” It can be inefficiency. It does not have to be misappropriation of money. The Afrikaans definition of “wanbestuur” en “wanbesteding” is similar. It is “verkeerde of slegte bestuur”. It does not involve dishonesty.

Nobody can now even report on these minor things. One cannot even deal with control board reports or any of these things. The amendments, which the hon. the Minister has given notice of, solve none of these problems. They solve nothing at all.

Let us talk about the report of the Erasmus Commission. After this Bill becomes law, nobody can even publish the contents of the report of the Erasmus Commission. One cannot even discuss it. One has to go to the Advocate-General first and get permission before doing so. That is the tragic farce being created by the creation of this super censor. [Interjections.] Why is all this happening? The hon. member for Mossel Bay talked about whether we were dishonest in South Africa and whether there were, in fact, all these scandals. I want to tell him that South Africa is not a dishonest country. The Public Service of South Africa is not dishonest. We have had an Information scandal. It has been dragged on as a result of Government paralysis and incompetence. It should have been brought to an end long ago. It could have been with our co-operation. All we asked for was the disclosure of the facts in a manner which would not damage the national security and action to recover the money and the assets. We asked for punishment of the wrongdoers and laws to prevent a recurrence of that situation. What did we get? We did not get laws to prevent a recurrence of the wrongs, but laws to prevent publication of the kind which flushed out this scandal and the creation of machinery which plays into the hands of cranks and rumour-mongers, a structure which creates the impression in the outside world that there are untold scandals, and untold rumours will circulate about such scandals. I think this is an injustice to the Public Service of South Africa.

Will the hon. the Prime Minister not understand that we believe that the Information scandal is unique and that dishonesty is the exception and not the rule in the public life of South Africa? When this is all over, is he going to get up and tell us that he expects further scandals like this in South Africa? I want to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister, in all seriousness, to lift this sledgehammer before it slams down, not on rumour-mongers and wrongdoers, but on a precious freedom and the country’s reputation. The hon. the Prime Minister has pledged himself to clean government. That should not be an issue between us in this House. However, clean government must not only exist, but it must be seen to exist. When this Bill is law, one will have a Government which will be surrounded by a swirling mist of suspicion and continual investigation. A seeming protection from publicity involving alleged wrongdoers is like the witch’s cauldron in MacBeth. It boils and bubbles and there will be toil and trouble for all of us.

The hon. the Prime Minister wants to stop rumour-mongering. That is what he said. However, does this Bill stop rumour mongering? It does not, not in any way. It creates machinery which encourages rumours, it sets up a unique machinery for giving credibility to rumours and for their processing at a high and impressive level. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question. Why not stick to the tried and trusted measures of protection against corruption? [Interjections.] There are strict rules which should be obeyed. There should be adequate orders and there should be a demonstration that firm action is being taken against wrongdoers. There should be—and let me stress this—a fear of public exposure. If the rules are not strict enough, let us tighten them up. If the Auditor-General’s staff should be enlarged, let it be enlarged, whether by way of lawyers or by way of auditors. Let us get stuck in and do it.

If the powers to question are inadequate, for example in the Select Committee, we can give additional powers to the Auditor-General and to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. If we want an ombudsman let us then have a real one within the true meaning of the word, an ombudsman whose function it will be to guarantee proper conduct of the administration and proper functioning of Government departments in order to ensure that there is no abuse of power. We should have an ombudsman who is directly responsible to Parliament. We have spoken, as have hon. members opposite, about traditional ombudsmen, about the special prosecutor in the USA after the Watergate affair. We cannot compare their offices with the office of the Advocate-General. In America the practice is quite different. It is in fact quite the opposite of what we are envisaging in terms of this legislation. There they have their inquiries in public so that the public can see that justice is done. In the USA there is also no prevention of publication at all.

There are two fundamental issues in this Bill. The first one is a mechanism for investigation. When it comes to a mechanism for investigation the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister will have our backing. The second issue, however, is the prohibition against publication. There no answer has been given at all. It is my contention that we do not need any prohibition against publication in order to give ourselves an adequate mechanism for investigation.

The hon. the Minister has accused the Press of hysterical outbursts. He was not the only one to do so. Other hon. members opposite did exactly the same. We have been told, by hon. members opposite, things like: “Wanneer doen die Regering dan iets aan die Pers? Die gewone man is in opstand teen die Pers.” That is what they say. Not one of them, as I have said, has spoken up for the Press. Mysterious noises have been made about the unknown powers behind the Press. The hon. the Minister gave the impression of being frightened and intimidated by the awesome powers wielded by these sheets of paper and by the pens of what to us seem in most cases, in fact in almost all cases, to be quite ordinary and normal people. [Interjections.] The mask has slipped repeatedly during this debate, however, and there is little doubt that the purpose of this Bill is not merely to stop rumours or to create machinery for the examination of allegations of corruption. It is also, as the hon. member for Potgietersrus said, to show the Press who is the boss. He used the words—

We have to show that we are the bosses and we are now going to show the Press that we are, in fact, the bosses. [Interjections.] That is what it is all about. We have to show them we are the bosses. [Interjections.] That is why I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that the Bill he has introduced contains elements of revenge. [Interjections.] The wrongdoers are not those who abused the public trust, who wasted the taxpayers’ moneys or acted carelessly in causing and permitting such abuse. The real culprits in the eyes of the NP are those who, slowly and relentlessly, exposed the evil and so created embarrassment for the ruling party in South Africa, the ruling party which, in one blow, lost both its crown prince and its James Bond, those who gave others sleepless nights about their political futures. [Interjections.] So they seek to exact vengeance, but in seeking to exact vengeance, one wonders whether they realize the potential harm they are doing to South Africa.

This Bill is a further dent in South Africa’s already damaged image in the Western world. There is suspicion created in the Republic about why it should be necessary to create such a vast machinery when it is said there is no corruption and when the Information affair was, in fact, an isolated incident. This is an erosion. It is an erosion of freedom, not only of the freedom of the Press, but an erosion of the freedom of the public. It is also an erosion of the freedom of the individual. Let us make no mistake about that. It is, in fact, a mortal blow to investigative journalism in South Africa, something which is a vital attribute of Western-style journalism and which is a safeguard against corruption and maladministration. With the passing of this Bill investigative journalism, as far as State matters are concerned, will be dead. The blow is not, however, only directed at the Press. It is also directed at books, political pamphlets and official reports. It is also directed at us here. I shall not be able to issue a pamphlet, during an election, alleging that there is inefficiency in government. I shall not be allowed to do so anymore. I shall have to go to the Advocate-General and get permission, or have a report tabled in Parliament, before I am able to do so. All of us, whether it be politicians, the general public or the Press, are hit by what I can only describe as a crazy measure that has been introduced here. When there is an abuse of power, when there is something wrong, it will no longer be possible to mobilize public opinion to deal with it because the ability to be informed by the printed word will have been taken away.

The role of parliamentarians, those of us sitting here, is also fundamentally affected. It will no longer be possible to have our speeches on maladministration reported. Whether what we say in Parliament can be reported is not very clear, but certainly what we say outside Parliament cannot be reported. We shall, however, be able to make speeches. I am allowed to address a meeting, whether of five people or 500 people, and I can say what I like, but it will not be possible for me to have that reported anymore. The role of the MP as the watchdog, to whom members of the public submit their complaints, will be minimized. The role of the Auditor-General and that of the Select Committee on Public Accounts will also be reduced. All this will happen as a result of this Bill.

We therefore have to ask ourselves what the real implications of this Bill are. It is clear that one of the fundamental implications is that it will never again be possible to have an exposure such as that in the case of the erstwhile Department of Information.

Complete nonsense.

That is the truth.

The opposite is true.

It is not, and the hon. the Minister knows it. He knows the position that existed before the November 1977 election when there were fears that there would be exposures before the election, exposures which would adversely affect the NP. The Government now wants to see to it that that can never happen again. What this Bill is doing is to encourage a society of rumour by word of mouth, a society of scandal-mongers who can set the machinery of State going without having any direct knowledge of any facts. At present one needs facts in order to lay a charge. In future one would only need to be aware of a rumour, a rumour one can even have started oneself. As we see it, with this Bill we are presenting South Africa with a society moving away from basic democratic rights, a society under pressure, which is yielding by surrendering one of the privileges which we are actually fighting Marxism to preserve. The very book the hon. member for Mossel Bay quoted from would have shown him, if he had read a little further, that when one surrenders one’s liberties in order to fight the enemy, one has already lost half the battle.

Have you read the book?

That is the tragedy of what is taking place here. Can one make the necessary changes and yet preserve the democratic processes? These are some of the things that we know are being talked about in NP circles. We are concerned, however, about the fact that there is a belief amongst hon. members in those benches that one is entitled to encroach on democratic principles because of the need to deal with other political situations in South Africa. If democratic principles are to be surrendered in South Africa, what then?

I therefore believe that we are entitled to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister, and through him to the hon. the Prime Minister, to abandon this Bill in South Africa’s interests. If the Government does not abandon it outright—and that is what we think should be done—at least refer it to a Select Committee, at least listen to the representations made to such a Select Committee, at least hear some further evidence, the arguments of members of the Bar and the Side Bar who are people of standing and repute, people of all political persuasions. It is no use the hon. the Minister saying he did not refuse to see them. The important thing is that he should see them, that he should hear them. We should all hear them. There are others in South Africa for whom this also applies. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister in all sincerity. I am not making the appeal for political reasons. I am making it in the interests of South Africa. In the interests of the country as a whole the hon. the Minister should drop this Bill. Let us not make fools of ourselves in the eyes of our own people and in the eyes of the outside world.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday and also today we have been having an interesting debate on the Bill before the House. I want to say at once that it is a very interesting Bill. I do not intend denying that certain rights which the Press had, are being affected. It is true that there are rights of the Press that are being affected. However, I want to add that where this is the case we are dealing with events in South Africa’s history which have caused this. I do not wish to reply categorically to the hon. member for Yeoville at this point. Let me say that I have no objection whatsoever to the Press practicing so-called investigative journalism. What really brought the Information scandal, as it is called, to light and really gave the situation momentum was, as hon. members know, the fact that there was a leakage, that a certain report which was compiled by the Auditor-General came into the hands of the Press.

What would the history of South Africa have been if that had not happened?

To me it is right that the Press has an investigative function to perform. I have nothing whatsoever against that However, I do not believe that that right which it has is being affected by this Bill.

Then you do not understand it.

I shall come back to that.

I want to refer to more positive things in the Bill. I do not believe that the whole situation of the Press is the most important matter as far as this Bill is concerned. We must see this Bill against the background of certain events which took place in South Africa. Not one of us would like to see such a thing in South Africa again; that is certain. Against that background the hon. the Prime Minister declared that he advocated and was in favour of a clean administration. This Bill is part of the process which the hon. the Prime Minister set in operation to ensure a clean administration. On 16 March, when we conducted a debate on a private motion introduced by the hon. member for Parktown, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that he would welcome the appointment of such a person as an Advocate-General.

If he were an ombudsman.

Against the background of the events which have occurred, the Government has already accepted recommendations made by the Erasmus Commission. One of those recommendations was that the powers of the Auditor-General should be extended and that he should also audit secret funds. This is not depriving the Auditor-General of powers. This is adding to the powers of the Auditor-General. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the other hon. Opposition members from both parties tried today and last night to make us believe that we were undermining the position of the Auditor-General. However, there is a specific provision in the Bill, viz. clause 12, which states that the Auditor-General will continue with his activities as if this legislation did not exist. In other words, the Auditor-General can exercise all his powers without any difficulties. This includes the power to report to Parliament. If this is so there is surely no question of the powers of the Select Committee on Public Accounts being curtailed. There is no question of this whatsoever. The Auditor-General can continue with his work in the normal way. Today there is greater interest than ever before in the work of the Auditor-General.

I want to refer to one of the exciting things that is coming to the fore as a result of the legislation. I refer to the fact that the legislation provides that a Select Committee of the House can meet in the recess as well. Hon. members will understand this when I state that the Select Committee on Public Accounts decided unanimously yesterday to request the committee on Standing Rules and Orders to consider granting the Select Committee on Public Accounts the power to sit during the recess as well. That decision was taken for the simple reason that we have all become aware of the increasing volume of work that has become necessary in order to ensure sound administration.

I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that if necessary, the number of officials under the Auditor-General should be increased because we are all aware of the increasing volume of work and the concomitant increasing possibility of malpractices occurring. Surely there is no doubt about this.

I regard the appointment of the Advocate-General as an additional aid to the Auditor-General because the Advocate-General will possess certain powers which cannot in the normal course be linked with the post of the Auditor-General. The Advocate-General will, inter alia, have the power to issue subpoenas, and surely such a power could not be linked to the post of the Auditor-General.

Let us consider the true essence of the Bill, the real function of the Advocate-General. As far as I am concerned it amounts to the following: Someone suspects that there is maladministration, malpractices, corruption and so on. I want to point out at once that I personally would like us to refer only to “corruption” and be done with it.

Will the Bill be amended accordingly?

Someone has a suspicion, and now we come to the total function of the Advocate-General, because he has to determine whether the suspicion in the mind of such a person is well-founded. That is his function. What would be the best course of action after it has been determined that the suspicion is well-founded? It would be best if the machinery could then be set in motion without delay so that the matter in question could be nipped in the bud; not covered up. Later I shall indicate that things will be uncovered more than ever before by means of the Bill. The Advocate-General will determine whether there is any substance in the suspicion, and the moment it is found that there is substance in it, specific machinery is set in motion.

If this is so, we must say to each other that this is surely the best method of going about it Let us take it, for the sake of argument, that the post of Advocate-General already existed at the time of the Information debate so that the suspicions of even the hon. member for Yeoville could be tested by the Advocate-General.

Then Connie would be Prime Minister today.

If we could have had those suspicions tested by an Advocate-General, Connie Mulder would not even have been a candidate in the election of a Prime Minister at that time. What we have here is a method whereby the machinery can be set in operation more rapidly. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Mossel Bay and confirm that we are affecting rights. It is certainly the case that we are affecting existing rights.

Democratic rights.

At the same time I want to point out that everyone’s rights are being affected and not only the rights of the Press. If, then, we all have to make sacrifices for the sake of a good cause then we must all do so. That good cause is the good name of South Africa.

I should like to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Durban Point that their misgivings about the inroads this Bill makes on the rights and privileges of members of Parliament are imaginary. The hon. member for Yeoville at least did better today in this regard because he was far more careful. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition—and I do not want to waste my time by referring to his speech at too great length—said that an hon. member would not even be able to criticize the Government in Parliament as a result of malpractices.

Oh no!

That is what he said.

[Inaudible.]

That former member of the judiciary must go and read his leader’s speech. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, inter alia, the following (Hansard, 22/5/79)—

Therefore the hon. the Leader of the Opposition intimated that the right of hon. members in this House to test the Minister when his Vote was discussed would no longer exist. Surely that is not the case.

No.

Surely we have arrangements with regard to how these matters are handled. Indeed, the decision with regard to this whole matter rests with the Speaker.

May it be reported in the Press?

Mr. Speaker, you are in control of Parliament and you decide on everything that is said here. I do not want to waste hon. member’s time but just wish to refer to sections 29 and 30 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, Act No. 91 of 1963. The fact is that in this House …

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

Mr. Speaker, I have very little time. I shall discuss the matter privately with the hon. member at a later stage. [Interjections.] No inroads are being made on the right of an hon. member to stand up in this House and accuse the hon. the Minister of Justice, for example, of maladministration. The reporters on the Press gallery may report it.

[Inaudible.]

Of course it can be reported. The people who have access to the Press gallery have that access under supervision of Mr. Speaker. They can even report on a matter which is mentioned in this House in the first instance. The reporters in the Press gallery will be able to report on that. When hon. members hold their report-back meetings in their constituencies …

[Inaudible.]

Order! If the hon. member for Johannesburg North really feels so strongly about the matter then he can raise it later in the course of his speech.

Hon. members can go back to their constituencies and report to their voters. There is no problem in that regard. However, why did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition create the impression in the course of his speech that the nature of Parliament would be affected? He said that the rights and privileges of members of Parliament were being affected by this legislation. That is not correct.

I want to raise another matter which has caused feelings to run high. One of the most exciting aspects of this Bill is the fact that a Select Committee can be appointed to investigate certain decisions of the Advocate-General and then to report to Parliament. The opportunity which hon. members have often requested in the past is now being created for them. They can take part in a Select Committee comprising representatives of all the parties in this House in which even the country’s profoundest secrets are discussed.

Surely this is something fantastic that the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet are bringing to this House. For the first time in South Africa’s history, evidence is being furnished of the openness with which this side of the House approaches this matter. As far as I am concerned, I welcome it. I believe that if that kind of secret matter is laid on the Table in terms of section 206 of the Standing Rules and Orders, we should be able to debate it here as a committee in a meaningful way. Surely this is a way in which hon. members can obtain that information they are constantly seeking. The hon. member for Durban Point, the leader of the NRP, said yesterday that from the moment the Advocate-General began to investigate the matter, we were no longer permitted to discuss it.

I said that one could not write about it from the outset.

From the outset? The hon. member referred to section 129 of the Standing Rules and Orders.

I quoted it myself. Were you fast asleep?

The hon. member must not cause me to waste time by repeating his speech for him. He referred to section 129. It reads in Afrikaans—

The English version is perhaps a little misleading. The hon. member did not look so carefully at the Afrikaans version. In English, Standing Order No. 129 reads—

One thing we must understand very clearly and that is that the Advocate-General is not a court. The Advocate-General is not a court. There is no such thing that an hon. member in this House cannot speak about a matter which the Advocate-General is in the process of investigating.

Can the Press publish it?

But we speak about it. Surely there is no problem in that regard. I just want to say that it is a pity that hon. members have advanced and given publicity to this kind of argument.

I wish to continue with the discussion of this piece of legislation. I have said that to me there are three exciting things about this Bill. In the first place it is an additional aid enabling Parliament to supervise in cooperation with the Auditor-General in order to curb maladministration, corruption and that kind of thing. The Bill does not provide that the Advocate-General must report to the Cabinet, a Minister or the Prime Minister. The Advocate-General must report to this House in the greatest openness ever encountered in South Africa’s history.

Because we have provided that he will be able to report with the greatest degree of openness ever, it is undoubtedly just as well, since the Advocate-General has to report openly to Parliament, that those who lay matters before the Advocate-General should do so in a particular way. In this way we can prevent every Tom, Dick and Harry from submitting matters of no merit—the hon. member for Yeoville referred to the example of the Receiver of Revenue—to the Advocate-General. We must see to it that reports are submitted to the Advocate-General in a responsible way. The Advocate-General will investigate that suspicion and then the suspicion will either be confirmed or rejected. In this way we can create an orderly situation.

It is a pity that in our search for this orderliness we should have had to tread on the toes of certain people, but fortunately it is true that we as members of this Parliament reveal so many more things for those people to write about in the future. Far more is being revealed than has ever been revealed before. Since this is so, why are we not ad idem in our endeavour to combat corruption or any suggestion of corruption, and why do we not give this legislation and the Advocate-General a chance to function? Let us give this procedure a chance to function and let us see what the result is. I am convinced that what this side of the House is seeking is not the kind of thing which those hon. members are concerned about.

You do not sound very convincing.

Those hon. members will find that their concern is groundless. Let us just look at this once again, against the background of the Information situation and consider what this side of the House has done in an effort to solve the problem, after what Parliament itself has done by way of its Select Committee on Public Accounts. It is to South Africa’s credit that we did in fact do so in that way. It is also to the credit of this House that we did so. Mr. Speaker, you have always had control of the reports coming to this House. That is your prerogative. No one can take that away from you. They are the most open reports possible.

I therefore think that it is right that we should give this legislation a chance, that we should give the man appointed a chance and thereby ensure that the Advocate-General, together with the Auditor-General, as instruments of this Parliament, prevent a recurrence of the problems we had last year.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke will forgive me if I do not follow him in his rather feeble defence of that which is indefensible. His plaintive wail, his plaintive cry, was “give it a chance”. This Government has had 30 years of chances and it is failing dismally—all the more, all the way. I do not want to use any extravagant adjectives in describing the Bill. I think they have been exhausted. So what I do want to do is to transpose myself into the position of the man in the street, John Citizen. First of all the man in the street is puzzled and confused. I believe he wants answers: clear answers, honest answers and positive answers.

Do not treat the man in the street like a fool.

If that hon. idiot would only keep quiet, he would not make such a monkey of himself. I believe that the man in the street wants to know why it is necessary to introduce a Bill that will do …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to refer to another hon. member as an idiot?

I said: “An hon. idiot,” Mr. Speaker.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Idiot.

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that the man in the street wants to know why it is necessary to introduce a Bill that will do our country immeasurable harm. I believe he also wants to know the reason for bringing in a measure that will further estrange us from the rest of the world, because this measure is manna from heaven in the hands of our enemies. The man in the street feels suspicious of this measure. He also feels that this measure will sow the seeds of further suspicion amongst South Africans of all races, colours and creeds. He feels that this measure will destroy our credibility, as indeed it will, in South Africa as a country of free thought and speech. He is, and justifiably so, of the opinion that overseas investors will be affected, will pause and will think again before committing themselves either to further investment or to new investment in our country. This is going to have an adverse effect on our internal growth and on our economy.

The man in the street says that the insistence of the Government on introducing this Bill must inevitably have a detrimental effect on our future relations with all States of the Free World. He cannot understand the need for this Bill and asks himself whether our legal system is inefficient, whether our Police Force is inefficient and suggests that this Bill is a slur on the entire Public Service.

What is this Bill doing? It is appointing a full-time man to investigate our Public Service. John Citizen is bewildered by the fact that the Bill is being put through Parliament in the face of opposition from the entire Press, both those that support and oppose the Government, both the English media and the Afrikaans media. He asks finally: Why is this Government pressing the self-destruct button just when things are starting to look good for us in South Africa?

Those are comments that I personally have received from “die mense daarbuite”. Those are not comments from an hysterical Press. They are …

Unfounded and emotional. [Interjections.]

They are not unfounded. They are notes that I have carefully made of comments that have been made by people outside, people with whom I have talked since this Bill was tabled. In fact, it is a cross-section of what Mr. South Africa and Mrs. South Africa are thinking.

You are talking nonsense.

Much has been said about hysterical outbursts in the Press, and the hon. the Prime Minister is quoted in The Star of 18 May this year as saying that he would not be “pushed around by a jingo Press which tried to build up circulation through screaming headlines”. He went on to say that “hysterical screaming” about this legislation would not change his attitude one “jot or a tittle”. I suggest that that is the voice of hysteria. I further suggest that this Bill is introduced on a note of hysteria. I would go even further by saying that the hon. the Prime Minister is the last one to talk about hysteria in others. He is the last person to use that terminology, because his outbursts have not gone unnoticed. The early hours of the morning of 8 December of last year will live in my memory for ever, because if ever I heard hysteria, I heard it then. It was that note of hysteria that has led us to this unhappy situation of having to face this Bill today.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

I abide by your ruling, Sir. This Bill provides for the appointment of a full-time person to investigate, in the first place, the misapplication of State Funds, in the second place the maladministration of such funds and in the third place whether any person is enriched directly or indirectly in an unlawful or improper manner at the expense of the State. It goes on to provide for one or more assistants. It also provides for a full-time staff. These are full-time appointments, not merely ad hoc appointments to investigate the odd complaint. They are full-time appointments. What does this mean? What does it imply? In the mind of any right-thinking person it implies that there will be sufficient work to keep this body of people employed on a full-time basis. In my view this is a self-indictment of the Government and of its actions. It is therefore not illogical to ask how much corruption there is in the administration of State funds. We should remember that in its present form the Bill deals only with State money and not with inefficiency, laziness or anything else. Whatever anyone else says, this is an indictment of the Auditor-General and of all public servants, because we can only draw the inference that the Auditor-General has not done his job properly or that State money is being misapplied and that maladministration is taking place, resulting in certain persons being improperly enriched. We can further draw the inference that the hon. the Prime Minister is aware of all this, because what other reasons are there for this Bill? Why else must we have a full-time Advocate-General or full-time assistants and a full-time staff?

Your conclusions are quite ridiculous. They do not need any comment.

If they do not need any comment, they must be hitting home. [Interjections.] Why should we then have this Bill? People are going to think that this Bill is nothing more than a continuous cover-up exercise. That is all it is. [Interjections.] I further want to say that this Bill has a terrible effect on the Press of this country. [Interjections.] Let us examine what the issue would be today had this Bill been in effect years ago. Would hon. members in this House or the country have known about the Information scandal, Agliotti’s affairs, Bell, Faros and Haak? The bit is endless. [Interjections.] Would we have known about that? [Interjections.] All those issues were exposed, not because of the actions of hon. members on that side of the House, but because of sound investigative journalism. [Interjections.] As this Bill stands, I submit further— irrespective of what the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke says—it is a gag on the Press, and it includes a prohibition on the reporting of parliamentary debates.

You are talking nonsense.

That is in the hon. member’s opinion. However, he himself has obviously not read the Bill properly. [Interjections.] It impinges on the right of voters to be informed of what happens in Parliament, and I wonder if it is therefore not an impingement on the rights of hon. members, because although they cannot be precluded from debating matters they want to debate in the House, in terms of this Bill the publication of such matters may be gagged.

What about the parliamentarian’s right to publish pamphlets, placards, posters, handbills or even newsletters? [Interjections.] Unfortunately, my time is limited in this debate. I should have liked to say a lot more. However, in conclusion I just want to add that this Bill does not further the hon. the Prime Minister’s promise of clean administration. This Bill lays that to rest for ever and a day.

You are talking absolute nonsense.

For the benefit of the hon. member for Von Brandis I want to say that the best way to treat and heal a wound is to clean it regularly and thoroughly, to dress it and bandage it carefully after one has cleaned it. [Interjections.] The quickest way to promote a festering sore that can cause one pain, misery and the loss of one’s limbs, or even the loss of one’s life, is to cover up that wound without attempting to cleanse it in any shape, fashion or form. It grieves me to say that if this Bill finds its way onto our Statute Book …

It will.

It will, yes, and if it does, this country of ours is in danger of becoming a diseased body, covered with festering and suppurating sores.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the hon. member for Umhlanga. It was an interesting speech. I should like to reply to it, but I do not find anything substantial enough to come to grips with, except that I want to congratulate him on the kind of sentences he used, the personation of his speech. It really contained a very good description of the function and aim of the Bill which is before us, i.e. to ensure that our wounds are cleansed, bandaged and healed. [Interjections.] However, I now want to take further his comparison with the wounds that have to be healed. If one wants to make sure that a would will not heal, but will turn septic, one allows people with dirty, inky fingers to poke around in open wounds before the wounds are bandaged and healed. [Interjections.]

I think everyone agrees that the debate has been very interesting up to now, not so much because of the contents of the speeches made by the hon. members of the Opposition, nor because of the quality of their contributions to this debate, but because of the method they have followed, the admissions they have made and the things they have omitted to do. They are on the wrong track with the Bill. Carried away by some newspapers, they regard the Bill only and mistakenly as an attempt to muzzle the Press. They quite fail to see that the restriction imposed by the Bill on the freedom of the Press to publish complaints and suspicions is very limited indeed. The Advocate-General will be obliged under very wide circumstances to grant permission for the publication of such suspicions. Not one of the hon. members on that side of the House has noticed this. They are obsessed with the limited restriction imposed upon the desire of the Press to publish gossip and mere suspicions as if they were facts. What is very interesting is that in this, they are less perspicacious than the public at large. They think they enjoy support for their standpoint and their interpretation of the Bill as they are conveying it to us. However, the fact is that they do not. After all, they have tested it for themselves.

Years ago, when I was still in the Opposition, we also held protest meetings. I can remember protest meetings on the steps of the Johannesburg city hall…

Yes, that is right.

Yes, the hon. member for Stilfontein will also remember that. I remember two meetings at which I spoke and at which 20 000 people turned up to listen to the protest of the Opposition. The present hon. official Opposition, however, holds a protest meeting—which receives the greatest publicity in the newspapers and is advertised for days in advance—which is addressed, not by an unknown backbencher, as we were in those days, but by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. And he does not draw 20 000 people; he does not draw 1 000 people; he does not draw 100 people; he does not even draw as many people as voted for him in Swellendam where the outcome was so disastrous for him. He draws only 70 people. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I ask what importance one should attach to people who wax so eloquent here, who are so bitterly indignant, who speak on behalf of the people, or so they say, when they cannot even get 100 people to attend a mighty protest meeting, a meeting which received great advance publicity and which was to be addressed by the best speakers they have. It is pathetic. It reveals their disregard of the facts and their lack of judgment concerning the trends in South African politics.

On top of that, nature favoured them by giving them a fine day. [Interjections.]

I think all hon. members on the Government side who have already participated in the debate have emphasized what the true aims of this Bill are. I do not wish to enlarge on these. I only want to remind the House of the fact that the real purpose of this Bill is to create easily accessible and convenient machinery for people who suspect that malpractices involving State money are taking place. For those people it is made easy to bring their suspicions to the attention of Parliament, so that Parliament may be able to handle the matter. That is all it entails. It is remarkable, in reading the Bill, to see how convenient the machinery really is. Someone can make an affidavit or an affirmed declaration to the effect that he suspects that something is wrong with the way State funds are being spent. He need not adduce any proof at that stage. Nor need he declare that he has a convincing case. He need only have a suspicion. He may have attended a meeting at which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made certain statements. Then he has merely to say that having listened to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, he now suspects that there is something wrong and that he wants the Advocate-General to investigate the matter. This is a light onus which is being placed upon these people, an onus which anyone can discharge.

This measure gives effect to the hon. the Prime Minister’s solemn undertaking that he wants clean administration in South Africa. I have known the hon. the Prime Minister as a politician since 1938. I have been sitting with him in Parliament since 1948. I think the hon. member for Durban Point has been sitting opposite the hon. the Prime Minister in Parliament for five years less than I. None of us who knows him, as Opposition member or as Government member, could point a finger at the hon. the Prime Minister for one moment as far as his personal integrity is concerned. In the light of his background and his record, no hon. member of the Opposition or of the Government can doubt for one moment that he is sincere in telling us that he wants clean administration. When he says that, he is in earnest and he will do it, to the best of his ability and to the best of the Government’s ability. [Interjections.] That is what is now being done by means of this Bill. That is the true aim, the true principle of this Bill.

If hon. members of the Opposition had also desired clean administration and if they had perceived the merit of the greater part of the Bill, they would not have moved an amendment asking for the Bill to be rejected completely. They would then have moved a reasoned amendment, an amendment proposing the removal from the Bill of things they do not care for. However, they would not have been opposed to the essence of the Bill, namely easier inquiry, by an independent expert, into alleged maladministration in South Africa. However, they are so obsessed with their own newspapers, they are so much under the control of those newspapers, that they cannot see that what they are doing is to throw out the baby with the bath water, even from their own point of view.

I just want to point out again the duties of the Advocate-General. The duty is very clearly imposed upon him to make inquiries when he is told of a suspicion that Government money is being misapplied. The result is that that allegation or suspicion may not be published then. However, the Bill sets out very clearly what the procedure is. If State security is not involved, the Advocate-General has to make a submission to Parliament and then it can be published.

In full.

In full. However, if the security of the State is involved, publication cannot take place in terms of the Bill as it reads at the moment. Then it is prohibited. That is how limited it is. I now want to ask the hon. members of the Opposition a question. Is anyone of them prepared to rise and say that he wants irresponsible reports affecting the security of the State, the security of South Africa, to be published, in these days to be discussed in the streets, causing the security of the State to be endangered? [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Transport, who is piloting this Bill through Parliament, has assured us that he will move an amendment in the Committee Stage to the effect that the Advocate-General has to give his permission for publication provided that he believes that the security of the State will not be affected and is convinced that publication will not hinder his inquiry. This is comparable with the sub judice rule in our courts, a rule which we all know and which is a part of our legal system, our administration of justice, our legal thinking. It is nothing strange. But because the official Opposition is so dependent on gossip, they raise a hue and cry here against this limited and necessary definition of the right of publication of the newspapers.

They are trying to cast suspicion on the Advocate-General in advance. Who will the Advocate-General be? He will be a qualified advocate, someone who has practised in the Supreme Court. He will have to have 10 years’ experience of the administration of justice, and once he has been appointed, he will enjoy security of tenure. It will not be possible to dismiss him without the permission of both Houses of Parliament. Therefore he will have virtually the same security as a judge of the Supreme Court. It will be an independent office. However, we have had the insinuation time and again in the speeches of the Opposition today that he will not be impartial. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition began the nonsense that “it is all part of a cover-up”. He ought to be ashamed of himself. The Advocate-General will be an official of Parliament. The Bill provides that his salary and the costs he incurs in the performance of his duties will be paid by Parliament He is an official of Parliament. We have a comparable official in the Auditor-General, an equally independent office. Which of those hon. members would rise today and say that an Auditor-General of South Africa, from 1910 up to the present day, has ever abused his office with political ulterior motives or by spreading falsehoods? In the case of the Advocate-General, who is even more carefully protected against influencing, they insinuate, however, that he will be dishonourable, that he will be false and that he will be guilty of deceit in the interests of the political standpoint of some or other party. I think they ought to be ashamed of themselves. I think people who say such things betray to the world how very bad their case it. When one has to sink so deep into the mud to find an argument, one is really desperate. We on this side of the House are confident that the man who is appointed will be selected on the basis of his good qualities. We have enough confidence in the experienced lawyers of South Africa to believe that this office will be in good hands and that we shall be able to rely on the integrity of its incumbent.

They say that the Bill and the appointment of an Advocate-General form part of a cover-up process. How can they say such a thing? None of them has hitherto been able to make out a reasoned case to prove that the Government has done anything at all to conceal or cover up the scandal, as they call it, of the former Department of Information. I have already pointed out on a previous occasion that the Government has gone out of its way to create opportunities and instruments for making the whole thing public and bringing it all into the light of day.

You were forced by the Press to do so.

I am thinking, for example, of the instruction which the Auditor-General received at the beginning, even before the Press knew anything, to do everything in his power to expose this whole matter. I am thinking of the several committees of inquiry which were appointed and which eventually culminated in the Pretorius Committee, which is still doing good work today. The reports of the Pretorius Committee are made available to hon. members of the Opposition, and they have not criticized the work of the committee in any way. I am thinking, too, of the appointment of the Erasmus Commission.

I should like to say something about the Erasmus Commission. It is a judicial commission under the chairmanship of one of the senior judges of South Africa, assisted by the extremely capable Attorney-General of the Cape Province and the chief law adviser of the State. It is hard to think of people in whom one could have more confidence than in the members of this commission. They are the kind of people whom the Opposition always wanted to do the work when there was trouble in the past. I was a member of the Schlebusch Commission and I was denigrated, along with the other commissioners, because we were a Parliamentary commission while it should have been a judicial commission. At that time, the Opposition showed that they had the deepest, the most profound faith in a judicial commission, but here we have a judicial commission assisted by two assessors of the highest quality, and what do we find? They are not trusted. They are not taken into the confidence of the people who know the rumours. They are disregarded and undervalued. What is left now of the pious talk of the Opposition in the past? After all, they said that they pinned their faith on the judges when it came to inquiries of this nature.

However, the Government went even further. In December last year it went to the trouble, in spite of great expense, of convening a special session of Parliament. For what purpose? For the purpose of giving the Opposition an opportunity at an early stage, even though it was during a holiday month, to lay their complaints and their suspicions before Parliament and before the people of South Africa.

But they call it a cover-up.

Precisely, but that was probably the best thing the Government ever did, for since 8 December, the campaign in the Press and the campaign of the Opposition have increasingly lost their effectiveness, and finally they have succeeded in only one thing: Boring the people to tears. The truth was revealed during the special session. Their campaign was placed in perspective there, in the only place where this could be done effectively: The sovereign, free Parliament of South Africa.

Now the Government proposes the appointment of an Advocate-General, another step intended, not to cover up, but to expose and to make sure that if there are suspicions which are well-founded, they will be investigated, with reverberations right into Parliament However, suspicion is cast on the appointment of an Advocate-General, and the whole campaign of the Opposition is intended to prevent the appointment of such a person; no such office is to be created. They prefer the rumours to continue.

I yield to none in respect for the freedom of the Press in South Africa. However, the Freedom of the Press is merely an aspect of the Freedom of the citizens of the State and not a freedom which exists separately from the freedom of the ordinary citizen of South Africa. Suppose an ordinary citizen of South Africa, anyone, went from house to house for six months with the offer that in return for 12 cents, he would tell such slanderous stories as had never been told before. What would we think of such a citizen? What would become of him? However, this is what certain newspapers have been doing for six months. I have here a whole series of reports of the Press Council in which newspapers have been found guilty of publishing blatant untruths.

In respect of one newspaper, the Rand Daily Mail, the Press Council said that it should not only be censured and forced to publish the truth, but should also be fined. But the Press believes that as far as the problems of the Department of Information are concerned, they are the only people who have a monopoly of the truth. See what they publish. I have long lists which I could quote, but I shall give only two examples, examples of allegations which had not been verified. On 28 February this year, it was said that Rhoodie was negotiating with the Government. The hon. the Prime Minister himself denied this. It was a lie. However, this is the kind of thing they have published time and again. They publish things which are irresponsible, against the interests of South Africa and probably untrue. On 29 February, for example, they alleged that the Department of Information had bribed major international banks with gold and had also bribed political leaders of friendly States. They published this without any confirmation, without testing it and without making any attempt, in terms of their own code, to ascertain the truth of the statement or to consult other interested parties. This is what we had to contend with. We cannot get away from that.

We have not only had irresponsible and uncontrolled publication. We have had trial by the Press. It is one of the most abominable abuses of democratic rights one could have when citizens are tried by the Press. The hon. member for Yeoville, who is not in the House at the moment, waxed eloquent about the necessity for the truth to be tested in a court so that file court may assess the behaviour of the witnesses, so that there may be cross-examination and so that publicity may be given to the proceedings. I want to ask: What statement by Rhoodie, what statement from any other sources of information of the Press, was subjected to that test of truth while citizens of South Africa were publicly tried by certain newspapers in South Africa? All the statements were ex parte. Their chief witness was Dr. Rhoodie, who is in Europe and cannot be called to account for his statements. However, statements by him were used, for example, to find the hon. the Minister of Finance of South Africa guilty of mendacity, of making untrue statements and of unprincipledness. Are these the things they are pleading for? Are these the standards they want to be upheld in South Africa? One wonders how many thousands of rands were spent by certain newspapers in running after Rhoodie in Europe and South America to get hold of his stories and to publish them ex parte without verifying them, a procedure which is essential, as the hon. member for Yeoville said, before anyone can be considered guilty. However, there was no sign of that in this case. This was a one-sided trial and a one-sided conviction.

Sir, I have here a cutting from the Cape Times. The heading of the report is “Rhoodie speaks”. One of the major issues remaining between the Opposition and the Government is whether there was a committee of the Cabinet to control Information affairs. We say there was no such committee. However, certain people maintain the contrary, going against the people who know. Under the heading “Rhoodie speaks” one reads: “Horwood was on Cabinet Committee.” It is not qualified. It is a statement of fact, a conviction by the Press based on ex parte, untested evidence.

But it was Rhoodie who said so.

That is what we object to. I am speaking now of facts, of the truth.

Who appointed Rhoodie? [Interjections.]

Furthermore, I want to refer again to the injustice done to the judicial commission, the Erasmus Commission. Time and again members of the Press were invited, requested by the hon. the Prime Minister himself, to appear before the Erasmus Commission with their evidence so that the commission could examine it to arrive at the truth, but no ways! They did not do it. They prefer to spread rumours. They prefer untested statements. They prefer to dishonour South Africa and to pollute the public life of South Africa in this way.

Let me remind hon. members again of what is going on. The Opposition is on the wrong track in this matter. They do not want to accept that we are creating machinery to ensure that investigative journalism does not endanger the security of the State or violate the truth. They do not want to accept that apart from this, they will be able to publish what they like. They do not want to accept that the Government has done everything in its power to discover and ferret out the truth. While a judicial commission was sitting, they constantly abused their freedom, thereby showing contempt of the judicial commission investigating the case. Now the Government has introduced this justified measure, which every hon. member on this side of the House firmly believes to be not only justified, but essential for the security of South Africa. It is a measure to expose malpractices with State money. It is a measure to prevent abuse—and only abuse—of the freedom of the Press. It is a measure to protect South Africa’s security in a world which has become extremely dangerous for South Africa. It is a measure intended to restore the authority of Parliament, because the Executive of a country— the Cabinet—works with State money and is responsible to this Parliament. What more could one ask than a measure in terms of which an Advocate-General is appointed as an official of Parliament to report to the Speaker or the Leader of the House, an official whose findings, as far as the restriction of publication is concerned, are subject to investigation and, if necessary, rejection by a Select Committee of Parliament, the committee on which the Opposition will also serve to perform its function as a watch-dog of public opinion? Who among those who really have file interests of South Africa at heart, who want to promote the security of the South African State, who want to put a stop to the abuse of freedom—and it is an ugly thing to abuse privileges—who want to ensure clean administration in South Africa and to uphold the authority of Parliament, will vote against it? I am proud and grateful today to have the privilege of voting in favour of this measure, which will be of such great benefit to South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister told us about newspapers which published untruths and were then punished. I am sorry that he did not also tell us about the newspapers which told the truth and were then also punished. The fact is that when someone tells an untruth, we have the normal remedy in terms of the provisions of existing laws. No special legislation is necessary for this. If someone tells untruths—whether it be a newspaper, a politician or anybody else—he has to be punished, and legislation does exist for that purpose. The hon. the Minister also said that we on this side of the House had made insinuations and that we wanted to cast doubt upon the person of the Advocate-General in advance. I am not aware of a single hon. member having done that. We do not even know yet who the Advocate-General is going to be. We shall be able to judge, when the time comes, whether it is a good appointment or not. We shall insist—we can discuss that in the Committee Stage—that it has to be an independent person of a very high calibre, because we have had the experience that the Government appointed a very high official last year to conduct an inquiry into corruption in our country, but the Erasmus Commission found that that official “played a dual role”. The Government also appointed someone else to inquire into corruption, and then the Erasmus Commission found that he “had made a false report to the Prime Minister”. The Opposition should not be blamed, therefore, for feeling that where persons are appointed to investigate corruption, they should be independent persons who are unattached to the Government and who have to be of a very high calibre. We shall discuss this aspect, however, when the Bill is discussed in the Committee Stage.

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke said that I had welcomed the appointment of the Advocate-General during the First Reading. Yes, I said that clearly.

I did not say that the hon. member had said it during the First Reading. The hon. member for Parktown …

It does not matter at all.

It matters a great deal.

I do not follow the hon. member. Did he say that I had welcomed the appointment of the Advocate-General?

I did not say that you had said that during the First Reading. I said that you said it when the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown was discussed.

He is only arguing about the date.

Oh, the date. It does not matter when it happened.

It does matter.

The point is that I am not opposed in principle to the appointment of a man who plays the role of an ombudsman. I said that, and I shall not deviate from it. When I spoke about it, I said, however, that there was absolutely no need to link it with restrictions on the Press. There are many countries which have similar institutions—the hon. the Prime Minister also referred to that—but they are not coupled with action against the freedom of the Press.

Yesterday, when the hon. the Minister and other speakers after him launched such bitter attacks on the Press—we heard this again today—and related these attacks to this Bill, it must have become clear to everyone what the real motive for this Bill was. Two ideas in particular occurred to me. In the first place, I thought about the way our poor representatives, our ambassadors and our information officials abroad are going to have to run around for the next few months in an attempt to erase and gloss over the bad image of South Africa which hon. speakers on that side of the House have created by their attacks on the freedom of the Press. All the good work done with regard to South Africa’s image by the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions, has been erased over the past two days by the way this Bill has been handled by hon. members on that side. We are aware that there are two matters which influence the attitude of Governments in the Free World more than anything else. The one is human rights and the other is the freedom of the Press. Those things determine the extent to which a country is regarded as being a member of the Free World or not.

The Conservative Party came into power in Canada yesterday. There is a new Government in power in Canada today. This opens up the possibility of a new approach towards South Africa and the important question of Namibia. Canada is one of the five Western powers which is involved in the initiative with regard to South West Africa. However, what is the impression of the new Government in Canada going to be with regard to these speeches hon. members have made and their attitude to the freedom of the Press? I do not believe it is difficult for us to guess. Today is a very special day for West Germany. Today is the 30th commemoration of the introduction of their Basic Law, their Fundamental Rights. Section 5 of that Basic Law reads as follows—

That is not the only provision.

I quote further as far as it is applicable—

It continues—

We also have general laws against libel.

There are other provisions as well.

