Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (a) The failure of the Minister in his then capacity as Minister of Water Affairs, during the consideration by Parliament of the write-off of a debt of R1 143 467,45 owing to the State by the Njelele Irrigation Board as at 30 June 1971, to declare his financial interest, viz. that he was a landowner in the area concerned;
2. (b) his conduct in submitting a memorandum under his signature which was aimed at influencing the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters of the House of Assembly, the House of Assembly and the Senate to write off the said debt; and
3. (c) his involvement in the construction and subsequent demolition of a hydro-electric installation on the farm Hayoma, District of Soutpansberg, with special reference to the following:
   1. (i) Whether the cost thereof was taken over and paid by the Njelele Irrigation Board;
   2. (ii) whether the said cost was included in the amount of R1 143 467,45 that was eventually written off; and
   3. (iii) what the said cost was;

the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

Mr. Speaker, I reject what is contained in this motion as being incorrect and unjust, and in accordance with Standing Order No. 117 I shall now withdraw from the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House welcomes the opportunity which the motion of the hon. member for Brakpan affords us of thoroughly discussing this vendetta, as I want to call it, against the hon. the Minister of Manpower.

The facts surrounding this matter known, and the facts surrounding this matter will be stated in full in the course of this debate, because hon. members on this side and the hon. the Minister of Manpower have nothing to hide. At the same time, however, we shall ruthlessly expose the motives behind this motion and behind the speeches made by the hon. member for Brakpan in recent weeks.

The picture painted by the CP and by the hon. member for Brakpan is one of a Minister of State, an NP Minister, who concealed his interests in the Njelele Irrigation Scheme in an improper manner; a Minister who derived great benefit from Government decisions concerning this scheme, who derived direct pecuniary gain from it and who wanted to do so in secret, without the people or anyone else knowing about it. This is by implication a charge against this hon. Minister who has rendered many years of service, a charge which portrays him as a dishonest member of the Government. When we have finished with this debate and when all the facts have been laid bare, a picture will emerge of someone who has nothing to be ashamed of concerning his involvement in this scheme, but at the same time of a party which is represented in this House, but not by way of election—the CP, which is being led by the hon. member for Brakpan in this matter—and the members of which have abused their position in this House for political purposes and have tried to commit character assassination on an hon. member of the Government and of society.

The vendetta that is being waged against the hon. the Minister by that side does not date from a week or two ago. It is a vendetta which dates back to the time before Dr. Treurnich was elected Transvaal leader. At that time, the hon. members sitting over there were spreading gossip about him, on the widest possible basis. The most terrible things were whispered about this hon. Minister in darkened rooms.

You are talking rubbish.

I am not talking rubbish. There are many hon. members sitting on this side of the House who know what those hon. members have been guilty of and who know about the prolonged attempt at character assassination on the hon. the Minister of Manpower. [Interjections.]

I want to say right at the outset that we shall oppose this motion. We shall vote against it today and I shall move an amendment to it at the end of my speech. We are opposing it for two reasons.

Another cover-up.

In the first place, we are opposing it on the basis of the facts which will be fully revealed here this afternoon. On the basis of these, no inquiry is necessary, because all the facts concerning this matter have long been known. Secondly, we believe that it is not necessary to accept this motion, in the light of the facts which are known and in the light of the fact that those facts do not call for an inquiry and that it is an abuse of the procedures of this House in a way which you, Mr. Speaker, cannot deal with, in the sense that it’S not out of order, but is in fact an abuse aimed at casting suspicion on the hon. the Minister of Manpower before the election on 10 May. I want to make the charge this afternoon that hon. members on that side are not so much interested in the appointment of a Select Committee. What is important to them is that the findings of that Select Committee should not be known before 10 May. [Interjections.]

Let us examine the facts, because they are being misrepresented. Things have been said about this matter which are untrue, and a totally erroneous impression is being created. What are the true facts? I shall give a broad framework, and other speakers on this side will provide more detailed information in respect of several aspects which I shall mention. Where did this scheme begin, the one which has now become the subject of gossip in 1983? We find the reply to that in the Hansard of 16 February 1968. There we also find full particulars concerning all the questions arising from the hon. member’s motion. We find these in the Hansard of 1 February 1968. Do you know that the preliminary work for this scheme, which is now the subject of gossip, was done in 1942? Do you know that there was a White Paper on this matter in 1963? Let me read to you this question by Mr. D. E. Mitchell and the reply to it, as recorded in Hansard of 16 February 1968. Let me read you this question asked by Mr. D. E. Mitchell and the reply to it, as recorded in Hansard of 16 February 1968, beginning in col. 642. The first part of Mr. Mitchell’s question reads as follows—

The reply to this first part of the question was as follows—

Then follows a long list of names, including these two entries: S. P. Botha—500 morgen and S. P. Botha—100 morgen. There are various other names such as Herbert Knott Trust—600 morgen, and again, Herbert Knott Trust—225 morgen. The names of quite a number of individuals also appear in this list. Part (2) of the question reads as follows—

The reply to this reads as follows—

Once again, there is a list of the names of all the people who received added land, and once again, one sees the name of S. P. Botha—425 morgen and S. P. Botha—89 morgen, plus the name of all the other riparian owners. Does this look like the cover-up to which the hon. member for Jeppe referred by way of interjection? People are gossiping in this House about facts that have formed part of the records of this House since 1968. Is this not disgraceful? But let us go further. The reply to (c) of part (2) of the question reads as follows—

This whole development took place before the hon. the Minister of Manpower was even a Deputy Minister. Then parts (3) and (4) of the question follow—this is probably the sting in the tail of this motion, because the hon. member has subsequently discovered some other things about statutory provisions as well—and these read as follows—

1. (3) whether a hydro-electric plant is installed as part of the canal project; if so, (a) on whose property is it installed, (b) at whose cost was it installed and (c) what was the cost of the installation;
2. (4) whether charges are levied by the Department on this installation; if so, what charges?

The reply given to the House by the Minister at that time, who was not the hon. the Minister of Manpower, was the following—

1. (a) On the farm “Hayoma”, owned by Mr. S. P. Botha.

Does this look like a cover-up?

No, he was just lucky.

The reply goes on to say—

1. (b) At the expense of the Njelele Irrigation Board who recovers the cost from the owner by means of differentiated taxation.
2. (c) R37 400 being the cost of the turbine installation, turbine house and a fair portion of the supply main, which also serves to conduct water from the high-level canal to the low-level canal and the river.

The reply to part (4) of the question reads as follows—

What does this tell us? It tells us that this information has formed part of the records of this House since 1968, and that it was available as from that date to all hon. members sitting in the House at the time.

When we go further, we shall see, in examining the records, that there was an Opposition party at the time which, in spite of their political foolishness and their lack of political insight, did take one aspect of their role seriously—unlike the Opposition parties of today—and that was to help promote the administration of the country by adopting a critical, constructive approach to the way in which the country was governed. Those of us who knew the old United Party, the UP, in this House, know that in spite of all their faults, they never let any Minister get away with anything, and that on every criticism they could find, they stated and evaluated the matter to see whether there was any improper conduct and whether there was good government. That was the one positive characteristic we could credit them with.

It was a member of the UP who asked this question. The same member who asked the question served on the Select Committee which eventually took the decisions in 1971 concerning which the hon. member for Brakpan now wants to start a gossip campaign. Hon. members who were in this House in 1968, hon. members of this side as well as the side of the old UP, served on the Select Committee. When a report of that Select Committee was being discussed in this House, they also sat here and they were fully acquainted with all these facts.

It went even further. We have learnt in the last few days that that party conducted further investigations because they were anxious to get at the hon. the Minister of Manpower. They specially went to make an inspection in loco in order to see whether they could find anything which would be to the political advantage of the UP and to the detriment of the NP. They say that they came to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong; the whole thing was above board. Nothing whatsoever was wrong.

Was this done by the UP?

I am talking about 12 years ago.

All of a sudden, the hon. member for Brakpan discovered that facts had been concealed for 14 or 15 years, facts which the people ought to know. Like a true patriot, he revealed these facts which had been part of the records of this House since 1968.

Having said that all these facts were known, there is something else I must point out. The hon. member for Brakpan is a lawyer, but it seems to me that he did not take cognizance of the provisions of section 11(1) and (3) of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, No. 91 of 1963. I want to ask the hon. member whether he was aware of the reply given to the question by Mr. Mitchell in 1968 when he made his speech last week. This is a very simple question which he can answer in the course of this debate. Was he aware of it?

He will reply to you.

He refuses to answer me. I know why he refuses to answer me. He realizes that if he says “yes”, he will have to account to this House for the fact that he has failed to mention this, because it puts a completely different complexion on the matter he has raised. It puts it in its proper perspective. Then he will have to account for the fact that he has failed to mention this. If he was not aware of it, then he knows, as an experienced member of this House, that before reflecting on a person’s integrity, one should make a careful study of all the facts. One should acquaint oneself with the facts; that is the least one owes to the dignity of this House. That is why he cannot and will not answer me.

I shall reply.

It is clear that all the things which the hon. member for Brakpan is now presenting as revelations, and which he wants to use the Select Comittee for, have long been known and were found to be in order by a Select Comittee of this House as well as by an objective investigation outside this House by opponents of the Government. There was no concealment and the hon. the Minister has nothing to explain to a Select Committee. He was known from the start to be a participant in that scheme, and nothing improper took place.

Secondly, their purpose in moving this motion is to influence the by-elections on 10 May.

We are going to win them anyway. [Interjections.]

They want to place the hon. the Minister under a cloud. [Interjections.] Why do they find it necessary all of a sudden to “reveal”, as a new discovery, a matter which is 15 years old—a matter which is already known? Because they realize that they are going to lose those by-elections. [Interjections.] Because they know that with their policy, with their political bankruptcy and their inability to provide any solutions to the real problems of this country, they have no hope of making any progress if they do not commit character assassination of their opponents. We do not consider it necessary to attack anything except the political views of our opponents. [Interjections.] I have no need to go rummaging through the dirty linen of those hon. member’s private lives. [Interjections.] We do not need that. We ask people to vote for our policy …

What policy?

… and not against other people on the basis of distorted facts.

What policy?

The policy of the NP, which those hon. members used to believe in and which they have been repudiating for the past two years. [Interjections.]

We are going to discuss all the facts surrounding the allegation which is being made against the hon. the Minister of Manpower quite frankly in this debate today, because we have nothing to hide. [Interjections.] We have accused those hon. members in this House of deceiving the voters with a political ruse. This has been proved today, and it will be proved in this House today to what level the members of the CP are prepared to sink in their aggression and their obsessive desire to hurt the NP, the party to which they used to belong. [Interjections.] I think it is disgraceful that hon. members of this House should sink to such a level in their conduct towards an hon. member.

Against this background, I move as an amendment—

1. (a) accepts that there was no omission, improper conduct or improper involvement on the part of the Honourable the Minister of Manpower in regard to his interest and actions in relation to the Njelele Irrigation Board and a hydro-electric installation on the farm Hayoma, District of Soutpansberg, as—
   1. (i) the interests of the said Minister in this connection had been declared and were known at all relevant times; and
   2. (ii) the said Minister at all relevant times was and remained responsible for the payment of rates in respect of all benefits enjoyed by him as a member of the scheme concerned;
2. (b) declares that the Honourable the Minister of Manpower at all times acted correctly and in accordance with the standards and rules of Parliament and relevant statutory provisions; and
3. (c) rejects as unfounded and malicious the campaign conducted by Mr. F. J. le Roux, M.P., and his party colleagues against the integrity and honour of the Honourable the Minister of Manpower.”.

I resume my seat with the thought that the time has come for us, in the face of urgent problems which this country and all its people have to contend with …

The total onslaught again.

… at this watershed at which we find ourselves, to show a sense of responsibility in rising above the mud of personal denigration. Each one of us should elevate the political debate to its highest level ever, on the basis of its own philosophy and conviction as to where the solutions lie, because we find ourselves in one of the most important phases in our country’s history.

I shall take the word of the CP—including the hon. member for Brakpan—that they are prepared to do this if they have the courage today to withdraw this motion.

Mr. Speaker, we have now listened to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and it is quite clear that today he was not really trying to protect the hon. the Minister of Manpower but that—and he knows this as well as I do—at the moment he is fighting for his own political life in the Transvaal. [Interjections.] In one respect I agree with the hon. the Minister, namely that the times in which we are living in South Africa today, are very serious and difficult times. From the very first speech discussion the hon. members of the CP had in the old NP there was only one way in which we wanted to practise politics, namely by opposing principle to principle and policy to policy.

Yes, in dark corners.

I shall come to the hon. the Minister’s so-called dark corners in a moment. In spite of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister said that I was a pipsqueak …

What has that to do with the water scheme?

It has a great deal to do with it. During the years I have been in Parliament, thorough and in-depth discussions have been held on the way in which Ministers do business and the way in which they may possibly implicate their ministerial posts in the work they do as Ministers. In his time the hon. the Prime Minister has also played a major part in forcing some of his former colleagues to quit Parliament. This was in fact owing to the actions of this particluar Prime Minister. The style of the hon. the Leader of the Transvaal is simply to run after the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] I want to refer to a speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister in Nylstroom. When a man asked him a question he told him not to look up at the ceiling but to look him in the eyes. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that he must now look me in the eyes if he can.

I only look a man in the eyes. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the Hon. the Prime Minister that he does not know what a man is. [Interjections.] He only understands one kind of loyalty: One must say “Yes, Sir” to him from morning to night. When it suits him he hides behind a clean administration to get rid of his political opponents.

