Mr. Chairman, since I am the party spokesman on the subject, I want to address the House today on the question of information. I want to divide the topic basically into two areas, that of the spreading of exterior information and that of the spreading of interior information. I want to say at the outset that I believe that it is a great shame that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has to handle a portfolio of internal information, bearing in mind the recent history of the former Department of Information, and also bearing in mind that the spreading of internal information—i.e. within South Africa—can be judged to be spreading political propaganda. I do not believe that it is in the interests of this country for that hon. Minister to have to carry the stigma of spreading internal information. We believe that the Information Service is dirtying the coat-tails of our Department of Foreign Affairs, which rightly has an extremely good image and very good international status. Its name is being sullied, by the propaganda being disseminated internally. It does South Africa no good. External information is hard enough to get across against the background of the actions of this Government. One must seriously ask whether it was necessary to have the Nyanga squatter affair coinciding with a visit from United States congressmen and also a visit from Mr. Edward Heath. This type of situation can cancel out all the good that is done by the R14 million spent on external liaison. There are obviously positive aspects to our story in South Africa, but the hon. the Minister must be consistent. Let me quote yet again what he said in the United Nations in the week 11 to 17 November, 1974—

Yet that hon. Minister took his place on that side of the House when the House divided on the question of whether Blacks should be allowed to be invited into the parliamentary dining-room. Is this right? I want to ask that hon. Minister whether he judges that particular decision to be discrimination based solely on the colour of a man’s skin.

You are a real windbag.

If he does not answer this question, that would not be surprising, but if he does judge it to be discrimination, may I ask him whether it is harmful? I feel sorry for that hon. Minister when it comes to taking his seat during a division on an issue of that nature, because I do not think that he actually believes, in his own heart, that what he decided on that occasion was the correct decision. Whether it was right or wrong, however, I have no doubt that it has helped destroy the effect of the spending of money on information in the outside world.

This brings me to the spreading of external information. In this connection one must ask oneself whether it is working. I want to quote to the hon. the Minister an article that appeared in The Cape Times of 9 June 1979. It was an article written by Mr. John Widdowson, who retired from the South African diplomatic service not so long ago. In this article he suggested a new approach. I would recommend this article to the hon. the Minister. In the article it is said that there is nothing wrong with trying to inform people overseas of what is happening within this country, but he queries whether the system is working. He maintains that it does not. In his own words—

I quote again—

He also says why it is not succeeding, and I quote—

At the same time he goes on to say that the diplomat, because of his international status, and the long history of his profession, is able to move with ease amongst those same decision-makers. He is accepted to a far greater degree. I think that the approach taken by this gentleman is a very interesting one, because he suggests that the spreading of external information should be primarily undertaken by our diplomats and diplomatic missions. He suggests that this would in fact work very much better than the current approach as regards external affairs. I think that this is a very reasonable outlook and I think that the hon. the Minister should consider it. As I have said, there has been too much of a history in terms of the Information Affair in South Africa for us to be able to spread our information as effectively in outside countries as we would wish.

There is a second point he makes which is, again I think, a valid one. He says there are two categories of people one wants to inform. First of all, there are the decision-makers, the people who can influence change in the country in which we desire this change in attitude to be brought about. Secondly, there is the general public in overseas countries and the general information put across to it. This gentleman suggests that this should be of an entirely nonpolitical nature, and I agree with that. I think there are many stories we could tell the outside world about South Africa, about its advantages, its infrastructure, its hospital services, its educational services and many other aspects.

Its stability.

Yes. We can tell of its ability in many spheres.

Political stability.

Sir, I have just said that I do not think that we should bring politics into this type of information service. What is desired in the current situation are publications of a purely factual nature put out by the Information Service.

I want to get on to a subject which the hon. member for Turffontein spoke about yesterday. I refer to what I consider to be a definite and deliberate attempt by the Information Service to utilize the taxpayers’ money for the spreading of political propaganda. The hon. member challenged me to produce proof of my contention and I shall do so in the course of my speech. One of the great problems we had with the former Department of Information was that it utilized public funds for the founding of a newspaper aimed politically at the English-speaking people and the Opposition voters of South Africa. Public funds were used for this. Perhaps one of the worst aspects of the whole affair was that, once it was over, the Government sold this particular newspaper to the Afrikaans-language Press under somewhat questionable circumstances. The English-language Press was not given the opportunity of purchasing it. The basic exercise therefore succeeded. The information exercise succeeded. The newspaper was founded and it still exists and continues to do the things for which the Government founded it.

That is, however, history. I want to get to what is actually happening under this hon. Minister in this day and age. I first want to refer to a blue booklet entitled Dynamic Change in South Africa. In regard to this particular booklet a question was asked by the hon. member for Sea Point which brought out the cost involved, where it was distributed, etc. I have the question, and the reply to it, here. An amount of R100 000 was spent on this particular document of which 65 000 English copies and 50 000 Afrikaans copies were produced. It was distributed overseas and also to persons listed in the South African Who’s Who, officials at the central, provincial and managerial levels, professional people, academics, journalists, ministers of religion, farmers and other members of the private sector. It is a very wide distribution list.

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

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

Thank you. It so happens that this booklet was distributed initially in February 1981, just two months before the general election. Was it deliberate, or was it purely coincidental that a booklet basically setting out the Government’s point of view should be published with the taxpayers’ money two months before an election? There are a number of statements in the booklet which are highly questionable, for instance on page 3—

It is stated that these people had “previously” been highly critical. But look at what the Government said about the South African Council of Churches and Bishop Tutu during this session of Parliament. Let us also look at the next publication, which is even more shocking. This is the publication recently sent out called The Road Ahead for South Africa. I believe 22 000 English copies and 20 000 Afrikaans copies, a total of 42 000 copies, were printed, and these were distributed throughout South Africa. This is a blatantly party-political document. It is the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech in the censure debate this year. The hon. member for Turffontein challenged me to find anything political in this document. May I point to the statement right at the end of the document, at the bottom of the last page. This is a blatant attack on the official Opposition of the country, and taxpayers’ money was used to do this. This particular passage reads—

This is the type of statement contained in a document that is put out with the taxpayers’ money. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Does he consider that to be a party-political statement or not? [Interjections.] The document reads further—

Saying that we are people of spleen—

This statement is blatantly political. I believe this type of action should stop. I believe that the information section responsible for the spreading of information internally should be taken away from the hon. the Minister. It is important that in his sphere of influence in foreign affairs, he should not have to stoop to this party-political level. It is important for the foreign relations of South Africa that he should not have to be involved in this type of propaganda exercise. I strongly recommend that this information section be taken away from him.

In the few minutes which remain to me, I want to refer briefly to the old Information affair. We in the Opposition believe that many more things need to be done. First of all, a number of people were mentioned in the report of the Erasmus Commission who still have to be charged in a court of law, particularly Mr. J. van Zyl Alberts, who, according to the report, received a total of R16 million from secret funds to utilize on behalf of the State. The commission’s report described him as “a trusted associate who lined his own pockets”. There were also many others, but I have no time to mention them all. From the fourth report of the State Trust Board, however, it would appear that the State Trust Board has not as yet taken any major action in terms of investigating the Van Zyl Alberts affair. They say they are not going to do so until they have finished with the Abrahamson and Pegg investigation.

Mr. Chairman, that trail is cold and is getting colder. I believe that we need more action in this regard. This Government claims to be a clean Government but the fact does remain that the only successful prosecution arising out of the Information affair to date has been the prosecution of the Rand Daily Mail and Allister Sparks. That has been the only successful prosecution and we must know why. I believe it is important for this Government to take every action that it possibly can to bring these offenders to justice.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Order! Is the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central prepared to answer a question?

I shall answer a question, Sir, as soon as I have made my last point. I wish to refer to the fourth report of the State Trust Board. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that there are two official languages in this country. There is Afrikaans and there is English. The report of the State Trust Board has been distributed only in Afrikaans. I do not believe that this is right. The report would not require a great deal of translation and it would not cost a great deal. What is more, English is an official language and I believe that there is too much of this sort of thing happening in this country today. The Cillié report was a similar example. The English version of that report only appeared considerably later.

That concludes my remarks, Sir, and I am prepared to take a question from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, does the hon. member expect the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information to involve himself with criminal prosecutions in this country?

Mr. Chairman, this is one of the problems in regard to this whole matter. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information has been given the Department of Information to look after. He has to control the State Trust Board whose responsibility it is to investigate all the matters arising from the actions of the former Department of Information.

Mr. Chairman, does the hon. member realize that the State Trust Board functions in terms of an Act of this Parliament giving it full discretion? The idea was that the Minister should not be involved. This was done particularly because of the sad history of the past. The State Trust Board was then composed of people from the private sector with the highest standing in their professions. The specific reason for this was that they should have this independence of decision.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that any Cabinet Minister who was himself responsible for the introduction of that particular piece of legislation can wash his hands of the matter because it falls under his jurisdiction.

Mr. Chairman, the only good point made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is that the report of the State Trust Board should be available in both languages. It is my considered opinion and, I think, that of everyone who listened to his speech, that his speech was mischievous and need not therefore be taken very seriously. I want to approach the task of the Information Division from the point of view of principle, and on that basis, assess whether the division has acted correctly or not.

Before coming to that I want to begin by referring to the speech made here yesterday by the hon. the Minister. At a time when South Africa is being attacked on all sides, at a time when there are military onslaughts against South Africa, at a time when we have to endure sabotage and other terrorist onslaughts, at a time when efforts are being made to impose sanctions against us in the economic sphere to bring about economic collapse in South Africa, at a time when efforts are being made to isolate us in the cultural sphere and in the field of sport, the hon. the Minister has come forward with a message on behalf of the Government to the effect that there is a possibility of avoiding confrontation in the future, that there is a possibility of co-operation, conference and consultation among countries that oppose one another. It is a message of the possibility of a new initiative in Africa, of understanding and friendship among nations that officially hate one another. Greater economic and technological development is certainly possible. The Government clearly has a vision. New horizons have been sketched for us. The hon. the Minister brought us a message of hope, peace and stability.

However, what we expect of the hon. the Minister and of the Government is strong action and strong leadership in the times we are living in. Because we as a country and as a population are under total threat, there can be no doubt that this is in the interests of all of us. However, the fact is that the Government is limited in its action by the parameter of the domestic support it enjoys. The Government’s action is limited by the attitudes of the entire South African population, and not only of those that have supported it at the polls. The support the Government must receive for its actions can only be worthwhile if it is the support of a well-informed South African population and a well-informed electorate. The emphasis undoubtedly falls on the word “well-informed”.

The Government’s action must therefore be supported by a strong national will. The hon. member for Parys referred yesterday to a national will. I, too, wish to say something in this connection. The first prerequisite for a national will, a strong national will, is that there must be the greatest possible degree of agreement with regard to the dangers threatening us. The sections of the South African population among which that agreement concerning the dangers threatening us must exist, include all that believe in peace and peaceful change and evolutionary development, whether they be White, Black, Brown or Asian people. There must be the greatest possible agreement with regard to the dangers threatening us.

These dangers are not comprised merely of ideas. They are not airy fancies, but physical, factual realities. Whether we call those dangers a total onslaught or not, I believe that in the dangers threatening South Africa we have a problem which we ought to elevate above the party politics of the day and that in this regard we must achieve the greatest possible agreement. We ought not to lapse into semantic disputes purely for the sake of political gain. I believe that one can have no strong national will in South Africa if there is a mutual quibbling as to the dangers threatening us.

There can only be an agreement with regard to the dangers threatening us if the public are informed. Indeed, the mutual agreement among the leaders is based on the degree to which the population is informed. In this regard the Information division of the Department of Foreign Affairs has an important task as far as the domestic population is concerned. They have to be informed about the dangers threatening us.

A second aspect of the national will is that we must have a national strategy, that we must work out a national strategy to counter the dangers threatening us. In this regard I contend that the working out of a national strategy is the prerogative of the Government of the day. It is the Government that determines in what way the dangers are to be countered. The contributions made by the Opposition in this regard are by way of argument, by way of proposals to the Government and by way of persuasion with a view to trying to move the Government to change its policy.

However, we cannot have any strong national will and strategy if with regard to this aspect, the Government is deprived of the support of the general public for its actions. This support of the Government’s countermeasurers against the dangers threatening us must be as wide and as informed as possible and must come from all segments of the population: From the businessmen, from the cultural leaders, from the trade union leaders, from the church leaders, the media leaders, the sports leaders and so on. Only if there is widespread support for the Government’s national strategy to counter the dangers will there be a strong Government in a strong country. For that reason I feel that the Information service of the Department of Foreign Affairs undoubtedly has a task of informing the population as a whole as regards the Government’s strategy against the enemies.

I want to say here today that we must state our principle clearly. When a political party is elected at the polls, the political programme of that political party becomes the official policy of the Government of the country and is therefore the official policy of the country. This means that the election manifesto of the NP is in fact Government policy today. If the Government is unable to strengthen its power base, if the Government is prevented from strengthening its power base, there will be a weak national will, a weak Government and an inability to meet the dangers of the day. In this regard we must bear in mind that the Government of the day is very often and to a great extent elected on the basis of the prejudices of its own people, but after that, the actions of the Government cannot be aimed at satisfying the prejudices of its own people and supporters but must be oriented towards the broader interests of the population as a whole. Therefore the Information Service must certainly spell out clearly the action to be taken domestically in order to promote the interests of the entire population in terms of the policies of the Government. What, then, is the aim of the Opposition in this connection? The aim of the Opposition, as embodied in the speech by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, is undoubtedly to paralyse the Government, to prevent it from using the instruments of power at its disposal in order to strengthen itself. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like at this stage to turn the attention of hon. members to affairs concerning the SABC and SATV. In the first place I should like to congratulate Mr. Steve de Villiers on his elevation to his new post. We wish him well, and we look forward hopefully to some changes that I shall deal with during the course of my speech.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central made a very interesting observation when he said that what South Africa needed was “’n goed ingeligte Suid-Afrikaanse volk en ’n goed ingeligte kieserskorps”. Mr. Chairman, that is what it is all about. In South Africa today we have two captive Press media. We have the English Press on the one hand and the Afrikaans Press on the other, and each of these two is captive in the sense that the one almost wholly supports the PFP and the other almost wholly the NP. Yet these are the opinion-formers and the influencers of public thinking. In this situation I believe that the SABC has got an undeniable role to play because it is the only organization that can draw from both of the sources that I have mentioned, and present through both of its media, namely the spoken voice of the radio or the visual television programme, a balanced and impartial viewpoint.

That is how I see the SABC and SA-TV’s main function and duty. The duty of that corporation is, in my view, to present a balanced and impartial viewpoint at all times. It must also at all times remember that news is news and comment is comment, and I have said this before. When it gives us comment, it must always tell us that it is giving us comment. This is easy to do. The simple word “comment” could be projected on the screen indicating that whatever follows is comment. What is news is obvious.

It is claimed that the SABC and its television service and, of course, the new one to come, is admirably suited to inform the public generally in respect of matters of great national interest, and I cannot think of a better example than the recent general election. The SABC is in this position because, in the first place, it is bilingual and, secondly, it has a tremendous coverage and penetration. I am not arguing with the fact: There is no doubt that it gave comprehensive coverage, and in certain areas it was unbiased and fair. However, there were some glaring anomalies, and these can be found in a most interesting study under the leadership of Dr. Stephen M. Finn, that was presented by Unisa, entitled ELEKOM ’81. Dr. Finn makes some very interesting observations. I am not approaching this with the viewpoint of trying to say that the NRP was badly done by. I want to get away from that idea. I want to simply say that these are areas that must be looked at, some of which are good and some bad. On page 11 they say—

Good work! Then on page 14 it says this—

That I cannot quite understand—

Another plus for the SABC will be found on page 17—

Definitely a plus. Now we come to another area on page 25—

I don’t think we can argue with that, namely the order of appearance—

We have an argument with that—

That, Sir, is grossly unfair, because when Parliament is dissolved and the country goes onto an election footing, I do not believe that the SABC should consider the strength of the parties in Parliament as being something to apply as a yardstick in respect of the time allocation that is to be given for election coverage. After all is said and done, although it may not be true in actual fact, the idea of an election is that all parties have an equal chance and therefore should all be given equal time on television …

And if you do not have the same number of candidates?

Well, if you do not have the same number of candidates, you have a problem. That I will grant the hon. member. However, when you are dealing with specific political areas, I do not think one should take that into account; otherwise you are saying that the party that nominates a candidate for every constituency must get more time. I do not think that is an argument at all. I am discussing the fact that it is reported here that they were given the coverage on the basis of their representation in Parliament.

There is another plus, although, I must confess, it does not suit me to say it. That is that, apart from Mr. P. W. Botha, the politician featured most prominently by the SABC was the Leader of the PFP, Dr. Van Zyl Slabbert. I think he must have friends in high places.

He is newsworthy. That is the difference.

He did well. More important is what is contained in the summary, namely—

I think that is a very fair assessment of the situation. We have ranted and raved across the floor of this House on previous occasions, but I ask the hon. the Minister today: Mr. Minister, please ask the Board of the SABC to give serious consideration to what is contained in this report. Let us seek to improve the situation.

Finally, I want to come back to an old hobby-horse of mine. This has been rejected over a number of years, but I believe it can be done; it is a practical issue. We are a country of two languages. We have programmes presented over five hours of television in two languages. Not all of those programmes, but some of them, could well be presented in both media by using the voice on the television screen and the dubbing can come over the radio on the FM wavelength. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am gratified to be able to say a few words in this debate. To begin with, on behalf of my people I wish to say to the hon. the Minister who is concerned with communication with the population, with reference, too, to his appearance in my constituency, that he is among the top communicators of today.

Looking at the domestic communications effort of the department we see that a tremendous task is being performed by the various regional offices with great success by way of the distribution of study material and films and also by contact at the personal level between officials and the media and opinionformers.

The question I want to ask today in this debate is whether the internal information programmes of the State works sufficiently well in the sphere of ethnic relations. I should like to say with great respect that in spite of all the good work of the State’s domestic information programmes, this programme in the field of relations politics is not working as well as it ought. This can be ascribed to a number of factors, e.g. the lack of staff, etc. However I should like to assess against the background of the climate in South Africa. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that we must not hesitate to tell the public what the climate is in South Africa. Something gives me, personally, cause for grave concern is the fact that there are so many of us Whites, our voters, who are living in a dream world as far as the potential unrest in our country is concerned. One should probably be careful because one does not want to stir up emotions among one’s people. If, therefore, one uses words such as “smouldering potential for revolution” or “riot potential” one runs the risk of being told that one is creating or inciting that climate or potential. However, I believe it is necessary to give our people at large a tangible understanding of what we are faced with and what the climate is that we have to struggle with.