I just want to say for interest’s sake that the German ambassador in South Africa has organized a big function this evening to celebrate the 30th year of these fundamental rights in Germany. Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Potgietersrus told us how the people of his party are approaching him and other members of his party and insisting that something has to be done against the Press. He left the clear impression that he thought that this Bill contained the steps which his people want and which he welcomes.

You were not listening.

The fact that he is the new chairman and spokesman of his party’s Foreign Affairs group is interesting. If I am not mistaken, he and other hon. members will be among the members of his party who are going to go and drink to the Basic Law of Germany at the Alphen Hotel tonight. All I can say is that I hope that he will not choke on the wine. Incidentally, it is also a fact that the General Assembly of the UN is to begin its session on South West Africa and South Africa today. We can expect little from them. We do not have to seek their favour, but instead of hon. members standing up here and strengthening the hand of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the battle he has to go and fight there, every speaker on that side attacked the ordinary freedom of the Press in extravagant language and, by doing so, in fact played into the hands of Mr. Don McHenry. If hon. members do not want to believe me, they should take the trouble to phone Mr. McHenry. He will tell them himself.

The second idea which occurred to me yesterday, particularly after I had listened to the hon. the Leader of the House, was that I wondered whether we had yet discovered the real motive for the Bill. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister is ashamed of what has been taking place in our country in recent years.

I am ashamed about your career, too.

I am sure that he should be ashamed about what has taken place.

I am ashamed about your career too.

The hon. the Prime Minister is in control of the country, and I have a sufficiently high regard for him to think that every man who is a patriot, will be ashamed about what has taken place in our country in recent years. I also assume, however, that as a new Prime Minister he really wants to make an attempt to ensure a clean and honest administration in South Africa, and we shall support him in that in all respects. But the hon. the Prime Minister is not ignorant. He knows that the Press has played a powerful role in the disclosure of the full implications of the Information scandal. Without that we would not have been where we are today. He knows that they will display the same vigilance in the future. In fact, if we had not had that action by the Press, that exposure, the hon. member for George would not now have been Prime Minister of South Africa. Throughout the hon. the Prime Minister’s career, including when he was the Leader of the NP in the Cape, he stressed the necessity of a strong alliance between the NP and the newspapers that support them.

Yes, but I am not their slave.

The hon. the Minister should know that in his striving to establish administration which is free of corruption, the whole Press in South Africa is prepared to be his ally. All of us noticed that when the Leader of the House introduced the Second Reading of the Bill yesterday, he said very little about the need for clean administration and the way in which the Bill aims to achieve this. He merely referred to this in passing, but the most important part of his speech was devoted to his fear of what he called the tremendous power of the Press. We have heard it again here today. It was an amazing speech, particularly when he told us about “the Government’s struggle” to prevent the Press from governing the country and how essential it was that the Government should win that struggle. That, too, he linked to the Bill. I just want to say in passing that he even dragged in Mr. Oppenheimer. And we again heard the old story from two or three speakers that there are businessmen who prefer to keep their shares in certain Press groups a secret—as if we had something to do with it.

Are you denying it?

I find it all very strange. I shall say where I stand. Most members on that side of the House are secret members of the strongest secret influence organization in the country, an organization which also supports certain publications. I have never held it against them. They do it with their own money. I have no objection to that. Furthermore, the Government itself published a newspaper and a magazine, with Government money, and kept the names of all the owners and all the share-holders a secret. This is not the place, however, to discuss this further. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister in passing that if he is really concerned about the few businessmen who want to keep their share-holdings in newspaper groups a secret for business reasons— he regards it as being sinister, and that is one of the reasons why the powers of the Press are being restricted—then I want to make him this offer: Let us make a law which will provide that all publications, those of secret organizations as well, should reveal the names of their real owners and of all their share-holders. If he does that, I shall support such legislation. I want him to stop talking about that now, to start acting and to make the legislation include everyone.

When the hon. the Minister expressed such fear of the power of the Press yesterday and linked this directly with the restrictions imposed on the right of publication under this Bill, it reminded us of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister had made it clear from the outset that the introduction of this measure should coincide with the conclusion of the work of the Erasmus Commission. After that, people must keep quiet about the Information scandal.

Where do you get that story from?

That is the impression I gained, yes.

You said so yourself.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that he wanted to put an end to it I have sympathy with the Government’s desire to put an end to the Information scandal, but it is going to depend on the Government whether they will succeed in doing so. They are not going to succeed by gagging people and newspapers. The only way they will succeed is by showing the country openly that trespassers have been brought to book and that steps have been taken and machinery created to ensure that the corruption which took place in secret, will never again take place in South Africa.

That has been done repeatedly.

However, that is not what it is all about. Why is the Press being dragged in, and why is it being muzzled, if the aim is to combat corruption? On the basis of the language used by hon. members in the debate yesterday, I gained the impression that the restrictions envisaged here, and the haste to implement them, are really aimed against what men like Dr. Connie Mulder, Gen. Hendrik van den Bergh, Dr. Eschel Rhoodie and their supporters may still say and write in order to state their side of the case. We on this side of the House have no sympathy with any of these men, in spite of being aware that they are not the only guilty parties. In my opinion, however, it is unjust to muzzle the whole Press, and with it the general public, and to restrict the rights of individuals, just because the Government is conducting a vendetta with a few of its former stalwarts.

We have to realize one thing, viz. that what we call freedom of the Press, is not something which belongs exclusively to the Press. It does not stand apart from the rights of the individual, political parties or other organizations. Within the normal laws of the country, anyone, any group of people or any political party, has the right to establish a newspaper, to publish a pamphlet or to publish his opinions in any other form. No single newspaper has more rights than the individual. The hon. member for Mossel Bay quite correctly mentioned that the Press does not have more rights than we have, and therefore I do not think we are only concerned here with the concept of freedom of the Press. The powerful Afrikaans-language Press, which today supports the NP, was built up over the years by ordinary members of the public and ordinary members of the NP, rich and poor. Without them, the NP would never have come to power.

What we call the freedom of the Press, is therefore nothing but the right which I as an individual, all of us as members of Parliament and any political party have to form an opinion about matters and then to publish such an opinion in a newspaper, a pamphlet or anything else. Every man has the right to start a newspaper, and that is why, when one lays hands on the newspaper, one lays hands on the right of the individual. That is what worries me with regard to this Bill. I am not concerned about what it does to the Press as such, because the Press does not have more rights than I have. My concern is about everyone’s freedom to publish. The Press is only a symbol of the basic freedom of the individual and of a political party to speak out and address the country and their voters if they become aware of maladministration.

†No greater task rests on the shoulders of a member of Parliament or a political party, than vigorously to expose and criticize, in every possible way, the slightest evidence of corruption and maladministration of public funds. Political parties have no more fundamental task than precisely that.

This Bill deals with the administration of State funds, State moneys. That is central to the whole Bill. Hon. members of Parliament, members of the Cabinet, the hon. the Prime Minister and anyone of us can freely spend the money that we earn on whatever we like. I do not think anybody will object to that. However, State moneys come from the pockets of the taxpayers and as such never belong to the Government, but continue to belong to the taxpayers. The Government’s only task is to administer the moneys in the best interest of the public in such a manner that the public can see what the Government does with it while it retains the right to criticize if they need to do so. In my view, no Government has the moral right to deny the public, including the Press and political parties, the right to help keep a guarding eye at all times—Advocate-General or no Advocate-General—over the moneys which belong to them and express their concern in a manner which they may choose. [Interjections.] We were actually so fair in our dealing with this Bill that we gave a more liberal interpretation to it than the hon. the Minister himself. Some legal experts advised us that the Bill would allow the Press all the freedom they now have to investigate and publish information relating to misapplication of State moneys. Only after the matter had come to the attention of the Advocate-General and he had instituted an investigation, would it become sub judice.

Yesterday the hon. the Minister told us that according to his interpretation of the Bill as it now stands, no politician or political party will be allowed to publish a pamphlet or bring out a poster. No printer will be allowed to issue a book, no newspaper will be allowed to publish a report or an analysis dealing with suspected misappropriation or maladministration of State funds unless and until the Advocate-General has given his permission, has investigated the matter and reported his findings to Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a few …

Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member can speak for 30 minutes.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I am almost at the end. I just want to conclude by saying that, as things now stand, the Advocate-General will be a person appointed by the Government. He will be in the position of a super censor. One can imagine the possible misuse that could be made under the provisions of this legislation during an election if the ruling party had matters which they wished to keep under the carpet. As the Bill stands, it constitutes an intolerable inroad into the basic rights of the citizen, including political parties and the Press. It is anti-public, and we therefore have to oppose it.

Order! If I had been the referee on Saturday, the Free State would have won.

Mr. Speaker, it was my man who scored that drop-goal, and I am very grateful for that. As far as I am concerned, you might just as well have given the hon. member for Bezuidenhout more time, because the more he spoke, the more ammunition he gave to his opponents.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout touched on a whole number of matters. I naturally want to make my own speech, but I nevertheless want to refer to a few of the matters raised by the hon. member. He said the NP had launched a bitter attack on the Press. I do not think that is the case. He went on to refer to appointments which had allegedly been made wrongly in the past and where the people concerned had not done their work the way we had expected them to do it. In connection with the whole Information debacle I just want to say that it is on account of the consistent initiative of the NP that the matter has been brought so expeditiously to where it is at the moment. I have appreciation for the way in which the Government has done this. Then, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also boasted of the work of the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions. In my opinion the NP deserves recognition for the positive aspects that have emanated from the work of those two commissions. After all, the NP appointed them. The NP initiated the work and will also see to it. The good things which will result from these two reports will be the fruit of the labours of the NP. With reference to human rights, the hon. member also dealt with the freedom of the Press. The NP, too, strives after human rights. To us, however, human rights are also related to the responsibility of people. We, too, believe in the freedom of the Press. We add to that, however, that the Press, too, should act responsibly.

The hon. member referred to West Germany and to the thirtieth anniversary of the introduction of their Basic Law. He dealt, inter alia, with section 5 of that Basic Law. Of course, we share the joy of another country when peace and harmony come to that country. In making a comparative analysis between the history of South Africa and that of Europe, however, he should realize that Europe can learn a great deal from South Africa. Over the past 300 years, the nascent years of the White man in South Africa, the years in which he occupied the land and established civilization here—despite the fact that there was far more reason for war here— there was far less conflict and war here than in Europe. I believe that if the rest of the world were to draw a comparison between what happened under the NP and its predecessors on the one hand and what happened in Europe on the other hand, it would be plain to them that we in South Africa have far more reason to be grateful and proud as we have maintained peace and security and prosperity under far more difficult conditions. It is true that within a matter of a mere 40 years, Europe has experienced two ghastly world wars. This was because Europe did not have leaders, men with integrity and Christian principles, such as the leaders we have had in South Africa. I believe it is unfair at this stage to draw a comparison between us and the very country that had to rise from the ashes of war while this was not the case with us.

I want to devote my speech to a few main points. In the first place I want to deal with the reaction of the Press to the Bill under discussion. Then I want to deal with certain matters raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to look briefly at the criticism of the legislation. In conclusion I want to express a few thoughts on the legislation itself.

In the course of the discussion the hon. member for Johannesburg North crowed from time to time about Die Transvaler and other South African newspapers. Of course, I do not want to run away from the fact that Afrikaans newspapers, and newspapers which basically support the NP, were and still are critical of this Bill. For that reason I want to address myself today to that section of the Press, and I want to do so in a spirit of friendliness and brotherliness. To begin with, I first want to point out a few Press reactions before proceeding from there. I want to point out particularly that our Afrikaans newspapers, too, published their reports under critical headings. I want to refer to a few of them. In Die Transvaler, we saw the following heading: “Wending in stryd. Premier en Pers praat Muilband bekyk.” Another newspaper heading referred to the “Vasvatwet”, whereas another heading in Die Transvaler read: “Stilmaak-wet slaan hard. Pers moet swyg oor Staatsfoute.” Then follows the first paragraph of the report—

Another heading reads: “Leiers opstand oor Perswet” The report reads, inter alia—

Do you agree?

I am merely quoting it. I am going to deal with it, of course. These are the headings with which the Press came to light Now I am going to deal with them.

So you do not agree?

Also in Die Vaderland there was comment on the proposed legislation, comment which involved academics as well. However, I want to state in clear and unequivocal language that I believe that this type of heading is unfair to the NP. I believe that this type of heading in our Afrikaans newspapers is unfair to the hon. the Prime Minister. It is unfair to his leadership. It is indifferent to the world milieu within which the NP has to effect peace, security and prosperity for everyone in South Africa. I think it is indifferent to the ideals the hon. the Prime Minister cherishes. It creates a wrong impression and causes unnecessary uncertainty among our own people.

The hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly expressed himself on the matter of the freedom of the Press. The Prime Minister did not use this term as a mere cliché; he did not talk about the freedom of the Press wildly and indiscriminately. When the hon. the Prime Minister spoke of the freedom of the Press, the qualified the term. He said exactly what he meant by the term. However, the dilemma of political dialogue in South Africa today is that the Opposition uses words, terminology and clichés without giving them any substance. No one can conduct a political debate without knowing what one’s Opposition means by the words they use. Those hon. members have talked a great deal up to now, but not a single one of them has stated what exactly they mean by freedom of the Press. Not a single one of them has given a clear analysis of it.

On 20 April this year the hon. the Prime Minister gave a brilliant exposition of his vision of the respective roles of the State and the Press. I think every student of politics, and particularly of the politics of the relationship between the State and the Press, ought to include this as a sine qua non in his political knowledge.

We are living in a time of cliché fever. There is something I want to say to the Press that has pledged its support to us and that is going to co-operate with us. We are friends, and although we may differ on certain matters, we should nevertheless be fair, scientific and positive in our criticism. The Afrikaans-language Press and the NP were born from the same struggle. The NP and the Afrikaans-language Press have the same basic principles. We cherish the same ideals, and not one of us could or should selfishly see to his own interests only in realizing those ideals. To the extent that things are becoming more and more difficult on the road ahead, it is becoming more and more important that people who belong together should remain together in the sense of the greatest possible cordiality and brotherhood. The Afrikaans-language Press has the right to criticize us. That is fine. But just as the NP does not allow itself to be taken in tow by anybody, the Press that supports us may not allow itself to be taken in tow by the leftist, liberal Press. For that reason we have to be cautious.

There is also another phenomenon in the Press. Criticism is expressed in banner headlines, and people draw inferences from these. Certain academics are also involved and asked for their comment. I should like to quote just one of those academics. I am going to mention the hon. gentleman’s name. I hope to meet him one day so that I may have a calm and friendly chat with him. Academics cannot simply express themselves on laws and then expect that we, who have to defend those laws, should refrain from taking up a standpoint. I am referring to Dr. J. van Tonder, head of the Department of Political Science of the P.U. for CHE. He said the following in connection with this legislation—

I do not want to place myself in the same position as this learned gentleman by debating a matter on the basis of a newspaper report. However, if one calls oneself a scientist or an academic, surely one cannot simply say such things. He is the head of a department of political science; how can he say, “Ons is holderstebolder op pad na ’n totalitêre Staat”? It is beyond my comprehension why one should encounter a small group of academics in our country—also people with Afrikaans surnames—who simply run away from things the Government would like to do.

He just wanted to get into the news.

The hon. the Minister says he just wanted to get into the news, and I agree. Some people cannot get into the news, and then they try such reactionary things.

The hon. the Prime Minister made the very statement that the Government wanted to cooperate most closely with academics throughout the country. The hon. the Prime Minister expressed his willingness to do so, because we should very much like to draw on the wisdom, the knowledge and experience of people in the academic world. As we sit here, we also desire to work and reason in accordance with norms laid down for us. As my colleagues and I sit here, we, too, are people who want to deal with matters on a scientific basis. In view thereof I want to address a friendly request to the scientists: In their handling of this matter and as far as it concerns the Government, they should first obtain a thorough knowledge. After having acquired a thorough knowledge, they will be better able to perform their task as academics, because it is only when one has knowledge and skill that one can be useful to one’s community. I am saying this in a friendly way and in the best spirit to those concerned with the Afrikaans-language Press.

Now I come to the English-language Press. Looking at the history of the English-language Press over the past 70 or 80 years, one finds that that Press has never been enamoured of the Afrikaner. Nor is it at the moment Moreover, the English-language Press has never been enamoured of a conservative English-speaking person, and that is why the NRP are sitting where they are; the result of an English-language Press that does not care a hoot for them. The English-language Press of South Africa will extract poison from every piece of legislation of the NP and they will not rest before the day arrives when there will be a Black majority Government in South Africa.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke of the effect this legislation would have on our image abroad, but it has been my experience that when one tells the truth to people abroad, matters are brought into perspective. The problem we have in South Africa—that is the reason why some people have stumbled—is that over the past 30 years, falsehoods and untruths have been spread by the most sophisticated propaganda machinery. That is what has to be countered, and these things are the very results of an irresponsible English-language Press in South Africa.

The Bill is not aimed at the Press in the first place—I shall come back to that later on—but the Press has become involved since it has involved itself. We are dealing with a measure to ensure sound national administration, but what do we find in our work? The Press. Naturally, one has to scrape off and remove something like this if one wants to clear up matters and put them into perspective.

The hon. members of the Opposition are so ready to make pronouncements on democracy and they are so fond to speak of the values of democracy, the freedom of the Press, and human rights, but for many years I have been asking myself how democratic is the English-language Press in South Africa. What methods do they employ so as to be able to achieve their objectives? Can their methods always stand the test of close scrutiny? To me it seems important that we should face around and look not at the NP, but at the type of democracy the English-language Press wants here.

The NP is not the slave of one Press group or another. It was said earlier on that the NP and the Afrikaans newspapers were born from a struggle, and before the hon. member for Johannesburg North lost his first love, he, too, perhaps understood this.

No, I have become mature.

That hon. member has lost and left many of his first loves. Certain of the cells in his body, those cells which create love for what is one’s own, have died.

All you can do is launch personal attacks.

This is no personal attack, but the hon. member is sitting over there, and there are so many Afrikaners over there that I think we are again having a revival of Jan Hofmeyr. Perhaps he is not altogether dead. Those hon. members on the opposite side come here in the name of the Afrikaans language and with their knowledge of the Afrikaner, but in reality they are becoming mere pawns of the English-language Press. We are not the slaves of the Afrikaans-language Press, and similarly the Afrikaans-language Press is not the slaves of the NP. We do wish to co-operate, however. Those hon. members over there are the slaves of the Press that has pledged its support to the PFP.

Within our community there are various institutions and interest groups—there are, for example, the churches and the educational institutions—which each has its own sovereignty within its own sphere and is therefore looking after its own interests. However, at times we gain the impression from the English-language Press that it wants to control education, the church, our sport and our judiciary. In other words, it wants to govern in all respects. We cannot, however, tolerate such a state of affairs.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made various attacks on us. I want to state that not a single jot or tittle of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said is true. He said, inter alia—

This Bill, inter alia, strikes at the very roots of Press freedom.

He went on to say—

In this regard I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Mossel Bay. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said here today that this Bill would make corruption increase further. He is saying, in other words, that at the present time there is corruption in the State.

The Bill says so.

If this Bill goes through, the hon. member for Mossel Bay and I will bring pressure to bear on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as we did with regard to his telephone call to McHenry, and we will force him to prove his allegations before the Advocate-General. He will simply have to do it.

Mr. Speaker, it is not very easy to govern in a difficult world such as the one we are living in at the present time. What is the Government doing by means of this Bill? It is focussing the spotlight on the NP and its administration. It is saying to everyone outside: If you have a suspicion of corruption on the part of the State or any official, we are now affording you the opportunity to state your case to the Advocate-General. Therefore, nothing is being concealed. With this Bill, we are not focussing the spotlight on the Press or on the Opposition, but on the National Party and its administration. The hon. the Prime Minister gave an undertaking, and this is his first measure he has needed up to now to carry out that undertaking. I want to say that the hon. the Prime Minister would not be redeeming his pledge to the nation if this Bill did not go through. For that reason I want to say that in spite of what the hon. members said of this side of the House, we stand firmly behind the hon. the Prime Minister as far as this legislation is concerned. In the past, too, they have opposed the Government when legislation was introduced, and subsequently they have looked back in shame. I want to say that this legislation will afford every member of the public the opportunity, when he has a suspicion that problems exist in respect of the money paid by him to the State, to submit the matter to the Advocate-General. That is the first point I want to make. The second point is that those reports will come to Parliament and that Parliament will then decide what has to be done in connection therewith.

I want to say—and I conclude with these words—that the crux of this Bill is that every citizen of the Republic of South Africa who has a suspicion that the money of the State is not being dealt with properly, will now have the opportunity to lodge a complaint in that regard to a person who is responsible to Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to apologize to the hon. member who is to speak after me for leaving as soon as I have finished my speech, because I have to fly to Durban.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the hon. member for Rissik talk about democracy and freedom. We have also heard him talk about the role of the Press and the need for responsibility on the part of the Press. After listening to this debate for nearly two days now, I have found that four themes have been repeated by hon. members on the Government side. One of them is the question of the responsibility of the Press, as we just heard from the hon. member for Rissik. What they say is that, because of the bulk of the newspapers and, as we hear, especially the English-language newspapers are only interested in sensational reporting in order to boost their circulation, the Press act in an irresponsible manner which harms our political system in South Africa. The hon. the Minister himself said this in his introductory speech. They say further that, because this is so, the Press must now be curbed in some manner or other, as is now being done by the particular Bill we have before us.

I do not doubt for a moment that one can find evidence, amongst certain sectors of the Press, to indicate that there is this irresponsibility. After all—and I think many hon. members will agree—if there are any politicians who have suffered at the hands of certain elements of the Press, it is the members who sit in these benches. It is not only the Press that is irresponsible. Has the Government itself not, in recent times, been found guilty of similar irresponsible actions? Were the actions of a Minister of State, Dr. Mulder, not a case of irresponsible actions on the part of Government? Surely one does not combat a failure or a weakness in any of the essential elements of democracy, or the legs of democracy, by hamstringing democracy in such a way that it is rendered totally ineffective, as we believe the provisions of this Bill will do in the case of the Press, but not only in the case of the Press, as I hope to show later and as other hon. members have already stated. It also imposes a restriction upon hon. members of Parliament in carrying out their duties for which they are responsible to their constituents. This is why we are opposing this Bill. The provisions of this Bill strike at the very heart of democracy and the freedom of the individual.

Nonsense.

The hon. member says “nonsense”. Maybe he does not understand how fragile personal freedom and democracy really is.

The second reason that hon. members on the other side of the House have given for the introduction of this Bill is that it is required to ensure a clean Government. They say it has to assist the hon. the Prime Minister to live up to his promise to the country to have a Government which is free from corruption and maladministration. I would, however, just like to …

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

I do not have the time to answer any questions.

This reason is just not valid. This Parliament has been in existence for nearly 70 years, and our history of parliamentary democracy goes back hundreds of years before that. Therefore, the machinery which is required to ensure clean Government is already available and exists in the form of— as so many members have said—the Auditor-General, the Attorney-General, the police and the House of Assembly, but most of all in the post of the Prime Minister of this Parliament and his Cabinet.

If the hon. the Prime Minister is correct in saying that he requires this legislation in order to ensure clean Government, surely he is acknowledging the Government’s inability to use time-tested institutions, in which our people believe, to achieve this goal of clean Government. I submit that this is a reflection on the hon. the Prime Minister himself and his Cabinet. It is an admission of failure on the part of this Nationalist Government. [Interjections.] I want to say that this is the passing of the buck by the Prime Minister to an Advocate-General who will be a civil servant. That is another reason why we reject this Bill.

The third reason put forward by hon. members on the other side of the House is that this legislation is required to eliminate rumours and untruths. They say it is required to reveal the truth. I want to ask hon. members what is truth and what is untruth? What is a rumour? Have we forgotten the recent history of this hon. House? Was it not first rumoured in the House that The Citizen was financed by the Government? Did the then Minister who replied at the time not say that it was untrue? Did history not, however, show that what the Minister said was untrue was, in fact, the truth? The hon. the Prime Minister said he wants clean Government. In this regard I want to pose a question to hon. members on the other side of the House, and I ask them to consider it in depth. Had Dr. Connie Mulder become Prime Minister …

A little quieter please.

The hon. Chief Whip may tell me to quieten down, but when I speak for the people who elected me to Parliament I will express their feelings to this hon. House and neither he nor any other hon. member will deny me that right [Interjections.] Had Dr. Connie Mulder been elected Prime Minister of South Africa instead of the present Prime Minister, and had he had at his disposal this legislation, would the whole truth of the Information scandal have come out … [Interjections.] … or would he have used this legislation to suppress the truth and withhold it from South Africa? The hon. the Prime Minister may say that he is seeking truth, but he will not last forever, and someone else may some day inherit this particular piece of legislation.

The fourth reason which has been put forward by hon. members on that side is that they require this Bill in order to ensure the security of the State. This Bill, however, goes further than that. This Bill, if it is ever promulgated, will restrict my rights as a member of Parliament. I hope the hon. Chief Whip realizes that, and then maybe he will understand, if I appear to be angry, why it is I am angry. Certainly it does not deny me the right to stand up at a public meeting and to report, to my people, evidence of maladministration and corruption in Government departments, but this Bill will prevent the Press covering my public meeting and informing my voters of the facts I have put to the people. Under the provisions of this Bill I shall not even be able to print a circular to inform my voters, the people of South Africa, of the knowledge I have gained as their representative in this House. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members should really be a little more quiet.

The hon. the Minister has come to the House with this legislation. Hon. members say it is required for the security of the State. This party’s history is written in Hansard. Hon. Ministers have come to this party with legislation for the defence of South Africa. We in the NRP have nothing whatsoever to hide. We have supported this Government on legislation which provides for law and order and on legislation providing for secrecy about our fuel and our strategic resources. We have backed this Government and South Africa when we felt this Government and South Africa required our backing. I want to put a question to hon. members. They now say that this Bill is required for the sake of the security of the State. Am I and my party a risk to the security of the State? I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House whether this Bill does not make a mockery of all the calls to patriotism on the part of those hon. members. They are trying to curb the Press and they are trying to curb me, a member of this Parliament. It makes a mockery of the trust which our people have placed in this Parliament. This Bill is not designed to enhance the security of the State. I believe rather that it threatens it. The greatest security a State can ever have is the trust of the people, all the people of all political parties. I regret to say that the tabling and debating of this particular Bill will cause many South Africans, including myself, to once again ask the question whether we can really trust this particular Government. What has this Bill really been designed for? Has it been designed for the security of South Africa or has it been designed, as I am starting to believe, for the security of the NP?

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I gladly support a person and a Government prepared to put its popularity at stake in the short-term in order to have any suspicion of any form of corruption in the State administration in South Africa investigated and eradicated, and to ensure a clean administration. For that reason it is a privilege for me to say a few words in this debate.

Before the hon. member for Amanzimtoti leaves, I just want to tell him that he really carried on like an Ayatollah this afternoon. I want to refer briefly to the hon. member’s speech, although he has already left this House, for which he has offered me his apology. He conceded that the Press in South Africa had on occasion acted irresponsibly. He also said that the Government was irresponsible. I say that is correct. Some of the members of the Government were irresponsible.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says “hear, hear”, but he must also say “hear, hear” when I tell him that the Bill is the method we want to employ to control and eliminate this type of irresponsibility in South Africa in future. Now the hon. member must also say “hear, hear”, but he does not understand the Bill at all. I doubt whether he has read it.

The hon. member for Yeoville also carried on here this afternoon about the possibility that the Advocate-General could conduct his investigation behind closed doors. Of course this could happen. Under specific circumstances this is in fact possible. However, there is no provision in the Bill which compels the Advocate-General to conduct his investigation behind closed doors. On the other hand I want to point out to hon. members that the following provisions in respect of “the parliamentary commissioner for administration” exist in Great Britain. Under the heading “Procedure in respect of investigations” we read—

In South Africa we say no, throw open this kind of investigation. Now an hon. member of the Opposition is accusing us of wanting to do these things in secret and of wanting to cover them up. One could ask him why he does not give a balanced view of what is happening in South Africa and of what we want to do. We do not want to do these things in secret; we want to expose them. Why does the hon. member not emphasize this? That section which could damage South Africa’s image, is being emphasized by hon. members of the Opposition.

The hon. member for Umhlanga also made a great outcry here this afternoon and emphasized the fact that investigations by the Press had exposed a whole series of scandals. I concede that that is true. The Press in South Africa conducted investigations and they have every right to do so, but I want to state categorically that the Bill will not prevent the Press from continuing to conduct investigations into scandals in South Africa. They will still be able to conduct thoroughgoing investigations. They will be able to ferret out everything by means of the best forms of journalism they have at their disposal.

All that we are doing now is to create a body to which these people who have ferretted out scandals can take them so that they can be properly investigated by a completely independent person who is responsible only to this Parliament Nor will that person be able to allow those things he has discovered to be quietly shelved and left to gather dust; he will have to make them public.

By means of this measure I believe that the Press will be placed in exactly the same position as the ordinary citizen. What claim can the Press make to a more privileged position than that of the man in the street? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout rightly said this afternoon that the Press had no greater rights in South Africa than those of the man in the street. The man in the street who hears a story, can investigate that story, he can go into it and then hand over his evidence or suspicions to the Advocate-General who will investigate the case further. He, the Advocate-General, must investigate it; he has no choice in this regard. Surely the man in the street, who hears such a story and investigates it, does not have the right to take that story and to charge the person involved and at the same time find him guilty. Then why does the Press, one may ask, want this right in South Africa?

Coming back to the Bill now, it has always been my standpoint that when the Government discussed matters such as these with the Press and the standpoints of the Government are stated, this should be done on the highest level, as was the case here yesterday. In that case I believe that that discussion carries the necessary weight so that the seriousness of the matter may be brought home properly. Consequently it is not my duty, as a backbencher, to state a further spate of standpoints on this matter.

In view of the seriousness of the matter, though, I should like to make a few comments on it. It is a pity that the Government and a large section of the South African Press do not see eye to eye on this very important matter. It is a pity that we differ from each other to such an extent that the following newspaper headlines appeared today: “Pers styf vasgevat,” “Protes kring al wyer, dog Premier gee nie skiet met muilbandwet” and “Persmuilband bly net so.”

I am convinced that we need one another in the times in which we are living. The Government needs a free and responsible Press, because without it our task of governing South Africa will be very difficult. But let us also say this: The Press cannot survive in South Africa without a stable, democratic Government. We must never lose sight of the fact that we are living in Africa, a continent on which, with single exceptions, little or no value is attached to a free Press. It is a fact that if a newspaper were to act and write what we are experiencing in South Africa today in any other country in Africa, it would probably not appear on the streets the next day.

You feel yourself compelled to adapt to that standard.

Surely the evidence in this respect is there for everyone to see. Everyone who wants to see it, simply has to open his eyes and not make such foolish remarks as that hon. member just made.

It is correct that the partnership between the Government and the South African Press has been and is still beneficial to the NP today. But this partnership is not only beneficial to us, it is beneficial to the Press as well. In spite of all the so-called restrictions on the South African Press, the Press is flourishing in South Africa. We need only look at the number of newspapers appearing these days and at the profit margins of the Press publishing companies. I want to state it as my conviction that if an alternative Government were to take over in South Africa, the Press in South Africa would be far worse off than it is today. No one should have any doubt about that. The alternative Government is not sitting on that side of the House, because Swellendam showed us that it is not sitting there. It will have to come from elsewhere.

Is it one of the wings of the Government?

Yesterday the hon. the Leader of the House said in his Second Reading speech, inter alia, that the ordinary person had revolted against the abuse of the Press, and I quote him—

I believe this reflects exactly the climate one encounters among the ordinary people of South Africa today. The people want the newspapers, because they really like to read them and we are very often grateful for the role the Press plays in South Africa. But to allege that the man in the street is not generally dissatisfied with the Press, is also to close one’s eyes to the truth and reality. I think that the Government as well as the Press should take careful cognizance of this reality and of this fact.

Only NP supporters are afraid of the truth.

For that reason I am convinced that it will not only be in the best interests of the Government and the Press, but also in the best interests of the whole of South Africa if this matter is approached with understanding for mutual problems, but also with understanding for the appreciation we have for one another.

I want to make one further observation with regard to this Bill. Over the past few days we have been inundated with negative criticism of this Bill.

Why?

This criticism is principally based on the supposed or alleged threats which this Bill constitutes. We have only received negative and erroneous criticism of the Bill on the part of the Opposition, and there are many examples of this.

It is bad legislation.

I want us to examine as objectively as possible the most positive aspect of this Bill. To me it lies in the fact that the greatest single advantage will be that for the first time in South Africa’s history we will, by means of this Bill, be establishing a permanent institution of high-standing calibre and of high status—which will investigate all suspicions of corruption—unless hon. members of the official Opposition are immediately going to proceed to criticize that person and that body again. Such a body will investigate all forms of misappropriation of State money and maladministration of Government property on an ongoing basis.

On occasion—fortunately it was not often—the Government was compelled to appoint commissions to investigate matters of this nature. Now a permanent commission is being established. This affords each dissatisfied citizen the opportunity of reporting the slightest suspicion. It will have to be investigated. In terms of clause 5(1) the Advocate-General has no choice and has to take up and investigate that matter. It will have a wide scope, because misappropriation and mismanagement are wide concepts. I think this is an exceptional undertaking that this Government is prepared to give its citizens. An investigation will have to be instituted into all suspicions, any vestige of corruption by the Government or its officials.

Nor will it be possible to shelve the matter, because that Advocate-General will have to make a report. It will not be possible to hide things; they will have to come out into the open. The Advocate-General is unbiased. The allegation has been made from that side of the House that he will be a Government official. But that is untrue. Which hon. member on that side of the House can stand up today after so many years and candidly state that the Government has ever attempted to influence the Auditor-General, who is an official of this Parliament? The Advocate-General will be in an even stronger position to act and perform his task independently, after he has investigated a matter, that has to be done in the interests of clean administration. Once he has investigated the matter, it will be possible for the spotlight of not only Parliament, but of the Press in South Africa as well to be focused on what he has found. But it will be focused on facts; not on gossip.

That is why I think that it is an extremely comforting assurance the Government is prepared to offer the inhabitants of South Africa. It is an assurance that any story will be investigated and that the truth will come to light very rapidly. I am absolutely convinced that this measure, irrespective of what hon. members opposite say about it, is in the best interests of South Africa. I am convinced that the vast majority of South African voters, the people we are representing here, will realize that this measure is in their interests and in the interests of South Africa. That is why we gladly support it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. member for Verwoerdburg on his positive contribution. [Interjections.] I want to associate myself with the hon. member where he said that he found it a pity that the Government and the Press could not see eye to eye on this Bill. I think that no one on this side of the House is overjoyed about the necessity of having to introduce this Bill. But I am convinced that this Bill is necessary. The Government will not back away from its responsibility of piloting this Bill through Parliament if it is necessary. [Interjections.]

The Bill before this House, carries a very positive message, viz. that all financial malpractices, corruption, improper enrichment and even any attempt made in this regard will be eradicated. This is a general principle and I think that not much fault can be found with it.

There is another general principle with which everyone agrees, viz. the freedom of the Press. However, there is a difference. The Opposition is in favour of an uncontrolled, licentious freedom of the Press.

Who has ever said that? Where did you hear that?

There may be freedom of the Press at all times, but then freedom with responsibility, because absolute freedom implies freedom to break down and destroy as well. This is in fact what a large section of the South African Press is engaged in doing. I want to say at once that all newspapers cannot be cast in the same mould in this respect However, a vast section of the Press is certainly guilty of this.

Everyone is opposed to this Bill.

There is not a single newspaper in this country, written in a language which can be understood overseas, which tries to convey a positive image, or at least a balanced image of South Africa. If such a newspaper exists, hon. members must mention its name to me.

What about The Citizen?

The hon. member for Bryanston says The Citizen. I thank him for that. That substantiates my argument exactly. Because that newspaper publishes a positive and objective image of South Africa, hon. members of the Opposition hate it [Interjections.] Hon. members of the Opposition are making certain fundamental errors in their arguments, errors of logic and errors of assumption. The first of these is the view that the principal function of the Press is to be the watchdog guarding democracy and freedom of the individual. Of course this is not true. The Press in South Africa is an organized undertaking with clearly defined economic and political objectives, an undertaking that has a profit motive far stronger than its service motive. In order to fulfil its motive the Press will also exploit the public mercilessly with the aid of sensation and half-truths.

The second misconception in their argument is that the Press is the only or the principal medium by means of which malpractices in the State can be exposed. Of course this is not true. What is being done by means of the legislation under discussion is to create an official channel by which any person may have any alleged malpractice investigated, without being an informant to a newspaper and without causing confrontation with his own colleagues.

But there is a third misconception. This is that the Press is responsible and patriotic. In this respect, too, there are exceptions. However, this is and remains the greatest misconception. The reasons are apparent from the following: The standpoint of the largest section of the Press on any matter of political interest is always the same and always predeterminable. This means only one of two things. There is either a mutual agreement not to differ from one another or the newspapers are being dictated to by secret bosses. In both cases it is extremely irresponsible to abuse instruments, that are supposed to convey the truth to the public, in this way. A large section of the Press is still burdened by the image of anti-Afrikanerism, un-South Africanism and of being pro-British …

Oh please, man! [Interjections.]

… and is almost always automatically anti-National Party.

Name just one newspaper of that kind.

Rapport.

It is not I who say so.

In that case who says so?

This is the opinion of a great friend of the PFP’s, an employee of that section of the Press to which I referred. It is Mr. Hennie Serfontein.

What does he say?

That is his opinion. [Interjections.] In the third place it is calculated that 70% of the false, distorted, vicious reporting on South Africa which appears in the foreign Press originates in our own newspapers.

Do you have evidence of that?

Yes, produce your witnesses now.

Mr. Speaker, if those hon. members want to dispute this, they should go and do their own research. But they should cry if the figure turns out to be 80% or 90%. [Interjections.] I should like to subject the Press to a test which the veteran journalist, Dr. Willem van Heerden, drafted a few days ago in the presence of the hon. the Minister dealing with this Bill. He said that he hoped that it would be possible to eliminate the tension which was building up between the Government and the Press, but then he went on to say—

I did not go and search in the newspapers; I merely paged back in a few of them and then found a few statements in The Argus of 10 days ago. This is allegedly a report on a speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove—

It deals with the removal of Blacks—

Is it untrue?

It goes on to report—

The hon. member should not deviate too far from the provisions of this Bill.

Sir, with respect, the motives of the Press are certainly most clearly relevant in this regard.

They are relevant, but they alone and all the related matters really cannot be the subject of discussion.

To complete the picture I just want to say that the same report goes on to read—

Is that not balanced?

How does a report like this look if it is subjected to this test? How does a report such as this look when it comes to good race relations? How does a report like this look when it comes to patriotism and it is written in the full knowledge that there is an hon. Minister who is tremendously sympathetic to these people?

Are the facts correct or incorrect?

Why is such a report published while it is realized that there is an hon. Minister who is sympathetic towards them?

But are the facts true or not?

I do not know. [Interjections.]

The conduct of a large section of the Press is not reconcilable with responsibility and patriotism. The question may be put: Is the State administration so subject to misappropriation of funds, irregularities and corruption that this Bill is necessary?

That is a good question.

We ask that too.

The reply to this is an unambigious “no”. I think that South African Governments over the years have always had an exceptionally good record, but a very close watch should be kept on the standards of pure administration and they should even be improved. This is exactly what is being envisaged with this Bill.

The Bill is not intended as a means to cover up irregularities, but is a sincere attempt to make information, based on facts and not gossip, sensation and covert political motives available to the public.

The Bill does not prohibit investigative journalism. The Bill does not silence anyone and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is totally incorrect when he says that hon. members cannot inform their voters.

He would be pleased if he did not have to inform them, because the more he informs them, the fewer votes he gains.

The Bill affects no one’s right to address a public meeting. What the Bill does demand, however, is that publication in a newspaper on matters to which reference is made in clause 4(1) should take place in a responsible way.

The allegation is being made that the Bill will not eliminate corruption and allegations, but will contribute to them instead. If this is the effect, why is the Opposition crying? Those who will get hurt in that case are not the Press, but the Government and surely this suits the Opposition.

The Bill before this House is, in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, an experiment He said so in public. If it does not work and has an effect other than the positive objectives intended by the legislator, there is only one logical step: The Government will amend it How will it amend it? It will amend it in such a way that it serves the very best interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Namaqualand has just quoted the hon. the Prime Minister as having said that this piece of legislation is an experiment. I want to tell him, however, that it is a dangerous experiment. It is the sort of experiment that is likely to blow up in all our faces in South Africa. That hon. member has done what practically every other hon. member on the Government benches has done during the discussion of this Bill. Although this is meant to be a measure to combat corruption and maladministration, it is significant that almost every speaker on the Government benches, from the hon. the Minister downwards, has concentrated on attacking the Press. That is, of course, exactly what the hon. member for Namaqualand has also done. The hon. the Minister himself devoted most of his time to a tirade against the Press. He borrowed a notorious phrase from the hon. the Minister of Police by saying “Dit laat my koud”. What he is telling us really is that he could not care less about the responsibility the newspapers have to the public. Those were his words. He said he could not care less, thus showing, of course, that he has not the slightest understanding of the role of the Press in a parliamentary democracy, and also showing that he knows absolutely nothing about the processes of democracy.

An insensitive person.

What no one has told us so far is why this Bill is necessary. Is it like the Immorality Act, one of those Acts one has to have to protect the weak and the corrupt in our society that is according to the Government?

I was also interested to hear the hon. the Leader of the House, when he introduced this Bill, referring to the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister on 16 March of this year, a speech in which the hon. the Prime Minister told us that other countries had created posts very similar to that of the Advocate-General. The post, he said, would be the same as the post of the British Parliamentary Commissioner, as those of the ombudsmen in New Zealand, Sweden and Finland and the post of the Special Prosecutor that was appointed in the United States after the Watergate scandal.

When hon. members in this House make that sort of spurious analogy I always wonder, because this happens very often, whether the members opposite take us on these benches, and the public outside, for complete idiots or whether they believe that by making inaccurate statements in loud, clear voices they will throw everybody off the scent Perhaps both those possibilities apply, because I believe that this Government has become so arrogant, so paranoid, that it has nothing but contempt for anyone who does not sit on those benches, and that includes members of the general public.

For the benefit of those who do, in fact, have some regard for the truth, I want to tell this House that there is a world of difference between the other officials I have mentioned and the Advocate-General whom the Government intends to appoint after this Bill has been passed. There is a world of difference between his functions and powers, and the way in which he will operate, and those of the British Parliamentary Commissioner, the ombudsmen of the three countries mentioned and also, of course, the Special Prosecutor who was appointed after the Watergate scandal. I shall not go into detail about the ombudsmen because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has already referred to them.

I do, however, want to say a few words about the British Parliamentary Commissioner and the United States Special Prosecutor. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in Britain, to give him his full title, is responsible for investigating complaints referred to him by members of the House of Commons, complaints that have come from members of the public who claim to have sustained injustices as a consequence of maladministration or administrative action taken by, or on behalf of, Government departments. So there is no similarity whatever with the function of the Advocate-General who investigates any rumour passed on to him by any person whatever. The British Commissioner has no powers to block any Press reports about the matter he is investigating unless the MP who actually lodged the complaint requests that he does not publicize, and he maintains the anonymity of the person who laid the complaint. He also produces annual reports which are public documents.

What is perhaps of greater interest to us is the Special Prosecutor appointed in the USA after the Watergate scandal. What has, after all, fathered this nasty little brainchild if not our very own Information scandal, which shows great similarities to the Watergate scandal? What drove the hon. the Prime Minister into almost incoherent rage if not the expose of the misappropriation of money voted to his Department of Defence by a trusting Parliament believing those funds were going to be used for defence purposes? What made him so enraged if not the unremitting investigative reporting by a vigilant Press, which revealed that millions upon millions of rands of taxpayers’ money were being used for purposes which were completely different from the purposes Parliament had been told they would be used for? Just as in the USA it was the brilliant and stubborn digging and delving, chasing of rumours and following up of information given very often by anonymous, unknown informants that exposed the “dirty tricks”, the break-ins, the laundered funds, the “hit-lists” and the wiretappings that characterized Watergate and the attempted cover-up—so, too, in South Africa it was the tireless, outstanding work of sections of the Press that exposed the sinister under-cover machinations of Boss and the shameless goings-on of Drs. Rhoodie and Connie Mulder.

There are other interesting similarities between the Watergate scandal and the Information scandal. There are, for instance, some very similar characters I could mention. Evidently, the hon. the Prime Minister is ignorant of the fate of the original special prosecutor appointed by the Attorney-General of the USA on instructions of the Senate Judiciary Committee to handle the Watergate investigation. The name of that man was Archibald Cox. President Nixon instructed the Attorney-General to fire Mr. Cox when Mr. Cox demanded the tapes of the presidential conversations. When the Attorney-General refused, he was fired instead. Then the Deputy Attorney-General was requested to fire Mr. Cox for demanding the tapes. The Deputy Attorney-General refused and he, in turn, was fired. Finally the Acting Deputy was asked to fire Mr. Cox, he agreed and Cox was fired.