Who were they?

That is the experience we have had of the hon. the Prime Minister.

Who are you referring to?

Order!

Today the hon. the Leader of the Transvaal was not really protecting the hon. the Minister of Manpower. If the hon. the Minister had read my hon. colleague’s speeches and arguments he would have returned far earlier from where he was putting out fires in the Transvaal, to assist the hon. the Minister last week already.

The hon. the Minister also said that we were doing this for our own personal political gain. If there is one thing which is far from the truth, it is this allegation. Was the hon. the Minister here when the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development said that Dr. Treurnicht had been the cause of the Soweto riots? [Interjections.] I am discussing the argument of the hon. the Minister that we had to bring these things to this House because we want to use them for political gain.

We can discuss this some other time. We are now discussing something else. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Transvaal must take his punishment. I want to say that the hon. the Minister is not used to opposition. If there are people who say reprehensible things about theological racists, the causes of the Soweto riots and a thousand other things, we shall also discuss these matters.

We are not discussing Soweto now.

We are not discussing Soweto now, but when it suits hon. members of the governing party to accuse hon. members of the CP of all manner of wrongs, then it is acceptable to discuss them. But woe betide you the day you stand up and take on the responsibilities of an opposition party. The hon. the Minister does not know what it is like to be in the Opposition. [Interjections.] That hon. Minister adopts the attitude that there is only one party in this Parliament, viz. the governing party, and that there is no place for an Opposition or the responsibilities of an Opposition. [Interjections.] It is quite clear to me that in the new dispensation the Government does not in fact want an Opposition and that matters will be discussed and a consensus reached behind closed doors. This is tangible proof that the Government, through the hon. the Minister, is moving towards the situation where there may not be an Opposition and where one may not discuss these things in public. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister referred to secret rooms and secret meetings. However, I want to tell him that when he wants to make use of that kind of thing outside … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: With respect, Sir, I am afraid I cannot hear the hon. member on account of all the interjections.

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member for Rissik an opportunity to make his speech. However, I want to call on the hon. member for Rissik to deal with the motion before the House now.

Sir, I am merely replying to certain allegations the hon. the Minister made, namely that this side of the House discusses certain matters in secrecy and in dark corners. The hon. the Minister must be careful when he says that kind of thing. He will recall that he and I hold perfectly ordinary discussions about all manner of things that were of importance when we had a common interest in the NP.

I could not convert you.

No, it was not a matter of converting me.

I spent a good deal of time on you but I could not convert you.

It is easy for the hon. the Minister to talk. It was not a matter of his having to convert me. It was rather a matter of my having to imbue him with the necessary courage to take action. [Interjections.]

The hon. member must please get to the motion before this House.

Sir, I want to conclude … [Interjections.] I want to conclude by saying that my hon. colleague for Brakpan brought his standpoint to the attention of this House clearly and neatly and in accordance with the rules of this House. However, through his behaviour and with his explanation today the hon. the Minister did not refute the arguments advanced by my hon. colleague. Instead he tried to make a political speech in which he tried to present the CP in a poor light to the voters at large. If the hon. the Minister is so sure that nothing irregular happened, that everything was correct, I cannot see why this House cannot appoint a Select Committee.

Then bring us the facts this afternoon.

On such a Select Committee, subject to the rules and regulations which apply in respect of a Select Committee of Parliament, the necessary evidence should be heard. In addition all parties in this House should be represented on that Select Committee. True to the style which the hon. the Minister wants in the new despensation, there should be an opportunity to discuss the matter in the inner circle. Why cannot we today, on the basis of the facts which the hon. the Minister gave this House, without the necessary evidence having been given, appoint a Select Committee? Mr. Speaker, if you support the Select Committee we are requesting, the facts that have to come to the fore will come to the fore. That Select Committee, by virtue of the authority it derives from this Parliament, will then publish a report on the hon. the Minister and if there are no problems in connection with the hon. the Minister, the Select Committee will say so.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs made the statement that it was a stratagem of the CP to call for a Select Committee and in that way the hon. the Minister of Manpower under a cloud in that constituency until after 10 May. If ever I were convinced of a statement it was of the one made by the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. The hon. member for Rissik rose here and did not say a word about the scheme. In fact, I want to make the statement that the hon. member does not even know what it is all about. The hon. member is not interested in the facts. The CP left it to one hon. member to inquire into this matter. He did not even do that properly. The other hon. members are not interested. Their only purpose in calling for a Select Committee is to prevent the hon. the Minister of Manpower from defending himself in his own constituency because of the sub judice rule. I therefore support my hon. colleague strongly when he says that this motion was moved with only two objectives in mind: Firstly to get at the character of the hon. the Minister of Manpower and secondly to ensure that no decision could be given about this matter before 10 May. That was the whole purpose.

I want to make a further statement. At the time when those events took place in 1968, and afterwards, another Prime Minister was Prime Minister of this country. He took cognizance, and I believe that at that stage he was informed about the matter in full by the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, of what the hon. the Minister of Manpower was at the time.

You are speculating now.

I assume that at that stage the hon. the Minister of Manpower informed the hon. the Prime Minister in full about the circumstances surrounding this scheme. With reference to the question of Mr. Douglas Mitchell I want to say that I do not believe that such a question about an hon. Minister’s interest in a scheme would have appeared on the Question Paper without that Minister having informed the hon. the Prime Minister about it at the time. Consequently I submit that this action of the CP is also a reflection on the integrity of the previous hon. Prime Minister. I told the hon. member for Brakpan the other day by way of an interjection, which unfortunately did not appear in Hansard: “You must be careful; you are going to get hurt.” I submit that the hon. member, and no one else, dug his own political grave. I just want to point out one thing. The hon. member for Brakpan said the following in this House, and I quote form his Hansard (21 April, col. 5296)—

In other words, he alleged that I deliberately withheld certain information from this House. The hon. member went on to say—

I reacted to that by saying: “Here it is among my papers, man”. And then the hon. member fell into the trap by asking: “Then why did the hon. the Minister not refer to it?” The hon. member then proceeded to quote from the document, upon which I told him that I had read it. I am now going to quote from my speech and I want hon. members to listen carefully. I said (Hansard, 21 April, col. 5268)—

The hon. member quoted the same passage, only he did so in English. This was allegedly the document containing the information which I had deliberately withheld from this House. This is what he quoted from that document—

Identically the same as the one I read, except that whereas I read it in Afrikaans, he read it in English. Now I ask: Has the hon. member’s hate made him blind and deaf? Could he not infer that I had quoted from exactly the same document as the one from which he had quoted? The hon. member cast a reflection on my integrity in the sense that he contended that I kept silent about certain documents in this House while in fact I quoted exactly the same passage from that document as he had done. Or must I assume that the hon. member does not understand Afrikaans? Sir, I demand an apology from the hon. member for Brakpan. He cast aspersions on my integrity. I told him that day that he was going to get hurt, but he would not listen. I am telling him now that he will only get into my good books again if he rises here and tenders an apology to me for having doubted my integrity. I demand it from the hon. member.

There is a second point, and here a principle is involved. It appeared in newspapers everywhere, and it came from the hon. member, that the hon. the Minister of Manpower owed the State R190 000. Let us analyse the statement that the capital debt to the State of every irrigator in this country has to be converted to the scheme under which he irrigates. There sits the hon. member for Gordonia and there sits the hon. member for Prieska. They irrigate from the P. K. le Roux and the H. F. Verwoerd dams. If the capital costs of the H. F. Verwoerd Dam and of the P. K. le Roux Dam …

You are being childish now.

But the matter was raised by a colleague of the hon. member. Sir, I am dealing with the principle, but it does not seem to me as if those hon. members understand what principles are. I am submitting that if every irrigator in this country should be held responsible for the capital costs of schemes—dams, canals, retaining walls and so fourth—no single irrigator in this country would be solvent. They would all be bankrupt—the whole lot of them. That is why I find it strange and without foundation that newspapers should now speculate about what each member who irrigates from a scheme owes the State in proportion to the capital invested in that scheme. However, I want to go further. If this principle had to be consistently applied then every domestic consumer in this country who uses water supplied by State schemes such as the Rand Water Board and the Umgeni Water Board and the Gold Fields Water Board—all water boards—should be held responsible for the capital costs of those water schemes.

I want to take it even further. The department also supplies water to some of our industries. If one wants to apply this principle consistently, i.e. that all people who consume water from schemes established by the State owe the State so much money, then so do the industries. Surely this is an absurd principle. Surely it is absurd to say that we in the department must examine all water consumers in this country in order to establish where they irrigate from, what canals they use, how many pipelines there are, how many taps, how many this and how many that, and according to that calculate everyone’s capital cost and say to him: You owe the State so much money. I want to clear up this principle because I think it is necessary that the newspapers should rectify this matter, because as far as I am concerned it is an absurd statement to say that each irrigator in this country owes the State so much money.

In the third place I want to say that the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs quoted from the White Paper of 1963. Unfortunately I do not have the time to read it but I have with me minutes of the Njelele Irrigation Board of meetings held by that board. The hydro-electric scheme, which was the point at issue, was dealt with in the White Paper of 1963. It seems to me that they dropped the other matters and that the point at issue was this hydro-electric scheme. White Paper W.P. J—’63 dealt with the hydro-electric scheme. I have the board’s minutes here where the board took a decision that that scheme should form part of the total scheme. I have the minutes here. I can read them to hon. members. I can quote to them verbatim where the board took decisions and where they were entered in the minutes and where, on a later occasion, the board felt that the minutes did not put it strongly enough and where they rewrote the minutes to put it more strongly that this scheme should be included. I want to tell you why, and other members will also refer to this at a later stage. It was an experiment to see whether one could generate hydroelectric power by means of a canal in order to carry out high-level irrigation. It was a simple calculation. It was just as important for the department to know that in order to be able to generate hydro-electric power in all canal systems for high-level irrigation. Unfortunately it did not work for technical reasons. Consequently, on a subsequent occasion, the department decided to remove it. [Interjections.] The department decided to cancel the project. There are many engineers’ inventions which do not work for technical reasons. I could mention many schemes within the department which they designed technically and which afterwards appeared not to be working. This scheme was one of them.

However, there was not just the one White Paper. There were White Papers W.P. M—’64 and W.P. V—’67 as well. Although no direct mention was made of the hydro-electric scheme in these White papers the hydro-electric scheme was in fact indicated on the diagrams on which the scheme was set out; in other words, it formed an integral part of that canal scheme.

I also want to refer to the question put by Mr. Douglas Mitchell in this House in 1968 and, as a follow-up to that question, to the United Party inquiry. There are other hon. members who will refer to this in greater detail. However, I just want to say this. Mr. Bill Sutton, too, was a member of that committee of inquiry of the United Party. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries is not very sure but he thinks the first inquiry, the one by Messrs. Douglas Mitchell, Bill Sutton and Marais Steyn, was carried out immediately after 1968. What does that imply? It implies that both Mr. Douglas Mitchell and Bill Sutton were members of the Select Committee, that they were therefore fully informed about what the position was because they had carried out an inquiry on the spot. Consequently they could have raised the matter in the Select Committee.

I therefore submit that the hon. member for Brakpan availed himself of insufficient knowledge and totally inadequate information. He cannot complain today that he was unable to obtain all the information. That is not true. He was able to obtain all the information because part of the information consists of documents of this Parliament.

In the first place he did not know about the question that was put in this House in 1968. He can deny it now, but he did not know about it. The hon. member therefore availed himself of insufficient information.

In the second place he did not ask for a copy of the White Paper. As he knows a White Paper is tabled for every scheme which the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries in this country embarks upon. He did not take the trouble to ascertain what was contained in that White Paper. He did not even take the trouble to enquire whether there was a White Paper. If he had gone through the White Paper and read it, he would have seen that the hydro-electric scheme formed an integral part of the scheme.

Furthermore, he did not acquaint himself with the full submission to the Select Committee. That is a serious reflection on the hon. member’s integrity. By quoting from reports only and not from any White Paper, an effort was made to lead the country and the House astray by way of misleading information. I want to submit that the hon. member’s integrity may seriously be called in question. He did not even know that I was quoting from the same documents as those he had.

You are very quick to appoint Select Committees on other people.

He said that I had ommitted to mention certain things here in this House. He kept silent about them. The hon. member for Rissik and sufficient opportunity to speak. Now he sits here and squabbles with me. He has been hurt.

The hon. member for Brakpan put his own integrity on the line by availing himself of half-truths and not quoting fully from documents before him, with the aid of which he could have provided the House with all the information. He merely quoted passages from documents to this House in order to try and mislead this House. He did not do this only in order to try and mislead this House, but also in order to try and mislead the Soutpansberg constituency.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister permitted to say that the hon. member for Brakpan tried to mislead this House?

Order! The hon. the Minister is developing his argument. He made no deliberate allegation of deceit. He is merely developing his argument.

I want to add that the hon. member for Brakpan’s failure to obtain or reveal all the facts is a serious indictment of his integrity. I think it is necessary to investigate the hon. member’s activities and his deliberate attempt to mislead this House and the country.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Did the hon. the Minister not say that the hon. member misled this House deliberately?

Order! Did the hon. the Minister say that the hon. member misled this House deliberately?

I said there had been a deliberate attempt.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

There was a deliberate effort to mislead this House, to mislead the country and to mislead the voters of Soutpansberg. I say I think it is necessary that the hon. member’s activities should be investigated.