I have no doubt that at present, as far as relations politics are concerned, we in South Africa are faced with a revolutionary climate. We see its visible eruption in school riots and boycotts and we hear the statements of Black leaders. Therefore, among a number of our people there is a degree of uncertainty. One could say in a certain sense that the word “uncertainty” should be inscribed above everything in South Africa. However, the whole world is uncertain. Why, then, should the people in South Africa be certain? For many of us, the meaning has disappeared from our lives entirely. The anchor of religion is gone, and the cry is: “Seize upon the material anchor!” In other words, if one is uncertain, one buys oneself a house or a car—anything one can see which can afford one certainty. The symptoms of the disease of uncertainty we see in the mental condition of our people. Fatalism is rampant. There are a great many people in our country who have already given up. There are people who say we are going the way of Zimbabwe. I do not find it strange that in such a climate a party like the HNP finds favour among some people. Many Whites in South Africa, including the official Opposition, are in such a state of political depression that no pill will ever set them to rights. In such a climate, mistrust flourishes. Have we ever had so much mistrust in South Africa? After all, the Opposition encounters it among their own people too.

[Inaudible.]

What has become of our national virtue of mutual trust? I think it is time for our people to come to their senses again. If we continue to think that we can trust no-one with anything, then there is a sombre future for our entire country and people. Emotions are running high. Radical emotions and extreme standpoints are the order of the day. In some quarters there is no longer any discipline and it is in this climate of uncertainty that the political parties of the day have to function and the Information Service have to attempt to carry on their internal information programme.

Everyone is contributing to this climate of wrong ethnic relations in South Africa. Again this morning I read about one of my voters in the morning newspaper. I must say that I have one of the most long-winded voters in South Africa, Mr. Jaap Marais. At the HNP congress a resolution on Afrikaans as the official language was adopted. Speaking as one who feels very strongly about his language, I say that the kind of standpoint adopted at that congress concerning Afrikaans as the sole official language is the typical kind of standpoint which bedevils ethnic relations in this country. It is not to the credit of the Afrikaner or the White man in this country as a whole that this country’s problems should be approached on such a “herrenvolk” basis.

When we consider the task of the Information Service on the road ahead, we see that we are going to be faced with enormous problems. 48% of the Black people in South Africa are younger than 15 years. I do not want to predict the future like Siener Van Rensburg, but I do want to ask how we are going to deal with our people on the road ahead. I want to put an idea to the hon. the Minister and his department for their consideration. There are certain matters of major importance in South Africa that form part of our motivation for the future. Those things in the political, economic and social spheres we must instil clearly in our people by means of the Information Service of the state. In the economic sphere we subscribe to the free market system, the capitalist system. Let us tell the whole world and all people in South Africa, by way of the State’s information machine, that this is the system for which we are working so that we can convince the up and coming Black masses and our own people, that we must not make war about the free market system but should make war for it. Of course, there is a great deal to argue with one another about as regards the implementation. There is a great deal to argue about considering the question whether everything is right. Secondly, it is just as important to me that we should instil in all the people, the NP’s political concept of self-determination, the international law of Southern Africa, and that through the State’s information programme we should indicate to our people that this is a democratic political system and not an autocratic political system that we want to explain. Thirdly, the State information programme must instil in our people in the social sphere, that we are seeking to follow our own standpoint of social justice and human dignity. This is a standpoint about which we all feel strongly. Let us state it loud and clear.

I do not believe that one should try to tackle the arguments of one’s enemies. I believe that one should state positively what one stands for. I should like to plead that the internal information service of the department tell our people in a very tangible, positive and frank way what we are faced with. We have a message for South Africa and we must market that message in the economic, political and social spheres by means of the State’s information machine. I should like to ask that a co-ordinated and effective information and propaganda effort be launched by the department in cooperation with outside bodies. I am convinced that if we use the private sector to a greater extent, if we use the communication media we have in South Africa, if we harness the advertising industry in South Africa properly, we can assist the department to implement far more effectively the information effort we need in South Africa.

I therefore wish to call for a greater involvement on the part of the private sector in the overall information effort of the State. I believe that we could usefully investigate the effectiveness of the State’s information efforts. I believe, too, that it is imperative that every State department in South Africa should in a certain sense obtain its own information machine so that we can reply rapidly and effectively to charges and incorrect information sent out into the world.

Ultimately, information in the field of good ethnic relations in South Africa is also the task of everyone in this House and not only the task of the Government and the state information service. Therefore it is important that all outside bodies, our churches, our voluntary organizations and our schools be involved in the total information effort in the field of ethnic relations. The cardinal point is that we shall have to start in our schools. For example, there is no doubt that the vast majority of our school-leavers are unconcerned about the free market mechanism, because they do not understand it. The vast majority of school-leavers are unable to understand the democratic operation of Government intentions in South Africa. I therefore believe that we need a total, comprehensive information effort in which we must involve everyone, particularly the private sector, if we want peace in the field of ethnic relations in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I will not respond to the hon. member for Innesdal. I should like to speak today about the affairs of the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation. There is only one speech that has been made on this matter on which I should like to comment, and that is the speech which the hon. member for Benoni made last night. All that I should like to say is that, with friends like that, the SABC really does not need enemies.

I should like to say that it was a great pleasure for me to note a few months ago, upon the retirement of Messrs. Schutte and Swanepoel, who were then the joint directors-general of the SABC, the appointment of Mr. Steve de Villiers. He is a professional and has been in the department for many years. He has worked his way up through the ranks of the SABC. I should like to congratulate him on his appointment and also on the appointment of the senior management around him and I should like to wish him success in his tenure of office.

Mr. Chairman, I read a most refreshing article in The Star on 14 September this year, and I should like to quote from it. The heading is “We will air the issues, vows radio chief’, and it reads—

Is he still working for them?

If one looks at the SABC, or any broadcasting corporation, this is what it should be all about: Airing issues, giving coverage to all points of view, and allowing the South African public to acquire an understanding of what the problems and challenges are which face us all. One of the great mistakes that was made in years gone by by the old Rhodesian Broadcasting Corporation was to use radio and television, media which are very easily manipulated, to paint a picture in that country which was far rosier than ever actually pertained. As the situation in Rhodesia crumbled, Whites were both shocked and disillusioned, and they were unprepared for the unfolding events.

Of course the situation in South Africa is not directly analogous, but everyone will concede that our society is not free of strain. For the last day and a half we have been talking here in the House about the pressures which are being brought to bear on this country by both external and internal forces. Built into our society are dangerous seeds of conflict, whether they are related to people’s attitudes, to Government policies or to the aspirations of the many thousands of people who do not have the vote. If South Africa is to survive these strains and is to avoid escalating conflict, one of the elements which is vital is that our citizens must be aware of the issues which confront us. They must have insight into the differing standpoints. However, this can never happen if the media, that is the radio and television, are placed at the exclusive service of the ruling party. I believe that the SABC does not have a very good record in this regard. Both on the news and in radio interviews, issues are too often presented in such a way as to project the Government’s answer, rather than to allow a full airing of the problems. Too often debates in the House, even as recently as this week, are projected as being one-sided announcements by Ministers involving the solving of problems, problems which in many instances are created by the ineptitude of those Ministers themselves. Whenever a strike or a dispute or a public issue arises which is of great moment, it is almost always the Establishment’s view which is projected and almost never the view of those who claim a grievance. In all honesty and goodwill, South Africans will never be able to be prepared for what lies ahead of us until the SABC frees itself of the shackles of its Nationalist master. As examples of this, I want to read two quotes—I found it quite inexplicable that the hon. member for Umhlanga did not read these—out of the report brought out by the University of South Africa on the mass media coverage of the election. I am referring to the two most relevant quotes in the book which were missed by that hon. member. I quote as follows from page 24—

I now move to a brief quote in relation to the SABC’s usage of auditory and visual techniques. This quote relates to how the audiences at political meetings were portrayed. This appears on page 29, and reads as follows—

You see, Sir, there can never be a fair presentation of news or views if the SABC continues to use the Cliff Saunders technique of omission and selection. Interviews and actuality programmes presented by him and by several other persons, far from informing, often exacerbate political unrest and create deeper frustration and deeper bitterness than already exists because of the deliberate omission of views and attitudes of a substantial section of opinion. The Heath interview was an example of this. As soon as Mr. Heath, in his interview with the interviewer, became a little critical of the country and of the policies of the Government, what he had to say was cut out. Especially when one is dealing with, for instance, labour matters or matters of student affairs, a one-sided presentation heightens tensions and does not ease them. In the presentation of political news and political issues the SABC is in danger of becoming part of the problem and not part of the solution. I call upon the new management of the SABC and the new leadership of that organization to halt this trend and to reverse the position in this regard.

I see that I have one minute left and in that time I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to deal with two matters which, while not being of a political nature, are I believe of public interest. In the first instance, I should like to know what the SABC is doing to bring live local Currie Cup rugby to television. Surely more can be done in this regard without alienating the rugby authorities. Surely more can be done to bring at least part of these matches to the thousands of South Africans who are interested in them while they are being played.

Secondly, I should like the hon. the Minister’s view—although this relates to a specific instance—on the projection of violence against animals on television. I want to ask the hon. the. Minister whether it is really necessary to portray the sadistic killing of defenceless buck as being a sport. I also want to ask whether it is really necessary to screen this sick sort of pastime at all.

Mr. Chairman, I should like in due course to deal with a number of the matters raised by the hon. member for Sandton. However, in the first instance, I should like to address myself to the hon. member for Umhlanga in connection with his suggestion that a second voice channel should be provided to enable people who, for instance, do not wish to tune in to the Afrikaans soundtrack of a particular drama, to listen to the English equivalent. This is not a technical impossibility but it can be achieved only in one of two ways. In the first instance, one would have to adjust one’s television set to a different sound frequency. This would necessitate the adjustment of all the present SABC transmitters as well as an adjustment to all of the television receiver sets presently in use. To my mind, this would be a complete technical impossibility and far too expensive. Secondly, it can be done by providing the second channel on an FM channel and then using an FM radio alongside the television receiver. At this moment in time there are simply no additional FM channels available for this type of thing. I am not saying that this is an impossibility. What I am saying is that at this moment in time it is impractical.

Another matter raised by the hon. member for Umhlanga, which was also referred to by the hon. member for Sandton, was the question of the 11 pm news during the election. We all know the hon. member for Sandton in this House by now. He again today accused the SABC of omissions. In his comment on the findings relating to the UNISA investigation, why did he himself omit to refer to the official reply given by the Director for News Services of the SABC in connection with this very issue? The facts are that at 11 o’clock at night during an election period, news comes in in a random fashion. We must also not forget that at the same time 20 Ministers are appearing some where in the country and that they are still governing the country. Therefore they have some newsworthy things to say at the meetings at which they appear. As the news comes in, with 23h00 as the deadline, it is processed and some of it is used on that news service, and if it is not available, it is simply not available. By the next morning, or on another occasion, when the SABC news staff had had time to collate all the news, they apportioned to every party its own share, according to certain norms that can satisfy the demands of balance that anybody could have in this respect. In other words, one of the official spokesmen of the PFP again omitted a relevant piece of information that would have clarified in good time his particular problem. I refer him to The Friend of 31 July 1981, and I suggest that he should not omit relevant pieces of information if he wants to take part in debates in a credible manner.

In the past, over a period of many years, we have heard in this House how the SABC has been denigrated as a slave of the NP Government, as a mouthpiece of the NP Government. I remember very well the former member for Parktown, Mr. René de Villiers, who carried on about this issue for hours. The fact of the matter is that the SABC has an inalienable right to comment on news. It has that right, and if the PFP does not like it, on account of the fact that it does not like the content of those commentaries, it should at least have the integrity to stick to the basic, fundamental issue that a broadcasting corporation such as the SABC has a fundamental and inalienable right to comment on news. Why is that? In the first place, the SABC’s conduct in all its programmes is determined not only by the degree of demand for recreation material, but primarily by the onslaught on South Africa. This is a fundamental issue. As long as the PFP prefers to differ from us on this basic point, we can never share any comments of decent quality of performance of the SABC. I think we can analyse the performance of the SABC as far back as 1960. This was a year that saw much hostile action in South Africa, for example Sharpeville, the attempted assassination of the late Dr. Verwoerd, etc. From then on there has been a vicious onslaught on South Africa. We also have the problem inside South Africa that many English-speaking people only read the English Press. It is quite understandable that a person who has been thoroughly conditioned by the English-speaking Press would find even a balanced news item or comment on SABC, even to the point of sterility, to be so terribly different from what they are used to being fed with that it might upset them.

That is utter nonsense.

In light of the total onslaught against South Africa and the explosion of information in the worldwide media, it is inevitable that there must be some responsible body able to interpret this massive news and able to present it to the listener in a form that is understandable to him. When one considers granting the SABC the right to comment, one must always ask oneself whether we are alone in the world in doing that. Are we for instance comparable …

Russia.

That is right. Are we comparable to Russia? Again the hon. professor has displayed his ignorance on matters not affecting one’s heart. He should apply himself sometimes to politics and sometimes to people’s minds as well.

The BBC, which is the mother of broadcasting corporations such as ours—I have all the information here but I am running out of time—allows its commentators—allow me to emphasize this point—to comment on all issues in spite of its formal regulations.

And to criticize the Government.

Once one accepts that right a second aspect comes into play. Then one must ask: What are the yardsticks that are applied when one comments on a television and radio service such as ours?

The BBC is adult. That’s the difference.

In the case of the BBC I want to quote only two paragraphs very briefly from the yearbook of the BBC. It is said here—

I also want to quote one further paragraph very briefly—

*Then they also quote from a previous statement, in which it was said—

Basically this means that the SABC has a fundamental and inalienable right to enter-pret. However, it is responsible to the people of South Africa and to this House with regard to the norms it applies in its interpretation. As long as the SABC reflects the fundamental values of the majority of people in South Africa, as long as the SABC is true to the realities of South Africa and as long as it preserves, within the context of multinationalism, a fair balance between freedom and authority—the freedom of the individual and the authority of government institutions—this is and remains correct. The SABC must also adopt a reasonable point of view with regard to the maintenance of law and order. Of course, that is something completely different from the matter to which the hon. member for Sandton has just referred, when he dragged in by the hair again that one-sided student story of some time ago. We all know that the Opposition came second in that particular debate as well.

As long as the SABC upholds the fundamental right of the individual in South Africa, therefore, as well as the fundamental right of groups, we cannot argue with them. In this respect I want to suggest a five-point test. Let us ask whether the SABC has ever been found wrong on the basis of the facts. In the second place, we must ask whether the SABC has ever pointed out a tendency towards which it should have adopted a neutral standpoint rather than one of opposition. Let us ask whether the SABC has ever advocated values which are not in the best interests of South Africa and all its people.

Then we may also ask whether the SABC has ever harmed South Africa in its commentary. Finally, we may ask whether, in its commentary and in its news, the SABC reflects the desires and the convictions of the majority of informed people in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central raised a number of matters to which I wish to react immediately. It may happen that time will eventually not permit me to reply properly to all the questions put to me by hon. members. If time does catch up with me, I wish to say at this early stage that I shall obviously, and gladly, reply in writing during the next week or two to all such questions put by hon. members.

I feel a little unhappy about the way in which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred here today to State Trust Board.

Where is he now?

He has apologized for his absence. The hon. member could not help it; unfortunately he had to leave. A thing like that sometimes happens to all of us. Nevertheless I feel a little unhappy about his attitude to the State Trust Board. The State Trust Board is a body which began to function during that period of pathos, confusion and unsavoury events—we all know about it. It is a board which consists of experts, people who did their work with great success and integrity; people who worked through the night on many occasions, and consequently I am certain that if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central had discussed his question with me in advance, he would probably not have made those negative observations he made here today.

In the report of the State Trust Board, to which the hon. member referred—and this is what I am concerned about—it is clearly stated, and I am quoting from paragraph 3.1.2, in which the Alberts projects were being dealt with—

Consequently the answer is there, and what is more, the hon. member was a member of this House when the legislation was introduced. In the course of the discussions on this legislation, an appeal was made to me to the effect that the Minister should please not incorporate provisions in the legislation which would give him control over the activities of the board; the board should be able to exercise self-discretion. The board was then given that freedom, but now I am being told that I may not wash my hands of it. I ask you!

†I do think the hon. member is inclined to nipping. I want to give him advice: He must get rid of the psychological problems that plague him. [Interjections.]

*I want to say a little bit more about the State Trust Board because I think this House owes it to that board to know more about it. At the end of June 1978, when the former Department of Information was dissolved, there were more than a hundred secret projects which at that stage were being controlled by the department. After certain bodies had instituted certain investigations towards the end of 1978 and during the first half of 1979, it became apparent that the affairs of the former department would have to be put in order. It will be observed that I did not even mention the names of the organizations which instituted the investigations; which shows how much I wish to get away from that part of our recent history.

Because of the complex aspects involved, this task required expert knowledge. To ensure that the interests of the State were best served, it was decided to entrust the task to impartial administrators. This decision led to the establishment of the State Trust Board, consisting of experts from the private and public sectors.

The State Trust Board was established in terms of Act No. 88 of 1979. The Act came into operation on 19 June 1979, and on 22 June 1979 I appointed the members of the board. All rights, assets and obligations accruing to the former department in terms of agreement or owing to the application of secret State funds, were transferred to the board—not to me. The board had to dispose of such rights, assets and obligations in a way which would be least detrimental to the interests of the State, not according to my judgment, but according to the judgment of the State Trust Board, to whom Parliament who made this law entrusted this task.

The rights, assets and obligations revolved around approximately 174 secret projects in the RSA and abroad. Inter alia, the board had to study a vast quantity of complicated documents, examine witnesses, liquidate or deregister companies and realize assets abroad as well as in the RSA. At one stage the board was dealing with more than 40 domestic and foreign companies simultaneously. Owing to the tremendous scope of its tasks the board had to make use of the services of lawyers, accountants, consultants and other knowledgeable persons, at home as well as abroad.