What was the result of all this? The result was a tremendous uproar in the USA and a number of Congressmen demanded the impeachment of the President of the USA. When the hon. the Prime Minister draws a comparison with the Special Prosecutor who was appointed in the United States, he should perhaps remember the fate of that man when he came too close to the truth. It seems to me that we too have had our Special Prosecutor in South Africa who did his job too well and was also fired.

Judge Mostert.

Yes, Sir, I am, of course, referring to Judge Mostert. I can see that the hon. members opposite know who I am referring to. He did his job too well and he came far too close to the truth, and he was fired.

The Special Prosecutor was a one-time appointment in the USA. It was not a permanent appointment, although there is legislation on the U.S. Statute Book which allows ad hoc Special Prosecutors to be appointed in the USA. The main point I was trying to make was that in no case—not in the case of the British Parliamentary Commissioner, the Finnish, Swedish or New Zealand ombudsmen or the USA Special Prosecutor—was or is there any attempt made to exclude the public from the knowledge of what is being investigated or the results of the investigations. In the case of the British Parliamentary Commissioner, as I have said, anonymity can however be preserved and the report not made public if the NP who reported the matter originally so requests. But Press freedom is inviolate. There is nothing whatever in any of these countries to stop the Press from fully investigating and reporting on everything they have discovered, irrespective of what the British Parliamentary Commissioner, the ombudsmen in Finland, Sweden or New Zealand or the Special Prosecutor in the USA are doing in the meantime. There is nothing to stop them from making public what is going on. If they find out that certain matters are being investigated they can pursue them to the full, and indeed while the Special Prosecutor was conducting his investigations in the United States, the Press was going full-blast in exposing everything it possibly could of the Watergate scandal. So, it is all very different indeed from what the hon. the Prime Minister hopes to achieve with the Advocate-General legislation.

Theodore Sorenson, who was President Kennedy’s Special Counsel in the White House, wrote about. Watergate in the following terms—

How close were we to the same dangerous position in South Africa before Judge Mostert and the investigative Press ripped the covers off the Information scandal? Had this Bill been on the Statute Book last year, the unholy trinity of Mulder, Van den Bergh and Rhoodie would have been sitting in a position of unassailable power in South Africa today, and it is my opinion that nothing short of a military coup could then have removed them.

The scope of this Bill can be summed up in a few sentences. It seeks to appoint an Advocate-General who will usurp the legitimate democratic inquiries into the misappropriation of public moneys, inquiries that should be made by the police, by Parliament and its Select Committees and by a free Press. The Advocate-General will act under his own rules. One need only look at clauses 6 and 7 to see this. He can act secretly if he so desires—this is provided for in clause 6—and he can act in his own time in terms of clause 5, because he decides when to table his report. It must be tabled seven days after which session of Parliament, may one ask? The Bill does not stipulate that it must be seven days after the ensuing session of Parliament. It can be tabled after two or three parliamentary sessions. Nor does the Bill stipulate in which recess the Report must be handed to the Speaker. If anything, I believe some of the hon. the Minister’s amendments—not all—make matters worse, because his amendment introducing the words “anything that can hinder an investigation” can mean anything at all. In the Advocate-General’s opinion “anything may hinder his investigation”.

It will be the Advocate-General who decides who shall give evidence and whether such people shall be allowed legal representation. That will be the effect even in terms of the amendments. It is in the discretion of the Advocate-General to what extent legal representation can be allowed.

The Bill provides for legal representation.

No, not necessarily. The Advocate-General can decide to what extent such legal representative can act I do not think the hon. the Minister has read the Bill properly. [Interjections.] Well, he is looking a little bit sick about it, so maybe he has now read it properly.

I know the Bill by heart.

The hon. member for Musgrave put it to the hon. the Minister across the floor of the House yesterday that he believed that nothing could be reported at any time unless it went to the Advocate-General first and the Advocate-General subsequently gave permission. The hon. the Minister said “Yes”. When it was again put to him he said: “That is how I read the Bill.”

That is true. That is the position.

What does the hon. the Minister mean by “that is how I read the Bill”? Is that what his legal advisers have told him, or is that how he reads the Bill, because some other people read it differently.

That is the meaning of the clause.

Well, it is very ambiguous, and all I can say is that I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister is wrong, but it will certainly be tested in the courts of law sooner or later. The hon. the Minister assures us—and I am glad of that because I very much hope it is so—that any matter can be raised in Parliament and that what has been said in Parliament may thereafter be reported by the Press. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Thank you very much. I just wanted to get it on record.

You are not the teacher’s pet this afternoon.

No, I am not the teacher’s pet very often.

The Advocate-General is not answerable for the procedures he adopts and the delays he may engender, delays during which no publication of any suspected misappropriations, corrupt acts, etc., may be made public on pain of vicious penalties, and the penalties are vicious.

The hon. member for Durban Point said that two main arguments can be used against those people overseas who call South Africa a police State. Those two arguments relate to our parliamentary system and the free Press in South Africa. Well, I do not think the people overseas just buy that without qualification.

I said it was a weapon.

I agree with the hon. member that it is a weapon, but people overseas do not buy that without qualification because the parliamentary system in South Africa operates minus 80% of the population. I am sure the hon. member will agree with that. The Press in South Africa, even prior to the introduction of this Bill, had many limitations placed upon its freedom, for example the security legislation, the Officials Secrets Act, the Defence Act, the Prisons Act, the Police Act and the Inquests Act, not to mention the ubiquitous Publications Board. However, I go along with the hon. member for Durban Point that the freedom of the Press has, even with its present limitations, been a very important counter to exaggerations one comes across when one is overseas. That counter this Government is today busy destroying.

I now want to say a few words about clause 5, which gives the Advocate-General the power to completely prohibit publication in the interests of national security. A great many people in South Africa, and even some of the Press media which are opposing this Bill, accept this provision unquestioningly. I do not.

Of course not!

I think South Africans have become hypnotized at the very mention of the words “national security”. They are like a lot of rabbits in front of a snake. Anything goes in the name of national security. I have had experience of this in another field, viz. the security law field, in which anything goes. The hon. the Minister has only to say it is in the interests of security and everybody shuts up like a clam.

Except you.

A mystique has developed in South Africa about the expression “national security”, a mystique that enables the Government, especially the hon. the Prime Minister, to get away with murder, if I may use this word metaphorically. Secret funds are voted, secret projects are funded, and millions of rand of taxpayers’ money disappear into unknown coffers, all in the name of national security. Nobody has to account for any of this. I think it is a gigantic confidence trick and that it is high time the South African public raised its muted voice and protested.

The problem has been defined by John Gardner, an American, of Common Cause, as follows—

And this bloated Government, instead of ensuring that every level of administration is closely watched by objective eyes, by a vigilant Press, a mindful public and a zealous Opposition, does just the opposite. It carefully insulates itself, through the Advocate-General, against shock disclosures in the future. If this Bill goes through, corruption can grow unchecked, like moss in dark comers, and maladministration can seep undetected into every comer of the Public Service.

Utter nonsense.

To say “utter nonsense” does not, in fact, answer the arguments I have advanced. I think that when this wretched Bill has been passed—unless, of course, it is radically amended in the Committee Stage—accountability will be grievously reduced in South Africa, and accountability, in the last resort, is the people’s only defence against the absolute power of the Government.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from the speech by the hon. member for Houghton that, firstly, she does not like the Bill before this House and, secondly, she does not like the office of Advocate-General that the Bill aims to introduce. However, what one must take the strongest exception to is that she began to sow suspicion and criticize the office of the Advocate-General in anticipation this afternoon, by way of her statements that he would make his own rules, act in secret and be able to delay a case. I predict at this point that this will be the attack made by the official Opposition on the official ultimately appointed to in that outstanding office. Having listened to the hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members of her party yesterday and today, one can only reach one conclusion, viz. that they are total captives of their own Press. What is the attitude of that Press of theirs towards the Bill? They are solely concerned with their own interests, circulation figures and have an obsession about discrediting the National Party Government.

What about Die Transvaler and Die Burger?

Under the banner of the freedom of the Press which would ostensibly be affected, they have mustered all possible forces to achieve these two objective, their own interests and the downfall of the Government. Under this banner, and with that cry of freedom of the Press, they drew up their order of battle and have done everything in their power to achieve those two objectives in their unbridled malice. As their first allies, they used the politicians of the PFP and the NRP. Just listen for a moment to what those hon. members said in this process.

I now want to come back to a statement made by the hon. member for Yeoville earlier this afternoon when he said that the PFP speakers were very “moderate” in their approach to this whole matter. But what did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? He said the Bill was a diabolical attack on the freedom of the Press. At a protest meeting in Natal Senator Eric Winchester said that the Bill would put South Africa on the road to becoming another “banana republic” and a one-party State in Africa. And what does the hon. member for Yeoville’s own MPC say in the Transvaal Provincial Council? Mr. Alan Gadd said that the Bill was the worst since the Publication of Mein Kampf. He also said that it was the seed of Fascism. Most surprising of all, is that this Press has even taken a member like the hon. member for Durban Point in tow, and I think he has gone furthest in what he has had to say about the Bill. What did he say?

The Bill is a totalitarian measure which could only have a place in a Fascist, communist or despotic system.

This is a scandalous statement. I want to advise that hon. member not to allow himself to be taken in tow by the PFP Press so easily in future; Randfontein is awaiting him.

The English Press mustered other orders of battle and phalanxes as well. They have many foreign friends, too, and those friends have also been activated to assist in pushing the wagon. Now I want hon. members to listen to some of the noises made by newspapers, the friends of this party in the outside world: “The last light of freedom is going out” And then perhaps the worst—

But what other allies and what other actions have the Press initiated? They caused the members of the PFP to rant and rave throughout the country at protest meetings in order to incite the public against the Bill. What are their tactics? First of all they incite the public against the Bill and then tell us, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did yesterday, “the public demands that the Bill be withdrawn”. Then, to crown it all, they do it in an irresponsible way, such as when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked at a protest meeting here in Cape Town: “Wat sal gebeur as die Advokaat-generaal self korrup word?” Has this hon. member not read clause 2(6) of the Bill? Surely the legislation makes full provision for such an event.

I think I have now said enough to prove that the Opposition’s whole campaign is aimed at motives other than so-called Press freedom. They are merely using Press freedom as a peg for their pious speeches and prophecies of doom about the downfall and the disappearance of democratic institutions in this country. Of course one will now wait in vain for any positive note from opposition ranks on this Bill.

Yet this Bill is in fact in the first place a positive and not a negative measure. After all, its basic objective is to create machinery to counter corruption with Government money. This positive objective must always be accorded top priority because it creates something which did not exist before, i.e. an address to which complaints can be brought. The public is now getting a permanent watchdog to guard against corruption, self-enrichment and other irregularities. Everyone is welcome to submit complaints to this permanent address and the Press, too, can bring matters to the attention of the Advocate-General. Consequently no one is excluded.

What is more, the person reporting a matter to the Advocate-General, has three important assurances. In the first place, he has the assurance that the matter will be investigated thoroughly and in an unbiased way. Clause 5(1) of the Bill imposes a legal duty on the Advocate-General to investigate every case reported thoroughly. The second assurance every person has is that his charge will not be suppressed after he has laid it before the Advocate-General, but that a report on it will be published. This is a further legal obligation imposed on the Advocate-General. A third assurance is that that report is not secret, except in so far as it affects national security, but that it is tabled in Parliament and can subsequently be made available immediately for publication. These three assurances which everyone in this country has are, in my opinion, some of the most important positive characteristics of this Bill. These three provisions appear in the legislation and consequently it surely cannot be alleged that the Bill is aimed at a “cover-up”, as is being alleged here. It is in fact aimed at exposing such matters. The Opposition is saying: “The public is entitled to know.” I want to state that this Bill will in fact ensure that the “public” will know, because the information the public will come to know will be correct information because it will have gone through the proper channels of notification, investigation, testing and evaluation. Therefore it will be information one can rely on since it will be the truth. In my opinion this is of the highest importance in a democratic country; not wild rumours and gossip.

I said that the Bill creates an address where certain matters may be submitted. I want to refer briefly to the quality of that address. The Bill ensures that it will be a good address which will enjoy the confidence of every citizen. The Bill also provides that the office of the Advocate-General will be an excellent one with a high status. Firstly, he will be an officer of Parliament, as has already been indicated by other hon. members, and he will be responsible to Parliament Secondly, he will have to attend to his official work on a full-time basis. Thirdly, the qualifications of his office ensure that he will have to be appointed from the ranks of the most select persons in our society.

What are those requirements? He will have to be a lawyer who is entitled to practise as an advocate and who has had at least ten years of uninterrupted experience in the application of the law. Consequently such a person can be appointed not only from the ranks of advocates, but also from the ranks of judges, attorneys or persons in the legal profession in the public or private sector as well. I am convinced that it will never be possible to doubt such a person’s competence, integrity, impartiality and independence. The office, and the person occupying it, will enjoy very high status and confidence generally. In addition there are provisions in the Bill to protect that status.

I agree with hon. members on this side of the House that this is a positive measure and I gladly support it.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Houghton stands up in this House, she always has some surprise for us. This was again the case tonight. The hon. member actually had the temerity to charge this side of the House with being concerned solely with attacking the Press. Surely she cannot be so naïve. Surely she knows that it is she and her party who have for a long time now been attacking hon. members on this side of the House because we have ostensibly encroached upon the freedom of the Press. Hon. members of the PFP have stood up one after the other and continually accused speakers of the NP of attacking the Press. Now the hon. member is complaining because we are defending ourselves, because we are really coming to the crux of the matter. But this is what we have come to expect of her.

Because we are dealing with a relatively brief Bill, most speakers have of course repeatedly covered the same field. There can be no objection to that, because we have gradually ascertained that in the main, the Bill really concerns two matters. They involve the interests of South Africa and, on the other hand, the interests of the Press. As was to be expected, the Government side took the part of South Africa. On the other hand, the Opposition parties took the part of the Press. As has happened so often in the past, the two Opposition parties sided with the financially powerful. Once again they have chosen sides against the security of South Africa.

The whole purpose of the introduction of the office of Advocate-General is to counteract maladministration in South Africa and to ensure and protect the security of the State. Now we find that few hon. members from the Opposition ranks have expressed themselves in favour of steps to protect South Africa’s good name or in favour of the introduction of methods to counteract maladministration and corruption. We now find for the umpteenth time that the PFP and the NRP are not primarily interested in the protection of the good name of South Africa. [Interjections.] What prompts them is not a desire to counter-act corruption. Nor are they concerned about the truth or otherwise of reports or rumours calculated to, or aimed at, damaging the interests of South Africa. Nor are they concerned about the counteracting of malpractices. Nor are they primarily interested in clean administration. The Opposition parties are concerned with other things. They have no intention to assist in tracing and eradicating offences, as is in fact being envisaged in the Bill.

For months now we have seen what is really at issue. What is at issue is the protection of the interests of their real bosses, the interests of the Press. This does not apply to such a great extent to the NRP.

Thank you very much.

This applies mainly to the PFP, although I want to add at once that the NRP, in its conduct with regard to this Bill, is making a pathetic effort to attempt to win the favour of the Press. [Interjections.] What is also at issue is an opportunistic effort to attempt to make political capital out of this major step the Government is taking to prevent a repetition of the Information scandal. We all know of the tremendous hold the Press had on the old United Party. The hon. member for Simonstown has shown us this so often here that it is really old hat to us now. Nevertheless it is reasonably relevant to this debate.

The hon. member for Durban Point, too, has so often in the past stood in this House and moaned about the treacherous role the English Press played in throwing him and his party onto the political scrap heap. For months now South Africa has been observing the Press’ puppet show. This show has in fact been going on for years now. For many years now we have been observing this fact, viz. that the Opposition parties are marionettes that dance and jump according to the way in which the unseen hand of the Press pulls the strings. [Interjections.] This is exactly what is happening in the pathetic performance by the Opposition parties with regard to the Bill before us at present.

Consequently we look beyond this circus display on the part of the Opposition parties and, unfortunately, find ourselves standing four-square against the Press. Nor is there a single hon. member on this side of the House who is not pleased that we are settling this matter now. South Africa demands of the Government that it should not flinch from its duty now. The hon. the Minister of Transport said with great seriousness yesterday that the Press was a valuable partner, that it was strong and that the Government could get hurt. But he also said that it was in the interests of South Africa for us to proceed with this Bill. I believe that we can say quite candidly that the Government is not seeking confrontation with the Press by means of this legislation. Hon. members will agree with me when I say that it has been a long time since such strong and powerful language has been used by a leader of the NP as the language used by the hon. the Leader of the House here yesterday. This points to one thing only. There is an old Latin saying which reads: Si vis pacem, para bellum. It means: “If you wish for peace, prepare for war.” It is here where the whole of the National Party, and without doubt the greater part of the South African nation as well, stand foursquare behind the hon. the Prime Minister. It is only the Press that stands by the Opposition parties, or rather it is the other way round—it is only the Opposition parties that stand by the Press. Many of our colleagues have already testified to calls, messages and letters they have received saying: Stand foursquare behind the Prime Minister; this legislation must be passed—“the dogs may bark, but the caravan goes on”.

Let us examine for a moment the leadership given to the respective parties in this debate by the leaders of the two Opposition parties in connection with the handling of this matter. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition again began with the cover-up story, and did so ad nauseam. He repeated it thousands of times. All he forgot to say, was: “It won’t go away.” Of course he forgot that, because these days he is living in fear of “It won’t go away” because it reminds him of the telephone tied so tightly around his neck. He objects to the fact that the Opposition parties were not consulted in regard to this legislation. Of course he objects to that! Does he really think that we can trust him? He can go and complain about it to Mr. Don McHenry, but he really should not come and complain to the Government about consultation. He regards himself as the watchdog guarding the rights of the public. My question to him is whether he does not believe that the Advocate-General would be a much better watchdog than he and his party.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say: “The Bill will gag the Press.” Can one really be so naïve? South Africa’s Press does not allow itself to be gagged so easily. Surely he knows he is not speaking the truth. In future the Press will have to be a little more careful. We must all be more careful. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should also be more careful in future. I think we could tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Go and tell your bosses, go and tell your Press, “the time has come for you to take South Africa’s side for a change; do not look over your shoulder to the outside world all the time—South Africa is sick and tired of foreign intervention in its affairs”.

With regard to the conduct of the Leader of the NRP, I must frankly say that I pitied him when he stood there yesterday and cried out: “I have no partners.” He is quite right when he says so. He stands there like an orphan.

But he had a good upbringing.

How often has he not come and told us that the Press had rejected him and had turned its back on him. We want to give him good advice. We want to tell him: You know the Press; you know that you are only treated ungratefully. We know that his party and he claim to be patriots and we invite them to take the side of the National Party in dealing with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we learnt many lessons from the Information debacle, but the most important lesson we learnt was that efficient steps should be taken to prevent a repetition. There can be no doubt in anybody’s mind about this. The mere fact that the Information episode did take place, creates a suspicion that there is a deficiency in our existing system, a deficiency on which corruption may possibly begin to flourish. The office of Advocate-General is now being established to eliminate that deficiency and to ensure that corruption can be combated.

I am amazed by the reaction of the Press and the Opposition to this legislation. By their over-reaction, the Opposition proved that the Press was more important to them than the principle of eliminating corruption. The good purpose of the Government to eliminate corruption, is being totally swallowed up by the PFP’s concern about the Press. The idea has occurred to me whether the Opposition would still have opposed the measure if there had been no restriction on the Press. I do not believe that that would have been the case. They would have welcomed the legislation. I can therefore come to one conclusion only, and that is that this debate has now become primarily a Press debate. The Opposition and its Press are not concerned at all about the Government’s object to combat corruption. That has become a matter of secondary importance to them. The so-called freedom of the Press is more important to the Opposition and to the Press than combating corruption in the national administration.

The Press made an outcry over this legislation and are now asking that their side of the matter be heard. The Press is insisting on the audi alteram partem rule. They are asking that no impediment should be introduced by the legislation. They first want us to listen to their side of the matter.

Very well then, let us take a look at their side of the matter. In the first place, we have to establish what the attitude of the Press is. We do not have to search very far in this regard. Clause 4(3) of the legislation makes it perfectly clear that a restriction is only temporarily imposed on reports. As soon as the report has been tabled, the restriction lapses, except of course in the case of security matters. It is therefore a temporary restriction and not an absolute restriction.

How long is temporary?

I shall come to that aspect. How is this temporary restriction on publication being presented to the public by the Press? It is being presented as an absolute restriction on the publication of allegations of corruption. In this regard, I want to mention two examples to hon. members. On 20 May, the Sunday Times reported as follows—

Surely that is not true!

The Rand Daily Mail also reported as follows on 21 May—

The impression is being created that we are dealing here with an absolute ban on publication, while it is in fact only a temporary ban. The Press here blazoned a blatant untruth abroad, with reckless contempt for their own code. I want to quote from the Press Code for hon. members. The code provides, as far as news is concerned, that it is specifically accepted that—

What I quoted from these two newspapers, shows a blatant omission of the truth, viz. that it is only a temporary ban. Nevertheless, they blazon it abroad as though it were an absolute ban. The attitude of the English-language Press to this Government is an attitude which dates back a long way. We remember the case of Mr. Laurence Gandar, a former editor of the Rand Daily Mail. As long ago as 1964 he stated openly that he wanted to see South Africa handed over to Black domination. We do not have to go back to 1964, however; we need only read the Sunday Times of 13 May 1979—ten days ago. In that edition of Sunday Times, their correspondent, Fleur de Villiers, wrote the following—

She wrote here about the “myth” of a White South Africa. The attitude of the hostile English-language Press is aimed at the overthrow …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member what his quotations have to do with corruption?

The hon. member is far better at shooting at targets than he is at asking questions. We are now discussing a Bill which is before the House. The main objection of the Opposition was concerned with the restriction of the Press and I am discussing that. That is my answer to the hon. member’s question.

The attitude of the hostile English-language Press is aimed at the subversion of the identity of the Whites in South Africa and the establishing of an integrated society in this country.

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

The case of the Press was illustrated by Die Beeld. Actually it is not a bad newspaper. Die Beeld of 21 May 1979 admitted—

The newspaper was referring here to corruption—

The newspaper admitted that some newspapers went too far. I quote further—

With regard to corruption, the Beeld issued a further warning—

And—

As far as the Press is concerned, I want to say that if one applies the audi alteram partem rule and says that the Press is now making an outcry because we are introducing this Bill, and if we want to give the Press an opportunity to state its case, one finds that the Press itself admits that some newspapers are waging war and that they are bruiting blatant lies abroad. They are violating their own code in a blatant way. They have been hostile to the survival of the identity of the White man for years. I submit that the Press has gone much too far under the cloak of Press freedom, to such an extent that I am today certain that if I or anyone else were to propose at the Transvaal congress this year that the Rand Daily Mail should be closed down, the majority would vote in favour of it. This is the result of the attitude which is being created by some newspapers. I have listened to the Press’ side of the matter and my judgment is “Mene, mene, tekel, uphersin”. I do not know what language that is, but it means that the Press has been weighed and found wanting. I want to tell the Press that they are fortunate that the Government is dealing so gently with them. The small degree of discipline which is an integral part of this Bill, is evidence of the Government’s infinite patience. It is only extremely deplorable that innocent newspapers are perhaps going to be hurt in the process.

Which are the innocent newspapers?

I want to point out one problem as far as the Afrikaans-language Press is concerned, and that is that they are perhaps to a great extent a slave to the circulation concept. However, we should be realistic. The Afrikaans-language Press shows a greater degree of journalistic honesty than does the English-language Press. The Afrikaans-language Press believes in the survival of the White man and fights for it with the Government. The Afrikaans-language Press has a need for warm and enthusiastic co-operation with the NP, as was the case in the past. The time has come for the NP and the Afrikaans-language Press to trust each other and again get along well together, as was the case in the past. The time has come for reflection, and therefore I should like to read what Beeld reported on 21 May—

There is a particularly great benefit in what is being imposed upon publication by this temporary ban. The Advocate-General can work in peace and tranquillity. I shudder when I think of the unpleasanmess which Mr. Justice Erasmus had to experience.

What about Mostert?

Just imagine, Mr. Speaker: An honourable judge who was thrown to the circulation-hungry wolves. Many a day I felt sorry for the man because of the constant publicity to which he was subjected. I also wondered how on earth he managed to do his work in a peaceful and undisturbed way. Because of the experiences of Mr. Justice Erasmus with the Press, I do not begrudge the Advocate-General being able to do his work in peace and tranquillity under the protection of this legislation.

As the Bill reads at present, with the proposed amendments, there is indeed freedom of the Press, except where State security is involved and where that is an impediment to its work. What is all the fuss about then?

You say that it is an intervention?

It is a restriction, cattle farmer! The Opposition has raised many objections. It is a pity that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not here now. He received a motion of no confidence in Randfontein the other night. That is perhaps one of the reasons why he is so seldom in the House. He said that the Advocate-General should have the Press, political parties and the public as allies in exposing malpractices. But surely that is the case. He does have them. What is the sense of his argument?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, however, said something more. His story is as follows: “It tolls the knell for investigative journalism in South Africa.” As far as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, I want to say in all earnest that I prefer that the functions of the Advocate-General should be such that I would be able to report the telephone call of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to Mr. McHenry as a deed of the utmost irresponsibility against South Africa.

It has been said that the measure will encourage corruption. That is a cheap political argument without any grounds. One does not obtain a good extra watchdog and encourage theft by doing so. The mere fact that the Advocate-General is being appointed, demonstrates the Government’s sincerity in wanting to ensure a clean national administration.

The hon. member for Yeoville kicked up a row about the period of time for which the Press would now have to remain silent. There is only one example of anything of that nature, and that is the Information scandal, as they call it. The whole great. Information debacle has only been in progress since November of last year, as far as the inquiry of Mr. Justice Erasmus is concerned. It is to be finalized this month. Its whole duration was only about seven months. Surely we can then expect the duration in other cases of corruption to continue for perhaps two or three weeks only. What is all the fuss about then? Why do they not want to wait?

The NRP also kicked up a fuss here. I want to ask them: On whose behalf are they speaking? There are only 10 of them sitting here. I canvassed in Randfontein last week and I want to tell the NRP and the PFP they are both going to lose their deposits.

Where?

In Randfontein. [Interjections.] I spoke to a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of the old United Party in Randfontein and he told me that he was now voting for the NP. I then asked him: But what happened to the NRP? Then he told me: “Their office is just next door—come and look.” When I went to have a look, I saw their office with a large notice board in front, which read “Avbob”.

The aim of the legislation is very simple, viz. to offer every responsible citizen the opportunity to assist in combating corruption.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended earlier this evening, I was saying that the intention of the legislature with this legislation was to offer every responsible citizen the opportunity to combat corruption in the State.

Is there so much corruption then?

That hon. member is the most corrupt one. The Advocate-General should be able to do his work in peace and tranquillity. What is particularly important to me, is that the Advocate-General should present his report to Parliament, which is the highest authority in the country. Therefore I support the legislation as well as the efficient way in which corruption is being eliminated by the establishment of a clean national administration.

I cannot understand the hon. Opposition’s objections in principle against this legislation. Basically there are two objections. The first one is that the Press is being restricted, and I have already dealt with that. The other is an objection in principle to the appointment of the Advocate-General. Why is there an objection to the appointment of an Advocate-General? His task is to eliminate corruption. Can there be any objection at all to such an office? The Opposition pleaded for it for months, asked for it and jumped up and down in their benches in their eagerness for action against corruption. But now that the Government is taking action against it, they object. It reminds me of the man who prays in the morning to ask for work, while he thanks the Lord in the evening after he has returned home, that he did not find any. What is significant, is that no proposal was made to put anything or anyone in the place of the Advocate-General.

A new Government. [Interjections.]

With what kind of Opposition are we dealing here? This is an Opposition which criticizes without proposing anything in its place. That is why they are in the Opposition and why they are going to remain in the Opposition.

What did the PFP do? They organized protest meetings throughout the country and incited virulent opposition to the legislation even before they had seen it Do the hon. members realize what fools they are making of themselves by doing that? They held protest meetings here in the Cape where the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked, inter alia: What would happen if the Advocate-General himself were corrupt? The hon. member for Ermelo replied to that. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not read the Bill, but even so, he went to address a meeting dealing with it. The hon. member made the same mistake in Randfontein. He arrived there and he thought he could address the people there as he had addressed the people in the Cape and at other places. A motion of no confidence in him was then moved and he had an indication at the same time that his party would lose its deposit. That is what the hon. member found there. They also held meetings in Durban.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

I shall do so with pleasure, Sir. The NP congresses and NP members have been insisting on steps against the Press for years. The Government has threatened with legislation, but that legislation was withdrawn time and again on the strength of promises, promises which were then not kept I think the impression was created with the Press that they could do as they liked. They thought that the Government would not really take action. The impression was created that the Government was afraid of the Press, and the unavoidable moment of truth, therefore, has now come. Muscle against muscle, the Government against the Press, bull against bull. The time has now come for the Press to realize that the Government is in earnest. The hysterical outburst was of no avail …

Is it aimed at the Press or at corruption?

It is aimed at corruption. The Press will now realize that the Government governs this country, and not they. I trust that the Press, as a result of this legislation, will realize that they will have to appreciate their freedom in future and not abuse it.

Is that a threat?

The Government has now had enough and is now proving that it is not afraid of the Press. The Government will do its duty when it has to. We hope that a new relationship will be created between the Government and the Press as a result of this action, a relationship of mutual respect by which democracy will be furthered and not destroyed.

Mr. Speaker, first I should just like to deal with a few points raised by the hon. member for Jeppe. Unfortunately I do not have much time at my disposal and consequently I shall be unable to deal with all the matters he raised. The hon. member asked in the first place on whose behalf the NRP was speaking. I want to make it very clear to the hon. member and to other hon. members that as far as this legislation is concerned, we in this party are speaking on behalf of all the people who have the interests of democracy at heart. [Interjections.] Then I also think that the hon. member still owes me a reply. He promised to give us his definition of “temporary period of time”. He did not deal with it, of course, because he is most probably aware of the fact that in terms of this legislation there is no restriction on the period of time within which the Advocate-General has to table his report. I think the hon. member is aware of that; for that reason he is not prepared to give a reply in this regard.

The hon. member also made the statement that the Opposition—and I accept that this includes the official Opposition as well—had a bigger interest in the freedom of the Press than in the elimination of corruption. I just want to tell the hon. member that the freedom of the Press is a cornerstone of the democratic political system. [Interjections.] In order to eliminate corruption, one should therefore not tamper with the cornerstones of democracy. The hon. member for Jeppe made the statement that we should see to the elimination of malpractices in the system of government rather than support the cornerstone of democracy—the freedom and the responsibility of the Press. If one interferes with the framework of democracy, one destroys for the most part the process through which malpractices in government are revealed. The lack of logic in that argument renders it impossible to give an answer to it Consequently I can just tell the hon. member that there are major shortcomings in his argument as far as this aspect is concerned.

The democratic process in operation in South Africa at present, is an age-old system. The freedom of the Press is one of its cornerstones. It has been thoroughly tried and tested inside and outside South Africa. There are many examples which one can cite to prove that were it not for the freedom of the Press and freedom of speech, malpractices would in all probability not have been revealed. My party and I do not believe that this legislation in any way proposes a process which improves on the existing age-old tried and tested system of democracy, one of the cornerstones of which is the freedom and the responsibility of the Press.

†I should now like to raise an issue with the hon. the Minister who introduced this Bill. He has been quoted from Hansard. I had better read it to the hon. the Minister in case he has forgotten what he has said.

*I quote from the unrevised version of Hansard—

†I should like to differ with the hon. the Minister’s conception of the Bill, because that is not what the Bill says. Clause 4(3) says—

It is very clear to me and I believe to all hon. members on this side of the House, that once this Bill is passed it will become impossible for anything to be published in a newspaper about alleged corruption. That is it.

Only during the period of investigation.

No, that is not what the Bill says. If that is the hon. the Minister’s intention he must amend the Bill. [Interjections.] He must amend it in such a way that the sub judice rule applies only in respect of the period during which an investigation occurs. In addition to that the hon. the Minister must consider that laying the report alone on the Table will not be sufficient to protect the freedom or rights of the citizens of South Africa, their democratic rights, because, the laying upon the Table of the House the recommendations of the Advocate-General is not sufficient. I believe the evidence which was gathered during his investigation should also be made available to hon. members of this House.

Hear, hear! That is right.

I believe the hon. the Minister has not correctly interpreted the part of the clause I have just quoted. I cannot find any justification for a statement made by the hon. the Minister in the Press, a statement also recorded in Hansard. That is the crux of the problem and of the objection of the NRP to this particular legislation. [Interjections.] This is a muzzling Bill. This is a gagging Bill. [Interjections.] Let us wipe out all the superfluous arguments. We are tampering now with the democratic process of the freedom of the Press and of the freedom of speech in South Africa. Newspaper publications, broadcasting by radio and TV, are logical physical extensions of the principle of the freedom of speech and of freedom of the Press. This Bill is not only gagging the Press, it is also interfering with that fundamental democratic right of the freedom of speech.

As a public representative the Government should be able to stand the scrutiny of Press critics as well as public critics.

That is right. Tell them that.

It is the democratic process that demands that those who stand for public office, those in the executive of government, should be prepared to have their actions scrutinized. There is sufficient legislation to take action against people who perpetrate inaccuracies, lies and deceitful actions against the Government.

That is exactly what we want to investigate.

This Bill is a matter of conscience for every hon. member who supports it. [Interjections.] It is a matter of conscience, and I should appeal to all hon. members opposite who are supporting this Bill to consider the significance and the consequences for democracy in this country of the legislation before us now. We can only come to one conclusion. That is that the Government is in the process of establishing an authoritarian one-party State in South Africa. [Interjections.] I believe that this Bill is an indictment of the ability and the integrity of every hon. Cabinet Minister and of every hon. member opposite. It is an indictment against their ability to participate in the democratic process in South Africa. However, what they are telling us is that the Press critics and the public critics have greater validity in the public eye and in the public mind than the words of hon. Ministers and their supporters. [Interjections.] That is what it is all about.

Good leadership in politics is being shown in overseas countries which have a democratic process similar to our own. They are able to survive and to triumph despite their critics. Despite the institutionalized critics of South Africa, here and everywhere else, we still have a democratic process. The Government is giving notice that its leadership is failing, that its policies are failing. When one starts to fail there is only one answer. There is only one answer when people start to hit one back when they examine one’s actions. That is to get rid of the critics. [Interjections.]

I want to warn hon. members on that side that they have started with the process of dismantling democracy in South Africa. This party suffers more at the hands of the Press than the Government. Yet we are prepared to defend that democratic right of our generation and the next generation. We should like to see ourselves as the custodians of our democratic heritage. If hon. members on that side are prepared to sacrifice that heritage for a short-term political gain, I believe they must let the voters know about that. Tampering with the democratic process is going to lead to far more serious consequences for South Africa than the Information scandal did. Deplorable as it was, the Information scandal, with the millions of rand it involved, could not hurt South Africa that much. I once again appeal to every hon. member to examine his conscience, because every hon. member was elected by the democratic process and owes it to his voters and to the country to perpetuate, without fear of intimidation or favour, the legacy of democracy in this country. I believe that every hon. member who supports this Bill will be publicly admitting that for a short-term political gain he is prepared to sacrifice democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I am very glad to belong to this side of the House. The speakers on this side of the House who have preceded me have objectively upheld and propagated the principles of democracy. The hon. member for Durban North spoke of the principles of democracy, but he did not say what they were. The most important principle of democracy is that the elected representatives should govern.

Democratically.

That is the most important principle of democracy. Then the hon. member for Durban North spoke about the freedom of the Press, but he did not try to explain it to us. He cannot define it. I challenge any hon. member on the other side to give me a definition of Press freedom. I challenge the newspapers to give a definition of Press freedom so that we may know what we are talking about.

You give us a definition.

Surely there is a difference between the right to publish and the freedom of the Press. What does the freedom of the Press mean? I am coming to that.

You must not keep us in suspense. Tell us.

I want to state that this party is not against the Press. [Interjections.] We are in favour of clean administration. This party is not against democracy. We are in favour of it. We are in favour of the retention of its institutions and of the organs of the State which may not be unfairly disparaged. We stand for clean democracy. It is not our intention to protect politicians with this Bill. I challenge anyone on that side of the House to indicate where this Bill protects politicians. No politician is protected by this. We stand for the protection of the organs of the State. The normal statutory provisions with regard to libel do not apply to them, therefore the Press does what it likes.

Did the Press, with regard to Eschel Rhoodie …

We are not against reporting as such. We are definitely in favour of decent responsible reporting. Nor are we opposed to the prosecution of people who are guilty of abuses. We are in favour of the rule of law. [Interjections.] We believe that the courts should act, not the Press. They are not tried by the Press. That is not the rule of law. Since when is that the rule of law? We stand for the rule of law.

I just want to give a survey of what has been said by hon. members on the other side. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: “Press freedom is not a theoretical concept.” I challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to define to me what he understands by Press freedom.

I say there is a difference between the right to publish and the freedom of the Press. The hon. member for Musgrave said: “The public may not now pursue investigations.” It does not say so in the legislation. The hon. member for Musgrave is quite wrong and he misrepresents the contents of the Bill. What does the hon. member for Yeoville say? He says: “Corruption is the exception and not the rule.” I agree with him; surely that is correct. He goes on to say: “We must flush out corruption.” Once again he is right.

However, what does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout say? He says we should allow total Press freedom, as in Germany, but he omits to say that there are two sets of administrative legal approaches in Germany, i.e. the one of person against person and the one of State against person. He omitted to say that. Everything in Germany is fine, but here in South Africa things are going badly. He omits to mention the basic difference. What did the hon. member for Houghton say?

†She went out of her way to say this legislation is completely different to all other instances or institutions in other countries.

*She says that it differs completely from the situation in England and New Zealand. However, is she right in saying that? In this connection, I want to read to her what was written by Professor Kachelhoffer of Unisa. He asked—

I am not for a moment saying that the Advocate-General is an ombudsman. I am only outlining the basic characteristics of an ombudsman and I want to measure them against this Bill. Prof. Kachelhoffer says, firstly—

Parliament is the legislator and the Advocate-General will be responsible to Parliament. Secondly, he says—

That is precisely what is being done here. Thirdly, he says—

That is not exactly what this legislation provides for, but it is more or less the same. Fourthly, the professor says—

That is exactly what is happening here. Fifthly, he says—

What about the prohibition against the Press?

The hon. member for Constantia apparently does not quite understand Afrikaans. I do not blame him. He has no conception of the Afrikaans mentality and that is why he and his party will stay in the political wilderness forever. The point I am trying to make is that this idea of the Advocate-General is compatible with all similar concepts in the Western world. We are not at all moving away from the Western concept of what is reasonable and just and what should be done. We are not at all in the process of becoming a police State, but that is exactly the impression of the official Opposition and the NRP are trying to create.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member to tell us clearly whether any other democracy has included the provisions of clazse 4(3)?

Mr. Speaker, I shall furnish the reply in two phrases. In the first place …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, I gave the hon. member an opportunity to ask me a question. Perhaps he could then have the decency to allow me to answer it. The first answer I want to give the hon. member is that his interpretation of clause 4(3) is totally wrong.

That was not the question.

I am answering the hon. member’s question, but surely I am entitled to do so in my own way. Firstly, the hon. member completely misunderstands what it says in clause 4(3). The hon. the Minister is right. There is absolutely nothing in the Western world which is analogous to his interpretation of clause 4(3).

What is your interpretation?

His interpretation is totally wrong. I said at the outset that this was not an ombudsman, because there are deviations from certain practices followed in other countries because South Africa is a country with problems peculiar to itself. I agree wholeheartedly with clause 4(3).

The hon. member for Durban North made a second mistake. He did not refer to the amendments to be made to the clause. If he would read today’s Order Paper, he would see that he was talking absolute nonsense. I think I have answered his question.

Now answer the question; so far you have not.

I now want to explain the position. The question is where we stand at the moment with regard to the situation in which we find ourselves. I want to examine the present situation and to deal with two aspects. I first want to say where this party stands and then where that party stands. I want to state that the NP believes in democracy, as I told hon. members at the beginning. The representatives of the people will decide what is in the national interest. We believe in clean administration.

We also believe that the Press is very necessary to us. However, there has been a change in the policy of the Press towards this country. We notice that the Press, which should serve as an instrument for the preservation of democracy, is being used as an instrument in an attempt to destroy the democratic institutions. It is a process of disparagement which is taking place. Our church leaders, our political leaders, our Police Force and our State institutions are being disparaged by them. The Press is now jeopardizing the security of our country. I am not saying that they are doing it consciously, but wittingly or unwittingly they are being used as an instrument of Marxism. This Government has a responsibility not to allow that.

Those of us who are sitting in this House should ask ourselves how this state of affairs came about. Two years ago, a Press code was drawn up and a law was almost passed. The Press was warned and told that their conduct was not in the best interests of South Africa. A Press code was drawn up on which they agreed. They went along with the idea. However, what did they do with it? Absolutely nothing. They did not observe it at all. In December 1978, they were twice told that we should co-operate in the interests of South Africa. We could not allow the Press to be used wittingly or unwittingly as an instrument for destroying democracy. In March 1979, this was repeated. On other occasions, newspaper editors were called in and talked to. The Government has never sought confrontation with any person. We should like to have consultation. However, our requests are not heeded.

Now the House of Assembly has an obligation towards the country to protect democracy in this country, no matter how unpopular it may be among the Press and among the Opposition. We have this obligation and we shall honour it. There is no doubt about that. The prerogative of this House of Assembly is to ensure that there is clean administration, that there is access for persons who want to lay complaints, and that such complaints can be investigated on an impartial basis. It is not the prerogative or the sole right of the Press to conduct inquiries when abuses occur. From the whole polemic in the Press I infer that what they are really objecting to is the fact that they will no longer have the sole right to ferret out and expose abuses, because that will mean that they will lose their scoops. That is what the Press is complaining about, and I do not blame them, but then they must not blame me either when I say that I wish to have such a clean administration that every citizen who may be worried about anything must be able to complain about it, and not to the Press. He must be able to lay his complaint before a person and that person must lay it before this House of Assembly. Then the position will be as follows: Instead of complaints being made to the Press about something, the complaint is conveyed directly to the House of Assembly, to the elected representatives who will examine the matter responsibly. Therefore I ask: How on earth can the Press object to that? I simply do not understand it.

Perhaps I should refer to the resolutions of the General Council of the Bar. According to yesterday’s Argus, the General Council of the Bar said the following—

In other words, which are lies. That is all it amounts to, although they use the find sounding word “unfounded”—

They do not say towards whom, however. If they had said “towards the State” and “towards the individual”, the statement would have been complete. That is the first leg of what they say. The second leg is—

Once again that means “suppression of public discussion of these lies”.

That is not what it says.

I say that is what it says. If one interprets it correctly, that is what it says—

It surprises me that the General Council of the Bar should say that the one injustice is preferable to the other. They weigh up two injustices against each other. That makes me ask myself: Is it not the duty of the Council of the Bar to supply a third leg or another solution through which neither will be to the detriment of anyone? The Council of the Bar has a function as advocates. If they want to give a lead, they must confine themselves to legal aspects, not to the public good. They are not elected representatives; we are. It surprises me that the advocacy, through the mouth of their spokesman, should say that the one evil, the one injustice, may take place, while the other injustice is very important, in their opinion. I completely disagree with this. If a statement such as this one by the Council of the Bar cannot be explained in logical terms, then it is not logic or the legal aspects which are the decisive factor, but ulterior motives. This is clearly the situation, and therefore we must rate these objections of the General Council of the Bar at their true value.

What we are seeking to do by means of this legislation is to take that third course which the Council of the Bar should have taken. We want to do one thing without omitting the other. As far as possible, we want to ensure that no person is prejudiced. It surprises me that the General Council of the Bar does not commend this legislation as it should have done.

Now I should like to talk about the Press. I should like to read from The Argus. I shall read only from yesterday’s Argus; one newspaper is enough to condemn them. In its editorial yesterday, The Argus said—

They say it. They say it in so many words. What an admission! However, they go further. They are so sanctimonious that they do not notice their own faults. Let us see what it says in the following sentence—

Why must society pay at all? Is it so that they may get scoops and so that they may disseminate lies, while society simply has to pay? This is a grave indictment of the newspapers, that they should dare to tell the public that they definitely publish incorrect information and that the public has to pay the price for that and to put up with it. In my opinion, it is a disgrace. What do they say next? They say—

Quite right.