I said it the other day and to conclude I want to repeat it: With this conduct of his the hon. member is making a mockery of the public office in the eyes of the public. I want to submit—I said it at the beginning and I want to repeat it—that the hon. member has dug his own political grave. This matter is going to explode in the hon. member’s face. Someone wrote me a note and asked me to appoint the hon. member as water bailiff for Njelele. I shall not even consider it.

Mr. Speaker, this debate has taken its expected course and the following have already emerged: The first is that the Government has rejected the idea of a Select Committee of the House to inquire into the conduct of the hon. the Minister. That was entirely to be expected. When the conduct of an hon. member on this side of the House is in question, then they are the first to move the appointment of a Select Committee. [Interjections.] If a Gordon Waddell prima facie should be inquired into, then it is the Government who are the first to do it. When a Mr. Ray Swart prima facie has misbehaved, the first hon. members to move the appointment of a Select Committee are the hon. members on the Government side. When the “accused person” is a member of the Government, then they use their serried ranks and their vote in order to reject the idea of a Select Committee.

What happened in the case of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens?

The second aspect which was totally expected was that this has already descended into a dogfight. For the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs who is the leader of his party in the Transvaal to have allowed the debate to descend into a dogfight when he went on about what had happened in dark corners, is not worthy of a senior Minister of the House.

Thirdly, it is perfectly obvious from what the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs has said, and from what the hon. the Minister has said who followed him, that what they have done precisely—I shall point that out in a moment—is fatal to the dignity and the work of the House. He has prejudged the issue. Look at his amendment. He is perfectly happy with the hon. the Minister of Manpower. He is totally pure white! Well, that is prejudging.

With all the facts at one’s disposal?

The fourth factor that has come up is that the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs put up a smokescreen. The smokescreen is this: In 1968 there was a question which was answered in the House. I shall argue in a moment that what was said in answer to a question in 1968 has nothing whatsoever to do with the possibility of a direct financial interest in the writing off of a debt in 1971.

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

Not at this stage; if I have time later, the hon. the Minister may ask his question. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is getting some of his own medicine. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Minister of Law and Order had the grace to say last week when it was put to him: “Did you know that the hon. the Minister had this interest in land?” that he could not remember. He was a member of the Select Comittee. He had the honesty to say that. If the benchmate of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs can say now that in 1971 he did not know, then 1968 is a smokescreen. I shall return to that in a moment. There was, however, another smokescreen. The hon. the Minister who followed him raised the question of every person who has used State facilities—e.g. power and water—possibly finding himself in a similar situation. I shall deal with that aspect later. That is, however, an even worse smokescreen.

I now want to state the attitude of the official Opposition. At this time a Select Committee, with these terms of reference, is not the appropriate forum in which to decide this very important question of the conduct of an hon. Minister, and I shall explain why in a moment. A Select Committee of this House, we believe should have a particularly limited scope. I believe that we are in grave danger, in this House, of abusing the mechanism of a Select Committee. I say that a Select Committee is the proper mechanism for use by this House, firstly to inquire into matters of procedure. Secondly it is the proper mechanism with which to inquire into its rights against outsiders, against the Press, against people who may be in contempt of this House. Thirdly it is the proper mechanism if this House cannot properly deal with a vast new subject, e.g. in 1974, the whole new question of publication, and censorship. It is proper for the House then to set up a Select Committee to go into a new principle, for example in the case of the coming constitution. That is a proper matter for a Select Committee of this House. For a Select Committee of this House, however, to be used for personal or political advantage is, I believe, wrong and unworthy of this House. [Interjections] There is, however, worse to come. What would happen if one asked the people outside whether they had full confidence in a Select Committee of this House, which is composed of party politicians, adjudicating upon a matter affecting the integrity and political future of a member of this House? They will know, of course, that the history of voting in a Select Committee is strictly on party lines. I do not want to decry this House or its Select Committees, but I am suggesting that we are in grave danger of finding the public outside unable to have the fullest confidence in such a body on such a matter.

I say that at this time a Select Committee is inappropriate. I say that because we are not talking about quasi-judicial proceedings in peace-time. It would have been bad enough if we were talking about the integrity and conduct of a member in peace-time, but we are not. There is a by-election in two weeks time, and I therefore think that it is entirely improper that it should be suggested that hon. members of this House should go into a Select Committee, put off the garb of party politicians and get down to the job in a totally objective way. We are not angels. It cannot be done. It has not been done in the past. So a Select Committee is entirely inappropriate.

I said also that the terms of reference of this particular motion were unacceptable. Let us look at what the hon. member for Brakpan proposes. He proposes that we should inquire into the conduct of an hon. Minister “…in submitting a memorandum under his signature which was aimed at influencing the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters … to write off the said debt”. That is also a prejudgment. He is not asking for the fact of influencing the House to be investigated. He is using that as a basic premise. So purely on the wording of the terms of reference, this side of the House cannot be associated with the motion as it stands.

There are, however, much more important questions at stake. I should like to ask the following question of the House: Was there in fact, in 1971, in this Parliament, a duty of disclosure, a duty by an hon. member or an hon. Minister to diclose a financial interest in a matter in which he was heavily involved? I want to say that section 11 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act is irrelevant in this context. I see the hon. member for Mossel Bay is starting to get excited, and quite rightly so. I think he is the most eminent jurist on that side of the House. [Interjections.] Let me refer to what section 11 of that Act states. I quote—

In 1971 the Minister concerned did not take part in a vote or a discussion. So section 11(1) is irrevelant.

What I am talking about is a much more general principle. Does an hon. member of this House, whether he is a Minister or not, as a general principle have the duty to disclose to his colleagues a pecuniary interest in a matter which affects his duties and functions? I do not know the answer—I want to say that quite frankly. There are indications of this, certainly in Westminster there was a convention that was beginning to form and crystallize that in certain circumstances a member would have such a duty, but that only took form in 1975 when two resolutions were passed by the House of Commons. I will not bore the House with them, but that is in fact a very interesting development. Today a register is kept at Westminster in which every member, including a Minister, has to list all his assets and shareholdings, including those of his wife and family, and also his directorships. Not only is that a public document, a document published for the public, but there are also penalties if the facts therein are not kept up to date by members of the House of Commons. That is a very salutary sanction indeed. I am not suggesting we go that far, but I think that, if we were to have a repetition of the kind of question we have before us today, we ought to look into the question whether we should not disclose our assets to the public.

Sir, I said I am not sure about the legal position. There are, however, some interesting indications in this regard. The new hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries seems to think there is a convention, because the very first thing he did when he was appointed was to make a Press statement, which he said had the approval of the hon. the Prime Minister, to the effect that he had an interest in Noordhoek. Why did he do that? I do not know why he did it. I was quite surprised, but I was also very pleased. I think that, if he carries on like that, he might even get the nod from us now and again. That was very interresting. It is the first time of which I am aware of that happening in South Africa. That is an indication that something is also crystallizing in this country. Whether it had the force of convention here in 1971 I do not know, and I do not think a Select Committee would have the power or capability to decide on that.

There is another interesting aspect. The two hon. Ministers who have spoken, in their attempt to prove on the basis of facts that there was a disclosure, implied that they accept that there is a duty of disclosure. That must be so. They never argued that the hon. the Minister of Manpower never had a duty to disclose. Their total argument was devoted to the facts whether in fact there was a sufficient disclosure.

I did refer to section 11.

No, not at all. So I want to say that a Select Committee in this constitutional dilemma would not be the proper body to decide whether in fact there is this duty, or was a duty in 1971.

The tribunal which has to decide on this important question of a Minister’s conduct would have to decide whether the hon. the Minister had an interest which was susceptible to the duty of disclosure. I am not sure that he did. My view on the facts as I know them would be that he probably had. I think that, if one has a debt which is wiped away by the stroke of a pen, one must have such an interest. [Interjections.] Well, the facts are not altogether clear. Put it this way: Does any hon. member opposite deny that the hon. the Minister had any financial interest in that particular matter?

No.

Well, Sir, that is the answer. [Interjections.]

The third question which requires an answer is: Did the hon. the Minister in fact disclose his interest? Here the word of an hon. Minister, or rather his view, is, I am afraid, not sufficient.

I have five documents with me. Let me just go through them very quickly. What happened in 1968 is totally irrelevant. Let us talk about 1971. It is what Parliament and hon. members of the Select Committee knew in 1971 which is decisive. I have with me a petition by the chairman of this Irrigation Board. I will not mention his name. The petition is dated 20 January 1970. He sets out all the facts, but nowhere does he state that Minister S. P. Botha was involved. Maybe he did not have to. I am just saying that on the documents that I have, which I assume NP members had then, there may not have been a proper disclosure. That is the first document.

The second document contains the names of members of the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters, appointed on 8 February 1971. One would not expect a disclosure in this document. The members of that committee were Dr. J. W. Brandt, Mr. W. H. D. Deacon, Mr. M. W. de Wet, Mr. F. Herman, Mr. L. le Grange, the hon. P. M. K. le Roux, Mr. G. F. Malan, Mr. J. J. Malan, Mr. D. E. Mitchell, Mr. W. M. Sutton, Mr. J. W. F. Swanepoel, Mr. N. F. Treurnicht and Mr. C. J. S. Wainwright. That is the next document I have with me. I am merely suggesting that these are the documents presently at my disposal, adjudicating upon whether there should be a Select Committee or not.

I now come to the main document. This is a memorandum laid upon the table by the Minister of Water Affairs, Mr. S. P. Botha, and carries his signature. I have the English copy with me, dated 22 March 1971. This is a document directed to, and I quote—

He then sets out the history of the scheme. He sets out the background to the development, the situation of the scheme, the rainfall, the water flowing into and out of the dam, and then recommends the writing off of the debt. This is a long document but nowhere does he say: “I declare my interest”. As I have said earlier, I do not know whether he was obliged to. As I stand here this afternoon, to be fair to all concerned, I am not absolutely certain in my own mind as a lawyer whether he was in fact obliged to disclose. But if he was obliged to disclose that was the time to do it.

The fourth document I have is a petition which was presented to this House on 7 June 1971. I quote from the minutes of proceedings of that date relating to the Report of the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters, as follows—

There was no reference here to any disclosure.

Finally, Hansard of 9 June 1971—Vol. 34, col. 8536—states that the Report of the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters was adopted without debate. There was no question of disclosure there either.

All I can say is that prima facie, as far as I am concerned, there was in fact no full disclosure to the Select Committee or to the House in 1971. For any hon. Minister or hon. member to rely upon a question which was put three years before, with a general election having supervened in 1970—a new Parliament was elected in that year—is a smokescreen. [Interjections.] In these circumstances I want to suggest that there is a proper tribunal, which would let us get petty politics out of this Chamber. Of course we have to play politics, but when one is playing politics with the integrity of a senior Minister—I have no brief to defend this particular Minister—and we want to put his integrity and his political future at stake—not in peace time, but in the heat of a coming by-election—we are playing with fire when we use one of the most important mechanisms of this House. I do not have to say this, but we all know that certain senior members in the secretariat grow up in Select Committees. That is where Parliament starts. That is the substratum of our system. That is where fairness should be dispensed. That is where Parliament gets its facts from. But one dare not use that delicate mechanism for a matter such as this, and we have abused it in the past. I believe that there is only one forum where this matter can be taken out of petty politics and where the public will have full trust in the tribunal’s final adjudication and where the tribunal will be able to decide the very important question which has taken a long time for Westminster to decide, i.e. whether there is a duty to disclose and what its content may be, if there is one. I therefore move as a further amendment—

Mr. Speaker, for reasons of his own the hon. member for Groote Schuur arrived at the correct conclusion, the conclusion that the appointment of a Select Committee in this instance would be entirely inappropriate. Naturally I agree with the hon. member on that point. The hon. member however also contended, and moved an amendment to that effect, that the matter should be referred to a special commission. In this regard I have to ask the hon. member whether, in view of the fact that he himself stated that he was not sure whether there was in fact a duty on the hon. the Minister to disclose his interest, and in view of the fact that all the material facts and evidence have already been disclosed, he has any further evidence or information which tend to show that a commission is justified in this instance.

To find out whether it is …?

Has the hon. member in fact any information which calls for the appointment of a commission? My contention is that all the relevant facts have already been adequately disclosed and that there is nothing for a commission to investigate.

You will have to go into British constitutional history for a start.

The matter of British constitutional history will be dealt with by some of my colleagues later in the debate.

The hon. member has also made reference to section 11 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act. I shall turn to the interpretation of section 11 in a moment. I do not propose following the hon. member in his devious argumentation in order to arrive at the correct conclusion.

Do you say it was devious argumentation?

Well, he followed a devious sort of argument in order to arrive at the conclusion that the appointment of a Select Committee would be inappropriate.

*The hon. member also tried to make a little political capital out of the argument which is being conducted between members on this side of the House and the CP. We do not begrudge him that, but we need not take the remarks made by the hon. member in this connection very seriously.

In the interests of absolute clarity, I want to quote the two relevant subsections from the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, No. 91 of 1963. Subsection (1) reads as follows—

Subsection (3) reads as follows—

When we analyse these subsections I have quoted, what do we find? It is made very clear that as far as pecuniary interests are concerned, certain requirements have to be met before a member is prohibited from voting upon or taking part in the discussion of any matter. In the first place, he must have a pecuniary interest in the matter concerned, i.e. he must not only have a general interest; it must be a pecuniary interest. I do not think there is any difference of opinion about this. In the second place, a member’s pecuniary interest must be a direct pecuniary interest, i.e. his financial interest must not depend on the exercising of enabling powers by another body. Furthermore, the pecuniary interest must be an immediate one. A member’s pecuniary interest is deemed to be direct only when it is a fact, and not a possibility, that the measure or question which is before the House involves the granting of a personal pecuniary benefit advantage to that member, or has the effect of reducing a personal pecuniary liability of that member. In the third place, the member’s pecuniary interest must be a direct, personal pecuniary interest. His pecuniary interest must not be shared with the general public, or with any section of the general public. In this connection, the size of that section of the public is of no consequence. Even if he shared that interest with only one or two members of the public, he would still share it with a section of the public, in terms of section 11(3). Membership of a category or group which stands to gain by a measure in no way disqualifies a member from participating in the discussion of or from voting upon that measure. In this way, for example, a member may vote upon his own salary; a member who happens to be a farmer may vote upon subsidies to farmers and an industrialist may vote upon tariffs affecting his industry.