After the board was granted the power to interrogate, in terms of Act No. 69 of 1980, various witnesses were examined by the board under oath. So far the board has not been involved in any court case in the RSA, but a front company which was transferred to the board was involved in two court cases abroad. These were settled by the board through the mediation of the chairman and a board member who had to go overseas for this purpose. This settlement was absolutely essential and prevented the State being caused great embarrassment on an international level.

To date the board has recovered R13 022 183 by way of demands and the realization of assets. This amount has been paid into the State Revenue Fund. It is expected that a further amount of R4,7 million will be collected during the next six months. This amount is at present earning interest on investment until the end of the year, and is derived primarily from the realization of the assets of BTS Ventures (Pty.) Ltd., formerly Hortors (Pty.) Ltd. Transfer of this amount to the State Revenue Fund cannot take place at the moment because it has to stand over until the liquidation of BTS Ventures, which belongs to the board. This liquidation is expected to take place at the end of the year.

To date the administrative costs of the board have amounted to R204 000, consisting of the remuneration of board members, professional services, the operating costs of projects in the process of termination, the payment of demands instituted against the board, and the payment of lesser miscellaneous expenses.

The principal and most complicated part of the work of the board has been disposed of, as it is expected will appear from its fifth report in December 1981. Mopping-up operations will probably have been completed by June 1982.

The chairman of the board was initially Mr. A. J. Pretorius, former Secretary to the Treasury. He was succeeded on 30 September 1979 by Mr. J. H. du Toit, at present Chief State Attorney, who has also been a member of the board since 22 June 1979. Other members of the board are Mr. S. W. van der Merwe, an excellent and respected private attorney from Johannesburg, Mr. W. O. Truter of Pretoria, another respected person who is highly thought of in his subject of chartered accountancy, and the same applies to Mr. L. W. Dekker, management consultant from Pretoria. The chairman was a full-time member of the board as from 22 June 1979, and as from 1 July 1981, he was, as were all three of the other members, a part-time member because there was no longer such a great deal of work to do. The chairman was and remains liable and accountable for funds allocated to the board. Apart from the professional services which are being rendered by the State Attorney’s office, the following officers assisted the board: Mr. A. J. J. Fourie, Chief Accountant, Mr. L. M. Malan, an attorney from the State Attorney’s office, Mr. A. L. Taylor, an official of my department, and in future additional assistance will be rendered by Messrs. Fourie and Taylor.

I have briefly furnished hon. members with these facts, because I think more people are interested in them, and not only because the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central wishes to level criticism. From this appears that what this board had to unravel was not child’s play. It was complicated and difficult work. Frequently there were no records at their disposal and they also had to go abroad. In every respect they attempted to deal honourably with those who were innocent and who had worked on secret projects for the State in good faith. They disposed of claims in an orderly manner and determined their own priorities in this connection.

†The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also referred to an article by Mr. John Widdowson, who used to be a colleague of mine in the department. I cannot find much fault with Mr. Widdowson’s article, except to say that, of course, the whole situation has changed. Now the erstwhile Department of Information and the Department of Foreign Affairs are one entity. In my view the need to make that distinction does not appear to be there any longer, because within the embassy abroad the ambassador is a member of Foreign Affairs and Information, while the man in charge of Information, is also a member of Foreign Affairs and Information. Indeed, there is the closest and most integrated co-operation and co-ordination between these two sections, and therefore I do not think that Mr. Widdowson’s comments apply any longer. However, to the extent that they were valid, I agree with them.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also complained that Dynamic Change in South Africa, a publication which he held up and showed us, commenced in February 1981. I do not know whether it was a direct accusation, but I at least got the impression that he implied that we might have done this with an eye on the election that followed soon after. I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member, but you will recollect, Mr. Chairman, that he read from a reply which I gave in reply to a question from the hon. member for Sea Point. I certainly do not ascribe ill motives to him, but why did he not complete my reply which he held in his hand? Firstly, he did not say that this publication was also sent to those who requested it. That he did not say. And then—and this is most important because it was part of my reply to the hon. member for Sea Point—I said the preparation of the publication began in July 1980 and distribution commenced shortly after receipt of the first copies from the printer in February 1981. The preparation was started in July 1980, and I can give the hon. member the assurance that not even the hon. Prime Minister knew in July 1980 that there was going to be an election in 1981. This was my answer which he held in his hand. Why should he try to do this sort of thing in a Foreign Affairs debate which up to now has been of an excellent standard? I do not understand it. The hon. member also complained of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech during the censure debate was circulated in pamphlet form. I do not think we should start quarrelling today as to the number of times S.A. Digest published pro-South African Government material.

*Mr. Chairman, allow me to furnish hon. members with a few facts. In May last year the minority reports in the Schlebusch report brought out by the Opposition parties were published in full in the S.A. Digest as part of the main report in the form of a supplement, similar to the supplement they are now complaining about, and 200 000 copies were printed and distributed in each language. At the beginning of the 1980 session the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at the introduction of his motion of no confidence was published on the front page under a three column headline. This year, during the present session, it was published on page 3 of the 7 August edition. Owing to the altered format of the publication, lengthy news reports are no longer published on page 1, as hon. members will observe, only photographs with captions. In the same edition of 7 August an article which appeared in the Pretoria News was quoted. The headline was “So little from P. W. Botha to inspire hope for South Africa,” and it was published in full. During the last election campaign, nine anti-Government leading articles dealing with the campaign were published, in comparison with the same number of leading articles indicating support for the Government. During the past six months, 196 leading articles from antiGovernment newspapers were published in full in the “Comment and Opinion” section of 5.A. Digest. During the same period 101 out of 165 cartoons which were reproduced, were taken from anti-Government newspapers. This was more than half of the cartoons. I have problems with my own people, because it is being alleged that the newspapers of the Information Service are pro-PFP and anti-Government. But now that hon. member rises to his feet and maintains that the opposite is true. I am pleased hon. members are smiling about this and that we can settle this matter on this basis, but the hon. member wasted 10 minutes of the time I wanted to spend on important points which the hon. member for Sea Point raised. I ought to have devoted this time to those points, because I think the hon. member for Sea Point asked important questions. However, I do not know whether I shall get round to discussing them now, because I first had to reply to the political nonsense which the hon. member dished up here this morning.

Give publicity to the NRP only, then everyone will be satisfied.

The hon. member for Sandton discussed the SABC, and I give him the assurance that I shall refer the aspects which he raised here to the SABC Board. However, he will know—and I am not only saying this to him but to all hon. members—that the SABC Board was established in terms of legislation and that that board is an autonomous body, something which neither I nor any other hon. member on the opposite side can change, unless the relevant law is amended. I only have a few isolated powers, for example when it comes to advertising tariffs and the appointment of board members. That is true. However, I do not think there is a single member who will allege today that the board, as it is constituted at present, is not one of the best boards we have ever had. I am very pleased that hon. members agree with this statement of mine.

I think it is important to furnish a little information on the SABC. The annual report of the SABC for 1980 has already been tabled. Consequently I am not going to deal with it. I do not think it is necessary. It contains full particulars of the SABC’s activities during 1980.

The SABC is playing an increasingly important part in South African society. I should like to see what group of people, even on our side, could be assembled in one room who would all agree on precisely what the SABC should do and should not do. I can guarantee that there will never be unanimity on this subject. But let us consider the achievements of the SABC for a moment, because we may not allow these to get lost among all the remarks which were made about other aspects of its functions. At present the SABC is broadcasting 330 hours of programmes per day on the radio, as well as six hours per day on television. A 24-hour service is being provided in each of South Africa’s seven main Black languages. The SABC’s own television transmitting stations already reach more than 90% of the total population. I am not saying that 90% of the total population already has television; I am saying that 90% of them are already within its broadcasting area. The services of Radio RSA have increased impressively in quality and are at present broadcasting for 29½ hours per day, in eleven languages. The target areas are Africa, Europe, the Middle East, the USA, Canada and South America. The target areas of the Spanish service are Argentinia, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Chili and Peru. It is expected that it will also be possible to pick up the signals in countries such as Cuba, Venezuela and Colombia, and that they will even be audible in the south of the USA, The service in Portuguese is aimed at Brazil. Annually Radio RSA receives approximately 80 000 letters from listeners. Eighty per cent of the 80 000 letters come from African countries. Conservatively estimated, the foreign services of Radio RSA have a world-wide radio audience of approximately 10 million people. The German service of Radio RSA was recently selected in an annual competition in Germany as the most popular foreign service, out of a total of 53 stations broadcasting on shortwave in German. I maintain that this is a first-rate achievement, one for which we should give credit to the board and the management of the SABC. Nor is this the first time that this service has won first place. Our foreign services are highly regarded by African leaders. I do not know whether he is still living, but Mr. Achkar Marof, a former chairman of the Anti-apartheid Committee at the UN, once conveyed his personal thanks to me, because he had shortly prior to that—I am now referring to something that happened 12 to 14 years ago—been apprehended by another African State as a result of the quarrel which arose between Guinea, Mr. Marof’s country, and another African country. They detained him, and he said that during his detention he had only one reliable contact with the outside world, and that was the broadcasts of the SABC. He said that he would not say this in public, but he just wanted to tell me that months later when he was released—the Secretary-General had had to intervene personally, otherwise the Anti-apartheid Committee could not have continued its work at the UN—he had been able to proceed with his daily life as if he had never been isolated, because the news bulletins of the SABC had enabled him to keep abreast of world events. This compliment was paid me by the chairman of the Anti-apartheid Committee.

In April this year the existing television service, TV1, increased its weekly screening time by six hours to approximately 421/2 hours. Recently this service has evoked exceptional appreciation with its screening, outside of normal screening hours, of events of international importance or events which evoked extraordinary interest within the Republic itself, such as the wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana, the American space shuttle flight, Wimbledon, rugby in New Zealand and the Republican festival. Constant efforts are being made to increase the local content of television programmes even further, and also to improve the quality of the programmes. I am constantly holding talks with the Director-General, Mr. De Villiers, and the chairman of the board, Prof. Mouton, and with his board, to persuade them to make more funds available to make even greater use of South African artists and producers to help in this way to promote and expand the South African industry in this sphere as well, and my requests meet with sympathetic reaction on the part of the SABC.

When TV2 and TV3 start televising their programmes in January 1982, there will, for the first time in the history of South Africa, be a television service broadcasting in Black languages. This service will initially broadcast for 27 hours per week in five of the Black languages: Zulu and Xhosa on TV2 and North Sotho, South Sotho and Tswana on TV3. The conversion of this service into two separate regional services by the beginning of 1983 is being envisaged. TV2 and TV3 will be operated by Black cameramen, Black lighting technicians, etc. Approximately 70% of the staff of this service will be Black people from the very outset, something for which I am very grateful. I shall encourage the SABC to increase that percentage even further.

Listeners’ polls indicate—this is important—that approximately 90% of all Black people who listen to the radio, tune in to the radio services in Black languages, although there are also services available in other languages. Every day approximately six million Black adults listen to these services—and then I have not even counted the children. During 1980 the SABC received 6,3 million letters from listeners to these services.

Were they all answered?

The SABC is the largest single disseminator of news in Southern Africa. Over the radio 270 news bulletins are broadcast every day on the various services, and three news bulletins are screened per day on television.

In the sphere of technology, the SABC has made a name for itself and has built up an international reputation of which it may be proud. I hope that all hon. members in this House are equally proud of it. The modern technical facilities and the technical quality of the broadcast is well-known. The SABC is able, in important respects, to comply with international standards. To establish, maintain and operate eight studio complexes, together with 450 transmitters at more than a 100 transmitting stations, including the planning, development and installation of these stations, with a staff complement of only about a 1 000, is a clear demonstration of the efficiency of the technical services of the SABC.

In spite of international tension, the SABC is still a regular participant in and contributor to symposiums and conferences in the field of broadcasting. The SABC has a reputation for correct conduct and integrity when it comes to applying the norms of the International Telecommunications Union and the International Frequency Board.

I should also like to make an announcement on licences. The SABC strives to offer its services to radio listeners and its television audience at the lowest possible price. In 1961 radio licence fees were fixed at R5,50 and at present, 20 years later, they stand at R8,40. This is a minimal increase over a period of 20 years, while the services have during this period been expanded and improved considerably. If the costs of additional services are taken into consideration, the present radio licence fee of R8,40 actually amounts to a reduction of the licence fee since 1961. I think that this is an excellent achievement. The last increase was four years ago. Television licence fees have not yet been increased since the introduction of the service almost six years ago, and in the meantime there was even a concession in that licences were made to apply per household and not per individual set. It is the Government’s desire to provide these services at an even more favourable tariff to the indigent aged. In respect of radio licences old-age pensioners and the recipients of war veterans’ pensions and disability grants pay only R2 for a radio licence. Initially, with the introduction of the television service, it was not possible to make such concessions. However, it is now my pleasure to announce that it is being envisaged to abolish radio licence fees completely as from the ensuing licence year, i.e. as from 1 October 1982. Instead, the television licence fee will be increased from R36 to R42. [Interjections.] However, I am not doing entirely the same thing which the hon. the Minister of Finance did.

Let us now consider the practical side of this matter. This means that a household which has a television and a radio set or sets, will in aggregate pay R2,40 less than at present, and that persons who do not have a television set, but who do have a radio set, will in future pay no licence fee at all. For such people this will mean a saving of R8,40, and for all others, a saving of R2,40. It is also gratifying that it is possible to make a concession to needy pensioners as far as television licence fees are concerned. All pensioners who qualify at present for a concessionary radio licence—and I have already enumerated those groups—will be able to take out a concessionary television licence for R24 as from the ensuing licence year, i.e. as from 1 October 1982. For those groups of people it means a saving of R12 on the present licence fee, which, together with the abolition of the concessionary R2 radio licence, entails a concession of R14 for those groups who are in receipt of an old-age or war veteran’s pension or a disability grant. Those receiving an employer’s pension which is less than the old-age pension and whose pension is supplemented by the State up to the level of the old-age pension, also qualify for this concession. It is also being envisaged to make concessions in respect of television licences when television is used for educational purposes, and in State and provincial hospitals. It will be possible to exempt institutions of this nature from the obligation to obtain separate licences for each set. Only one licence will be required for all the sets. Unlike the case of a natural person, this category of institutions will pay the normal licence fee for that one licence.

All these adjustments in respect of licence fees entail a drop in income for the SABC of approximately R9 million per annum. This is a considerable amount of money. I think the abolition of radio licences is a substantial concession. There are many people in this country who cannot afford television sets, and as from 1 October 1982 they will be able to listen to the radio free of charge. I must emphasize that the concessions will only apply with effect from 1 October 1982.

I should now like to say something about the future in this sphere. In South Africa, too, we shall gradually have to grow accustomed to the rapid development taking place in the sphere of the conveyance of knowledge and information by means of audiovisual methods. Already there are countries where a student can obtain his entire course on video tape. He can buy it, insert it into a television set, and if he wants to see what happened at Waterloo, in his history lesson, the battle of Waterloo is re-enacted before his eyes. Subsequently a summary of the facts and relevant statistics appear on the screen, and if he wants any further information, the lecturer acts as a supplementary source of information and monitor. Even medical courses are going to be offered in this way, with lecturers being able to display live on the video-tape even the dissection part of the student’s practical training course. Of course there are aspects of medical training and training in various disciplines of life which are impossible to make available exclusively by means of video tape methods.

These are the things which await South Africa. In due course we shall reach this stage in South Africa as well. It will go even further. This development poses great problems, particularly for our English- and Afrikaans-language newspapers in this country. In the first place, we could have abolished television licences completely for everyone in the country if we had allocated more time for advertisements. In America the people pay no licence fees at all, and there are umpteen channels. If we were to do this, however, many of our newspapers would probably be unable to make the grade, for there would then be a decline in their advertising revenue. At present we are discussing the matter with representatives of newspapers, through the Press Union, to see whether we can strike a balance. The SABC receives so many requests for advertisements that we are now getting into trouble with the private sector. People in the private sector say: “You gave us so much time last year, but this year you are not even giving us what you gave us two years ago.” Consequently we are trying to resist the pressure from the private sector precisely in order to protect our newspapers, and I hope it will be possible to make satisfactory arrangements in this connection.

But there is one thing which we in South Africa will be unable to avoid, and that is that the audiovisual method of purveying knowledge is here to stay and will expand. I can foresee a time in future when we will arrive home and press a button to select at will—not the contents of the news—but the news we wish to listen to. If one is interested in a three-bedroomed house in Cape Town you will be able to press a button and all the three-bedroomed houses which are being offered for sale in Cape Town will be displayed on a screen, with their prices and the agents’ names. This is the position we are moving towards, and we shall have to prepare for it, all of us.

I should like to mention one further aspect in connection with broadcasting. We are experiencing an increasing number of problems in ensuring orderly broadcasting in Southern Africa. There is only so much space available in the ether for wave lengths, and we are experiencing an increasing number of problems in arranging and regulating this matter in Southern Africa. There are an ever-increasing number of countries in Southern Africa which are becoming independent, and there are also the existing independent countries in Southern Africa. I intend to appoint an expert committee to go into this problem as a matter of urgency, to visit independent countries around us and in our midst and to see whether Southern Africa cannot arrive at a satisfactory, multilateral arrangement, an arrangement which can be endorsed by all the Governments so that total confusion does not erupt in Southern Africa as far as radio transmissions and available wave lengths, and also as far as television transmissions are concerned.

A few minutes still remain before business is suspended for lunch, and I shall therefore proceed directly to give further attention to the questions put to me by hon. members.

The hon. members for Bloemfontein North, Mossel Bay and Waterkloof—the hon. member for Waterkloof apologized for being unable to remain here—raised various aspects concerning the UN. It was clear to me that they had consulted the document “Review of Proceedings at United Nations Affecting South Africa and South West Africa during 1980” which was recently distributed, and that from it they have become aware of the ever-increasing onslaught on South Africa which is being waged at the UN.

The hon. members for Hillbrow and Amanzimtoti referred to the visits to the UN which were arranged for members of this House. My department and I took the initiative in arranging these visits so that members could acquire first-hand experience at the place where these onslaughts on South Africa are being planned and launched. It was therefore gratifying to be able to observe here in this House the practical value which such visits had had for the hon. members. It is encouraging to learn how these parliamentary groups of all our parties act across party-political dividing lines when South Africa is being discussed abroad, and how they make sure that South Africa’s interests come first.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein North appealed to us to employ more Coloured and Indian South Africans in the diplomatic service. I obtained a Cabinet decision—I think this was more than three years ago and even before the present Prime Minister assumed office—to appoint Coloured and Indian South Africans as cadets in the diplomatic service, on precisely the same conditions as Whites. After all this time has elapsed, we only have one Coloured diplomat.