It is nonsense. This legislation has nothing to do with the elected Government. It concerns the organization of the State.

Who is responsible for the organization of the State?

This newspaper is totally wrong and it is disgraceful. I should also like to refer to a third article on the front page of the same newspaper, where they say the following—

Surely that is a lie.

It is quite true.

It is a lie. I challenge the next speaker to show me where it says in this legislation that the Press may not conduct investigations. I challenge those hon. members to show me that. [Interjections.]

Why investigate if you cannot report?

It goes on to say on the same page—

But this is a lie. If that is the situation we have in this country, that all these lies are contained in one newspaper, then it is deplorable that such reporting is still condoned and protected in South Africa. I should like to read to the House what someone has to say about Press freedom. I challenge those hon. members to explain to us what Press freedom is. One Alexander Hamilton said the following—

That is the security of the Press—

The public is so strongly opposed to some sections of this Press that the Press does not have a leg to stand on. I have in my possession a letter which I received yesterday and in which it is said once again that the NP is far too lenient with the Press. I challenge those hon. members to speak openly about something which they know something about. I want them to define what they mean by Press freedom.

I also want to refer to something else by quoting from a report published in America. The hon. member for Mossel Bay also quoted from this report. It was drawn up by a responsible body which had investigated the actions of the Press in America. I quote—

Who are they?

The Committee on the Freedom of the Press. They say—

This means that the Press cannot simply rush in wherever they like, because the man in the street is also protected against interference from them. I must therefore have freedom from the Press, but there must also be freedom for the Press. I want to read one more quotation—

This is what was said by a very responsible body in America. In actual fact, this is the present situation in South Africa as well.

What is our objective with this Bill? What are we trying to achieve? Hon. members on that side of the House may grin—I expect it—but the fact of the matter is that we want clean administration in this country. [Interjections.] I ask those hon. members who are so eager to criticize to produce a better proposal than the one which is before us at the moment. We are prepared to look at it. However, what they are doing is negative.

We want the Press to publish as much as possible about State organs, as long as it is the truth. The truth must be published and we all agree with that. Furthermore, the confidence of the electorate in the State organs must not be undermined by inaccurate and malicious reporting under the cloak of democracy. The first priority is the security of the inhabitants of the State. That is the third objective of the Bill. The security of those hon. members is also guaranteed by this. In fact, the security of the Press is guaranteed by this.

We have a democratic system and we intend to preserve it. We cannot allow pressure to be brought to bear on the Government by trade unions, as is done in England. I want to tell the Press in all friendliness that they create the impression of a large and strong trade union which wants to interfere with these matters by pretending to be strong and flexing their muscles. Let them flex their muscles, however; we shall see who wins. We cannot allow them to win.

What do we want to do? We want to give the man in the street, the taxpayer, the man who pays so that this country may be governed by State organs, the right to see whether his money is being spent in the right way. What is wrong with that? The man in the street is now given a share in the administration of his money. Surely that is what we want. He need not go running to the Press. He can come directly to the House of Assembly via the Advocate-General. In a democratic system, no citizen in the country can expect more than that. What more can anyone be offered than one’s best? That is the situation. That is the idea with the appointment of the Advocate-General. He is responsible to the House of Assembly. This House will now be notified first, and it would seem to me that the Press does not like this. Now they will not be the first to know about almost every case, since this House will now be given that opportunity. This House will assess the matter and act accordingly.

I ask for the second time, in all humility, whether there is anything more one can give. The Government does not govern on behalf of itself, but in the best interests of the people. The NP does not govern on behalf of itself, but on behalf of the inhabitants of this country. Therefore I have to support this legislation for a number of reasons. There are great advantages attached to it Firstly, if this legislation had existed two years ago, any person who had noticed the slightest indication of maladministration would have been able to lay a complaint Everything would have been expose much more rapidly. The Auditor-General did all the work and he is the man who exposed the matter. However, he was not properly equipped for doing so, since it is not his function. We are now creating the opportunity for a person to act rapidly to ensure that this can never happen again.

That is the situation. I now ask the Press to look at this legislation again in the light of what has been said here. After all, it is in their interest too that there should be clean administration. They also pay tax, after all. I want to ask them to examine this Bill properly and with new eyes. I believe they will then realize that it is in their interest, too, that the legislation should be passed. I gladly support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Pretoria West with every intention of replying to his arguments. However, he produced an extraordinary circus of variety turns, of red herrings, of smoke-screens and of contradictions—an enormous variety show which would take me not less than half an hour to even begin to reply to. [Interjections.] The hon. member must therefore forgive me if I do not deal with the enormous variety of 57 arguments he put forward. I should rather like to deal with the basis of his arguments.

The hon. member says that this Bill is essentially designed to bring about clean administration in South Africa. Well, if that were the essential intention of the Bill, it would surely have been necessary to write a very different kind of Bill. The Bill would in fact have stated the intention to remove certain malpractices, to eliminate certain areas of Government where malpractices had taken place or were likely to take place. That Bill would have tried to assure that the light of day would be let into all dark comers, the light of day in the sense of public investigation, the searchlight of Press investigation, of free controversy, of free discussion—for these are the elements of democratic Government. These are the means by which a Government in the Western democracies is kept clean and honest. That would have been the contents of a Bill if it were designed for the purpose which the hon. member for Pretoria West described.

I should like to tell him what I think this Bill is about. The purpose of this Bill—and it is quite plain to anyone who reads it carefully—is to remove the investigation and the publication of State matters from the area of the private sector and to place these things entirely in the hands of the public sector itself. This is what it is about.

Clause 4 of the Bill, specifically and in detail, defines the prohibited areas, the areas prohibited to the private sector, to the Press, to the public and to the individual. It defines that area as an area of unique State interests, an area regarding State moneys, State affairs, State employees, and all things which may be done at the expense of the State. These are matters which may no longer be dealt with freely by the public or by private interests. It must henceforth be placed exclusively within the domain of the State.

This Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with the defence of private interests against encroachment by the State. If one looks at the innovation of the institution of the ombudsman in some of the Western democracies, one finds that the purpose of the ombudsman is specifically to guard the public, to guard the private interests; to protect the private interests against the ever-threatening encroachment of the power of the State or of expanding administrative authority. That is what the job of the ombudsman is. Some Western democracies have found it necessary to appoint an ombudsman to defend those very private interests against encroachment by the State. However, here we have the exact reverse. Here, where we have one of the most powerful authoritarian administrations in the world, this same powerful administration finds it necessary to appoint, not an ombudsman but an Advocate-General. To do what? To defend that powerful State against the encroachments and the threats of the private sector. [Interjections.]

You are talking absolute nonsense. You do not know what you are talking about.

If the hon. the Prime Minister would just listen to me, I would prove my statement [Interjections.] In South Africa we have the situation that it is this powerful State that now needs protection. Let the hon. the Prime Minister read the Bill himself. If he does so, he will find that protection is being given to the State, protection is being given to the Administration. It is not an ombudsman Bill. This is an anti-ombudsman Bill. That is what it is.

It is an anti-faceless shareholders Bill.

This Bill explicitly and without apology says that the State administration will not tolerate investigations by the private sector of the State itself. If an investigation is necessary, the Bill says in effect that the State will do the job and, if the State does not have the machinery to do the job, that it will appoint a man to do that job. All of this is in direct conflict with the experience of democratic government.

It is not so that efficient government depends on its being protected against the curiosity of the vulgar mob. No powerful Government needs that kind of protection. This, nevertheless, is what this Bill appears to do. It is seeking to give the State protection against interference, gossip and rumour mongering by the mob outside. The fortress is threatened by gossip. It is threatened by rumour. Therefore we have to erect new fortifications, appoint our own protectors of the sacred citadel of the Administration. What an extraordinary situation are we not in!

What any democratic Government or Administration needs is protection against the encroachment by the Administration. Administration is by its nature always seeking after greater efficiency, greater effectiveness, and it tends to spread wider and wider. It is because of the realization of this natural tendency that a number of Governments, for example, the Scandinavian Governments, the New Zealand Government, the British Government and the American Government, have seen the necessity of trying to protect the private interest against this kind of encroachment. To call this Bill an ombudsman Bill, as some people have wrongly done, is to make a mockery of it. It is the exact reverse. I believe, as we must all believe from our own experience, that good government depends on public access to information and the public’s right to use that information and to participate in government as a means towards creating better government. One cannot participate effectively in government unless one has free access to information and can use that information.

And unless one has a responsible Press.

This is the essence of democratic government.

Let us come to the question of a responsible Press. How does a responsible Press do its job? We are dealing particularly with the danger of scandal, corruption and so forth and not ordinary news reporting. What actually happens in the Press office? Ordinary members of the public become aware of things they think are improper, of things they consider to be abuses in government. What happens is that they then telephone the local newspaper, or their MP, and tell them about it An investigation is then undertaken. The newspapers do not simply publish such stories unsupported. They check them out. The MP does not simply put a question on the Question Paper, but he checks the story out. The investigation then starts. The complaint may be ill-founded, it may be unjustified. Nothing would, however, be found out unless everything untoward, everything suspicious, were investigated. This is part of the job of the Press, just as it is the job of the MP and of every right-minded responsible citizen. The present Government are not apart from us. They are not a different race. They have been put there by the people of South Africa and the people of South Africa have the right to inquire; they have the right to ask; they have the right to accuse; they have the right to demand investigations. The Government has, however, become so powerful, so complacent, so self-satisfied, that they are now saying: “We do not believe that the public have the right to inquire. The public must go and lay a complaint with our man. We will appoint a man. Lay your complaint with the head prefect and he will decide whether you have a case or not” Sir, is it any wonder that people no longer feel they have recourse to officialdom in respect of their complaints? Is it any wonder that in the case of the Information scandal people did not go to the Government to complain, that they did not tell the Government that Connie Mulder, Rhoodie or General Van den Bergh was doing wrong? That would have been to no avail. The Government would have said: You are talking nonsense. [Interjections.] There was no point in going so they went to the Press and they came to us. Who solved the problem, who exposed the issue, who resolved the corruption? Who, in fact, remedied the corruption? Without the Press, and without the public’s confidence in the Press as an investigatory organ within democracy, one would today have had Dr. Connie Mulder as Prime Minister, Dr. Eschel Rhoodie as Controller and Auditor-General and Gen. Van den Bergh as Minister of Foreign Affairs. That is what we would have had today. [Interjections.] Who would have stopped it if the Press had not investigated the matter and exposed it?

How ridiculous can you get?

I am not being funny. It was a real possibility. I invite the hon. the Leader of the House to think back a few months and to envisage what might have happened if all these matters had not been exposed; and who exposed it other than the Press?

Within the Government there has been a commendable change in the field of economic affairs. In the field of economic affairs we have seen a movement away from State control. We have seen a movement away from State monopolies. We have seen a willingness to bring the private sector in more fully, to invite the participation of the private sector in the creation of an open, free and vigorous economy. On the other hand, in our administration we are going in the reverse direction because there is an ever-increasing tendency to close down on the sources of information. The Government is becoming increasingly secretive, increasingly reluctant to reveal information and increasingly suspicious of inquiry by the private sector into the affairs of the Administration. It is very difficult to obtain information from the Government. I have some remarkable example of this.

I think the hon. the Prime Minister—and I say this in all friendliness to him—should read a book recently published in South Africa, a book called The Darker Reaches of Government, written by Prof. Mathews. I think it contains information which may surprise even him. It documents in detail the growing encroachment of Government administration on the freedom of the public to participate in Government and to share in information.

Kowie is laughing at you.

I do not hear anybody laughing.

I laughed at something else.

Kowie is laughing at himself.

This Bill is not just an anti-Press Bill, as many people aver. It is more than that. It is an anti-private sector Bill as it makes it more and more difficult for the public to participate fully in the investigation of public affairs and to have access to the sources of information which enables it to participate in public affairs.

We have developing, in this country, a kind of apartheid between the public sector and the private sector. It is a kind of race classification, because the Bill itself declares that certain people are no longer eligible to investigate matters and to publish information about them for the benefit of the public at large. We may no longer do that. We have to approach the Government-appointed person and he will then decide, after his own investigation, whether it is necessary to take the matter further, whether he should lay a report before Parliament and whether any further investigation is necessary. On this basis, if this system had operated a year or two ago, I am confident that we would never have discovered the things which were discovered by a free and full investigation into the situation as it then existed. I believe that the role of the Press as an investigatory body is absolutely cardinal to the maintenance of democracy. I believe that it is right that we should try, by all means at our disposal, to protect this role, to defend it and to recognize it as a salutary method, a remedy within the system for all the ills that may befall a Government, particularly a Government that grows too strong, too powerful and too complacent.

That could only be your party’s fault.

I believe that this remedy is needed. Both the Afrikaans-language and the English-language Press have a role to play in puncturing complacency, in keeping the Government cut down to size and in ensuring that the rights of the individual are respected, honoured and defended. I believe these things are so essential that without them democracy cannot possibly succeed. For a Government to say that we no longer need that role, that it will institute machinery and the institutional apparatus which can perform these functions, that the Press has embarrassed it, that it will exclude the Press and create its own machinery to play the role of the Press, is a contradiction in terms and cannot work. If we had an open administration in South Africa, we would not need this Bill. And in a closed administration we cannot afford this Bill. The only thing we can afford, is an open administration.

Until this Government turns back from the path it has taken and decides that, just as in the economic sector, it wishes to bring about open government and open participation, I fear we are increasingly heading to the dark age of democracy in the history of South Africa. The time has come to think again and to decide what course we are taking. The hon. the Prime Minister has embarked on a series of measures which I believe are promising to the future of this country. But, I believe this Bill is inconsistent and directly in conflict with that purpose and that it will do great harm to his Administration and to South Africa at large.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia made a few remarks here which cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. He started off with the statement that it is maintained the Bill was designed to bring about clean administration. However he omitted to point out another very important element, one which has repeatedly been spelt out by hon. members on this side of the House, and that is that it has also been designed to make orderly government possible. He made a second statement, namely that it is in fact vital that daylight should be able to reach all the dark comers. Surely that is correct. What the official Opposition and, unfortunately, the NRP too, as well as the Press they support, are doing is trying, not to throw light on dark comers but to throw darkness on the daylight which shines on people.

The hon. member made mention of the office of ombudsman. No one on this side of the House has intimated that we are attempting to introduce the office of ombudsman by way of this Bill. The function of the Advocate-General is limited by definition. Therefore no effort whatsoever is being made to have the office of ombudsman introduced here.

The hon. member made another important statement He said that people were now ’phoning the Press to complain and that the Press could take the matter further. He states that the only right a member of the public will have now is to approach the head prefect who will then decide what he is going to do. Among other things, he also said that the Advocate-General had a choice as to whether to issue a report or not. But surely that is untrue. The terms of reference in the Bill are expressly that he must investigate every matter put to him and must submit a report on it.

Except…

There is no question of “except”. Hon. members must take another look at this Bill. [Interjections.] I am sorry, but I cannot hear what hon. members are saying. At this stage I want to refer back to the speech by the hon. member for Pretoria West. He made a very good speech, a well-reasoned speech. I think the fact that the Opposition made such a fuss about it is evidence that he made an impact on them. What I really want to discuss, however, is the remark put by way of a question to the hon. member for Pretoria West by the hon. member for Durban North, viz. whether he could point to any other example of this kind of restriction being imposed on publication. They are the hon. members who, every time we draw comparisons with other Western countries here in regard to standards of living, for example, tell us that we must not draw comparisons because our country is unique. But now it suits them to ask for comparisons. We have a unique community, but unfortunately we also have members of the Press group who are unique. We have no alternative but to press on with this legislation. The hon. member for Durban North also said that they spoke on behalf of the people to whom democracy was important. I wonder what he would say if democracy were to disappear because it could not be maintained as envisaged. Democracy does not mean licence. There are certain rules within which democracy must be exercised. The hon. member specifically added that freedom of the Press was a cornerstone of democracy. That is not correct. Freedom of the Press is one of the yardsticks which can ensure that democracy is practised correctly. I concede that at once, but the freedom of the Press as those hon. members envisage it could very easily lead to democracy being destroyed due to orderly government being made impossible.

I want to come back to the provisions of the Bill, and I think it is necessary, for the sake of perspective, to take another look at the provisions of clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill. Let us go through them together logically and clearly. Clause 4(1) states—

1. (a) State moneys have been or are being misapplied or that maladministration in connection with State moneys has taken place or is taking place;
2. (b) any person either directly or indirectly has been or is being enriched, or has received or is receiving any advantage, in an unlawful or improper manner through or as a result of any act performed—
   1. (i) in connection with the affairs of the State;
   2. (ii) by any person while he is performing service as an employee of the State; or
   3. (iii) at the expense of the State;
3. (c) any attempt has been or is being made to perform an act referred to in paragraph (a) or to bring about a situation referred to in paragraph (b)

This can be done by way of an affidavit or affirmation. The legislation goes on to provide that as soon as possible after a matter has been laid before him, the Advocate-General shall give notice thereof in the prescribed way, viz. that an investigation is in fact under way into an allegation laid before him in regard to a suspicion of maladministration or misapplication of State moneys or of enrichment of an employee of the State at the expense of the State. After he has given notice, no one may publish anything about it Subsection (3) goes on to provide that no one may publish any allegation which could be covered by the provisions of clause 4(1). However it must be borne in mind very clearly that this only applies to State moneys. Then the Bill goes on to read that the Advocate-General is obliged to give permission on request to those who want to publish something unless—and there are only two restrictions on his obligation to grant permission—either he deems it in the interests of State security that publication should not occur, or he considers that it will hinder him in the execution of the investigation. Only then can he refuse.

That is not a restriction.

Of course it is a restriction.

Clause 5 provides that the Advocate-General shall inquire into any complaint laid before him in this way. In discussing this matter I am also taking the amendments as printed in the Order Paper into account as if they have been accepted. The Advocate-General must then investigate the matter without delay and issue a report with recommendations which he must hand to the Leader of the House, who in turn must table it within seven days of its receipt if Parliament is in session, or alternatively within seven days after the commencement of the next ensuing session of Parliament.

A further provision as contained in clause 5(2) is that if the Advocate-General is of the opinion that it is in the interests of the security of the State that publication should not occur, he should recommend accordingly. In such a case the document would be submitted on a confidential basis and submitted for consideration by a Select Committee.

It is also very important to take cognizance of the provisions of clause 2 of the Bill, which fully protect the office and person of the Advocate-General. There are a few aspects in this regard which we must take note of. The hon. official Opposition proclaims loudly that it believes in the rule audi alteram partem. What they are advocating, however, is that people holding public office should virtually be found guilty by way of innuendo politics, without their side of the case being heard. But this is surely a proper way to afford the other man the opportunity to put his side of the case as well. Here we have a well-ordered instrument wherewith to trace corruption and take action against it. Consequently, clear administration can be achieved by way of this legislation. At the same time, due to the restriction on publications, undermining or destruction of the system per se is not permitted, viz. giving effect to the second leg of orderly government.

Let us take a look at Press freedom. Hon. members on that side of the House have admitted that Press freedom is a right derived from the right of freedom of speech. Freedom is not licence, as hon. members will concede. Just as every right possessed by an individual has a corresponding duty, the concept “freedom”, too, entails the corresponding duty of responsibility. If we do not realize this we cannot really argue meaningfully with one another. It is a basic point of departure which all of us must accept. Therefore, freedom cannot operate in a vacuum. Freedom must always be weighed against the freedoms and interests of others. The State also has an interest, not only as a contracting party in a community, but as a representative of the community interests, the individual against the group of individuals as embodied in the State.

Members of the Press gallery and of the Press are making a mistake when they regard this legislation as applying specifically to them. One has to distinguish between a responsible Press and an irresponsible Press. The Press which acts responsibly is not affected by the provisions of this legislation and it will not cause problems. Consequently all the members of the Press groups in South Africa should not be concerned about this legislation.

Why are they all complaining, then?

I refuse to allow myself to be associated per definition with the official Opposition purely owing to the fact that I am also active in politics. Similarly, a responsible newspaper—and one which regards itself as such—must refuse to allow itself to be associated with the Press as a whole when this charge is laid against them. I think that the irresponsibility of a certain section of the Press can best be described in the words of Stanley Baldwin. He said—

I want to refer to a few remarks made in the course of this debate. In the first place, I want to refer to a remark by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and a similar remark by the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that this legislation was being introduced “even against the wishes of many members of the NP’s own caucus”. The hon. member for Durban Point said: “There are many of them who do not support or accept this Bill.” But one and all in this party accept this legislation. I am not aware of a single hon. member who is not prepared to stand foursquare behind the hon. the Prime Minister. I shall come back to this again. [Interjections.]

We should very much have preferred it to be unnecessary to pass this legislation in the way that it must be passed. The question arises as to why the Bill has to be introduced. In this regard I want to make a statement with all the responsibility at my command. [Interjections.] I have no doubt whatsoever that there is a section of the Press in South Africa which seeks not only to bring this Government to a fall, but also to destroy the system. They want to see a new system established on a non-evolutionary basis. I say this with all the responsibility at my command. How do they do it? They do it by breaking down authority and the dignity of the offices of this country. They attack the office. The man in the office is discredited by them and with him the whole power structure.

Give us examples.

I shall give examples in a moment. It is not pleasant for anyone in this House to have to pass this legislation with its restrictions on publications. We should have preferred it to be otherwise. However, it is also necessary for me to say right at the outset that this Government also has a great appreciation for the Press. They have appreciation for many aspects falling under the Press and matters it deals with daily. I think the Press fulfils a good role as regards provision of information to the public in general.

This is also the case With many disciplines in our society. I think that they do this well. In this regard all the newspapers perform the greater part of their task and here I include Afrikaans as well as English-language newspapers. However, one does not tell one’s child that he can throw a brick at one because he has done well at school. One tells him that he should not throw a brick at his father however well he does. If one’s child does not listen to one, one gives him a hiding. One must keep one’s house in order.

The Government has repeatedly requested the Press to display responsibility particularly in regard to State administration. If a hiding is necessary, they must endure it.

Are you now giving the Press a hiding?

In a certain sense that is quite correct. We would prefer not to give them this hiding. There is a distinction to be drawn between criticism of poor administration and criticism of alleged maladministration and corruption when the facts do not cover the evidence. This does not apply to the entire Press. If one wants to feel hurt when one is prohibited from throwing bricks because the prohibition affects all the children, then so be it However, I think it is unnecessary. The man with a clear conscience will not be concerned about it. I think the Press must learn to distinguish and not to be needlessly concerned about this admonition if it does not apply to them. Nevertheless, politics of innuendo have become the fashion among the majority of them. Facts are presented in such a way that one can only read between the lines. There is no point in reading what is written. One becomes none the wiser for doing so. All one can read is what is said between the lines.

The function of the Government is to govern. The Press is the watchdog of the public. However, a watchdog is not a wolf which is only on the lookout for what it can tear apart and devour. I think that what has in fact happened with regard to many of our newspapers in South Africa is that they are acting more like the hyena which only preys on what is dead. If they had only kept to that, it would still have been all right. However, they go further than that. They not only follow the scent they leave one. [Interjections.] I think the reaction of the Press to this legislation was disturbing to see; disturbing in that few of the newspapers did any soul-searching. All of them regarded this merely as an infringement of their rights, without asking themselves where they themselves stood in this situation. Now the official Opposition and the NRP must tell us to what extent they are co-operating in this major onslaught by a section of the Press on the institutions of government and of democracy, with the aim of destroying them.

The NP cannot be brought to a fall at the polls by those Opposition parties within the foreseeable future. When this Government falls democracy is also going to fall, at any rate as far as we can assess the future. They know that, and they also know what they are doing. They are undermining authority. They are breaking down the dignity of our institutions. They are engaged in the counterrevolution of Marcuse, a counter-revolution which they are in fact taking further. They no longer question; they reject in advance. In this regard I want to refer again to a few statements made in this debate.

The hon. member for Umhlanga said in the course of his speech that the inference he made from this was that there was a great deal of corruption going on. He also said that he drew the inference that the hon. the Prime Minister was aware of that corruption. The hon. member referred to a “continuing covering-up exercise”.

Yes, but he is a washed up jingo. [Interjections.]

Now I ask what message these words of the hon. member conveyed to us. What message is the Press conveying in this regard?

Do not misquote me, my friend.

No, I quoted the hon. member verbatim. He can go and read his speech in Hansard himself if he has any doubt about it. [Interjections.]

I now wish to refer to a remark made by the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition. He began by referring to what the hon. the Leader of the House said about clean administration when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He said—

He says that they do not accept that that is the intention. He states that they “must of course” accept that that is the intention. What does he mean by saying it in this way? What message is he conveying? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition goes on to say that any member of the public can now silence the Press even if he has no facts in his submission of the charge before the Advocate-General. What are hon. members opposite doing? What is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition doing? He is standing up here and questions the integrity of the hon. the Prime Minister and of 16 members of the Cabinet He is asked: “What are your facts?” He is told: “Go and give evidence.” He replies: “I do not have the facts. These people have the facts.”

We got some very funny facts from Senator Horwood. He writes his initials with dark glasses on.

That is what they want to go on doing. The hon. member for Durban Point laid great stress on “the right of the free Press to investigate and to expose”. Must people have the free right to investigate and expose, right or wrong? Is he really in favour of the policy of direct slander and slander by innuendo followed by the Press groups from day to day? The hon. the Minister of Community Development referred very clearly to several examples of this.

Ask Agliotti if he agrees.

I have said that the right of free speech is limited by the rights of others. The State, too, has rights. The State, too, has a right to continued existence. The system has a right to continued existence.

A moment ago hon. members asked me to give examples of the discrediting of the office and persons holding the office. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Houghton have already, at great length, cast suspicion at the office of Advocate-General. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout did take some trouble to seek a back door by saying that the acceptability of the office in fact depended on the person who occupied it. In other words, the person occupying the office could make the office acceptable.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member now says “no”. Let me read what he said. The hon. member for Musgrave said that if no report was submitted by the Advocate-General, it would not be possible to write about it. The hon. member for Houghton complained about possible delays in the submission of the report. The hon. member for Durban North asked how long an investigation could continue. There is no specific period provided for.

That is the problem.

There is no problem. If the Advocate-General does not issue a report it is surely for them to refer to it in the House. It is for any individual, including any newspaper, to ask when the report on the investigation of its notice has been given on a certain date, is to be submitted. It is theoretically possible that a report will never appear …

We have been asking for 14 years when the report of the Press Board is going to appear.

The hon. member is trying to lead me away from my argument but I want to come back to this because I think it is important. We can ask the Advocate-General every day when he is going to submit his report. When we do so, he shall have to give an answer. If they hear nothing about it, the public will not accept it and the newspapers, including the Afrikaans-language newspapers, will write about it.

The hon. member for Simonstown said that the Government had a duty to put the Press’ house in order. I want to state it more widely: The Government has a duty to put the State’s house in order, but if it is unable to do so without at the same time putting the Press’ house in order, then it must do so.

The hon. member for Durban Point made a big fuss about the hon. the Prime Minister having supposedly “lost his cool” in regard to this legislation. I want to say that by means of this very legislation, the hon. the Prime Minister has shown that he does keep his cool. If one wants to make oneself acceptable to everyone, what is easier than to say: “Let it go; I believe in a free Press”, or, by implication; “I believe in an unrestrained Press”? Surely the hon. the Prime Minister knows that this legislation is not popular with everyone. However, he is taking steps which he deems really necessary in the interests of the protection of the whole system.

Do you think it is necessary?

The hon. member asks me whether I think it is necessary. Can you imagine me defending it here if I did not believe that it was necessary?

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to say “yes”, he believes that I would advocate something in which I did not believe?

Order! The hon. member may not ascribe improper motives to another hon. member. He may not suggest that an hon. member is not honest in regard to the standpoint he adopts in this House.

The hon. member for Durban Point also referred to the “fundamentals of democratic government”. He spoke about Parliament and a free Press. However, what is the basis of democracy as we know it? The basis of this Governmental system is the House of Assembly, the Senate plus the State President, who is appointed by Parliament. It also has a free Press which must be the watchdog for the public, but as those hon. members said, there are not only three components of this democracy; there is a fourth component as well. What is worse, however, is that this fourth component, the free Press, has for them become more fundamental than the three basic components which must form the basis of democratic government. Those hon. members and certain Opposition newspapers believe that the reporting of facts is only really the refuge of those with no imagination.

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the House whether this proposed amendment to clause 4, which leaves the matter open to general publication immediately the Advocate-General has given notice that he is investigating the matter, will have the desired effect. I am concerned that this amendment may perhaps be a little too wide. I predict that there are sections of the Press that will do everything in their power to oblige the Government to impose a further limitation on publication. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, to listen to the hon. member for Randburg one would think we were discussing an extension of the Freedom of the Press Bill, whereas in fact we are doing the exact opposite. I must again take exception to Government members comparing the provisions of this Bill with those generally relating to the position of an ombudsman in other countries around the world. I believe that to try in any way to compare the provisions of this Bill with those of an ombudsman Bill is an absolute travesty of terminology, because the two are as different as chalk from cheese.

I see this as a Bill of revenge, a personal revenge of petty politicians who have done their best to cover up an incident in South African politics, have done their best to see that it did not come out into the light. Having failed to do that, however, they are now turning in their anger and attempting to take revenge on the Press for the part it played in opening up that scandal and reporting on it to the people of this country. The Government is now using State machinery to punish the Press for the part it played in that scandal.

When one looks at the provisions of this Bill and listens to the tone of the speeches made by Government members, one is reminded of a person who, in the not too far distant past, said that the lights in Europe are going out one by one. I do not think the lights are going out one by one. I think we are facing a total black-out of investigative journalism in South Africa. [Interjections.] Over a period of years, and especially in the past few months, we have heard many references by Government members to the total onslaught on South Africa, but I believe the Bill before the House is the beginning of the total onslaught against democracy in South Africa, and it is starting with the Press. I do not believe that this Bill is really aimed at seeking the truth or clean administration, because if it were, the very savage penalties provided for in this Bill would have been kept for those found guilty of corruption, and not for the Press which highlights and reveals such corruption. I say in all earnestness that I do not believe that the real intention here is clean administration. I believe that what we are seeing is part of a move to crush opposition, in whatever fragile form it might be found in this country, and as such this Bill is the start of the movement down that slippery slope to a one-party State in South Africa. [Interjections.] I believe, and it will take a great deal to convince me otherwise, that what this Government wants and is, in fact, embarking on is the one-way road to a one-party State in South Africa. This Bill does not create an opportunity to investigate.

Why do you not emigrate?

I am asked why I do not emigrate. That is one of the most incredibly stupid questions I have heard from that hon. member.

We are listening to complete stupidity from you.

I have chosen to stay in this country to try to do something to ensure that it is a country fit for our children and our grandchildren to live in. I believe it is the duty of us, as an Opposition, to point out to the Government where it goes wrong and where it starts on the road that will make it difficult for our children and our grandchildren to stay in this country. I believe that with this legislation we are actually creating a situation which gives an opportunity to people in the outside world to compare our excesses with the excesses of some of the socialist Governments of pre-war Europe. I do not think I need take it any further than that I think we are all aware of how the expressions of opposition and of criticism were stifled in pre-war Europe, and we all saw the holocaust that developed as a result of those excesses.

An hon. member who spoke previously indicated—and he was the first speaker I have heard who did so—that perhaps this Bill does not go far enough. That in itself is a fairly chilling admission, but we need not be surprised, because if we read clause 10 of the Bill, we see that it is made perfectly clear that we are in fact, voting for a provision in terms of which the State President can proclaim and make regulations to give additional powers to the Advocate-General.

It is a blank cheque.

Not only are we giving a blank cheque; we are also being asked to guarantee an overdraft facility as well.

Have you not seen the amendment on the Order Paper?

Why was it not included in the Bill in the first place?

It is a poor Bill to start with.

Yes, it is a very poor Bill to start with. It is an admission of failure on the part of the Government that it has had to introduce amendments at this early stage. We have indeed seen the amendments, but they are not enough, and we therefore hope the hon. the Minister is going to accept more amendments. In fact, we would plead with him to accept more, but we realize, as past history has shown, that pleading with the Government seems to have very little impact. To me it is interesting to notice who has not spoken in this debate. We should like to have heard the opinions of the hon. member for Pinetown, who stood for the governing party in 1977 with the avowed intention of making changes from within. We have seen him sitting in that back bench, and to me he looks very unhappy. I do not believe he is happy with the provisions of this Bill. I also believe that some of the hon. members who sit near him are also very unhappy about these provisions. I want to refer, for example, to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, the hon. member for Krugersdorp and the hon. member for Florida.

You are completely out of your tiny little mind.

I think one could go on to name quite a few others. I believe their silence on this issue is an indication of the fact that they are unhappy with some of the provisions of this Bill. I should be interested to hear the hon. member for Pinetown justifying this proposed legislation at a public meeting in his constituency, because it was his avowed intention to get this Government to change and move away from some of its more radical approaches.

One would have hoped that the Government would at least have waited until the Information scandal had been completely dealt with in a debate on the final report of the Erasmus Commission before it introduced legislation like this.

You will never be the man your father was.

You will clearly never be a man.

Order! The hon. member may continue with his speech.

One would have hoped that that would have been the case and that we could have cleared up that incident in our history before legislation like this came before this House. However, that is not to be. We know that the hon. the Prime Minister has made this threat, I think in the heat of the moment However, having made this threat that this legislation would be passed by 1 June 1979, he now, of course, in terms of his image as a “kragdadige” leader, has to carry out that threat. We have seen that the Government has every intention of going ahead, despite reasoned protests by its own Press that has supported it loyally over many years. There is absolutely no doubt that they are not going to introduce any meaningful or major amendments to this legislation. If I had had a little more time, I would perhaps have stood in silence for a minute to commemorate the passing of Press freedom in this country, because what we are seeing tonight is only the beginning of the passing of Press freedom in South Africa.

I want to close by saying that the ultimate irony of this Bill is in clause 2, in the sense that the Advocate-General will be appointed by a former Prime Minister who was responsible for the mess which created the necessity for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, for the past two days we have been conducting a debate on a very important matter. In the first place, as stated by the hon. the Prime Minister, we want clean administration in this country.

Is there enough water in your dams to wash the Government clean?

My dams will never overflow with folly. The hon. the Prime Minister stated that we wanted clean administration. If one observes the administration of one’s country and seeks means of ensuring that one can achieve the ideal one has set for oneself, certain things have to be done. The first consequence of that standpoint adopted by the hon. the Prime Minister is this legislation. But ever since the publication of the legislation, we have had strong emotion and drama in the Press and in the ranks of the Opposition, instead of a sober analysis of the legislation and of what it envisages.

I should now like to refer to the last speaker on that side of the House, namely the hon. member for Berea. He concluded by saying that he was sorry he did not have more time. I do not know whether any restriction was imposed on him.

Yes, there was.

I do not think he had anything more to say. I gained the impression that he did not have any more arguments to advance. To occupy himself, he repeated all the arguments advanced by previous speakers on that side of the House. He started off with the story that the hon. the Prime Minister had allegedly intimated that the Advocate-General would be an ombudsman. The hon. the Prime Minister did mention an ombudsman as an example of what was being done in another country, but he never said specifically that that type of office was necessary here as well. He never said that, but many speakers on that side of the House tried to imply that this was being envisaged, that there had been a promise to this effect on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Berea went on to say, “It looks like the revenge of petty politicians”, that this side of the House, the Government, wanted to take revenge. “They want to punish the Press.” Surely these are ridiculous arguments. According to him the Press, and nobody else, exposed the Information debacle.

They did.

Surely that is not true.

It is absolutely true.

The Press did have a share in it, but they dished up a lot of stories that they had checked on all the activities of the former Department of Information from beginning to end. But we know that a great deal of that was mere conjecture and stories.

May I ask the hon. the Minister to give one specific instance of an important rumour that was published in the Press on the Information scandal which has been proved to be wrong?

The hon. member is now trying to steal a march on us. Now he wants me to quote one important … [Interjections.]

You made the statement.

How many stories are being dished up about the hon. the Prime Minister in the newspapers today?

All of them are true.

The story was told time and again—if I had a newspaper in front of me at the moment I should have been able to show hon. members—that the hon. the Prime Minister had deliberately and knowingly voted an amount of money in the defence budget and then had it transferred to the former Department of Information.

The story was also spread that we had discussed that in the Cabinet.

Surely that was mentioned in the Press many, many times. The hon. member requested me to cite one example, but now I want to cite another one. It was expressly stated in the Press that members of the Cabinet had known about the events with regard to the Information affair prior to 26 September. That was repeatedly alleged, and in this regard they repeatedly singled out, inter alia, the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance. If that hon. member is interested, he can personally go and check, when the final report of the Erasmus Commission is made available, how many stories were dished up by him and by the Press, stories which ultimately proved untrue.

For example?

The hon. member wanted me to cite only one example, but I have now cited quite a few. That side of the House argues that we want to take revenge on the Press. What we do wish to do, however, is to ensure that our officialdom in this country—and we are proud of them—and other public figures who are making sacrifices in the interests of the country, regardless of the level of management, will be protected to some extent in an honest and fair manner. Everyone is now given an avenue to come and lay a charge, whereupon the procedure laid down by the legislation will be followed until a report is ultimately submitted to this House. What more do those hon. members want? I shall come back to this. The hon. member for Berea said, “It is a black-out of journalism”.

Of investigative journalism.

He said; “It is an onslaught on democracy. We are on the slippery slope to a one-party State. ” He went on to say, “It reminds me of socialist Governments of pre-war years.”

European Governments.

We have heard these stories before. The hon. member really wanted to say “like Nazi Germany”, but he was too frightened to say it. However, that is what he insinuates.

I never said it.

This is the sort of thing we come up against in this House. All we expect of those hon. members, is to go and tell the voters in Randfontein: “Vote for the right to vote again.”

That is what they want to say. After all, they are back where they started 30 to 40 years ago. That is what this hysteria is all about. At that time they dished up the farfetched story that they were at the mercy of a ruthless group of Afrikaners. That day after day feelings are aroused in the Press against a cultural organization of the Afrikaner, viz. the Broederbond. It is made suspect. Where is the hon. member for Yeoville? When a small group of people show a mere vestige of anti-Semitism, he runs to the hon. the Minister of Justice straightaway. But did he run to the hon. the Minister of Justice to tell him that the Sunday Times was conducting a merciless campaign against Afrikaners and against an Afrikaans cultural organization?

Cultural organization?

That hon. member should stop whinnying. [Interjections.]

This merely goes to show how much influence the Press with its insinuations and distortions has on those hon. members. Why do they not ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who is sitting smiling over there? After all, he, too, was a member of the Broederbond. [Interjections.] I think there was an article in The Argus during the weekend which said that when the Broederbonders are inducted …

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I must tell you this. According to arguments from that side of the House, the point at issue is the Press and the restriction being imposed on the Press. I wish to quote examples. With regard to the flag question, the article said that when the Broederbonders were sworn in, the Union Jack had to be covered up. Surely the hon. member for Johannesburg North can tell us whether that is true. After all, he, too, was sworn in: Can he now tell the Press whether or not this is true?

No, it is not true. [Interjections.]

It is not true. [Interjections.] It is fine that I obtain such excellent evidence.

Order! The Bill deals with corruption in the application of State funds. The hon. the Minister cannot raise arguments outside this field to expose the motives of the Press.

Mr. Speaker, I quoted examples. The first example is the former Department of Information. I mentioned other examples as well. But I abide by your ruling.

The next matter I wish to deal with is the question of democracy as such and the share the Press has in that. The weakness of democracy is to be found in the fact that we, in contradistinction to the dictatorial State, have the position that the Governments in power are influenced by Press groups and are afraid to take up strong standpoints. At present, it is a struggle against Marxism and communism.

And the nationalisms.

The hon. member over there says the nationalisms as well. [Interjections.] A person who has no measure of nationalism in him, is really worth nothing. He has absolutely no integrity as a citizen of his country. In the democracies, there is the problem that in the first place the Press, and, as is the case in England, workers’ groups, revolt and the Government is afraid to take up a strong standpoint, because once the Press starts making a fuss and feelings are aroused against certain actions, there is reluctance on the part of Governments. There is none of that resolute action that is required of a democracy in the modem world, for the simple reason that the Press is allowed to play a particular role.

The role of the Press ought to be objective reporting. After all, hon. members know that every newspaper supports its own party. One paper supports this party and the other another party, a party with another policy. After all, there are different approaches …

Both of them lie.

The hon. member says both of them lie. He is voting against this legislation. I want to say here in all honesty that we cannot claim to be above making mistakes. The Press cannot say this about itself, either. I think we have reached the point in time when all hon. members of this House should reflect calmly on the honesty of our intentions with ourselves and with this country. This is what the Government did, and then it came to a decision that certain legislation had to be introduced. But now there is a reaction as though the Press should be so free in all respects that it may become absolutely reckless. The Information scandal is an example thereof.

One of the most important reasons why the Department of Information was necessary, was to frustrate untrue and distorted reports from this country abroad. For that reason there had to be a Department of Information. It had to try to counter that type of thing. Unfortunately abuses occurred. We said, however, that we were not hiding anything and that we were awaiting the next report of the Erasmus Commission. We want to face up squarely to the consequences of that report. However, we cannot allow a large number of good, efficient public servants to be disparaged and made suspect. If hon. members on the opposite side are of the opinion that our Public Service is not efficient, they had ample opportunity to express their criticism. However, I did not hear any criticism from them. How many irregularities have occurred in the 31 years of NP rule? There was the Agliotti case, a case to which some hon. members referred—and thereafter there was the Information case. However, hon. members on the opposite side now want to suggest that the Government, by means of legislation, wants to make it impossible for the Press to inform the public. However, a great deal of what is published in the Press is not objective information. It is mere suppositions which are being created. A great deal of what has actually happened, is left out in order to create certain impressions. I do not think one single Pressman can say in all honesty that there is truly objective reporting. That is precisely why there is this furore about this Bill.

But permit me to go further. What newspaper can claim that it is absolutely free to write what it likes? What reporter or subeditor of a newspaper is free to write what he wants? After all, when an editor of a newspaper tells a reporter or his editorial staff the policy of his paper and that they have to write accordingly, they have no option but to write accordingly. Moreover, the owners of a newspapers can exercise an influence by dictating to an editor and his editorial staff what policy is to be followed. Is that in essence freedom of the Press? Has every person serving on the editorial staff of a newspaper, the right to reflect his own opinion? Has any reporter the right to write honestly as he sees things? Surely we are bluffing ourselves when we … [Interjections.]

On what newspaper does that happen?

It does not happen on a single newspaper in this country. I am saying this in all sincerity.

But that is not right.

Well, it is not right. So why do we want to suggest here that we are dealing with sacrosanct people, that they are the people who have to inform the public? The official Opposition concedes that they do not practise honest reporting, that they do not even give honest renderings of what takes place in this House, that by keeping silent about part of what takes place here or about some of the most important things that take place here, they create a false impression outside. In many cases this can be even worse than a flagrant untruth. A half-truth can in many respects be far worse than a flagrant untruth. After all, this amounts to the public being misled. But now it is suggested that this legislation imposes restrictions on the rights of members of the Press. However, they are restricting themselves. They are subject to regulations and directives laid down by the owners of their newspapers, by their editors and possibly by other people as well. I have experience of that. After all, I personally asked reporters of newspapers why they had not published certain things. The reply always was that their editors did not want to publish it, that their editors did not want it that way.

What newspaper was that?

Order!

I am not going to mention newspapers by name now. However, on occasion a reporter of the Sunday Times telephoned me. After he had told me what it was all about, I told him that I had already reacted to that old story of his. His reply was: “I am very sorry to bother you, Sir, but my editor wants a story.”

But surely that is quite in order. [Interjections.]

Yes, he now wants to tell a story.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must please make fewer interjections.

He cannot help himself. His tongue wags incessantly.

Mr. Speaker, examples have been given of what happens in other countries in which opportunities have been created for the public to lodge their complaints whenever there is injustice or whenever abuses occur. The example of England has been quoted, and also of New Zealand and the USA. However, we have special circumstances in South Africa, circumstances that are not altogether comparable to those in other countries. Cannot we, after a proper study of our problems and of the circumstances in which we find ourselves, come forward and concede that we have here an honest and genuine method in terms of which we think the problems of the Republic can be handled? Is this not so, particularly in view of the events in the former Department of Information? Let us concede, the events in connection with the former Department of Information were a shock to us. It hurt the Government. Things happened that made us as unhappy as they did hon. members on the opposite side. However, with this legislation we are trying to rectify matters. Now we must create the opportunity for appointing a man who can conduct an investigation the moment suspicions arise or stories start circulating; stories in connection with possible irregularities somewhere. Instead of dishing up stories in the newspapers, a person must now lodge a complaint with this man. The procedure is clearly prescribed in the Bill.