After the analogy of this, I contend that if a member may participate in the discussion of a matter in which he has pecuniary interests, which he shares with members of the public, and if he may participate in a vote on that matter, there cannot be any objection either to that member making representations on the matter. What he is allowed to do in person he may surely do in writing, too, in the form of a submission. And if he is allowed to vote on that matter, i.e. to exercise the supreme right which anyone can exercise, namely that of promoting that matter personally with his vote, surely he may also submit a memorandum to a committee to promote the matter.

Section 11 is obviously aimed at regulating cases where members have a pecuniary interst in a matter which is before Parliament. No mention is made, however, of any obligation resting on a member to declare his pecuniary interests, and I believe that it is significant that this section does not require a member to disclose his pecuniary interest. There is no legal obligation on a member, therefore, to declare his pecuniary interest in a matter which is under consideration. I believe that the hon. member for Groote Schuur will agree with me on this.

Not under section 11, I agree.

But neither under any other law. The hon. member for Groote Schuur argued the matter on the basis of a convention, a matter with which another member on this side of the House will deal shortly. I put it to the hon. member that there is no legal requirement for a member to declare his interest.

*Kilpin and May make it quite clear in their books on parliamentary procedure that members are sent to Parliament to represent their voters there and that they should not be deprived of their representation without good reason. Also, this House should not unnecessarily be denied the opinion and contributions of its members. Accordingly, a Select Committee of the British Parliament which inquired into the powers of members found that in recent times it was extremely rare for the power of an hon. member to participate in the discussion of matters on a Select Committee or in Parliament to be restricted by any pecuniary interest which he may have in the matter under discussion. I quote as follows—

I submit that there is no indication whatsoever that the hon. the Minister of Manpower did not act correctly and in accordance with the standards and rules of Parliament and relevant statutory provisions. If the hon. member for Brakpan or the hon. member for Groote Schuur or anyone else alleges that the hon. the Minister of Manpower abused his position as a member of this House or as a member of the Select Committee concerned to benefit himself, the correct course for them to take would be to refer the matter to the Advocate-General. This office was created precisely in order that its occupant could investigate cases where people had abused their position for their own pecuniary gain. I suggest that this would be the correct course to take if the hon. member for Brakpan has evidence which shows that the hon. the Minister abused his position for his own pecuniary gain.

As has already been argued in this House, the motion that a Select Committee be appointed is motivated purely by the political capital which the hon. member wishes to make out of it, and it is a continuation of the vendetta which the hon. member for Brakpan has been waging against the hon. the Minister of Manpower since the hon. the Minister exposed him during the debate on the Manpower Vote last year.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us this afternoon a subject in which we are dealing with serious allegations that have been made against an hon. Minister. We in this party want to see the right thing done. We feel particularly strongly that the South African public must have the facts, the real facts. If there has been any misconduct then I believe that the South African public must know of that misconduct. Equally, however, if we are dealing here this afternoon with character assassination, then I also believe that the South African public has a right to know that we are dealing here with character assassination, no more no less. The voter will then react accordingly in a way we all know he should. He will exercise his judgment on us here through the medium of the ballot-box.

I should like to deal with some of the history of this case as we see it on these benches. The forerunner of the NRP, the United Party, had in its ranks a gentleman by the name of Mr. Douglas Mitchell, who was known by the Zulu name for a rhino. I cannot pronounce the Zulu name, and I am afraid I cannot even remember it. However, Mr. Mitchell was known as a rhino and a rhino, I think, is renowned for its sense of smell. I think Douglas Mitchell was a man who could smell anything out at any time. He could be a veritable witchdoctor in that regard, so much so that in 1968, as the hon. the Minister pointed out earlier, Douglas Mitchell asked certain questions relating to this very water scheme. He asked for the names of the people who owned land as well as the quantity of land and he also wanted to know exactly what the scheme was all about. As has been outlined in reply to those questions the name of Mr. S. P. Botha appears not once but twice. It also appears in the reply to the second part of the question in respect of riparian farmers. Did Douglas Mitchell leave it at that in 1968? Let me assure this House he did not. I want to say that if ever there was anything that I was suspected of, one of the last people I would want investigating it would be Douglas Mitchell. I think the hon. the Prime Minister would agree with me in that regard. I would be even more nervous if I felt that a gentleman with the name of Monty Crook was standing at his side during the investigation. It is my belief that Monty Crook visited those areas with Douglas Mitchell. I think the Faros incident will indicate exactly what I mean when I talk about Monty Crook.

I am sorry, but I disagree with the hon. member for Groote Schuur when he says that what happened in 1968 is irrelevant. What happened in 1968 is very relevant to this issue because in 1968 not only Mr. Douglas Mitchell but also Mr. Bill Sutton and Mr. Jack Wainwright, since deceased, who subsequently became members of the Select Committee that was set up in 1971, were apprised of the fact that one S. P. Botha owned land in the area of this particular water scheme. They took that information with them into the 1971 Select Committee. There is no getting away from that fact. The fact that they were apprised of in 1968 was carried forward, together with other members from the governing benches, into the Select Committee. I want to say to the hon. member for Groote Schuur—I say this in kindness—that we cannot restate everything that happened some time before every time there is an election in this House, I mean, these facts are there in the records. That is the fact of the matter. You cannot wish that one away.

I want to go one step further. Subsequent to the report of that Select Committee being accepted without debate in this House as has, I think, already been outlined by other members, Mr. Douglas Mitchell in 1973, that is five years later and ten years ago, asked another question. On 24 April 1973 Mr. Douglas Mitchell asked the Minister of Water Affairs—

The Minister of Water Affairs laid the reply upon the Table with leave of the House. The reply was that according to the records of the Deeds Office certain changes took place after 16th February, 1968. Then followed a long list of changes in respect of ownership of land in that area. The name S. P. Botha did not appear in that list. Therefore, S. P. Botha owned that land in 1968 and had not sold it or got rid of it by 1973. If one reads that in relation to Question No. 12 of 13 February 1968 one can again be acquainted with the fact that 500 morgen and 100 morgen, respectively, were owned by one S. P. Botha.

I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs recognizes the virtues of the old United Party. I am just sorry that he does not recognize all its virtues.

They are beginning to realize them now.

Not only those of us in these benches, but also the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Bryanston and the hon. member for Groote Schuur, a number of those gentlemen, were members of that very same party in the years we are talking about.

Which year?

In the year 1973. You were members of the old United Party in 1973.

I was not in the House.

That is correct. You were not in the House. You only came to the House in 1974.

So did I.

But the hon. member was a member of the United Party. That is the point I am making. They were members of the party which investigated this. They were members of the United Party. I know that the hon. members are possibly ashamed of it, but they were members of the same party to which Douglas Mitchell belonged and of which I was tremendously proud and am still tremendously proud.

I agree that it is completely inappropriate for a Select Committee to examine this sort of thing. I want to say it is completely inappropriate for one other reason—I think it may have been mentioned—that there is not a hope of the Select Committee completing its work and reporting before 10 May. I suspect—I am sorry to say this—that we are going to find that character assassination could be behind this whole thing. But—here comes the big “but”—I want to say that in this debate certain questions have been raised about what I would call the proper declaration of interest. I think the hon. member for Groote Schuur has set it out well. I think that hon. members in the Government benches will concede that we do have a problem in this area. Is it not the correct thing to do to set up a judicial inquiry to look into this particular affair so that it, if it does nothing else, can give us a proper modus operandi as far as clearing this situation for once and for all is concerned?

I know from a gentleman who graces these benches with me that a Natal MPC must declare his interest. We have a grey area here. I think that all hon. members have indicated that we have this grey area. There is an element of doubt. There is something here with which we just cannot come to grips. I believe that the people of South Africa would expect of us to come away from this debate showing a proper direction. I think it behaves us all—heaven forbid, I am sure they never thought that I would ask this—including the Government to support the amendment moved by the official Opposition. Let us all support the call for this tribunal because I think we shall achieve the greatest good in the ultimate for South Africa and we shall certainly achieve the greatest good for the maintenance of the dignity of this establishment, the South African Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of the reasons advanced by the hon. member for Umhlanga. I shall try to elaborate in my argument certain of the points which he raised. As far as the matter of declaring the interest of hon. members of the House is concerned, I think it is something that we can look at, but not in the way in which the hon. member for Groote Schuur has phrased it in his amendment because this directly implicates the hon. the Minister.

*The institutions and practices of this House are formalistic and strict. Any application of the rules and the practices of this House is a serious matter and is generally regarded by hon. members as part of the tradition of Parliament. Consequently the motion of the hon. member for Brakpan, as printed in the Order Paper, calling for the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate serious allegations against the hon. the Minister is a momentous matter in the tradition of this House. A motion of this nature will be moved by an hon. member only after a personal in depth investigation of the facts themselves and after having himself given the matter serious consideration. In my opinion this aspect increases in importance when such a motion relates to the conduct of a person holding a traditional office in this House, such as the office of Leader of the House. This is a responsible office which is accorded perceptible recognition even by you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member was thoroughly aware of this, because in his speech last week he underlined this very aspect in an altercation with, inter alia, the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. member said at the time—

So he is fully aware of the importance of the office held by this hon. Minister. The objection of the hon. member is of a twofold nature. In the first instance, the objection relates to participation in a matter in which the hon. the Minister had a direct interest. This aspect has already been dealt with and demolished by the hon. member for Mossel Bay. In the second instance, the objection relates to the declaration of that interest, and in his speech last week the hon. member furnished a motivation to which I should like to refer, for it is illuminating. With reference to the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries he said—

He went on to say—

And he continued in this vein. This is the point which was very strongly emphasized by the hon. member. He then proceeded to mention the names of the members of the Select Committee. In the light of this, and in the light of the facts which have emerged today, surely his allegation does not hold water, because there was official cognizance, and I shall come back to this aspect in a moment. There was in point in fact official notification and cognizance because these particulars are contained in official documents of this Parliament. They were, and still are, at the disposal of any hon. member of this Parliament. We have it in the White Paper in particular and, of course, also in the question put by Mr. Mitchell on 16 February 1968.

The aspect of an hon. member declaring his interests is, of course, a very interesting one. This afternoon the hon. member for Groote Schuur referred here to Erskine May who dealt with this aspect. From that it is clear that the rules and conventions in the British Parliament are quite different to our own conventions. We have, in any event, no rules in this connection. The hon. member pointed out that a specific arrangement was made in the British Parliament in 1975 for dealing with this aspect. My standpoint is, however, that a similar convention does not exist in our Parliament. Whether this is good or bad, is something which we can debate, but there is no such convention here. Of course, there are no rules in this connection either. In this connection I have allowed myself to be guided by the opinions of persons who possibly have a better grounding in the conventions of this House than I have. Even if it were to be a convention of this House, I want to argue that the case under discussion, with the facts which we have at our disposal, is not one which would have necessitated a special declaration being made by the hon. the Minister. I say this, because all the relevant facts already form part of the records of this Parliament. They appeared in public documents.

Now I want to come to the question put by Mr. Mitchell in 1968. In this regard I want to refer to Kilpin’s dissertation on parliamentary questions as such. I am referring to page 83 of his book. Under the heading “The value of questions put to Ministers” it is said—

Then it is said—

Consequently we cannot make light of the matter of replying to a question. It is an extremely important part of this Parliament and its institutions. We have also seen what a learned writer said in this regard.

Now a question arises in my mind concerning the conduct of the hon. member in addressing this request to this House, because it grossly impugns the integrity of a member of this House. I ask whether, in the light of what I have said, he did act bona fide in this instance. After all, a charge such as this requires an in depth investigation in the first place, but this afternoon the hon. member refused to say whether he had even been aware of the question put by Mr. Mitchell in 1968 and the reply to it. This is a cardinal point, because, if the hon. member made out his case knowing full well that that question with all its consequences had been replied to here, one could rightly accuse him of vexatiousness, of having been vexatious. If he did know that the question had been put and replied to in full, one could accuse him of that. If he had no knowledge of it, he was negligent because he ought to have ascertained what the position was. He cannot blindly make these allegations here in the heat of the political struggle being waged at present. Consequently I want to agree with previous speakers that the sole object of this action was to gag the hon. the Minister, as the appointment of a Select Committee would have prevented him from putting his side of the case whereas the CP could continue their mud slinging unhindered. I state this as a very definite possibility. There is an anology of this in law. There are matters of which one takes cognizance in law. Do those hon. members want to argue with me that the records of this House do not form part of the evidence as far as the public business of this House is concerned? I want to say with the utmost respect that in my opinion this whole incident constitutes a feeble and will considered attempt on the part of the CP seriously to abuse the rules of this House.