Where is he now?

We received candidates from the ranks of our Coloured and Asiatic communities, even if their average age was perhaps a little higher than that of the White candidates. There are understandable reasons for that. We obtained suitable persons, but what happened? When they heard what salaries they were going to be paid, they were no longer interested, because it is a fact that people equipped with those qualifications which we require for our service are able to work within their own communities for considerably higher salaries than the South African diplomatic and consular service can offer them. This is an interesting phenomenon.

I repeat: Candidates are welcome to apply. They are assessed on precisely the same merits as Whites in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and they are appointed on precisely the same conditions as White candidates.

In his day, of course, the hon. member for Helderkruin was a member of the department. He made positive observations, particularly on the officials and the difficult circumstances under which our people work abroad. This reminds me of the story of the clergyman who arrived at a certain farm. When he discovered that the housewife had 21 children, he asked her: Have they all been baptized? She said that she did not know, but they had all been innoculated. [Interjections.] The men of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information have all been innoculated. I do not know whether they have all been baptized. There are some who could not be baptized because they are not all members of the same faith, but we shall leave it at that.

One will not hear the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information complaining. They do their work quietly and under difficult circumstances. In my department—I do not know what the position in other departments is—approximately 50% of our men and women are English-speaking South Africans and 50% are Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. To us it makes no difference what language a person speaks; it is only South Africa’s interests which are important. Over the years a closely-knit cameraderie has developed among our staff members. There is an unanimity and solidarity; even now after the incorporation of information—the old feuds of the past are forgotten.

I am grateful to be able to say that this part of our State machine works together like a team on our foreign affairs front, unanimously to achieve only one goal and that is to display this country, what is beautiful in this country, what is noble in this country and the national aspirations of this country, to the outside world. It is not always easy. I do not wish to apportion blame today; we here, on the home front, are perhaps occasionally guilty of the wrong kind of conduct or harmful utterance, and our men abroad then have to suffer the consequences. They do their best under difficult circumstances. They are not discouraged; they are forging ahead. They have hope and optimism and believe that what is noble and beautiful and constructive in their people and in the other peoples of this country—and there is a great deal of this if only we would recognize it and develop it further—has to be displayed as South Africa’s image abroad. This is what will eventually draw all of us closer together in this country—Black, Brown, Asiatic and White—what is good in us, what is decent in us and not what is negative in us.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like to state that we are delighted by the announcement made by the hon. the Minister in respect of radio and television licences. That is good news. It is something we have pressed for, something we have asked for over the years, and we are pleased to see that the day has arrived now when pensioners in particular will be able to listen to their radios for nothing and to watch television at far cheaper licence rates in future. We have pushed for this.

I should like to turn to something else. I should like to continue with what I was saying earlier. With all due respect for what the hon. member for Florida said, I believe we are not seeking dual-medium channels on television per se. We are not suggesting that there should be separate Afrikaans and English language channels; not at all. Let us forget about that, and get that right out of our minds. What we are saying is that the following can be done: We can have the normal television channel—be it for the broadcasting of a programme in either English or Afrikaans; it makes no difference—while, side by side, and on a normal frequency modulation set, on a frequency within its band range, we could have the other language, which is either dubbed in or can be the original language in which the programme was first recorded. This can be done. In this way radio and television could be used side by side.

I should like to point out to hon. members that this has already been done by the SABC before. It was done on the evening when Gerrie Coetzee made mincemeat of Leon Spinks. If hon. members should care to cast back their minds to that occasion, they will remember that commentary was being broadcast over the radio, while the fight was simultaneously televised. I believe we should try to look at this thing objectively. We are not trying to separate the two languages here. What we are trying to do is to bring it all together. If we have—as we do have—German programmes, for instance, which are dubbed either into English or into Afrikaans, how much more is it going to cost to have the other official language run side by side with it? Programmes originally recorded in the English language, could be left in that language, while the Afrikaans dubbing can run side by side with it. Similarly, Afrikaans productions can be televised with the English dubbing running side by side with them.

Quite honestly, I believe it is going to enable many people who do not understand the other official language—and many of those people happen to be immigrants who do not understand the Afrikaans language; many of them are also elderly people—to enjoy perhaps 50% more television time instead of the very limited time they are able to enjoy at the moment.

I am not suggesting, however, that every single programme should be treated in this manner; not by any manner of means. Let us continue in the natural way with our news services as we have them now. There is a very fair ratio there. Let us continue with that sort of thing, as well as with actuality programmes and the like. I am not suggesting that every programme should be treated in this way. I am suggesting, however, that it could be done to those programmes which have a high entertainment value. It could perhaps be done in the case of programmes televised on Friday evenings or Saturday evenings, when the family is at home, and even on Sunday evenings. Forget about the rest of the week if need be. I do not mind. Let us, however, at least try this for a trial period, even if it is to be a limited application for a while. Let us then see what sort of acceptance there is for it. Let us see what public interest it generates. I want to suggest that it will. I want to suggest, too, that it will be such that the SABC will be encouraged to extend and expand it but certainly not beyond the bounds of reasonability. I think there must be an acceptable limit. I think that all South Africans will accept that there has got to be a limit and I also believe that it will give all South Africans an opportunity to understand a little more of the other man’s language. When it comes later to educational programmes, I think it will be of tremendous value. When it actually comes to putting across programmes to schoolchildren during school hours, I can assure hon. members that that is where we shall really feel the benefit of the suggestion I am making here this afternoon.

One could have the image of Andries and the voice of Pik?

Mr. Chairman, I apologize because there is at present an interruption due to a technical fault. I cannot continue because I have too little knowledge of these technicians of whom the hon. member for Umhlanga has just spoken. I therefore think the hon. the Minister will have to reply to that.

When one listens to the criticism that emanates from the Opposition and sees how hon. members on this side of the House have participated in this debate, one feels profoundly grateful. This afternoon there are at least a thousand songs of gratitude to the SABC in my heart. In the first instance there is gratitude towards the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, who as long ago as 1966 conducted the case for South West Africa in the World Court at The Hague. There is gratitude in my heart for the fact that this hon. Minister has always been able to help us by giving us a breathing space and that he stands right in the forefront for our sakes, together with his crack staff, to whom we owe a profound debt of gratitude. I also wish to convey my thanks to the Director-General, Dr. Brand Fourie, for what he has done. It has been of inestimable value.

I also wish to thank Mr. Riaan Eksteen and his team in New York at the UN. It was an experience for us to see them there and to see everything they do there. It was really an occasion when we were able to be there at the time of the election of the American president and to see on television, on all the channels, what was happening in American fife. It was in New York that we were really able to become acquainted with a world city and see how our people perform their task there. In the 14 days that we were at the United Nations Organization we found once again in what a confusing way these people sometimes operate. One day, when an apartheid debate was in progress, all the division bells rang in complete confusion. Instead of speaking about apartheid, they then spoke about the hopeless system at the UN. It is a pity that we did not read anything about it in the South African newspapers. There were very humorous incidents at the UN to which they could have given attention.

I am also grateful that the hon. member for Mossel Bay and I had the opportunity of going to Washington on our own after the second week of our stay and of seeing what Mr. Karel Noffke is doing there. He, Mr. Sole and the other staff are doing what they can in Washington, the capital of America. It was on that occasion that I again experienced the friendliness of the Americans. When, at the Capitol, I asked a woman whether we, too, could travel on the small underground trains on which the Members of Congress and the Senators were conveyed under the Capitol, I introduced myself as “Mr. Van Rensburg of South Africa”. She introduced herself as “Mrs. Carter of the USA”. I thought to myself that she was probably a member of the Carter family in America. She said to me: “Mr. Van Rensburg, let the United States of America and the Republic of South Africa always be friends.” I regarded this as a friendly gesture on her part.

I also wish to refer to our meeting with the International Business Government Councillors in New York. We still receive very friendly letters from some of these people; in fact, I have before me a letter in which the writer says—

We are grateful for this opportunity we were afforded and for the contacts we were able to build up in America.

Then, too, it is a great pleasure to convey to Mr. Steve de Villiers, the new Director-General of the SABC, my wholehearted congratulations. He joined the SABC on 10 October 1948 as organizer of the South African youth programmes. Subsequently, over a period of 12 years he was commercial manager of Springbok Radio and head of Bantu Radio. He has been, among other things, Assistant Director Bantu, Springbok and Special FM Services, Assistant Director Bantu and Foreign Services, Director of Radio Programmes, Director of Afrikaans and English radio services, and now he is Director-General. We on our side wish him everything of the best.

A discordant note has been sounded by the other side of this House to the effect that too little time is devoted to the opposition on radio and TV, and too much time to the NP. I have never complained in spite of the fact that of all the speeches I have made in this House during this session, I have only been quoted once in the parliamentary news. The fact is that that side gets far more publicity in the parliamentary news service because their spokesmen are constantly speaking. The names of hon. members on this side are very seldom mentioned in those programmes. The ombudsman of the Rand Daily Mail, Mr. James McClurke, had the following to say with reference to the interview conducted by TV with the team of Unisa’s department—

[Interjections.] Dr. Marius Barnard gets the second most television time and not Mr. Harry Schwarz or the hon. member for Houghton. In spite of that, they blame us for not, as they say, getting enough television time. We must go into this question a little. [Interjections.] When one looks at all these matters it is clear that the PFP gets a great deal more television time.

I now wish to dwell for a moment on the question of people of colour who also watch and listen to our programmes. It struck me that this issue has not been mentioned in any report, but I did some addition and subtraction sums and I think that my brain still works sometimes. I found, inter alia, that 106 000 people of colour, viz. Coloureds, Asians and Blacks, tune in to the Afrikaans services daily, while the figure for the English radio services is 109 000. It is therefore apparent that only 3 000 more people of colour listen to the English news services than listen to the Afrikaans news services. Hon. members can therefore see how close the people of colour are to the Afrikaans-speaking people. A further 536 000 people of colour listen to Springbok Radio and 459 000 to the regional services. Then, too, Radio Five attracts 479 000 listeners who are people of colour. This gives a total of 1 689 000 who tune in to the radio services. 1 380 000 people of colour watch the television programmes, which means that 2 872 000 of these people listen to and watch the radio and television programmes. To that we can add 5 180 000 people of colour who listen to Radio Bantu, which gives a total of 8 000 000 who tune in to those services. Therefore a total of more than 8 million people can be influenced by these services.

By the end of 1982, an additional 3 million people of colour will watch the programmes on TV1, 2 and 3 and in a further period, another 4 million will be added to them. This means that a total of 15 million people of colour may be influenced by our radio and television services.

It is in this specific regard that I want to refer to the popularity of television advertisements. It is amazing what these people have to pay with reference to the tariffs for TV1, which the Minister also referred to. On TV2 an advertisement of 60 seconds will cost R3 600 and on TV3 it will cost R2 400 for one minute. One can therefore grasp the enormous potential that will be developed on the channels. Eventually this will mean that these institutions will cost R100 million for the State. The capital expenditure will amount to R70 million and the cost of establishment, R35 million. The old Broadcast House in Commissioner Street, Johannesburg, becomes the main centre for TV2 and TV3. A programme staff is being built up and the first production studios will be established there. Outside broadcast vehicles are now being provided and an internal and external staff of 400 Blacks is being appointed to do this work for the Blacks. This panel of Blacks will eventually be 1 000 strong. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. the Minister is about to reply, I would just like to ask him one question in regard to television programmes. Has he or will he give consideration to the thousands of deaf people in South Africa who would like to appreciate television programmes? Can certain programmes be arranged with captions in English or Afrikaans, as the case may be, telling people what the news, or a particular story, is about? I think one would have thousands of grateful people in South Africa if this were done.

I shall gladly refer the suggestions by the hon. member for Hillbrow as well as the suggestions of the hon. member for Umhlanga to the SABC. I am naturally not now in a position to say whether it can or cannot be done, but I am certainly sympathetic to both suggestions.

*I should like to say more about my department, especially about the information section of the department, because quite a number of hon. members asked questions in that connection and also made favourable remarks, which we appreciate, about the performance of my department, and specifically of those sections concerned with information. I wish I had more time to discuss this, because it is a success story. It is a gigantic task which is being performed by the various branches of the information section in my department today. They give lectures in South Africa, and throughout the world, wherever we have offices, about virtually every conceivable subject affecting South Africa. They give lectures in South Africa for all population groups. They make use of overseas advertisements which are carefully planned, since the timing has to be right, the subject must fit in, etc. At the moment we are handling 1 300 foreign visitors a year. Some of them are what we call “official guests”. The travelling and accommodation expenses of official guests are fully paid from overseas and in South Africa. For a second group we only pay for their travelling expenses and accommodation in South Africa, while a third group of people come here at their own expense. Usually they also pay their own expenses in this country, but we make appointments and arrange visits for them in this country. In this connection I want to thank all hon. members of all parties represented in the House of Assembly for the support which is given to this visitor’s programme. You can imagine how much work is involved in arranging the programmes for handling such a number of visitors from overseas.

There is the audio-visual section of my department, which produces films in several languages for distribution in South Africa as well as overseas. From time to time we receive awards for the films we produce. An example of this was “The Vital Link”, explaining the strategic mineral position of South Africa. We make use of a wide range of publications, such as the South African Digest, which has already been mentioned. This is a weekly publication with a circulation of 165 000 which is published in English, French, German and 32 000 copies in Afrikaans. In addition to this digest, there are information newsletters containing concise reports on important statements concerning developments in South Africa in all the major spheres of fife, introducing these developments to the public in South Africa and overseas.

There is also our official year-book, but because that is so expensive, we reprint certain chapters in the form of brochures dealing with specific subjects, because there are many people in this country and overseas who are only interested in specific subjects. Then there is the monthly South African Panorama, a prestige magazine. 100 000 copies are printed in English and 10 000 in Afrikaans, and in addition, it is distributed in the rest of the world in six other languages. The total number of copies printed in all the editions is more than a quarter of a million. Then there is Informa, a monthly magazine which deals with progress made in the development of the Black communities in South Africa, but which is actually aimed at the White reader in order to inform him and to improve relations between the Whites and members of the Black communities. Of this monthly magazine, 75 000 copies are printed in English and 13 000 in Afrikaans. There is also the so-called “progress series” of which 175 000 copies are printed in seven Black languages. On behalf of the Department of Education and Training we edit Educamus magazine, which is aimed at Black teachers, and then there are Fiat Lux and Alpha, which are edited on behalf of the Department of Internal Affairs, and which are aimed at the Coloured and Asian communities. There are also publications on specific subjects, to which repeated references have been made today. There is, for example, Dynamic change in South Africa; there is Economic Co-operation in Southern Africa and RSA—20 Years of Progress, which appeared during the Republic festival. Of the magazine called This is South Africa, half a million copies are printed in nine languages. We also purchase books by certain writers, not ghost writers who write books under the names of other writers, but writers who write books in their own names which we think serve to promote South Africa’s standpoint, whether in the field of minerals, tourism, constitutional development or any other field. We then purchase and distribute such books. Some of our officials appear on television and radio to furnish information on subjects they have a special knowledge of. We arrange conferences and seminars in the Republic and overseas to which opinion-formers and leading figures in overseas countries are invited. Our officials overseas and in South Africa regularly undertake what we call “contact tours”, visiting all the important centres of the countries where they are stationed. Often they are on the road for weeks. They address universities, politicians, industrialists, businessmen, students and clergymen. Whatever group of opinion-forming persons one can think of, one will find that our representatives have already met them. Our department conducts Press liaison work with foreign Press representatives, as well as with our own Press representatives in South Africa. We arrange exhibitions and shows in South Africa and overseas, for which we often win prizes, sometimes first prizes. We work quite openly with public relations consultants and several firms. We have no secret public relations consultants at the moment. They work openly with great success. There is the task of promoting good relations between population groups in South Africa. We have regional offices in South Africa which concentrate specifically on contact and discussions with leaders and leading figures in our Black, Coloured and Asian communities.

To sum up, therefore, I may say that the written and spoken word, video programmes and films, personal discussions, visits, shows and exhibitions—all these are utilized. Think of any medium, and it will be found that my department is using it, always provided, of course, that the funds and manpower are available. When I think of the results we have achieved, bearing in mind the fact that funds are limited, the best compliment we have received, I believe, came from someone at the UN who said that because what they regarded as South Africa’s propaganda programme was so effective, they had to make more funds available to be able to counter our effective programme.

I wanted to emphasize, therefore, that I believe that an enormous task is being performed in the information sphere. If I could get more money, even more work would be done, but within the framework of the available funds, I am very pleased indeed and this House should also be grateful for what is being done by this section of my department.

There is something else I want to add. With the attainment of independence by the national Black States, a very important section, the section for economic development and co-operation, has been built up in my department under its head, Mr. Richter. In this section there are some of the most capable South Africans we have. They are active in the field of the economic development of underdeveloped areas, and of economic development in general. We are grateful for the fact that we have such outstanding persons on the staff of this section. It is still being developed and is already serving as an interim secretariate for the technical-functional foundation of the proposed confederation or constellation of States, because already there are practical disciplines and aspects which we are dealing with from day to day on a multilateral and bilateral basis in the field of agriculture, of transport, of the establishment of industries, of telecommunications, of health services, of water supply, etc. This is already being done. Committees and working groups are already active on a multilateral basis. We must not think of the constellation or the confederation in formal and philosophical terms. To establish it will take some time. There are a good many concepts concerning constitutional relations which still have to be thrashed out between the countries and leaders, but meanwhile we are going ahead, because the more one can accomplish in practice, the more solid will be the foundations for the eventual structures we will establish with regard to the confederation.

I must also refer with the greatest appreciation to the large number of officials from other departments who have been seconded to our offices overseas, and who are rendering extremely valuable assistance to the ambassadors in several technical and professional fields.

I now wish to come back to the questions of hon. members.