Now, the allegation is made that the Press may not publish anything. After all, in our legal system it is known that when a case is being heard, it is sub judice and that it may not be commented upon. In such a case we may not even discuss it in this House, because the case is still being heard in court. The principle that applies there is also largely applicable in the present case. In this case a person of high repute is appointed to investigate allegations concerning possible irregularities. It has already been stated clearly that the Government intends appointing an official who would virtually be on the same level as the Auditor-General, somebody who has to conduct an investigation on behalf of Parliament and who has to report to Parliament itself. Is this not an honest attempt to rectify matters and to try and afford the public an opportunity of handling matters in such a way that it would instill confidence in everybody?

No, it is not.

Is it really correct that the Press—and hon. members of the Opposition have conceded that the Press is not always honest in their reporting—should be in the special position of not being restricted in their reporting of a matter at a time when that matter is being investigated by an official of high standing?

[Inaudible.]

Well, I am no lawyer. The hon. member for Johannesburg North occupied a high position in our judiciary. He must tell me whether the two cases are not analogous.

No, they are not.

Now why not? My contention is that they are indeed analogous. [Interjections.] I say it is so.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Then why do those hon. members not shout when the newspapers are prohibited from reporting on court cases which are sub judice? Then why do they not allege that the Press is being restricted by the sub judice rule as well? After all, it is the very same thing that is involved.

A court case is a public trial. [Interjections.]

Whether or not it is a public trial, the fact remains that the Press, as well as all of us here, is restricted with regard to cases of that nature under certain circumstances. Now, in terms of the legislation under discussion, it is laid down that while an investigation is in progress, it may not be written about unless the approval of the Advocate-General is specifically obtained to do so.

Now we sit here with emotions which have been aroused, emotions overflowing with prejudice, the prejudice of people who are not prepared to consider the problems of the country objectively, who are not prepared to seek solutions to the problems. They want to link democracy not only to a free Press, but to a licentious Press. They want to assign tasks to the Press which are basically not within its province. It is the task of the Government to ensure a clean national administration. [Interjections.] If the Opposition does not agree with the way in which the affairs of the country is being administered, it is the Opposition’s task to raise the matter and to express criticism. Surely they are free to do so. Here an extra channel is being created which can be used by everybody who has a complaint. The only reaction we receive to that, however, is allegations that the freedom of the Press is being curtailed and that South Africa is becoming a one-party State.

Seeing that by-elections are in progress— and there are some more in the offing—surely those hon. members can use those by-elections to test their arguments against this legislation. Let them test their arguments there and tell the people: “The Government, under the present Prime Minister, is creating an autocracy, a one-party State; they have no sympathy with the opinion of the public as reflected in the newspapers.” Let them tell the people that. Let them test their ideas and opinions there and see how far they get. I want to say without any fear of contradiction that our people are sick and tired of the stories in the Press, of the continual gossip mongering, of the way public figures are being made suspect and disparaged. Everyone of us here has certain responsibilities and if we make a mistake, we are prepared to stand the consequences. We know that that is the price one has to pay if one enters public life. Since I have been here, various members of the Cabinet have been requested—not as a result of irregularities they themselves committed, but as a result of poor administration, possibly due to oversights or owing to the fact that, as in the Agliotti case, an official of the department had erred—to resign, or they have come forward of their own accord and said that as things had gone wrong under their administration, they offered to leave the Cabinet. In the case of Dr. Connie Mulder, the Prime Minister had to request him to leave the Cabinet.

But what happens in the case of newspaper editors? They can bruit abroad the most arrant nonsense and untruths about the country and about individuals, and what happens? They do not lose their positions. They have no responsibility. I think we should display some fairness when analysing these things.

Do you not trust your courts?

Surely the Press cannot arrogate to itself the right merely to criticize and to claim that a member of Parliament or of the Cabinet should resign. See how they shouted about the hon. the Minister of Finance for weeks on end. I have quoted examples of members of the Cabinet who have resigned. But when newspapers dish up blatant untruths, the editors of those newspapers do not resign. They go scot-free.

One can take them to court.

One can only take them to court if there has been libel. Hon. members will say that the Press Council can go into the matter. I am able to say that I have referred a case to the Press Council. I do not want to elaborate on that now. I do not want to criticize them. However, I can tell hon. members that it is an endless trial. I want to say that quite frankly.

Then you did not have a case.

Well, let me tell what happened. In one case the chairman sent me a message that if I instituted a libel action and made a court case, he would not hear the case. He said I should first tell him what I was going to do. I told him that I differed with him on that. Why should he lay down conditions for me? Is that truly honest and genuine and in the best interests of any individual? If I tell them: “I have a newspaper report here that is untrue and I wish to lodge a complaint about it,” they send me a message: “but we have learnt that you are going to institute a libel action, and if you do that, it would not be proper”.

You people want somebody who is like clay in your hands.

Sir, why should those conditions be laid down? I have quoted a specific example of conditions having been laid down for me. Then the Press wants to tell me that its hands are clean and that it is the Government that is intent on suppressing them and creating problems. I do not want to elaborate on that any further. I am busy and I do my work. It is not such an easy task. It is easy for the hon. member to sit in the back benches kicking up a fuss, because he has no responsibility. One can see that on his face. What is more, he will never accept responsibility, but now he sits kicking up a fuss. It is that type of person we are saddled with. As a Minister, I do not have the time to go to court. I do not have the time …

[Inaudible.]

I am telling hon. members …

Jimmy Kruger has time. Why do you not have time?

There are circumstances in which one finds that one has to go to court. In my case I decided that I did not feel like going to court. The newspaper apologized half-heartedly. Consequently I left the matter at that and carried on with my work. However, there are cases that make one’s blood boil and seriously try one’s self-restraint. We have now reached the stage in politics where these steps have to be taken. We have approximately 280 000 officials in this country. How many of them have transgressed in recent years? Only the few I have mentioned to hon. members, but yet the Opposition and the Press create the impression that if it had not been for the Press, everything would have been rotten to the core and that not a single one of these officials could have been trusted. That is the impression which is being created. Therefore, this legislation also seeks to protect those officials who, day in and day out, ensure clean administration in this country. All we get from the Opposition is a negative approach and a lot of shouting without any properly founded arguments.

I think I should conclude. But if we look at the legislation, we see that an opportunity is being afforded to all and sundry to state their case. I repeat that by means of this legislation we want to appoint a person of high standing to conduct investigations. Perhaps I should, before I conclude, take another look at further occurrences in respect of the former Department of Information. On the average, over a period of four years, we … [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs I think we had an example of what I want to call the “sick mentality” of certain Opposition members. When the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs rose to make his speech, one of the hon. members of the Opposition asked him: “Are your dams full of water yet?” I think that testifies to a weak character trait All of us know that our country is in the midst of a drought and to make use of this opportunity to ask the hon. the Minister whether his dams are full of water yet is sick behaviour on the part of the hon. member who put the question.

Irresponsible.

Yes, irresponsible. I think we can also say this evening that the behaviour of hon. members on the opposite side of the House during the past two days has been an epitome of what I should like to term “frustration” and “embitteredness”. When a person is frustrated and embittered, he is no longer able to think objectively and present a balanced argument. Listening to the last group of speakers on the Opposition side, and reading the newspaper reports on the debate, and observing what misrepresentations of this legislation and of the speeches of Government members are being made, one is astounded and cannot help wondering—if I may talk politics for just a moment—whether the outcome of the by-election in Swellendam has not perhaps made these people go politically berserk. They received a terrible shock there, because they now realize that they will never be able to oust this Government at the polls. That is why they are using such erroneous, unbalanced and unwise parliamentary methods.

Did you read today’s Citizen?

The hon. member for Berea is a fine-looking young man. [Interjections.] I mean that literally. Politically, however, he is twisted. Just to prove how mixed up his facts are, I want to refer to a letter which that hon. young member wrote. On 22 May 1979 he addressed a letter to a Natal newspaper in which he wrote about himself. He told of how often he had made representations in Parliament…

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must keep quiet now. He told of how many representations he had made to Parliament this session on behalf of the voters. He then said—

Mr. M. C. Botha has not been a member of this Parliament for the past three years at least [Interjections.] That just shows how the man is erring. I have another bone to pick with him.

It is completely untrue.

Oh, come now, Oom Kowie. It is bedtime. The hon. member must give me a chance because I am replying to the speech made by the hon. member for Berea. The hon. member for Johannesburg North must keep quiet for just a moment. I am dealing with the hon. member for Berea. I want to ask the hon. member for Berea whether he meant it when he said: This Government, this Prime Minister, is taking a personal revenge against what happened in the past.

As he put it, it sounded as though the hon. the Prime Minister is waging a personal vendetta against the Press. I want to ask him whether he really meant it Secondly I want to ask the member whether he really thinks that the hon. the Prime Minister had this Bill introduced in order to enlist the aid of the State machine against the Press.

Yes.

The hon. member says “yes”. I shall come back to that. Thirdly I want to ask whether the hon. member for Berea meant it when he said that the hon. the Prime Minister “is not seeking clean administration”.

Not quite in that context. [Interjections.]

Did the hon. member say the hon. the Prime Minister was not seeking clean administration—yes or no?

I said that…

I want to put a fourth question, for accusations were frequently made here. The fourth accusation which was made was that the Government’s appointment of an Advocate-General was a slap in the face for the Auditor-General. That was said this afternoon. The hon. member for Berea’s father was a highly respected member of this House. That young man, the hon. member for Berea, who is still wet behind the ears, must behave for a while as befits a person of his tender years and acquire a little experience before he asks his questions. If the hon. member says that with this Bill we are waging a personal vendetta against the Press, he is wrong. If he says that we wish to enlist the aid of the State machine against the Press in terms of this legislation, he is wrong. If he says that the hon. the Prime Minister is not seeking clean national administration, he is wrong. The hon. the Prime Minister will pardon me if I repeat something which he once told me. Three days before the election of the Prime Minister last year he told me that he was not seeking the position of Prime Minister, but that if it were entrusted to him, he would do one thing from the outset and that was to make the national administration as clean as humanly possible. He said this in my presence on 24 September 1978.

That is a cute “canvass line”.

It does not matter. If those hon. members say that the hon. the Prime Minister is not seeking clean national administration, I want to tell them that they are spreading an infamous lie about him. Finally he said that if we wanted to appoint the Advocate-General in terms of this legislation we would be giving the Auditor-General a slap in the face. If he says that, he does not know what he is talking about, for what are the actual functions of the Auditor-General? The Auditor-General is charged with ensuring that the money voted each year by Parliament is correctly spent and that every cent is spent on what it was appropriated for. He has to report on that to the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and the report of that committee is then submitted to Parliament Today we received another report from the Select Committee on Public Accounts in which the committee has ascertained whether certain amounts had been spent correctly. But what is the task of the Advocate-General? His primary task is to afford all of us, as citizens of the country the right, if we suspect that State money is being spent in an unlawful or improper way or that any person is enriching or benefiting himself at the expense of the State, to lay those suspicions before the Advocate-General.

What about the police?

One would think that the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who was a member of the judiciary—I am choosing my words carefully—would have a greater sense of responsibility than I have now heard from him. Mr. Speaker, I think you and I who have been listening for two days now to the arguments of the Opposition against the Bill, as well as the people outside this House who read the newspapers, are dumbfounded at the way in which the hon. members of the Opposition are deliberately— I am using this word on purpose so that you can call me to order—misrepresenting what the Bill means. I am pleased, Sir, that you are not calling me to order.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member permitted to say that we “deliberately”, with malice aforethought, misrepresented what the Bill means?

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I said that the people outside this House and I were astonished at the way in which the Opposition were misrepresenting what was meant by the legislation.

Deliberately!

Order! Order! If the hon. members of the Opposition want me to give a ruling, then they must listen to me when I call for order. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I ask whether you are prepared to ask the hon. member for Worcester whether he used the word “deliberately”?

The hon. member did not accuse any single hon. member. He accused the whole Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, would you ask the hon. member for Worcester whether he used the word “deliberately”?

Yes, I used it and I withdraw it. In the second place I am astonished that hon. members of the official Opposition—I am still coming to hon. members of the NRP; to a certain extent I have more respect for them … [Interjections.]

And you are dishonest as well. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “dishonest”.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Worcester …

The hon. member must withdraw the word “dishonest”.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Worcester repeated what he had said to you, he deliberately left out the word “deliberately”. [Interjections.]

The hon. member must withdraw that word.

Mr. Speaker, I refuse to withdraw.

In that case, the hon. member will have to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

The hon. member thereupon withdrew.

The question which occurs to me is why the official Opposition is doing what they have been doing these past two days? What are their reasons? What are their motives? What do they mean when they tell the outside world that we are muzzling the Press? [Interjections.] Why do they not accept the word of the hon. the Prime Minister that he is merely striving for clean national administration? What do they mean when they do not want to accept the word of the hon. the Prime Minister when he says that he is a protector of the idea of Press freedom? [Interjections.] I should like to know why they doubt the word of the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

May I dwell for a moment on the second charge which he mentioned, viz. that the Opposition is insinuating that we do not trust the Public Service officials. They are insinuating that we wish to pass an Act that will enable us to keep a watchful eye on Public Service officials, as though we do not trust them. [Interjections.] If there is a more loyal and competent Public Service staff to be found anywhere in the world than those in South Africa, I should still like to see them. I think we can tell one another that South Africa can congratulate itself on the fact that it has public servants of this calibre—let us say 99,9% of them—who are not on the lookout for a larger pay cheque and who do not take a bite at the carrot being dangled in front of their noses in order to benefit themselves, but ask what they can do to serve the country they love. I think anyone would be arrogant if they were to say anything against the integrity of our Public Service officials, they who support our Government in governing our country. May I ask the hon. member for Berea whether he agrees with me? Does the Opposition agree that we can trust the Public Service officials and can regard them as being loyal and honest people? I hear no reply to my question. [Interjections.] I shall put this question to the hon. member for Berea. He is shaking his head. Must I accept that the Opposition does not agree that our public servants are people of strong character and integrity and that we can face the world with them because they are the best in the world? This side of the House agrees with that I think there might be a few hon. members on that side of the House who also feel the same way, but perhaps do not have the courage to say so. [Interjections.]

Earlier this afternoon an hon. members said it depended on from which political angle one views this matter and evaluates the Bill. One could approach the Bill from the viewpoint of the liberal Press. The PFP has no alternative but to say what the Press dictates to them. The hon. members of the Opposition can say whether I am wrong. I say that hon. members of the official Opposition do not have the courage to express their own convictions. They are speaking under instructions from the Press and the hidden, the secret owners of the Press. [Interjections.] Because this is the case, they do not have the courage to rise to their feet here and say that in their opinion there are certain positive points in this Bill. If one approaches this matter from a leftist point of view, and sympathizes with or is under the heel of the liberal Press, one has no alternative but to condemn this Bill. On the other hand we on this side of the House say that we stand by the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister and support them in this matter.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to welcome the new hon. Minister of National Education to his post formally for the first time, and at the same time, to our regret, to bid him farewell. It is a question of welcome and good-bye—or farewell! It is somewhat disturbing, if I might put it that way, to find repeated changes in the Ministry of National Education, and once again to have to see a Minister in whom, let me say in all modesty, we have great confidence, leaving the portfolio after only six months. We do, however, have sympathy with the hon. the Minister’s decision rather to administer the affairs of the Transvaal— and let me say, incidentally, that there are problems there, too—rather than to continue in the Ministry of National Education.

I do not think I am exaggerating at all when I say that over the years the Ministry of National Education has been shabbily treated by the Government as far as financial provision is concerned. In the past it was the cultural section of National Education that suffered most under the stringent provisions and prescriptions of the Treasury. To our great dismay, however, we have discovered recently that the teaching section of the Ministry of National Education is also very badly off. Indeed, we can understand that the hon. the Minister feels unhappy about the position in which the Department of National Education finds itself at the moment. We recently saw that the teaching profession was dealt a severe blow when no provision was made for it in the recent budget. It is a fact teachers had relied on promises and negotiations, on statements and decisions taken in the past. Without any notification to them, without, even, any consultation or explanation, no provision was made in the recent budget to give effect to those decisions and findings. Absolutely no provision was made in this regard.

The Minister himself, in fact—perhaps in a rash moment, if I might put it that way— intimated his dissatisfaction with what had occurred in regard to the budget and the teaching profession. The hon. the Minister had the following to say about this—

He said it was his function to act as spokesman for the people in the teaching profession, as, of course, befits an honourable and honest Minister of National Education. Moreover, the teachers’ expectations were justified in the light of the improvement in the country’s economy in general. Now the hon. the Minister has said there are two deficiencies in the budget of the hon. the Minister of Finance. Firstly, there was the failure to implement the promised movement—even a first step—towards the ideal scale for teachers. Secondly, there was the failure to make any mention of the position of universities. It is our view that the hon. the Minister had the fullest right, therefore, to say what he did.

To illustrate and motivate this, it is perhaps necessary to go back a little, because this matter has had a long history. It started in 1976, a few days after the former hon. Minister of National Education took up office as Minister of Plural Relations and Development. The date was 24 February 1976. When the teachers submitted a memorandum regarding salary and cost structures, which would establish a sounder basis for the teaching profession than the then existing basis, a basis which even at that time many people inside and outside the teaching profession did not feel was proper and sound.

Those proposals of February 1976 were apparently accepted by the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet, because on 26 April 1976 the hon. the Prime Minister announced a 10% increase in the salaries of teachers. At the same time he said the following—

I stress the words “benewens en ter aanvulling”—

A Cabinet committee was then appointed to frame a new structure, which was referred to as the “ideal structure”. All those concerned served on it, and were consulted about the matter. These included the Public Service Commission, the Department of National Education itself, the provinces, the education departments of the non-White population groups and the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations.

The recommendations of these organizations were embodied in a joint report of the Public Service Commission and the Federal Council which was submitted to the Cabinet. Through this a new dispensation for the teaching profession was envisaged. The teaching profession had to be developed as a profession in the interests of the country. On 12 November 1976, the previous hon. Minister of National Education gave the executive committee of the federal council confidential information in regard to this so-called ideal structure, as he had accepted it, and that council accepted those proposals for a new ideal structure. The understanding was, however, that the scheme would be submitted to the Cabinet for approval. That was apparently done. The Minister made an announcement on 30 November 1976, and I quote—

Note these words—

This does not relate to the question of salary increases, but to a new dispensation. The hon. the Minister went on to say that implementation of the new salary and post structures could not be considered at once in view of the prevailing economic situation. At that stage not one word was said to teaching bodies to the effect that anything other than the so-called ideal structure was embodied in the Government’s decision. The Government gave teachers the impression that when the economy had improved to the extent that a general increase could be granted to all Government employees, the teachers’ new structure and the salary adjustments it entailed, would be implemented.

Because of economic circumstances there was no change in 1977, and in December 1977 further discussions took place. The then Minister of National Education informed the federal council that a salary increase of 5% would come into effect on 1 January 1978. The teachers regarded this as a purely transitional phase, and never regarded it as anything more than merely temporary relief. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for the opportunity.

After lengthy negotiations, the minimum new structure, with an increase of approximately 8%, was accepted, but with a strict proviso, and that proviso was formulated as follows—

The increase of 8% then became effective in January 1978, with no proportional increase and improvement in all scales for the teaching profession. The teachers were under the impression, and nobody found it necessary or desirable to disillusion them, that in this year’s budget the shortcomings would be rectified so as to put the ideal structure into effect Accordingly there were great expectations of what would happen on 1 April this year. But nothing came of it, and the outcry of disappointment and dissatisfaction which followed is understandable. The Transvaal Teachers’ Association—the largest of its kind in South Africa—under the chairmanship of a very calm and unexcitable person, Prof. Terblanche, said—

The Government’s bona fides were seriously questioned, and it was frankly asked how this action accorded with honest and efficient administration of the country. This reaction was unanimous on the part of all the institutions as well as the newspapers of the NP. In this regard I refer to Die Vaderland, that said that they believed the time was ripe for the Government to give serious attention to the matter. Die Transvaler offered the following advice to the Government—

In other words, the first steps should come from them. The Government, as usual, paid absolutely no heed to this well-meant and sound advice. The hon. the Prime Minister called the hon. the Minister of National Education to Cape Town and apparently hauled him over the coals, because shortly afterwards the hon. the Minister of National Education came up with a conciliatory and half-apologetic explanation of his words. As usual, there were then discussions and recommendations as to what the next step should be, and the teaching profession proposed that an impartial commission of inquiry be appointed to investigate the matter and submit the real facts. The point of dispute, of course, is not whether there should in fact be salary increases. The real question is whether there has been a breach of faith on the part of the authorities. I want to read to hon. members what was said by one of the Government’s confidants in the field of education, Prof. Gerrit Viljoen. I quote—

We on our side kept dead quiet, because had the PFP said anything at all, what they said would immediately have been seized upon by such eloquent hon. members as the hon. member for Virginia and the hon. member for Hercules. It would have been said that the Opposition were inciting and stirring up the teachers. [Interjections.] That is why we kept quite quiet. I must now make haste, as my time has almost expired. But the matter went further. The hon. the Prime Minister refused to appoint a commission of inquiry. At the same time he referred to the teachers in the most high and mighty terms. He called them wrong-minded and insensitive to the true interests of the country. He also said they were only intent on the promotion of their own interests. Then he came up with the usual announcement that the Government had to show who was boss in South Africa. We simply cannot accept that the authorities should speak in this way about a major group of key workers. Our advice to the Government, therefore, is to agree to the appointment of a commission of inquiry. It could be a one-man commission, under the chairmanship of Prof. Viljoen, for example, in whom the Government ought to have the fullest confidence. Then the facts on both sides can be ascertained within a couple of weeks, and its conclusions published. The alternative for the Government is to make some secret arrangement. The Government’s aim is to have a joint document drawn up by the teachers and the Government which will contain certain facts and will not be made public because it would supposedly embarrass the teachers. The document would then be sent confidentially to the thousands of teachers in South Africa. One can of course foresee what will happen. That document will not remain confidential. It will be leaked out, particularly in the Government newspapers.

Then you should be grateful, surely.

Bit by bit the information—wrong, right or half-right—will be published. The result will be that we shall have even greater misery and confusion than we have at this stage.

That is hardly possible.

The only solution is to go ahead immediately with the teachers’ proposal to have an impartial commission of inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to say too much in reply to what the hon. member for Johannesburg North has said. I do want to say, though, that there is a committee that is concerned with this matter, a committee consisting of representatives of the department, the Public Service Commission and the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations of South Africa. While those negotiations are in progress, I do not know if it is necessary to say much about this matter.

Just give them a rise.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North said quite rightly that they had made no statements to the newspapers, etc. However, they were waiting for a time when they could put themselves forward as champions of the teachers. I just want to tell that hon. member, though, that if there is one group of people which takes an interest in our teachers, it is surely the hon. members of the NP.

Deeds, not words.

Certain things are being imputed to the hon. the Prime Minister. It is alleged that he said certain things about the teachers. But I do not think the hon. member can deduce that this was said about the teachers. It was said about a mentality amongst certain officials who regard themselves as the alpha and omega. The teachers are not the only people who are supposed to have done this.

Did you read Die Burger?

I just want to say that it is a great pity that this matter was discussed in public. As far as the word “betrayed” (verraai) is concerned, I want to say that if that word was in fact used—and I doubt it; I do not know if the Press reported it correctly—it should never have been used. Educationally it is totally wrong to set the example that when one is dissatisfied about a matter, one accuses one’s Government of betrayal.

We have not yet had occasion to bid farewell to Dr. Koornhof as Minister of National Education. We should like to do so now. We want to thank him most sincerely for the co-operation he has always shown us and for the enthusiasm he displayed when he was connected with the department. We wish him every success and everything of the best with his new task in his capacity as Minister of Plural Relations and Development I think that in that capacity, too, he will display the necessary enthusiasm.

We also want to say to the present hon. Minister of National Education, Mr. Cruywagen, that we are grateful and proud that he was the choice of the hon. Prime Minister to become the first citizen of Transvaal. We know him as a dedicated teaching man. We know him as a person who will soon settle in there. We know him as a person who will strive to make a great success of his new post. We also feel that as far as education is concerned, he will play his part in his new post, too, in the promotion and development of education as a whole.

Having thanked and congratulated the hon. the Minister, it is also my privilege to congratulate the other hon. members who have been appointed Administrators—and these were good appointments—and who will thus also be connected with education. Firstly, there is the Deputy Speaker of the Assembly, Dr. Van der Merwe, who has been appointed Administrator of the Orange Free State. If there are days when things go wrong for him there, I believe that all he will have to do is shout “Vrystaat” and everything will come right As far as the hon. member for Eshowe, Mr. Botha, is concerned, our good wishes accompany him to Natal, where he, too, will be connected with education.

There was a time when culture and education fell under different departments. There was a time when culture was without education and education without culture. Today they both fall under the Department of National Education. I think one might say that culture is just as educational as education itself. It is therefore important for us that both these aspects should now be combined, because education should be rooted in culture.

This brings me to Stellenbosch, which today celebrates its 300th anniversary. This is an old cultural town, an educational town, a town which has done much in regard to culture and education in our country. We want to congratulate Stellenbosch on its 300 years of existence. We hope that the tercentenary committee will have much success with their further celebrations this year. May they succeed in their aim of putting Stellenbosch even more firmly on the map.

The old castle also celebrated its 300th anniversary this year, and a number of receptions have been held to commemorate this event May the old castle continue in future to serve as the symbol of hope, faith and strength.

Then, too, the FAK was established 50 years ago this year. The FAK has done much to expand and promote the culture of the Afrikaner. I must point out that the work which the FAK does is important because we are still subject to powerful influences from abroad, while the world is becoming smaller and smaller. This reminds me of a letter which appeared in Die Huisgenoot, in which a father wrote that at one time his two sons regularly played rugby with him, but recently they have not wanted to play rugby with him because they are interested in soccer.

Education and training must be rooted in culture. Culture provides encouragement. It acts as an incentive to the will to exist, to be and to remain what one is. The preservation of one’s heritage is a noble task because it keeps the past alive for the sake of the future. To support this I want to pay a word of tribute to Mrs. Kotie Roodt-Coetzee. It would not be out of place for me to say a few things about her.

She was a Western Transvaler by birth. She was born on the farm Rooiwal in the Lichtenburg district She spent her childhood and formative years in the Western Transvaal. After a quarter of a century of dedication, a period during which she gave herself heart and soul to culture, she resigned from the service of the National Cultural History and Open Air Museum on 31 December 1978. For 13 years she carried out her work as director in an exemplary manner and left her distinctive stamp on the various museums of which she was the executive head. These museums do not only contain a collection of a mass of objects which are displayed in an orderly way, but have the primary object and function of education. Their educational role is of immeasurable worth for our nation and even for visitors from abroad. By her thoughts, actions and service Kotie Roodt-Coetzee enriched the Afrikaner nation with an immortal legacy. She has immortalized her name through patience, courage and perseverance in the annals of the cultural history of the Afrikaner. In 1977 she was decorated for the 40 years … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 1977 she was awarded a medal by the S.A. Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns for the 40 years in which she devoted her energies to cultural consciousness and promotion of culture. Quite rightly, too, the museum memo of November 1978—volume 6, No. 3—was dedicated to her and devoted to her in its entirety. In the hands of dedicated cultural people like this the past does in fact have a future, because the nation with a past is the nation with a future.

Members of study groups on National Education of three of the political parties had the honour of being shown the various facets, projects and branches of the department in Pretoria. We want to say thank you to the Secretary, Dr. Van Wyk, as well as his officials, for the very enlightening tour which we undertook. We were also entertained to genuine “boere” food at the Pioneers open air museum, a meal which we shall certainly not soon forget.

This brings me to the question of teaching and the future. I want to point out the importance and necessity of co-operation and liaison between educational institutions and employers. I read the following in the annual report of the National Productivity Institute for 1977-’78—

I completely associate myself with this. Now the question arises: How does one increase labour productivity? The reply is quite simple, although its implementation is not always so simple. Vocationally-oriented education—training the right person for the right post—is of course the answer, that is, by offering differentiated education from primary school level right through to the tertiary level and by channelling pupils and students to suitable and appropriate training. That is why liaison and co-operation is necessary between teaching institutions and employers by setting up advisory committees to correlate supply and demand.

The knowledge explosion is assuming vast proportions and if regard is had to the fact that the knowledge explosion doubled between the years 1 A.D. and 1750, and doubled again between 1750 and 1950, and again between 1950 and 1960, and then again between 1960 and 1968, one sees that the tempo is increasing all the time. When one thinks of the mass of study material which a child has to absorb from his initial year to the end of his secondary education, and particularly when regard is had to the fact that over the past 30 years knowledge has virtually trebled, one realizes that serious challenges are being set to the whole population and it is becoming a task requiring a joint effort and responsibility on the part of all. In the nature of things it must obviously exercise an influence on the advancement of pupils and students. It must also of necessity influence the whole spectrum of education and all it entails. New challenges call for new approaches in education wherever new situations arise. Adjustments must constantly be made to keep abreast of the requirements and demands of education and society, together with full recognition of the aptitude, the interest and capabilities of pupils and students.

Then, too, there is the changing world in all spheres of life, and especially in the field of the accelerating technological development which must be taken into account Human capital must therefore be developed to its maximum potential, as the most important resource for the production of goods and the provision of services to keep abreast of demand. Further there is the fact that a minimum of 4% of a population must be in leadership positions to keep the national economy running smoothly. This makes the matter even more difficult and complicated. It calls for the maximum co-operation and liaison between employer and the educational institutions. The whole economy should be involved in the process of manpower development for greater manpower utilization.

South Africa is in a unique situation as far as its leadership corps is concerned, because women have still not attained their rightful place in the economic activities of the country, and because a population of approximately 4 million must in the main carry a total population of approximately 25 million. That, briefly, is the scope of the challenge.

As far as manpower development is concerned, careful attention must be given in various ways to ensuring that liaison and cooperation will occur to an increasing extent. The complexity of the situation calls for further expansion and development of differentiated education. Education is dynamic and therefore adjustments can be made, but in essence, education is aimed at the future, and planning, co-operation and liaison are accordingly of the utmost importance.

Because education as a process of preparation of people for the future is expensive, we cannot afford to push incompetent people onto the labour market. It will therefore always be necessary for teaching staff to continue to undergo training and for there to be continuous liaison among the various educational and training institutions. The teaching staff should be trained as extensively and as effectively as possible. Further education will have to be given constant consideration.

I am grateful to be able to say that both technical colleges and technikons in particular, can be expanded in their own field. I like to quote the striking motto of the Pretoria technikon which is very true and very inspiring: “Voorspoed deur vaardigheid.” That expertise can only be developed and expanded through human material, when people are channelled to the correct educational institutions.

The development of our manpower must be a national movement in which everybody participates. Liaison and co-operation among colleges, the technikons and the universities as well as the private sector is of the utmost importance to ensure an effective and sound economy. Much is already being done in connection with liaison, research and cooperation, but a lot more remains to be done.

I have before me the ninth annual report of the Human Sciences Research Council and I think it would be well for hon. members to read the report in conjunction with the very good and outstanding report we have received from the Department of National Education. I have read through the publications concerned and find that phenomenal progress has been made in the field of promotion of culture in general and the field of education in particular. If I might express criticism of the report—I think one should express criticism from time to time so that there can be evidence of interest—I want to point out that perhaps too little attention is paid to the question of technical training. I should have liked to see more about technical training in the report, to be able to determine what progress there has been made and what can be done in this connection. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hercules raised certain aspects in connection with education, and I believe the hon. the Minister will give him the necessary replies.

I, too, should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the great honour which has befallen him. In the short time that I have been in the House, I have, of course, seen quite a number of Ministers of National Education come and go. I must say, however, that I was of the opinion that if the hon. the Minister had been afforded the opportunity of remaining in office for a long time, he could have developed into a good Minister of National Education.

But he has been that right from the beginning.

Our best wishes for the future accompany him.

†The field of national education is very wide and I think it is impossible to do justice to all the department’s activities in a short debate of this nature. A lot of things will obviously be left unsaid. There is, however, something which all of us should say and that is a sincere thank you to those members of the staff who were involved in the arrangements for members of Parliament to visit Pretoria earlier this year. I think it was a most informative tour and we appreciated it tremendously.

I have warned the Cabinet in good time that if increases for teachers are not included in the planning for increased salaries for other public sectors, it will lead to bitter dissatisfaction in the teaching profession.

These are, of course, the words of the hon. the Minister himself. These are important words. They clearly indicate that the hon. the Minister is personally aware of the seriousness of the situation. It is not the hon. the Minister though who let the teachers down. It is important to note that teachers regard this whole incident as a breach of faith by the Government. We can argue about whether it is indeed so or not. However, teachers regard it as such. They regard it as a breach of faith committed by an informed Cabinet. The Cabinet was not uninformed about this whole issue.

*Of course, one can also refer to what the hon. the Prime Minister said. His attitude is very apparent from newspaper reports on the matter. For example, in Die Transvaler it was said that he, too, had entered the fray. The headlines of the relative report read: “P.W. waarsku onderwysers, Regering laat horn nie voorskryf nie.” However, I shall have more to say about this at a later stage.

†Parliament should take note of the fact that the chairman of the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations issued a statement, on 28 March this year, in which they said that the present Government would have to acknowledge the fact that it was guilty of a serious breach of faith if the present decision in connection with the salaries of teachers was upheld. Also in the same statement they said—

Then the statement comes to what, I believe, is the crux of the whole matter. I quote further—

These are the exact words used. The first lesson the Government should learn is never to raise hopes too high. Further, the Government should learn that one can also be too diplomatic. One should never be ambiguous in one’s dealings with people. All the statements can be found in the background notes provided to us by the federal council, notes issued on the whole question of salary structures. It appears to me that the Government is either guilty of a breach of faith or of deliberately making promises merely to appease the people for a short while. There is no doubt in my mind that the so-called ideal salary structure, which was shown to the executive of the Federal Council on 12 November 1976, was indeed the one on which the then Minister of National Education based his statement of 30 November 1976, and about which the promise was made that it would be put into operation as soon as the economic situation in South Africa had improved.

Looking at this whole affair in retrospect, the beginning of what is now regarded by teachers as a breach of faith, came in December 1977, when the federal council was faced with a choice of either a 5% general increase or the putting into operation, not of the so-called ideal structure, but of a minimum structure which was to be put into operation on 1 January 1978. By accepting—and of course, with strong reservations—the minimum structure, the federal council did, as they claim, exercise self-restraint I submit that the teaching profession should be commended for exercising that self-restraint.

The minimum structure brought about an increase of approximately 8%. However, about 27% of teachers still received an increase of 5% only. I know that these figures were queried subsequently. However, the federal council also issued a statement in which they said that their deductions were based on official figures supplied to them by the Department of National Education. Therefore we should not talk about the tremendous improvements in salaries given to teachers in December 1978. Of course, there were remarkable improvements in certain sections of the profession. The overall increase, however, was still not more than 8%.

I must say that I am aware of certain anomalies that would have occurred, particularly in the C grade, if the ideal structure had been put into operation. There anomalies would have existed between the top scale and the bottom scale. However, anomalies also exist in the present structure.

The previous Minister of National Education must accept the responsibility for a lot of what has happened. He must especially accept the responsibility for raising expectations too high. One should realize that one cannot continue saying day in and day out that teaching is such a wonderful profession and then ending up by treating it exactly the same as the other professions, or even worse. Then one is of course looking for trouble. It is nice words, but if that is the impression you give, you must also accept the consequences. I believe that the time has elapsed, long ago, for a specific inquiry into the situation of the teachers in the present-day circumstances. There should be a committee, consisting not only of departmental people and teachers, but also of members of the industry, commerce and agriculture.

We cannot have a state of affairs where teachers always have to resort to public action and public debate in order to bring about improvements. Every time this happens, it does the profession irreparable harm. If one follows the history through the 1960s and 1970s, the situation is unfortunately so that every time there was a major improvement it was preceded by concerted public action.

*Now the hon. the Prime Minister is accusing the teachers—as was remarked quite correctly by the hon. member for Johannesburg North—of …

[Inaudible.]

Has the hon. member read what is said here?

Did Die Burger lie?

Then the hon. the Prime Minister should not try to speak in riddles. [Interjections.] Then he must be outspoken and say who all these people in the Public Service are who are now all of a sudden …

Then you must not speak in riddles either.

Order!

Let us read what the hon. the Prime Minister said. He said—

†It is not like Madam Rose talking about the future. He is talking about the situation today.

*Where is there another conflict, apart from the one with the teachers? Is there another conflict? Do we know of another conflict? If there another profession which is being treated like the teaching profession at this stage? [Interjections.] It was a covert threat Die Transvaler says “P.W. waarsku onderwysers”. But the Transvalers do not believe it; after all, they no longer believe in their own newspapers. [Interjections.] The other newspapers, too, are beginning to tell the truth. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was to be expected that the official Opposition and the NRP would seize upon this matter of salaries today. However, I concede the hon. members for Durban Central and Johannesburg North the opportunity to discuss this. That is their right as hon. members of the Opposition. But I want to tell them that if they really do have the interests and the welfare of teaching at heart, they should in the first place acquaint themselves fully with the facts. In the second place they should choose a venue where they could really try to secure benefits for education. I am sorry that I now have to tell the hon. members for Johannesburg-North and Durban Central that they tried to pose here as champions of the teachers. I give them credit for that. They are also trying, though, to make politics of this matter. [Interjections.] That is absolutely clear. What are these people trying to do?

The hon. member for Johannesburg North made a lot of generalizations about this, that and the other. If the hon. member had been fully acquainted with the chronological development of this whole affair since 1975, he would not have fallen into the pitfalls he fell into today. At the end of his speech the hon. member again spoke in support of a commission of inquiry. However, he committed to mention that in the absence of Prof. Terblanche, chairman of the federal council and of the Transvaal Teachers’ Union, Prof. Maree had the highest praise for the gesture of the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government to discuss the matter with them. Prof. Maree announced through the newspapers that they had the greatest appreciation for this and that that informative document would now be published, and that in the meantime they had relinquished the idea of a select committee or a commission of inquiry.

The hon. member for Durban Central adopted precisely the same tactics as the hon. member for Johannesburg-North by asking for a commission of inquiry to investigate education consisting of representatives of various organizations. I can tell the hon. members that they are not going to impress anybody in this way. The teachers are aware that the Government has always been sympathetic to their problems. We can indicate this has been the case time and time again in the past. I shall not allow myself to be distracted any further by the hon. members; I shall put my viewpoint in regard to salaries in the course of my discussion.

Firstly I want to state that one can never pay the lecturer or the teacher sufficiently for the work he does. It is quite obvious that the teacher is the moulder of the leader of tomorrow; he is the creator of the thought patterns of the next generation. The teacher is the interpreter of the nation’s outlook on life and the world. He is also the guardian of the spiritual and cultural heritage, of the traditions of his nation. If that is the case, it is also true that one can never really evaluate the worth of these people and pay them accordingly. In fact, the communists themselves teach that the teaching profession is the most powerful organ in the formative process of the thinking processes of a nation.

It is, however, also indisputable that one should never play off the importance of the various professions against one another at any given time. One cannot compare them with one another. Nor is it the function of any bystander, either individual or as an organized group, to determine what the priorities are at any given stage. It is the function of the State which has all the information available at that stage without one profession being played off against another. Having said this I am not inferring that the State does not have a very great responsibility to education, especially in the times in which we are living.

A happy teaching corps consisting of the best men and women the nation has to offer—not only the best in regard to intellectual capacity but also in respect of spiritual values—is of course an absolute need and requirement in the education of a nation. Circumstances within the profession must be of such a nature that it attracts the best manpower. But if the Government has a responsibility to education, it is equally true that in the same measure the profession also has a special responsibility. Not only the individual teacher, but organized associations must bear this responsibility honourably.

I maintain that we must jealously guard the reciprocal trust, respect, regard and understanding that exists between the State and education. Both of them, in fact, have to ensure the survival and future existence of the nation; the State mainly in the physical sphere while education makes its contribution on the ideological level. In the present problematical situation it is necessary that the bona fides of the parties concerned should be accepted.

I think it is very clear that education, on the basis of statements made since 1976, has accepted that the education profession, as far as salaries are concerned, should as a whole be singled out and placed in a more favourable position than the remainder of the government sector. This explains the disappointment experienced by this group at not being included in the increases granted to public servants as from 1 April this year. I can fully appreciate that disappointment I also appreciate the fact that these people might have had certain expectations, but in the same breath let me say that it is a pity that statements have been made in which words such as “betrayal” (verraad) and “breach of faith” (troubreuk) were used, and in addition, allegations that teachers were dealt an insulting slap in the face and that to expect further loyalty and appreciation from the teachers was asking too much. That is not the language of the teachers I know. I accept that there was disappointment, but I am sorry that groups and people were, in this upsurge of emotion, driven to use those words. If misunderstandings between the Government and the teaching corps do in fact exist in regard to this matter, they must be cleared up as soon as possible, and the only way to do this is by way of negotiation. It is no use trying to make political capital in this House or making various statements to the Press about the matter. This question must be openly discussed round a conference table in a specific, acknowledged fashion.

Behind closed doors.

The hon. the Prime Minister has already shown his sympathetic approach by receiving a deputation from the Federal Council and agreeing to the appointment of a committee, representative of the Public Service Commission, the Department of National Education and the organized teaching profession, to draw up an informative document covering the whole matter and circulate it confidentially to the teaching corps. What more do people want?

The Prime Minister of the country is prepared to receive the executive body of such a group and to listen to the objections and disappointment of these people, and he then states personally that he is prepared to draw up an informative document so that there will be peace and tranquillity within the teaching profession. This can only happen if a government, and in particular its Prime Minister, appreciates the interests of teachers and the seriousness and importance of their task. It is very clear that organized education—even though hon. members are trying to prove the opposite here—has respect, high praise and gratitude for the attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister, and especially for the attitude of the hon. the Minister of National Education.

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

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

My thanks to that hon. member.

*The organized teaching profession is also very grateful and has appreciation for the fact that the hon. the Minister has tried with intense interest and purpose to do his best for education. I want to finalize this matter by saying that discussion must continue. It must not lead to the development of a confidence gap, and if a confidence gap already exists, it must be eliminated. But methods must not be used which will be harmful to the Government or education. I want to issue the warning that a tiger once let loose is not so easily tamed. The Government and education are too faithful compatriots—the Opposition should know this—in their striving for what is best for the country and the nation to permit the luxury of mistrust and a confidence gap.

I should like to deal with a few matters on which attention has been focussed in recent weeks, once again via the Press. I am referring to the requests addressed to universities by students and to the related problems. I should like to try briefly to state a few well known policies of this side of the House, and because of the time factor, I shall merely state them without elaborating on them any further. The first is that education forms a unity; from the pre-primary level up to the level of tertiary education.

The second important aspect is that education is part of the nation. That is why education alone can convey the nation’s philosophy of life and outlook on the world, and it must also disseminate culture. I could quote what various educationists have said in this regard, but I want to leave it there, except perhaps to refer to what headman Mopeli of Qwa-Qwa claims in regard to the orientation of culture to education—

The South African has a Christian national approach to and outlook on life and the world. Accordingly education must also have a Christian and national character. The school is the extension of the home and because of this the same atmosphere must prevail within the school as prevails within the home. There can therefore be no talk of school integration. What is also important is that in my view the school may never be misused to bring about forced contact between national groups. No matter how sacred the development of sound human relations might be—and this is sacred and important—the school may not be misused to establish forced contact, because forced contact can only create friction, misunderstanding, humiliation and discrimination.

The same argument applies in respect of tertiary education. When students bargain for certain privileges it is necessary for them to remember the stated findings and guidelines. This policy of the Government is founded on a universally acknowledged educational principle. When one reads the Van Wyk de Vries report, one sees that it expresses a very definite opinion in regard to the nature of the university and indicates that the nature of the university is integrated with society, the community and the State. When discussing the functions of the university, it says that, inter alia, this entails educating and moulding the student, and also making available to him facets of culture and a philosophy of life and an outlook on the world, due regard being had to those bonds of life united within him, to cultivate in him social standards of good citizenship. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the lights have just gone out, and I want to say, now that the lights are on again, I hope I shall also be able to bring some light to the minds of members of the Opposition.

Prof. Thom, former rector of the University of Stellenbosch, also expressed a very clear opinion in regard to the national ties of a university. He said, inter alia, that it was the task of the university to retain the confidence of the community, and in particular the community it served, through its national ties. This means that the university is indissolubly tied to the nation, and also in respect of the nation’s philosophy. Further, Prof. Thom also said that if we wanted true national ties in our universities, we would obviously not only think of the mind, but also of the heart and the character.