†As far as the hon. member for Groote Schuur is concerned, there is just one aspect I want to deal with. I think that to a certain extent he tried to discredit the Select Committee system today. I want to take issue with the hon. member on that score. I think that the Select Committee system is an important facet of this Parliament’s method of operation. The hon. member, however, suggested very lightly that it is being misused and is inappropriate in this case. I want to suggest to him that he conceded in his argument that this is not an appropriate case for a Select Committee investigation. The reason why he said that was because all the facts are known in this particular case. There is therefore no necessity for this. That is the reason. Certainly, I am entitled to be judged by my peers and who is better able to judge me than my peers in this House sitting in a Select Committee?

Have you ever appeared before a Select Committee?

I have been chairman of a Select Committee.

*I want to conclude by saying that in my opinion the hon. member for Brakpan has not done this House with its traditions any good with this open vendetta which is being waged against an important and prominent member elected by ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, I will deal with some of the matters raised by the hon. member who has just sat down in a moment. I should, however, like to start off by making it clear why one cannot support the motion moved by the hon. member for Brakpan. Firstly, in my view, any person, whether he is being charged in this House or elsewhere with conduct of which other people may or may not approve, is in fact innocent until he is shown to be guilty. One of the problems with this motion is that it presumes the guilt of the hon. the Minister of Manpower in order to ask for an inquiry. I would have thought that one would say that there is an allegation and that an inquiry is asked for to establish the guilt or innocence. However, when one reads this motion one sees that one of its fundamentals is that the hon. the Minister of Manpower is guilty before we actually have an inquiry. If that is so then there is no need for an inquiry.

As long as he admits it.

In the same way as the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs says he is innocent, the hon. member for Brakpan says he is guilty. Therefore neither of them in those circumstances would require an inquiry.

When on analyses this motion one sees that a Select Committee is asked for, and I quote—

1. (a) The failure of the Minister in his then capacity as Minister of Water Affairs, during the consideration by Parliament of the write off of a debt … to declare his financial interest…

In other words, it already says that there was a failure by the Minister to declare his financial interest. It does not say that there should be an inquiry as to whether or not he did or did not disclose an interest which he had. The motion, in terms of paragraph (a), presumes the guilt of the man.

The records of Parliament at the time when the actual Committee report was considered state simply that the report was submitted and adopted. Nobody said a word. There was no debate, no discussion, no vote, nothing at all. Therefore, on premise (a) one cannot vote for this motion.

Premise (b) deals with his conduct in submitting a memorandum under his signature which was aimed at influencing the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters of the House of Assembly. Here again it is stated that a memorandum was submitted, the object of which was to influence the Select Committee. As I understand it it was the duty of the hon. the Minister to actually present a report. Therefore his conduct in submitting the memorandum is not at issue. The only issue that could have been raised is whether in fact in the memorandum he should have stated that the “S. P. Botha” who was referred to as being one of the owners, was himself. The world is full of Bothas and is also not short of S. P.s. That is the issue. [Interjections.] I think there may be a few too many Bothas. The issue which the hon. member for Brakpan actually wants to inquire into is not referred to in the motion. Premise (b), to my mind, therefore also falls away.

Exactly the same argument applies to paragraph (c). This paragraph deals with the question of his involvement in the scheme, whether the cost was taken over and paid by the board, whether the cost was included etc. That is not the issue. The issue is whether in fact in the circumstances there was a duty to disclose. Whether that duty to disclose was a legal, moral or political duty we can discuss in a moment. That really is the issue which is involved in this whole matter.

I should like to suggest that there are a couple of premises on which I think we can agree in this House. The first is that I believe that no hon. member in this House will stand up and say that any person, whether he is a member of the Executive or a member of this House, should benefit financially as a result of any office which he holds. Nobody will quarrel with that, I hope. If that is not so, then we cannot actually debate. Then we are miles apart. The hon. the Prime Minister agrees. Secondly, I believe—in this respect I must differ with the hon. member for Uitenhage—that there is a duty—whether it is a legal duty or not, is irrelevant—upon hon. members who have an interest in a matter to disclose that interest so that their colleagues know that they have an interest. Whether that duty is to be discharged in the Cabinet, whether it is to be discharged in the Select Committee or whether it is to be discharged in this House, I think it needs to be discharged on every one of those occasions. If one has a financial interest and one advocates a particular cause, then one’s colleagues must know that one has such an interest. In this respect I differ from the hon. member for Uitenhage who said that we should not follow the conventions of Westminster on this point. I raised the Westminster conventions in respect of freedom of speech the other day. I venture to suggest that the foundation of parliamentary practice upon which we rely is not only our own precedent but also, when we do not find a precedent here, the precedent of Westminster. The precedent of Westminster is not only that there is a specific code, but, as has been ruled by a number of Speakers of the House of Commons, it is in fact the moral obligation of the member to get up and say that he has an interest.

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member for Yeoville concede that in Great Britain the constitutional position is completely different from the position in South Africa in as much as there all forms of improper conduct are specifically listed, while that is not the case here?

This is the very point that the hon. member for Groote Schuur sought to make. What has happened in Westminster is that there was a convention and a practice which thereafter was codified in a set of rules. What we are suggesting is that because of the problem which is arising here now we should also have such a set of rules and that this is one of the matters that should be investigated. The convention existed before the set of rules was laid down in Westminster.

But surely Parliament should do that?

I am going to come to the issue as to why we should deal with Parliament or why we should deal with a commission in a moment. The reality of the matter is that there is a convention here. We do have lots of precedents and we do go back to Westminster when we do not have our own precendents. There was a convention in Westminster that there was a moral duty on an M.P. to get up and say: I have an interest. The problem is not that one commits a crime. Let us assume for a moment that the hon. the Minister of Manpower had done something wrong in this respect and that section 11 applied. Then he does not get convicted before a court. What happens is that Parliament itself deals with him and deals with him in the manner in which it thinks is proper. Therefore it is our own affair, it is our behaviour, our code of conduct as it is presented to the public that is at issue. To go and get involved in a long legal argument as to whether or not there is legal obligation to disclose and whether in fact in those circumstances there could have been an adverse finding, is not the issue. The issue is whether as a public figure one is obliged to say: Here I stand, I advocate this point of view, but I want you to know that I have a financial interest in it. That is the issue because even if one can vote, even if one can participate, the public are entitled to know where one stands. That to my mind is the fundamental issue. That is why I also believe that one has to have a code. I must also say that where people breach this convention now, they must be prepared to pay the political price for it. If one does advocate something and if one does participate in something in which one is financially interested and it subsequently appears that one has not disclosed it, then there is a political price to be paid for it. It is not just a price that has to be paid by way of censure. It is a political price that has to be paid in the eyes of the public.

The facts were well known.

Yes, that is what we are talking about. That is why it is not a question of legalistic terminology. It is not a question of seeking to interpret the law. It is a question of how the person has behaved as a public figure. That is the issue that is involved.

You are seeking to create law now.

We are not creating law. We are relying upon a parliamentary convention and we are saying that there is a case for the codification of such conventions which we think you should support.

But then I suggest that that is not the procedure to adopt.

Wait! The hon. the Minister is in a hurry. He is slow with constitutions but he is quick with interjections. [Interjections.]

To come back now to the parliamentary situation, as I understand it, we in this House believe in judgement by our peers. We think that Parliament should pass judgement upon us. However, when Parliament judges it should judge as colleagues of another colleague and not on a party political basis. One of the difficulties at the moment in regard to this motion is that nobody can tell me—the public will not believe it either—that if we appoint a Select Committee on which we are all represented, everybody there is going to be objective. I think that the subjective atmosphere in which we find ourselves at present in regard to the by-election, the importance that is being attached to it, is such that nobody can tell the public that we as politicians are going to go into that Select Committee and be objective in our judgment. I think we have to be frank about that. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs must know himself that he cannot be objective, much as he may try. I accept the fact that he may try. However, the reality of the matter is that he is concerned about winning the by-election. He is concerned about seeing that his man gets back into office. In those circumstances I must say that one has to examine one’s conscience and accept the fact that objectivity under those circumstances will be rather difficult. Therefore, the question of being politically objective and there being no ulterior motives in regard to the actions of people sitting on a Select Committee in this kind of atmosphere, is one that we have to consider. This is no reflection on Parliament and it is no reflection on the Select Committee system; it is a political reality. I say therefore that in regard to this particular issue we feel that there is need for a neutral arbitrator in order to determine its outcome.

Is there an issue? Not even a prima facie case was made out.

I must say, Sir, that if such an allegation had been made against the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, I am sure that he would have asked for the appointment of a Select Committee in the circumstances himself. I can give many examples in this regard. We can go back to the days of Thomas Boydell to whom it happened in this House, and in this regard we are going back many decades. He said: You are making an allegation against me as a Minister. You have accused me of having done something improper and I want an investigation. However, we have more recent examples than this. We had the example of Mr. Waddell making an accusation in this House in which the hon. the Minister of Finance was involved, and immediately there was to be an inquiry. We also had the occasion when Senator Crook made his allegation. Immediately there had to be an inquiry. Do you know why, Sir? It is because there is a convention and a tradition in this House that when an allegation is made against one, one asks for the appointment of a Select Committee oneself. [Interjections.] We have the example of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs as well. I take my hat off to him. He also asked for the appointment of a Select Committee. However, the matter is still pending and I do not wish to discuss it. It was a matter in which he was concerned and he got up in the House and moved for an inquiry into his own conduct. Nobody debated it and nobody discussed it. Everybody agreed to it because it is the privilege of the member to make such a request. It is also his right to do so and it is part of the tradition of this House.

Will the hon. member take another question?

Yes, but be brief, please.

Will the hon. member for Yeoville concede that it would be an infringement of parliamentary prerogative to have an outside commission adjudicate on what is basically a matter for Parliament itself to decide?

Sir, that is precisely the point that I want to make. I want to make it very clear that as far as I am concerned I believe that the election that is going to be fought should not be fought on the issue of whether or not the hon. the Minister made a disclosure or did not make such disclosure. I think it should be fought on a policy basis, on the issue of reform or no reform, on the issue of reaction or reform. However, the present atmosphere is clouding the whole of that issue and I think it is wrong to fight an election on this basis. It is for that reason that I want to bring it to an end so that the matter is clear one way or the other. The only way we can bring it to an end is not by means of a political debate in this House today. I want to say that this debate in this House today will do no good and be of no service to the hon. the Minister of Manpower and neither will the actions and attitude of hon. members on that side of the House. It will not help him because the reality is that what the public is looking for is for some outside neutral arbitrator to say that the man is innocent or that he is guilty. They are not looking for a political debate. One must understand that. That is what the public wants. The public does not want there to be a political debating point as to whether the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs is a better debater than the hon. member for Rissik, or vice versa. They want to know the answer and they want a neutral arbitrator to furnish it. What has to happen in those circumstances is that somebody should be appointed right away to dispose of this matter so that within a few days an announcement can be made concerning the judicial findings of a man who is a judge and whose impartiality should be beyond question. If that were done the whole of the by-election would have that issue removed from it, either because the man has been found by the judge to be innocent or alternatively because the charge has been found to be correct. I think, with great respect, that a disservice has been done to the hon. the Minister of Manpower today by the attitude which has led to this House being asked now to pass a resolution that the man is in fact innocent of the charges levelled against him by the Conservative Party without there having been an impartial inquiry. There are no impartial people in this House, because everybody has an interest in this by-election, even the parties that are not involved in it such as the NRP and ourselves. Of course we have an interest in the Soutpansberg by-election; nobody can pretend that we do not have it. That is why I say that a disservice has been done.

This is not the usual case of a man who has had an allegation made against him by someone getting up in this House. The person who is involved here is the hon. Leader of the House. He is a Minister of State. He has a duty not only as a member of Parliament but also as a member of the Cabinet, which is a far more serious duty.

It is not a bona fide allegation.

The hon. the Prime Minister has been on record right from the beginning when he started his term of office that he did not want people to be on boards of directors and he did not want conflicts of interests. Somebody has said that maybe he has laid down guidelines for conduct inside his Cabinet as well. So we are not dealing here with an ordinary member of Parliament and this is not an ordinary situation of an allegation made across the floor. We are in the middle of an election, a Minister is the target and we cannot really say that objectivity from hon. members’ point of view really exists.

Let us have a look at the real position. We have had the hon. member for Mossel Bay advancing a technical argument in respect of the interpretation of section 11. I do not want to argue about section 11 with him here, but I think there is doubt about some of the interpretations he has given to it. What is the use of a legal argument about the interpretation of section 11 to the voters of Soutpansberg? It is a nonsense situation in which to get involved because that is not what they are concerned with. They are concerned with the reality of whether in fact a situation existed in which there should have been a disclosure. That is what they are worried about, not the question of whether section 11 has been contravened or not. There are lots of examples, both from this House and from the English Parliament, which show that there should be a disclosure in those circumstances.

As we see it, one ends up now with two situations. Firstly the question is: What is the situation of the hon. the Minister? We think this matter should be disposed of by an impartial person as quickly as possible and that it should be dealt with within a matter of days. Secondly the question is what the position in the House and in the Cabinet is in respect of disclosure and whether there is not now a case to be made out for rules having to be laid down.

The facts were known.

The hon. the Minister keeps saying that. He thinks that by repeating it it becomes reality. It does not.

I quoted from records of this House.

Let me ask the hon. the Minister a question. He is drawing me into a debate which with respect I do not think it is in his interests to draw me into. I shall tell him why. I am trying to be very sympathetic towards his case, but he is making it difficult for me. Let me give him an example. If in 1968 one were to disclose in answer to a question that a person called S. P. Botha had a farm, would that mean that it was the person who was the Deputy Minister? [Interjections.] I ask you. Those hon. members raise the issue but all they do is to produce a list on which appear the names of certain people. There are other people’s names there as well. I have checked them. I am saying to those hon. members that they should not draw me into this debate as I think it is not to their advantage. [Interjections.] The whole issue would have been so easy if the interest to such and such extent had been declared in the report—and the hon. member for Groote Schuur quoted from it—in which the recommendation was made.