†The hon. member for Durban North dealt at some length with the situation in Zimbabwe. In particular he referred to the question of South African-Zimbabwe relations in the field of labour. In this connection I should like to clear up any confusion which may still exist in regard to this subject. I thank the hon. member for making it possible for me to do this. South Africa has traditionally been willing to allow citizens of neighbouring countries, including Zimbabwe, to work in South Africa, but on the clear understanding that the Governments of the countries concerned do not object to their citizens securing employment in South Africa. Following Mr. Mugabe’s assumption of power, South Africa continued to employ Zimbabwe labour. On 6 February 1981 the Zimbabwe Government—not our Government—announced that the Employment Bureau of Africa Ltd., the recruiting arm of the S.A. Chamber of Mines and by far the largest recruiter of foreign labour, would not have its licence renewed to recruit labour in Zimbabwe for the South African mines. That started the process for which we were eventually blamed. The recruiting operations of the Employment Bureau of Africa were to cease forthwith and its depot to be closed once the 5 000 Zimbabwe mineworkers in South Africa had been repatriated on the expiration of their current contracts. That was not our doing. So in these circumstances Zimbabwe workers are no longer recruited and Zimbabwe workers still in South Africa will be repatriated upon expiration of their contracts. It is ironic that some Zimbabwe spokesmen now blame the South African Government for this state of affairs. When I meet overseas visitors they ask me why we did it. This is the strange way in which facts are distorted against us.

Mr. Mugabes government makes an announcement cancelling the recruiting operations, leaving us with no choice but to repatriate the workers. But then we are blamed. Then it is we who have done it. It is simply not true. Should the Zimbabwe Government change its attitude or wish to talk to us again about the matter, I would certainly be prepared to ask my colleagues, who are also involved in this matter, to review the matter.

The hon. member for Yeoville intimated yesterday that he could not be here today because he would be engaged somewhere else. I accept that. He made one of the more constructive speeches from the Opposition benches during this debate, and for that I want to thank him. It is encouraging to note that the major speech on Southern Africa delivered in Honolulu by Dr. Chester Crocker, the American Under-Secretary of State for Africa, has received the hon. member’s close attention and scrutiny. This provides a useful basis for an exchange of ideas, and I must agree with much of what the hon. member said. However, I do not agree with everything he said unless I misunderstood him—which is possible. We are all aware that the Russians are looking covetously at the critically strategic resources and strategic position of our region. It is the Soviet Union which is the aggressive force behind attempts to subvert and destabilize the area with a view to gaining control and inevitable conflicts arise when these avaricious aims of the Russians are resisted. But we are determined to resist Soviet expansionism as long as it persists. And if conflict results, it is the price we must pay. But it is not of our making.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North asked about the mooted constellation of Southern African States and the Southern African Development Co-ordinating Conference. As regards a constellation of Southern African States, or confederation, a great deal of groundwork has been done, as I have indicated earlier on. A constellation is, however, something which must come into being naturally and grow organically, as I implied. We have commenced with what we have and have built on that. There has long been organized co-operation between the States of Southern Africa. The Customs Union and the Rand Monetary Area are but examples of institutionalized co-operation. Another body providing a framework for agricultural co-operation is Sarccus, the S.A. Regional Commission for the Conservation and Utilization of the Soil. There is continual consultation with the former national States who have already gained their independence from South Africa, and Ciskei will shortly be joining Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. The House is aware of the launching of the Small Business Development Corporation and of the progress being made in respect of the establishment of the development bank for Southern Africa. 19 multilateral committees and work groups have been formed with the TBV countries—that is Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda—for which my department provides the interim secretariat. I alluded to this a little while ago. There are many factors which encourage wider co-operation in the region, such as the existing transport system, the flow of trade, health services, water provision, etc. The basis already exists, and I hope that the political problems that have been holding up the development of closer economic relations will gradually disappear. The Southern African Development Coordinating Conference, SADCC, to the north of us is a reflection of the political problems to which I have referred, because one of its objectives is to exclude South Africa from regional development as much as possible. This is unfortunate. It is a political decision which runs counter to the economic imperatives of our region, but I trust that in time they will change their attitude. While South Africa in principle welcomes any move towards greater economic co-operation in Southern Africa, reverse co-operation aimed at excluding one country can only be economically and politically counter-productive in the long run, especially if that country is South Africa.

I should now like to deal with points made by the hon. member for Sea Point. He asked whether the Government is taking steps to control the funds provided to Transkei. I think I have already responded to that in part this morning when I replied to the question put by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. My department strives to establish a sound basis for development co-operation with friendly countries in the South African region. We believe that basic principles, such as the principle of self-help, must be promoted in rendering development assistance. The emphasis is being placed on the provision of technical and financial assistance for specific high priority development projects. On receiving requests for budgetary or project assistance, a thorough and scientific evaluation is first made. South Africa and the receiving country then jointly agree on how financial assistance should be applied. During this process we respect an independent country’s right to make its own decisions and to set its own priorities. However, we reserve South Africa’s right to take decisions on whether assistance will be rendered for a specific purpose, based on our evaluation of the effective and efficient application of funds and on reaching an understanding in this regard. It is not always easy, but this is what we are doing in practise. These principles apply whether we provide development assistance to Transkei or to any other country and make an important contribution to the optimum utilization of all available resources of a developing country. I may add that this is also the basis on which the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund operate.

*The hon. member for Sea Point also asked, as I remember, whether the treatment which the squatters in the Cape received was in accordance with the dignity with which citizens of another State should be received in this country. All I can say in this connection is that my hon. colleague, the Minister of Co-operation and Development, has repeatedly informed this House of the background to this problem. I do not want to reopen the matter now. In spite of the difficult circumstances surrounding this problem, an attempt was made to act with the greatest possible respect for human dignity. Negotiations are still being conducted with Transkei with a view to restoring the normal flow of people between the two States without another squatter problem arising. It is possible to achieve this objective if outside parties do not interfere again. Without accusing anyone, I should like to appeal to organizations not to bring people to the Cape. There is no work for them in the Cape. In co-operation with Transkei, we are now investigating individual cases where mistakes were made—and mistakes were in fact made. Any person who was wrongly sent to Transkei will be able to return free of charge. There is a group of people at or near Umtata at the moment who have no accommodation, and we intend to contribute to the support of those people until such time as questions relating to citizenship and accommodation have been sorted out. That is my answer to that.

It is not an answer.

Sir, time is running out, and in the last few minutes of this debate I should like to come back to an aspect which has a bearing on our internal politics and which was raised by the hon. members for Sea Point, Umhlanga and Durban Point, by hon. members on this side of the House and by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. I cannot reply to every hon. member individually at this stage. The time for this debate has almost expired.

The hon. member for Sea Point raised what almost amounted to a series of subjects concerning the internal situation in South Africa. He began by saying that he hoped the HNP would not dictate the pace at which this Government proceeded to develop its policy. I did not imply that, and I can assure the hon. member for Sea Point that this will never be the case.

You came very close to it.

If that was the impression the hon. member received, then it was the impression he wanted to receive. [Interjections.] It is not necessary for us to banter about it. The fact is that I do not believe a party like the HNP could govern this country. Let me make that quite clear today. What I did say was that if this Government were to fall—I want hon. members to listen carefully—then it would not be the PFP, but that party which would govern. [Interjections.] That was exactly what I said. [Interjections.]

Order!

I sounded a warning.

Personally I do not believe that they can or will come into power. At least, I hope not. I said that if this Government fell, that would be the position. I say in all seriousness here today that I am not suggesting that we are all-powerful. The fact remains that if this party were to split, where would that leave the country? It is in circumstances such as those that that kind of possibility would arise.

May I ask a question?

No, my time is up, and I have to develop a few ideas arising from this. I say this because this is the position which has to be avoided; and because the world now expects us, in these circumstances in which we find ourselves, to have effective government and stability and progress in this country, there is a responsibility resting on all of us not to complicate the task of the Government which is in power—and by a very good majority, a substantial majority—and not to make that task more impossible than it already is in practice. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sea Point knows that I know that he knows that we have a spectrum of divergent opinions among the Whites in this country. We know that a very large number of Whites—I cannot say how many, for no election or referendum has ever been held specifically on this subject—have a growing fear that the White people are going to be ploughed under. Surely the hon. members know that; why should we debate it?

It is a direct result …

And whatever Government is in power in this country, it will not be able to govern the country if it is not supported by a majority of the White electorate. That is the first point I want to make. If it does not have that and it wants to govern, we shall have revolution in the country. All I want to point out is the obvious, and I am sure that hon. members on the other side know this. All of us in this country know that it is not an easy task to govern a country such as South Africa, with all its diversity, because one is faced with different aspirations on the part of different communities.

See what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North says. He says Africa is not interested in whether we have Press freedom or a democracy. In saying that he went to the heart of the matter. Now the hon. member shakes his head, but I tell him that he went to the heart of the matter in saying that. I am prepared to accept for the purposes of my argument that all three parties represented in this House would like the standards of civilization which we all share and which is a part of our heritage—not in a Herrnvolk sense, not at all—to be confirmed and preserved.

Now it seems to me that in the final analysis, the dispute is about the method to be used in order to achieve what I am prepared to accept as a common objective. Then surely we must realize that it is no use saying here in the Cape that one wants to drive to Pretoria while having only two gallons of petrol in one’s car; one is not going to reach Pretoria. Hon. members know exactly what I mean by this. There simply is no magic formula for changing the hearts and minds of people. There is no such thing.

In the second place, there is the big question we must all ask ourselves in all sincerity and without trying to be sanctimonious—that applies to us as well. We can go on conducting stereotyped debates in this House and in this country, but I am now sounding a warning, without criticism and without malice, that if the White leaders of this country carry on like this on the sidelines and refuse to play the game on the field and continually quarrel with one another and engage in the most distasteful debates, attacking one another in a spiteful and venomous spirit and questioning one another’s motives and integrity, it is time we paused for a moment and gave the matter some serious thought. I am warning everyone, and not only hon. members on the other side, but those of us on this side as well, that we shall have to pause for a moment and ask: Quo vadis? We must pause for a moment and ask ourselves in all sincerity, not in this House, but among ourselves, at our congresses, behind closed doors: What is the cost of the methods advocated by each of us? Let us ask one another this question in all honesty. I am not talking about the financial cost only, but also about the cost in terms of disturbances and revolution.

Let us then take into account the Zulu aspiration, because it exists—not because I say so or because I want to hide behind it—or the Xhosa aspiration or the aspiration of the Basotho or Tswana. Then there is the problem of the position of Black people living in White cities. I frankly and openly admit this. There have been mixed marriages and intermingling. This is not a simple problem. We shall have to make our calculations, whether or not we like the answers. What I also advocate is that the unsavoury practices should now cease, and this is no reflection on Parliament or on the Chair, but really and truly, it is unpleasant to see us as White people flying at each others’ throats while the country is engaged in a tremendous struggle, psychologically and otherwise, and while we should be devoting our time to finding methods of preserving what is noble in our lives. Surely we all have a sense of decency. Why can we not concentrate on what is noble in us? Why can we not highlight what is commendable? Why should we carry on like this, as though we were greater enemies of one another than the UN is of this country? That is the final plea I want to make in this House.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members are aware, section 2 of the Borders of Particular States Extension Act, 1980, provides that when any land mentioned in the Annexure to that Act is included in the territory of a specific independent State, all rights, including rights of ownership, and all obligations of the Government of the Republic of South Africa and of the South African Development Trust summarily vest in that independent State.

In its present rigid form this provision often causes problems in practice, for the most part in those cases in which a Government body or the South African Development Trust must still occupy that land or cause it to be occupied after the inclusion of such land in the territory of another State. In this connection the maintenance and costs involved in accommodation for seconded officials of the Government of the Republic in buildings and installation on such land are specifically contemplated.

A further instance in which problems are experienced with this provision, is when some party other than the independent State to whose territory the land is added is entitled to the right of ownership held by the Government of the Republic or of the South African Development Trust, due to a deed of sale or other legitimate reason, and such transfer is prevented as a result of the implementation of the specific provision. Under these circumstances it would therefore seem desirable to make the specific provision more flexible, by making provision for the Government of the Republic and the South African Development Trust to be able to retain the right of ownership in connection with certain property—not all properties—which fall within the territory of an independent State.

The proposed amendment contained in this Bill seeks only to implement this. An amendment resulting from this is contained in the proposed new section 2(l)(b), found in Clause 1 of the Bill, and is aimed chiefly at ensuring that all obligations of the Government of the Republic of South Africa and of the South African Development Trust in regard to a piece of land the right of ownership of which is retained, are retained together with such right of ownership.

Finally, linking up with this is the provision in the proposed section 2(l)(c) which ensures that the South African Development Trust, a statutory body with legally defined powers, will have the necessary authority and powers to act in regard to such property and to dispose of it irrespective of the fact that the property is situated outside the area of jurisdiction of the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill which the hon. the Deputy Minister has just introduced, is an interesting one, although it is in many ways consequential upon previous legislation and previous decisions made. It poses an interesting situation in that, in terms of the preamble or the long title, it purports in effect to provide that the Government of the Republic of South Africa or the S.A. Development Trust can continue to have rights in respect of land which becomes part of a foreign state. The hon. the Deputy Minister has confirmed that this is the purpose of the Bill.

In a sense we are dealing with a matter which has a particular and perhaps unique history. The original Act of 1980 was in itself consequential upon previous commitments regarding allocations of land. At the time reference was made to previous agreements that had been entered into in regard to the allocation of land negotiated between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the States which had become independent in terms of Government policy. Although we in these benches are—as is known—opposed to the notion of the independence of these States, and although we did oppose that independence when the question came before the House on various occasions, we recognize that independence has become a reality for the States concerned, that it is a fait accompli, and it is not our desire to be petty in respect of land matters or past agreements in this connection. The fact, however, is that in this instance the Act already provides, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, for this land to be included, in terms of the schedules, in the land of independent States concerned. What we are now being asked to do is to consider certain options in regard to the ownership of such land. The hon. the Deputy Minister has spoken about a degree of “buigbaarheid” or flexibility that this amending Bill seeks to introduce. Clause 1(a) states—

Now we are being asked to add the provision “unless such proclamation otherwise provides”. It is quite clear that in terms of the original Act the right was moved from the Republic to the new State and therefore vests in the new State. Now, however, we are being asked to provide an option. In terms of the amending Bill we are now being asked to allow the proclamation to do this. As I read clause 1, it is possible, in the transfer of this land that will still remain vested in the Republic, for that proclamation also to deal with the question of whether any charge or fee should be made in the exchange of such land. I say this because it is stated that the right shall: “… unless such proclamation otherwise provides, vest in the State concerned without the payment of any duty or fee or charge”. Presumably this is a second option that one has. The first one is that the land does not vest immediately. It could remain the property of the South African Government or the S.A. Development Trust and also, apparently, the proclamation could also provide that certain moneys should change hands in respect of the eventual transfer of such land. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister’s comment on that when he replies to the Second Reading.

Clause 1(b), which is almost toutologous or repetitive, provides that if such a proclamation allows that such land shall remain vested in the Government or the Trust after that land has become part of the other State, no obligation of the Government shall be vested in that State unless that proclamation otherwise provides. In other words, what is happening here is that the land can be included in a foreign State, but its ownership shall still vest in the original State. This is an interesting provision. It is a variation. The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that it provides flexibility, but it is still not quite clear why this is necessary. Clause 1(c) continues in similar vein and provides that the Trust may dispose of such land at its discretion. Therefore, if the Trust owns land in a foreign State it may, in its own time and at its own discretion, dispose of such land. Presumably it then does not have to be transferred from the Republic to the independent State concerned, but the Trust may in its own time decide to whom that land shall be transferred. Presumably that means that the Trust could transfer that land to individuals in the foreign State concerned. I wonder why this is deemed to be necessary.

It does seem also that one should ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to indicate to us whether, in introducing what may be an important variation, there has been any contact with the Governments of the States concerned, whether they are aware of what the Government is doing in introducing this amending legislation, and what the attitude of the Governments of the three independent States is to this particular amendment because, as I have said, it does introduce a new principle. It certainly is giving effect to past agreements. It is providing for transfer of land to these States, but it is also tying a string to such transfer and saying that for a time, in certain instances, the ownership of such land will still be vested in the Government of the Republic or in the Development Trust. I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate to us what the attitude of those independent States is to this particular provision. It seems to be a consequential matter and, depending on the hon. the Minister’s reply, we are inclined to support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea, who has just resumed his seat, said that in terms of the amendments proposed in clause 1, this could mean in theory that the Government or the Development Trust would exercise a right over certain land for an unspecified time, even after it is transferred to another State. I acknowledge that he is right, because as it is stipulated in the clause, the State or Development Trust can in theory exercise a right to land transferred to another State for an unspecified time. However, I am convinced that it is not the intention of the legislation to provide that the Government or the Development Trust may exercise a right to land transferred to another State for an unspecified time. However, there may be circumstances under which the Development Trust or the Government may deem it necessary to retain that right for a specific period. For this reason it is provided in clause 1(a)—

The option is therefore given, or the exception is made, but the right vests in the specific State without the payment of fees or charges. However, if the Government deems it necessary, provision is made by means of the insertion in clause 1(a), viz. “unless such proclamation otherwise provides”. I believe it is essential that for certain purposes the Government retain that option, and perhaps I shall discuss this matter further in respect of the next two clauses.

Clause 1(c) deals with the obligation of the Government or the Development Trust which is not transferred to the other State when land is transferred to such State. This clause deals with the right vesting in the Development Trust or the Government which need not necessarily be transferred to the other State when the land is transferred to that State. In my opinion the provisions contained in clauses 1(b) and (c) can have far-reaching effects for the other State, because it could happen that the Development Trust is undertaking certain development projects in respect of specific land not yet transferred to the other State, but earmarked for transfer, and that further land has to be purchased for such purpose. The provisions contained in this clause will therefore make provision for the Government or the Development Trust to be able to transfer such land to that State and still continue the development work within that State, without transferring the obligations which the Development Trust has in respect of that development, to the State. In other words, I feel the Development Trust can in this way undertake development on land which it has transferred within another State without this development costing that State anything. That is how I see the implications of this clause. This clause can also lead to the land being transferred without any obligations or rights vesting in it, and this means that the Government can complete the transfer of land more quickly and need not wait until the Development Trust has completed specific planning. The land can then be transferred without that planning having been completed and I therefore feel that the transfer of land and also the consolidation process will be speeded up.