If the Government permits members of other colour groups to study at White universities, it is not a deviation from principles and policy, but simply because the physical amenities are not available at the separate national universities in the transitional stage to the ideal of equal separate universities. It is important that university authorities and the students should realize that certain matters are never negotiable. The Government does not gamble with the nation’s identity, viz. his God-given uniqueness.

The Government is not prepared to gamble with a nation’s right of existence and even less with its right to govern itself. Accordingly the Government does not negotiate in regard to mixed residential areas, school integration or an integrated Parliament Students, especially some White students at the universities, must realize that the presence of students of other colour groups on the campus does not mean that they form an unqualified section of the student community. They are these basically to follow a study course which they cannot obtain at their own ethnic university. The accent is thus on the study and not the participation in social and sporting activities. Of course, this is a sensitive matter. We do not want first class and second class students either, but we must never forget the motivation behind the admission and that is for study in a certain direction.

The Government has a tremendous responsibility in this connection. If students of other colours are admitted and the councils of the universities decide that they can have free and full participation in student life, with the exception of communal residential areas and dancing together, the results of this must also be evaluated by the Government Of course, the admission of students of other colours in this transitional stage is justified, but we must not allow these students to be lost as future leaders of their own nations, and still less that the future White leaders in the process become strangers to their own essential characteristics. Conditions for admission must therefore be laid down which will safeguard the students against estrangement from their own cultural heritage and national customs. [Interjections.] It would be better if the hon. member would confine himself to dipping his animals.

In conclusion I want to make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister, in the interests of all population groups and in accordance with the Government’s policy and the ideal we strive for, to urgently investigate the admission of students of other colours to universities and to lay down definite guidelines. I know that there will be some people who will ask immediately what will happen to the autonomy of the university, but the autonomy of a university is a qualified autonomy. The autonomy of a university does not give people carte blanche to do as they please within the confines of that university. The autonomy of a university is also governed by the contribution the State has to make to the functioning of that university.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired. I have already allowed him a bit of injury time.

Mr. Chairman, the very first thing I should like to do, is to congratulate the SABC Staff Association on the telegram it sent yesterday to the hon. the Prime Minister in connection with the Advocate-General Bill. I think this was a particularly courageous act because all these people are in the full-time employ of the SABC. I believe it shows the genuine concern of people, even those in the employ of a State-financed corporation, about what this Bill is doing. I should like the Director-General to convey the congratulations of this side of the House to his staff association on their courageous stand.

Secondly I should like to say hello and good-bye to the hon. the Minister. We have not noticed him as being very active in this field and we regret that he will now not be able to become the idol of television as he will not be the Minister in this portfolio much longer. However, we wish him a very fruitful period of office in the Transvaal. I am sure that he will do well in that new post.

Early this session I received a letter from an Indian South African who brought to my attention a state of affairs which I think bears possible investigation and even action. After receiving this letter and after sending a copy of the letter to the hon. the Minister, I made a few inquiries myself. I established that the total number of hours of radio broadcasting emanating from all the radio services, both commercial and non-commercial, was approximately 901 hours per week. Of these 901 hours the total amount of time allowed to programmes of special interest to Indians is two hours, or approximately 17 minutes per day, and this on only one programme, namely the English programme. I do not want to argue this case at length, but this minuscule allocation of time does seem to me to be unfair. I should like the hon. the Minister to look into three aspects of this problem. Firstly, he should see whether the total time which is allocated to programmes of interest to Indians cannot be meaningfully increased; secondly, whether any increase decided upon cannot be shared by some of the other radio programmes or radio services and, thirdly, once an increase is decided upon, whether something cannot be done to widen the variety and interest value of the programmes themselves.

Another facet of this problem relates to television programmes. In this medium no time whatsoever is devoted to programmes of special interest to Indian viewers. I know that it is virtually impossible to cater for the several communities constituting the South African spectrum each in his own language and in his own idiom, but I do say that the needs of the Indian viewers are being neglected. A television service for Black viewers, I am told, is on the way. The suggestion has been made to me by several Indian persons with whom I have discussed the matter to screen an Indian film on television at least once per month. If the hon. the Minister is reluctant to sacrifice any existing viewing time, the people who have discussed this matter with me would be more than happy if such films were broadcast outside of the existing schedule, say at 4 p.m. on a Sunday afternoon. By going a step further and providing English or Afrikaans sub-titles, who knows, the interest in such monthly films might in fact widen.

While on the subject of time allowed to television broadcasts, why is it that the SABC assumes that all South Africans go to bed to sleep, or become comatose and moribund at the stroke of 10.30 p.m.? That is, without fail, the closing time for television. I have no objection, and I do not think any viewer has any, to the new 5.30 p.m. starting time, but we sorely miss the late-night news bulletin, no matter how biased it may be. An extra hour of television per day I believe will not take much doing and in a very short time will certainly increase the revenue of the SABC. Therefore I think serious consideration should be given to increasing from five to six hours the time allowed per day. If the hon. the Minister is against this, I honestly think he should stand up and give us very cogent reasons why. Adult South Africans will not, and they should not if they indeed do, turn into pumpkins at the stroke of 10.30 p.m. if they are watching a television show.

The third point that I should like to make relates to the enormous sums of public money which are being thrown away on badly-needed advertising time. One cannot switch on a radio or television set in South Africa without being confronted and assailed by plugs for the magazine Family Radio and TV, which is, after all, produced by private enterprise as a profit venture. Using the existing advertising rates, I calculate that any other organization would have to pay some R40 000 per week, and perhaps more, or, if one takes it across the board through the year, approximately R2 million per year, to receive the same exposure that Family Radio and TV receives on radio and television.

It is indecent.

The hon. member say it is indecent. I agree with him entirely. The assured television coverage is the only reason why advertisers use this magazine at all. What is worse: This private venture is given the sole and exclusive right to publish full details of programmes. I believe, without doubt, that it is an absolute scandal that the SABC grants patronage to the extent of this enormous sum of money per annum to a privately-owned magazine which serves so small a circulation, while at the same time excluding all the other media from access to its projected programmes. I believe that this must come to an end.

The last aspect I should like to discuss relates to the political slant of the SABC. Let us make no error: It still exists, although perhaps in a more subtle form than in previous years. Admittedly, there has been a small improvement. That is that the existence of the Opposition parties has at least been recognized during the last year. From time to time the odd still-photograph is permitted on the screen. The material chosen for publication, however, is still done on a highly selective basis, and very little that contains serious and motivated criticism of the Government is screened.

Discussion panels, for instance, remain hopelessly lopsided. This is especially so on the Afrikaans programmes, where usually only the most regimented views are allowed.

I remember watching a panel discussion, a month or so ago, on sport, on sport policy and on South Africa’s isolation in sport. Who were the panel? The panel consisted of Dr. Dawie de Villiers, NP member of Parliament, a well-known columnist of a NP newspaper, and a well-known sports administrator, also an extremely well-known supporter of the Government. They spoke during the entire programme, which lasted about 40 minutes, agreeing with each other. There was no room for Tommy Bedford on that programme, and also no room for that devil of devils, Hassan Howa. [Interjections.] No, the Afrikaans viewers must not know that there is anything except total national agreement on any given issue. [Interjections.] They might indeed discover that the PFP actually exists and has a standpoint.

One programme that gave me some amount of amusement, was a programme on South West Africa. In that programme a panel of five people appeared. Among them were Dr. Africa, Mr. Karuyihe and Prof. Kozonguizi. They all gave a particular view about how and why they wanted an early election in South West Africa. What TV viewers were not told, however, was that they were all members of the DTA, that they were all giving the DTA viewpoint Yet the discussion was presented as being one that revealed the broad spectrum of political thought across South West Africa. Cliff Saunders obviously wanted to get a point across,—but that is not the way to inform the public of South Africa. The picture presented was distorted and, I believe, fallacial.

The role of the SABC should be to entertain, to educate and to inform in an unbiased and impartial way. I believe that the present programmes continue to fall short of this ideal by a long shot. It is to be hoped—if it cannot be done in a day—that a new Minister of National Education, once he is appointed, will open up on radio and television what other Ministers in the past have failed to do.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton has congratulated the staff association of the SABC on the standpoint they have adopted. I find it a pity that the staff association of the SABC should have meddled in this matter at all. I am now referring to the standpoint the SABC Staff Association has adopted with regard to legislation before us at the moment.

The SABC has always been very objective with regard to contentious matters such as these. I therefore believe it is a pity that they have meddled in this matter.

The hon. member for Sandton has advocated more programme time for Indians. He also advocated several other things, to which the hon. the Minister will no doubt reply. However, I just wish to point out to the hon. member that section 12(3) of the Broadcasting Act, No. 73 of 1976, reads—

We have so many population groups that it is not possible to make separate provision for all of them.

But they are one million people.

You cannot simply ignore one million people.

Unfortunately I do not have the time to devote further attention to the hon. member’s statement, because there is another matter I wish to deal with.

We should be very grateful that we have introduced television in this country, because television has already demonstrably placed us on the world map in that it presents to the world a visual dimension of what happens in this country. As a result, South Africa is no longer as defenceless as formerly against foreign intervention and the television onslaught against our country. With the aid of television, we can fight back and present people abroad with a true image of our country, its people and of conditions here. Television has created for us the channel whereby we can project our standpoint to the outside world more extensively than before. Whereas formerly news flowed to the outside world mainly through the filter of critical correspondents, television now places our leaders in the position to talk directly to people in various parts of the world. Cuts from television speeches by, and also of interviews with, the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and other hon. Ministers and Coloured and Black leaders are regularly being fed to American, European and British television networks, where they are included in news bulletins and telecast to millions of people over vast areas of the world. Now, for the first time, we can project to the outside world a true picture of what is taking place in our country. Apart from that, the unfavourable image that has been created over the years, can now gradually be broken down. By means of television channels South Africa now, for the first time, has reasonable access to foreign audiences as far as its standpoint is concerned.

There is no need today to dwell on the value of the internal television service. We know how much television has already contributed to better mutual knowledge and understanding between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people. We must be grateful to the SABC for showing English and Afrikaans programmed alternately on television, because it compels our people to look at both programmes and so also to appreciate the other official language.

The introduction of our television service has exerted a far greater influence than is generally known. The sale of television sets has taken place at a rate that has exceeded all expectations and the demand for television services has been stimulated to such an extent that during the past few years, hundreds of private television relay stations have been erected throughout the country.

There is one great shortcoming in respect of our television service, and that is the lack of a channel for the Black people. We are aware of the financial problem and we know that the enormous amount of approximately R150 million would be necessary to introduce such a channel. We also realize that the State has other major obligations, but I do think it would be in South Africa’s interests not to wait much longer before introducing a television service for the Black people of our country. The dramatic events and developments on our borders, where foreign ideologies are trying to gain a foothold, and also developments at home such as new initiatives by the Government regarding homeland development and the position of urban Black people, have in recent times made the introduction of a television channel for Black people all the more urgent If we only think of the vast contribution it could make towards the maintenance and improvement of sound internal race relations, then that is already sufficient reason why such a service should be introduced without delay. We have to assume that as television has influenced us, it will also influence the Black people. Television can help to inform Black people and to keep them out of the streets. It can help to educate and to amuse them. These are all things that could contribute to better race relations. It is estimated that by 1981 there will be a potential viewership of between 1¾ and 2¼ million Black people.

This shows us what a vast field is lying fallow in this regard. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that to an increasing extent, in our neighbouring States, television and radio broadcasts are taking place that can be received in certain parts of the Republic. Among these is a television service already being provided from Swaziland and which can be received in certain parts of the Eastern Transvaal. Bophuthatswana may introduce a television service that would be received by viewers in the densely populated Witwatersrand and vicinity in particular. There are also the existing medium-wave and short-wave radio broadcasts from countries such as Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana, and the envisaged medium-wave broadcasts from Transkei and Bophuthatswana.

It is not far-fetched to assume that some of these broadcasts from outside our borders could influence the South African Blacks in directions that would be contrary to the traditional domestic policy of our country. A television service of their own for our Black people would make a substantial contribution towards countering these influences.

There is also another reason why we should make haste in this matter. In the mining industry in particular, with its vast numbers of Black workers, certain organizations have already entered into the television field or have intimated that they intend doing so. They make use of closed-circuit colour television to present their own productions in compounds, eating halls and recreation halls on the mines. In this way, the sphere of television influence that really belongs with the SABC, is being encroached upon by other organizations. This will happen to an increasing extent if the SABC does not provide a television service for Black people.

The prices of television broadcasting equipment, and also building costs, are rocketing. The longer we delay this matter, the more expensive it may ultimately become for us to create a channel for the Black people. That is yet another reason why we should not delay this any longer.

We can be grateful that the SABC has already begun with important preparatory work in this regard. We can assume that they are virtually prepared to provide such a service as soon as they obtain permission.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Bloemfontein North for his fine contribution. In particular, I support very strongly his request and plea for the introduction of a television service for the Black people in our country.

I wish to associate myself with the criticism levelled at the television service by the hon. member for Sandton. I wish to motivate it in this way: If I were to express criticism of the service, it would be because our country and its people did not have the opportunity this year of seeing the embarrassment of the hon. Leader of the Opposition about the telephone story he became embroiled in as a result of the McHenry episode. That situation should have been telecast to all our peoples so that they could see in what position these people were. [Interjections.]

You misuse television.

Pursuant to the pleas by hon. members who discussed salaries, I wish to state that I am very grateful that the door of our hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister is always open to the teachers’ corps for their pleas and for talks. We know that the heart of the Cabinet is receptive to their case. We are grateful that there is a committee that will, in future, conduct negotiations and create the opportunity for inputs at various levels so that comparative positions and salary structures can be established on a scientific basis.

I appeal to the Cabinet to reconsider the amount being spent on education in our country. I am convinced that a greater allocation can be made in the estimates to the entire structure of education. I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that if we express the amounts spent on education as a percentage of the gross domestic product in other comparable States and compare these with the expenditure of the Republic, I find it disconcerting that we are very low down on the list. In the USA, it is 6,6%; in Britain, 9,8%; in Canada, 7,6%; in Belgium, 5,1%; in Denmark, 7,1%; in West Germany, 4,1%; in Russia, 7,6%; in Australia, 6,4%; in Israel, 6,7%; and in the Republic, only 2,5%.

Does that include all education?

The figure for the Republic is in respect of White education. This figure is very disconcerting. This country can afford to spend more money in this particular field. Education remains the one field where initiative begins in the development of our children so that one day they will be able to meet the demands of this country in all the various subject disciplines. Our entrepreneurs have to be derived from this source. And so, too, our engineers and legal men. Whatever fields we look at, they are all derived from this source. Consequently we feel that there is justification for pleading for increased spending in the field of education.

I now wish to return to our Opposition. I am sorry that the main spokesman of the Opposition, the hon. member for Johannesburg North, is not in the House now. I am grateful, however, that the hon. member for Durban Central is present.

All present and correct.

These people are evading their duty in this House today. They talk about salaries—they have every right to talk about that—but this is not the only field for the Opposition. The estimates of expenditures in which funds are voted for that department every year, and also the annual report of the department, are, inter alia, sources of information for their speeches, and they should be debating about that.

There are only two Progs sitting here.

And they know nothing about education. I wish to say, with all due respect, that they do not know much about other fields, but about education they know absolutely nothing.

I have referred to the sources on the basis of which the hon. the Minister and his department may be tested. I cannot help thinking of the days, and I have read the relevant Hansards, when Mr. Flippie Moore sat in the Opposition benches as MP for Kensington. I can give hon. members the assurance that if he had still been here, the hon. the Minister and his department would have been in for the high jump. They would have had to account for all the expenditure in all the specific fields for which money has been voted to them in the budget. It is the duty of the hon. members to call the hon. the Minister and the department to account. The hon. members did not ask a single question and did not say a single word about that. [Interjections.] Why do they not rise instead and convey their sincere congratulations to the hon. the Minister and his department, let that suffice and then resume their seats, so that we can save time in Parliament? The hon. members are ignoring that task and they are evading their duty.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Johannesburg North has just resumed his seat again.

Tackle him now.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North is evading his duty in this House, and he is uninformed as well. He is still a greenhorn, a backbencher. He does not know yet what field his duty covers. He should have cross-examined the hon. the Minister about the various fields of expenditure today. I wish to mention only a few aspects. Under Vote No. 36, programme 6, I refer hon. members to the head “Promotion of cultural services”. Under that head, an amount of R2 500 per annum is being appropriated for prizes for literary works—in English as well as Afrikaans. Last night there was a news item on the prizes awarded in the field of performing arts, for which an amount of R2 000 has been appropriated. Since those hon. members are not doing their duty, I wish to put a question to the hon. the Minister. Does the hon. the Minister think that our rich country of gold, diamonds, tiger’s eye and all these splendid things can afford to set aside only R2 500 for its writers, its literary people? They cannot earn a living with that at all.

Hear, hear! I am in full agreement with you.

I do not need the support of the hon. members, even though this is his field.

You need it.

It cries to high heaven that our country is allocating only that small amount to those people. If we compare that amount with the bursaries awarded to sportsmen—not that I wish to detract from sports bursaries—we can see how distorted the picture is. During this week we conducted a hectic debate here on the concept of freedom of the Press, on the ability of people to write and on the originality required to make statements and represent thoughts. Is there no possibility of awarding a journalistic prize to the brilliant Pressmen? That would afford them the opportunity, with their fresh creative ability, to open up new vistas. But in these times R2 500 is a very small amount.

I wish to ask something else on behalf of those hon. members who are not doing their duty. In programme 2, annexure C, I refer hon. members to the amount allotted for nuclear research at our universities. It is the young people who have to work with that source of energy. We have an energy problem in our country, and it is those young people who have to do the exploratory work and who have to break new ground for us. The financing formula for universities is of such a nature that universities with a large number of enrolled students have an advantage. [Interjections.] Smaller universities with smaller enrolments find it extremely difficult to get their books to balance, to make ends meet. Should we not reconsider this matter? The smaller the number of students, the more individual work, individual contact, there is, and the more intensive is the interaction between lecturer and student, with a greater measure of success of course. In his day, the hon. member for Johannesburg North was an able man in the field of the arts, etc.

When was that?

That was long ago, but now, in his life as a grey-beard, blindness has set in and he has made a nonsensical decision, and that was the day when that grey-beard joined the PFP.

Hon. grey-beard.

Yes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to afford the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. Whip for the opportunity. I just want to deal with one further field. We notice from our estimate figures that R27½ million has been allotted this year to 67 schools or institutions for the handicapped, with 6 884 pupils—that was the enrolment on the first Tuesday in March, 1978. Last year, R22½ million was allotted. If we calculate the per capita cost for handicapped children, we find that in the case of the school for autistic children at Claremont, it amounts to R3 584. For the physically handicapped child, it is an average of R2 982. As against that, the average cost per capita for the ordinary pupil in the province is R551, and for the university student at all our residential universities, excluding Unisa, R2 657. The figures in respect of the autistic child and the physically handicapped child are higher than those in respect of the average university student and the ordinary pupil. I have no fault to find with that. We are world leaders in the care of the handicapped child, but what are we doing for our more gifted child for whom the cost per capita is R551? I suggest that we consider the possibility of establishing more extracurricular centres where the gifted children can be accommodated, at times when they are available—and there are many such times. The gifted child is an intelligent person and we should identify and inspire him, for the sake of his own development and to meet the needs of our country, to enter into further fields. We must do this for these children.

There is one final idea I wish to raise. In the Agriculture debate we discussed the resettlement of farmers in our border areas in order to counteract the depopulation of those areas. This is a huge programme which is being launched. However, I wish to state unequivocally today that unless immediate provision is made for education in that regard, that plan will fail. People will not move to the border areas if we do not make provision for educational facilities for their children. We need young people with children there, so that we can build up those areas again and nourish them with farm children.

I wish to quote a few figures in this regard. In the Transvaal, there are at present 7 021 vacancies in hostels. Expressed in terms of money this means that an amount of R21 million is lying fallow. This is due to the migration from those areas. The total number of students in the seven comprehensive units of Lichtenburg, Nelspruit, Pietersburg, Rustenburg, the Far North, the Far West and Waterberg, which are border areas, does not even constitute 12% of the Transvaal’s school population. In the case of the Far North, Far West and Waterberg border areas, the figure is 4,5%. If we take into account only the pupils in the Far North areas along the entire northern border and the Far West, the region bordering on Bophuthatswana, we find that they constitute 2,5% of the Transvaal school population.

Those of Waterberg therefore constitute only 2% of the school population!

In my view, it is essential that we should redirect the educational facilities to schools in those regions. But for that we need financial assistance. If hostels have to be filled, we also have to make bursaries and transport, that is to say buses, available. There is an existing arrangement whereby the child must live beyond walking distance of the bus stop. This is a matter we should rectify, because in that respect we need to accommodate those people. If need be, the bus should pick up the child at his home. I think this is essential. There are many, many children in the cities, in the concrete jungles, today who would very much like to go back to the rural areas. However, if we wish to achieve that, we have to accommodate those parents and make provision for those children to be able to go home. I have in mind schools with hostels, such as those at Welgedacht, Marken, Bulgerivier, Swartwater and Mopanie. In that lovely bushveld area one still finds the impala and the kudu. If we want to achieve that, the hon. the Minister must definitely make immediate provision for educational facilities for the families of border farmers.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Standerton set an example here today which, it is to be hoped, other hon. members on that side of the House will follow. To be more specific, he rose here and put penetrating questions to the hon. the Minister and insisted on satisfactory replies. I believe that is the spirit in which we ought to act in this House.

Before I go any further, I just want to say with reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Virginia that I regret the way in which he dealt with the admission of non-White students to White universities.

Why?

I believe the way in which he dealt with it, was wrong. I regret it. Actually the attitude adopted by him was one of “we allow you there because there is no other way, but the fact that we do allow you there, does not mean that you have other rights; our policy remains the same”. That was the message. The hon. the Minister described that attitude as the right one. I do not want to get involved in the matter; I just want to sound a warning. When we enter a new field, we should do nothing and say nothing which could create the impression that we are creating a kind of a second-class student, because I think it would be very wrong and irresponsible to do so.

†On 18 and 19 September 1978 a very important symposium was held in Pretoria on the subject of the transition from the school to the university. The committee of university principals subsequently issued a report on the proceedings, the lectures and the discussions. I was very grateful to Dr. Steyn for letting me have a copy of it. In 10 minutes one obviously cannot do justice to all the matters that were raised there. I am frequently going to make use of statistics I have obtained from this report to present my case. First of all it is shown in this report that 27% of all school going children do in fact matriculate and that out of that 27%, 75% to 90% go to university. It is worthwhile to note that as far as the intelligence of the population is concerned, that the 27th percentile corresponds to an IQ of 109. Correctly the question is posed—I want to emphasize it—whether we have not reached the stage at which saturation point has been reached as far as the intake of White universities is concerned. Can one really reasonably expect that a person with an IQ of below 109 should be regarded as university material?

Consequently we have to exercise control.

I shall come to that. It would appear to me that should the intake of a particular age group increase any further, it would only increase the drop-out rate. In this report it is further stated that 20% of the Whites in a particular age group in South Africa do obtain university qualifications. This figure is very high. It is second only to the USA, where 24% of the persons in a particular age group obtain university qualifications. A further point I wish to underline, is that the success rate in South Africa has, according to studies, increased. For the period 1955 to 1961 the success rate was 56% and in the period 1967 to 1975 it was 67%. This is still lower than the rate, for instance, in the United Kingdom, but then again three times as many students in South Africa go to university than in the United Kingdom. Therefore one can reasonably expect that there would be a greater drop-out rate in South Africa.

I should like to raise certain points which are based on these statistics. The first point I should like to raise is that measured against South Africa’s manpower and training needs, the percentage of Whites who obtain purely university qualifications is far too high and that this requires attention. I say this without trying to belittle university qualifications and in full cognizance of the fact that there is a high correlation between a person’s university qualifications and training and his level of productivity. While I do not find any fault with the ratio of one graduate at tertiary level out of every five members of the population, I sincerely believe that we do need a better distribution of students at tertiary level. We need better guidance and we need, for instance, greater motivation.

In this regard we do not only need greater motivation as far as the student is concerned, but also greater motivation and guidance as far as the parents are concerned. Today we still find that too many parents do not realize the true nature and the true advantages of technical education offered at technikons. In this regard I must perhaps say to the hon. member for Standerton that I also want to refer to this Bible of ours, namely the budget, and say that the increase of just over 10% in respect of technical education in South Africa is solely aimed at keeping up with inflation. It is not really an improvement at all. I am referring to the increase in advanced technical education—the technikons—from R28 million to R31 million.

In South Africa we already find that the average university has a greater enrolment compared to what we find in the USA or the United Kingdom. The hon. the Minister of Public Works who is now leaving the Chamber interjected a little while ago about the finance formula, but no matter how one looks at this and even if one allows adequate compensation for the balances which are built into it, the fact remains that the formula for financing boils down to a counting of heads. Therefore one finds that universities naturally compete for more and more students. It is therefore imperative that we have another look at the method of financing and I think we should continually look at this.

I want to say further that the technikons as such should receive far greater prominence.

*Now I want to refer briefly to the committee of inquiry into the National Film Board which has already submitted its report. What I am going to say now, will naturally be more in the form of an autopsy than anything else, as the National Film Board as such is now going to disappear. I do believe, however, that we could learn some valuable lessons from this. The first lesson we could learn, is that when a Government department ventures into the business world, as the National Film Board did, it must ensure in the very first place that it has the necessary business expertise so that its activities may be conducted on a business basis. It is clear that this was lacking in the case of the National Film Board. There was very little advance planning with regard to the problems created by inflation, and also with regard to the wrong price policy which was followed in respect of the services rendered. In other words, it was very clear that a financial failure was unavoidable in the end. Naturally there was also an impressive list of ex officio officials who served on it and actually one is surprised to find that such a state of affairs could have developed. Particularly since the board obviously also competed on a preferential basis with private industries, one cannot really understand why it encountered these problems.

In this regard there are two specific questions which I want to put to the hon. the Minister. Firstly, in what way are the various services which were rendered by the council being accommodated now? The day before yesterday the hon. the Minister replied to one aspect, i.e. the aspect of micro-film services, but in what way are the other services as such being accommodated? Secondly, is there any truth in a recent report which I read that some members of the staff are still struggling to find employment and to what extent is responsibility being accepted for their employment?

†I wish to conclude by briefly referring to the inquiry into the performing arts. Last year an inquiry was held and serious accusations were made by the director of Napac that the report contained gross errors in factual statements. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon. member the opportunity to conclude his speech.

I express my thanks to the hon. the Minister. I shall be only a minute or two.

Serious accusations were levelled by the director of Napac that the report contained gross errors, in factual statements, faulty premises and deductions. From the information supplied by the Napac director, it would appear that his claim is not completely unfounded and I should like to know what progress has been made to overcome this difficulty, because, under these circumstances, one does not know how to evaluate the findings of the commission. However, I am prepared to accept in broad outline the findings and the recommendations. I should like to urge the Government and local authorities to embark upon a systematic plan to implement some of these recommendations. Dust should not be allowed to settle on this report. Cultural improvement and enrichment has always enjoyed a very low priority as far as the Government and the authorities of South Africa are concerned. It should be the Department of National Education, including the hon. the Minister, that should be spearheading a cultural revival in South Africa. I was very pleased to hear about the increase of incentives in the cultural field, as the hon. member for Standerton said, and I am looking forward to hear more about this from the hon. the Minister. I believe that as far as this is concerned, that the ball is now in his court.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I should like to convey my thanks to hon. members for their kind words to me. I am sorry that my presence in the department and my departure from it so much resemble the greetings between two dogs: a lick, a wag of the tail and then they go their separate ways. This is often the way things are in life and there is not much one can do about it At the same time, I greatly appreciate their good wishes to me now that I am taking up a new post. I am actually in trouble as far as this is concerned, because I have received so many good wishes that I shall not be able to let anyone down. I shall have to stay on my toes. On the other hand, it does me good.

My predecessor in this department was a man of many abilities. We all knew him as a person with a bubbling enthusiasm. I should like to thank him for all the fine things he bequeathed to me, and should any problems arise, I want to tell him that I shall take him to task later. He always praised this department and he always paid tribute to the people employed in the department On one occasion he wrote me the following note: “A fine department with good and hard-working people. You will enjoy working there.” I really did. I also want to thank him for his guidance with regard to many new lines of thought, new schemes and new projects that have been embarked upon. In spite of everything, I have been able to give some attention to certain of these projects, and we know that these are matters which will continue, whether or not we are there.

In addition, I am privileged to work with some outstanding officials in the department I have been enriched by the experience of working with an outstanding Secretary, Dr. Van Wyk, and also with the other officials all down the line. I think many hon. members who were present during that visit to the department in Pretoria will be able to testify to the fact that these are really very competent officials, motivated people, people with the best professional and administrative grounding one could wish for. As a fine team they do dedicated work in all the wide spheres of activity of the department I have been enriched by my association with them and I can only wish them the best for the years to come.

During the short while I have been involved with this department I have also come into contact with colleagues in this House, colleagues on this side of the House who take a special interest in education. They have had conversations with me and we have exchanged ideas. It has been pleasant to be able to do this. I am sorry that it is now coming to an end. I have also had the opportunity of exchanging thoughts with Opposition members on the activities of the department. They also made certain representations to me, and although one cannot always be of assistance, perhaps, one is glad that they found one’s door open and that they were welcome to approach one. They felt that one was not repulsing them, but was prepared to receive and to help them. Accordingly, I want to express my thanks for the contact I had with those hon. members as well.

I have tried to do my share in the department during the period I have been in Parliament I have tried to propagate two qualities in particular, i.e. devotion to duty and responsibility. All along my motto has been: May I remain the master of my will and the slave of my conscience. That will also be my philosophy in the future.

One of the important matters mentioned here today is the question of salaries. Salary matters are sensitive and can often be very emotional as well. Also, one can use this matter in various ways, i.e. one can put the case here in a genuine attempt to promote it or one can raise it here in order to make political capital out of it. In discussing this matter, I do not want to approach the official Opposition in that spirit during my last appearance here. Let us be honest, however. It is true that the discussions we conduct here often serve to add oil to the flames. In that way we do not arrive at any real solution. Of course, it is the right of the Opposition to discuss these matters. I welcome it when they do. In fact, they present new points of view. However, when they talk about it, they must remember that they are not in a position to carry out the promises they themselves would like to make. It remains the ultimate responsibility of the Government to evaluate the whole matter and then to make allocations according to the means at its disposal. However, I am pleased about the fact that hon. members of the Opposition have also stated here that they regard education as important. We do not doubt the sentiments they express in this respect. We are pleased to have them as our allies in pleading the cause of education.

I also wish to put the standpoint of the Government, however. To be able to do this, I need not go back a long way in history. I shall begin with quite recent statements. The first statement I wish to refer to is the one by the hon. the Prime Minister when he summoned me to appoint me to this post. On that occasion the hon. the Prime Minister told me that because education was important to him, he would like us to handle the matter in such a way that there will never be confrontation between the teachers, the academics and the Government authority, because that would be counter-productive. Those were his words to me, without any prior conversation about education which could have prompted him to say so. Those were his opening words.

However, I want to go further. In the latest talks which the hon. the Prime Minister, together with myself and other colleagues of mine, had with the representatives of the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations, the hon. the Prime Minister repeated, in welcoming these people to the discussions, that he, and the Government, considered education to be of the utmost importance and that he wished to avoid a conflict between education as a whole and Government authority. For that reason he was glad, he said, that they were coming to have talks with him. I could go further. On the same occasion, the hon. the Minister of the Interior endorsed those sentiments. So did the hon. the Minister of Finance. We must remember that they occupy key positions with regard to salary matters. This applies especially to the hon. the Minister of Finance, a man who was also a member of an institution for higher education at one time and who therefore has a good background as far as this matter is concerned. He said in all sincerity that he considered education as a whole to be important.

The hon. the Prime Minister also pointed out that there was not a single interest group whose interests were more frequently discussed in the Cabinet than teachers and university people. I can confirm this for the short while I have been serving on the Cabinet. I cannot recall the affairs of any other group being discussed by the Cabinet so often, as a result of memoranda or simply as an item on the agenda. This again highlights the importance which the State attaches to education, in that highest assembly as well.

Now we can say, of course, that this is nothing more than …

[Inaudible.]

I am referring to professional groups now. The hon. member for Durban Central must not misunderstand me. He is lying in wait for the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, of course, to tell him, when the opportunity presents itself, that he did not speak about the farmers.

With reference to what I have just said, it may easily be argued that all this amounts to nothing more than expressions of sympathy, declarations about the important position assigned to education, but that when all is said and done, no cash has been diverted into these people’s pockets, that their general position has not improved at all. Very well, let us examine that as well, especially the aspect which is often raised in this particular discussions, i.e. the advancement of education. This matter was considered by the Cabinet and my predecessor said the following on 30 November 1976—

I emphasize this, because the new dispensation should not be regarded as one of which salaries are the only component [Interjections.] There are quite a number of other components involved in the new dispensation. Hon. members should now listen carefully—

This is one component which is mentioned—

This is an important component to which I think effect has already been given and will increasingly be given—

This is something which is already being carried out. It may not be going smoothly yet, because it has been applicable for only a short while, since the beginning of the year—

When one looks at the key scales, one finds that these are also there. Furthermore—

This has already been done and is now applicable—

I do not want to quote everything now. It means that if a teacher obtains a higher qualification, he can more rapidly be considered for promotion. I am mentioning these matters only to indicate that salary— hard cash—is one of the components of the total new dispensation and that many of the components of the new dispensation are already being implemented, while others are in the process of implementation. I do not want to allege that everything is already going smoothly. There are some new aspects which are being introduced for the first time, so one may expect that there will be some anomalies and some hitches.

In this connection, much has been said about the cordial co-operation between the Government, the educational authorities concerned, and the organized teaching profession. I quote again from the statement—

That is the whole series of components—

This applies to that particular year. However, it also applies to future occasions. There is a whole package with components which must be implemented, and among them are elements involving money. It will only be possible to give effect to such elements if the money is available—on this occasion and on future occasions as well. I quote further—

In May 1977, the announcement was made in this House that the economic position had in fact progressed to the point where certain of these measures could be implemented. In December 1977, it was announced that the revised teaching structure, which would comply with the minimum requirements of the teaching profession, would be made applicable as from 1 January 1978. That was the general course of events up to that stage.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when business was suspended, I was saying that an announcement was made in 1977 concerning the new salary structures which were to be applicable from 1 January 1978 and which were to be applied on the minimum scale. Furthermore, there was the question of merit promotion, which is also a component of this whole new dispensation. Merit promotion means that provision is made in the entrance grades for a teacher to be assessed on merit as soon as he has two years’ teaching experience, and when he has attained a specific level on the merit scale, he can immediately gain a salary increment, and his maximum salary is also increased. This can happen to him again after two years, and in aggregate three times in his teaching career. It is also in the interests of the teacher himself to gain this particular advantage for himself.

With the new posts structure, it was necessary to transfer people from the old posts structure to the new one and to accommodate them there. In the course of these adjustments, mistakes were made. Several circulars were sent out, and none of this was done on purpose. There was the problem, perhaps, that everything was not made clear, which caused incorrect adjustments to be made. The danger existed that people in respect of whom incorrect adjustments had been made would have to make refunds. This would naturally have placed some people in a rather difficult position. This matter has not yet been finalized, but as far as I know, and I hope I am not arousing unrealistic expectations, there are favourable proposals that no refunds should be demanded. This may cost the State an amount of round about R10 million which teachers may gain in this way as a benefit which was not originally included in what was owing to teachers. I mention the amount since it is of considerable importance.

Furthermore, we must take into consideration that it was originally calculated that the implementation of the minimum scale would cost the State R33,2 million for Whites and R11,5 million for non-Whites, i.e. a total of R44,7 million. When the minimum scales were eventually implemented, it cost the State R117 million.

Was it not said that it would cost R100 million?

This is the information I obtained from departmental files. In other words, this also makes a difference to what the State may have left in the Treasury or what it has to spend. The vast majority of teachers received a salary increase on 1 January 1978. They received the increases on the following very favourable key scale: R … 2 160 × 360 - 5 400 × 450 - 9 000 × 600 …, with a further subsequent increase as the scales extend even beyond that. Hon. members will immediately notice the large increments in between. This is another component of the new dispensation. I shall also give the comparable key scales of the Public Service before revision, which are as follows: R … 1 800 × 150 - 3 300 × 180- 5 100 × 240 - 6 300 × 360 - 9 900 × 450 - 12 600, and then further increases of R600 a year until scales are reached which are not paralleled in education. The profit percentage in respect of education will therefore be more favourable on 1 April 1979 when compared with 1 January 1978. Even since 1 April 1979, the revised key scale of the Public Service has been greatly inferior to that of education. Since that date, the respective key scales have been as follows: The scale for education: R … 2 160 × 360 - 5 400 × 540 - 9 000 × 600 - 18 600 and higher if it rises any higher, but I think it stops there. For the Public Service: R2 100 × 180 - 3 900 × 210 - 6 000 × 300 - 7 800 × 420 - 12 000 × 600 - 18 600 × 900, subsequently rising to levels which are not paralleled in education. According to Press reports, my predecessor intimated at some stage to the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations in South Africa that the ideal scale, the ideal structure, had been accepted in principle by the Cabinet However, this is not mentioned in a single Press statement made from time to time by Dr. Koornhof, my predecessor.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Not in any of the official Press statements. There have been announcements that the minimum structure would be implemented, and since the Prime Minister’s statement of 26 April 1976, it has been stated categorically throughout that it will only be possible to consider a new structure when the economy allows it At no stage was the ideal structure recommended to the Cabinet for its consideration by the Public Service Commission, because the funds for it have never been available.

Then they bluffed everyone.

I am talking about official statements which I have obtained from the files of the department. In this whole exercise, only one component of education has been singled out and favoured. Normally we say that education is one great whole and has to be handled as a whole from the pre-primary level up to the universities. Here that principle has been deviated from, and one component of education has been singled out. People have asked why this was done. One of the reasons why it was done is that there was a very great shortage of teachers in specific subjects, and that not enough prospective teachers were offering to join the profession. In addition, the difficult financial circumstances in which our country found itself made it impossible for us to advance education as a whole. Up to that stage it had always been the practice, in drawing up new structures, to begin with the lowest cadres, i.e. with primary and secondary education. In this case, the teachers’ colleges, which are handled by the provincial authorities, were included in this cadre. Those structures are determined, and only then, on the basis of those structures, are the structures for tertiary education drawn up. When new structures were implemented at the beginning of 1978, it was done for this one component of education, but at the instruction of the Public Service Commission, the Committee of University Principals and the Association of Technikons—as we shall now call them— immediately gave attention to a new structure for this tertiary education which would be related in a logical way to the structure which has already been given to education and which would be developed on that basis.

So this new structure of tertiary education the new scales were to be made applicable as from 1 April this year. So the matter was in fact handled in a fragmentary way, and this created great problems for the Public Service Commission as well. However, I have the assurance of the hon. the Prime Minister—I give it today—that in the future, the salaries will not be dealt with in a piecemeal fashion again as they have been in this case. The implementation of new structures and adaptations will be done for education as a whole. I think it is important that we should say this, for a specific principle is being laid down here. Whatever the circumstances may be in the future, we must adhere to these principles, and it is my wish that we should do so.

At my request, the Secretary for National Education is already giving attention to the necessary machinery within the department to conduct research on a continuous basis into the determination of salary structures for education in its totality so that they may be rectified and determined scientifically. We are introducing that machinery, and we have been commended for doing so. Let me substantiate that. I want to read from a letter I have received from the secretary of the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations. Referring to our talks, he writes—

I am pointing this out, not because there is an immediate solution to certain problems, but to indicate the way in which we are trying to eliminate problems in the interests of education. The letter I have quoted shows the reaction there has been to this. I received a similar reaction from one of the university principals who were present and later also from the chairman of the Committee of University Principals. I have here a letter from Sir Richard Luyt of the University of Cape Town, in which he thanks me for the meeting. I do not want to read the whole letter, for if I did, I might seem to be blowing my own trumpet He writes, among other things—

We are in fact achieving things and not just getting bogged down in problems.

I want to go further. With reference to the principle I should like to have introduced, i.e. continuous research in a scientific manner, I should like to refer to what was recently said by the Secretary of the Public Service Commission, which once again indicates the healthy development that is taking place—

I just want to point out the tendency to hon. members. I have also asked the Secretary for National Education, even if we do not have the machinery quite ready yet, to co-operate with the interested parties in making certain submissions with regard to next year for the consideration of the Treasury.

There are other factors, too, which I want to point out in this connection. The State is responsible for the balanced development of the country, especially for placing people in every professional group in the country. All sectors must be properly manned. In whatever sector a person works, his remuneration should be such that he will remain there and that new recruits will enter that sphere of activity. If vacancies arise, they should be filled. In other words, the whole wide spectrum is the responsibility of the State. If the security services are not properly seen to, for example, one may expect that eventually the security services will not be properly manned and we shall have problems there. If one needs specific essential manpower categories at certain places, surely one cannot ignore that. The Department of Water Affairs has had to suspend projects because there were no engineers to proceed with those projects. It has come to my notice that the Department of Agriculture built a new research building in the Northern Transvaal in order to do research on advocado pears. However, they had to close the building because there were not enough researchers to man the building. The people had gone to work at other places. I mention this to illustrate to hon. members that one cannot single out an occupational group anywhere in the whole State administration to such an extent that the others do not also deserve their place and cannot also keep going the machinery, the research, the administration, or whatever, on those levels. In his talks with the representatives of the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations, the hon. the Prime Minister said that education was one of the priorities and not the only priority, for often circumstances dictate what one should regard as one’s priority. With the revision of the salary structures of teachers, the principle of occupational differentiation became an accomplished fact. The principle of occupational differentiation is now being extended to the Public Service as well, for in the Public Service, too, there are certain occupational groups that have to receive attention. I want to refer to the example of library assistants. In spite of all the money the Public Service is now getting, some of those people are not even getting a salary adjustment of 2% because there are enough people who want to become library assistants. However, there are other directions to which people should be attracted in order to keep the services functioning properly. What goes for library assistants also goes for certain shipping personnel and for probationer and student nurses. The amount of money which the Public Service has received is not being used for a general increase of Public Service salaries, but for making the concept of occupational differentiation applicable to the Public Service as well.

I want to go further and say to hon. members that if the salaries of teachers had been increased at this stage—and now I am not even talking about the universities—we would have aggravated certain anomalies. Because of practical problems which we experienced and the conditions which prevailed in our country at that stage, it was simply not possible to adjust the salaries of teachers. However, I want to say—I do not want to dwell on this—that the State must also create a climate through its policy in which education can in fact take place. The NP has created the climate through its policy in which everyone in South Africa can be instructed and educated in a meaningful way. This is the responsibility of the State. Listening to hon. members on that side of the House—I am not trying to pick a quarrel now—one wonders whether we would still be able to offer meaningful education, as we are doing at the moment, if certain policies were pursued. In other words, we are concerned with one great whole, and not only with one small component, however much we may sympathize with that component.

The State creates the total infrastructure of the physical facilities as well—and in how many spheres are those facilities not being created! When one looks at the annual report of the department one sees that the department’s responsibilities in respect of the maintenance of schools and universities cover a very wide field—and then we are not even mentioning the contribution of the provincial administrations in this connection. We are only concerned with the infrastructure that has to be created. This must also be manned and provided with the physical facilities and apparatus. Furthermore, the State is also responsible for employing some of the products of these schools. Therefore the responsibility of the State never ceases. When the State employs them, it must treat them in such a way that it will be able to retain their services as its officials.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to newspaper reports. He quoted, inter alia, from Die Transvaler. I also want to quote from Die Transvaler, from the 19 May 1979 edition. I quote—

That is basically what it amounts to. We can cap one quotation with another, but that is basically what the State is confronted with. I believe I have now dealt with this whole matter in sufficient detail. There were the circumstances in which the country found itself, the money was not there, and there were the practical problems to which I have already referred and which the teachers do understand. There was also the further agreement which we reached after our talks with the hon. the Prime Minister, i.e. that representatives of the federal council, the department and the Public Service Commission would form a committee in order to gather information, to evaluate it and then to draft an information document which would be sent to the teachers. It is advisable that we should leave this matter in their hands so that they may handle it from now on.

With reference to what Prof. Terblanche, the chairman of the federal council, said in connection with the “betrayal” which had allegedly taken place, I personally told him that one could understand that people sometimes felt dissatisfied and upset, but in our negotiations even with the UN, where one feels like using terrible language towards them, we have never used that kind of language. Therefore we take exception to that, and I told him so personally. However, I want to leave the matter at that. There is machinery in operation at the moment, in which the teaching profession is in fact involved, to handle this matter in the future.