Members of the Select Committe knew.

All of them?

The prominent members of that Select Committee knew.

Did they all know?

Opposition members knew and the Government members knew.

This actually proves my point because here the hon. the Prime Minister is able to give evidence before the Select Committee that he knows that all the members of the Select Committee knew. It is a matter of fact that I do not know; I was not there because I was not even an MP then.

The reality is that the public want an impartial person to determine this. That is what we ask for and I am absolutely amazed that the hon. the Prime Minister was not the first to get up to move an inquiry. When it happened with Thomas Boydell that allegations were made against him, who moved the inquiry? The Prime Minister of the day. That is what one does when one knows that one is innocent and when one wants to be clear. That is the procedure and that is what we recommend to the hon. the Prime Minister.

I say again that they are doing a disservice to the hon. member concerned. They are in fact creating a problem by not doing it and we appeal to them to change their mind even at this eleventh hour not to pass the amendment which they seek to pass, but to agree to accept that there should be this objective, outside inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville two questions. The first question is: Why ask for an investigation into something which is well known because it is on record in this House? That is sheer stupidity! The second question: Does he really want the House to believe that no one in the House knew it was the hon. the Minister to whom was being referred when the name “S. P. Botha” appeared in the question tabled in 1968? If that hon. member sits there sleeping when papers are tabled, he must not think that others in Parliament do so too. Surely Mr. Douglas Mitchell and other people knew full well that the “S. P. Botha” referred to in the question was the hon. the Minister? Why else would he have asked that question in the House? Why, if he was so perturbed about irrigation schemes, did he not ask questions about all the other irrigation schemes? Why only about the one irrigation scheme in which an S. P. Botha appeared to have an interest?

*I should like to come back to the CP. I am surprised that someone who is supposed to be a responsible member of this House should be guilty of the irresponsible conduct the hon. member for Brakpan displayed here in his campaign of slander against one of our most respected members, the hon. the Minister of Manpower. It is becoming abundantly clear that the CP realizes that it has no chance whatsoever of gaining a seat in the forthcoming by-elections using only its policy; that is why, in a final effort, they have to revert to reprehensible gossip and misrepresentations.

Nor should the PFP try and hide behind masks of innocence. Believe it or not, they are trying to slip in through the backdoor surreptitiously in order to obtain a few extra votes for the Pretoria Progs in Waterkloof by calling for a parliamentary commission.

Let us consider for a moment how this report on the hon. the Minister has been blazoned abroad. I am turning to it now. The following appears in banner headlines: “Fanie row. CP, PFP probe call”. That is canvassing for votes; what else? I read further: “Fanie Botha accused of writing off huge debt.” What is this if not political mudslinging? What is it but an attempt to canvass a few miserable votes? I have done everything in my power to try and ascertain whether at that time the daily newspapers made such a hue and cry about the matter. And what did I discover? The journalists of that time, who, surely just like the journalists of today, analysed and investigated every question and answer carefully and in depth did not, according to our research, blazon abroad any report whatsoever concerning the so called “unethical” conduct of the hon. the Minister, Mr. S. P. Botha. They had already realized at that time that they would be dealing with something—the proverbial “damp squib”—that would not be the slightest newsworthy in this country.

The reports I have just quoted, as well as the motion on the Order Paper, follow precisely the same pattern as then. As far back as 1968, as various speakers have mentioned here, the old United Party placed a question concerning this very subject on the Order Paper. However, the matter did not end with that question. No, they specially sent two of their senior men to the North. And do hon. members know who they were? They sent two provincial leaders to the North to go and investigate this so called “unethical” conduct. However, they did not leave it at that. [Interjections.] Later they instructed three other senior members to go and make inquiries. Despite the inquiries of five senior members they decided not to take the matter further in this Parliament. We can be certain of one thing. If they could have caught out a Minister of Water Affairs, they would have done so with a smile. I quote from the Cape Times of 25 April 1983—

That was the opinion of someone who was directly involved, someone who also thought that they could use something against the hon. the Minister S. P. Botha in this Parliament. The inquiries of the old United Party were in connection with the same issue. We know that now. The issue was whether the hon. the Minister had not furthered his own interests in a so called “unethical” way. However, even at that time the UP found that there had been no irregularities, and we have already heard that both Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Sutton were closely involved in this investigation.

However, that is not all. On Tuesday, 24 April 1973—an hon. member has already referred to this—a question was put during question time (Questions and Answers, Fourth Session, Fourth Parliament, volume 45). I want to quote this so that the hon. member for Brakpan can go and look it up. Mr. Mitchell put a further question, and I should like to quote it in Afrikaans in case there are some of them who do not understand English. Mr. Mitchell asked—

That was the question. Then a long list of names followed in the reply to the question, but the name S. P. Botha was not listed.

Of course, the intention of that question is very clear to me. Mr. Mitchell was hoping that the hon. the Minister had sold his land and that consequently the hon. the Minister could be accused of having acted unethically in 1973, although not in 1968, by having the debt written off as a Minister and then selling his land at a tremendous profit. The old United Party fell down on that score as well, since to this day the hon. the Minister, as well as all the other irrigation farmers, are still repaying, in the form of rates, the burden of debt they had supposedly “written off”, in the form of rates which are levied and which were increased to make provision for the repayment of both the written-off debt and the capital purchase price.

However, the CP is not satisfied with this. Reports and replies tabled or furnished in this House, are simply swept aside in their blind campaign of slander, and there is not even any national consideration of the situation as regards what a member has to declare. Does every member of the Cabinet who is a farmer, each time the price of milk or maize is increased, have to reveal that he is going to derive additional income from that? Incidentally, did the hon. member for Lichtenburg ever reveal that he had an interest in the increase in the price of maize when he was still a member of the Cabinet?

Furthermore, I wish to say that if I could investigate the matter, the hon. member for Brakpan could surely have done the same thing. He could surely have acquainted himself with the true state of affairs. For example, if I accuse a clergyman or a teacher of improper conduct, surely I have to acquaint myself with the facts. If I accuse a clergyman of having an affair with his organist, I have to acquaint myself with the facts before approaching the church council. Therefore, before accusing any professional man, I have to ascertain the facts. The same applies in respect of a Minister, perhaps even more so.

Why did the hon. member for Brakpan not do so? Why did he not acquaint himself with the facts? Why did he not first do his homework, as the old UP did, before opening his mouth? I shall tell you why not, Sir. In his blind spitefulness towards the hon. the Minister he threw all reason overboard and seized on anything, however unfounded, in this personal vendetta against him. I want to say to him today: The old UP were unable to achieve anything, and he will not be able to either. At least the old UP used their common sense, which more than I can say of him. I wish to say to the hon. member today that he should remember that his tongue is in a wet and slippery place and it could easily slip, and it has.

I wholeheartedly support the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, and I reject the motion of the hon. member for Brakpan, as well as the amendment of the hon. member for Groote Schuur, with the contempt they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I was amazed when I heard the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs put the case as to why a Select Committee should not be appointed. If I had been in the hon. the Minister’s position, I would have caused anything which sounded like a possible problem in the department to be investigated. Recently we had the problem, for example, of the Salem affair which was discussed here and which cast a wide net of questions throughout the country. What is very important is that we in this Parliament must be absolutely certain and that there is no possibility of suspicion mongering. When certain questions are put and people say they are aware of certain matters—I am referring, for example, to the case of Mr. Etheredge—should they not then be threatened? Attention should be given to this.

There was no proof.

Yes, Mr. Etheredge did not mention any specific names. However, the hon. member for Brakpan made out a case here and I want to ask the hon. members opposite whether an amount of R1 million was in fact written off.

Parliament wrote it off.

I just want to know whether everyone is aware that it was written off.

It is being recovered.

It is being recovered, but from whom? [Interjections.] In other words, Mr. X was granted a deferred loan to an amount of R190 000. Is that correct? If the Government does business in the way the hon. the Minister has just explained to us, chaos prevails, and a general investigation should be ordered to ascertain exactly what is going on in this department. [Interjections.] How can he say that R190 000 has been written off and that, to put it politely, it is to the credit of two farms?

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. the Prime Minister does not participate in this sort of debate. He merely deals out blows. Of course I am used to this by now and no longer take any notice of it. The hon. the Prime Minister said I was talking rubbish, but what has he to say about the hon. member for Mossel Bay, who said that when three people had a share in a business and received benefits as a result, there was nothing wrong with that.

You still do not understand it.

Does the hon. the Prime Minister agree with him?

Are three people not part of the community?

If three people have a share in a business, a share to which they are not entitled, it was the hon. member’s standpoint that as long as there is more than one of them … [Interjections.] That was the hon. member’s argument. He can look at his Hansard.

However, the facts are that in 1971 the hon. the Minister of Manpower made a submission in such a way that his recommendations were accepted and that the water scheme was written off. It is also a fact that he did not disclose his interest to Parliament. Which hon. member in this House can prove to me that the hon. the Minister disclosed it to Parliament either in writing or orally? No one can prove it. In other words, the matter was never disclosed to Parliament. That is a fact. That is the point. Is the Government afraid that witnesses from the department may be asked to give evidence before a Select Committee?

No.

Why not appoint a Select Committee then? The Government is afraid that there are officials in the department who can give more evidence than the evidence I have at my disposal today. What is the Government afraid of? The Government is afraid that its own officials can give evidence which will hang the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] A Government ought not to ask what is prescribed by legislation. When a person is a Minister, one must ask what is morally right.

I should like to refer to a parallel case, the case of Jan Haak. Jan Haak only made a loan from the Land Bank while he was still a Cabinet Minister.

Personally?

Yes, he took out the loan. [Interjections.]

Your entire argument has fallen flat.

He took out the loan personally. There was no law prohibiting him from making a loan. The hon. member for De Kuilen then asked a question about it. I do not know whether hon. members still remember it. Of course he heard this from old families like Fanie van der Merwe and the like so that he was able to raise it here in this House. This is already history, important history, which will still be recorded in future. However, what I want to tell hon. members is that I am not suggesting that the then Minister of Economic Affairs was not entitled to make a loan from the Land Bank. In terms of the Act, he could do so. I have been informed that he was not farming alone; he was farming with a few other people. Hon. members can laugh. It is strange that when they do not have an answer, they begin to laugh hysterically. [Interjections.] The point I want to make here is that the general attitude was that the then Minister of Economic Affairs, Mr. Haak, acted unethically in making a loan. At that stage there was also an election and the old United Party—they are all still sitting here—said that the Minister had acted unethically. What happened then? The next time the former Prime Minister reshuffled his Cabinet, he left him out. Sir, history will still repeat itself. It is quite clear to me that the Government does not intend to take the many cases which have been referred to it in this House seriously. Hon. members here are extremely worried. They know that something is wrong. A while ago the English newspapers reported that allegations against two members of Parliament were being investigated by the Advocate General. But they were verligtes. In other words, if one is a verligte, one can do no wrong. They were verligtes and therefore it was apparently the CP that had reported them to the Advocate General. This afternoon I want to ask hon. members: Are there two cases before the Advocate General and did the CP lodge the complaints? Was it one of us? [Interjections.] I am asking: Did we report it?

There is another matter I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs.

The Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries.

Sir, nowadays people are appointed to such strange posts, posts where they do not belong, that hon. members must not hold it against me if I refer to the hon. the Minister as the Minister of Water Affairs. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he did not make an attempt to mislead the entire country, the general public, when he stated the other day in reply to a question by the hon. member for Brakpan …

What statement?

He stated that the hon. the Minister had disclosed his interest. The hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries said that the Minister of Water Affairs had disclosed his interest here in Parliament and that everyone had known about it.

Go and read my Hansard.

Did the hon. the Minister not say that? [Interjections.] Parliament therefore did not know. [Interjections.] Is the hon. the Minister saying that Parliament did not know about it? [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister ought to stand up and say that this Select Committee consisted of members of the old United Party and others and that those members are now serving in the President’s Council and elsewhere.

And who knew.

They knew, but the point I want to make is that the Parliament of South Africa was not aware of this. [Interjections.] Parliament was unaware that this amount had been written off.

This afternoon the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs accused us of being destructive, of playing the man and several other things. I asked the hon. the Minister whether he remembered that he had voted for Connie. Then the hon. the Minister replied “Yes” with acclamation to my question, but, he said that he had never voted for Andries Treurnicht. Can the hon. the Minister remember that? [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister says he remembers it. The hon. the Minister accused us of disloyalty and he served for three years under that man, Dr. Treurnicht, as chairman. Andries Treurnicht was his leader and his chairman, but the hon. the Minister accused us of being people without loyalty because we wanted to attack the hon. the Minister of Manpower.

I did not gossip about him or denigrate him. I was loyal and that is more than you can say.

The hon. the Minister did not vote for him. [Interjections.] As far as this matter is concerned, I just want to say that South Africa, this country that we all love, has gone through a period which has not been a credit to this Parliament. I want to mention this. This Government is not trusted by the people outside, and it is important for a Government to be trusted. The people who work with one’s money, the people who spend one’s money, have to be trusted, and for that reason I support the motion of the hon. member for Brakpan.

Mr. Speaker, I always find it amazing to listen to the hon. member for Langlaagte when he speaks in this House, since he never comes to the point at issue. He always drags in all kinds of other things. However, even if he is very confused, I shall try to reply to some of the questions he put here during the course of my speech.