The last clause deals with a right vesting in the Development Trust or in the State which need not be transferred to another State unless otherwise provided. I feel that the hon. member is correct when he says that this probably gives the Development Trust the right to sell land over which it has jurisdiction, to individuals when the land is transferred from the Development Trust to another State. I feel this clause provides that the Development Trust can get rid of its rights—if I may put it that way—within the other Black State by making them available to individuals. If for example the Development Trust is engaged in certain mining operations, this will give it the opportunity to retain those rights, transfer the land and then continue with those activities. I therefore feel that it is necessary that in this case it also be provided that the land transferred need not necessarily be released from the rights held by the Development Trust.

I am pleased that the official Opposition support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up the remarks made by the hon. member for Parys by saying that we on these benches support the amendments proposed in this Bill. Following upon what the hon. member for Parys had to say, I want to make the point that when the parent Bill was before this House in 1980, we on these benches concerned ourselves greatly with the question of the effective utilization of land and the fact that the country was very worried that this was not being done. We insisted that this matter should accordingly be very closely looked at.

We feel that the Bill before us now allows for a review of that situation. As the hon. member for Parys rightly said, the development by the Trust or any other Government agency of that ground prior to handing it over in order to prevent any breakdown in its utilization, is very important.

This might even be seen as the first faltering step, however small it might be, to introduce the aspect of private enterprise and private ownership into the homelands and by so doing to bring about the initiation of the much required land reform. There is no question that this enormous problem of land reform in the national States and in the homelands is one in respect of which we are an extremely interested party and in respect of which the independent national States are going to be very involved in the future. The continued use of land purely for settlement purposes is one of which we are all aware, but we have to start somewhere. Somewhere along the fine the system of free enterprise has to be shown to be the one which, as so aptly described by the hon. member for Durban North in the previous debate, is in fact the system that will allow people to develop best and make the most economic progress.

So with those words I should like to suggest that this not only heralds the beginning of a new look at the entire question of the use of land, but that this is also the logical area in which the joint ventures for the utilization of land can be commenced with. As was said by the hon. the Minister for Co-operation and Development, if confederation is going to have its beginnings anywhere, it is most likely to be in the agricultural sphere. We believe that that is one of the most important, in fact vital, aspects of this Bill that creates a far more fluid situation in which there will be movement of labour and produce and the economy will not suffer the stultifying effect of being cut off at a border. This will induce a far better future climate for co-operation.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with close attention to what the hon. the Deputy Minister, as well as the hon. member for Parys and the hon. member for King William’s Town had to say, but I want to admit that I have been thrown into great confusion. In the light of the explanation which the hon. the Deputy Minister gave, we would not have had much difficulty in supporting this Bill. However, the remarks made by the hon. member for Parys and the hon. member for King William’s Town gave rise to serious doubts in our ranks as to our support of this Bill. Allow me to explain this.

In the first place the Bill is only concerned with the land specified in the Schedule to the Act, and this applies to farms in Venda, Bophuthatswana and Transkei. In other words, it does not apply to land in the national States or elsewhere.

In the second place, with the exception of the said land in Indwe and Mafikeng, it applies only to farms, because the Schedule refers to certain farms and specifies those farms. The hon. the Deputy Minister said there are two considerations which applied in regard to the introduction of this amendment. One was the problem experienced by the Government in respect of Government buildings, if I understood the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly.

Inter alia, yes.

One was therefore the problem of proprietary rights, etc., in connection with Government buildings and the second was in connection with certain rights which other people might have over the land and certain obligations which the Government or the Trust might have in respect of certain persons. These were the two considerations. In view of the fact that the land referred to in the Schedule consists only of farms, with the exception of the two cases mentioned—and these may also be farms, because I cannot consult the diagram—it is not clear to me to what extent Government buildings are actually involved here. In fact, I am asking the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain this point.

The second problem arising from this is whether this amending Bill is necessary in view of the fact that section 1 of the Act makes provision for the State President to determine by proclamation in the Gazette that a part of or all the land may be transferred. There is therefore no obligation on the State President to transfer all the land by proclamation. I therefore assume that it is possible for the State President to withhold any part of the land by proclamation, i.e. to allow the continued maintenance of the proprietary rights of the Development Trust in respect of that land. I should like to hear the explanation of the hon. the Deputy Minister in this connection.

The second point raised by the hon. the Deputy Minister I can also understand very well, viz. that the Development Trust may have certain obligations towards other people, for example in respect of the purchase price. As the Act reads at present, when the land is transferred to the Government of the other State, all the obligations of the Development Trust shall also vest in that Government. I can see that it would be of value to provide that those obligations will not vest in the Government of the particular State, since it is primarily a contract entered into between the Development Trust and that specific person. In other words I accept that it can be fair for the Development Trust to retain its obligations and not transfer them to the Government of the specific State. This I can understand.

However the hon. member for Parys confused me. He expanded the matter tremendously. What did he say? He said that what was involved here was the development of the land by the Development Trust.

That is indeed what is involved.

That is what I understood him to say. He also said that the possibility is being created here for the Development Trust to retain such farms, to develop them and then at some stage or other after this land has been developed, to transfer that land to the Government of the State concerned. I think the hon. member for Parys then said—in any case the hon. member for King William’s Town did say this—that in terms of this measure it would be possible for the Development Trust to retain the land until such time as it was able to transfer that land under individual right of ownership to someone else, who I assume will be a citizen of the specific State.

If this is the intention of this Bill, we must express our serious misgivings about this Bill, for this means that we are placing the Development Trust or the South African Government in the position to remain the owner of the land for an indefinite period, in spite of the fact that this land has been promised to the other State—for this was, as you know, the reason for its inclusion in the Schedule. If it is the real intention that the Development Trust may retain that land in spite of the promise and intention that that land would be transferred to the State concerned, if the Development Trust may retain its proprietary rights over that land for an indefinite period, in spite of the fact that the Government created the particular state and promised to transfer the land, we have no option but to oppose this Bill. We should very much like to hear what the hon. the Deputy Minister has to say about this, with reference to remarks made by the hon. member for Parys.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the support which the Opposition initially pledged for this Bill, support which does not now seem likely to materialize. I shall try as far as possible to furnish the explanation which the hon. member Prof. Olivier has asked for. I hope I shall succeed in gaining his support, and I am going to do my utmost because this is a very important piece of legislation for the specific task which has been entrusted to me, particularly with a view to the development of the national States to which the hon. member for Parys also referred.

Perhaps I should briefly point out further aspects indicating why this amendment to the Act is necessary. With the removal of badly situated areas from time to time it becomes necessary to give Black people compensatory land in terms of a resolution of Parliament. If a Black person who is removed, is the sole owner of the land, the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936, as hon. members probably know, provides that in certain cases he must be provided with compensatory land of a equal value. As the Borders of Particular States Extension Act of 1980 is worded at present the Trust will not be able to transfer such rights to such a Black person if the compensatory land is included in an independent State. I should like to illustrate our present position by means of an example. This will quite probably serve as a reply to the question put by the hon. member for Berea as well, namely whether this matter had been discussed with the national States. From the nature of the case it is certainly not the function of this Parliament to ask another State what laws it may make in this House. However, to maintain sound relations for the sake of the development of the national States, in respect of which we have a responsibility, these matters are raised.

On occasion we had talks with the Government of Bophuthatswana. The land specified in the Schedule under Bophuthatswana as the land which must be included is approximately 200 000 ha in extent. Hon. members will realize that part of that land is quota land and part of it compensatory land. If one includes the 200 000 ha, one is also including compensatory land transferred to an independent national State and in respect of that land you must give the people who still have a proprietary rights in the White area compensatory land. For this reason certain measures are necessary to enable the Trust to transfer that land, if the land belongs to the Trust, to people whom one removes from the badly situated area. This problem was discussed with the Government of Bophuthatswana and, as the hon. member for Parys pointed out, it creates the possibility that one may also include compensatory land in the process. In any case this shows the trust which exists between the various Governments. In the past the position was that compensatory land was excluded when status legislation was being formulated, because one wanted to cause the resettlement operation to take place first before one included such land in the area of jurisdiction of another national State. In terms of this legislation, however, one is now creating the possibility that in terms of an agreement one may also include compensatory land in the area of jurisdiction of another State, so as to be able to meet one’s obligation to Black people who have a deed of transfer. I think that in this regard I have also replied now to the question of the hon. member for Berea, viz. whether we consult the national States in this process. I have tried to give hon. members an example.

I also want to present another aspect. A similar situation arises where Trust land, which is to be included in an independent State, cannot be sold to a Black man and he cannot be given proprietary rights before that land has been included in the area of jurisdiction of the other State. Nowadays in particular we are selling quite a lot of land. We are even selling farms to Black people before that land is included. Hon. members will realize that when one is in the process of transferring the land, one cannot give the purchaser transfer.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member understands that point. It is an important aspect. We then come to the question of agreements. Government bodies, for example the South African Railways—and this also applies in the case of Mafikeng—as well as the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, continue to render their respective services there in terms of agreements with the specific independent States. For that purpose one must occupy certain premises in the specific State, and from time to time it is necessary to improve the buildings and other structures on the properties, to maintain them and to discharge one’s financial obligations in respect of renovation. This is what happens in practice. There is the question of maintenance, financial expenditure and development as regards buildings which belong to you. This is the normal practice. It is therefore necessary that in that specific case the proprietary rights must be vested in the land.

A similar situation arises when other Government bodies and the Trust have to render certain services, once again as a result of agreements one has with those States. To be able to implement those agreements, it is essential for example that officials must be seconded there. They must therefore be provided with housing in order to make available suitable housing available to those officials, to maintain it and exercise control over that housing. I think this goes without saying. The RSA has proprietary rights in independent States throughout the world. I think this is logical and need not be mentioned. The hon. member understands this.

The hon. member for Berea asked me whether farms were involved as far as the Schedule was concerned. I do not think it is only a question of farms. I think it is concerned with land and proprietary rights over land—the rights in respect of land. This is not concerned specifically with farms, so it ought to cover this problem.

The hon. member for Berea also asked me about the fees, the question of cost free transfers. I think once the Trust has sold the property that money belongs to the Trust. If it is included in the normal way the question of cost free transfers remains.

I think that I have replied to most of the questions and I should like to know what the attitude of the official Opposition now is.

May I please ask two questions? In connection with the first point mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister in connection with compensatory land, we should like to know if we may categorically assume that people removed from the Black spots outside to compensatory land within these States will in fact be removed with the full co-operation of the specific Government of those States. That is the first question.

The second question is basically whether the hon. the Deputy Minister can give us the assurance that it is not the intention of this Bill for the Trust to retain its proprietary rights over the land indefinitely.

Mr. Speaker, I should very much like to answer the first question asked by the hon. member in which he asked us to give the assurance that we would do these things by way of recognition and agreement. This is the way in which these things are done nowadays and I cannot envisage another style according to which these transfers can be undertaken. In this connection I can mention two examples. In the particular case of Ciskei which we are going to debate here soon, about compensatory land we negotiated with the Ciskei when the Status Act was being drafted. In respect of a certain area on which we have already reached agreement—this involves the Umgwali area—we specifically established a joint committee in which the Ciskei was represented. By means of this committee we were able to negotiate the practical implementation of the entire resettlement operation with them and as a result of that agreement that compensatory land is now being included in the area of jurisdiction of the Ciskei.

I can give the hon. member a second example. I have just referred to the case of Bophuthatswana. We established a committee which we call the implementation committee. For what purpose? To transfer this 06200 000 ha, which also includes compensatory land, over a period in a practical way to the area of jurisdiction of Bophuthatswana by means of an agreement between two independent States. I can also say that members of my department and of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information as well as members of the Government of Bophuthatswana are serving on that implementation committee. At the request of the Government of Bophuthatswana the chairman of the committee is the chairman of the Commission for Co-operation and Development. The committee has just begun its activities. They are involved in very intensive activities because, as the hon. member for Parys said, we are concerned here with development.

Every practical person will realize that it is not possible, practically, financially and economically, to transfer 200 000 ha of land in a short period, because for 200 000 ha you must make a tremendous number of manpower inputs and you must make a tremendous number of financial inputs and for this reason these things must take place over a period of time. From time to time, therefore, the implementation committee has to deliberate on how this transfer is to take place. It is therefore taking place by way of consultation on a body which has already been established.

The hon. member also asked me if the idea was for the Trust to retain the proprietary rights within the national States indefinitely.

Not indefinitely, but for an unspecified time.

Yes, for an unspecified time. We must take cognizance of the spirit and the principle of a trust. I think the word in itself tells one that it is the aim of the Trust to hold land in trust in such a way and to develop it in such a way that it can be transferred in a meaningful way. I think the basic idea is the transfer, the inclusion of, land for, the making available of land with good assets to Black people. I think this is the whole principle of the trust idea. I hope I have satisfied the hon. members with these few reassurances.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, we are grateful to the hon. the Minister for his explanations, particularly in regard to the answer he gave to the two questions put at the end by the hon. member Prof. Olivier.

We are particularly concerned about the question of the limitation of the time during which the Trust can hold on to the land. We are concerned in this regard because we know that amongst the independent States there is concern at delays in the handing over of land to them. We know too that even amongst some of the non-independent States the criticism is growing that very often the Trust acquires land and then sits on the land for far too long before the benefit is passed on to the people for whom the land is intended.

With this reservation we have given our support to the Second Reading and we want the hon. the Minister to be very clear that the Trust is not going to hold on to this land for longer than it is absolutely necessary; in other words, if the land is going to be part of an independent State, the Trust must exercise its rights in such a way that as soon as possible the land should be handed over to either the individuals living within such a State or to the State itself. We do not want to see a situation where the Trust sits on the land for an indefinite period. This has been our concern and that is why the question was put specifically to the hon. the Deputy Minister during the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, in these particular circumstances the question of time is a relative term, and consequently one is unable to say at this stage how long that period is going to be. All I can tell hon. members on the opposite side is that we, too, are keen to transfer this land effectively. We shall do this as expeditiously as it is possible to do in practice.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to move the amendment which is printed in my name on the Order Paper.

We have had lengthy discussions with our legal advisers, and they assure us that the wording of the amendment as printed on the Order Paper, together with the wording contained in the Bill, is legally not acceptable. Therefore I move the following amendment instead—

*The object with the wording of this amendment is that it must be stated clearly, without ambiguity, from a legal point of view, for the sake of those persons and bodies who, in the case of investments through which money has to be transferred to a foreign State, ought to have very clear indications of the purposes for which those funds have to be earmarked, so that funds will consequently not be transferred if they are not being invested in a foreign State or abroad for purposes which are neither productive nor income-generating.

Mr. Chairman, I notice that the hon. the Minister who has been entrusted with this piece of legislation is not in the House. I wonder where the man could be?

What concern is it of yours?

No, I am merely interested.

You are definitely not interested. [Interjections.]

I am merely interested, simply because the hon. the Minister himself told me that he was not having any problems with the HNP in Piketberg. However, it does seem to me as though he is giving considerable attention to his election campaign after all. [Interjections.]

If there was any doubt about the aim of the legislation before us at present, the speeches of hon. members opposite during the Second Reading stage have dispelled all that doubt. It was very clear from the speeches made by a few of the hon. members opposite who participated in the debate that the primary object of this legislation is to provide re-insurance in respect of investments which are expected to be made, primarily in the so-called national States. I think this is clear and is what I have understood this to mean from the beginning. The only objection I really had was that the hon. the Minister did not initially state emphatically that this was the most important aim of the legislation. I got the impression that the Government did not want to state it emphatically at that stage. I think this may have been a mistake. Our objection is to South African investments in other countries that do not have a direct bearing on South African exports. If one examines the original amendment of the hon. the Minister as well as the amendment which the hon. the Deputy Minister has just moved, one sees that the Government is envisaging investments which will not bear exclusively on South African exports, but also investments which will be in the economic interests of other countries or of which the purpose will be to obtain profits in those countries. We believe that for a country such as South Africa, where there is a shortage of investment capital in any event, a country which has to seek investment capital abroad, it is not advisable to create a system by means of which we encourage our investors to invest abroad, unless this is directly in the interests of South African exporters.

We also object to the fact that the South African taxpayer will now be having to shoulder the burden if there are any deficits, for that money is eventually going to come out of the South African taxpayer’s pocket. Furthermore there were reservations in respect of the obvious expectation which the Government has that there may be political instability in the countries where investments of this nature are being envisaged and that that political instability could probably result in deficits being suffered by the investors. I think that if there are expectations of that nature it is the Government’s duty to tell this House in what countries they expect investment of this nature to be made and what the nature of those investments will be. We believe that it is not in South Africa’s interests to make investments of that nature, since we cannot afford to suffer those losses. I do not want to start a long argument in this regard, but I just want to say that as a result of that we are opposed to this clause, just as we were opposed to the legislation in the first place. I regret to say that the latest amendment of the hon. the Minister does not really improve the situation as far as we are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, we shall be supporting this amendment. However, I should like to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that in regard to the amendment as I have it before me, but which does not appear on the Order Paper, in the third line the word “export” should possibly read “exports”. Otherwise it means that we shall be exporting the Republic. It is merely a question of a letter that is missing here. I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister will see that that is corrected.

It is very clear what is intended here. The hon. the Minister, in replying to the Second Reading, made it quite clear that one of the main reasons for these provisions is to take into consideration the fact that the former homelands of South Africa have now become independent. These provisions are then to ensure that some security can be given to South Africans who would be wanting to invest in the homelands which are now independent in order to promote, not only exports of South Africa to the homelands, but also the earning of income within these newly independent countries. May I say that while we would have preferred these national States to have been self-governing States within a confederation, governed by some form of confederal political structure which would have made provision for protecting the interests of individual States, we as a pluralistic party do believe that these States do have a right to choose their future, and therefore we will be supporting this legislation.

I find it rather difficult to understand why the members of the PFP have taken the line they are taking, because they are the ones who say that there should be more development of the Black people in this country and that they should have greater participation in the economy, but where provision is being made to ensure that this does happen, we find that they are opposing it.

Provided that it is for economic reasons and not ideological reasons.

These are the sort of things for which the PFP will have to answer to the public. We will support this, because we believe it is in the best interests of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot allow the last remark of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti to go unchallenged. The position is simply this—and we have explained it on numerous occasions in this House—that we are not against investment in the national States, in the homelands or in other Southern Africa countries, if those investments are on sound economic grounds, in the interests of both South Africa and the States concerned. In fact, not only are we not opposed to it, but we are actually very much in favour of it, and the Government will find that when those are the considerations, they will get our full support. However, what we are opposed to, is economic investment having a clear ideological motivation, and that ideological motivation, not necessarily leading to an improvement of the economic situation of the people concerned, to better race relations, to greater political stability or to an overall improvement in the position in Southern Africa.

I want to make it absolutely clear that the misinterpretation, obviously deliberately placed on it by the party on my left, is quite inaccurate. I think the Government knows what the attitude of this party is, because our attitude has been expressed many, many times. We will never oppose economic investment if that investment is based on sound economic grounds and is in the interests of South Africa and the other States.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston says that his party is not opposed to investments in the national States, provided such investments are made on economic and not ideological grounds. Who will, however, be investing as a result of this legislation? It is private enterprise that is willing and happy to invest in the homelands. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. member whether these people who are investing will be investing for ideological reasons. Certainly not, they will be investing in the national States because they hope to make a profit there, and not for ideological reasons. I therefore reject the hon. member’s argument.

Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult to explain something to people who do not have the ability to understand it. [Interjections.] The position is simply that if the private sector were to invest in a homeland exclusively on a sound economic basis, it would not be necessary for the State to provide them with re-insurance at the expense of the taxpayer. It would not have been necessary if they had not been afraid. The entire motivation of this legislation—and the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated this—is that where, as a result of the possibility of political instability, unrest and other consequences, the possibility exists that the investors may suffer losses, the Government finds it necessary to make provision for the re-insurance of investments in those States. In other words, the private entrepreneur is telling the Government very clearly that he will not invest his money to help the Government to implement its policy unless the Government gives him the assurance that he cannot lose anything. This is simply what we have tried to explain; this is the ideological side to which we referred. I do not want to make a song and dance of this whole matter now, for I think the hon. the Deputy Minister understands what the differences are between our approach and that of the Government.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Bryanston had taken the trouble to read the annual report of the Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation of Africa, he would have been able to banish all that doubt from his mind. If one reads through that report and examines the 10 year review of this company and adds up the premiums recovered over that period, one gets an amount of R87 million. If one adds up the claims paid, one gets an amount of R50 million. If one adds to the premiums the amounts which were recovered, i.e. payments which were made but recovered from certain countries on a subsequent occasion, one gets a difference of R32 million in the company’s favour. This means that the company benefited thereby. This company is not the State, but an institution—and I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to correct me here—which consists of different insurance companies in South Africa. The State simply makes an amount available in the event of that insurance being required for political risks. Consequently the State says: “Go ahead and invest, and if there are problems we shall insure you in that respect.” It may not even be used, and consequently I cannot understand why the hon. member is initiating discussions in this House on matters in respect of which he would come to the crux of the matter if he were to do his homework. When this legislation was adopted in 1957, the whole Opposition supported it and in addition, came forward with an amendment. The hon. member is wasting our time now, and I find it strange—and I agree with hon. members of the NRP—that the official Opposition is disputing this clause. Only yesterday the hon. member for Sea Point said in another debate in this House that we should conduct a dialogue with Zimbabwe so that we could promote the progress of all in the Southern African region. I want to ask the official Opposition whether it is in favour of our trying to expand our trade with Zimbabwe. When this legislation was adopted in 1957, Zimbabwe, then still known as. Rhodesia, was our chief client. We had hoped that we would be able to export to Rhodesia as well as to Malawi and other areas, for example those in the Federation. It is now becoming a risk to trade with those countries.

I am not saying it is a risk, but I want to refer to what Volkshandel has to say about the creditworthiness of countries. All these aspects are investigated when a company wishes to invest in a country. If I, as a person in the private sector, want to invest in a country, I shall first discuss the matter with my bankers and find out exactly what the situation is, and the bankers will advise me in this situation. Now there are various associations, and through an association South Africa belongs to the Berne Union Insurance Association which advises all the exporting countries with regard to credit risks. In Volkshandel of July 1981 it is indicated that South Africa is 32nd on the points ladder of sound creditworthiness. In other words we, too, are quite a long way down the list. Let us examine where other countries around us appear on the list. Only four of South Africa’s neighbouring countries appear on the list. Zimbabwe is 78th with a points total of 26,2. This is 0,7 points less than six months before. Consequently this is something which will have to be reviewed constantly by the insurance companies, for whereas the Federation may have been in a good position 10 years ago in that it was a sound trading partner, this is no longer the case today. Every country which risks an investment there must re-examine present-day figures before accepting such an investment risk. I believe that we on the Government side, too, will have to seriously consider not simply advising people to invest in a country where they should not invest. To say that it is taxpayers’ money which is at stake, is simply not true.

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here with a debate among four professional engineers. Three of us concur and I had thought that the other one agreed as well, but when he opened his mouth for the second time I saw that he no longer agreed.

It is very clear that the hon. member for Bryanston did not read the principal Act and that for some obscure reason he does not want to understand this amending Bill. [Interjections.] I do not again want to debate with the hon. member as to the principle, for the principle of investment has already been decided on. We are at present examining only the definition of investment. I have already explained this, but perhaps I should react to only two of the remarks made by the hon. member for Bryanston.

In the first place, he said that the Government was contemplating investments in other States. However, the Government is not at issue when it comes to investments in terms of this legislation.

By means of the private sector.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti made it very clear that this does not relate to investments by the Government in other States.

No, not by the Government.

The hon. member said very emphatically that the Government was envisaging investments.

Not investments made by the Government.

We are not envisaging investments. Investments are investigated by the private sector itself. The hon. member also tried to start a political controversy with regard to this matter. The private sector has only one consideration in respect of possible investment in other States and that is an economic consideration. Surely it has no other choice. This is the only consideration, for what is the motive of the private sector? Surely it is to make a profit. Surely they want to generate income. Consequently I cannot understand the argument of the hon. member for Bryanston in this regard.

Furthermore there is a second point to which I must react and which we cannot simply allow to pass. I think the hon. member for Boksburg has already pointed this out. Not a cent of the claims which may be submitted in terms of re-insurance contracts is taxpayers’ money. Section 5 of the principal Act makes provision for the Fund, and when the Fund was established in terms of the Act in 1957, R200 000 of the Government’s money was deposited in the Fund, and that was the only taxpayer’s money which has been deposited in this Fund over a period of 25 years. The money for this Fund comes from premiums on re-insurance coverage which is then paid into the Fund. The claims paid are covered by the premiums. I think the hon. member for Boksburg explained very clearly that the claims had always been lower than the premium revenue. Consequently this is irrelevant.

I think I have reacted to the basic arguments of the hon. member for Bryanston. In any event, I thank him for his intention to support the other clauses in the legislation.

I thank the hon. member for Amanzimtoti for his support. That professional colleague of mine understands this legislation as we do and as we should like to see it implemented in practice. In addition I thank the hon. member for Boksburg for his support.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 8(1) of the Aliens Act, 1937, provides that immigrants may not within a period of three years from the date of issue of their permits for permanent residence, engage in another occupation than that indicated in the permit without the permission of the Minister of Internal Affairs. There is no provision enabling the Minister to delegate this power. Because a placing in employment or an ability to earn is involved, such application must be dealt with expeditiously. To eliminate delays, it is proposed in clause 1 of the Bill that the Minister can delegate this power to officials in his department.

Mr. Speaker, it is also proposed in the Bill that the present procedure to change a surname be simplified in order to ensure that these applications be dealt with expeditiously seeing that it is closely intertwined with the applicant’s immediate personal circumstances. The present procedures cause delays due to the many channels through which it must flow. For the sake of the simplification of the procedures, it is proposed in clause 2(a) that applications for changes of surnames be approved by the Minister instead of the State President and that the Minister can delegate this power to one or more of his senior officials.

The further amendment contained in clause 2(c), namely that the applicant must publish his intention to assume another surname in the Government Gazette for only two instead of four consecutive weeks and two daily papers circulating in the relevant district, is also aimed at the elimination of cumbersome procedures.

”Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is the position of women who concluded certain marriages. Section 9(1) of the Aliens Act, 1937, provides that no person may assume another surname or describe himself by or pass under any other surname which he had not assumed before 1 January 1937 or by which he had not described himself or under which he had not passed unless the State President has authorized him to assume that other surname. Under the proviso attached to the aforementioned section, the provisions are not valid in the case of a woman who fives or lived with a man as his putative wife and assumed that man’s surname or resumes a surname which she bore at any prior time, i.e. her maiden name or her former marital surname.

Marriages concluded according to the rites of the Mohammedan or any Indian religion, or a customary union as defined in the Black Administration Act, 1927, are not recognized as valid marriages in South African law. Such marriages are valid only if concluded according to the provisions of the Marriage Act, 1961, and by a marriage officer who was appointed as such under the aforementioned Act.

Because women who are “married” according to the aforementioned rites assume the surname of the man, the issuing of identity documents to Coloured and Indian women in their maiden name creates innumerable problems. With reference to the aforementioned proviso of section 9(1), the department saw fit to issue identity documents in such cases in the surname of the man without a “marriage certificate” being inserted therein.

In consequence of a court ruling in which a “putative marriage” is interpreted as—

the State law advisers pointed out that in the developing society of today it is almost unthinkable that a person who was married according to one of the aforementioned rites could reasonably have been ignorant of the legal position of such a marriage. Consequently good faith will be lacking in considering such marriages to be putative marriages.

In view of the State law advisers’ opinion, provision is now being made in clause 2(b) of the Bill for a woman who has concluded a marriage according to one of the aforementioned rites, to be excluded from the provisions of section 9(1) of the Aliens Act, 1937. Consequently it is being proposed that in these cases, although they are not legally married women may assume the surname of the man with whom they have concluded such a “marriage” or union, without prior approval. Since the issuing of identity documents begun on 1 February 1972, it is also being proposed in clause 3 that the provisions of clause 2(b) come into operation with retrospective effect as from that date in respect of these cases.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are satisfied that this Bill contains improvements to the present legislation and therefore we shall support it. Obviously, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, most of the provisions contained in the Bill amount to streamlining arrangements, which are always to be commended when they are brought before the House.

The minor terminological changes require no further comment. The transfer of powers by the Minister to an officer in the Public Service is obviously a sensible one because, as indicated, it will tend to facilitate the administration in that department with the view to eliminating delays. I shall not be at all surprised if these amendments merely regularize a procedure which in substance has been in operation already, in the sense that senior officials have to investigate such matters and grant approval so that often the agreement of the State President or that of the Minister concerned may be just a matter of a rubber stamp.

The more substantial changes relate to the question of changes of name. The legislative provisions in this connection have always been unnecessarily strict and onerous and therefore it is to be welcomed that some concessions are being made in clause 2(c) in terms of which the number of publications of the notice of intention to change one’s name are reduced from four to two. Frankly, we would welcome it if more concessions could be made in this regard. After all, no harm is necessarily done to the public if an individual wishes to change his or her name, as long as certain conditions are met, and I believe that these conditions are all prescribed in the principal Act at this stage.

When I say that the provisions are unnecessarily strict, and will still be strict even after the amendments contained in this Bill have been accepted, we need do no more than to refer to clause 2(d) to see what sort of irrelevant requirements are set. I refer, for instance, to the statement required from the Commissioner of the S.A. Police and the magistrate to the effect that the person in question is of good character, etc. Quite frankly, I do not believe that these particulars are necessary as independent requirements for a change of name. I would suggest that the requirements set out in the latter part of this specific paragraph are quite sufficient, viz. that a good and sufficient reason for a person’s assuming another surname should exist. In other words, it should not be necessary to have a specific statement bearing witness to the good character of the person in question as long as the Minister or the department is satisfied that the person concerned has no underhand or suspect reasons for wanting to change his name. Some people do wish to change their names for a reason of this nature, and I think we can speak about this with some authority.

Clause 2(b) provides for two further categories of females to assume the names of the men with whom they have a close relationship—or virtually marriage in practical terms. They are the women who conclude a marriage according to Moslem or Islamic rites or according to the rites of any other Indian religion, and the women who conclude a customary union in terms of the Black Administration Act. In this respect I have only two comments to make. We obviously approve of this situation as well. I should, however, like to point out that, as far as I know, members of the Moslem faith do not really approve of the description “Mohammedan”. I believe they prefer their religion to be described as “Islamic” or “Moslem”. That is what I was given to understand. The hon. the Minister could perhaps look at that again.

One other point I should like to mention briefly to the hon. the Minister is the question of the description “other Indian religions” as we find it in the legislation. I think this is the sort of description which could possibly cause confusion. I do not think it is a sufficiently clear description. It could lead to some sort of confusion although I do concede that in this particular context it is not very likely.

In view of the fact that these proposed amendments do not entail recognition of these unions as proper marriages, I do not believe it requires further comment.

We have pleasure therefore in expressing our support of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the background, the motivation and the tenor of the Bill under discussion are very clear from the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister. On behalf of his party the hon. member for Green Point expressed his approval of the Bill as a whole. I therefore believe that this does not require any further argument on my part.

Consequently, what remains is simply to thank the official Opposition for its support of the Bill. Then you, Mr. Speaker, will, I trust, permit me to make a few remarks with regard to the fact that the required number of publications in the Gazette is now being reduced in terms of this Bill. This reminds of an occasion when a judge—subsequently a Judge President—made a certain remark from the Bench. This was on an occasion when there was a dispute as to whether the prescribed number of publications in the Gazette had in fact been effected, as well as whether they had been effected in good time. The judge in question made the following remark—

In view of this I believe that it is indeed to be welcomed, that the required number of publications in the Gazette is now being reduced. This can only serve to expedite and facilitate the procedure in question.

It goes without saying that we on this side of the House gladly support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches also support this Bill because, as has already been said, it does streamline things quite considerably. In so far as the remarks made by the hon. member for Green Point are concerned, I should in the first instance like very positively to support him on the question of referring to the Islamic religion as Mohammedism. It is a very serious insult as far as the Islamic people are concerned to refer to the Muslim religion as the Mohammedan religion. I would therefore very seriously suggest that this be changed in the Committee Stage to Islamic religion.

In so far as the Commissioner of Police’s report is concerned, I would support that because it is necessary to find out a bit about the background. When reference is made to the Commissioner of Police, obviously reference is made to an officer. It would be an officer who is sent around to find out and generally, the police officers do know what is going on in a district. This expression “the Commissioner of Police” is used in a considerable amount of legislation one way or another to just get a certain amount of the background.

We support the Bill, but I do most sincerely hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give very serious consideration to the amending of the word “Mohammedan”.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. member for Green Point, the hon. member for Mossel Bay and the hon. member for Umbilo most sincerely for their support. The hon. member for Green Point made a very interesting statement here when he said that we were now streamlining the procedure of changing a surname. This is of course a very old provision that we are dealing with here. It originates from the year 1937, when there were reasons why the measures had to be so stringent. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we should like to be of assistance to the public and want to ensure that applications are dealt with as rapidly as possible.

Then the hon. member for Green Point, as well as the hon. member for Umbilo, referred to the designation “Mohammedan religion”. We shall consider this. When it comes to religion one does not want to offend people unnecessarily.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay compared the Gazette to Die Burger. It is a pleasure to read the Gazette too. What I should really like to point out here is that where the Act provides that it must appear in two consecutive editions of two daily newspapers, this also includes the regional newspapers published in that area. We have a considerable number of regional newspapers today, and consequently a person need not advertise only in Die Burger, Die Transvaler or Die Vaderland, he may also advertise in the local newspaper. For example, there is the fine newspaper with the beautiful name Die Oudtshoorn-koerant. He may have it advertised in that as well.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether we should lapse into a semantic argument here, but I do not believe there is really a major difference between “Mohammedan” and “Islamitic”. It is really one and the same religion, or denomination, if I may call it that, and consequently I shall accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Coloured Persons Representative Council Pensions Act (Act 79 of 1974) provides for the payment of pensions and other benefits to members of the former Coloured Persons Representative Council of the Republic of South Africa, and to their widows and children.

Section 5 of the said Act provides for the payment of a pension to a member of the former council who has had not less than eight years pensionable service. In addition to the pension payable in terms of section 5 those members of the said council who were office bearers such as the Chairman and members of the Executive, the Chairman of the Council, the Leader of the Opposition and others are being paid a special pension, as stipulated in section 7 of the relevant Act.

*The proposal contained in the Bill before the House, is aimed at inserting a principle into the Coloured Persons Representative Council Pensions Act, 1974, a principle which is already contained in similar legislation relating to former members of this House and of the four provincial councils. Hon. members are aware that legislation which is applicable to former members of Parliament who receive a pension, makes provision for a periodic adjustment of their pensions, inter alia, in order to enable them to maintain a decent standard of living.

In the case of former members of the dissolved Coloured Persons Representative Council however, the relevant Act does not make provision for the adjustment of their pensions, with the result that they find themselves in a detrimental position. In order to rectify the position, provision is being made in the Bill for the periodic increase of pensions and the payment of allowances to former members of the Coloured Representative Council or their widows or children.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated, this amending legislation makes it possible to increase the pension benefits of former members of the CRC and to bring them into line with the inflationary times we are living in. Obviously we are in favour of such a provision being embodied in legislation and of it’s being possible to adjust the pensions of these people as is being done at this stage in the case of members of this House and also members of other Government bodies in South Africa.

There is only one question I wish to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister on which we should like to have assurance. We are aware that this legislation was taken—although not verbatim, it was as close to it as was practicable—from Section 8 of the General Pensions Act of 1979, as amended. This therefore in fact amounts to the re-use of legislation already appearing on the Statute-Book. However, we are somewhat uneasy regarding the authority given to the Minister in the legislation to discontinue or reduce the allowance, which he is in fact able to do in terms of this legislation. We therefore want the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us why the Minister must have this authority. It could be argued that certain overpayments would take place, but I am not sure that in the case of overpayments, legal authority is necessary to recover such overpayments. Although this legislation is similar to legislation which already appears on the Statute-Book, we should very much like an explanation from the hon. the Deputy Minister as to why these powers must be granted to the Minister and what they will be used for. As hon. members know, pension rights are sacrosanct and in legislation and also in practice they are considered to be something one does not tamper with. In general we are pleased with this legislation, because it creates the possibility for the pension rights of the members of the CRC to be adjusted positively, in other words increased, but we do not want to see them reduced for some reason or other after they have been brought into line with realistic standards of income. It is for this reason that we want an assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister. If we were sure of this we would be prepared to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we also support the broad principle of this Bill, but the question of possible reduction is one that does need a little further consideration. Although it is a fairly standard sort of clause in this type of legislation, it could well be badly used. If a certain person, for example, were to be, let us say, a “naughty boy”—if I may put it like that—one could punish him by invoking this particular clause. Because he has not behaved himself he could find himself subject to a reduction, and this could be made to cover quite an extensive period retrospectively. So whilst I can conceive of circumstances that would make it desirable to have this clause included, I cannot help but feel that if it is to remain in, at the very least the retrospective date should be circumscribed and the retrospective period made a very limited one. After all is said and done, this is the same sort of clause that applies to many other pensions and not only the ones before us now. If one were to have a new Government in power at some stage in the future, for example a Government that did not very much like White people, it might invoke certain clauses of this nature. I therefore cannot help but feel that it is wise to put in provisions that it will not be necessary to tamper with in the future, or at least provisions that cannot, in future, be used against the very people who introduced them. I would therefore certainly like to suggest that if the principle of reduction is to be retained at all, it should certainly be circumscribed to cover only a current period.

Mr. Speaker, there is apparently support for this Bill, except for the single point regarding a possible reduction in the allowance. I do not think there is any objection to an increase. I am certain there has never been anyone who objected to an allowance, pension or salary being increased. We must however note that it is the allowance and not the pension which is at issue here. I think that the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions ought to answer this, because the provision being insented here was taken from section 8 of the General Pensions Act, No. 29 of 1979, which, inter alia, authorizes an increase in pensions and the payment of an allowance to former members of Parliament and retired Administrators. As the hon. member for Green Point said this Act contains a similar provision. I should just like to quote section 8(4) of the specific Act—

I think we should note that this applies to former members of Parliament and retired Administrators. We are therefore merely adding the same provision here. It does not affect the pension, but only the allowance. It should also be noted that the words “with due regard to the circumstances of such person” are used. Therefore, when the Minister considers reducing or cancelling the payment of an allowance, he must acquaint himself with the circumstances of that person. The hon. member for Green Point wanted to know when this would apply. I think—and I am speaking under correction—that this has never been used in the past. There have never been such cases. It is only in, case of an overpayment, for example, that provision is made for a reduction in the allowance in the future.

As we are all in the same boat and because not only members of the former Coloured Person’s Representative Council, but also we ourselves are involved, although the specific Act is not now under discussion, I have satisfied myself that where a decision is taken to cancel or reduce the payment of an allowance, the person in question still has the right to appeal to the courts. The Minister must therefore take the circumstances of the person into account. This in itself constitutes built-in protection for members. Then, too, a member has the right, if his interests are prejudiced, to appeal to the court. This is the only explanation I can give.

Mr. Chairman, may I put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that precisely because I am aware of the problem existing in respect of the question of overpayment, it is not true that if there is an overpayment in the case of an allowance or a pension, the specific amount is recovered in any case merely on the grounds that the overpayment did not take place under the normal allowance or pension arrangements of the principal Act or this Act? Is it not so that no special legislation is necessary to recover such an overpayment?

I acknowledge that to a certain extent the hon. member is correct. However, I think that such a measure must still be incorporated in the legislation to be able to reduce the allowance to recover the overpayment. As I have said, as far as I know, there have not been such cases in the past. I have made inquiries in this regard. There are no cases in which it has had to be implemented. This insertion is merely in order to bring this legislation into line with the legislation which also applies to us.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

†Mr. Speaker, the Members of the South African Indian Council Pensions Act (Act No. 86 of 1974) provides for the payment of pensions and other benefits to members of the South African Indian Council and to their widows and children.

Section 5 of the said Act provides for the payment of a pension to a member of the council who has had not less than eight years pensionable service. In addition to the pension payable in terms of section 5, those members of the council who were office bearers such as the chairman and members of the Executive Committee and the chairman of the council are being paid a special pension as stipulated in section 7 of the relevant Act.

*Mr. Speaker, the proposal contained in the Bill before this House, is aimed at adding a principle to the Members of the South African Indian Council Pensions Act, 1974, a principle which is already contained in similar legislation relating to former members of this House and of the four provincial councils. Hon. members are aware that the legislation pertaining to former members of Parliament who receive a pension, makes provision for a periodic adjustment of their pensions to enable them, inter alia, to maintain a decent standard of living.

In the case of former members of the South African Indian Council, however, the said Act does not make provision for an adjustment of their pensions, with the result that they are in a detrimental position. In order to rectify the position right, provision is being made in the Bill for an increase, from time to time, in pensions and the payment of allowances to former members of the South African Indian Council or their widows or children.

Mr. Speaker, the wording of this Bill is identical to that of the previous Bill, and for this reason our standpoint will be the same. As we could not allow the hon. the Minister to take the Committee Stage of the previous Bill, I wish to put it that we would like the point I raised to be cleared up. In a certain sense I sympathize with the hon. the Deputy Minister because he has to defend legislation which was probably placed on the Statute Book by another Minister years ago. However, I think now is as good a time as any to rectify legislation which was perhaps unnecessary and perhaps not 100% correct. Consequently we again support the Second Reading of this Bill, but unless the hon. the Deputy Minister is in a position to satisfy us on the same problems as those we had with the previous Bill, we shall have to adopt the same standpoint on the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, my argument in respect of this Bill is exactly the same as my argument in respect of the previous Bill. Therefore I do not propose to repeat it, but I still have the same thoughts on the matter, and believe that the question of the reduction to a date in the past should be removed or circumscribed.

Mr. Speaker, I can give no further explanation other than the one I gave in respect of the previous Bill. The arguments therefore remain the same. I repeat that the provision is applicable to members of this House, as well as to members of provincial councils, and it was taken from the General Pensions Act. In the meantime we can discuss matters again and we can furnish more information during the Committee Stage, when it takes place.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In terms of the provisions of section 17(b) of the University of Durban-Westville Act, 1969, a female member of the staff of the university who has been appointed permanently may be dismissed by the council on account of her marriage.

The position is briefly that when the Public Service Act, 1957, was amended during 1976 so as to remove the former requirement of compulsory resignation from their posts by female staff members in the Public Service on account of their marriage, the council of the University of Durban-Westville did not deem it advisable at that stage to recommend a similar amendment to the University of Durban-Westville Act. In this the council acted bona fide in the belief that it was not opportune at the time to adopt a measure at the University which could possibly impair the prospects for the employment at the institution of Indian male and unmarried female applicants.

Having taken regard of present-day conditions in the labour market, the council decided recently that there is no longer justification for adhering to a provision in the University of Durban-Westville Act which requires its female staff to vacate their permanent posts when entering into marriage. The council consequently requested that section 17(b) of the Act be repealed. The proposed amendment of the Act is a positive measure in as far as the service conditions of female staff at the University of Durban-Westville would thereby be placed on a par with those of their counterparts in the Public Service and at the University of the Western Cape where marital status is irrelevant to continuity in service.

Mr. Speaker, the reaction of this side of the House to this Bill is simply to say: Well done. It is high time! I was actually very surprised at the statement of the hon. the Minister that at the time the Public Service brought about this innovation in their legislation, the council of the University of Durban-Westville did not see their way clear to doing the same. This is a form of discrimination against women who get married. It is in no way preferable to racial discrimination or any other form of senseless discrimination of this nature. We are very pleased indeed that that discrimination is now going to be removed by this Bill, and we heartily support it.

Mr. Speaker, I too want to say from our side of the House that I agree with the hon. member for Green Point. One is sometimes amazed that there are still provisions in legislation today in which the position of the woman is not taken fully into account. In view of the community in which I myself live, a university community, and as a former lecturer, I must say that some of my female students were amongst the top students in my class in many years.

That would not surprise me.

Individual attention.

Although this Bill is very short, it is nevertheless a very important one. One very often finds that particularly when a woman has had academic training, she has the ability not only to make a success of her career as an academic or in various other spheres of the community, but also, when she marries, she can play the role and hold the position of a woman and a mother without it having an adverse effect on her public career. I think that it would be to the detriment of a university if it were not given the opportunity …

We would never have thought that you were a women’s libber.

Well, perhaps the hon. member does not always think enough. I think one can say that one would be depriving a university community of at least half of its human resources if this specific position were not being rectified in this way. I think that when we look at the lecturing staff at the university concerned in a few years’ time once again, I trust that the confidence which most of the male sex in this House have displayed in the women, will have been justified.

Mr. Speaker, we of the NRP also heartily support this Bill. As it falls under the department of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs I have only one comment to make, and that is that I rather wish that the same thing applied to the Department of National Education. I say this because this discrimination still exists in that particular department, and we should like to see that, too, removed.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely grateful for the very fine spirit surrounding married women today.

I bet you thought I was going to oppose it!

I just want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that in the nature of things I am very fond of women and that I shall always ensure that they are looked after.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Umbilo that I agree with him. I think that women should be treated on an equal basis. Therefore, we do not have any problems with this. I just want to say that the previous legislation that I piloted through the House, dealt with marriages and maiden names and married women, as this Bill does too. Hon. members will realize that for me as a widower, it is very difficult to deal with legislation which deals entirely with marriages.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Training Centres for Coloured Cadets Act (Act 46 of 1967) was promulgated on 22 March 1967 after it had been accepted unanimously by the Executive Committee of the then Coloured Affairs Board. This Act has as its aim the discipline and general preparation for some type of work of unemployed young Coloured men and adolescents between the ages of 18 and 24 years with unstable working habits who, due to a lack of discipline and need of care, could not easily be absorbed into the labour market. The cadets were not trained in any specific trade. In spite of the extensive publicity that was given to the registration and training, the reaction of the people concerned was generally negative, and the average percentage of youths who registered, was a mere 38,6% of those which were obliged to register in terms of the Act.

An investigation carried out during 1971 brought to light that approximately 72% of the cadets that were admitted to the centre, had completed their courses and had adjusted well. However, if we bear in mind that a mere 38,6% of the possible number who were eligible, did in fact register, it appears that, in spite of the praiseworthy objectives of the Act, an aversion developed to the institution to a certain extent, which was accompanied by a certain lack of interest on the part of some parents in the future of their children, which contributed towards the centre not being utilized to the full.

†On 28 September 1977 the former Coloured Persons Representative Council appointed a committee of inquiry into all the welfare institutions, schools of industry and reformatories of the former Administration of Coloured Affairs. The committee’s finding, inter alia, was as follows—

The following recommendations were made by the committee to the Representative Council—

As a result of these findings and recommendations the Executive Committee of the former Coloured Persons Representative Council, at its meeting on 21 September 1979, resolved that—

1. (a) the Cadet Training Centre be closed in so far as the requirements of the applicable Act is concerned; and
2. (b) the authorities be requested to have the relative Act repealed.

The committee of inquiry’s contention was mainly that the cadets did not receive training in any special trade, which, of course, was not the object of the Act.

”Whilst this centre was the first and only one of its type and any possible shortcomings could have been put right administratively or otherwise and the Management Committee was in fact invited to formulate proposals, the impression was received that the scheme was treated with sceptisism.

In spite of the fact that the relevant legislation was introduced at the end of the ’sixties on the insistence of Coloured leaders as a preventive measure with a view to a need that arose with the effluxion of time, it became clear, as has already been indicated, that Coloured leaders wanted the scheme to be dropped.

In view of the decision by the Executive Management of the former Coloured Persons Representative Council, as has already been stated, the centre was closed with effect from 1 January 1980. The Department of Defence repeatedly alleged that a need had existed for several years already for additional training facilities for the expansion of the S.A. Cape Corps, and took over the building complex with effect from 1 February 1980. The S.A. Cape Corps is generally considered to be the institution best able to clamp down on discipline.

The closure of the centre meant an annual saving of approximately R275 000. The staff is already being utilized elsewhere in the Public Service. Therefore, the Act is no longer being applied, and the repeal thereof now appears to be the logical step.

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly going to support the repeal of this Act. In doing so, however, it is necessary to place a few things on record, which the hon. the Deputy Minister has not mentioned. I am referring to things that happened at that training centre during the course of its existence. Some very unpleasant things indeed happened there, things to which I am going to refer in the course of my speech.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has referred to the ineffectiveness of registering the Coloured youths between the ages of 18 and 24 years. He has also mentioned the low percentage of registration, namely 38,6%. That, however, has by no means been the major failing of this piece of legislation. The institution itself was a disaster. It followed a dubious process of selection and there were major question-marks in connection with what happened to the youths who were taken into so-called training at the camp.

I should say that the process of selection and the activities that took place there were of such a nature that they caused the institution to be accused of being a low-grade prison. The process of selection amounted to a method of committing youths to a situation which was no better than that to be found in detention barracks. While these youths were allegedly to be trained for better things in life, they in fact suffered physical abuse.

In this respect I should like to refer to the same report to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred, and I agree with him that the original intention was perhaps laudible. The original intention, as it was stated in the Act, may have provided for the inclusion of participation in certain physical activities but, and I quote—

Coloured youths have a desire to be trained in order to improve their situation in life. Therefore they were to some extent inspired by the aims of this centre. They were inspired by the fact that they could join the institution in order to learn some kind of trade or occupation, to improve themselves and put themselves in a position where they could gain meaningful employment. The contrary in fact happened. The hope of acquiring a skill or trade was frustrated in the extreme by the actual conditions there. The subcommittee of the CRC that investigated this institution established, and I quote—

That was a devastating accusation in the light of the stated objectives of this scheme. The only programme that was adopted there was what the committee referred to as “habituation”, which was mainly physical drill and lectures on minor matters such as hygiene, etc. Furthermore, what was happening there, was illegal corporal punishment and physical abuse by means of marching, drill, etc. to an extreme degree, and these youths were also subjected to sadistic instructors on occasions. The committee details these matters. In informal discussions they enlarged upon this physical and sadistic abuse to an extent that makes one’s hair stand on end. This was not, however, the worst of it. Perhaps the worst part of the cadet scheme at Faure was that the unfulfilled longing for improvement among these people was frustrated by the real conditions and led to many people absconding. In 1977 159 of these youths absconded, in 1978, 272, and up to April 1979, 101. They absconded because of the corporal punishment, the excessive drill and marching exercises, because of ineffective counselling and because of disillusionment and the dashing of their hopes.

Why were they sent there in the first place?

They absconded for reasons of home-sickness and they also absconded because of the wrong programmes that were adopted there. And now comes the worst part. Absconding was a criminal offence, and in that period no less than 115 of those youths who absconded were given prison sentences as a result of having absconded. We therefore had many of these young, ambitious, law-abiding youths being taken up into this camp expecting to be prepared for a better life, finding themselves abused and, for all the reasons that I have mentioned, absconding, and then ending up in a court and having a criminal record attached to their names. In other words, a good youth, with positive social attitudes, becomes a criminal. The committee established that no less than 20% of the intake there were socially deformed elements. They contaminated most of the rest of the youths. I quote again from section 11.2 in this report, which states—

I think I have outlined enough of the negative aspects of this camp.

More than enough.

It goes without saying that we are delighted that this law is being repealed. However, there is another matter that does need to be referred to. It is quite an important matter, because this sub-committee made a major recommendation at the end of its report, yet that recommendation has been ignored. In fact, it was confirmed in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech this afternoon that he is flying directly in the face of the appeal that came from the Coloured community at that time. They indicated that there was a need in their community for practical training courses to be given to the youths to prepare them for a better station in life. They made reference under item 15.4 to the fact that—

They end off by making a three-point recommendation which states—

1. (a) That the premises occupied by the training centre for cadets be transferred to the education section of the Administration of Coloured Affairs;
2. (b) that the premises be used by the Administration for an industrial school and
3. (c) that the moneys previously budgeted for the training centre be utilized for the maintenance of the industrial school.

And what did the hon. the Deputy Minister say to us this afternoon? He said that these premises had been handed over to the Coloured Corps and that we have saved the money that we were spending on the cadet training centre. I think this is a most unfortunate situation because this appeal from the committee was, in fact, repeated to no less a person than the hon. the Prime Minister when he met with the leaders of the Labour Party in 1979. Yet the Government has simply taken those premises and given them to the Cape Corps, ignoring this heart-felt, highly motivated appeal for an extra industrial school to be provided for the Coloured youth.

That, Sir, is our major disappointment in connection with the legislation introduced this afternoon but having said all that, I must repeat that we shall nevertheless be supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, naturally we on this side of the House have some measure of appreciation for the fact that the hon. member for Constantia is supporting the Bill before the House. However, why has the hon. member seen fit to make all these denigrating statements and allegations this afternoon, at this particular stage?

It is a good Opposition.

The allegations which the hon. member for Constantia made, are highly contentious to say the least.

Ask him whether he was ever there.

The hon. member is making a great deal of fuss about the fact that the escapes were due to frustration, physical discipline that was applied and various other circumstances. However, he is ignoring the reason why the cadets were there in the first instance. He is also ignoring the fact that he mentioned himself, viz. that a large percentage of the intake consisted of what he called “socially-deformed elements”.

20%.

If 20% of the intake at such an institution consists of “socially-deformed elements” whilst the other are also work-shy by definition, and people who are there for related reasons, surely one cannot expect to achieve success unless one disciplines those people first of all. Discipline is the basis on which one must build. However, the hon. member for Constantia is objecting to these people being disciplined.

This institution was established with the best of intentions. In fact, the CRC approved it too. However, I shall tell you why it failed. It is because there were elements throughout that did not grant this institution the right to exist, due to a sickly humanism, a sickly liberalism. [Interjections.] I must remind that hon. member that “it is the loud laugh that bespeaks the vacant mind”. That his mind is vacant is, of course, no surprise to us.

There were people in the institution that had to be disciplined, but there were those who did not want to give this institution a proper right to exist. That is why the institution unfortunately did not answer to its purpose. Although it is a great pity, it cannot be continued. The elements which were the cause of this body having been unable to answer to its purpose, can now ask themselves whether they have reason to be proud of their contribution today, and if they have not done these young Coloureds a great disservice.

Another conspiracy.

The hon. member is so loquacious now, but if the cap fits, he may wear it.

AU of this is the direct result of your policy.

A total onslaught!

Any hon. member who feels guilty about this, can simply ask himself whether the cap fits.

The hon. the Deputy Minister had to accept the reality that the institution did not answer to its purpose, and that is why he had to submit this Bill. Since this is the reality, we have no alternative but to support this measure.