I have now discussed in some detail the matters referred to by the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

The hon. member for Hercules referred to a few cultural bodies and to the University of Stellenbosch. I should like to associate myself with his words of congratulation. I myself spoke at Stellenbosch a few times during the celebration of the tercentenary of that lovely town—the colony on the Eerste River, I call it. It was quite pleasant, and I think they set an example to us in the country of the way these occasions should be utilized. The hon. member also referred to the castle and the FAK. I think the FAK deserves a special word of congratulation from us on the occasion of its 50th birthday. The FAK has done splendid work in South Africa, and we should like to wish them everything of the best for the next 50 years. The hon. member also referred to a person who had served us in the cultural sphere, Mrs. Kotie Roodt-Coetzee. I should like to identify myself with the thanks he expressed to this lady. I served with her in the days when I was still on the executive committee of the Historical Association of South Africa, but the work she did at the Boom Street museum, as well as at the Cultural Historic Open-air Museum, laid the foundation for much of the work we are doing in museums in South Africa.

The hon. member takes a great interest in occupation-orientated education, and he referred to this subject again. It is a good thing that we should emphasize these matters here from time to time. I recently spoke at several of our technikons, and it is a pleasure to see how highly motivated these people are in their work and how they see their future task. As the hon. member said, there should always be close contact with the employers, because we are concerned here with the whole manpower strategy of South Africa. Universities, technikons, employers and all others who are involved in this must act in a co-ordinated manner as far as the manpower strategy is concerned, so that we may provide the country with high-level manpower and with high-level managers.

Another important matter to which the hon. member referred was that the training should be such that there could always be on-going training.

The hon. member also referred to the amazing growth of knowledge, the way knowledge is becoming obsolete and new knowledge is continuously being acquired. He furnished some examples in this connection. It is really amazing. A person who is trained for a profession today cannot even assume any more that he will practice that profession to the end of his life without having to be retrained. These are matters of which the technikons are very well aware, and matters to which we are giving special attention. As regards the supply of funds to the technikons—the hon. member for Durban Central also referred to this—the operating expenditure is not so high, but if one found out the capital expenditure we should have to incur for the construction of three new campuses for technikons and certain additions to a fourth one, one would find that a lot of work is being done in this connection. The student numbers have also grown considerably. I should like the lecturers at those institutions to try to improve and expand their qualifications and their knowledge as instructors in many fields, especially in the present circumstances, where increased knowledge and new techniques are always becoming available. However, I should like to thank the hon. member for his particular contribution in this connection.

I have replied to most of the matters raised by the hon. member for Durban Central in his first speech, because these dealt mainly with the whole question of salaries. I want to tell the hon. member that one wants to avoid a situation where one always has to sit down around a table with the teaching profession to talk or quarrel about salary matters. I should also like to talk to them about the purpose of education, education policy and problems experienced in practical education. They agreed with me in this connection. That is why I introduced the machinery to which I referred earlier to make submissions with regard to salary matters to see whether perhaps it is going to work. We believe that this matter will take its normal course so that we shall not be at loggerheads about salary matters, but shall be able to discuss the essential aspects of education as well. I shall come back later to the matters he mentioned in his second speech.

I must also convey my thanks to the hon. member for Virginia for his policy interpretations with regard to quite a number of matters. As far as policy matters are concerned, I want to endorse, what he said, for in the times in which we live, I believe it is necessary that we should tell one another a few things. We are living in confusing times. We often witness the meaningless destruction of property and human life and we often see moral and other values trampled underfoot Man will gradually come to realize that he has mismanaged his heritage and that in many respects he has been untrue to his heritage and has made a mess of it. People even ask: What is the future of Western culture, under these circumstances? It is true that man is in search of an instrument to correct the mistakes he may have made in the past and to save what can still be saved. That is why man, as a cultural being, created education, because education is future-orientated, it reaches out to the future, and one can conquer the future, as it were, if one handles education correctly. All through the history of man-king, various theories, philosophies and schools of thought have seized upon education as an instrument for achieving their aims. An example of this is the new direction which is emerging today, the so-called Frankfurter Schule of the new left, which simply does not believe in the capitalist social order and which rejects it in its educational doctrine. They do so because the so-called capitalist establishment to which they are opposed is authoritarian. Everything created by this establishment must be destroyed, because it oppresses people, exploits them, etc. As far as they are concerned, education should be used as the instrument for propagating this anti-authoritarian educational doctrine in order to overthrow political, cultural and social patterns of our times. The child and education are the instruments on which they place their hope. This being so, we must also take a close look at education. What are we seeking to achieve through education?

In these days of the demoralization of young people, of which, fortunately, we have had very little experience in our country, in these days of vandalism, when values are trampled underfoot—which we saw happening abroad about a decade ago in particular— it is clear that these very young people, the ones who behaved in this way, were people who had received more and had been moulded more by way of formal education, by way of schooling and by way of learning, than any previous generation in the whole history of mankind. And then they behave like that. Where does the fault lie? If I had to sum up the matter, I would say that it is not a lack of schooling, but rather a lack of education. It is not a lack of knowledge, it is a lack of character. It is not a lack of intellectual training, but a lack of spiritual maturity.

Once we know that, we must also look at education, this powerful instrument. Then we ask ourselves what course we want to take with education and how we should handle it. For this reason, we should examine our objective in education, so that we may get rid as soon as possible of these warped attitudes which develop so easily and of the character deformities which grow in our society. After all, education concerns the moulding of the future human being. Education is education in tradition. An hon. member referred to this. That is correct: Education for the sake of one’s cultural destiny, or the training of one’s personality and conscience, if we want to put it like that However, I think it would be a more accurate summary if we said that it concerns the creation of a view of life among our young people. After all, a view of life is a universally human matter. It affects one in every situation in life, because man is constantly confronted with certain values and he has to work out an order of priorities for himself so that he may know how to behave in a particular situation, prompted by his system of values.

When someone has been thus equipped, he has no problems when he reaches maturity. However, where does one begin with this process? Man’s basic need is his need for security. That is the basic need of all people, especially of the child. However, it is also the prerequisite for security when a person reaches maturity, otherwise it is no use sending a young person out into an uncertain world. Security in life is an essential component and element, in adulthood as well. A person who wants to educate a child, therefore, must meet the child in his world, the world in which he feels secure, because it is the world in which he lives, the world of his culture and his language, of his traditions, of his knowledge and his social activities, with his social orders. It is the world of his moral values. It is the world of his history. It is the world of his values. We can add to this whatever we like. In that world, we must meet the child, because that is the world he knows. From there he has to be guided to adulthood.

Their particular situation and their unique cultural background determine the educational needs of children from various cultures and peoples, and it differs from the one to the other. We must also take cognisance of those differences in South Africa, when it comes to education. First educate a person in his own backyard, first make him feel at home in his own backyard, then he will also know where he has to stand in the future. If one does not know one’s own space, one will not know what space to allocate to the other man. The hon. member for Virginia is right and I should like to emphasize that. It applies all the way from primary to secondary school and up to the universities. We must not forget these principles. Those who wish to put children of all races and cultures on the same level in the same school by means of education are basically intolerant and unpedagogic, because they will not allow the other person to be different. Consequently they do not want to give him his full freedom in adulthood. I think I must say that, so that we may know where we stand in respect of this matter. [Interjections.]

Then there are hon. members on that side of the House, such as the hon. member for Pinelands, who say that education should be disquieting and disruptive—the opposite of security as the starting point of a pedagogic situation. I could continue in this way, but I want to leave it at that. I think it is necessary that we should state some of these fundamental standpoints. I am glad that the hon. member for Virginia raised that subject.

I must make haste.

†The hon. member for Sandton referred to programmes for Indians on the radio. I want to tell him that, in addition to the English service, matters of interest to the Indians are continuously included in various programmes. The interview in the programme “Radio Today” of this morning with Mr. Reddy, the chairman of the Indian Council, serves as an example. A very large portion of the programmes of Radio Port Natal are especially aimed at. Indians. Even a large portion of the requests in the request programmes come from Indians. We want to apply the same principle as far as TV is concerned. We have already had programmes with the South African Indian population as the subject. There is a new programme—it is almost completed—that will be broadcast in the near future.

The SABC programme magazine is a publication especially aimed at the listeners and the viewers who are interested in the radio and television programmes. This is a SABC publication, especially for those who are interested in what is broadcast on the radio and television.

This information is also available for the other media. However, they are mostly interested in reprinting the television programmes.

*The hon. member also pointed out that there was a slanted presentation of the news on radio and television. Even the hon. member himself smiles. I think these are only vague allegations without any substance. There is very little justification for them. [Interjections.] The hon. members on that side of the House are the ones who complain about it. However, it has been said in the past that when one goes to the general public, there is a completely different attitude. Up to 85% of the people have indicated in a summary of surveys that they have great appreciation for the presentations on radio as well as television. When a summary is given of debates in this House, I get representations from the hon. members on this side of the House to the effect that they are not given enough opportunities and that hon. members on that side of the House have even more opportunities than they have. [Interjections.] The hon. members really cannot complain about that.

While I am on the subject of television, I want to refer to the hon. member for Bloemfontein North. He mentioned an important matter, i.e. the provision of a second television channel for our Black people in particular. I shall not discuss all his arguments now. He is right in all the reasons he advanced for saying that the introduction of that second channel is now becoming essential. I want to remind him of the fact that the SABC conducted research in this connection as far back as 1975 with a view to its possible introduction. I think they were ready to introduce it by 1978. However, they have kept it back because the economic position of the country has been such that we have not been able to introduce it A large amount of work has already been done by various committees, and I am told that the report of some of those committees, containing the final submissions on this matter, are actually on their way to me and will therefore be considered in the near future. The important point, however, is that the Cabinet has already agreed in principle to a second channel. I think it is now only a question of working it out in greater detail, and also a question of financing. I can assure the hon. member that this matter is actually being kept warm, because we are just as anxious as he is to have it finalized.

The hon. member for Standerton discussed the population in the border areas and said that there were some areas in our country which people were leaving as a result of various circumstances and that this was causing those areas to become depopulated. He asked us to examine these areas specifically. It is probably true that one will not be able to attract more people to these areas by means of low interest rates on agricultural loans and so forth, and that one will also have to provide certain other privileges and facilities for those people. This is a matter in which the provincial authorities are also involved. I have ascertained from the hon. the Minister of Agriculture that there is a committee which is dealing with this matter, and in this particular case, the province of Transvaal is represented on the committee. They have also been informed of the state of affairs so that they may indicate in what way they will be able to help. The problem is, of course, whether one should centralize or decentralize, because there are places where buildings and so forth are available. Should one concentrate on those or should one provide even smaller schools at other places? I think we should leave that to the provinces. But it is an important matter which the hon. member raised, and I can give the undertaking even now that when I have taken up my new position I will also look into that, but I do not want to take too much upon me at this early stage. I must first conclude my work in my present post.

The hon. member also referred to prizes for literary works. The amounts appear to be small when one looks at them, but I think we should look a little more carefully. There are other amounts as well which have not been provided for literary work only. Hon. members would be surprised to see the number of requests for assistance received by the department. The department receives requests for assistance from individual artists, from choir groups wishing to go overseas, from people who want to maintain museums, and so on. It may be said that more funds should be made available, but even if fairly adequate funds were made available, some priorities would have to be laid down, so that a little more may be given in some cases and a little less in others. However, I sympathize with what the hon. member said. We seem to be skimping on this, but we must also have regard to other sectors where we are doing work beyond our means.

With this I think I shall conclude for the moment, and I shall reply later to questions put to me by the hon. member for Durban Central and other members.

Mr. Chairman, it is no easy matter for an ordinary member of the House to continue a debate after the hon. the Minister has spoken at such length, in such great detail and in such an interesting way. I think I may say on behalf of all hon. members who heard him that we are particularly impressed with his handling of the matter here today, for example that he was able to deal in such a calm and well-reasoned way with the question of the salaries of teachers. Then he proceeded to making a lyrical speech on the role of education and training, matters which all of us have at heart. I feel very proud of the fact that the hon. the Minister has been appointed as the Administrator of the Transvaal, because as a former education man he knows a great deal about education and has a very good understanding of the matter. There is no doubt that he will be a great success in the province where education is a very important aspect of the activities. I wish him every success in his new career.

There is really no need now for the hon. the Minister to listen to me, as he is going to become Administrator of the Transvaal, but I do request the Secretary of the department, Dr. Van Wyk, and his staff to listen.

I should like to make a small contribution by dealing with the advancement of culture. If one reads through the annual report of the Department of National Education, through Education and Culture—the official periodical of the department—and through this year’s budget, one has great appreciation for the work being done by the department in the field of the advancement of culture. As officially stated in the budget the purpose of the advancement of culture is—

Please note, the culture of the White population includes the culture of both the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking sections of the population. Therefore hon. members must not maintain that I am speaking only on behalf of the Afrikaans-speaking people. When I deal with the advancement of culture, I am speaking on behalf of everybody.

That is correct. Culture knows no boundaries.

In the budget, the advancement of culture is given as Programme No. 6 of the activities of the Department of National Education. Under the advancement of culture there are nine subdivisions for which funds are requested for the present financial year. I just want to mention these subdivisions. There is a financial assistance to declared cultural institutions, financial assistance in respect of historical and natural history monuments, provision of literature for the visually handicapped, advice on libraries, promotion of cultural services, youth work and publicity, promotion of cultural relations with foreign countries, language promotion, works of art, and administration. A total amount of R14 105 000 is being appropriated for these subdivisions. This amount for Programme No. 6 constitutes approximately 4% of the total amount appropriated for the Department of National Education, namely R354 million.

I want to single out only one subdivision of the advancement of culture in Programme No. 6 and take a closer look at it. I am now referring to the item “Promotion of Cultural Services, Youth Work and Publicity”, for which an amount of R4 610 000 is being appropriated, or approximately one-third of the funds appropriated for Programme No. 6, Advancement of Culture. The promotion of cultural services, youth work and publicity entails grants, after consultation with the National Cultural Council, for the exchange of producers, prizes for literary works, prizes for the performing arts, protection of artists, publicity, the assimilation of immigrants, the establishment of camps and camping sites, courses, study weeks and grants to scientific, cultural and other societies and associations, non-competitive research periodicals, land service and other youth work, subsidies to campers, grants to the Central Land Service Fund, the promotion of the performing arts, regional councils for the performing arts, community theatres, financial assistance to the Bureau for Scientific Publications and national research periodicals. These are 17 subdivisions of this one subdivision of viz. the promotion of cultural services, youth work and publicity.

We have great appreciation for the work being done in all the above facets, but—and it is of this that I should like the Secretary, Dr. Van Wyk, to take cognizance. I discern a lack of interest in our language and culture on the part of our youth. In my opinion, the modem media such as cinemas and television, do not purposefully do positive work for the advancement of culture. I want to plead that the section charged with the advancement of cultural services should do more to promote love among our people for their own culture and language. Why not can a cultural association be established in every local community or town with the object of promoting language and culture in the community? Local people with some talent can be used to promote this matter considerably. At the smaller towns, the schools and churches can be utilized to take the initiative. The cultural heritage of a nation is a precious one. When one inherits something previous, one not only looks at it often, but one enjoys looking at it, and one appreciates it. It inspires one.

What is happening to our culture today? Is it still part of our inherited spiritual values of which we may justly be proud? I want to remind hon. members of what happened in earlier years. When I was a child—I think the Secretary for National Education and many of the hon. members who sit here will also have experience of that—the local people and, I almost feel inclined to say, the simple talent that was there, advanced the culture in the small community or town. I had the privilege of attending school at a small town up to Std. 8. The present hon. Prime Minister also attended school in the same small town up to Std. 8.

That was in the Free State, was it not?

Yes, it was at Paul Roux in the Free State. That small community of only a few hundred people had a cultural awareness because of the influence of one single teacher, the church and the school there that co-operated to give the community something lasting and valuable. Those people established a cultural association and every quarter, that is to say, every third month, they had a cultural evening which afforded local people the opportunity to present a recitation, a song, a musical performance or a dramatic performance. That was our culture.

Like on a farm school.

It was not a farm school. But in modem society there is a lack of that as a result of the modem media such as the cinema and television which draw our young people and the ordinary people away from the cultural heritage we were used to.

When I lived in that community as a child, there was a Hollander who had come from Holland and settled there, and who had the talent to recite poems. Today, when I read Louis Leipoldt’s poem on Woltemade, I can still see that Hollander in my mind’s eye. He recited that poem so dramatically that one virtually experienced the event oneself. An ordinary woman teacher whom I knew, had the same talent. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the course of my speech I shall associate myself with the words of the hon. member for Maraisburg. He and I are on the same wavelength.

By the way, in consequence of the speech by the hon. member for Standerton, the question has occurred to me—and this is an open question—whether we should not table a motion to reduce the salaries of the hon. members of the Opposition until such time as they have acquired the technique of Oppositionship and we have appointed the hon. member for Standerton as their tutor. We would consider handing over the difference in their salaries to their tutor, the hon. member for Standerton, as tuition fees.

It is pleasant to talk of beautiful things and of fine deeds done by a State department and its officials. In this connection I am referring to the Division for the Advancement of Culture of the Department of National Education. I should like to point out that this division has been decentralized into eight different regions with a regional director at the head of every regional office. These regional directors are doing work that cannot be repaid in rands and cents or by way of words or a verbal expression of thanks. They are the people who have to activate the local voluntary organizations and furnish them with advice. In some cases they must even unobtrusively initiate activities. They are of immense importance in the communities and regions in which they work.

In every region this department has made a start with the establishment of what we call camping sites. There are already 16 of these in our country, and three of them are fairly well developed. Such a camping site in a region is in fact the gathering point of the educational-cultural activities in that region. It becomes the hub where, with the assistance of the regional director, the voluntary organizations hold gatherings of people who take an interest and have to be motivated.

In this regard I have in mind youth camps and leadership camps of Std. 9 and Std. 10 prefects from neighbouring schools, camps held in rural surroundings where the young people can be close to the earth and to nature. It is an experience to mix with 120 young boys and girls in those surroundings and under those circumstances, where those young people have profound discussions on personal matters and on matters of national interest. Having experienced that under those circumstances, one feels that there is hope for the future. These young people return to their various environments with new zest and inspiration. Not only boys and girls, but young people who are already working, get together in this way by means of church youth associations and other church associations, etc. The camping site is, however, also the meeting place of the land service movement. Have hon. members ever been at a camp for 250 primary school pupils, young boys and girls, where a meeting is held and a Std. 4 boy acts as chairman? It is done with such grace. At such a meeting there was absolute discipline, maintained by this young chairman, and he controlled and conducted affairs. That is what happens at these camping sites.

Apart from that, there is the fact that they are again close to nature, close to the earth. At night they sleep in a tent and they can hear the raindrops beating down on it. They can listen to the flapping of the tent when the wind blows. In the morning they can see the sun rise, and in the evening they can see it set.

In this regard I associate myself with the words of the hon. member for Maraisburg. These are the places where our young people should get together, where they can again learn the things that are of lasting value; again acquire certain norms of life.

But these camping sites are not only the meeting places of the land service people— there are also family camps where families gather, away for a week or a weekend from the hustle and bustle of a city existence. Who could ever determine the value of that?

Having said that, I must say that I am concerned about the fact that in our budget for this year, only R100 000 has been appropriated for the development of these camps. In view of what I have just said in connection with these camps, I wish to propose that we should give serious consideration to obtaining an increased contribution in this regard. If only the building of a very, very simple little hall on the camping site costs approximately R60 000, hon. members can understand that very, very little can be accomplished with a budget of R100 000.

In the provinces, we also have a new development now, namely the idea of open-air schools, where pupils are brought together in groups of 50 or 60 in a rural environment, where they follow the ordinary curriculum, but adapted to this new environment in which they find themselves. In this regard I wish to plead that we should not have a duplication of camping sites in the sense that the province should, on its own, develop camping sites, perhaps 8 or 10 km from an existing camping site of the Department of National Education.

I plead in all earnestness that there should be the closest co-operation between the Department of National Education and the various provincial authorities so that these sites and buildings should be fully utilized. The ordinary land service camp, the youth camps, the family camps, normally take place during holidays or weekends, while the open-air schools take place during the week. In this regard we can co-operate admirably with one another and achieve 100% utilization of the capital investment made in those camping sites. I hope and trust that within the foreseeable future we shall find that in every region there will be a fully developed camping site where those open-air activities can be practised to the full.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Kimberley North will forgive me if I do not follow up what he had to say. I always enjoy his speeches, because he is a man who has good control of his mother-tongue and his descriptive use of the Afrikaans language is always of great pleasure to anybody who listens carefully to the words he uses.

Like many of us have already done today, I also want to say “hello and good-bye” to the hon. the Minister, because no sooner was he with us than he was taken away again.

Hello, Dolly!

I think it is rather unkind to say “Hello, Dolly”. We wish him well in the job that lies ahead of him and we are sorry that he has not had the time to utilize his talents to the full as Minister of National Education. He has a delightful sense of humour, and I particularly appreciated his sense of humour as displayed in his reply to the hon. member for Sandton when he suggested that the Opposition parties and the Government enjoyed an equal measure of time on the SABC and SATV services. I found this a nice little turn of phrase, but I am afraid that we in these benches cannot accept that. We feel that, although the situation has improved somewhat, the SABC is still undeniably slanted. Let us, however, give credit where credit is due. The radio service is nevertheless good, and the radio services do cater for most, if not all, tastes. The programme “Current Affairs” is still a glaring example of nothing other than a blatant slant. Against this one must weigh the report on Parliament which is broadcast each morning. The report is a balanced, well-edited, well-presented and a factual programme. It is a pity that there are not more such programmes. I therefore say that our radio service is generally a good service which offers alternatives in programme selection—if one does not like what one is listening to on one band, one can always go to another; one has a choice of services one can listen to. I think the service has set certain standards for itself, and it seeks to maintain those standards because it has competition. The radio services of the SABC are in what one might call the international market in that they have to compete with radio services that are being beamed into South Africa.

Having said that about radio services, let us look at the ugly sister or, should I say, “die lelike breeder”.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Bellville knows exactly what I mean when I use that terminology. I am saying “breeder” in the ugliest possible sense of the word, because it is “big ‘breeder’ ”.

It is not so.

South African Television has a super slant. Once again, however, we must give the devil his due: It is improving. I am sorry to say, however, that it does not always reflect a true cross-section of South African opinion; but it does reflect NP opinion and it also propagates NP policy and ideologies.

Vause also appears often on television.

“Vause” is pretty good on television.

Every time, when he supports the Government.

I am not ranting and raving this year as I have done in the past, but I want to make a sincere appeal to all those who sit in that tower at Auckland Park to “play the game”. I simply cannot accept that it is coincidental that at the provincial by-election in Swellendam, for example, the night before the voters go to the polls, television is there to present the hon. the Prime Minister speaking at his wind-up meeting. [Interjections.] That is not coincidence or happenstance. [Interjections.] Why did my hon. leader not also appear on television then? [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, that was a political meeting. [Interjections.]

Order! This is not a political meeting.

Well, let us talk a little about politics. [Interjections.] Those gentlemen must not try to tell me that the outside broadcasting truck incidentally happened to be at Swellendam just then. I want to appeal to those gentlemen in their ivory tower to be more balanced in their programme content and in their programme presentation. I want to ask them please to select their discussion panels more carefully. I think this is a subject that was dealt with by the hon. member for Sandton. I want to appeal to them not to use SATV as a propaganda medium. They should not think that the South African public are fools and are gullible. They are not.

That is why they vote for the NP.

Very well, that is why they vote for the NP. However, they are not going to be fooled all the time. Furthermore, the SABC should take heed of the outcries against them when this powerful medium is abused. Let us refer to the annual report of the SABC. On page 61 mention is made of the SABC and political reporting. I quote—

That is what is contained in the report.

I should now like to go on by dealing with programmes. I started more than a year ago to collect newspaper cuttings of criticisms of programmes, as well as letters to newspapers. I had to give up, because the files became too unwieldy. I would have had to use a wheelbarrow to bring them into this House if I was to speak to them. They say television is a conversation stopper. SATV is not. It is the opposite. We need more programmes like “Matawani’s Gold”. That was the programme in which that voice monotonously said: “Things were going badly for the Boers.” Another one is “99 Caroline Street”. Then there are also those appalling, 30-year old movies shown to us on Saturday evenings. We need only more of those programmes to ensure that the art of conversation will never die in South Africa, because as those programmes come on, one turns off the television.

That is correct.

More imagination is needed in the selection of programme material, and I believe the time has come that an advisory body should be set up to convey the views of the people to the moguls in the ivory tower.

What about a market research?

Oh, how lovely! The hon. member for Florida; bless his heart. [Interjections.] Bless him for asking that.

To reply, I want to quote further from the report—

It goes on to say what the findings were. It also says that in this manner 135 programmes were researched during the year. The average appreciation index, measured on a 100 point scale, for all these programmes was 55. Just before this, the report states—

Two million people. Yet, the market research covers only 2 000, something which, in my language, is one-tenth of 1% of the viewers. Now, who would call that a research?

Do not reveal your ignorance of statistical methods.

My friend, do not display your ignorance.

The hon. the Prime Minister referred to the streamlining of the Civil Service. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to give the hon. member for Umhlanga the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. Whip on that side of the House. The hon. the Prime Minister referred to the streamlining of the Civil Service coupled with greater measures of consultation and co-operation with the private sector. Here is an ideal opportunity to put this admirable thought into effect. There is a widespread dissatisfaction with programmes and it is being completely ignored by the SABC.

The public are becoming irritated by their indifference to the constant flow of complaints, complaints by way of letters to the editors of newspapers, etc. Here is an opportunity to apply this co-operation idea of the hon. the Prime Minister through an advisory board which could establish viewers’ requirements and preferences.

As quickly as I can, I want to deal with the subject of dubbing. A common complaint is that the best English programmes are dubbed into Afrikaans. I hear that complaint, as I am English speaking. I admit and accept that dubbing is a very exact art and it is very well done by those who do it. The latest figures indicate that we have 94 translators, 32 dubbing directors, four studios at the SABC and 18 outside studios. This is an army of people rendering this service, a service which is vital because we have two official languages in this country. For the sake of the argument, I should like to examine a particular programme. I refer to “Blitspatrollie” as it is known in South Africa, or “The Sweeney” as it is known in the United Kingdom. Last November I saw an English episode in London and approximately two months later I saw the same episode in South Africa in Afrikaans. The dubbing was first-class. However, the fact of the matter is that one cannot translate English humour into Afrikaans. One cannot even translate “English” humour into English, because the true English humour on the one side of the Atlantic is not understood at all on the other side, in America. Therefore, in the case of that type of programme, featuring two people like Morecombe and Wise, there is no way in which one could effectively translate it into Afrikaans.

I should like to put forward a suggestion whereby we could all enjoy the best of both worlds. It is common cause, and the hon. the Minister will agree, that the vast majority of South Africans are not what one would call completely bilingual. One cannot always pick up a snappy or a softly spoken bit of dialogue in the other man’s language. Very often one loses the thread. I know I do. I lose the thread of a story because of this or because of a particular accent.

It is because you are not bilingual.

The hon. member must not talk nonsense. I am as bilingual as he is.

Let me hear you speak Afrikaans.

I am as bilingual as the hon. member. I made inquiries into the feasibility of my suggestion, which is that dubbing should be put onto a tape and that, instead of its being mixed into the video tape, it should then be allowed to run parallel with that video tape. That sound tape could then be broadcast on, say, a FM frequency over the radio simultaneously with the programme being broadcast on television. In this way the Afrikaans-speaker could turn down the sound of his television set and pick up the soundtrack being broadcast on his radio set, while the English-speaker could listen in the normal way. The reverse could also apply.

I shall give an instance of where this could apply. The other night I saw a programme featuring Jan Spies, who speaks a particular brand of Afrikaans that I enjoy so much. It is the brand of Afrikaans that I know is not from the part of the country where I learnt my Afrikaans, even though the hon. member for Pretoria West says that I am not bilingual. I promise you I am, Sir.

Which part is that?

It is peculiar to the North and North-West Cape and not the Eastern Cape, where one hears this sort of Afrikaans which is “nie gekry nie”. This gentleman—Jan Spies—spoke on postal services. Part of the beauty of that programme to me was the type of Afrikaans he used. The programme was also tremendously interesting. I think the English-speaker, the person who cannot understand Afrikaans, would have wanted to understand that programme, because of its interest. Here we have an Afrikaans programme where we would have had an English soundtrack running simultaneously. Therefore, it works both ways.

They should dub some of those American films that we cannot understand.

Indeed, as my hon. leader says, let them dub some of those American films that none of us can understand. [Interjections.]

I am sorry, but at some stage I have to get to the point of dealing with a person by name. I feel I have a duty to this country to do it I refer to the subject of English TV religious programmes. I am a Christian who resents certain references that have been made to people belonging to the Jewish religion in a rather oblique way by Mr. Bill Chalmers, who I understand is the head of the English programme’s religious services. I shall do no more than ask that this gentleman be spoken to, if need be. He should be told to choose his words with greater care and to remember that our South African society consists not only of Christians, but also of many other religious groups whose convictions should be respected at all times. I say this in all sincerity and in all humility.

He is an anti-Semite who should be fired.

Finally, I want to come to my old hobby-horse, because this debate cannot go by without me getting on to it, and that is the matter of TV licences for pensioners, the aged, and of course deserving institutions such as old age homes. [Interjections.] I shall persevere with this and I shall do it every year until one day some worthy Minister on the other side of the House will stand up and say that he has a new idea, and that is that old age pensioners need no longer pay for TV licences.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlanga again made the hackneyed old statement that the Government receives more attention than the Opposition in the news media, particularly radio and television. We had a debate on this specific matter a year or two ago. We shall never get into the hon. member’s head, nor into that of his party, nor into that of the official Opposition, the fact that what is broadcast over the radio, and what is shown on the television screen, are matters that are newsworthy. The Opposition should accept once and for all that they are not as newsworthy as we are on this side of the House. They should further accept that it is obvious that Government members will appear more often on television and that more news from the Government side will be broadcast over the radio, because the policy of this side of the House is also the policy of the Government, and the various news media must necessarily give attention to it. The hon. member also asked why the hon. the Prime Minister appeared, and not his leader.

That’s it! Why is there no fairness?

It has nothing to do with fairness. The fact is just that the hon. the Prime Minister is newsworthy and that the leader of the hon. member is not newsworthy. [Interjections.]

The hon. member also elaborated on the quality of the English programmes. I do not want to make any comments about that, because I cannot judge the taste of the English-speaking public as well as that of the Afrikaans-speaking public.

As regards the dubbing of programmes I want to tell the hon. member that it is indeed a problem. He should not blame the SABC for having such a large staff. He only mentioned it and did not reproach them for it, but it is essential to have a large staff for the dubbing of programmes. I agree with the hon. member with regard to the question of humour. It is difficult, even for our two language groups which have been co-existing in South Africa for such a long time and who know each other’s language, to perceive the finer nuances of humour. The hon. member should remember, however, that as the income of the SABC increases, the dubbing will probably decrease. That will solve the problem to a large extent.

I should like to wish the hon. the Minister every success in his new office. It is a pity that we have lost him so soon, but I believe that he shall be able to carry on with important work in the interests of education in his new office, too. I hope the hon. the Minister has a method of conveying some of the requests I want to make to him, to his successor. I believe he will be able to deal with some of these requests before accepting his new office, but I should appreciate it if he would pass the remaining ones on to his successor along the correct channels.

Since the emphasis in today’s life is on effective communication, knowledge and information, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider, for the sake of good contact, holding discussions with the official representatives of the organized teaching profession annually, at a specific time. I specifically ask that this be done annually, at a specific time. At such an occasion, the problems, the bottlenecks and the policy can be mutually announced and discussed. Discussions and co-operation of such a nature can eliminate much of the misunderstanding which may have arisen and contribute towards strengthening the good relationship which has always existed between the teaching profession and the Government. The institution of annual discussions will also be in line with the increase in the status of the teaching profession to that of a proper profession. Teachers will then have the opportunity to afford their authorized representatives of the organized teaching profession the opportunity to conduct discussions with the hon. the Minister on an co-ordinated basis. Hon. members will note that I use the words “on a co-ordinated basis”. Essential information can then be exchanged at first hand. Experience has shown that co-ordinating measures are of vital importance. They are essential when certain policies are initiated, when planning is done with a view to new or changed conditions of service and also when decisions have to be taken concerning the way in which new measures are to be implemented interdepartmentally.

The dissatisfaction which exists at present among the teaching profession, is mainly in respect of anomalies arising out of the latest salary and post structure for teachers. It seems to me as if these difficulties could have been prevented if there had been a clear understanding on a co-ordinated basis with regard to the uniform application of the present salary scales. It is gratifying that work is already being done along these lines. Representatives of the various departments of education, the Public Service Commission and the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations in South Africa are already being involved in discussions in this regard. In view of the large number of hitches which have not yet been ironed out, it seems to me as if urgent consideration should be given to establishing whether opportunities for proper negotiations and reporting back are being offered to all those involved, from the initial stage to the final stage.

We have the greatest appreciation for the work being done by the National Teacher’s Council. This council was in the first place established to act in an advisory capacity. There should be no doubt about the necessity of the existence of this council, but there is an urgent need to consider the creation of a negotiating body in which all interested parties, the organized teaching profession, departments of education, universities, technicons, the Public Service Commission, and others will be represented. This body will not only have to look at education as a unit, i.e. from the pre-primary to the tertiary level, but will also—and mainly—have to do coordinating work. It will constantly have to unite the loose threads in the educational system so that the ideal of a uniform educational system can be achieved in practice, once and for all. I make this request, because it is important. The statement has often been made from our side of the House—the Government has also made statements in this respect—that teaching should be regarded as the mother profession. Furthermore, we plead stepped-up co-ordination in the application of conditions of service is also advocated. People are grateful for the fact that so much headway has been made in the teaching profession that the various departments of education now provide uniform service conditions. It is clear, nevertheless, that differences between departments are encountered from time to time as regards the implementation of the policy and service conditions. I am not advocating the formation of a single department of education, but only that service conditions should always be applied uniformly. Teachers should be able to move freely from one department to the other, if necessary. However small the differences, they should not constitute a hindrance for the teacher who wants to transfer from one department to the other. The exchange of teachers from one department to another can only lead to sound competition which will be to the benefit of the teaching profession in general. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for De Aar on his very good speech about the teaching profession. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will pay attention to the very meaningful suggestions he has made in this regard.

I want to come back to the subject which was dealt with by the hon. members for Maraisburg and Kimberley North. In their speeches they created the atmosphere which is characteristic of culture. On this occasion, I wish to focus briefly on a small and apparently humble, but nevertheless important body which falls under the Department of National Education, viz. the South African War Graves Board, a body which has in the past completed laudable tasks and which is still undertaking restoration and preservation work with the very limited funds at its disposal. I think the importance of the work of this board as part of our national educational task is clearly underlined by the fact that the two hon. members on this side of the House, i.e. the hon. member for Virginia and the hon. member for Newton Park, were last year appointed to the board. The War Graves Board was established on 23 March 1967 in terms of section 2 of the War Graves Act of 1967. This afternoon I want to confine myself in particular to the task of the Civilian Graves Committee of this board which has the task of tending graves and laying out gardens of remembrance in honour of civilians and exiles, certain Voortrekkers and those who died in concentration camps. There was a time, not very long ago, when we had to lower our voices somewhat when discussing an event such as the Second War of Independence, a time when it still gave offence when we recalled this part of our history. Fortunately, that is now passing. It has been a part of the history of this country and this people for 80 years now. It is a part of history which is mourned, but it is a proud part of our history as well. Every right-minded South African can be proud of it. One only has to think about the fearless audacity with which a small people at that time survived the onslaught of a world power.

Now, as then, we are facing the threats of a foreign power which threatens the independence of this nation. Surely we are again faced with threats, this time the threats of Russian imperialism. Again there are dark clouds on the horizon. We should display towards our war heroes of old the same degree of unanimous piety and compassion we show today towards our people killed in action, because a nation which attempts to forget its heroes and its past, will be cast onto the scrapheap of history. There is no doubt about that.

Last night on television we saw that we are today erecting memorials and monuments to our people who have died on the borders for the freedom of this republic. I want to ask whether it is not essential and right, too, that we should show the same sense of gratitude towards the men who, 80 years ago, also fought a war of liberation for this country of ours. The injustices perpetrated against this nation 80 years ago, should fill us with the same degree of bitterness as an outrage or an injustice against this nation, committed today by a terrorist I am not necessarily speaking only about Afrikaans-speaking people as the suffering party, but of English-speaking people too, who, even at that time, identified themselves with the ideals, the aspirations and the freedom of a nation. Even then there were English-speaking South Africans who felt as the hon. the Minister of Finance, as an English-speaking person, put it so beautifully last year in a debate in this House when he said that he regarded himself as an English-speaking Afrikaner because he identified with a philosophy of life of a nation. We know that there are thousands of English-speaking people in this country today who feel the same way about these things as he does and who will therefore be very appreciative of the laudable task of the War Graves Board. They will also support me in asking the hon. the Minister for considerably greater financial support for this task so that it can be carried out properly.

If we look for a moment, for example, at the struggle waged in the Northern Transvaal, a struggle which was recorded in books such as that by Dr. J. C. Otto and in documents written by historical researchers of the Northern Transvaal, such as Mr. S. J. Lee and others, one has to admit that particularly in the second phase of the three-year war, some of the worst hardships were experienced in that very area, and that blatant murder and violence took place in some cases.

The only case of which I am aware, is that in which two British officers, one Captain Morant and Lieutenant Handcock were found guilty at the time in a court of law in Pretoria of at least 12 murders and were executed by firing squad on the morning of 26 February 1902 in Pretoria. Some of the civilian graves which attest to these murders are still lying scattered across the whole of the Northern Transvaal, some of them half-forgotten and neglected, and others of which the remains still exist, but which will pass into oblivion within the next decade or two. Still others are situated in the territory of a country which is becoming independent, such as Vendaland or other self-governing Black States. That raises the question whether such graves should not be removed to a central area, for example the concentration camp cemetery terrain at Pietersburg, a terrain where the graves can be properly tended and preserved for posterity, because some historical monuments will otherwise be lost for ever for this country and this nation.

I should like to point out a single example of an historical event which nearly passed into oblivion. In fact, some of the details of this event have already been lost, for example the name and even the site of the grave of a child hero of the Northern Transvaal, but the details of the event have been established beyond any doubt. I want to state briefly what happened. A mother who had to remain on the farm with only the youngest children of the family, sent her little boy of between nine and eleven years of age to carry messages to a Boer commando in the vicinity. However, he was caught through the co-operation of a traitor. This young boy refused absolutely, however, to give anything away or to commit treachery against his country and his nation. He pleaded for his life and explained that he was only carrying out his mother’s orders. His pleas fell on deaf ears, however, and the commander of that patrol shot and killed the boy himself after the British soldiers refused to do so. This boy was the pride of his father and his mother and his heroism is surely the pride of this nation and a part of the cultural historical heritage of this nation. Surely a visible monument should be erected so that this act of heroism can serve as an enduring inspiration for the coming generations.

The concentration camp cemetery at Pietersburg was restored in 1938 after it had nearly disappeared as a result of neglect. In fact, if it had not been restored then, I think few signs of it would have remained today. The local community performed the greater part of this task themselves at the time and are today still maintaining that area largely through their own efforts, with the aid of the town council and youth groups such as the Voortrekkers, who do valuable work, because more than 650 women and particularly children died here over a period of only ten months. Within one month, July 1901, no fewer than 213 deaths were recorded. This makes it the biggest single disaster which we have ever experienced in the Northern Transvaal to this day. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietersburg has covered a fairly wide field during the course of his speech which dealt with the South African culture and the necessity to preserve any matters that are of historical consequence to South Africa, and we in these benches agree entirely with the point of view he has expressed and we hope that the hon. the Minister will react positively to the suggestions he has made. We have also listened to an interesting discussion on television programmes and I believe that the hon. the Minister of National Education, who undoubtedly has the interests of the young people of South Africa at heart, should also give consideration to approaching the SABC concerning the advertising of liquor and cigarettes, particularly during Saturday afternoon viewing and during the early part of the evening programmes. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give some indication that it is not in the best interests of our young people to subject them, through the medium of television, to high-pressure advertising, particularly in relation to cigarettes and liquor. As he will know, a large number of the audience are young people.

However, I do not wish to address the Committee any further on this, because I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister the position as far as the Natal University Medical School is concerned. I believe it took something like 30 years before a medical school was established at the Natal University in 1951. We also know that that medical school was established for the prime purpose of having qualified Black doctors become available in South Africa. We know, too, that at the present time there is still an acute shortage of Black doctors in South Africa. Indeed, they number only one per 40 000 of the population. The development of that school has been of great interest and, it has, of course, become an internationally recognized medical school and enjoys a very high reputation indeed. Over the years this medical school has played a very important role in making facilities available for people of the Black race group to qualify as doctors.

We have also seen the establishment of Medunsa at Ga-Rankuwa, which is the Medical University of South Africa which caters for those persons belonging to the Black group who wish to study medicine. Various points of view were expressed—and, indeed, there was a good deal of controversy about it a short while ago—when the Government stated that it was its intention to phase out the admission of Black students at the Natal University Medical School. At this stage I do not wish to involve myself in that controversy in any way, but I do believe that the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet will have to come to a decision very soon as to what the future of that medical school in Natal is to be. Natal is the only province where there is no medical school where White undergraduate students may study. This is cause for a great deal of concern amongst parents and those young people who wish to study medicine. If they are English-speaking, they have to apply for entry at Wits University or the University of Cape Town. The additional costs involved are considerable as far as the parents are concerned, and they have over the years been most anxious to have a medical school in Natal which can cater for them and their children. With the development that has been taking place, it would seem an appropriate time for the hon. the Minister to give favourable consideration to allowing the university to admit undergraduate medical students of all race groups at that medical school. Tremendous facilities are available, for example at the teaching hospital, the King Edward VIII Hospital. There is, indeed, clinical evidence and information available there which people from overseas have come to study. I know that post-graduate study has been permitted at that medical school as far as Whites are concerned. The position of the White undergraduate is one which, I believe, deserves the serious consideration of the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister of Health is present in the Committee today and I am sure that he realizes and knows full well the shortage of doctors that exists in this country. Therefore I believe he would obviously support any attempt to extend the facilities that might be made available to allow all persons who are potential doctors to study medicine. The position is that in recent times there has been a drop in the number of Black students at the medical school of the University of Natal; the latest figures indicate that there are only 27 first-year Black medical students as well as 51 Indians and eight Coloureds. I am sure that it would be possible to extend the facilities at that medical school to provide for an additional intake so that White undergraduate medical students can also be admitted to the University of Natal. Although one is aware of the history of this medical school, it seems ironical that, while we have this university in a White area, catering basically for White students, as far as the medical school is concerned the door has been shut on White undergraduate students wishing to study medicine there. At a time when the Government is moving away from race discrimination, this is surely a practical example of a case where the question of admitting undergraduate students to the medical school of Natal should be left to the university to decide on, with the sanction of the Government, to ensure that all persons of all racial groups will be permitted to study medicine at that medical school. As regards the position at other universities, we know, for example, that members of other race groups are admitted to the University of Cape Town and Wits University. It would therefore appear that the Natal university is one of the only universities where this restriction still exists.

The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs is also present in the Committee this afternoon. I know that there has been pressure from time to time for the establishment of a separate faculty of medicine at the University of Durban-Westville. I believe this would cost many millions, and at this stage I do not believe it is necessary for a separate medical school to be established at the University of Durban-Westville. I would rather see an extension of the facilities available at the medical school of the University of Natal so that the Indian intake can also be catered for and can continue to be catered for at that medical school. We have facilities and various hospitals catering for the various race groups, all in close proximity to the existing medical school which is situated in Umbilo Road in Durban. There seems to be no reason why the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet cannot give the green light for the admission of White undergraduate students to the medical school of Natal as from 1980. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give this Committee the encouraging news that the final step will be taken to ensure that the White students in Natal will also have the opportunity of studying medicine at a university in their own province.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister listened attentively to what the hon. member for Umbilo said and I know he shall reply to it in an appropriate way.

The Government is being praised to a large extent today for the establishment of an independent radio and television service by the SABC, by means of which our general national economy as well as our national and international relations are being positively promoted. This is a fact, in spite of what hon. members of the Opposition may say. The hon. member for Umhlanga also referred to it, but I shall come back to the arguments of the Opposition later on. I want to take this opportunity to welcome Mr. Swanepoel, the Director-General of the SABC, and Mr. Yssel, the Deputy Director-General, because we are very pleased that they are with us today. We appreciate it very much.

In this regard I should also like to refer to Dr. P. J. Meyer, who is the chairman of the Control Board of the SABC, someone with whom we have come a long way and whose whole aim it is eventually to place the television service on the same high level on which the rest of the services of the SABC already are. We extend our sincere thanks to him for what he has done during his term of office.

Then it is also a very great pleasure to me to congratulate the hon. the Minister very sincerely on his appointment as the Administrator of the Transvaal. Our beloved Transvaal, our very beautiful province, is getting a very handsome man as its Administrator. We are still going to make the whole of the Transvaal Nationalist Just you wait and see. [Interjections.] Yes, hon. members will see it happen. We are still going to do many things there.

We are also indebted to the SABC team under the direction of Mr. Hannes Joubert for the work they do here in Parliament. This is Mr. Joubert’s eighth session here with us. We thank him for the task he performs in giving publicity to Parliamentary proceedings. He gives so much publicity to hon. members on the other side that they have no grounds for complaint. They really receive a great deal of publicity. It is as the hon. the Minister said: Whenever we listen, it is the speech of the hon. member for Orange Grove that can be heard over the radio. One can switch on the radio whenever one likes, and it is the opinions of the hon. member for Orange Grove that one hears. Those hon. members, however, do not know what they want. They receive everything under the sun, but they are still not grateful.

I saw a survey which was made in 1977. During the 1977 election the NP received only 39% broadcasting time, as against the 61% of the Opposition. The NRP received 24%, and the PFP received 24%. The SAP received 5%, and the HNP, 8%. What do hon. members say of that? The NP received only 51% broadcasting time, although it had 51,5% of all the candidates. The Opposition received 49%. [Interjections.] They cannot dispute the facts.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Durban Central does not know what he is talking about [Interjections.] Where is the hon. member for Sandton? Where has he disappeared to now? I suppose he has run away. He spoke about the Family Radio and TV magazine. I wonder whether he can tell us whether Punch is published on a profitable basis. Is it profitable to publish Punchi. The hon. member must tell us these things. We want to know them. Perhaps he has the profit and loss statement of Punch available.

What periodical can exist if it is not ultimately sponsored? I think the SABC used to have a periodical that was not profitable. Now the SABC has a periodical that is in fact profitable, and then the hon. member for Sandton kicks up a fuss about it. I do not know what is going on with him.

Surely the hon. member cannot become annoyed if he is not selected to a panel which discusses sport on television. Even in Swellendam his candidate only came third. They are simply not sportsmen, are they? [Interjections.] What justification can the hon. member for Sandton then have for saying that he also wants to serve on a panel? I think the biggest “sports” of all time took place in Swellendam. [Interjections.] On the one hand, there was the harvest-time in Swellendam, something which should really have been recorded for the television service. On the other hand, it was the shearing season in Beaufort West. What a rich harvest of national products there was!

I now want to come to the man who perhaps receives the most publicity. I am of course speaking about the man in the PFP who receives the most publicity. Yes, those hon. members can glare at me as much as they like. [Interjections.] The man who gets most publicity in the PFP, is the hon. member for Yeoville. Today he is again engaged in television interviews. Where is he? He has been photographed all day long, saying: “Opskud kêrels!” [Interjections.] Whenever he is photographed for television, all we hear is: “Opskud kêrels!” That is how we hear him on Monitor, on whatever programmes we listen to, even on the children’s programmes. [Interjections.] Everywhere we just hear the hon. member for Yeoville with his “Opskud kêrels!” [Interjections.]

I now want to refer to the survey which was made by the 1820 Settlers’ National Monument Foundation. What did they find with regard to television? According to them, 42% of the English-speaking people in South Africa said that the television service was the most objective source on political matters. Only 31% of them said that the English-language Press was more reliable. [Interjections.] The Department at Journalism of Rhodes University found, according to a survey, that television was the most reliable political medium. The radio was second and the Press was third on the list Now there is the Advocate-General Bill as well. According to market research it was found that 55% of the Whites, 50% of the Coloureds and 31% of the Asians regarded the SABC news as more reliable than the Press. It is the most wonderful organization there is and we are very grateful for all these things.

I want to discuss the Sunday evening programmes. That is one of the big problems which we and the SABC are experiencing. There is a difference of opinion among the clerical as well as the non-clerical public. It is a pity that it is the case, because there are such beautiful programmes and presentations on Sunday evenings.

There are beautiful documentaries on missionary work in Malawi, and the “Land van die Bybel” of Prof. Anna Neethling-Pohl. “Ligstraaltjies uit die Bybel,” with the cheerful voice of Bettie Kemp is especially for the children. It is very good. Then there is also “Tick-tock Time” which is appreciated by a wide circle of children and their parents. I am also aware of the very good programme “Crossroads”, which is presented by Wendy Leith. It is just a very great pity that this programme is now being broadcast only once and not twice a month as in the past. I know that older and younger people in particular often watch it.

The question arises how we can make the Sunday evening programmes a little more attractive. I want to plead today that the SABC should consider whether the radio cannot offer a news service on Sunday evenings, similar to the one which is broadcast on Sunday mornings. There are excellent news items which can be discussed. I am thinking of church consecration services, ecclesiastical events and social events of which the SABC does take cognizance, but which they cannot present during the week. I am in possession of a few bulletins by means of which I want to show which news items could be presented. We could for instance, present a programme on the subject of President Neto’s statement that he expected that in 20 years’ time there would be no churches left in Angola. He also said that no party member could be a member of a church and that no church member could be a member of the party. I am thinking, for instance, of the Rhodesian Archbishop who said that if a Marxist government were to come into power in Rhodesia, that would only be a foretaste of what would lie ahead for Central Africa if the West did not fulfil its responsibility. I am thinking of Idi Amin of Uganda who abolished Sundays when he instituted the Moslem day of rest in its place. There are wonderful news items which could be presented. Could we not have such a presentation?

I want to praise the church for the work which it is doing in this regard. I am referring here to the latest edition of Die Kerkbode in which gratitude is expressed to the SABC. The magazine states—

Television is the window of our church, a very important window.

I am also very grateful that I can announce at this stage what the Director-General said about the statements made by the staff association of the SABC in respect of the Advocate-General—

He went on to say that the staff association represented only 18% of the White staff members of the SABC. We are very grateful that this reaction became known today.

We feel that the television should be the window on the world. Television is the window on the world as it is at present By means of the television camera, the environment can be presented so much more attractively. I want the television not only to be regarded as an extension of the radio, but that it should also rely on another dimension to add to comment in its own way. There should not be long panel discussions, but shorter panel discussions. The camera lens should explore the outdoors. A well-known English author said—

I know that the SABC has the staff to do so. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is always very pleasant to be the next speaker after the hon. member for Rosettenville. I want to associate myself with what he said with regard to a few matters concerning the programmes on Sunday evenings. I am grateful for the fact that we in South Africa, which is a Christian country and in which the truths of Christianity are professed, still observe our Sabbaths as we do at present. I personally have much appreciation, too, for the Afrikaans and English programmes which are presented on Sunday evenings. I also want to agree with the hon. member that a news service on Afrikaans and English ecclesiastical matters would be very good and interesting. I want to associate myself with that, and I trust that the hon. the Minister will give favourable attention to the hon. member’s request.

Next, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment as the Administrator of the Transvaal. The hon. the Minister and I have known each other for a long time, and I think the Transvaal is particularly fortunate to get someone like him as its Administrator. Overvaal is situated in the constituency of Rissik, and I want to welcome the hon. the Minister most heartily to Overvaal in advance. I want to say, too, that the teaching profession’s loss is going to be the Transvaal’s gain. I want to welcome him and his attractive, friendly spouse to in the Transvaal. Although the hon. the Minister was born in the Cape Province, we know that he is a good Transvaler. After all, most Transvalers originate from the Cape Province.

Now I want to refer to two other matters. In the first place, I want to refer to reports which appeared in the Rand Daily Mail of Monday, 21 May. I want to take two matters from those reports. In a report under the heading “Motlana slams verkrampte students”, a report in which Dr. Motlana referred to Afrikaans universities, the following was said—

Dr. Motlana went on to say—

I do not want to devote a great deal of attention to this statement of his. I want to say here today, however, and I think that the Black people of Africa should know and realize this, that the White man, the Caucasian, brought values and civilization to Africa. I think that in particularly the southern part of Africa, like Rhodesia and South Africa, Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking Whites brought only the best of the Western civilization to the Black people of Africa and, more specifically to those of Southern Africa. When I speak of my own people, I want to tell hon. members that in my opinion this is one of the most unfair points of criticism which a Black man has ever expressed in respect of the Afrikaners, and what amazes me, is that the Rand Daily Mail has as yet not adopted an attitude anywhere in respect of this. Africa will never be able to grow and prosper if it does not want to accept the best of what the White man brought to Africa and make the best use of it. It is a great pity, and I can understand the Rand Daily Mail not having reacted to it as yet up to now.

On the same page of the Rand Daily Mail a report appears under the heading “English education causes grave concern” in which Prof. H. N. Boyce, the chairman of the Transvaal Teachers’ Association, discusses the problems he is experiencing because of the fact that there is not a sufficient number of English-speaking teachers. The report reads, inter alia, as follows—

I have much appreciation for what Dr. Boyce said, for the appreciation which he expressed to the Afrikaners. I agree with him that we do not want to have mother-tongue education only, that education should not be vested in one’s own cultural milieu only and that it is a pity that we have this want within the English-speaking community, but I have appreciation for his approach.

Next I want to come back to the PFP, which was conspicuous by its absence in this debate. Over the past few days, the following occurred in the Transvaal Provincial Council—

Have hon. members ever witnessed such a contrast of the truth in South African politics? The policy of the PFP for the whole of Southern Africa is to have one Government with one system of education. Every facet of the way of life of the various people must be similar. Here, however, the PFP goes even further than advocating the removal of Afrikaners from English-medium schools. There is not even a vestige of sympathy for what Afrikaans-speaking people have done.

Where do you get that from?

That hon. member apparently does not read newspapers, because he does not even know what is going on with the PFP in the Transvaal. Peter Nixon in the Transvaal objects to the fact that there are Afrikaans-speaking people in English-medium schools. The PFP is the party which does not believe in ethnicity, the party which does not believe in mother-tongue education.

Where do you get all this nonsense from?

I simply quoted what was said by one of their members of the provincial council in the Transvaal. I quoted what Mr. Peter Nixon, a member of the PFP in the Transvaal, said. I want to ask the hon. the Chief Whip whether he differs from Mr. Nixon in this regard. It is not the Afrikaans-speaking members of the PFP in South Africa who are looking after the interests of the Afrikaner. It is not the Myburghs, the Van der Merwes and the Marais’s who are sitting over there. Nor is it the Bamfords and the Eglins who are looking after the interests of the English-speaking people in South Africa. It is rather the Pages, the Vause Raws and the Durrs who will look after the interests of the English-speaking people. This attempt to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds is typical of the type of thing we get from the PFP. I think it has become essential for the English-speaking Whites in South Africa to know that the PFP does not care at all for the values of the English-speaking world in Southern Africa.

That is correct.

In the same way, I, as an Afrikaner, know that the PFP does not care at all about the values of the Afrikaner. I think it is a disgrace that the PFP has no concept and appreciation of what is going on in the teaching profession. The PFP has no concept of or appreciation for what the Afrikaner is doing. But now they sanctimoniously plead the case of the English-speaking people in South Africa. I think we in South Africa shall have to make a more detailed analysis of the policy of the PFP.

That would be a good thing.

I want to continue by saying …

You understand absolutely nothing about it.

I take as little notice of that hon. member as I take of his party. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to be the next speaker after the hon. member for Rissik since he has just dealt so effectively with the official Opposition in this debate. I do not want to say much about the official Opposition, but it is very clear to me that they have different policies in the Transvaal and in the Cape Province. The hon. member for Rissik dealt with the education situation in the Transvaal. I want to shed some light for hon. members on the conditions prevailing in Natal in the field of education.

Before coming to that, I want to add my congratulations to those conveyed by other hon. members to the hon. the Minister on his promotion. We are very proud of him and we believe that his appointment is a major gain for the Transvaal. My colleague in the Natal caucus, the hon. member for Eshowe, has also been promoted, and he is to become the Administrator of Natal. We also want to wish him strength for his task. He has rather a difficult task in this province, and I shall indicate in a moment just why that is so.

The education of the child should at all times be an important consideration. It depends on co-operation between the parent, the teaching staff and the Department of Education. We greatly appreciate the work being done in Natal by the Department of Education and the teachers. Everything, however, should be in the best interests of the child, and the intervention of the Executive Committee of Natal is most definitely detrimental to the education of the child in Natal, as I shall try to indicate. There are various factors in Natal which have a restricting or hampering effect on education. In the first place, there is the lack of an Afrikaans training centre for secondary teachers, in other words, an Afrikaans university for Natal. In the second place, we have the intervention of the Executive Committee of Natal in the educational affairs of the province.

Surely that is not true.

As far as the Afrikaans university is concerned, it is a fact that Afrikaans-speaking parents send their children to RAU and the Universities of Pretoria, Potchefstroom, Bloemfontein or Stellenbosch. The majority of the Afrikaans speaking parents in Natal do not send their children to the University of Natal, for obvious reasons. Much of our best brain power in the province is lost because the students attend other universities and do not return to the province. We feel that the province and education are suffering as a result.

The province is growing rapidly and it has the growth points of Richards Bay, Newcastle, Durban and Pietermaritzburg. As far as the ideal of obtaining an Afrikaans university is concerned, we are not going to accept “no” as an answer. We have already progressed to the extent of having a farm bordering on the municipal area of Ladysmith made available for that purpose by Mr. Thys Jacobsz, a millionaire farmer in the district. The whole of his estate has also been earmarked for that purpose. Tremendous enthusiasm also exists in Natal for that project and amounts of money are donated spontaneously by the public. A committee working in this direction has been in existence for a number of years. We shall even accept this institution initially being a satellite campus of the University of the Orange Free State. So much as regards the Afrikaans university for Natal.

Now I want to come to the intervention of the Executive Committee of Natal in the educational affairs of the province. I want to point out that the policy of the Executive Committee of Natal has an inhibiting effect on the education of the child in the province.

Prove it.

In the first place, Natal is the province with the largest number of exclusively English-medium high schools in South Africa. I want to point out that two-thirds of the pupils in Natal receive their training through the medium of English and that one-third receive it through the medium of Afrikaans. Although it is the province with the largest number of English-medium high schools, it was the policy of the Executive Committee for years that all high schools in the urban complexes should be exclusively English-medium high schools and that all high schools in the rural areas should be parallel-medium schools. The situation arose there that all schools in the rural areas were parallel-medium schools up to 1975. For instance, in a place like Vryheid our experience was that after one high school had become too large—and 80% of its pupils were Afrikaans speaking and only 20% English speaking—we could still not succeed in having an Afrikaans-medium high school established there. In 1975, however, the protest movement of the parents became very strong. When a second high school was planned for the town, the Natal Department of Education wanted to make that school a parallel medium school as well. They wanted to halve that small percentage of English-speaking pupils as well. That was the situation up to 1975. After one school in the rural areas of Natal was declared an Afrikaans-medium school in 1975, other schools in Newcastle, Richards Bay and on the South Coast were declared Afrikaans-medium schools as well. Hon. members can ask the hon. member for South Coast for how many years they battled to get an Afrikaans-medium school there.

As hon. members know, the appointment of school principals in Natal is the prerogative of the Executive Committee. They take the final decision on the appointment of principals. It has happened on occasion that when the Director of Education has recommended a principal, the Executive Committee has decided otherwise.

Give us examples.

It happened in Pietersburg, for instance, that the Executive Committee appointed a principal without its having consulted the Director of Education in respect of the appointment, but the result was an absolute fiasco. It is a known fact that the school principals of the Natal Department of Education in the rural areas after the war years were men, virtually without exception, who had been selected and appointed by the Executive Committee and who supported the policy of the then United Party. I also want to say that the advisory committees in Natal have absolutely no powers. They are collectors of money. They have absolutely no say in the appointment of a principal of their choice at a certain school. In the old days they were not allowed to make any recommendations. Now they are allowed to say with which requirements a principal has to comply, but they are not allowed to say who should be appointed. That is how the situation is in Natal at present.

Now I want to refer to the provision of educational facilities. I want to point out to hon. members that there is an over-supply of educational facilities in the urban complexes where this Executive Committee is at the helm, whereas there is a shortage of facilities in the rural areas where our people are. Very recently the Executive Committee purchased in secret the St Charles College—a private school which had fallen into disuse because it was unable to attract students any longer—for the Department of Education. When this came to light and they were attacked about it, they hid behind the hon. the Minister of National Education and said that they had consulted the Minister about it. He had ostensibly recommended that they purchase that historical school for an amount of R1 million, and that while there was a shortage of educational facilities and opportunities in the rural areas.

Let us now take a look at whether they always heed the recommendations of members of the Cabinet or even those of the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister recently gave the Executive Committee of Natal very good advice. Now I want to refer to the reaction of the chairman of the Natal Provincial Council to this advice given by the hon. the Prime Minister. I quote what the chairman of the Natal Provincial Council said—

He said that in the past private secretaries had written letters on behalf of the hon. the Prime Minister and he objected to the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister had written them a personal letter. I quote further—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vryheid will pardon me for not reacting directly to his speech. I just want to say that in Natal principals are chosen on a basis of merit and not because they are good NP supporters. [Interjections.]

Today I should like to discuss a matter with the hon. the Minister which concerns admission to a technikon. It concerns the daughter of a prominent member of the Indian community of Uitenhage, one Mr. Kooverjee. This man has two sons. One is a doctor in Cape Town and the other is a pathologist in America. He also has two daughters. The one is a medical technologist. The other daughter has been struggling for more than six months to be enrolled at the technikon in Port Elizabeth as a student in pharmacy. As long ago as 10 November 1978 Miss Kooverjee was accepted as a student on condition that she obtained the necessary permission from the Department of National Education. On 29 November Mr. Kooverjee was notified that his daughter’s application had been referred to the Secretary of the Department of National Education for consideration. On 22 January this year he was informed that his daughter’s application had failed as the diploma in pharmacy was to be phased out of the syllabi of the technikon. This might in fact be the plan for the future, but 15 White students were admitted to the same course this year. In any event, subsequent to this, the matter was brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs in writing on 1 February this year and the application was once again referred to the Department of National Education. According to Mr. Kooverjee he has not received any answer as yet. A spokesman of the technikon said that it was the policy of the institution to accept students of any race group provided they satisfied the requirements for admission, had followed the correct procedure and had obtained the necessary permission. He also said that Miss Kooverjee satisfied all the academic requirements, but had not received the necessary permission from the department and that the matter consequently was out of the hands of the technikon. Mr. Kooverjee feels that his daughter is being discriminated against and I agree with him. For that reason I want to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that discrimination of this nature will not be allowed in future.

†Mr. Chairman, last year during the debate on this Vote I dealt with the question of the conditions relating to the education of that group of children known as gifted children. I think that the debate we had last year was an interesting one and I think that the comments that were made indicated that this is an aspect which is being looked at by the hon. the Minister. This year I should like to go to the other end of the scale, if I may, and raise with the hon. the Minister the question of the group of children whom one could refer to as children with learning disorders, whether those learning disorders be occasioned by the fact that the children are hyper-active or by their having difficulty in concentrating, and consequently having difficulty with their studies. Amongst the uninitiated such children are often referred to as problem or backward children and it is a pity that they are thus described because nothing could be further from the truth. Very often these children are of above average intelligence and, with the correct remedial training, can very quickly attain the same standard as children of their age group. If they are sympathetically dealt with and spend a period in a special school, they can re-join their colleagues at normal schools and continue and finish their education in those normal schools thereafter. However, if an early diagnosis of these children with learning disorders is not made, it would appear that they stand a very high chance of developing into real problem children; and if they are not dealt with appropriately, they can very easily go on to become juvenile delinquents. It is imperative that, if the parent or the pre-primary school teacher notices that a child is experiencing a problem in this regard, the child be sent to an assessment centre. Facilities should then be made available for him to receive the special kind of tuition that is needed to get him to the stage where he can go back to a normal school.

As I have said, such children often have high IQ’s and are merely suffering from adjustment problems and need to be treated in such a way that their powers of concentration are improved so that they can take their places alongside their colleagues in normal schools.

There are two aspects to this question of children with learning disorders. One of these is the aspect of the treatment with drugs, an issue I shall not discuss today because I think it falls more properly under a health debate. We are aware, however, that many of the problems these children undergo are as a result of an imbalance of neurotransmitters in the brain. We know that the two pathways, adrenergic and cholinergic, require a very fine balance for people to go through life as normal citizens. Some of these children show a clear imbalance in the neurotransmitters, and do require drug treatment. I shall not, however, take that aspect any further.

Current research throughout the world has indicated that as simple a factor as normal daily diets can also, to a very large extent, affect the capacity of children—they need not necessarily be young children; they can be high school children as well—to concentrate and learn in the same easy manner in which 90% of their colleagues are able to do so. In this respect I would merely mention two foods, i.e. foods rich in fish, and chocolates. It is well-known that some of the children who experience the more severe problems, can be absolutely normal until they ingest a quantity of one of those foods, or one of a wide variety of other such foods. Within a very short space of time such children can then become completely changed personalities. Fortunately, with the knowledge we have today of food values and the amines in foods, one can recommend a specific diet to these children to enable them to avoid the problems which result from the ingestion of certain of these amine-rich foods. I should like to pay tribute here this afternoon to the work that has been done in this regard at a very well-known institution, which happens to be in Durban, i.e. the Phoenix School. This school is well-known throughout the Republic because of the pioneering work that it has done in this field under its director, the child psychologist Dr. Logue. I think they enjoy the support of families throughout the Republic because of the very advanced facilities they are able to offer children that fall in this group of children with learning disorders. I should therefore like to make a plea to the hon. the Minister that institutions like this be accorded more financial support than they are currently getting. The classes in a school like this are small and the teacher-pupil ratio is such that the teacher has a small class and the children are able to get personalized attention, are able to be monitored carefully and can be helped individually and personally. This sort of thing, however, costs a great deal of money and very often, as in the case of the Phoenix School, they have to do most of their fund-raising themselves.

In the minute left to me, I would like to direct a plea to the hon. the Minister in regard to television services, and to one specifically. When a specific issue affects us, it very often happens that the Minister in charge gets good coverage for his statement on the issue. Various bodies such as the Chamber of Commerce and other bodies in industry are also able to comment. I want to recall the question of the fuel announcement earlier this year when the hon. the Minister’s statement was fully covered on TV, as well as the comments of the Chamber of Commerce and leaders in industry, while not a single Opposition MP was quoted on the news services. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have some knowledge of the Kooverjee case to which the hon. member for Berea referred. I know that Die Oosterlig, a Port Elizabeth newspaper, took up that matter. However, I do not have sufficient knowledge to react to it any further. With regard to the sympathy expressed by the hon. member with the children who are experiencing problems with their studies, I want to say that this is a matter of deep concern to all of us. With regard to that aspect he has my wholehearted support.

The uninformed would be inclined to think that the Department of National Education is fundamentally or exclusively concerned with education and universities. However, it is only when one has examined the department’s annual report that one ascertains the tremendous scope of this department’s activities. Then only does one have more respect for this department and its officials.

Consequently I can also understand why the department saw fit to provide a schematic presentation of its activities in its report on page 24. This makes very interesting reading. Inter alia, one finds that the department has nine separate branches, each of which is subdivided into several divisions. However, bearing in mind the extremely important role played by libraries in the field of culture and education—indeed probably in all fields—it is of course to be expected that the library services will enjoy an exceptional amount of attention in the activities of this department.

As a component of the Cultural Advancement branch with all its co-ordinating and advisory bodies, one finds the National Library Advisory Council and the Co-ordinating Committee for Library Services for non-Whites, all of which are doing their own work. Among the statutory bodies to which recognition has been granted, we find the State library in Pretoria, the South African Library in Cape Town and the South African Library for the Blind in Grahamstown. These three libraries render services at a national level and operate in association with a variety of other statutory bodies, inter alia, the SABC, the National Film Board, the S.A. War Graves Board, various museums and various art collections, and even with the National Zoological Gardens of South Africa in Pretoria. Without offending other bodies in any way, I want to advocate that, in the allocation of subsidies, the department should constantly bear in mind the special purchasing requirements of the libraries, particularly with regard to the purchasing requirements of the Library for the Blind to which I have already referred.

Then there is also the independent separate Library Services branch of the department, with its head office library and separate departmental libraries. Apart from the assistance this department renders to the various Government departments, it also assists State-aided libraries, school libraries, college libraries, etc. I also want to refer in particular to the assistance this department is rendering to the libraries of various Black States, inter alia, the Transkei and Bophuthatswana, and a few others, as well. Certain librarians of the department have been seconded to the Black States concerned for a considerable time.

Since we are now on the topic of libraries, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity—and I think I am doing so on behalf of all other hon. members—to thank the Chief Librarian and the staff of our own Parliamentary library for the exceptionally diligent, brisk and friendly service they are making available to us.

But I should like to focus the spotlight on the S.A. Library for the Blind in particular. When we consider the extent to which a library can open up and has already opened up the world to each of us, we can also realize to what a tremendous extent the Library for the Blind must open up the world to the visually handicapped. I am proud of the fact that that library originated in Grahamstown, and did so as a result of the diligence of the late Miss Jossie Woods, who, with 100 braille volumes and between 20 and 30 readers, began to present this service from her own home in 1919. I am proud that this library is still based in Grahamstown, and I want to express the hope that it will never be removed from there. Consequently I am also pleased that the department recently made new buildings available in which that library can expand even further. That library is controlled by a board of which the various members stay in Grahamstown itself. The board acts under the supervision of the Department of National Education. Just like the control boards of other institutions, this board also deserves praise for the work it is doing, as well as for the responsibilities it has taken upon itself without receiving any remuneration for its task. Indeed, I want to express the hope that the board’s autonomy will not be restricted in any way. In addition I want to ask that this board’s autonomy be expanded as confirmation of the confidence the department has had up to now in the board as well as the boards of other similar bodies. This confidence has indeed been earned by years of dedicated diligence. I believe that strict decentralized and bureaucratic control will result in the forfeiture of the essential flexibility, adjustability, inspiration, enthusiasm, loyalty etc. That is why I am pleading for even greater recognition and autonomy for local boards.

Approximately 10 years ago this library was converted into a national library which received a subsidy from the State to cover part of the costs. I should just like to take a quick look at a few of the figures to ascertain whether the taxpayer has in fact received value for his money. If one compares the 1967-’68 figures—the year just before the Government became involved—with the 1978-’79 figures, one finds that the staff increased by 77%, the book stores by 183%, the issues by 240% and the number of readers by 210%. During the same period the subsidy was increased by 105%. If depreciation caused by the inflation rate is taken into account, the increase in the library’s allocation is in actual fact considerably less than 105%. In this period the Braille book supply increased from 23 100 to 32 567. The number of audio-cassettes increased from 1 400 to 18 785. The issues increased from 20 240 units to 68 630 units, but periodicals are not included in this figure. The n oer of visually handicapped served, rose from 615 to 1 850. I think that if one looks at these figures, one can say with confidence that the State has indeed received value for its money in the library for the Blind at Grahamstown.

At this stage special recognition should be given to the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. The Post Office is prepared to handle an enormous number of postal articles for this library free of charge. If it were not for this trust and friendly assistance by the Post Office, this library would not have been doing so well. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister who is involved in this, is present to be able to hear that we are still indebted to him. We trust that we shall have reason to remain grateful to him in future.

I should briefly like to outline certain points with regard to the library. All population groups are served by the library. The number of Black readers has increased tremendously, the readers of Braille in particular. The library also serves the blind in neighbouring States such as Rhodesia, Botswana, Swaziland, Lesotho, Transkei and Bophuthatswana. I am pleased to be able to say that there is very good international cooperation. The library has representation on various international committees. The director of the library has attended international congresses. Fortunately, when special study material is required for students, there is also very good co-operation by countries such as America, England, the Netherlands and Germany in making material available. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Albany on a very interesting speech. It was necessary for him to focus our attention once again on the excellent work being done by the Library for the Blind.

He also referred to the large variety of tasks that are the responsibility of the Department of National Education. I want to dwell on one of its important tasks, viz. the advancement of culture.

One can hardly conceive of any nation or community that does not attach great value to its cultural heritage. A very important facet of a nation’s culture is the cultivation of the arts, and particularly the performing arts such as drama, ballet, opera and music. Now I wish to crave your attention for the needs and problems of the performing arts, particularly with reference to the very interesting report published by the Niemand Commission of Inquiry into the performing arts which was tabled in this House earlier this year.

As a result of the small White population of South Africa and the fact that it is scattered over vast distances in South Africa, the State has in the past had to render financial assistance to ensure a flourishing artistic life, and continues to do so, today. We are all aware of the fine work that has been done since 1962 by the four provincial regional boards for the performing arts, viz. Pact, Capab, Pacofs and Napac. These four regional boards can only function with State subsidization. As a result of the increasing needs for facilities and monetary support for the performing arts, the commission to which I referred was appointed to institute an inquiry into the general policy to be followed in order to place the development of the arts on a sound foundation.

One of the most important findings of the commission was, in my opinion, that the arts in our country are too dependent on foreign artists. South Africa does not have enough of its own singers, its own directors, its own orchestral musicians, its own actors and actresses and its own ballet dancers to meet its own requirements. What is more: We do not have a sufficient number of skilled persons to train our own artists to that level themselves.

I believe that this problem can only be solved in the long term, but we should set about this task in far greater earnest. I should like to suggest for consideration that we should, as the commission also found, begin at the bottom with this task, viz. with our children. The teaching has to begin with our children if we ever want our own orchestral musicians, actors and actresses, ballet dancers, etc. That is why one should have the highest appreciation for the start that has been made in this regard by the Transvaal and Free State departments of education.

A few years ago a start was made in the Transvaal with the establishment of extracurricular art centres attached to primary and secondary schools. There are already 114 of these centres in existence throughout the Transvaal. These centres are under the direct control of the principals and the training is extra-curricular. In other words, parents also have to pay class fees for their children’s training. The department of education does pay the salaries of the teachers concerned and they also assist with musical instruments and theatrical equipment, but no physical amenities such as class-room space, etc. is provided by the department or the authorities. Consequently schools have to make use of existing facilities such as class-rooms and their own school halls in order to accommodate these centres. Of course this means that the major portion of the training in these centres has to be provided after school hours, i.e. in the late afternoon or early evening. I want to state that these centres have already proved to be of inestimable value in the places where they have been established. In the rural areas in particular they have been an unprecedented success because they met a very strongly felt need in the rural areas. The rural areas are far removed from large urban centres where there are regular presentations in fine venues and in other amenities.

I had the privilege of being very closely involved in the establishment of the art centre at the Ermelo High School. At present that centre has a teaching staff of 16 and serves 627 pupils from 16 different schools all over the south-eastern Transvaal. At present music and ballet training is being provided at that centre, but in future we shall also have to add a drama section, because music and ballet teachers are not really in a position to present an opera or an operetta properly. One needs drama teachers for that purpose.

However, these centres are experiencing considerable problems and I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to some of these so that he will, I hope, be able to give attention to them, even if he is perhaps going to take charge of the education portfolio in the Transvaal. The first problem being experienced by these centres is a need for proper amenities in order to do justice to the training.

In Ermelo we have mobilized the parents and the entire community to assist in this regard, because these facilities are not provided by the authorities. Those people set about this task so enthusiastically that we collected R403 000 with which we established a fine building of our own on the school premises. An auditorium with more than 400 seats, a stage and an orchestra pit are accommodated in this building. There are also two ballet training halls, a number of music rooms as well as many other facilities. Of course we are all—children, parents and the whole community—exceptionally proud of this achievement But I want to add that this centre has placed a very great burden on the parent community and consequently my request today is that the State ought to support the creation of such facilities financially on a rand-for-rand basis. As far as Ermelo is concerned, they may as well do this with retrospective effect.

A second problem being experienced is to find enough suitable teaching staff for these centres. In the Transvaal the staff provision scale is hopelessly inadequate. At present the ratio there is 30 pupils per teacher with one hour’s tuition per pupil per week. Surely our gifted pupils must be singled out and ought to receive at least five hours’ tuition per week.

Problems are also being experienced with the qualifications of prospective teachers. We ought to allow people who do not have professional teaching qualifications, but are otherwise eminently suited to providing this tuition, to be appointed. Citizenship requirements ought not to be applied so strictly.

In addition very few promotion opportunities for teachers attached to this centre exist I want to advocate that it be made possible that the creation of the post of departmental head for art centres, as already exist at high schools for other subject fields, be made possible. At present the principal bears the sole responsibility for the art centre at his school. Consequently it is an undeniable fact that the continued existence of the centres are completely dependent on the interest and enthusiasm of the particular headmaster of such a school. This is work for which he does not receive one extra cent in income or remuneration. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ermelo made a most interesting speech on the question of cultural centres, particularly in the platteland of the Transvaal and the Free State. I think that we would agree with everything that he had to say in this regard.

In the very short time at my disposal I want to raise with the hon. the Minister two matters concerning the SABC, both of which have already been raised. Firstly, I want to mention the matter of religious broadcasts. In this regard I specifically want to refer to the role played by Mr. Chalmers. The position this gentleman holds indicates that he should have some knowledge of religious matters. This gentleman is guilty of quoting, during one of the religious broadcasts, from a most infamous document, a document called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I may say that this document is a discredited document; it has been proved to have no substance at all and is, furthermore, banned. It is a highly anti-Semitic document and quoting from it certainly amounts to a deliberate affront to another religious group. Therefore my request to the hon. the Minister is that Mr. Chalmers and his unpleasant, anti-Semitic views should be kept off the SABC’s programmes in the future.

The second matter I wish to raise was also mentioned by the hon. member for Sandton and concerns the publication Family Radio & TV and its sister magazine, Radio en TV-dagboek. My information—perhaps it is out of date and if it is out of date perhaps the hon. the Minister can bring us up to date on this matter—is that these publications are registered as being owned by Perskor and published by Republican Press. Certainly, to my knowledge at one time this was so. The forerunner of Family Radio & TV was a magazine called Personality. It changed its name and became Family Radio & TV. That was definitely published by the Republican Press. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us. I understood him to say that it was now a SABC publication. I am not clear whether the SABC owns this publication, whether the SABC has bought it from Perskor or whether it was still owned by Perskor. Therefore my question to the hon. the Minister is: If it has been bought by the SABC, when did they buy it and what were the terms of the purchase? It is a most interesting thing to me that the SABC should find it necessary to purchase a magazine from a Press group which can only be said to be Nationalist-orientated. If it is not owned by the SABC at this stage, perhaps there is some sort of contract which the SABC has with Perskor and Republican Press, and if that is so, I should like to know what the terms of that contract are. Again, I would say that it would be highly undesirable for a politically motivated Press group to have dealings with the SABC, which is supposed to be—and I say “supposed to be” somewhat circumspectly—non-political in its views. We would appreciate specific answers to those questions from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, it is rather late in the day and I should like to approach this Vote from a completely new angle. I do not want to react to what the hon. member for Orange Grove said, except to say that I would have expected him to say something about the contents of the publication to which he referred, its purport and the programme announcements. Then we would have had something to talk about, but it seems he was only interested in who had printed it. In my opinion it was an effort to sow venom and I cannot agree with that.

My second action is against the hon. member for Umhlanga. He and I agreed to make an effort to find common ground for this debate and I asked him very amiably that he should also address us on the merits of the FAK and then I would find a subject which would approach closely to his basic premises. In this way we would attempt to conduct a positive discussion. However, he left me in the lurch, but I am going to be far more sporting. I am going to keep my promise and discuss a matter on which we can find common ground.

It has been my experience in practice, and I do not think that anyone in this House will doubt it, that in the general discussion on the role of idealism, security and the value of a correct approach to present-day militarism, a great shortcoming has developed to a tangible and disturbing extent in the individual, the family and the nation. It has disappeared from general discussion, to the great disadvantage everything relating to education, character formation and national aspirations. It is a pity that time is too short to go into this matter in depth. Since the hon. the Minister is going to leave us, I want to plead with him very seriously at this late stage—he and I are young enough and if we could have remained together, we could have carried out this project successfully—for the establishment of military schools in all four provinces. This is nothing new. This is where the hon. member for Umhlanga and I have common ground. It is an old institution in America and it is an age-old institution in Great Britain. As far as America is concerned, I am thinking of the La Salle Military Academy in New York, Valley Forge Military Academy in Pennsylvania, Staunton Military Academy in Virginia, Benedictum Military School for Catholics in Georgia, Sanford Naval Academy in Sanford, Florida, and West Point in Maryland. In Great Britain there is Port Dartmouth Naval College and the Winston Churchill School for the training of boys and girls in the military field.

The idea is that we have a military tradition. I am thinking of the days when our parents and grandparents told us in the evenings at the supper table, with their elbows on the table, about the idealism, the sacrifices in service of the ideals and the achievements as a result of inspiration by those ideals. This type of thing is rapidly disappearing from our discussions. The modem day young person misses this. It is necessary for us to bring back this idealism to replace the modem conception of money being power. If I am academically-theoretically well qualified, I can make money, and if I am the possessor of money, I can render services to my people and national service. Mr. Chairman, may I as a member of the old school say that this is so lacking in character that I do not want to comment on it any further.

Idealism, character and discipline are sufficient motivation to acquire and master all these things. They can bring about a positive and striking example for the times and the making of history. We must bring these attributes back into our discussions, and once again afford idealism its place in our community, in our cultural life, in our education and in all the sectors and spheres of our national structure. My point of departure is that if we send our young sons and daughters to such military schools, train them in the traditions of our own past against the background of the needs of the times in which we are living, and associate their names with great men such as De la Rey and De Wet, existing regiments and heroic children such as Dirkie Uys and others, we shall already have the springboard to the tradition which has to be formed. My premise is that regret is of short duration. It is difficult for regret to make up the time lost and fill the need, and it may even fail to do so.

It is my absolute conviction and real attitude that the time has come for us to give very serious attention to the possibility of establishing provincial schools with a uniform as regulation school dress, and if necessary with reserve officers and regimental officers as teachers who are temporarily seconded to those schools. The school uniform should have a regimental badge on the shoulder or arm, and regimental trophies should be donated to that school to make the school aware of a military tradition.

As far as a selection of pupils is concerned, the schools should be rather selective institutions, in which not only theory and academic grounding should be the qualification. A good military historian, Brig. H. Essame, pointed out in his work Patton the Commander that Patton, who studied at West Point and the subsequent Field Marshalls Montgomery and Alexander who studied at Sandhurst and later became world-renowned generals, did not have the highest academic qualifications. But they were people who could unite their will power, idealism and dedication into a complete synthesis in their lives and could render outstanding achievements.

These military schools could follow normal syllabuses so that those pupils who demonstrate that they have no grounding capability and natural aptitude in the military field, could follow a normal university training after completion of their school career. It is from the talent in these schools that the military academies must draw their students for training in the field of their military calling. What is more, when these young boys and young girls are assimilated in society, their idealistic attitude, and their attitudes with regard to discipline, to mention but a few practical examples … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall reply to certain of the matters which hon. members raised in the order in which they spoke. I should first like, however, to come back to the hon. member for Sandton. He began his speech this afternoon by saying that he wanted to congratulate the staff association of the SABC on their opposition to the Advocate-General Bill. I inquired about the matter immediately and established of course that the management of the SABC dissociated itself completely from the action of the staff association. The staff association of the SABC does not even represent 18% of the Whites who are employed by the SABC, and yet they make such a clamour. The next question is whether the staff was in fact consulted in the normal way as regards the statement by their executive committee. We get the impression, from the nature of things, that the feelings of the staff members were not tested, and we believe that most staff members would dissociate themselves from the action of the staff association. It should also be placed on record that I find it very interesting that even before the hon. member for Sandton had spoken in the House The Argus already was in possession of his speech, for shortly after he had made his speech, it also appeared in that newspaper.

The hon. member for Standerton also referred to grants for research at universities. I want to tell him that no specific research element has been integrated into the subsidy formula. Provision for that is made in another way. Provision is made for research to be carried out by lecturing staff members, assistant staff members, libraries and with the aid of computers. We should bear in mind, however, that there are many other bodies in South Africa which make money for research available. I am unfortunately unable to read out the long list, but I just want to give an idea of the amounts of money which are being made available by Government departments as well as by statutory bodies. I want to point out a few examples. R265 000 is annually made available by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services; R232 000 by the Department of Sport and Recreation; R7 000 by the Department of Transport for meteorological research at the University of Pretoria; R546 000 by the Department of Transport for Antarctic research in cooperation with universities; R240 000 by the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs; R1 370 000 by the Medical Research Council of the Department of Health for research at universities; R441 000 by the Department of Forestry for timber and wattle research in co-operation with the universities of Stellenbosch and Natal; R2 581 000 by the CSIR for research, bursaries and grants; and R258 000 by the Department of National Education for nuclear research. I have rounded off all these figures. There are also other statutory bodies, such as the HSRC, the Atomic Energy Board, the National Institute for Metallurgy and Armscor. I requested information on these bodies but it did not reach me in time.

When the hon. member for Maraisburg spoke, I thought of my former debating society days. I can only praise cultural advancement by local bodies. We also undertake cultural advancement by means of the department’s regional councils. We trust that there will be sufficient local initiative to carry these matters further. However, parents have a particular obligation. There is a truth which one easily forgets, and that is that a child is not born with culture, but in a culture. The child has to acquire culture, learn it and make it a part of his being. If the forming of his cultural character is not taken care of at home, however, how must that cultural heritage become part of him, even if he has been born into the culture? I have said on occasion that parents should not regard a cultural heritage as worthless, something to be discarded, because then no child would make valuable parts of that heritage his own. Parents should no longer expect the churches, schools, cultural bodies and so on to do this work for them. Parents should do a great deal of the work at home. The parent community should encourage and give their co-operation in order to establish precisely local associations of the kind to which the hon. member referred. I thank him for the thought. I trust that everyone of us who feels about these matters as he does will convey this idea to our local communities.

The hon. member for Kimberley North referred to youth work and camping sites. He said that the necessary co-ordination and so on should be done in this regard. I trust that it will be good news to him when I say that approximately R44 000 has been made available for the construed of a dining hall, etc., on the camping site at Warrenton, in his constituency. We know that the people who are going to make use of that camping site will not only have their meals there but will also do all that beautiful work there to which the hon. member referred. An amount of nearly R100 000 has been made available for 15 of our camping sites and of that amount, the hon. member’s people are receiving R44 000. That is perhaps a little much, but let us regard it as a farewell present to the hon. member.

On the recommendation of the National Council for Culture discussions recently took place between all the representatives and Government bodies that are engaged in youth work. This was done so that we could achieve precisely what the hon. member asked for, viz. the necessary co-ordination in respect of the work which is being done as well as perhaps in respect of fields which are being created for the work. Follow-up discussions will take place, and we trust that we shall indeed achieve through them what the hon. member asked for. We thank him for his enthusiasm in this regard, because very good work is done when youth groups get together.

I have also had the opportunity to address some of those leader groups and one leaves such meetings with a feeling of self-fulfilment.

†The hon. member for Umhlanga spoke in quieter terms than last year about the SABC and also about television. He also spoke about the views of viewers about programmes, etc. He was rather annoyed because the hon. the Prime Minister was given a little more prominence than the hon. member for Durban Point on television.

What do you call an understatement?

One of the hon. members said that we must look at the newsmakers, and in this case I think it was the newsmaker who appeared on television.

*I want to say that when it comes to the quality of the programmes, the SABC has its methods, recognized marketing techniques and research techniques with regard to the qualitative research they do. There are indeed 2 000 staff members, but they have been selected scientifically and they are dealt with scientifically too, to do the research in respect of the quality of programmes. When they undertake such a random sampling, they also take cognizance of the socio-economic norms, and then a cross section of the whole population is determined according to those norms. Attention is given to sex, age, home language, residence area, income group, etc. This is the recognized technique. It is possible to obtain highly reliable and correct results with modem statistical methods which in fact give one a reflection of what one indeed finds in society in general. The hon. member can accept that. Those are recognized methods, and the hon. member can accept that the evaluation of the programmes are done fairly thoroughly. Even the percentage of 55% to which the hon. member referred, is an indication of an average satisfaction which that programme does give, but I just want to tell the hon. member that it is not just done haphazardly. Recognized scientific methods are in fact applied.

†Then the hon. member spoke about dubbing and he had a suggestion to make. This is a rather technical matter, but I have made notes and I shall speak to radio and television people to see whether this is feasible or not. The hon. member also spoke about the religious programme and referred to Mr. Chalmers. The hon. member for Orange Grove did the same. I might add that about a week or two ago the hon. member for Simonstown and the hon. member for Walmer approached me about the same matter. I was informed about what happened and was told that Mr. Chalmers did make the remark on the programme as was indicated by the hon. member for Orange Grove.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.