I believe that this is a tragic day when we as members of this hon. House, from the most senior member of the Cabinet to the most junior member, have to experience this kind of thing. With the exception of a few hon. members, we all have constituencies and each one of us has had the experience, if we want to be honest, that there is something about our character doing the rounds in our own constituencies. However, what I take seriously amiss of the hon. member for Brakpan is that he brings this kind of story to this House and misuses this House to have these stories discussed here. I take this very seriously amiss of him.

The hon. member for Langlaagte and a number of other Opposition spokesmen debated whether the hon. the Minister of Manpower has or had a duty to declare his interest in this matter; whether he had a judicial or a moral duty to have done so. For the purpose of my argument, I do not wish to take this question further, since it has already been debated.

What is before this House at present? We have a motion to the effect that in view of certain allegations made in that motion, a Select Committee be appointed to investigate these matters. If we consider the motion and listen to his motivation, it is my contention that neither the motion nor the motivation we have listened to constitute a prima facie case that there is anything whatsoever to investigate. Why do I say that? I say it because documents of this House exist that relate to every facet and every element of that motion in which every possible reply to the questions that could be required has already been furnished. That is why my standpoint is, and that is why I wish to argue, that neither in the motion, not in its motivation, is there a prima facie case that there is anything whatsoever to investigate.

I found the argument of the hon. member for Umhlanga very interesting. The one moment he said that it was true that through this motion the CP were engaged in the character assassination of the hon. the Minister of Manpower. That was the statement he made. I agree with him wholeheartedly on that score; I concede that he is quite right about that. However, a little later in his speech he supported the amendment of the official Opposition which states that there should be an investigation. He upset his whole argument by giving this support, since if the aim of the motion was to sully the character of an hon. member of this House, one would not support an amendment which stated that an investigation should be held.

I wish to mention a further matter. It is the subject of the motion of the hon. member for Brakpan. What the motion deals with has already been discussed in public, both outside and inside this House. It was put forward as an accusation against the hon. the Minister of Manpower. That was the whole campaign which was being waged both within and outside this House before we met here today. We are all aware that the hon. the Minister of Manpower is at present engaged in fighting a by-election in Soutpansberg. Fairness demands that that hon. Minister ought to be able to defend himself in public against the accusation being made against him by the hon. member for Brakpan and his colleagues. I think the hon. member for Brakpan would concede that fairness demands that he should be able to defend himself against that. However, I maintain that the whole object of this motion of the hon. member for Brakpan and his party this afternoon was precisely to deprive the hon. the Minister of Manpower of that right and privilege, a reasonable right to which he is entitled. The moment a Select Committee is appointed, as the hon. member for Brakpan is suggesting, the hon. the Minister of Manpower can no longer proceed to defend himself in public. He may, however, give evidence before the Select Committee. That is why I am saying that I believe the main object of the motion of the hon. member for Brakpan before this House is to silence the hon. the Minister of Manpower on this matter. For that reason I am unable to support his motion.

The question of irrigation boards, irrigation land, loans and water rates has a long history. I wish to put that aspect in perspective somewhat. The hon. member for Langlaagte would do well to remain seated, since if he did so he could learn something about the Water Act. A presidential commission of inquiry into water affairs was appointed in 1966. That was the so called Viljoen Commission. One of the aspects the Viljoen Commission investigated and on which it reported in October 1969, was the financial position of irrigation farmers. The commission pointed out that there was a considerable degree of inequitable treatment—the word “discrimination” was used by the commission—between, on the one hand, the irrigation farmers who constructed their own irrigation works as private irrigators and had to pay for them themselves, with or without a subsidy from the State, plus, in the same category, the irrigation farmers who fell under an irrigation board, and on the other, irrigation farmers who received their water from a comprehensive State water scheme.

The commission found that because the irrigation farmers under an irrigation board had a heavier financial burden because they had to repay loans which they normally received from the State over a period of 30 years, as opposed to the farmer who received his water under a State water scheme, at a price calculated by capitalizing the loan over the lifespan of the scheme, attention should be given to that. The commission also found that the position of irrigation boards—at that stage there were more than 200 of them—required urgent attention because the farmers who fell under them, were experiencing a number of problems in respect of the cost of their water.

Another interesting finding of the commission to illustrate that many of the irrigation boards found themselves in financial difficulties, is that from 1910 to 1960 the State had already been compelled to write off millions of rands of State money which had been lent to the irrigation boards, because the farmers who fell under them could no longer make ends meet financially. I wish to refer to two figures. The commission said that from 1910 to 1960, approximately R14 million had been written off in this way. This does not appear in the report, but I have information to the effect that since 1971 a further R2,67 million of this debt has been written off, apart from the particular write-off in the case of the Njelele scheme.

Therefore it was the general pattern that irrigation boards experienced financial problems and that the State rendered assistance. And that did not only apply to the Njelele Irrigation Board, but also to a whole series of irrigation boards saddled with the same dilemma. In view of the report, the then Secretary for Water Affairs, Dr. J. P. Kriel, who was also a member of the Water Affairs Commission, made a submission to the then Minister of Water Affairs. In that submission he said that the department would have to give attention to the financial problems of farmers who irrigated their land under the umbrella of the irrigation boards. With regard to the Njelele Irrigation Board, he pointed out that as a result of drought and other factors they too had had problems and that the assistance the department had offered them, had not achieved results and that another solution would therefore have to be found. Dr. Kriel then focused the attention of the then Minister on the fact that in terms of an amendment to the Water Act, it was possible for the State to take over such irrigation schemes—the Njelele scheme as well—to regain control over them and to relieve the irrigation board of its commitments. Consequently he recommended this to the department, as well as to the hon. the Minister. He recommended that this should be done in the case of the Njelele Irrigation Board because he believed that this would be the only possible solution in assisting the irrigation farmers under that scheme.

On the recommendation of the head of the department, the scheme was transferred to the State in January 1971 and the State took over the responsibility for the control of the dam, the operation of the canals, the waterworks and the scheme as a whole. At the same time, the irrigation farmers themselves submitted a petition to this board. They said that despite the State having taken over this scheme, they were still having problems with their debt. They consequently asked the board to write off this debt as well. Other speakers have already gone into the details of this matter. They have also indicated what happened in the Select Committee, the outcome of which was that this Parliament eventually wrote off the debt of the irrigation board as well.

One thing is very important. When the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Nic Treurnicht, laid its report upon the Table and made its recommendations on 7 June 1971, it was not only the affairs of the Njelele Irrigation Board which were dealt with. I have the minutes here with me. In all, there were eight irrigation boards whose problems were dealt with in the same way as those of the Njelele Irrigation Board …

There were not eight Ministers.

… in respect of which the Select Committee made identical recommendations. I just wish to quote two to illustrate my statement, to serve as an example. There was a petition from the Reenen Irrigation Board in respect of which it was said—

As I have said, there were eight such irrigation boards that were dealt with in the same way as the Njelele Irrigation Board. Therefore it cannot be said—as the hon. member for Brakpan would very much like to suggest—that the Njelele Irrigation Board was seen or dealt with in isolation. [Interjections.] That is the impression he wanted to create. [Interjections.]

Read my Hansard.

That is the impression he wanted to create. What he neglected to do, was to put it in perspective and to say that the matter of the Njelele Irrigation Board was dealt with in conjunction with, and in precisely the same manner as, a number of others.

I said that. Go and read my Hansard.

The ultimate question is whether the hon. the Minister of Manpower had a debt, whether it is written off and whether he himself benefited from it. [Interjections.] It is as easy as that. My contention is that the hon. the Minister of Manpower did not have a personal debt. It was the debt of the irrigation board.

Did he have an interest?

The irrigation board owed the State a certain amount. It was not the individual farmer, not Piet Pompies, S. P. Botha and others, but the irrigation board that was the debtor. That is why I am saying that the hon. the Minister of Manpower had no debt whatsoever. Nor was any personal debt of his written off. What Parliament did, was to write off the debt of the irrigation board.

Another very important matter is that that debt did not simply disappear. The provisions of the Water Act expressly state that when Parliament approves the writing-off of a debt, the amount involved is added to the total cost of the entire water scheme. Then, when the water rates are paid—in other words, when it is determined what each farmer who receives water from that scheme has to pay—the amount of the debt is also taken into account in the formula. The hon. member for Brakpan knows that this is so. After all, he is familiar with the provisions of the Water Act. Therefore, the debt of the Njelele Irrigation Board was debited against the entire State water scheme after Parliament had written off the debt. The full amount was debited. In time, the rates levied by the State on each of these owners were adjusted, since what has to be paid with the water rates? It is levied by the State for the following reasons: Firstly, to cover the initial construction cost of the dam with its canals; secondly, to make provision for the maintenance of that scheme; thirdly, to make provision for the operation of the entire scheme; and, if there is debt, as in this case, to recover the capital plus interest on that debt.

Today water rates, in which the component of this debt is included, are paid on every square centimetre of scheduled land under the Njelele scheme. Surely, then, it is incorrect to say that the Minister of Manpower owes that money. The scheduled land is subject to rates, and as long as the land remains scheduled, as the land of the hon. the Minister is perhaps still scheduled today, there is a liability to pay rates. Therefore, the debt is being repaid in any case.

This proves how ridiculous is the attitude and the entire vendetta of the hon. member for Brakpan and his colleagues. That is why I reiterate that what is at issue here is not their so called tremendous concern about sound administration and about this kind of pious argument. What is at issue is one thing and one thing only: They have launched a campaign against the hon. the Minister of Manpower, and to prevent him from reacting in turn, they want this Select Committee so that he may be silenced. I therefore take pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and I strongly object to the motion of the hon. member for Brakpan.

Mr. Speaker, we have today witnessed the culmination of the hatred, resentment, “broedertwis”, allegations, counter-allegations and character assassination that have bedevilled Parliament from the time the CP was formed after its break away from the NP. We are holding this debate in the climate of the heat and dust of Soutpansberg and Waterberg.

We have before us motions concerning the appointment or not of a Select Committee on allegations concerning the hon. the Minister of Manpower. The NP has rejected the request for the appointment of a Select Committee and has moved an amendment asking us to negate the appointment of the committee. I am a little surprised at the Government’s attitude at this stage in the sense that when the hon. member for Brakpan raised the allegation in the first instance he was challenged by the hon. the Prime Minister to call for a Select Committee. He in fact called for a Select Committee, the Government now rejects his request.

On the one hand, there must be a motive for the CP moving its motion. The Government also has a reason for its motive in rejecting the CP’s request and proposing its own alternative. What are the motives at this stage? Each one is trying to put its own case, each one has a direct interest in the outcome of the inquiry or non inquiry into the conduct of the hon. the Minister of Manpower. There may also be ulterior motives on the part of the CP—I do not know—in coming to this House with such a motion. It is not without a cloud of suspicion in the sense that it is hard to believe that having sat in this House for more than 10 years the facts were not known to those hon. members when they were still in the NP. Nothing has ever been said about this. It is also hard to accept—I think it is common cause—that the hon. the Minister of Manpower did not face the same allegations when he stood for the office of Prime Minister and also for the position of leader of the NP in the Transvaal. There is therefore a cloud of suspicion as to the motivation for this allegation.

It is also obvious that there are by-elections pending on 10 May which are absolutely vital for the survival of the CP. The by-elections are also vital for the NP in the light of the plans which it wishes to put before the country and to proceed with. There is therefore far more at stake than the simple question of the appointment or not of a Select Committee.

When one looks at the motion moved by the CP, one sees that it is not a request. With great respect to the hon. member for Ermelo who says that there is no prima facie case, this motion reads like an indictment. It reads like a charge-sheet. It does not read like a motion requesting the appointment of a Select Committee. The hon. member for Brakpan actually charges the hon. the Minister with breaches and failures. It is an indictment, a charge-sheet against the hon. the Minister, and the hon. member for Brakpan is asking for a Select Committee to clear the hon. the Minister of this indictment. This is not the way I think it should be.

The hon. the Minister of Manpower himself is in the position whereby he has to have his name cleared. Allegations have been brought against him which, I believe, deserve investigation. It is all very well to say that a question was framed in 1968 connecting the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs’s name to a water scheme. However, it is another thing to have brought to Parliament a petition—it was placed before a Select Committee and his name does not appear in it—and also a memorandum, submitted and signed by “S. P. Botha, Minister of Water Affairs” on 22 March 1971 in which he asks Parliament to write off this huge amount of R1,14 million. Morally speaking—and I say this with great respect—the hon. the Minister, knowing that he was an interested party and knowing that he would be writing off R190 000 of his own personal money, should never ever have presented this memorandum to this House in his capacity as Minister of Water Affairs, asking this amount to be written off and asking this House to accept it without debate. Therefore we do not say that there is no prima facie case here. On the other hand, no offence may have been committed by the hon. the minister either morally or legally in terms of laws or conventions of this House itself. However, when one looks at the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, one finds that he is in fact asking this House today to sit as a Select Committee and to pass judgment clearing the hon. the Minister of Manpower of all the allegations that have been made against him by the hon. member for Brakpan; and not only that, but also to say that it is a campaign waged with intent and without foundation by the hon. member for Brakpan to indict him. This is in fact a political motion, therefore, and when one looks at paragraph (b) of the amendment of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs one sees that it states—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs: If this is accepted today in this Parliament, does he think the public of South Africa will say that the hon. the Minister of Manpower’s name has been cleared once and for all? Does he honestly believe that? Does he honestly believe that the electorate are so motivated at present that the NP can simply pass a motion of this nature with the huge majority that they have in this House, a motion which in fact makes this House into a Select Committee, with speeches being made by hon. members of this House but with no evidence being led which can be cross-examined or tested, or with witnesses from outside this Chamber being called to give evidence before a Select Committee so that a proper decision can be made?

All the facts of that particular issue are on record.

But we do not even know whether you knew or not. [Interjections.]

I believe that hon. members opposite are not doing the hon. the Minister of Manpower any good. I think they are doing him a lot of harm. I think that the amendment that hon. members opposite are asking us to accept will do him harm. If hon. members opposite were to accept our amendment and get this matter away from the heat of debate in Parliament—away from the situation that we are facing with only two weeks to go—and use somebody who is completely inpartial, this cloud that has hung over the hon. the Minister of Manpower for more than ten years would be removed. I am sure that he would be the first who would want the matter to be cleared up once and for all so that allegations of this nature would never again be made against him in his public life. The morality and legality of this issue is very important. We are dealing here with a man who is the most senior member of the Cabinet next to the hon. the Prime Minister, a man who is the Leader of this House, a man who should set an example to all junior members of Parliament, a man who should set an example to the whole of South Africa, a man whose morality should be entirely without question whatsoever, and hon. members opposite are not going about clearing his name in the proper way. They will be doing so however, if they appoint a judge and I assure hon. members opposite that the appointment of such a judge can take place without delay. Such a judge would be able to decide very quickly whether in fact the hon. the Minister had a duty to discharge with regard to his moral or legal obligations, what the scope of that duty was and whether or not the hon. the Minister was guilty of any breach of the moral, legal or ethical conventions of this Chamber as well. It can be done very quickly before 10 May and his name can be cleared once and for all.

In regard to the question of morality, there are just two points I wish to make. The hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to section 11 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act which deals with the question of direct pecuniary interest. As the hon. member for Mossel Bay said, if a member has a direct pecuniary interest in any particular matter, he should not participate in any discussions in this House in relation to any matter affecting such direct pecuniary interest. However, there is also the fact that the question before the House must seek to confer a personal or pecuniary advantage or diminish a personal pecuniary loss. I think that this aspect should be examined. I am not indicting the hon. the Minister. All I am saying is that if anybody feels that there is a cloud of suspicion over him, it should be removed.

The hon. member for Umhlanga made a good point, I think, in regard to the appointment of a judicial commission. I think that if any good can comte from this debate and from a judicial inquiry, then I think we should follow what was discussed in this House on 8 June 1971. I wish to quote from col. 8457 of Hansard when the then leader of the United Party, Sir De Villiers Graaff dealt with the interests of certain hon. members in regard to shares and so forth. This is what he said—

Sir De Villiers Graaff went on to say—

As I say, Sir De Villiers Graaff was dealing here with rules that had been laid down by the late Sir Winston Churchill. These were not conventions; they were rules. Sir De Villiers Graaff went on to say—

I believe, Sir, that these grey areas that we have been discussing in regard to whether this or that action is moral or immoral or legal or illegal should be clearly defined by a judicial commission, and that certain rules should be laid down by this House in regard to what a member may or may not do so that people are not placed under suspicion, particularly at election time, either for ulterior motives or otherwise.

In conclusion I want to say that we believe that it would be in the interests of this House and of justice that the hon. the Minister of Manpower be given the opportunity to appear before a select committee together with others who have evidence to lay before the committee so that the air in this House can be cleared once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Hillbrown raised an important aspect of the debate here. When we sum up this matter, there are actually only two aspects we have to consider. I shall also deal with the other aspects but I should like to concentrate on these two. One aspect is whether the hon. the Minister of Manpower had a financial interest in that debt. The second aspect is whether he disclosed that interest. These are the only facts on which a Select Committee or this Parliament has to decide. What gave rise to my request for a Select Committee to be appointed? You will remember, Sir, that when I spoke for the second time during the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister I said to the hon. the Prime Minister that if he was so convinced that the hon. the Minister of Manpower had done nothing wrong, why did he not request the appointment of a Select Committee? His reaction was: “You ask for one”. [Interjections.] I assumed that if I were to ask for one, it would be appointed. [Interjections.] What is happening now? Hon. members of the PFP …

It is a substantive motion.

Of course it is a substantive motion. Surely that is what is now before this House. But what is happening now? The hon. members of the PFP have argued here that a case has been made out for a judge to make a decision on this matter. If my motion is defeated, we shall vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Groote Schuur. We are requesting that a Select Committee of this House investigate this matter. It goes without saying that the members of such a Select Committee would consist of hon. members of the Government who would be in the majority, and hon. members of the Opposition. Together they would investigate this entire matter.

When will the report appear?

The notice of motion in connection with this matter appeared on the Order Paper today. It could have appeared on the Order Paper at a later stage. We are involved in a political struggle.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs whether he will agree with me when I say that if a Minister in charge of a certain portfolio is involved in and has to take a decision on a matter in which he has an interest, then uberrima bona fides, the utmost good faith, is expected of him.

The Parliament has decided that all facts were known beforehand.

The Governing party decided that they were known, but there were many things that were not known beforehand. I should also like to quote what the hon. member for Hillbrow quoted, namely (Hansard, 8 June 1971, col. 8458)—

The hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries has made all kinds of speculative suppositions that the matter was discussed with the then Prime Minister. That is one fact we do not know. Something else we do not know is whether the members of that Select Committee themselves had any knowledge of these events. [Interjections.] That is not so. It does not appear on the record. The facts we have to consider are those appearing in the official records of the time.

[Inaudible.]

I gave the hon. the Minister sufficient time to put his case. We are discussing what appeared in the official records of that Select Committee and of Parliament.

We have it all.

No, you do not have it all. The official record of that Select Committee merely stated that it had an input from the Minister of Water Affairs and the petition before it. That is what the official record stated. It did not state that judicial cognizance could have been taken of what happened in 1969 or at any other time.

The hon. member for Ermelo said that a Select Committee also adopted resolutions in connection with other boards. He can go and look at what is said about the other boards in the Minutes. I am quoting (Minutes of Proceedings, 7 June 1971, p. 345)—

It goes on to say—

It goes on to say—

We now come to Njelele. What do we read in this connection? The following—

Is that not interesting? Is that not extremely interesting? Now really, in connection with all eight or nine other irrigation boards it is said that they had considered the petition and then wrote various debts, whereas in connection with this one there was also a memorandum from the Minister of Water Affairs. How does one understand that?

But I have already replied to you on that.

This afternoon the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries grossly insulted me. He accused me of doubting his integrity, and so on. He should go and take a look at his Hansard. Dr. Kriel made an input to the hon. the Minister, and I now challenge the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries to show me whether it is stated in his Hansard that he said the hon. the Minister had made an input to the Select Committee in his personal capacity. I shall not apologize to him; he may have made a mistake …

I quoted the same passage as you did.

That is correct, that is quite correct, but the hon. the Minister quoted what the department had written to the then Minister; he did not quote what the then Minister had submitted to the Select Committee.

What I quoted was the submission to the Select Committee.

I think the hon. the Minister should take a look at his Hansard.

There is a further fact which is not known to the House of Assembly. It has been said—the hon. member for Ermelo said this—that this debt is being paid back during the life of the scheme. We should like to know what that debt amounts to. We should like to know what this amount is today. We should like to know whether that debt has diminished over the past ten years. If the hon. the Minister says that the debt will be paid off over the life of the scheme, we as the House of Assembly would like to know what the total amount of that debt is today, what the tax on it is today and what the operating costs amount to today. I have certain figures available and I want to quote them because they can be correlated.

If you know what those figures are, what more do you want?

The Select Committee has to verify these things.

In 1979-’80 that debt amounted to R1,8 million and in 1981-’82 almost R1,9 million. After 10 years that debt had almost doubled. This is information that has to be submitted to the Select Committee. At this stage the operating costs of that scheme exceed the rates being levied on it.

This is true of many schemes.

But surely the rates were increased as well.

The rates are increased in accordance with the consumption. If an irrigator uses his full quota …

How were the rates increased? Tell us a little more about that aspect.

There is not a single scheme in the country where things are different.

We shall tell the farmers you say we should tax them fully.

That is not what is at issue. I want to return to the crux of the matter, which is whether the hon. the Minister of Manpower, the then Minister of Water Affairs, had an interest in this debt, and if so, whether he disclosed that interest. We maintain that a Select Committee can go into this. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who made an interjection at one stage. He said Parliament had to decide what its rules are.

We are doing so now.

No, that is not the case.

We are in the process of doing so now.

When the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs says “we are in the process of doing so now”, then he is also saying that we—

He is therefore saying that this House accepts that an hon. Minister who is the owner of 514 hectares of scheduled land in a scheme comprising a total of 3 099 ha of scheduled land, i.e. a sixth of the Njelele Scheme, need not declare this in a memorandum to the Select Committee. Is that correct?

That has been the case for 15 years now.

Let me mention a typical case I have here. If such a petition is before a Select Committee, the petition states who the owners are, how much land is scheduled and how much land may be scheduled. There is also an input from the department, not from the Minister of Water Affairs. Why then, in this case, was there an input from the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs?

That was not the case and you know it.

The hon. member for Ermelo said that the farmers themselves were not responsible for that debt. Why did the hon. the Minister and Dr. Kriel then say—

[Interjections.] Surely he therefore had an interest in the matter because he was going to be taxed by the irrigation board in the near future. [Interjections.] He has been taxed by the irrigation board over a period of 30 years to pay that debt, and that debt was written off by a Select Committee which recommended this, after a memorandum had been submitted by the hon. the Minister in which he did not declare his interest. [Interjections.]

We shall tell the farmers what you say.

Let us take another look at the position.

We shall tell the farmers what your party says.

They no longer listen to your party.

I should like to refer to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. He is not being fair when he says this is part of a vendetta I am waging. [Interjections.] I repeat: What came first, the chicken or the egg?

An empty shell.

He knows the history, and the noisy hon. member for Roodeplaat knows the background to these matters. He knows how he worked and wangled behind the scenes to get the hon. the Minister of Manpower elected leader of the Transvaal. [Interjections.] All the hon. members sitting there know that the hon. the Minister of Manpower never wanted to abide by the decisions of the head committee of the Transvaal. [Interjections.] That is where the difficulty lies. [Interjections.] Yes, that is where the difficulty lies. That hon. Minister spoke about character assassination. [Interjections.]

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

No thank you, I cannot reply to any questions now. I only have five minutes left. [Interjections.] That hon. Minister spoke about character assassination. However, who stood up here, stepped out of his bench, challenged Dr. Treurnicht and accused him of being a coward, of not having the courage of a mouse or a gnat? [Interjections.] Is that supposed to be character boosting? Who virtually brought down the sky upon us, although the hon. the Prime Minister said that we could not hold an election or a referendum now, because we had work to do? Of course we have work to do.

Not the kind of work you are doing now.

These are things which resulted from this election struggle. There sits the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. What did he say about Cottesloe and Soweto? These are all things that are being said in the heat of battle. In this regard no one is blameless. Who can tell me he is blameless? There sits the hon. member for Innesdal. What has he not done? After all, this is politics. It is part of the political struggle. People very close to that hon. Minister—I am referring to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs—went about in my constituency …

The hon. member for Brakpan will have another opportunity to discuss that matter. He must now confine himself to this motion.

Sir, I accept your ruling. I just want to say that what is going to happen now is that the NP is going to decide that the then Minister of Water Affairs is innocent. There will be no Select Committee to investigate the matter properly. Sir, do you know who Mr. Jordaan was? He was the former Secretary of Water Affairs. Do you know what became of him?

He is farming at De Doorns.

We could perhaps have established many things, because he was involved in these matters and he was pensioned off at an early age. We should air all these things a little. We can talk about engineers who are no longer in the service of the Department of Water Affairs. These are the kind of matters which should have been discussed by the Select Committee. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I want to emphasize with all the conviction I am able to muster, that a Minister of the State has a tremendous responsibility. As I mentioned a moment ago, the highest degree of bona fides is required of him. But would you believe it, here we find that in connection with the only debt which had to be written off in which he had an interest, he said in his capacity as Minister of Water Affairs that he wanted to submit a memorandum. Is it not for a Select Committee to decide whether this matter was in order or not?

If this cannot be done by a Select Committee, let it be done by means of a judicial inquiry. We are on the eve of a new dispensation. Today I again received telephone calls in this connection. People of colour are going to become Ministers of this State and we have to set those people an example. We have to give guidance to future Cabinets. In this connection I agree with the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. At this stage we must lay down a rule for ourselves and this is a matter for a Select Committee. It affects this Parliament. That is why we introduced this motion.

But we reacted to the motion of the hon. member for Groote Schuur by saying that other rules were going to be drawn up.

That is correct, but because the hon. the Minister reacted in that way, he agreed with my motion. [Interjections.] I interpret it in this way and my argument is that it is this Parliament that has to lay down fixed rules for its members. I think it is fair for a Select Committee to go into this. If the Select Committee then decides that the Minister may act as he acted here, fine. But that Select Committee may also say: In future we have to go into matters of this kind very thoroughly.

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

Upon which the House divided:

As fewer than fifteen members (Viz. Messrs. S. P. Barnard, F. J. le Roux, J. C. B. Schoeman, Dr. W. J. Snyman, Messrs. L. M. Theunissen, H. D. K. van der Merwe, J. H. van der Merwe, W. L. van der Merwe and Dr. F. A. H. van Staden), appeared on one side,

Question declared negatived and words omitted.

Substitution of the words proposed by Mr. B. R. Bamford put,

Upon which the House divided: