announced that the following vacancies had been filled with effect from 10 May 1983:

1. (1) Waterberg, by the election of Dr. the Honourable Andries Petrus Treurnicht;
2. (2) Waterkloof, by the election of Dr. Georg Marais.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Brakpan gave his version of Dr. Treurnicht’s … [Interjections.]

He is now the hon. member for Waterberg. [Interjections.]

I do not know whether it is contrary to the procedure of this House. [Interjections.] Whether it is the hon. member for Waterberg or Dr. Treurnicht, we know his identity. The hon. member for Brakpan gave his version here of what he said he had heard had happened in the Cabinet when the constitutional principles for South West Africa that had been proposed by the five Western powers were approved by the Cabinet on 19/20 January 1982. He said that Dr. Treurnicht had ostensibly stated on that occasion that his hands were in fact tied behind his back because he would not be able to approve or advocate something in South West Africa which he could not also find acceptable for South Africa. I think that was the tenor of the remarks made by the hon. member for Brakpan. The implication was that the hon. member for Brakpan’s version of the events in the Cabinet was ostensibly at variance with what we on the Government side had supposedly said.

This afternoon I shall give the hon. member and the House the facts precisely as they occurred. The hon. member did not indicate what the source of his information was. My sources are all the Cabinet Ministers who were there, plus notes, plus written documents drawn up when these events took place and not after Dr. Treurnicht had left the Cabinet. Let us get the chronological sequence right. In April 1978, under the premiership of Mr. Vorster …

Here we go again.

Do you not want to hear the facts?

That history is going to be very boring.

Order!

The hon. member for Brakpan put a question, and I think he is entitled to a reply to his question, just as the hon. member for Pinelands is entitled to replies to questions which he puts. If he adopts this attitude now, I shall not reply to any of his questions.

They are disgruntled about Waterkloof. [Interjections.]

Order!

Yes, but the hon. member must put aside his disgruntlement about Waterkloof now and sit there and do his work like a man.

Resolution 435 of the Security Council of the UN was adopted under the premiership of Mr. Vorster, and the present hon. Prime Minister—he authorized me to say this—was not satisfied with resolution 435 at all. In fact, as Minister of Defence at the time, he objected far more strenously to the acceptance of resolution 435 than Dr. Treurnfcht ever did to the acceptance of the constitutional principles for South West Africa last year. The difference, however, was this: After the Cabinet had accepted resolution 435 in April 1978, the then Minister of Defence, the hon. Prime Minister of today, considered himself bound to that Cabinet decision, as is customary in a Cabinet, and implemented and defended it and went to a great deal of trouble to fulfil South West Africa’s undertaking in that regard, although he thought we should not have accepted it. I am saying this openly, I am being quite candid about it so that everyone may know it. He considered himself bound to it in 1978, although he was not premier when it was accepted.

Dr. Treurnicht was a member of the NP caucus. I am now calling upon all caucus members as witnesses. While Mr. Vorster sat there, I explained resolution 435 fully to the caucus, and I say there was not a single caucus member of the party who was opposed to it. [Interjections.] I say there was not one. That is my first contention.

I come now to the second contention. In the winter of 1981 the hon. the Prime minister assembled his Cabinet in the operational area, not as a Cabinet, but as colleagues. He assembled them at a certain place in the bush. He also invited the leaders of South West Africa to attend Dr. Treurnicht was a member of the group of colleagues who conferred with the leaders of South West Africa there in the bush. The hon. the Prime Minister explained certain implications of resolution 435 to all the leaders of South West Africa there and said that we would not be able to avoid certain implications of resolution 435 as would possibly be amplified by further negotiations without coming into conflict with the Western World. The hon. the Prime Minister said that his colleagues sitting beside him—Dr. Treurnicht included—were in absolutely unanimous agreement with him; and no one said that the hon. the Prime Minister was wrong.

In the third place: On 11 November 1981 and subsequently, too, on 21 December 1981 I sent the constitutional principles for South West Africa which the five Western Powers had submitted to me, to all my colleagues. I told them in a letter in December that the proposals would at the request of the hon. the Prime Minister be discussed at the first Cabinet meeting of the new year in January 1982. My colleagues therefore had a month—even if it was a holiday month—in which to study them. The hon. the Prime Minister brought the subject up for discussion on 19/20 January and it was exhaustively discussed. Every member of the Cabinet was given an opportunity—I repeat every member—to state his opinion. On that occasion Dr. Treurnicht and other members, including myself who had to present and explain it—my letters are there to prove this—were not satisfied with the proposals that had been put to us. We did not feel happy about all those constitutional principles; of course we would have wished them otherwise. That was consequently how I stated it, after the Cabinet meeting, in a letter to Gen. Haig, which was also read out to the Cabinet. In fact every colleague of mine had objections to the idea that we had to accept those constitutional principles, but upon weighing up the alternatives, the Cabinet decided unanimously that it was the least painful alternative for the country and the Government. Thus it was in that spirit that Dr. Treurnicht stated that day that his hands were tied behind his back and that it was difficult for him to accept something for South West Africa what he could not accept for South Africa. I think he also said something else which this hon. member did not even refer to, and that was that he would have preferred to have seen greater emphasis on ethnicity. To which I replied: So would I. I understand that completely. I fought for it in negotiations. Dr. Treurnicht said that when it came to South West Africa, the Prime Minister and his colleagues should please accept, if they would, that he was not all that well informed and that he would consequently go along with whatever the Cabinet should decide in regard to that matter. A resolution was then adopted, which was that I should draft the letter to Gen. Haig and the five Western Powers. The letters were then drafted. I have them with me here. On 21 January 1982 the letter to Gen. Haig, together with a covering letter was handed to each of my colleagues, and I have the proof for that. The covering letter read as follows—

This letter was read out to the Cabinet and approved by every member of the Cabinet. I hope that this is the last word we will hear about this. If this is not the last word, we shall tell the country these facts and the truth once and for all, because I must honestly tell hon. members now that I am tired of the distortions and the denials of former colleagues who sat with us and knew what the truth was, and then went about denying it. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Rissik said I should resign. I want to state frankly this afternoon that if the hon. member had praised me, I would, so help me, have considered resigning. Let me say this to his face, so that we can understand one another. It was really my fear that he would praise me. However, I am going to disappoint the hon. member and remain here, and I hope that the hon. member is also going to remain here, because the longer he does so, the more chances he gives me to expose him. It is to my advantage if he stays here.

But that is not all. The hon. member launched a personal attack on me. He also accused me of pessimism. He said—hon. members who were here, will remember this—that I should move on from the waters of Mara to the waters of Elim.

You are wrong. I did not say that to you. I said that to Pierre Cronjé.

Very well then, but the hon. member did say that with reference to the pessimism which I had ostensibly displayed. He said during the debate yesterday that I should go because I was so pessimistic and was not keeping the country properly informed. We should move on from the waters of Mara to the waters of Elim. Whether he said it of me or not, he admits that he said it. Now I just want to tell him that the waters of Mara were made sweet again. I hope he knows that.

No, I don’t. After all, I am stupid!

The Israelites did not remain at Elim either. They were on their way to the Promised Land. This hon. member, however, wants to remain at Elim and keep on grumbling. He takes it amiss of me when we tell the people the truth. In public speeches I addressed certain warnings to the people of South Africa. I challenge the hon. member to deny any of those facts which I stated repeatedly in public. I challenge him to deny that it is essential for South Africa to maintain sound relations with other countries so that South Africa is able, for example, to maintain its imports and exports. Without exporting we shall not be able to dispose of our agricultural and processed agricultural produce to the value of R2 000 million, and that hon. member will not consume it. We shall not be able to export our minerals, we shall not have technological exchange with the outside world and this country will slowly die. In November 1981 Dr. Treurnicht, when he was still leader of the NP in the Transvaal, said at the last Transvaal Congress that our motto should be: “A strong economy for a strong Defence Force, a strong Defence Force for a strong economy.” Now I ask you: How is one to maintain that strong economy, particularly with their policy, if we are treading the verge of sanctions and boycotts with our policy? And who knows that better than I, who has to deal with it, when Gen. Haig says this to me, when the British Government says this to me and when the German Government says it to me? And they are the closest to friends we can find and they are also our principal trading partners. If South Africa cannot export to those countries—and this is a fact—then hon. members will see what happens to the economy of South Africa, even though they do not want it, even if, according to them, it is a mere scare-mongering and even if they do not like the facts. Even if they burrow their heads into the said, I now say to hon. members here that it is the duty of this Government to make those reasonable and fair changes which will as far as possible prevent this country from being economically hurt, and if the country is economically hurt, it will become militarily weak, and if that happens it will fall prey to the diabolic Soviet onslaught on South Africa. I hope I have made it clear now. I am saying this to hon. members, and if they do not wish to take my word for it, surely there are other ways of establishing the facts. There are documents on talks between the Americans and myself and the French, the Germans, the British and all the others and myself on the basis of which the facts can be established. I would be pleased if some of those documents could be released one day so that it can be seen in what way and with what efforts and with how much exertion this Government is trying to succeed in preventing this country’s economy from being dealt a blow and from being hurt. That is why one is becoming a little tired of this now, and the officials of my department are becoming a little tired of being maligned by their own people, officials who work day and night over the length and breadth of the globe, not as “change agents”, but to help our farmers to export their agricultural produce. I come from that department and I represent the feelings and sentiments of every member of my department. I grew up in that department. I started on the lowest rung of the ladder as they say. That is where I began. I challenge hon. members to go and ask any member of my department—when I am not present—whether I represent the sentiments of the department, yes or no. This is another invitation I am issuing to those hon. members. The fact of the matter is that there are a few truths from which they cannot escape. They cannot prove that their policy will not jeopardize this country economically. They can stand on their heads, but they cannot do that. This Government had a hard time preserving peace in the labour sphere. We know what our enemies are contemplating in this sphere. Is this scare-mongering? Is the war we are waging in the north of South West Africa scare-mongering? Is the pain and suffering of parents who lose children scaremongering? Is it something which I as the responsible Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information should try to prevent? Are these lives which I should try to save? And if, in the process I say to the country and the people: Let us discard that excess baggage which we do not require on our journey, which is not necessary to enable us to reach our final destination, let us get it off our backs because it is going to weigh us down and cause us to stumble, is that pessimism? Am I then being pessimistic? I am being accused of this. The hon. member is not going to get away with this. The hon. member is not going to get away with such personal attacks. They have now commenced with a strategy of personal attacks on hon. members on this side of the House, but we shall hit back at them with the truth; we shall hit back with the truth every time.

This Government is on its way to the crest and the path leading up to that crest moves uphill; it does not move downhill. The CP, however, thinks that it is a downhill path, and this is what they say to the people. They are misleading the people into a false sense of security. If they do not want to accept my facts about the crisis situation in which this country finds itself, one can arrive at only one conclusion. They are telling the people that it is a lot of nonsense. There is no war, there is no struggle; there is no danger of sanctions, and we can be cock of the walk. We alone are masters. We can make and break as we like. We need not be concerned about strikes. We need not be concerned about uprisings. We need not be concerned about boycotts. We are cock-sure of ourselves. This is the way we go out into the world, proclaiming our policy of White domination over everyone and everything. That is just about the way they are going about things. But let me say this to them: It may be temporarily popular and may bring them votes temporarily. I admit that they did well in Waterberg. That was a setback which hurt us, the NP. However, they thought that they were going to get the salt of Soutpansberg to rub into the wounds, but Soutpansberg brought the healing balm, and if they think that Waterberg will cause us to deviate one inch from the course we have taken, they do not realize what is waiting for them. Under the dignified and determined leadership of Prime Minister P. W. Botha … I saw how dignified he was this morning when he had to swallow his first disappointment, and it hurt, it hurt us all. However, it did not make us depressed. It was a disappointment, but it did not throw us off course. We said to one another: Now we shall, with so much more determination and fortitude, bring to fruition what we believe in, and we shall follow the uphill path of justice, because that is the path of life. They, on the other hand, can continue with the choice they made. The easy downhill path. It may be popular, but somewhere down below in the marshes, in the bogland, they are going to get bogged down, as certain as I am now standing here. I am not indulging in petty politics now. What we are dealing with is the truth concerning threats against this country, the necessity of bringing about better relations internally, among Whites, Coloureds, Asiatics and Blacks. They work on our farms; they work in our factories. We have an integrated economy. No one will be able to deny that. Those members of that party who have farms do not drive their own tractors or combine harvesters. What do they share with these people? Of course they share the economy with them because without them they would not be able to harvest a single grain; without them they would not be able to slaughter one animal. They no longer even milk their own cows. These are the facts, and I say that under these circumstances this Government, a Government which truly loves its country, will not tarry to savour the sweetness of the waters of Elim. What those hon. members do not seem to realize is that we are already in the promised land. It is expected of us to ensure that we bring the promise of this land to fruition, and we, this Government, will do this even if there are more disappointments awaiting us on this upward path, and even if we get hurt. The hurts we suffer will serve to enoble and encourage us to carry on with greater purpose. It strengthens us in our belief that we are not only on the right path, but that we are fulfilling the promise of the promised land. We must ensure that the promise is brought to fulfilment, in our hearts too, so that our children may also share in this promised land.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should take up the very matter on which the hon. the Minister ended his speech, namely the concept of a promised land. One of the lessons that we have been taught is that if we want to keep the promised land, we have to be deserving of it and therefore have to do something to keep it. If we do not do that, the promised land will not remain ours. We must therefore be prepared to fight for it and to make sacrifices for it.

Sir, I for one make no secret of the fact that I regard the results in the by-elections that have just taken place as being a slight setback to reform in South Africa. About that there is no question. I think we have to be honest about it. From what the hon. the Minister has said it is clear that our internal affairs are certainly relevant to the foreign policy we have to follow. There is one thing I should like to make clear, however, and that is that whereas this might be a slight setback to reform, it is not the end of reform in South Africa. I believe that reform is alive and well in South Africa, and will triumph in the end. The reality is that I do not make any secret of the fact that I stand for change in South Africa. If anybody wants to call me an agent for change I am not ashamed to admit that I am indeed an agent for change. The only point is that I am nobody’s agent except my own. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, that may be funny, but the remarks which hon. members of the CP sought to convey were that there were people in this House who were the agents of people from abroad. To my mind, Mr. Chairman, there are no agents for other people in this House. I believe we are here as members of Parliament, representing our constituencies and representing our views. People should, however, make no mistake. We believe in change and we will set about trying to create change. There can be no question about that.

Let us analyse what has actually happened here. I think we have to see it in perspective. The reality is that a challenge was issued and taken up. Now it is over; it is finished. We must now get on with the job. What has that challenge really produced? It has really produced very little. There is great jubilation. I make no secret of my disappointment that the PFP did not win the Waterkloof constituency. It was, however, an NP seat before. Why then the great jubilation?

As far as the result in Soutpansberg is concerned, again I make no secret of the fact that I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Manpower has won that seat. I make no secret of it because he actually represents those who believe in change. I believe he is nobody’s agent for change because he has brought about the changes himself. He has initiated in this House changes in respect of labour legislation, changes which stand us in good stead whenever we go overseas to advocate South Africa’s cause. Let hon. members of the CP say what they like; the reality is that we have to convey to the people of the West, people whom we want to remain our friends, that we are trying to tackle the job. One of the jobs we have to tackle is the labour legislation. Whatever the personality of the hon. Minister, the reality is that the hon. the Minister of Manpower symbolizes that change, and if he were beaten it would have been a blow to South Africa as far as change is concerned.

He is as good as beaten. Just you wait and see.

No, Mr. Chairman, his personality is not at issue. To me his personality is not the issue. What is the issue is what he stands for.

His personality and his policies have been beaten.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information that he has indeed stressed the point here he one can only change in South Africa if one can take the people along with one. One can however, only take the people with one if one leads them; not if one follows them. What the NP has to do, is to lead the people. The NP will have to go to the people and demonstrate to them that if they do not change they will indeed not survive. That is the real lesson. [Interjections.] What is important is the lead that has to be given.

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

No, Mr. Chairman, I do not have time to reply to questions now. I have only ten minutes, and the hon. member knows that. [Interjections.]

Order!

The real disappointment about this whole by-election campaign has been that instead of going to the people and telling them what is necessary and what the NP stand for, we have had the parks debacle in Pretoria. There we found that the now hon. member for Waterkloof was indeed not prepared to say it was wrong. The only one who had the courage to say that it was wrong was! the hon. member for Innesdal, and I take my hat off to him. Yesterday the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information indirectly said the same thing. The reality is, however, that South Africa cannot afford what happened in Pretoria in respect of the parks. We simply cannot afford it. The simple issue of whether there is a local option is nonsense. The reality is that what happened in the capital city of South Africa affects the image of South Africa abroad. That is what we have to look at. We cannot ignore it.

I should like to point out another example, an example that disappoints me terribly. The hon. member for Pretoria Central has always posed as one of the verligte members of this House. Yet he was present at the meeting, together with the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, a meeting which has been reported in the Press and where something was said which has never been repudiated. The hon. member for Pretoria Central was reported by The Star as saying that the Government was building apartheid into the constitution. [Interjections.] No, Mr. Chairman, he said the Government was building apartheid into the constitution. [Interjections.] Then he went on to say it was a pity that the word “apartheid” was ever used, as the word “decentralization” had more meaning internationally. It is ludicrous. How can a man who knows what harm the word “apartheid” does to South Africa abroad, a man who talks about reform and about a new constitution and who wants to bring Coloureds and Indians into it, say that apartheid has been built into the constitution? The hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism was there, but there is nothing in the paper that says he repudiated him, there is nothing that says that it was rejected. With great respect, Sir, that is not how one sells South Africa.

Does it report what I said? [Interjections.]

How would you sell South Africa?

I will tell the hon. member how I sell South Africa, because this is what I in fact want to talk about. The attack on this party has not been on the basis of what it does and what it stands for, but on the basis of what other people say it is supposed to do and stand for. As far as this party is concerned, its rule as an opposition party in foreign policy is one which I believe has done South Africa good. I want to illustrate that. Firstly, this party has throughout, when its members have gone abroad, advocated non-violent solutions to South Africa’s problems. It has rejected violence and it has rejected terrorism. That is important in the world abroad, and the hon. the Minister knows that.

What about Hulley?

What we have tried to say—and I want to repeat it today—is that the West must know that, if it wants South Africa to remain within the orbit of the Western concept, there must be peaceful change in South Africa, because if there is violent change in South Africa, South Africa will move into the orbit of the Soviets. The only hope there is of South Africa remaining part of the West is if peace is maintained and whatever change there is comes about by peaceful means. I think it is an important lesson to say this to the West. The third thing this party has done is that is has consistently opposed boycotts and sanctions against South Africa. Coming from the Opposition, that must be an influential factor. Fourthly, this party has consistently supported investment in South Africa and opposed moves towards disinvestment and it has in fact advanced arguments why it is necessary not to disinvest and why it is necessary to invest. In addition to that, this party has shown by its very existence that there are agents who believe in meaningful change, that there is a party that believes in meaningful change, that there is a White opposition party which believe in meaningful change. It has shown that there is a parliamentary opposition in existence; and, together with a critical Press, these have been meaningful factors in the fight for South Africa. I expect the hon. the Minister to recognize that. What I also expect is that we should be enabled to play our part to the full in advocating these things when it comes to the foreign policy of South Africa, because it is necessary for South Africa that this be done if a peaceful situation is to continue here and if we are to keep our friends in the West. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I will not react to the last portion of the hon. member for Yeoville’s speech. He was pointing out what the role and duty of a loyal Opposition should be. As far as his actions are concerned, his actions are such; he behaves as one would expect a member of a loyal Opposition to behave. However, one cannot always say the same of all of the statements of the gentlemen in his party, because one finds on occasion—this was exemplified by the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point—that members on that side of the House make statements which in fact are helpful in arguments directed against this country, particularly currently on the whole question of destabilization. Things the hon. member for Sea Point has said give the impression that that hon. member is also suspicious of South Africa’s actions and how we conduct ourselves as far as the subcontinent is concerned, and that he has doubts as to South Africa’s sincerity in maintaining peace, stability, order and growth in the subcontinent. Every time there is an incident the hon. member is the first to run to the Press releases and the stories which we have from time to time. It is always that hon. member who will put a question on the Question Paper the next day and who will make a fuss about it. The hon. member has travelled abroad a great deal and he knows that whatever else may be the truth about South Africa, the propaganda war that is waged against this country abroad is unfair and in most cases untrue. Most of it is based on half-truths and is conducted by people who do not seek peace and order but the destruction of our country. Most of it comes from sources and people who do not seek change or reform in the sense that he does, but change and reform in the sense the Soviet Union seeks it. The hon. member should have a greater sense of responsibility in the interests of the subcontinent and all the people living here.

The hon. member for Yeoville had something to say about the CP. I want to make one remark in this regard. From a foreign policy perspective, from the point of view of a person who has to travel abroad from time to time, as many of us do, the CP is a good thing for South Africa. It is a good thing for South Africa, in the sense that it puts the Government of South Africa at least in the correct perspective. At least, when we go abroad now, people can see what moderate and reasonable people the Government of South Africa consists of and at last the lunatic fringe can be identified for what it is. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. the Minister of Community Development say that this side of the House is the “lunatic fringe”?

Sir, I said nothing of the kind.

The hon. member for Maitland may proceed.

At least this side of the House can be seen in proper perspective.

I want to demonstrate this by one facet. The hon. member for Yeoville talked about the unfortunate behaviour of certain gentlemen at the meeting held by the hon. the Prime Minister in Pretoria. It is a fact that there is no civilized country in the world, whether it be New Zealand, Australia, Canada, indeed any Western European country, Great Britain or South Africa, that does not have a band of freaks or neo-Nazi’s that always pose in patriotic colours, such as the British National Front; all kinds of curious people world-wide. They pose as great patriots, but are a small lunatic fringe that one could reasonably ignore. However, the reason why we cannot ignore them is because the leader of the CP talks to these people as if they represent a section of responsible political opinion in South Africa. He refuses to condemn them. He talks about them as if he is going to enter into alliances with them and as if they have some political meaning. He gives them a standing which they do not deserve, while in actual fact they are a bunch of neo-Nazi freaks which are found in any civilized country in the world. We too have such a small band of persons. I want to suggest that it is about time that the hon. leader of the CP ignored those people and treated them with the contempt that they deserve.

The hon. member for Yeoville had a great deal to say about courageous leadership and I want to say that this hon. Minister of all the hon. Ministers in this House is the last one that anybody can accuse of not having the courage of his convictions at all times in his career. At times it was unpopular for him, at times it was difficult for him and at times he said things that were not the easiest to say, given the realities of our political climate. In this way the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information has demonstrated his courage on numerous occasions. I also want to say that nothing that the hon. the Prime Minister said in Louis Trichardt or at any of his public meetings during the by-elections has not been said in this House or in any other forum in South Africa. This Government went to the polls for better or for worse during the by-elections and put its case; on paper, from platforms and at house meetings in exactly the same way as it would do on any platform within or outside South Africa. To that extent the Government also demonstrates the dynamic leadership that one expects in a country that stands in the decisive period of history in which the country finds itself at the moment.

In the very short time still available to me I want to say that Colin Vale in an article in the South African International recently had the following to say—

The fact of South Africa and Southern Africa is that the developmental axis has been from Table Bay northwards, ultimately petering out on the great north road. There have also been minor developmental axes flowing from that major axis to the north. It is true that just as that has been the artery that has carried development and prosperity to the north, so it is the line of communication that those that seek to destabilize South Africa seek to control and bring within their sphere of influence so that they can reverse the flow of history and so that they can use those lines of communication that have brought development to Africa to bring destruction to Southern Africa in order to serve their own strategic interests. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the course of my speech I shall reply to certain of the arguments raised by the hon. member for Maitland.

The Battle of the Bergs is behind us and I have here in my hand a note which I received from the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications in which he stated—

This was after the narrow victory of the hon. the Minister of Manpower in the Soutpansberg constituency. [Interjections.] I requested permission to refer to the letter of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and I want to tell him that the jackal is an animal no one likes. I also want to tell him that a farmer recognizes a jackal when he sees one. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that a jackal is an animal which sometimes has two burrows which it can run into. I also want to tell him that a jackal may change its coat but not its nature. That is why we find that one story is told in the Bergs and that a different story is told here today. [Interjections.] The Waterberg constituency stands out as the constituency in the Transvaal which has served as a signpost in the political history of National Afrikanerdom. That constituency has been an NP constituency since 1915, the bearer of Afrikaner nationalism. Yesterday, however, that constituency, which for the past half-century and more has known only one path, rejected the NP which has now accepted the path of political integration. When this part of the political history of South Africa comes to be written one day, I believe it will be stated as follows: The political integration ship of the Prime Minister shattered against the rock of Waterberg.

Although the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information and other hon. members, together with the Press, went out of their way in recent months to denigrate and cast suspicion on the hon. Dr. Treurnicht, and tried to belittle him, it is a fact that the more they did so, the greater and stronger he grew in stature. Dr. Treurnicht emerged unscathed from this total onslaught of the NP—it was truly a total onslaught. This rock of Waterberg stands firm!

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information spoke about White domination. He said that the CP stood for White domination. I want to tell him that that was what had been said about the NP for years. Over the years the NP maintained that one could only escape White domination by means of separation, by means of separate development, by means of separate freedoms for the various peoples in South Africa. That was the only way in which one could bring about freedom and justice in South Africa. I shall come back to the hon. the Minister later.

I wish to refer next to the hon. member for Bloemfontein North who said in a speech made here yesterday that he was aware from conversations that friends of South Africa abroad were deeply concerned at the possibility that the CP could win the by-elections. He said—

I want to ask the hon. member what he tells his friends of South Africa about the CP. What does he tell those friends from a platform the policy of the CP is? What does he tell those friends who have investments in South Africa about the CP? Is it not he who tells those people that there could be racial conflict and bloodshed in South Africa if the CP were to come into power? Is it not that hon. member who proclaims things like that? Is it not he who tells those people that the CP’s policy is based on racism, hatred and injustice? [Interjections.]

I maintain that the hon. member, his fellow party members and the hon. the Minister sitting in front of me here have stated from platform to platform and from house to house and through the medium of the newspapers which pledged them their support, that the CP’s policy is an unjust, un-Christian, racist policy and will lead to bloodshed in South Africa. They say this to South Africa’s friends in the outside world. They say this in the hearing of South Africa’s enemies abroad. They tell Black and Coloured and Indian people in South Africa that the CP and its supporters hate them.

What do you say about us in the estimation of the world?

Those hon. members should go and analyse the election results. They can then arrive at the conclusion that their accusations are being levelled at the majority of their compatriots. They must give the matter careful thought and ask themselves what it is they are doing. They could then discover that they are in fact playing into the hands of the people who wish to polarize Whites and Blacks in South Africa, the people who wish to create chaos in South Africa—that they are playing directly into their hands.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein North said—

What is the CP’s standpoint? It is this—

The CP says—

On 26 January 1977 the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs said the following about the strategy of the National Party (Hansard, Vol. 66, col. 258)—

The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs said that separate development was a truly liberating policy, a policy which offered freedom to every ethnic group and people in this country.

On the same day the hon. the Minister also said (Hansard, Vol. 66, col. 256)—

The CP has taken separate development to its logical conclusion. We say that it should be made possible for the various nations to govern themselves, each within its own geographic context. It should not only be made possible for the Black nations to govern themselves, but also the Coloured and Indian people. I want to put a question to the hon. member and the hon. the Minister can reply to it for us. The NP stands for separate freedoms in respect of the Black people. The NP says it is the right of each Black people to govern itself. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister the following question: Is that an un-Christian and unjust policy? If the NP says that the Black peoples should govern themselves, is it an un-Christian and unjust policy?

No.

The hon. the Chief Whip says no. We have a population of 23 million Blacks, 2½ million Coloureds and 800 000 Indian people. I now want to ask this question: Would separate development in respect of the Black people cause our friends to be deeply concerned and endanger the investments of our friends in South Africa? I think the hon. member for Bloemfontein North should answer that question for us. Would the policy of separate development in respect of the Black people make them feel deeply concerned? [Interjections.] It is the NP’s policy, but they should listen carefully now. I want to ask the hon. Chief Whip: Why should the same policy in respect of Coloureds and Indians deter our friends? Why should the same policy in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians endanger their investments in South Africa? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that hon. members of the CP can hardly contain their joy at the outcome in Waterberg. I do not begrudge them that modicum of happiness. It seems to me they really believe that if one can get the tortoise into top gear, one will move fast enough for the problems of South Africa.

During these election times my colleagues and I watched and listened to the members of the CP. I am absolutely convinced that the self-proclaimed cream of the Afrikaner people has turned sour. We heard it in statements and we heard it again when the hon. member for Brakpan attacked the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information yesterday and insulted him with the feeble argument, one we have heard so frequently before, about the Minister’s so-called despondency and pessimism and that what our policy amounted to was that we had already capitulated. I want to tell the hon. member for Rissik that even if Dr. Treurnicht returns to this House, not one of South Africa’s problems would have changed one iota. There not a single Coloured less; there is not a single Black person less. There is not a single Coloured who will accept a homeland for the Coloureds. There are no people who have fewer aspirations. All the problems remain precisely the same. Now they are sitting there with the same uncertainty in their hearts as to how the problems should be approached and solved. I want to charge the hon. members of the CP with being the people who, while we have a Government of action, a Government of thinkers and doers, arouse emotions in the country at large instead of supporting the Government in regard to what has to be done in the interests of everyone in South Africa. The question that has to be asked today is whether it is not in fact the CP that has sold out the Whites. When I listen to what the members of the CP have to say in their own constituencies, I am convinced that those people are selling out the Whites.

Tell us about the “boy” Christians.

Order!

I should like to tell the hon. member for Kuruman—I have said this before; I shall say it another ten times and I also said it to my people in my constituency—that there is no such thing as a “boss” Christian and a “boy” Christian. I want to say it in this House as well. There is no such thing as a “boss” politician and a “boy” politician. [Interjections.] We as leaders of nations and communities and the nations and people as such stand side by side as equals. We as a party state frankly that it is better to keep people fully informed than to half fill them with lies. I should like to ask the Minister and his department to continue to keep people informed. [Interjections.] We must take care that we do not make hewers of wood and carriers of water of our own children in our own country. I say to hon. members of the CP that we are living in a country in which we must proceed very, very carefully. The absolutist myth which the CP is going about with, is a dilemma with which they have to struggle, namely the myth that there is absolute separateness in South Africa. That is their problem. They regard separate development as an absolutist policy with which all people can be divided up into compartments. [Interjections.] They are trying to make the voters at large believe that South Africa is not a country in which, besides separate development, which is the basic policy of this party, there is also an intermediate world where people meet one another in the sphere of labour, an intermediate world where political leaders meet one another and an intermediate world where political leaders meet one another and an intermediate world where people meet one another in the spheres of economy and religion spheres and in that intermediate world the people, the leaders, the nations and the communities do not meet one another as inferiors, but as equals. Their problem is that they cannot, or will not, understand that concept at all. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

There comes a time in the life of a nation when it has to flex its muscles, and there comes a time when it has to keep its eyes open. I am afraid that hon. members of the CP are unable to draw that distinction. It is not now the time in the history of South Africa to try to flex our muscles; it is now the time to keep our eyes open and to see what is happening around us.

The hon. members of the CP talk about conservatism as if they were the sole possessors of the concept of conservatism. They are ostensibly the only people who are conservative, who have a love for that which is theirs. We who are sitting on this side of the House are apparently not nationalists. Apparently we do not have a love for our own language, our church, our land or our people. They are the sole possessors of conservatism. I want to tell him that that kind of conservatism is the twin brother of despair. If we do not wish to assure our children in this country of a Red future, it is necessary for all White people in this country to support the vision of the NP. I also see in my own constituency, where there is despair among many of our people, that it is absolutely necessary that we tell our people fearlessly what is at issue. Life has taught me that in politics the most prolific of speakers are frequently the skimpiest of thinkers. I also listen to what the general public have to say. After all, the hon. member for Rissik is afraid to accompany me from hostel to hostel in his own constituency so that we can discuss these things with his students. Last year he said in this House that he would accompany me, but afterwards he came up with a whole lot of feeble excuses. We in South Africa should speak frankly and should not fear change. What we should fear is that we shall not be able to make the right changes in time to be able to remain standing. No one in this country, except the CP, is under any illusion that we are not being threatened internationally. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information replied to questions in this connection last week, and I wish his department could publish those replies and distribute them as widely as possible. In those replies he pointed out how we were being threatened by various organizations in all spheres.

He pointed out how boycott actions were creeping ever nearer to us. There are external threats to our country. There are military threats. The hon. member for Rissik gives himself out to be an expert on social anthropology and on ethnic relations. For that reason he must surely understand when I say that internally the Government also have to deal with a smouldering and potential revolution, a revolution of awakening aspirations, of rising aspirations, of cultural conflict, of racial emotions and a revolution with an explosive potential which simply cannot be underestimated. Under all these circumstances and with this knowledge at their disposal, those hon. members come along and stir up so many emotions in this beautiful country of ours. Actually it is the members of the CP who are politically despondent. I shall tell you, Sir, why they nurture the despondency syndrome in their thinking. In the first place, just consider the AWB which is on their side. The AWB is a group of people who have already capitulated. They are despondent over the future. Secondly, look at the Oranje-werkers. Sir, have you ever heard of a group in South Africa that has capitulated to a greater extent than the Oranje-werkers? They say there is no longer a White homeland. Now they must go and demarcate an isolated place for the Whites in their own country as a homeland. Those are the people who are now inside the CP. Thirdly, those voters who suffer from a warmongering syndrome are not on the side of the NP, but of the CP. People who say that we have no chance at all, but we should simply start shooting, are on the side of the CP today, and in the fourth place, the CP also has on its side those Whites who say that we are outnumbered, that as Whites we have already lost. The hon. member for Rissik and a few of his colleagues know how many times they said, when they were still with us, that we did not have any chance at all. They became dispondent a long time ago, and that is why they left. They saw that their problems were becoming too great for them and they were afraid to tackle them.

Sir, they allege that we are going the way Zimbabwe went. That is the most reckless emotion we could possibly stir up in South Africa. When all is said and done, Rhodisia went down because it was bankrupt. I maintain in this House that South Africa lent Rhodesia the minimum financial support, right up to the end. And yet Rhodesia went down. Why? Rhodesia went down because it was isolated and boycotted by the international world. That is why the enemies of South Africa in the international world are saying that South Africa should be boycotted, our oil supplies, our money supplies, our exports cut off, that we should be totally isolated economically and destroyed. In the meantime hon. members of the CP pretend that nothing of the kind exists. They go about telling the general public that the NP is today going the same way Zimbabwe went, and with that they are making people feel afraid. I want the CP members to tell their people, as I shall tell the CP supporters in my constituency, that those who think the Whites in South Africa have no chance, that those who think that we have no chance to do the great work which still has to be done, have no right to be in this country. To people of that kind I say: Pack your bags and go, taking your pessimism and despondency with you. Leave this country in the hands of those who are inspired with idealism with vision and with the zeal to tackle the problems, the thinkers and the doers in South Africa, who want to create a future in South Africa for the Whites.

Mr. Chairman, I must apologize to the hon. the Minister for my periodic absence from this debate as I am involved in the Select Committee on the Constitution. Nevertheless, I gather that the election battle is still going on here across the floor. What I would like to address myself to is the implications of these by-elections for our foreign affairs policy and for the task of the hon. the Minister. I believe the implications of these by-elections go much further than the question of inter-party conflict or party politics. They go beyond us who are in this House and affect also the other races in South Africa who are watching what the White authority, this Parliament, is doing. Furthermore, they even go beyond the borders of South Africa to our friends outside who are watching what we are doing in this country. What we do and say here can have very serious implications with our relationships with them.

It is a truism to say that South Africa needs friends. It is not friends that I think we can get now. The best we can get at present is what we are getting from some countries, and that is an opportunity to do what we have to do ourselves and an understanding of our problems to allow us that opportunity. This applies perhaps more particularly to our most important friend in the world, i.e. America. Here I want to quote what the American delegate to the United Nations, Mr. Luce, said on 12 November last year. He said—

After referring to the hypocrisy of other countries which attack South Africa and which, he says, is also utterly absent from the political practices many other nations represent at the United Nations, he concluded with these words—

Here we have a clear statement of opportunity, an opportunity which South Africa has available to it, and I believe it will be absolutely fatal if what has been said and what has happened in the recent by-elections were to allow South Africa to falter, to stall, to backpedal or mark time in the process of reform that has started. Therefore I welcome the statement of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs this afternoon that nothing is going to prevent the Government from going ahead.

The task of the hon. the Minister is going to be a dual one. As a member of the Cabinet he has to ensure that the spirit of that declaration is carried out in the decision-making and in the administration of the Government as well as in the direction which is given to the Government machine at all levels as to how they should interpret this spirit. His first and perhaps most difficult task is going to be to prevent, within the Cabinet itself and within Government circles, statements or actions which will give the impression that there is a stalling, a marking of time or a rethink on the question of reform. This task and the outcome of it will be watched not just by Whites, but also by Coloureds, Indians and Blacks who want to see a peaceful future. It is not enough simply to make promises overseas.

And this brings me to the second task of the hon. the Minister. The first is to make sure that his colleagues take the right decisions and, secondly, to be able to present to our friends overseas not simply promises, not simply expectations but the reality of progress, progress which they can see and measure, so that the opportunity America has given us, the opportunity to take our own decisions and to act without being dictated to from overseas is used while it is still there.

Next week the Government will have an opportunity of showing this in the way in which it handles the debate that is to take place in this House. In the handling of that debate it would be a disaster for this country if we were to have a continuation of the sort of attitudes we have seen thus far between the NP and the CP about aspects which might to us seem to be important but which make it appear to the outside world that we are not sincere in our approach to the process of change. The intention to go forward must be seen to be believed. What the Government does during next week’s debate, and during the rest of this session is going to have a tremendous impact on those whom we want to give us the opportunity of solving our own problems. It is not easy. There is no easy solution but I do hope that in the debates and in the actions which are to follow we will not find the government looking over its shoulders at bogeys; that it will not be afraid of losing a few votes. Now that the by-elections are over we must get on with the job.

I believe that the Government should be sufficiently satisfied with the results as they are instead of being too concerned about the possibility of the swing to the right escalating or becoming a danger.

Finally, I must point out that I do not see the results of those by-elections as typical of the whole of South Africa. I do not see them as typical or representative of White opinion throughout South Africa. Our task is to look to the whole and not to the isolated exception. Therefore I say again to the hon. the Minister that in his dual role he is our mirror to the world, and he must see that the reflection that the world sees of South Africa is a reflection which will extend the opportunities to which I have referred.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point will forgive me if I do not react directly to what he has just said. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the number of votes they received in the Waterkloof by-election warrants any exceptional respect being show to the hon. member today. [Interjections.]

*I want to discuss something completely different, Mr. Chairman. For us in South Africa there is a lesson to be learned from the dispute between the USA and Cuba or, to put it more strongly, the confrontation between the USA and Cuba. The lesson is that we have to identify problem areas here in Southern Africa timeously and then take and apply the necessary counter-measures in order to prevent similar debacles from being repeated here in Southern Africa. I feel that at the start of the Castro drama the Americans had three choices.

The first choice was for the USA to remain neutral by means of concealed and half-hearted interference, or even no interference at all. In the second place the USA could have supported Castro so as to have him come into power and then remain in power. In the third place the USA could of course have destroyed Castro militarily, with very little trouble and at little expense. If the USA wants to do something about that evil on its doorstep now, however, it only has one choice, and that is military action at a tremendous price.

As far as most of South Africa’s neighbouring countries are concerned—and here I am referring specifically to Angola, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Mozambique—at present South Africa still has three choices. The first choice is neutrality and non-interference. The second choice is, of course, to become involved by helping to stabilize the Government in the relevant country, whilst the third choice is to destabilize the Government of the relevant country. When each of the said countries became independent, “Uhuru” and freedom became a thing of the past, and we saw a one-party State come into being, with one man, one vote, as the sole option.

Our first option, that of non-interference and good neighbourliness, does not always work nowadays and is interpreted by some as weakness. We are not afforded any recognition or thanks for the aid we render. On the contrary, some of these countries malign us from every possible public platform. I believe the time has come for us to consider and apply the second option, namely for South Africa to become involved in our neighbouring countries. The first and only priority of the leaders or most of the said countries is to remain in power. The standard of living, agriculture, transport services, economy, etc., are all of secondary importance, subservient to the single, cardinal fact that they want to remain in power. Their highest priority is to remain in power at any price. It is their fear of real and imagined enemies within their borders that is the underlying reason for their maligning of South Africa. Apartheid and their crying wolf about the threat posed by South Africa, are mere deception. These are merely the normal reactions of any frightened or threatened person. It is a cry for help to protect their own internal power base.

Our approach to these leaders should be to allay those fears and to remove them in a practical and tangible way. We must do this, bearing in mind everything that this implies. We have to be able to guarantee the insovereignty, authority and political power of those leaders to such an extent that they will feel totally at ease and unthreatened. If we adopted this policy and apply it correctly, created the correct understanding for it and brought it home to them that South Africa would play its part, militarily as well, if necessary—the French are already doing this successfully in many countries in Africa—then I believe we could obtain the co-operation of many of these leaders, and even more so if we were able to convince them that we were not interested in how they governed, what their domestic policy was or how they implemented that policy, but were only interested in keeping them in power, guaranteeing their power base against their internal political opponents and stabilizing their rule. Of course, we would expect something in return. These leaders would have to stand up and be counted. Their threats against and maligning of South Africa would have to cease. In short, we shall expect good neighbourliness in exchange for their peace of mind.

I believe that not only could we come to an agreement with our neighbouring countries in this way, but that it would also be worth our while to approach many other African countries, and particularly countries in West Africa. No one is going to stop hitting at us as long as we only defend ourselves and do not strike back. I believe we have to make more aggressive internal changes as well as moving outwards more purposefully. It is said that “South Africa discriminates against colour whilst Russia only discriminates against the politics of a person”. If this is an acceptable norm, let us then also discriminate mercilessly against our Marxist political enemies, where necessary, by applying our third choice to the leaders and countries who refuse to see reason or accept friendship, but continue to harbour ANC terrorists, as is at present the case with Lesotho and Mozambique. Under these circumstances we can do this by destabilizing, with a capital “D” those countries until they come to light with more reasonable attitudes or leaders.

I believe South Africa has a role to play in Southern Africa. If we leave vacuums, others will fill them. We should not shy away from the dangers which our role as the leader in every field has placed on our shoulders, but we should do our duty by letting our influence be felt, throughout the entire region, in such a way that everyone is aware that this is being done. I believe that money alone cannot buy us friends, but that tangible action can.

So much for that opinion of mine today. I now want to turn to the hon. members of the CP. They objected strenuously here to our putting words into their mouths, and they maintain that they are not advocating racism and are innocent of what we have accused them of, but how can they be innocent if one considers the words spoken by their hon. leader in Tzaneen? Let me quote—

He went on to say—

How can hon. members deny this when their leader says that he sees the Coloureds in our midst as a fifth column, when he gets rid of them in advance and turns them into Blacks because the Coloureds would supposedly sell out the Whites and support the Blacks, without giving the Coloureds themselves a chance to prove what their attitude in this regard is? Is that the sort of thing they want to fight against?

The hon. member for Brakpan would seem to be an expert in the field of the honour and honourability of other hon. members in this House. Yesterday he quoted Shakespeare in his attack on the hon. the Minister. I want to advise him to take a look at his own honour for a change. I think his own honour has already been subject to a “coup d’etat”. He has already lost it. The hon. member should take another look at Shakespeare and, in particular, what Boling-broke said when he spoke about his honour. He said—

It is a pity that the hon. member for Brakpan is not able to say this too. He is not able to say this because he still looks far too healthy. If he were to apply those words to himself, he would become fatally ill. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for East London North.

We heard today in very clear language from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information about the role played by the Government in Southern Africa. This is a role which we spell out very clearly. The fact that we have played a positive role here on the southern tip of Africa and still continue to play it is not to be doubted. In the process we shall not allow ourselves to be hindered by people of the CP who seek to bedevil our role and the role of others within and outside Southern Africa. We have built up a good record.

Let us take Mozambique as an example. Even in the previous century the Transvaal Republic played a major role by maintaining relations with this neighbouring country—it is a Black country. We have nothing to be ashamed about. We have never entered into confrontation with these people, nor have we made war with them. What is more, we have never tried to deprive them of what is theirs. Over the past hundred years our presence here has been to their benefit when they have wanted to make use of it. When we consider what happened in earlier days, we are proud to say that the first foreign representation South Africa had was in that same State. From 1910 the South African Republic had an agent in Lourenço Marques—as it was then known. After Union this post of agent was retained and further extended in 1929, 1945 and 1972. In 1976 a Minister of South Africa visited that country. That country benefited economically from maintaining relations with us, and at no stage did we threaten them in any way. Here I should also just like to mention that during this period, even after independence when a Marxist Government took over in Mozambique, we continued to seek peace in this continent by way of the S.A. Railways, that played a very important role in this regard. After 1976 the exodus of White Portuguese, who were skilled people, took place. Subsequently, at a certain stage that country became hostile to South Africa, and due to the exodus of these people they went into an economic decline. They then approached the S.A. Railways, because in order to earn foreign exchange, they needed to keep the harbour and railways, which were money-earners for them, in operation. It must be borne in mind that the harbour of Maputo is the nearest harbour to the heartland of the industrial area of South Africa, and that many imports and exports passed through that harbour. The S.A. Railways did not refuse to help. They got this harbour, which had come to a total standstill, in operation again. They also got the railways and airways there working, and this operation took place in spite of a hostile government. The S.A. Railways carried out this task with success, so much so that whereas there are 15 harbours in Southern Africa—seven in South Africa and eight outside South Africa—Maputo has again become the most active of the eight harbours outside South Africa. The S.A. Railways made these skills available to these people and, what is more, they did so unselfishly.

The Republic of South Africa played a stabilizing role in Mozambique after a Marxist government had taken over there, in that we established trade relations with them. We did not put a stop to the tourist traffic due to their hostility and actions, but as a result of that they did suffer a great deal of harm as far as the tourist industry was concerned. Nor did we send back to them the mineworkers who wanted to come and work in our country, and that source of revenue for that country still exists.

The Mozambique Convention of 1928 has continued to exist up to the present time, and in spite of their hostility there are still links with them and with Swaziland with regard to water supplies. On 17 December 1982 and on 5 May 1983 discussions took place, to which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information has referred, at which he told them bluntly that they were performing deeds and actions which could be to their detriment. We also ask what their conduct towards the Republic of South Africa was after 1974. We must ask ourselves whether they treated us as they did, in fact, treat us. Did they not also participate in the total onslaught on us? Did they not also accommodate terrorists? Do they not level false accusations at us in the UN and the OAU? Do they not, furthermore, accuse us of destabilization and did they not also declare war on South Africa?

The hon. the Minister has told us that famine has compelled them to seek a temporary peace with us. We ask ourselves: Are we to accept this peace effort on their part or this live branch that they are now extending to us? Can we trust them? Perhaps we should also ask whether these people are not listening to Moscow, and whether the drought has not compelled them to take this step. Is it due to the economic situation that prevails in that country? Is it perhaps due to the fact that the resistance movement that has been established there is giving them trouble? What has caused them to decide that they want to speak to us and establish more friendly relations? What has compelled them to make certain promises to us? Can we build on that? We must realize that we are part of Africa. We all have the same basic problems. Like all the other States, we have the problems of a developing economy that must be stimulated. Like them we have a shortage—although our lack is not as great—of skilled people. They lack skilled administrators in particular. They lack development capital and they lack foreign currency. Increasingly they are realizing this; Africa is realizing this to an increasing extent.

It is a known fact that the 13 countries in the eastern part of Africa in particular are the poorest countries. That is a part of the world in which the per capita income of the population is less than R150 per annum, as aginst the per capita income of the population of the Republic of South Africa, including the Black people, which is eight times as much. It cannot be denied that they have difficult problems to be solved.

Economically they can only benefit from our policy of good neighbourliness. Our policy is very much to their benefit. From us they have nothing to fear, and that has been proved over the past 100 years. Our policy of good neighbourliness entails many advantages for them.

Recently I had the privilege of visiting the TBVC countries. It reminded me of what a Greek historian said—

We in this continent have many common interests. What the hon. member for Sea Point said, viz. that Venda is the land of hunger, is not true. I do not believe that that hon. member has ever been in Venda. If he had been there, he would have seen a very contended nation, a nation that appreciates what South Africa does and is establishing closer links of co-operation with us.

One must work towards peace and prosperity in the southern sub-continent. Independence has not brought prosperity for Africa. On the contrary, it has brought misery, and we must recognize that. We say that there are common problems in regard to which we can help them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot share the impressions of the hon. member for Vryheid about Venda. I have visited that country. I do not consider it to be a land of milk and honey and I do not know that anybody else does, who has studied the political history of Venda. Indeed, the present Government was not duly elected, but the Opposition who won the election were not allowed to take the reins of Government; they were in fact locked up. I agree with the hon. member, however, when he says that there are lots of common interests in Southern Africa particularly and that we must do what we can to develop good neighbourly relations.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would consider discussing with his colleague, the Minister of Co-operation and Development, the whole question of the repatriation of the workers who have been in this country for many years and who originally came from Rhodesia as it then was, now Zimbabwe, and Mozambique. The cut-off date for people being allowed to stay in jobs in South Africa was that they had to enter the Republic lawfully before the year 1958, and that is a very long time ago. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that thousands of these people have been repatriated to their great distress, going back to countries where there is little work for them, and many of them having married South African Black women and having had families here in South Africa. I think it would do a lot to restore better relations between Zimbabwe and South Africa if the whole question of the repatriation of workers could be reconsidered.

I must say that I cannot pronounce the hon. the Minister as a very statesman-like Foreign Minister. I do not think he would last five minutes in Mrs. Thatcher’s Cabinet. We had to bear with the hon. the Minister a very long time yesterday while he painstakingly quoted articles and opinions which were favourable to South Africa and which were derogatory of Black Africa. I must say that I spent a little time trying to figure out the point that he was trying to make with his very lengthy quote from Mr. Smiley’s article in which the gentleman expressed his disillusionment with Black Africa. The only conclusion I could reach was that the hon. the Minister believes that there is no alternative between the policies that are being followed by Black African States since they became independent, and the policies followed by this Government. In other words, it is one thing or the other. It is either the policy which leads to economic problems and badly organized countries, or it is the policy which is followed by the South African Government. This, of course, is nonsense, because there are many other options. The hon. the Minister forgets that South Africa is vastly different from the other States in Africa. It is very different from the Black States. We have a totally different demographic picture and we are a modern industrial country, unlike the Black States of Africa. It is true, and all of us agree, that part of South Africa is Third World, but I think nobody has advocated that it is the Third World part of South Africa which should govern this country. Equally, I want to say that we on this side do not find the policy of statutory race discrimination acceptable in any way.

The hon. the Minister says that White voters must agree to desegregation. He made a point of that when he was discussing the whole question of the parks in Pretoria and the beaches in Natal. “See how White voters react,” said the hon. the Minister when he was referring to integration in parks and on the beaches. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that laws are educative. It is his Government that passed all the laws that made it necessary to instal “Whites only” notices all over the face of South Africa.

Sir, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I do not have the time. It was his Government that educated Whites to think the way they do and it is his Government that has thus earned South Africa the disapproval of the whole world. Equally it is his Government that must change the laws and thereby re-educate White thinking in South Africa. It is only the Government that can introduce a system of laws which educate people … [Interjections.]

Order!

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is the hon. the Minister’s Government that must re-educate the White electorate. He must do it fast, because judging by the recent by-elections, there is undoubtedly a swing to the right in this country. The hon. the Minister and his Government must start right now to re-educate the people of South Africa, more particularly the young people of South Africa, by changing the laws.

The hon. the Minister said that not even a PFP Government would be better received at the UN and in the world in general than the present Government. Does he honestly believe that a South Africa which is minus group areas, minus race classification, minus pass laws, minus detention without trial, minus, in fact, all the trappings of apartheid and statutory race discrimination, would not be better received elsewhere than the present Government of this country? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Sea Point, other hon. members on this side and I have travelled through Black Africa. We have seen how well we are in fact received despite the fact that we come from South Africa, because it is known that we are Opposition members who present a different policy entirely from the policy presented by this Government.

Never mind Black Africa; never mind even states like Red China and the USSR. Let us look to the West, whose friendship I believe the hon. the Minister will admit we absolutely have to retain. Let us look at what the hon. the Minister called “redelike wêreldmening”.

I tried in vain to impress upon the Prime Minister the other day the importance of avoiding all provocative actions in South Africa that help organizations that are working to isolate South Africa in every possible way: culturally, academically, on the sports field and economically. Every brutal action here, which is always reported in headlines overseas; every television performance that shows the police in action against squatters by forced removals and every action where the police shoot defenceless people, recruit outraged people to the isolation cause, i.e. the isolation of South Africa. They are not radical people at all, but ordinary citizens who, as I say, react with outrage to situations that have taken place in South Africa. The hon. the Minister knows, in fact he must know through our embassies overseas, that these intemperate actions have a most deteriorating effect on South Africa’s relations with the rest of the world. I believe that it is up to him as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information to impress upon all his colleagues, e.g. the hon. the Minister of Law and Order, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and his Deputy Ministers, how detrimental such actions are to constructive engagement and how helpful these actions are to the present campaign that is being waged in America to isolate South Africa by virtue of church action, on the campuses and at the annual general meetings of firms investing in South Africa and recently, we have seen how Congress and State legislatures are taking similar action. Three Bills have already been passed in State legislatures in the USA and I am informed that 23 other States have got similar Bills contemplating action against South Africa. I happen to believe that divestment is counter-productive and I have said so on campuses throughout the USA. I believe so, because once gone, those people have no further influence in this country. That is the main reason. The other reason, of course, is that I believe that the main action whereby Blacks will be able to attain a more just society for themselves is through their own economic development and through gaining economic muscle by becoming the majority of the skilled workers in this country. Therefore it is very important that we avoid any further ugly incidents in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to look for trouble with the hon. member for Houghton. I do not have much time at my disposal.

At the start of her speech she said that the people of Southern Africa had many matters of common interest about which to talk and co-operate. I wish to discuss the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information in promoting regional and economic cooperation in South Africa. It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. The hon. the Prime Minister has on occasion said in this House that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information is a credit to the country and the Government. Accordingly, since I share that view, it is a pleasure to attest to the fact that he and his department, and the hon. the Deputy Minister as well, do outstanding work.

I should like to refer to multilateral co-operation among the States in Southern Africa, and specifically to the four States in South Africa known as the TBVC countries, sovereign independent States.

I want to begin with the question: Was the 1982 summit conference a success or not? My reply to this is an unqualified “Yes”, and I want to put forward two reasons to support this. In the first place, South Africa and the TBVC countries were all present. One can contrast that with the 1982 session of the OAU, which could not even take place due to the lack of a quorum. In the second place, the five countries set aside their bilateral problems and subordinated them to the need for multilateral co-operation. Moreover, in the course of a single day a weighty agenda was disposed of in a business atmosphere and certain decisions, aimed at creating structures of co-operation of which I want to make mention later in my speech, were given effect to. Again, one can contrast this with the sittings of the OAU and the UN, extended sittings which usually lead to resolutions which are not, or cannot be, implemented.

Moreover, the conference concentrated on matters which ought to enjoy priority in Africa, viz. economic and developmental cooperation. Last but not least, the conference was characterized by the absence of tension and pointless bickering about political disputes, although there are of course fundamental differences among the five States—on the one hand between South Africa and the other four, and on the other, among the four TBVC countries. After all, we all know that. Accordingly, if one accepts that the OAU and the UN, as we all know, have no great record of success, one can still say that the conference was successful, and in Western terms. In First World-Third World terms, too, it was a successful conference.

However, the conference of 1982 was not the beginning. It was preceded by a conference in 1980, and still earlier there were discussions at the highest level in camera. However, since 1980 the holding of the summit conference itself, as well as the resolutions and the agenda, have been made available to the public media. The 1980 summit conference concentrated on regional development at the economic level, on social welfare and on inter-State relations. I just wish to refer to some of the resolutions.

In the first place, it was decided that proposals should be formulated for a formal framework for economic development and co-operation in Southern Africa. Secondly, the founding of the Development Bank of Southern Africa was approved in principle. Thirdly, a statement of intent as regards the encouragement of private investment was agreed to. Fourthly, the first of a series of multilateral technical committees was established, viz. the Committee for Education and Training. Today, to my knowledge, there are already seven technical committees of this nature. They are the Committee for Health and Welfare, the Committee for Industries, Commerce and Tourism, the Committee for Posts and Telecommunications, the Committee for Transport, the Committee for Manpower Development and Utilization, the Committee for Agriculture and Environment Affairs and the Committee for Financial Relations.

Another very important body which has come into being is the Multilateral Economic and Financial Committee, which is assisted by the multilateral technical committees. I believe that the establishment of the MEFC is very important, because it has also given rise to very important developments. The first of these was, of course, the creation of the Small Business Development Corporation. Secondly, there is the extensive spadework required with regard to the creation of the Development Bank for Southern Africa. In the third place there was the formulation of wide-ranging concept of regional development which, as we all know, includes the eight regional development regions with their regional development advisory committees, and the umbrella body, the National Regional Development Advisory Council.

It is interesting to note that the principles that stemmed from the discussions of the multilateral technical committees formed part of the proposals formulated by the hon. the Prime Minister in 1981 at the Good Hope Conference.

Thus far I have provided a summary, Mr. Chairman, of the run-up to the summit conference of 1982. I also wish to refer briefly to important events at and since that summit conference. The emphasis there was on economic and development co-operation. The confederal concept as such was not on the agenda, As I interpret it, the agenda was drawn up after discussions among the five countries in question, and because the five countries did not all support the confederal concept unhesitatingly, it did not appear on the agenda.

I support this approach of the Government, and specifically that of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, that the emphasis be on co-operation to mutual benefit, and that a confederation, if it were to come into being, should arise out of co-operation in a natural way. We all know how the Government sees the confederation, viz. as an association of sovereign independent States that co-operate freely as equal political partners with regard to matters of common interest. The essence of the matter, however, is co-operation, and the essence of that, in turn, is consensus. In his speech at the 1982 conference the hon. the Prime Minister said the following—

I believe that at the summit conference of 1982, South Africa and the TBVC countries adopted a definite course aimed at promoting economic regional development.

The creation of the Development Bank of Southern Africa is a very important event along that road. It is a multilateral body. The founding members are South Africa and the TBVC countries. The self-governing national States can participate as part of the South African representation. We know that the possibility has also been created for Western countries to be associate members. I also wish to mention the extent of the capital. The target is R2 000 million, to which share capital, loans and members’ contributions will contribute. The bank is managed by a Board of Governors, a Board of Directors and a Chief Executive Officer with his staff. The Board of Governors is appointed by the five participating countries. The bank’s objective will be the economic development of the region in the broadest sense.

I am told that on 30 May this year the Development Council of Ministers of Southern Africa will be constituted, comprising 30 members, 30 Ministers of these five States. I am also told that by that time, all these technical committees will already have met. All the structures provided will therefore be created and in operation.

All indications are that the process of cooperation among the States has therefore developed its own momentum and is making Southern Africa a region of prosperity.

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to follow the hon. member for Pretoria East. I have little doubt that multilateral co-operation is the prerequisite for stability in Southern Africa and I am very grateful that the hon. member for Pretoria East specifically referred to that.

I should very much like to focus briefly on a small group of people, a small but valiant band, on whose shoulders rests the enormous task of projecting South Africa’s image abroad. In programme 2 of the Vote, specific provision is made for an amount of R50 million for diplomatic services in the 56 missions manned overseas by South Africa. At present there are 56 posts for mission heads. There are ambassadors, consuls, envoys and others. These people are assisted by 215 officials in the foreign services, two of whom are Coloureds. Apart from these 215 people there are another 1 290 officials who have been recruited locally by the various missions. These are people who serve as clerks, typists, messengers, etc. In a recent edition of the S.A. Digest there was a fine photo of Dr. Brand Fourie in Washington, together with eight of these officials who had been in the employ of the South African embassy in Washington for a total of 185 years. Therefore these are people who have really given their life for South Africa, although in many cases they are people of totally different countries. In the photograph there were inter alia three people from Jamaica.

It is of interest that South Africa is represented in 43 countries. By comparison, the ANC has representation in 42 countries. Another interesting comparison is that whereas South Africa spends R50 million on diplomatic services, the UN alone spends R40 million on 18 subcommittees that work against South Africa and have 200 full-time qualified researchers who in fact investigate the situation in South Africa and try to bring about destabilization in South Africa.

Apart from the ambassadors, the officials of the foreign services and the people who are locally recruited, there is another category of people who really give their lives in the interests of South Africa. We have discussed so many subjects today, but I think that this is a very fine subject. I refer to the families and in particular the spouses of our foreign service officers and ambassadors. Some of them are sitting here today on the gallery. These are a group of people who stay unobtrusively in the background and often have to project South Africa’s image under very difficult circumstances. I think that anyone in South Africa or in this House who visits our foreign missions can attest to the fine work done by those people. When one visits them at their homes, too, there is no doubt that in the midst of very difficult circumstances they keep South Africa’s flag flying high at all times. I doubt if one always realizes under what difficult circumstances these people work and what tremendous problems they are faced with.

I should like to refer to a few problems which our people, particularly the families, are faced with abroad every day. In the first place, they have a problem with regard to the cost of living. In the nature of the matter this is a problem that is dealt with by the department and the Commission for Administration. If the cost of living in South Africa is set at 100, then the cost of living in America today is 206 and in the majority of European countries where we have representation it is more than 180. This is a thorny problem to which attention is constantly given. However I do not think that an ideal solution to this problem will ever be found. These people are expected to maintain a higher standard of living than would normally apply in South Africa. This applies to their clothing, standard of living and their households. Very often abroad they have to act as host and hostess. I think that many of us have already had personal experience of this.

These people are also expected to move to a different mission every three years or every six years, with all the problems and difficulties this entails. This means that every now and again they are exposed to a new culture. Therefore they and their families endure cultural shock. The education of their children at school, too, will necessarily suffer as a result of the foreign languages, foreign methods of tuition, etc. Small things such as the living pattern and consumer pattern which they have to adapt to every time, are things that we here in South Africa do not always realize. One need only consider that in a totally foreign country one encounters trademarks with which one is unacquainted as well as totally alien living conditions. Often these people and their wives are expected to know the language of the country in which they are stationed. This takes effort and dedicated study. Often it is in fact the woman who has to bear the brunt. Usually the man is immediately engrossed in his work, and it is expected of his wife to find a home, buy a motor car, find a school for the children, etc. In addition she always has to be prepared to act as hostess and represent our country at official receptions.

One can also look at the cost aspect. I myself experienced this recently in the USA, where people with small children in fact have no option but to make use of servants. The minimum wage for a servant in the USA is $500. This is something we are certainly not accustomed to. Then, too, one need only think of medical expenses. A confinement in the USA costs between $6 000 and $8 000. Recently we also had the case of an official of the department who had to undergo a back operation which would have cost him $45 000. The children of these people return to South Africa for their high school or university training, and the department provides excellent assistance in this regard. However, the fact is that those people are thousands of kilometres from their homes and their families.

Often these people work under tremendous tension, whereas very strict security has to be maintained. Some of these people tell one that they cannot take the same road home from work every day. They cannot take the same road to take their children to school every day. I do not think we express sufficient appreciation of this small but valiant band that holds our name high abroad. Our staff and their spouses have often in the past had to make contacts in the most difficult circumstances and have even had to endure abuse. The extent of the work is tremendous. For example, one need only think of the USA, where each of the missions has to handle 12 of the States. Through it all the diplomat and his spouse must always remain friendly, and in spite of all, excellent work is done. The South African woman often plays a leading role, inter alia, among the diplomats who live in such a city. It is interesting that very often the diplomat and his wife have a special need for contact with South Africa. Therefore I think it would be a very good thing if the department were perhaps to consider sending our foreign service officers back to South Africa on a more regular basis.

I wish to conclude with this thought: It is often the case that our diplomats, being ten to twelve thousand km away from South Africa in a foreign milieu, are often able to take a more objective look at South Africa’s problems, and when they do so they find the things that we in South Africa so often fight about, amazing. I think their problem is often that those same ridiculous incidents that occur in South Africa due to our fighting about absurdities, are made much of in the overseas new media to the detriment of South Africa’s image. I think that the message we get back from our missions is clear, viz. that this gives the enemies of South Africa additional ammunition to use against us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I deal with one or two of the comments made by the hon. the Minister yesterday, I would like to put one or two questions to him which arise out of his Report. The first also deals with the question of personnel, as has been referred to by the hon. member for Paarl who has just sat down. Here, where there is an increase of R6 093 000 in respect of personnel expenditure overseas, I would like to know whether every step has been taken to ensure that staff members overseas are not prejudiced by the fluctuations in rates of exchange which take place from time to time and what procedures are now being adopted to see that they do not suffer as a result of that.

The second point that I would like to put, is that, way back in 1979, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information said in Parliament (Hansard, Vol. 81, col. 7804)—

That was in 1979. In reply to a question which I put to the hon. the Minister this year about how many Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks were in the foreign service, he said that there were 213 Whites, two Coloureds, no Indians an no Blacks. Now we want to know what has happened to this expression of faith of the Government in the Coloured and Indian people. Four years after this announcement was made in this House, we have a situation where only two Coloured people are in the foreign service of South Africa abroad. We want to know what is being done.

Finally, when it comes to the vast sums of money that have been spent on programmes in the TBVC countries, there is reference in the report to … well planned projects which will stimulate the economies of the aid-receiving countries …”. There is also reference on page 10 “that these States will adhere to the principles of sound financial management”. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister what steps are being taken to see that these projects are the correct projects that will serve their purpose and what steps are being taken to see that there is sound financial management.

Mr. Chairman, I want to continue, but I am at a disadvantage, because the hon. the Minister himself is not here. The points that I want to make, are directed at him in relation to the speech which he made in this House yesterday.

Here he comes now.

The hon. the Minister took part in the debate for an hour and a half. Apart from certain aspects, I considered his involvement in the debate unsatisfactory. I realize that it was the last throes of an election and that what he said was good stuff for the election platform and good stuff for the SABC. However, I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that in terms of the debate in this House, we should analyse some of the points that he made. He tended to put up his own Aunt Sallies on issues in regard to which nobody disagreed and then proceed to knock them down. The hon. the Minister will concede that nobody in this House has ever said that there is no change taking place in South Africa. We say repeatedly that there is change taking place in South Africa, very often in spite of the Government of the day. Nobody says in this House or elsewhere that South Africa should change because of pressure from outside. We have always said quite the opposite—that we should change because it is in the interests of South Africa to do so. The hon. the Minister made a big point of this. Nobody in this House has ever said that the policy of this party or of any other party would satisfy the Soviets or the radicals of the UN, and yet the hon. the Minister went to great lengths to knock down this Aunt Sally. The issue is whether or not we should avoid certain incidents and abandon certain racial policies which can in no way be seen as necessary for our survival in South Africa in order to strengthen out position and strengthen the hands of our allies overseas. I would have thought that the hon. the Minister would have agreed with this. I am sure the hon. the Minister does not believe that it is necessary to close the parks in Pretoria or to have apartheid on suburban trains or to have apartheid on beaches. These matters should not be at issue in this House.

Surely the hon. the Minister realizes the seriousness of the situation in which we are involved both externally and, perhaps as a result of the by-elections, internally as well. I want to emphasize what other hon. members have said, namely that it is in these circumstances that the Government of the day has a duty to lead the public and not merely to tag on behind it. We believe that the Government should do more than it has been doing from time to time.

I shall deal with the latter portion of the hon. the Minister’s speech. He gave the House a long dissertation on his view in respect of the differences between the value systems of the Whites and the Blacks on the African Continent. In my opinion the views the hon. the Minister presented to the House, were superficial generalizations based on selective quotations. His views have as much substance as those of a person considering the future pattern of development in Great Britain, let us say, in trying to judge these against the different value systems of the European on the Continent. We cannot look at Africa in terms of a stereotype just as we cannot look at Europe in terms of a stereotype. When we look at the value systems of White Europeans, must we judge them on the coups and the dictatorships that have taken place in Europe over the past 30 to 40 years? Must we judge them on the civil war that killed one million people in Spain? Must we judge them on the killings in the gas chambers of Hitler’s Germany? Must we judge them on the disastrous wars in which White people killed White people by the million?

Who said that?

What I am saying is that if those factors are not determinate of the value systems of Europe then we must not generalize either and start applying generalized value systems to the people of Africa. I have heard the hon. the Minister in this House before and I say this with all respect to him that he tends to look at the Blacks and the value systems of Africa in the same jaundiced way that people abroad try to interpret the value systems of White South Africans. Just as they get it wrong, so I believe the hon. the Minister is being too general and too superficial in his appreciation of value systems. If on the basis of the hon. the Minister’s stated perception of Blacks elsewhere in Africa there is a fundamental difference between the value systems of Whites and Blacks inside South Africa—because that is what the whole matter hinges upon, the difference between value systems, if there is one, within South Africa—if that perception of a fundamental difference in value systems in Africa relates to South Africa as well, then it is not the policy of the NP that is right. Then it is in fact the policy of the CP. Then not the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information are correct, but the hon. member for Waterberg is correct.

You will be faced with the same reality.

If in fact these two value systems are incompatible with each other within one society, then there is no hope for us in South Africa because, whether we like it or not, we are one society. There is a diversity and there is a degree of separateness but our destinies are one. We are in fact one society. If it is correct that these two value systems are so disparate, then it is of course crazy to bring Blacks with a different value system into the so-called White metropolitan areas. Then it is crazy to bring them into the same sport associations. Then it is crazy to bring them into the same religious denominations and religious organizations. Then it is crazy to bring them into the same economic system, into the same labour force, into the same trade unions if it is in fact so. Then we are moving on a disastrous course in South Africa. Then it would be crazy to set for Blacks the same educational standards as we are setting for Whites, and that is what we are doing in our Matriculation Board and in our universities around South Africa.

I want to concede to the hon. the Minister that there have been different historical and cultural starting points. That one accepts. Over the centuries—I am talking about South Africa—and more particularly over recent decades with the process of urbanization, however, there have been strong centripetal forces at work bringing people together in terms of value. There have been the strong centripetal forces of a developing integrated economy. It has had an impact on both White and Black. There has been an impact of Western institutions and technological achievement. There has been an impact of long-standing personal associations, of a shared metropolitan environment, of common religious beliefs, of the media, communication and entertainment and cultural activities. There has been the impact of education in the wider sense, and the impact of Blacks and Whites, whether they like each other or not, knowing that they have a common destiny that they are going to stand or fall together. In spite of the different historical or cultural starting points forces are developing among all South Africans which are developing a set of aspirations, standards and values which to an increasing extent are being shared by South Africans whether they are Black or White. It is on promoting these shared values that the future of South Africa is dependent. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before reacting to the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point, I should like to convey a word of congratulation to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, whom I have not yet been able to congratulate formally in this House. I think he is a worthy occupant of a post which did not exist previously, but which he is going to invest with considerable importance.

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information is still a person who is able to preach the same message throughout South Africa and the rest of the world with conviction wherever he speaks, without deviating, without saying one thing in the Bergs and another in the cities. We want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on that. Few have the charisma and charm of the hon. the Minister when it is a matter of addressing an audience or a meeting. Many congratulations to him in that regard.

There has not been much reaction to the speech by the hon. member for Paarl, but there is tremendous appreciation on this side of the House for the sacrifices made by those of our people who have to go and state South Africa’s case abroad. They and their families have to sacrifice a great deal. We have appreciation for the speech of the hon. member.

I do not know why the hon. member for Sea Point must always try to bring colour into a debate on foreign affairs. If the hon. member is concerned that he and his party feel that too few people of colour occupy diplomatic and other posts overseas, then surely there are channels that can be followed without its being necessary to attack South Africa in that regard. This immediately politicizes a sphere in which, I believe, none of us wants politics to be an issue.

The hon. member states that it would be crazy suddenly to set the same standards for Black people and White people as far as matriculation, for example, is concerned.

No.

The hon. member has just said that.

You do not understand his argument.

That is how the hon. member ended his speech. I want to tell the hon. member unabiguously what the policy of the Government is as regards standards of work and standards of remuneration. We believe in the same pay for the same work, but of the same quality and under the same circumstances as regards tax and so on. After all, we cannot find fault with one another in that regard.

The part of the debate which I was able to attend today aroused a great deal of emotion. Therefore I wish to introduce some degree of calm into the debate. I think that it is essential to take a some more restful view of matters shortly before the supper hour. I should like to refer to a calm subject, viz. the relationship or relations between South Africa and the United States of America.

I could be asked whether this subject has not been dealt with ad naseam and whether we do not discuss it every year. Probably there is some truth in this, but I believe that we should not turn away from the people who wish to co-operate with this Government or with this country with a view to minimizing its problems, to co-operate in the interests of Western civilization. I think we ought to co-operate with them and that we ought to review the situation from time to time.

What are we comparing when I compare South Africa with the USA? Let us specify only two norms. As far as surface area is concerned, South Africa comprises 440 000 square miles—I speak of miles for purposes of easy comparison—whereas the USA comprises 3 543 000 square miles. I say this merely for the information of hon. members. As far as population is concerned, in 1980 the population of South Africa was 23,8 million, whereas that of the USA was 226,5 million.

I mention these facts so that we may begin by grasping the proportions. So often I hear people say that we shall shoot them down and that we do not need them here. With reference to that I should like to ask two questions. The first question is: What do we in the RSA have that the USA does not have? There are many things, and I want to draw hon. members’ attention to them. We have a situation that they do not have. A great deal has been said about our strategic situation. I think that the Americans also have a very strategic situation, but we have a situation that they do not have. I shall leave it at that.

Then there are minority groups. We in this country only have minority groups. The USA does not have minority groups to the same extent. It just depends how one wants to put it. One can say that they have Italians, Greeks, Black people, Indians etc.; but the typical American, the White American, is very much in the majority. Therefore that is something we have that they do not have. Moreover, they do not have a constant threat on their borders. When we talk about a threat, we do not talk about a Cuba that states that it is declaring war on the USA. That would be like Transkei saying that it declared war on South Africa. Nor does the US have people that it has to make independent at a high cost. This is something that we have to do. Then there are the strategic minerals and metals that we have and they do not have. However, I am afraid that we may over-accentuate this fact. It is of real importance, but we must not emphisize that fact too much. The Middle East was of the opinion that it would bring America to its knees by way of the oil boycott. Suddenly, however, alternatives to oil have been obtained. We must beware of the same reaction.

However, what does the USA have that we do not have? There are two things that make me jealous of America. The one is the technology that they have and that we do not have. It was a tremendous experience for me last year to be able to sit in the cabin of Challenger 1, which was placed in orbit around the earth and returned. I asked myself whether the USA could not include one or two South Africans in that training group of theirs. Imagine what this would mean to our experts, our technicians, who have the skills to share such an experience? In general, South African pilots are regarded as among the best in the world. I believe that this could be done to very good effect.

The second thing that impresses me tremendously every time I visit America is the vast amount of water they have there. If this country had had the amount of fresh water pro rata that they have, then we in South Africa would have farmed far more effectively than we do at present.

We have the Waterberg area.

The hon. member is welcome to the Waterberg. We have the Waterkloof. After all, the water runs down the kloof. It does not run up a mountain.

After several visits to America I say that there is considerable affinity between the average American and South African. There is little difference. The one major difference, but also one major point of similarity, is that the Americans are unable to read the Afrikaans newspapers. They have to read the English-language newspapers of South Africa and they have to base their opinions on them. They are saddled with the same pink Press—to a large extent, but at least not all—that we sometimes read. Four of us were in America recently, three from the NP and one from the PFP. The colleague from the PFP, namely the hon. member for Pinelands, was quite constructive in his behaviour. Of course, I do not know what the hon. member did behind our backs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to speak after the hon. member for Roodeplaat because he always makes well-considered, well-worked out and meaningful speeches here, the logic of which cannot be questioned. But he not only made a success of his speech today. I also have to congratulate him on the election results in Waterkloof that he promised me yesterday.

I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Roodeplaat’s congratulations to both the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister. Mr. Chairman, will you allow me today to convey to Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Association, the thanks and appreciation of the four of us who had the opportunity to visit South American countries on behalf of the Parliamentary Association in October and November 1982.

Who was the leader?

He was a good, pleasant and competent fellow.

At the same time I should also like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information for his department’s support, for the arrangements they made, the trouble they took and the kindness we received from officials and their families in particular—and I want to emphasize “their families”—in Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Peru and Brazil. Unfortunately the Parliamentary Association did not pay for everything and my colleagues and I had to pay for some things ourselves. I want to recommend that the allowance should perhaps be increased a little next time. While I am discussing the sacrifices and hard work of these people, I should like to agree with what the hon. member for Paarl said when he discussed the allowances of the officials. Some of them were concerned that there was a tendency to tamper with their salaries, and their allowances in particular. Recently it was reported in the media, incorrectly, I hope, that they were going to be decreased. Today I want to attest to the fact that the loyalty they are showing to South Africa abroad, under the circumstances in which they have to work, cannot be compensated for with money.

I should like to say a few words about our visit to South America. Although we were received there with great friendliness, and although we found it extremely pleasant, I do not think we received the impression that South Africa had any good friends there. Judging by their behaviour towards us, they can be classified into three categories. The first group contains those persons who are friendly to us because it is in their own interests, whether as a result of advantageous trade agreements or owing to the fact that we supply them with arms, or may possibly supply them with arms, or simply because they lack friends, and are seeking out people who are in a similar position. To this group one could add those persons who share our abhorrence of communism, and who also feel the common threat of communism.

The next category of persons who maintain friendly relations with us, also do so merely because it is to their advantage, but they do so as unobtrusively as possible. Some of them—this we did discover—are even seeking new friends. A good example of this is Uruguay. At the moment that country is seeking new markets in Africa, and on this basis it is possibly shifting the emphasis as far as its own interests are concerned. If its new markets and its new trade links in Africa become of greater advantage to Uruguay tomorrow, its friendliness towards South Africa may also diminish.

This brings me to the third category. I see this category as consisting of two groups in South America who are already competing against us in the field of trade and in the field of provision of armaments in other markets. They have already captured a place in the markets of Africa, and have also already realized that those markets are now worth more to them than their friendly relations with South Africa. I want to make it quite clear that wherever we travelled, it was obvious that political or human rights were not at issue. Not one of those South American countries can point a finger at South Africa as far as human rights and human relations are concerned. However, they are only concerned with their own interests, whether political or economic.

When one reviews the entire world situation, strangely enough it is almost ironic that the two countries that would make the most ideal partners today are in fact South Africa and Russia. These two countries could form a combination which would totally isolate the Western World, as well as the rest of the world, in the field of strategic minerals. Unfortunately, because South Africa is not important enough or politically dangerous enough to the communistic bloc, purely business principles apply. What this amounts to is that if your partner or your possible partner is not strong enough, you do not enter into a partnership with him, you merely eliminate him. That is why the communistic onslaught against us is aimed at eliminating us, and a trade partnership between us is not possible. In spite of this boycott situation we are up against and also in spite of the fact that virtually no country in the world is showing any love for us nowadays, it still remains true that, in Africa itself, for example, our trade links are increasing. In spite of the boycotts and the communist onslaught against us our trade with Africa has increased from R663 million in 1970 to R1,137 billion in 1981.

It is, however, important that Africa has not yet realized that, owing to communist intervention in this continent, their trade with us is more expensive than it would have been if they had traded with us directly. While we have the situation that we have to endure attacks from the left, which would be quite acceptable, we also have the practical situation that we are being attacked from the right by friendly or free nations. I am thinking, for example, of recent reports in newspapers that the American Congress and Senate now want to boycott the Kruger Rand and want to support the International Monetary Fund’s loan facility boycott against South Africa. What effect does this have on the South African public? If it had only come from one side, one would expect the public to understand and accept it. However, because it comes from both sides, it is no wonder that the public is beginning to become rebellious. The Whites in South Africa are asking: How far do we have to go? To what extent can we accept this situation before we begin to lose our self-respect? I now want to put a question to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs: If we find ourselves in the position where we have to choose between our continued existence or a loss of self-respect, will the hon. the Minister be prepared to throw everything into the struggle and even use raw materials as a political weapon? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vasco will excuse me if I do not react to his speech. I intend concentrating on information affairs to a greater extent.

This is my first opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information on his appointment to the new and important post that he now occupies. It is my opinion that he possesses the necessary qualifications and enthusiasm to make a success of his work, together with the very able team of officials he has behind him, and indeed I wish him every success. Shortly after his appointment, in July 1982, the hon. the Deputy Minister gave us an indication, by way of Press and television interviews, of what he envisaged doing in his post. On the domestic front he intended, among other things, to give priority to the creation of more effective procedures to ensure that the wealth of information made available daily by the Government, reached the Press and the citizens of the country. Abroad, he wanted to continue the marketing campaign of selling South Africa as an attractive and progressive country, but a country that did have its problems. We have no fault to find with either of these two objectives. However, one asks oneself to what extent the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department have succeeded in achieving these two objectives.

†Turning to the question of the communication gap between the Government and the public, I want to say that it is my view that this gap still exists today. The realization on the part of the Government that a more open and professional approach towards the media was necessary is a positive feature, but that realization on its own is not sufficient actually to improve communications. In The Star of 12 July 1982, for example, the hon. the Deputy Minister was quoted as saying—

This sort of statement and other statements he made in a similar vein clearly raised expectations amongst the Press and the public. One asks oneself where that forum is to which he referred. I hope that in his reply during this debate he will give us some indication of how far this plan has progressed and what he intended when he spoke about this central forum. The position is that newspapermen still have to contend with appointments, private secretaries and unco-operative Ministers. Many of them are shy of the Press and Press conferences and many seem to feel that Press handouts are sufficient. A completely different attitude is adopted in other countries. In the Netherlands a Press conference is held after every Cabinet meeting either by the Prime Minister or by senior Ministers. In Israel the media is inundated with information and every department has an information officer who can be contacted at any time and who deals with any questions. In Japan there is a weekly briefing for the foreign Press by senior foreign ministry officials, and in West Germany Press conferences are usually held three times a week with Government spokesmen and Press spokesmen for the various Government departments briefing the Press. I have not even referred to the position in the United States where the relations between Government and Press have been refined to almost a fine art. I will not deal with that.

What is wrong with our situation here? If the central forum to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to last year is not going to materialize, is he going to create a situation where every department has its Press spokesman who not only makes arrangements for Press conferences or interviews, but who is actually able to field any questions and is able to speak on behalf of the department?

One of the main reasons why the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department have problems is, as I have said, the reluctance of some Cabinet Ministers to play the game. They do not appear to appreciate the vital role of the media and they still exhibit an old-fashioned suspicion towards the Press particularly the foreign Press. Some, such as the hon. Minister for Law and Order, the hon. Minister for Foreign Affairs and Information and the hon. Minister for Constitutional Development and Planning, have seen the foreign Press during the last year and did have Press briefings, although some of them were off the record. Many an official of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information who has tried to arrange interviews for foreign Pressmen and television men has ended up throwing up his arms in despair because of the problems experienced from the Ministers themselves.

I mention foreign correspondents because of the crucial role which they play in projecting the image of South Africa overseas. They, more than anything else, shape our image overseas, and yet the foreign correspondents in South Africa—there are about 80 of them—are treated more shabbily than in virtually any other Western country. Those countries do not have the same image problems which we have here. It is a battle to get the most simple information out of our Government spokesmen.

One can merely take the recent example of the controversial television programme “Adapt or Die” which was produced by the ABC Television Network in America. After it was shown in America it evoked a fiery response from our Ambassador in Washington who claimed that it was one-sided. However, what co-operation did that television crew get in South Africa in order to hear the Government’s point of view on the question of trade unions?

Are you defending them?

I want to quote Mr. George Watson, a vice-president of the ABC Television Network, from an article which appeared in The Cape Times of 12 April this year. He said the following—

This is an example to illustrate the point I am trying to make. There is a complete lack of communication, there is a secrecy and an inability to be confident enough to face these people. In Washington—the hon. the Deputy Minister will know this—every accredited foreign correspondent, including our own foreign correspondents who are accredited, has full and unrestricted access to the House of Representatives and access to the daily briefings by the State Department and to the White House Press briefings. Here in South Africa foreign correspondents do not have the same access to Parliament as our own Pressmen have. They are not allowed on the Press gallery and if they sit on the public gallery they obviously cannot take notes because that is not allowed in terms of our rules. Why can we not, for example, reserve two or three seats for foreign correspondents in our Press gallery? At the beginning of this session, 53 foreign correspondents were brought down from Johannesburg by the department to be present at the opening of Parliament. What happened to them? They had to sit in a television room to watch the proceedings and when they attempted to have a Press conference with the hon. the Prime Minister, he was not prepared to have one. He was only prepared to speak to them off the record at a reception. This is not the way to deal with a strong contingent of foreign correspondents. I suggest the way which we look after foreign correspondents, should be looked at very seriously by the department. There have been improvements in the dealings with correspondents of the foreign Press. An example is the excellent facilities that were provided at the summit meeting between the hon. the Prime Minister and President Kenneth Kaunda. The facilities were excellent and it shows that the department is in a position to look after these correspondents properly.

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

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

I thank the hon. member for his gesture. Mr. Chairman, may I now turn to the publications which the department produces for internal consumption. In this respect I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us an indication of precisely what his department’s policy is in this line. Where does he see the dividing line between National Party policy and propaganda on the one hand and legitimate information work which the State is entitled to carry on? In one party states, the party is often equated with the State. I am afraid that the hon. the Deputy Minister’s department has a tendency to equate the interests of the National Party with that of the State. The way in which the constitutional guidelines approved by the National Party Federal Congress was dealt with is an example of this. It amounts to party policy for as long as it has not passed through Parliament. For the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information to spend thousands of rand on publicizing and publishing those guidelines amounts, in my view, to the blatant funding by the taxpayer of National Party propaganda. The National Party should have taken over the responsibility of marketing their party political constitutional programme and not the State. In my view, the department should deal with its internal information drive along the following lines and I would suggest that the following aspects are legitimate aspects which they are entitled to deal with. They should, for example, concern themselves with communicating information on measures introduced by the Government, that is measures which are already covered by existing laws. They should deal with the content and implication of legislation passed by Parliament and they should also deal with the rights, obligations and duties of citizens to enable them to make full use of the facilities which the State provide. Externally, the department’s information drive should be seen as part of the country’s foreign policy. It should therefore present an objective and comprehensive picture of South Africa. It should strive to improve overseas attitudes towards South Africa. If there is one strategy, in my view, which does not improve overseas attitudes, it is the attempt to sell our race policies. They are not saleable and the hon. the Deputy Minister, I am sure, will accept that. Greater understanding and sympathy for our problems can only be achieved by objectively presenting the complexity of our situation and the different political responses which exist. Publications such as Courier Austral Parlementaire which is funded by the department, makes no attempt to present our complex situation objectively. Its contents is slanted and partisan to an extent that it will merely increase the suspicion as to what our real state of affairs is here. No foreign opinion-maker with even the slightest knowledge of South Africa will fall for it. What foreigners do find impressive is the foreign visitors’ programme which the department arranges. I have not heard of one complaint that these people have not been allowed access to every possible shade of political opinion in South Africa. That is what is required to impress foreigners, to create an awareness of the complexity of our situation. Unfortunately, there are publications that do not reflect this open attitude.

In conclusion, I wish to refer to the report of the department which we last saw in 1980, a useful report which reflected the activities of at that time the Department of Information. Is it not perhaps possible for future reference again to make available to hon. members a report on the various functions and activities of the department? It is a department that has such a wide range of activities that it is not an easy task to monitor or keep abreast of those activities unless one is supplied with the report in which all these different aspects are set out. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would give some thought to this suggestion because it would make our task much easier and would also enable the public to gain an impression of the very difficult circumstances under which this department and the hon. the Deputy Minister have to operate.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central made a remark about the treatment of international Pressmen. I just want to tell the hon. member that I had the privilege of being at Louis Trichardt when the hon. the Prime Minister and the leader of the CP spoke there. On that occasion the Information Service accommodated a whole deputation of international Pressmen. Special earphones were made available to them and there was a young lady who gave them direct translations of the speeches. As far as I am concerned, this is a very good example of the attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister and his Information Service towards those people. I do believe, however, that the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply further to the hon. member for Durban Central on this issue.

I just want to make one further remark before I get to a further matter relating to these CP individuals.

Hon. members.

We know that from today that party is unfortunately going to be one member short, but they made a few remarks here that I do not think one can allow to pass unnoticed. The hon. member for Brakpan made a remark here about the hon. the Minister being a “change-agent”. For whom is he a “change-agent”? I just want to tell the hon. member for Brakpan that there are people in that party who are abusing him.

You are upbraiding the wrong person.

If that hon. member stands behind the door, he must not look for other people there.

I am telling you that you are upbraiding the wrong person.

Order!

I want to accuse the hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Rissik of being “change-agents” for the AWB. [Interjections.] Those are the people for whom they are “change-agents”, people who do not accept the party-political system. Those are the people that the members of the CP have embraced. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rissik comes along and says the hon. the Minister must now resign. Now I wonder who must take the hon. the Minister’s place—probably that apathetic erstwhile member, Tom Langley. [Interjections.] He is sleeping now, Sir. At Louis Trichardt he wanted to make an impression on the people, but then one Sunday morning he went to church, took a seat right in front and, believe it or not, fell asleep. [Interjections.] I want to tell those hon. members that this Parliament and the people of South Africa have only the utmost respect and appreciation for this hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. If the people of South Africa were to have to decide tomorrow, by way of a referendum, whether the hon. the Minister was doing well or was doing badly, all I can say is that 80% of them would vote “yes”—that hon. Minister is doing everything he can for South Africa. [Interjections.] the difference is that the hon. the Minister works for South Africa within the context of certain realities, whilst those people live in a dreamworld. Because they propagate blatant baasskap, which I regard as the germ of South Africa’s downfall, whilst the hon. the Minister does not, he is suddenly reviled for it and branded as someone who is supposedly a “change-agent” selling South Africa down the river. Let me, however, leave the hon. members at that; they have had their medicine in the by-elections.

The hon. member for Durban Central asked when party policy became Government policy. That is a very pertinent question, because we have been accused, by both hon. members of the CP and hon. members of the PFP, of being a Government that abuses the Information Service to disseminate its own party-political propaganda. In every country’s democratic process, the electorate designates the majority party, and then surely the party-political policy of the majority party automatically becomes Government policy. About this matter we must surely now have consensus in the House.

That we will never have.

I want to ask the hon. member for Rissik whether he accepts the principle that the majority party’s policy becomes Government policy. [Interjections.] It seems to me as if the hon. member accepts this. I therefore want to ask hon. members why they consequently object to the Information Service going out of its way to proclaim Government policy day in and day out, not only in the country, but also abroad. They made a terrible fuss about the pamphlet on the constitutional dispensation, but it was their party that made the most use of that pamphlet. It is surely singular proof of the objectivity of the department that it only presents Government policy as it really is.

We have, on previous occasions, had a few people in this House expressing opinions about what the department’s responsibility is. Someone has said—

He also said—

Then he said the following—

That is now the governing party—

That is to say the Opposition—

That is a statement by Dr. Connie Mulder, a person who now joins with those people in shouting that we are abusing State funds in order to proclaim Government policy in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister is on record as having said, at one stage, that one of the functions of the department, or at least the Information Division of that department, is the elucidation of proclaimed Government policy and objectives. This is confirmed if one has a look at Dr. Connie Mulder’s speech—

Surely that is what the Government is doing in South Africa.

What surprises me, is that one gets this sort of thing from the USA: When Pres. Ronald Reagan pays a visit to the South American States, a beautiful brochure about that visit is issued. It is distributed worldwide. It is also distributed in the USA, but there is no objection to that. The pamphlet is issued by the US Information Agency. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister to have us do this sort of thing more frequently in South Africa, because the Prime Minister of this country has been elected by the people of South Africa, and what he does, affects the weal and woe of every person in this country, whether he be White, Brown or Black. We should make a great deal more use of this kind of help. So much for that. So what is the task of the Department of Information? That department has no mandate. It is the department’s direct responsibility to convey Government policy to people abroad. That is the department’s responsibility. Why, after all, do we have a Department of Information? This Government’s policy must be disseminated within the country as well as abroad; within the country because it affects the weal and woe of all of us, and abroad because it influences our relations with the international world. I want to repeat that the department does not do so upon request. That is the department’s job, the reason why it was established. If we therefore want to criticize that department, we should rather criticize what the department does not do instead of criticizing what the department does, in fact, do for South Africa.

Let us take a brief look at what these people do abroad. They have extremely limited means and funds at their disposal. Day after day the whole world is marshalling orchestrated verbal opposition to South Africa. The department, for example, distributes the magazine Panorama, of which approximately 300 000 copies are made available annually throughout the world in eight international languages. Annually they distribute 170 000 copies of S.A. Digest abroad in four languages, i.e. Afrikaans, English, French and German. Then there are still several individual publications and ad hoc publications by our foreign missions, these being distributed overseas. The little experience I gained abroad last year made me realize that these publications by our foreign missions ought to receive the utmost praise, because the few that I obtained were excellent documents. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to reply to some of the matters raised by the hon. member for Houghton.

I appreciate what the hon. member said today. However, it occurs to me that she should rather have addressed here comments to the CP and not the NP. The hon. member is wrong if she imagines that the policy of the PFP will in the long run be acceptable to the international community. It might please in a limited way a limited number of elements abroad for a limited period of time, but I can assure her that my department and I have lived through the history of the way African Governments came into power and the way they govern, and we also aware of the demands that are inevitably made. There is not a single exception. As I said, the PFP may have some limited initial success, but the history of Africa proves that the ultimate demand is for “one man, one vote” elections in a unitary State and more often than not for only one election. I do not say this in a derogatory way. It is a statement of fact, a statement of history. [Interjections.] Can hon. members not take in some truth sometimes?

Zimbabwe and South West Africa are perfect examples. In both countries moderate multiracial administrations were in fact elected, but these dispensations proved to be unacceptable to Third World opinion and ultimately to Western opinion as well. There is no question about it. Ultimately Rhodesia, after having changed almost to the same extent as the PFP would have this country change, did not succeed. [Interjections.] That is why I believe that change should be tailored to … [Interjections.] I am putting my views and my arguments. If the hon. member does not like them, he can avail himself of another opportunity to speak and put his own standpoint. I did not interrupt the hon. member when he spoke.

No, but I think …

You cannot even observe the normal rules of debate of this House. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must now give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister says that interjections are not part of the normal procedure in debates. Surely he must be prepared to take an interjection.

I did not say that.

Order! I appeal to hon. members to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to answer the questions put to him by hon. members. I also refer hon. members to Standing Order No. 106, which reads as follows—

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not mind interjections, but hon. members make interjections continuously, especially the lady from Houghton. [Interjections.] To what extent it may ever be possible for the PFP to test the acceptability of its policies abroad is academic. I am sorry if that sounds arrogant, but I say it is academic because the hon. member for Sea Point could not understand that yesterday. I said yesterday that we had all agreed that only this Parliament could bring about changes, also changes that they desire, and they agreed. However, the hon. member missed the point in the same way that his party missed the boat.

You have also missed the boat.

The point I want to make is that the PFP admitted here today that the NP suffered a setback in Waterberg. Now, what hope have they got to sell their policy to the country? It is just not on. It is just not practical. Therefore I think it is a theoretical question. No party in South Africa can win an election on the basis of the PFP policy. I do not think that we need argue this. I will be wasting our time.

The hon. member for Sea Point asked about the number of Coloureds and Indians in the foreign service and in the Information Service of the department. At present there are 12 Coloureds, four Indians and 34 Blacks. We are going to transfer another Coloured officer and another Indian officer to two of our missions abroad in the near future. At the moment there are, as I have already said in reply to a question by the hon. member for Sea Point, two Coloured foreign service officers serving abroad. As regards his question on the effect of exchange rates on the emoluments of officers serving abroad, a comparison of exchange rates is being made on a monthly basis to make sure that staff members do not suffer as a result of exchange fluctuations. We do have a system to take care of that.

Let me say something about the difficulty in recruiting Coloured or Indian South Africans for the foreign service. The staff of the department dealing with this matter inform me that they do receive applications, but when the applicants are interviewed and they learn what the salary is and what the conditions of service are—and they are absolutely equal to the salaries and conditions applying to Whites—the overwhelming majority of applicants smile, say “no thank you” and show no further interest. I am told this by the staff of the department who deal with this matter.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Sea Point for his words of appreciation for the very good services rendered by the officials of the department here and abroad. I appreciate it, and I was asked by the Director-General to convey the thanks of the department. Of course, these officials are truly in the frontlines defending South Africa’s interests. Their work is not always appreciated, because to be effective it has often to be done outside the glare of publicity.

The hon. member asked me about our relations with neighbouring States. I dealt with certain aspects of this matter yesterday. The first country mentioned by the hon. member was Zambia. At a meeting held in April 1982 between the hon. the Prime Minister and President Kaunda it was foreseen that another meeting would take place later. We believe it is important for the leaders of African States to meet with our own leaders as such meetings could lead to a greater understanding of each others respective positions, and could also eliminate misconceptions. There is no need always to expect immediate and specific results. A mere exchange of views is useful. The mere fact that a meeting takes place is of significance. Both South Africa and Zambia are concerned about the need for an internationally acceptable solution to the question of South West Africa. This is one of the subjects that was discussed between President Kaunda and the hon. the Prime Minister last year.

President Kaunda recently suggested to the Press that South Africa should meet with Swapo, and the hon. the Prime Minister thereafter indicated that he did not see his way clear to meeting with an organization committed to terrorism. There is no doubt about Dr. Kenneth Kaunda’s sincerity in making proposals of this nature and we trust he will appreciate the validity of our reasons for not being able to agree to it.

The hon. member for Sea Point also wanted to know what progress I could report on our relations with Lesotho and Mozambique. Regarding Lesotho I gave particulars of the progress made in respect of the Highlands Water Scheme, when I replied to a question put to me by the hon. member for Johannesburg North on 4 May this year. I said then that the two countries had reaffirmed the importance of the project and had agreed that a feasibility study should be carried out as quickly as possible. When I met with the newly appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lesotho on 30 April this year, I also raised very pertinently South Africa’s security concern arising from anti-South African terrorist activities in Lesotho, and I also pointed out that these concerns were an impediment to constructive relations. I may mention that in 1981 the two countries established a permanent liaison committee of senior officials, a committee to deal with matters arising in the fields of health, agriculture, environmental control and other fields of a non-security nature. The committee meets once a year in alternate capitals and has already held three meetings. So, on the technical and economic co-operation levels we do not experience any problems with Lesotho. We have only this major obstacle. That is the presence in Lesotho of people who plan and execute subversive actions against South Africa from the territory of Lesotho. That we cannot accept.

Regarding Mozambique, I have already dealt with the salient features of the Schoeman case, and I have handed in a reply to a question today, in which I give further details about this matter. I believe that the Mozambique Government has been made aware of the strength of our views on the Schoeman matter and on the way in which they handled this matter. I also hope they will realize that this is not the way in which to promote realistic bilateral relations. There are important matters that need to be discussed between our two countries, and I hope that their further handling of the Schoeman case will make it possible for other meetings to continue so that the major issue of support to subversive elements can be tackled and probably be settled.

As far as Zimbabwe is concerned, I note with appreciation that the hon. member personally acknowledges that there are difficulties in the way of a meeting between the Prime Ministers of South Africa and Zimbabwe. I do not rule out the prospect of such a meeting but the present climate is simply not conducive to it. I should also like to add that before any meeting of this nature could be arranged there should at least be a mutual desire towards such meeting. It cannot be a one-sided desire.

The hon. member also asked what our relations were with the Government of Swaziland since the recent coming to power of a new Prime Minister in that country. As hon. members will know, the former Prime Minister, Prince Mabandla, came to this country with his family after he had been dismissed from his post. When I heard that he wished to come, I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Swaziland and told him of Prince Mabandla’s intention. The foreign Minister indicated that, while Prince Mabandla in his government’s view had no reason to leave Swaziland, there was no objection to his coming here. I may mention that there was fear in the heart and mind of Prince Mabandla, and it is not easy to determine the degree of fear in another human being’s mind. Later, when I met with the Foreign Minister, he thanked me for the way in which we had handled this matter. Prince Mabandla informed me, when I saw him, that he would not interfere in Swaziland’s political affairs while in South Africa. He indicated on arrival that he needed a period of rest, and he will no doubt make a decision fairly soon about his future movements. I hope it will be possible for him to return to Swaziland with his family, because I believe that that may contribute towards stabilizing the situation in Swaziland. I have had discussions with the Foreign Minister of Swaziland since the change of Prime Minister and I have been assured that his government wishes to continue the late King Sobhuza’s policy of good relationships with South Africa. It is our sincere hope that economic progress and political stability will be maintained in Swaziland in the interests of its own people and Southern Africa as a whole.

The hon. member for Sea Point also asked what the present situation is with regard to South Africa’s bilateral contact with Angola. South Africa entered into discussions with Angola last year in the belief that it had a moral responsibility to pursue all possibilities of bringing peace to the border area between South West Africa and Angola. At the same time South Africa had no illusions about the dangers and risks involved in negotiating with a hostile Marxist State. Representatives of the two countries met at ministerial level on Sal Island on 7 and 8 December 1982. During that meeting I made certain practical proposals for the establishment of peace in the border area. A second round of talks, also at ministerial level, was arranged for 23 February this year, but a week before the discussions were due to take place, Swapo launched its largest offensive ever against South West Africa, and did so with the knowledge, I believe, and support of the Angolan Government. In the circumstances I considered that it would have been inopportune for me and my two Cabinet colleagues who were scheduled to accompany me, to go to the meeting with Angola on ministerial level. Instead we decided to send the Director-General of Foreign Affairs together with senior officials from other departments to Angola and to make it clear to Angola that it, i.e. Angola, and Swapo would have to reciprocate the military restraint which had been manifested by South Africa if there was to be any progress with a peace initiative. The South African delegation also emphasized that a lasting settlement would require the withdrawal of Cuban forces. Within this context South Africa is prepared to hold further talks with Angola. This position was conveyed to the Angolans in a recent letter I dispatched. I am now awaiting their reaction.

The hon. member for Sea Point also asked whether South Africa is committed to an internationally recognized independence for South West Africa in terms of Security Council Resolution 435. Yes, we are committed to that, but not at all costs or at any price. An internationally acceptable solution which results in greater conflict, greater tension and greater turbulence which can spill over into the whole of Southern Africa may still qualify as an international solution or settlement, but it does not qualify in the South African Government’s view as an acceptable one. The hon. member wanted to know what the main obstacles were in the way of achieving such a settlement. The main obstacle which remains, the most severe one, is the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola. There are of course also other matters which have to be settled, but we believe these will be speedily settled once this major issue is resolved. These other matters concern the composition of the United Nations Transitional Assistance Group (Untag) the status agreement for Untag, as well as the fact that the Administrator-General will have to decide at a certain point in the process what form the elections will take. The original proposal was that there should be a dual system, a country-wide election on a proportional basis where a party which say, polls 20% of the votes gets 20% of the delegates. That would have been coupled at the same time with an election on a constituency basis where there would also have been candidates in each constituency. The Western powers encountered severe resistance. It was their proposal, not ours.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, it was a two-vote system. Although it was not my proposals we accepted it. To accommodate them, as we have tried to do over many years now, we agreed that the Administrator-General would choose the one or the other. We did not want to say at that stage which one of the two it would be, but we agreed that it would be either the one or the other and not both.

As regard the issue of Cuban withdrawal from Angola, there is an unquestionable de facto link in our international discussions concerning a settlement of the South West Africa question. The hon. member is quite right. I think he mentioned it last year. The Americans, in fact the contact group in general, are inhibited about this linkage. They do not like the word “linkage”. One of my American friends explained it by saying that there was no linkage but an empirical connection. I need not use the word “linkage”; I will settle for “empirical connection”. However, from my point of view there is a de facto connection between the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola and a settlement of the South West Africa question. It is simply ludicrous to suggest that the introduction of the hostile and expansionist surrogates of a super-power into the Southern African region will not have the most far-reaching implications for the security of all the countries of the region, particularly when one considers, firstly, the doctrine of that super-power, i.e. the Soviet Union, which openly proclaims the necessity for the worldwide exportation of communism and revolution. That is a fact. Secondly, there is the record of the surrogate Cuba itself for subversion and the fermentation of revolution in Central America, South America and Africa. Thirdly, there is the threat which Soviet and Cuban-supported elements have already posed to a country in the region, namely the Shaba invasion in Zaire.

South Africa’s concern with regard to the introduction of Cuba forces into our region by way of Angola is almost identical to the United States’ concern over the introduction of Soviet and Cuban influence into Central America by way of Nicaragua. On 10 March 1983 President Reagan stated—

Why should the concerns of South Africa and South West Africa be any less in our region? President Reagan went on to say—

The same forces are active in Angola.

Can anyone seriously imagine that there is no linkage between such a situation and the security of the neighbours of such a State? The hon. member for Sea Point also asked: “What is the situation with regard to the consultations which the Administrator-General of South West Africa is now conducting with the political parties of South West Africa?” and “What are the Administrator-General’s plans for the administration of the territory prior to independence?” He expressed the view that nothing should be done in respect of internal political developments which would threaten the independence process or cause problems with Dr. Crocker. He urged the South African Government not to entertain proposals for the division of the territory. They are all-important issues, and I am glad that he raised them.

On 20 November last year the Prime Minister stated that although an election in South West Africa to determine the support enjoyed by the various parties was the logical step, an election at that time was undesirable inter alia because of the uncertainty regarding the international negotiations. We did not know at that time how long these negotiations would take. The Americans told us “Do not put pressure on us for time; we need time. We think we can do it, but we will need time to talk to the frontline States, to talk to Angola; so do not put pressure on us”. For that reason we could not say when elections would take place. We reasoned that if it would become clear by the end of February of this year that internationally supervised elections were in the offing, were soon to take place, then naturally it would not have been necessary, it would have made no sense to hold internal elections. On the other hand we thought that if by the end of February it was reasonably clear that it was still going to take a considerable time before there was any possibility of internationally supervised elections, then we could not really let the Administrator-General keep on governing alone for such a lengthy period of time without involving local parties, leaders and politicians again in some way or another in the internal running of the country—perhaps not as a government, but at least then in an advisory capacity. The South African Government made it clear from the start that it would not prescribe—that was a matter for the parties and the Administrator-General should they wish to come up with any proposal. After he assumed office in February this year, the new Administrator-General, Dr. Willie van Niekerk, held consultations with the South West African political parties from which emerged a degree of concensus with regard to the necessity of using the time before independence effectively to promote constructive political consultation and possibly development. During the current round of consultations in which the Administrator-General is engaged, various practical possibilities are being considered to promote this objective. However, no blue-print exists and the consultations, in which all political parties are being treated on an equal basis, are expected to continue for the time being. Whatever emerges from the consultations, the South African Government is aware of the importance of taking no action which would be irreconcilable with the efforts to bring about internationally recognized independence for the territory. The South African Government will, however, continue to consult the political parties of South West Africa in respect of the future of the territory. The South African Government is not considering a partitioning of the territory, and as for proposals regarding the recognition of South West Africa’s constituent ethnic groups to some or other degree of self-determination, the South African Government believes that that is a matter which can best be resolved by the leaders themselves.

The hon. member for Sea Point asked: “What is South Africa’s attitude towards the recent United Nations conference on Namibian which was held in Paris?” I have already set out the South African Government’s views in support of the struggle of the Namibia people for independence in a letter which I addressed to the Secretary-General on 26 April 1983. If the hon. member is interested, I shall gladly let him have a copy. I made it clear to the conference and to the Secretary-General that the conference actively undermined the search for peace by supporting Swapo’s campaign of terrorist violence, by propagating the assumption that Swapo is the sole and authentic representative of the people of the territory and by attempting to sabotage the delicate processes of international negotiations that are currently under way and that have as their purpose the peaceful resolution of the South-West Africa question and the removal of external threats to the security of the territory and of the region. As expected, the conference which cost one million dollars degenerated into yet another gratuitous exercise in the UN’s vendetta against South Africa. However, what little publicity the conference received was negative, and the exercise probably did its authors more harm than it did South Africa.

The hon. member for Sea Point also asked what the nature of Dr. Crocker’s forthcoming visit to South Africa was. The proposed visit of Dr. Crocker to South Africa is one for an on-going series of wide-ranging talks between South Africa and the United States on matters of common concern. The talks were originally scheduled for the end of this month but have been postponed as a result of the UN Security Council meeting on South West Africa which is now scheduled for 23 May. The Security Council meeting, the one scheduled for 23 May, following the UN’s Par s Conference on South West Africa, will 11 all likelihood be exploited by those who wish to sabotage current efforts to find peaceful solutions to the problems of South-West Africa and Southern Africa. I may add that the South African Government views this next meeting of the Security Council in a very serious light indeed because it may have implications of a very grave nature in regard to the further process of negotiations. I hope it will not, but it may. We shall watch the developments at this meeting very closely.

The hon. member also stated that he did not understand why I quoted from Mr. Xan Smiley’s article on African values, systems, traditions and so forth. I thought I had made it clear that this gentleman originally held exactly the same views as the hon. member for Sea Point. He said so. As a matter of fact, in the introductory portion of his article this journalist or author states that that was the view held in general by Western commentators when they first came to Africa, the view that all one needed was capital, a little training, some infrastructure, a Wesminister system and one election in order to put a Government in power and then continue from there. He said he held those views. However, the point that the hon. member missed was this. I have in mind the everyday, elementary truth in regard to the running of a country. If the hon. member does not believe me I am prepared to invite him to join some of our missions, which I shall arrange, missions to countries next door to us and to countries further afield. I am prepared to arrange for his inclusion in such missions. He will then be able to see for himself and experience what we experience. What is that? I do not want to say this in a derogatory manner but this experience entails my being told—not I doing the telling—by Black leaders about their systems, values and modes of living. I do not think the hon. member grasps this fact. It is not I who is doing the telling. It is the Black leader whom I meet, the Minister or the head of State, the Prime Minister or the President or Cabinet member whom we meet who says: Look, if you come to us do not approach us in your typically White style, with your typically White way of thinking, with your typically White Western way of reasoning. They say: You are living in Africa and you ought to know by now how we Africans react to Western ideas. We do not accept those ideas; it might by your style. This has nothing to do with politics; this concerns economic matters, it concerns land matters, a whole spectrum of matters. I then argue with them and say: But look, if you do not put aside a larger part of your country for individual ownership, nobody will come to invest. This is a problem we find in the whole of Africa. It is a problem of African States within our region.

The hon. member queried this. He queried this because he stated that they work in our factories on our farms and because we are everywhere together implying a sharing of values. He then said that it was nonsense for me to say that they cannot accept our values and norms. I have not said they cannot. I am saying to him they do not want to. When it comes to the decision-making process from a constitutional point of view, in other words the Government in power, it does not matter whether they have lived for ten or twenty years in Johannesburg. Let us take President Banda as an example. He lived as a doctor in London for I do not know how many years. He is now back in Africa and he insists on a political style and culture and a decision-making process which is not that of the PFP. This is really an elementary fact. He is not prepared to adopt a different system. He says his system will be tailored to the needs, the development levels and the wishes of his people. I do not speak about it in a derogatory manner and I do not speak about it with a superiority complex; it may be that their ways are in many ways better than other ways.

I did not pick this quarrel; the hon. member did. He said that he did not understand it. Smiley’s article tells the hon. member what the position in Africa was. I am saying to the hon. member that exactly the same applies, is applied and will be applied in this part of the world. What we are trying to do is to respect this different life-style, this different decision-making process. What I was driving at was to establish how the hon. member would in terms of his party’s set-up, handle this. I then made the remark “as I understand his party’s policy”, but if I am wrong, certainly the hon. member will correct me. I understood that in terms of the PFP’s policy the PFP would not mind being governed according to these Black systems although those systems do not agree with the system the PFP propagates; the PFP after all believes in majority rule. In terms of majority rule, they will eventually govern, but then I foresee a clash. I really sincerely foresee a severe clash which will bring us down to far greater racism and a polarization between White and Black than would be the position if both sides could meet to talk it out with each other. The one side can then say: Look, this is the way we live; you say you cannot accept a secret ballot because it is not part of your system, but our people insist on a secret ballot. [Interjections.] I am trying to explain it to the hon. member. He asked me a question and he said that he could not understand what I tried to say yesterday.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister to explain why he is saying that Black South Africans will not accept the concept of a secret ballot? It might apply in certain African countries, but why does it follow that of necessity Black South Africans will have a different value system when it comes to a secret ballot?

Does the hon. member regard Lesotho as foreign? 140 000 of that country’s citizens work in this country.

What about Botswana?

To the present day Botswana is still an exception.

And Nigeria under its new constitution?

The hon. member knows as well as I do what is going on in Nigeria. If he does not, I shall give him a report, the latest UN report on what is happening there.

No one can believe that.

Well, then I shall give the hon. member a report from another source. I find it surprising that those hon. members who claim that they travel about, who claim that they are having talks do not know the position. I shall quote to them South Africans who are supporters of the PFP, well-to-do people in big companies, who support my view 100% when it comes to investing money. But for their sake and not to embarrass them, I will not mention the names. They sometimes visit the Prime Minister and myself. The fact of the matter is that I did not say that they are incapable of accepting values like learning to read, to work hard and to work productively. I launch projects to help them in this respect, because I believe that if you give them a proper chance they can achieve equally. The point I want to make is that it does not concern equality or inequality, superiority or inferiority. It concerns a different lifestyle, a different cultural outlook. I did not create it. They tell me that they are different. I do not tell them that. I just want to emphasize this point. I have English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking supporters in my department, some who might even be supporters of the PFP, or might have been years ago. Ask them what their experience is. I do not want to run away from reality. I am telling the truth here today. What I said was that unless all of us accept certain of these basic and elementary truths, we are not going to make progress. I do not doubt the idealism of hon. members opposite, but I can assure them that they are going to run on the rocks.

The hon. member for Pinelands raised the question of the Development Bank for Southern Africa. The hon. member knows that the Development Bank for Southern Africa is expected to be established as from September 1983. The preparatory steps are receiving the active attention of the Governments of South Africa and of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei. The five Governments have appointed Dr. Simon Brand as the first chief executive and a special subcommittee under his chairmanship is at present finalizing a multilateral agreement which will serve as a memorandum of association of the bank. It is envisaged that consensus regarding this agreement will be reached at the first meeting of the Ministerial Development Council, a council established by the summit meeting of November 1982. The meetings is due to be held on 30 May 1983. The agreement on the bank can then be signed towards the end of June. This will pave the way for the first meeting of the board of governors, consisting of ministerial representatives of the shareholders, which will serve as the top policy-making body of the bank.

One of the first tasks of the board will be to appoint a board of directors, which will consist of experts in the development and financial fields. This board, of which Dr. Brand will be the chairman, will be responsible for the overall operational policy of the bank. It is envisaged that each of the five member countries will appoint one director, while the board of governors will appoint a further five directors.

While there are no easy solutions to the complex development problems of our region’s lesser developed areas, I sincerely hope that the establishment of this bank, coupled with the recently announced policy of regional co-operation and development and the deconcentration of industries, will herald a new era for development in South Africa.

The hon. member also mentioned the question of drought aid. Apart from the aid granted to Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Ciskei to relieve the drought conditions in their countries, an amount of R6 million has been made available to Venda, while a further request for aid by the Bophuthatswana Government is at present under consideration. I think the total amount granted to the four countries I have mentioned, would now probably be approximately R25 million to R26 million. South Africa has, in conjunction with these countries, evaluated the drought situation in those countries and has determined with them the measures necessary to grant relief. I am not saying that they have received sufficient aid, but we are doing it in conjunction with them.

In addition, the amount of subsidy paid by South Africa on flour consumed in the TBVC countries, increased from R15 million during the last financial year to an estimated R26 million for the current financial year. As far as assistance to the TBVC countries in general is concerned, a question which was raised by the hon. member for Pinelands, the hon. member referred to the amount of over R600 million provided in terms of the Vote under discussion as assistance to the four countries. It will be recalled that in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Lichtenburg I indicated earlier this year that the department had made the following amounts available in respect of these countries during 1982-’83: Transkei, R262,3 million; Bophuthatswana, R94,9 million; Venda, R98,1 million and Ciskei, R205,1 million, giving a total of R660,4 million. This was made available in the form of a budgetary assistance, statutory amounts, technical aid, project aid, secondments as well as contributions in respect of incentive measures. Shares from the Customs Union pool as well as payments in terms of the Rand Monetary Union Agreement are regarded as transfer payments and do not form part of the Vote of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information. In this connection the hon. member alleged that more than R300 million per annum had been made available by the South African taxpayer as aid to Venda. I fail to see how the hon. member arrived at this figure, as the total Venda budget for 1982-’83 was in the order of R150 million. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Information has in the first three years after independence made available to Venda an amount of R220 million, inclusive of indirect aid. Even if the amounts transferred under the Customs Union Agreement and the Rand Monetary Union Agreement are included, it still falls short of the figure of R300 million.

The hon. member also referred to the fact that Venda as a developing country experienced problems similar to those in the rest of Africa as far as the lack of financial management and control was concerned. The South African Government places a high premium on the requirement that countries receiving assistance from us should exercise proper financial management and control to ensure the rational application of scarce funds, and this is also done, of course, in their own interests, otherwise their credibilities suffer. I have been informed by our ambassador in Thohoyandou that the Government of Venda itself has already introduced legislation to provide that future Government contracts can only be entered into after approval by the President together with four senior Ministers, as attested by the State Attorney. This clearly shows that the Venda Government itself was not happy about the state of affairs and has on its own initiative taken steps in this regard.

By way of general comment, I want to ask the hon. member what he has done to promote investment in these countries through his contacts with financial institutions and investors contacts which, I assume, must be considerable. If he has not done so, I would earnestly appeal to the hon. member to use his influence to attract such investors to these countries so as to assist in their development.

The hon. member also asked about a future projection on confederal relationships, and I think he asked me to pronounce myself on how I see our relations with these States over five years. Both the hon. the Prime Minister and I have repeatedly stated that the creation of a confederation would require a sustained effort and that we should as a first priority concentrate on practical forms of co-operation. During the summit meeting of November 1982 one of the Presidents from our neighbouring countries counselled against the undisciplined receiving of hand-outs so as to avoid the same pitfalls that other African countries have fallen into. Positive developments which have already flowed from the summit meeting include the establishment of an inter-governmental development council at ministerial level, complemented by a multilateral economic and finance committee consisting of senior officials. The latter committee has at its disposal several multilateral technical committees, the main functions of which will be the coordination of policy planning, the harmonization of national policies and the co-ordination between Governments in the execution of development programmes. Since the summit meeting 11 meetings of the above mentioned committees have already taken place. As far as the creation of more formal confederal structures is concerned the pace cannot be forced. It simply cannot be forced.

I foresee that confederal structures will in time flow naturally from our practical efforts towards co-operation. The EEC, for example, was also not established overnight, and even long before that group formally came into being there were numerous bilateral, and even multilateral, contacts between the countries concerned, which ultimately came together in a more formal structure.

The hon. member also referred to the problem of squatting. The problem of squatting is not only an African phenomenon; it occurs world-wide. It is a problem which is directly related to the process of urbanization. This problem exists throughout Africa. The Government is mindful of the human aspects involved but at the same time it cannot allow people to proceed in an uncontrolled manner with their influx into the cities where job opportunities and housing are not available, and by doing so create social conditions which are harmful to the settled as well as the squatting communities. Special problems are created through the unrestrained influx into our cities and towns of large numbers of workseekers, specifically in an area such as the Western Cape, where the economic opportunities are relatively limited. Special efforts are being made to solve the problem of squatting in the Western Cape, with the co-operation of the countries from where these people originate. In our view the creation of job opportunities in the independent national States will in the final analysis offer the best solution to this problem. To this end the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information, as well as other departments of State, have been actively engaged in the Transkei’s special employment action programme, a programme embarked on through the personal initiative of the Transkeian Prime Minister, and which involves the creation of approximately 4 000 new job opportunities in Transkei.

Ciskei is in turn engaged in a rural development programme aimed at the creation of additional job opportunities. I share the concern of the hon. member for Pinelands about grazing for Ciskei, as reflected in his question about the situation in the Stockenström district. The South African Government attaches the utmost importance to the early transfer of the farms in question as promised to Ciskei and provided for in the agreement, and steps are being taken to complete the purchase and transfer of these farms as a matter of priority. I must point out, however, that assurances have been given to that farming community, for very valid reasons, that the farms could only be transferred en bloc. It is therefore regretted that the individual farms cannot be placed at the disposal of Ciskei as and when they are acquired by the S.A. Development Trust but only when the other farms in the area have been acquired and transferred. Moreover, we are giving very high priority to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. the Minister will forgive me if I do not react to what he has just said. I do, however, want to turn the debate to another aspect of the administration of the department of which the hon. the Minister is in charge, namely to the affairs and machinations of the SABC.

I should like to start by wishing Mr. Steve de Villiers good health and happiness when he retires at the end of this year as Director-General of the SABC. He has all but completed a long and distinguished career which has spanned virtually the entire post-war period. He played a major role in the introduction of commercial radio as long back as 35 years ago and has been one of the leading figures in the development and expansion of radio in South Africa. In the latter years, which saw the introduction and the rapid growth of television in our country, Mr. De Villiers was heavily engaged in the overall management of the corporation. I think that the greatest compliment I can pay him is to say that throughout his career he was at all times a true professional. We in the PFP should like to extend to Mr. De Villiers every good wish for a long, contented and fruitful retirement.

Secondly, I should like to compliment the SABC … [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is very surprised. I should like to compliment the SABC on relaxing its attitude somewhat in regard to Sunday broadcasting. So far the relaxations have been rather timid, but nonetheless the policy of allowing broadcasts, on merit, of programmes of wider interest and in certain circumstances of major sports events on those days is to be welcomed. Without wishing to offend members of any religious group, I want to say that any steps to brighten up Sunday television programmes in particular must be supported and encouraged. What I fail to understand is why no advertising material is used on Sundays on television. It cannot be a question of principle, because commercial radio services operate on Sundays without any noticeable restrictions at all. They use advertising material all day long. Surely, this aspect, too, should be looked into in an attempt to bring greater viability and variety to Sunday television programmes.

A new guiding hand will soon take over the reins of the stewardship of the SABC. I refer to the appointment in February of Mr. Riaan Eksteen, a senior official of the Department of Foreign Affairs, as the Director-General designate, this through the personal intervention and suggestion of the hon. the Minister himself.

That is not completely correct.

I am merely using the hon. the Minister’s own words. In answer to a supplementary question during question time, he said: “Yes, I personally suggested that”. That is what he said.

But that was a suggestion.

Well, I have just said so. I said the appointment arose through the personal intervention and suggestion of the hon. the Minister. That is exactly what I said. That appointment, announced in February, was certainly not lacking in political controversy, but I do not wish to raise that particular argument today. Suffice it to say that it was not an appointment we could blindly support. But, to misquote Macbeth, “the deed is done”. To Mr. Eksteen and his management team I say this: To the extent that they uphold the best spirit of the SABC charter, they will receive our goodwill and support; to the extent that the lofty aims set out in the Broadcasting Act, namely the true independence of that corporation, the duty to serve the whole community and not just one section of it, the task of providing unbiased and objective news broadcasts, to the extent that these concepts are respected and guarded, we will be supportive of the corporation’s efforts.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when business was suspended for supper I was saying that to the extent the management team of the SABC upholds and guards the charter of the corporation, they will receive the support of this side of the House. In this connection one of the very first matters that should be given attention by the SABC at this time is the unhappy decline in the standard of English used, particularly in radio and television news and actuality programmes.

You are a racist. [Interjections.]

Sir, is the hon. member allowed to say that?

He does not care anything about minority groups.

The Afrikaans-speaking public of South Africa are never subjected to reporters broadcasting interviews in broken Afrikaans, nor do they have to hear views and comments on the financial scene or on any other aspect of South African life in anything except excellently expressed Afrikaans. I believe that that is correct. However, English-speaking listeners and viewers are not nearly so well catered for. Almost daily we have to listen and suffer the undignified decimation of our language on both radio and television. So I ask that this be one of the first matters that the new management in the SABC look into.

I should like to refer briefly to the Artes Awards. This is an annual prestige event.

What? [Interjections.]

My hon. colleague, who has just returned from the north, disputes that statement. It is billed as an annual prestige event which over the years has gained recognition in the South African entertainment field. I think it is healthy for promoting the performing arts over radio and television. I am very glad that the spending extravaganzas of past years have been replaced by a ceremony more modest in its budget. I do, however, have two criticisms which I should like to offer. Firstly, the 1983 Artes Awards could easily win a prize for providing the most mediocre and the most boring Saturday night viewing this year. Surely something can be done. Surely, with all the innovative minds within that vast corporation, something can be done to give this occasion at least some entertainment value.

The second criticism is perhaps more important. I refer to the fact that the Artes Awards and the concomitant celebrations this year were geared solely to the White viewers and White population of South Africa. No Blacks, Coloureds or Indians, except perhaps one or two in a token capacity, participated in or were even invited to attend the evening’s proceedings. I believe this is really wrong. The Artes Awards should not be ethnically decided. Art and art-forms should not be recognized by the SABC only within the apartheid structure. Separate functions and separate awards for separate race groups are in this day and age undesirable and discriminatory per se. I believe that this one-eyed practice of having an all-White Artes Awards ceremony must be discontinued forthwith.

Some weeks ago the report of the external auditors appointed to investigate alleged irregularities …

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.

Mr. Chairman I merely rise in order to afford the hon. member for Sandton the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Geduld. But I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow directly upon the line which he has taken! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, some weeks ago the report of the external auditors, who were appointed to investigate alleged irregularities committed by employees in the production and/or purchase of radio and television programmes, was made public, as was the response of the SABC thereto. While the investigations—in my view, rather unimaginatively conducted—revealed no corruption of any major proportions, it did bring to light several malpractices, such as senior staff working for cash for private companies during SABC time. It did hint at—in fact, it even stated—the possibility of favours and influence possibly playing a role in the purchase of programmes by senior employees. Furthermore, it sketched a picture of very lax administrative control. Certain resignations, connected with the subject matter of the investigations were received and they were accepted.

The SABC virtually holds a broadcasting monopoly in South Africa. Could hon. members just for a moment think how highly prized it is in private enterprise to have their products shown by the SABC in broadcasting time, bearing in mind that this is a monopoly which absorbs their products? It is a highly sought-after medium for the broadcasting of privately produced programmes and films. There exist infinite possibilities for dispensing favours for cash or extra jobs in return.

In the light of this position of trust held by the corporation, the response of the SABC to the report displays a complacency which is quite incongruous. The lack of disciplinary and administrative control evidenced gives cause for grave disquiet. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to spell out quite categorically what steps have been taken to ensure that the sort of irregularities and undesirable practices, which are mentioned in that report, and also the possibilities and the opportunities for the occurrence and the reoccurrence of nepotism and corruption have once and for all been eliminated within the corporation.

Mr. Chairman, to move to another topic, the release of a survey conducted by a member of the academic staff of the University of the Witwatersrand, revealing gross bias in favour of the NP, over a two-week period prior to yesterday’s by-elections, came as no surprise to me at all. We in the PFP have experienced this element of bias for years.

But we are the Government.

So that is why you control the SABC. [Interjections.]

That, Mr. Chairman, is a very revealing remark. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Sandton has no need of a chorus to make his speech.

The hon. the Minister, who is most charming in most circumstances, complained earlier that he was attacked while making his speech. I want to ask him to allow me the same courtesy that I allowed him when he made his speech. I thank him for deferring to my wish. [Interjections.] We have experienced this bias for years and in recent times it has grown worse, as interference from both the hon. the Minister and his hon. Deputy Minister have escalated. We have, for the first time, as allies a new Opposition group in this very narrow field. They themselves, having been members of the Government and now being in the Opposition benches, realize what it is like to be in opposition and to have the lack of opportunity to express a viewpoint on the Government-controlled monopoly. Certainly in regard to these by-elections the NP can thank God for Pik Botha and his television toy! I also want to say that they can probably also thank God for the 621 PFP supporters in Soutpansberg who probably voted for their candidate. [Interjections.] I say that this television is a toy which the hon. the Minister controls and continues to seek to control through his appointments to the board. By his very expression, the hon. the Minister is showing disbelief, benign disbelief. I want to ask him this question: Does he or does he not appoint members to the board?

After careful consideration. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister seeks to control the direction and content of programmes of the SABC starting at the top through his appointment to the board of Governors and by means of the direct and indirect instructions that he gives from time to time. If the hon. the Minister wished to deny this, I am prepared to give him some facts. He does this by virtue of his overwhelming position of power within the Government, and I say that he is doing this purely for party-political gain. The last few weeks of news broadcasting and even the news broadcasting of the programme “Verslag” on Monday night last provide ample evidence of what I have just said. Over the two week period of the monitoring of television as far as the election review programme was concerned, it cannot be disputed that the NP commanded 57,3%, the NRP 17,7%, the CP 12,9%, the HNP 12,1% and the PFP 0% of the time allocated. I say that this is a national disgrace! In the normal news broadcast over the same period the political representation on SATV news bulletins looked something like this: NP, 79,1%, CP, 8%, PFP, 5%, NRP, 4% and the HNP, 2%. Much of the material that was used relating to Opposition parties was carefully selected to eliminate critical comment, and what was inserted was statements supportive of the Government. [Interjections.] Taking all this into account, the attack in September last year on the SABC by the hon. the Deputy Minister for favouring the opponents of the Government is incomprehensible. It is a cheek that he should have made a speech of that sort. Here he has faithful servants within the SABC doing their damnedest to give the Government the best that they can and he attacks them! How does he think these little lap-dogs feel? It is really very bad. Perhaps what he had to say was noted because the SABC has in past weeks come to heel as the Government would wish it to do.

The problems lie in the appointments to the Board of Governors. Not only should the board be representative of all communities, it should also reflect the full spectrum of political opinion. While the hon. the Minister continues to appoint only political soulmates, the rest of South Africa will call in vain for a fair news service. I also believe that the parliamentary parties should be allowed, as in Britain and the United States, specially allocated times in which to put points of view on issues of the day. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sandton began his speech by congratulating Mr. Riaan Eksteen on his appointment and wishing him luck. I should like to associate myself with that, but without the proviso, because we have no doubt that Mr. Eksteen will do what the task demands of him. We wish him everything of the best in that new task he has undertaken.

The hon. member for Sandton went on to fire a round of buckshot in connection with programmes, the quality of various programmes, something he could quite easily have taken up with the Board of the SABC. Then he would not have needed to waste the Committee’s time on that. At the end of his speech he eventually came to the real reason why he was so upset by the SABC: The so-called political bias, on the part of the SABC radio and television service, towards this party.

Those allegations of political bias are nothing new; since about ten or twenty years ago hon. members from that political party, in particular, have made that allegation. We on this side of the House reject that allegation, reject the demand by that side of the House that they are entitled to equal treatment, equal time on radio and TV.

One-tenth will be all right. [Interjections.]

Order!

We reject that for the very simple reason, as stated here repeatedly in the past, that this side of the House has stood the test of the electorate at the polls. This side of the House is entrusted with the task of governing the country. It cannot come along with all kinds of absurdities and idiotic notions, as all the parties on that side of the House do, and then expect the rest of the country to lump it. Hon. members opposite can state their policy any way they want to, but the fact remains that the South African electorate never has, and hopefully never will, place that party in power.

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

No.

We do not accept the argument that a political party per se is entitled to radio and TV exposure. We accept the argument that a political party only earns that right when it is placed in power by the country’s electorate. Even if those hon. members’ argument were valid, I think it would be a good thing for them to bear in mind that in 1981 they drew 275 000 votes as against the 775 000 of this party. If they, as a political party, were entitled to proportional exposure, they would be entitled to only one-third of the time to which this side is entitled.

We shall take one-tenth.

Here I am not even mentioning the ratio of seats between this side and that party.

Not only do we on this side want to reject the official Opposition’s claims; we also want to advocate to the hon. the Minister that he should use all the official State channels to present the Government’s policy, in terms of which it was brought to power, to the voters of South Africa in the clearest possible terms.

Order! Hon. members must please talk more quietly amongst themselves. There is a rule that hon. members may not talk out loud while another hon. member is delivering his speech. The hon. member for Umlazi may proceed.

In advocating to the hon. the Minister that he use all State channels in order to state Government policy, I am not asking for anything new. The hon. member for Jeppe and other hon. members of the CP who are so vociferous in their criticism, could possibly take note what the old standpoint of the Government is. One of the CP’s old heroes adopted this standpoint. On 28 May 1951—more than 30 years ago—Dr. Verwoerd said in this House—

But that is not all. In September 1970 Dr. C. P. Mulder, one of those hon. members’ big heroes, said during the discussion of the Information Vote—

Sir, may I put a question to the hon. member?

No, Mr. Chairman, there is too little time. Hon. members have wasted enough of my time as it is.

If we ask this hon. Minister, who is entrusted with the task, to use all the State channels, we are speaking about publications and films, as well as radio and TV.

The hon. member for Sandton referred to the hon. the Minister’s appearance on TV on Monday evening. In the first place I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister heartily on his performance on that occasion, on the way in which he presented the public of South Africa with the problematical situation and the realities of South Africa. We are not the only ones who say that. Hon. members will agree with me that the local English-language morning newspaper is no friend of this Government. The following morning, however, The Cape Times spoke of “a meaty interview with Mr. Pik Botha” and then delivered the following comment—

The newspaper says that he only has to be asked a question, and then one gets “the undoubtedly articulate answer”.

That same afternoon The Argus, not a great friend of the Government either, asked: Who would have thought that the highlight of the whole evening’s TV fare would be that “Mr. Pik Botha on South West Africa/Namibia could actually be entertaining”? They said that the programme lasted for 45 minutes and that “only a minority of viewers …”—and there they sit—… will complain about it. It was meaty, informative stuff”. In its general commentary the newspaper also said: “The bluff Mr. Botha was generally convincing.” So I ask you, Mr. Chairman, what more does one expect from an hon. Minister of Information than that he should be convincing? If the opponents of this Government make such comments on the TV appearance of a Minister who is stating Government policy, and do so boldly and fearlessly, where does the hon. member for Rissik get the right to ask this Minister to resign? Where is he—I am not even speaking of his own party—going to find a man in the whole of South Africa who is better equipped to carry out this task for the Republic of South Africa?

My time is virtually up. If the Government does not present all the realities of South Africa to the South African people via all the channels available to the State, the public will not be getting it from any one of those parties. Members of the public will not be getting it from the PFP, because the PFP is continually trying to conceal the consequences of its policy. They will definitely not get it from the members of the CP either, members who allege that talk of a total onslaught is so-called scare-mongering. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umlazi poses as a democrat. He is a member of a democratic party in a democratic country. He says that the State should use all the channels at its disposal to proclaim NP propaganda. He says that taxpayers’ and licence-holders’ money must be used to proclaim NP propaganda.

I should, however, like to associate myself with previous speakers who extended good wishes to Mr. Steve de Villiers, an Afrikaner gentleman, someone who was and still is an asset to the SABC. I came to know him as a student-leader. As a sportsman and an SABC man he distinguished himself. May he and his wife enjoy a very prosperous period of retirement; may it be a long and blessed one and may it continue to be productive. South Africa cannot afford to lose a man of his talents.

Secondly I want to link up with previous speakers who congratulated Mr. Eksteen on his appointment as the new Director-General. I had the privilege of meeting him in New York. I took note of his thoroughness—I was impressed by it—and of his dedication and idealism. Now, unfortunately, he is being thrown in at the deep end. One could criticize that, but he is not responsible for it. The CP wishes him luck and a prosperous future.

The SABC is a dignified, exceptional organization and, over-all, we are proud of this, South Africa’s display window. Technologically, in the artistic sphere in all its manifest forms, the TV photography, décor, the virtually perfect dubbing, those attractive young ladies who adorn the living-room in the evenings, it richly deserves garlands of praise. There are, however, certain things that must be high-lighted. The annual report was, as always, excellent. The CP, in contrast with the hon. member for Sandton, is opposed to any sports commentaries on Sundays, whether it be done on a selective basis or whether on an ad hoc basis. A few years ago we reviewed our Sunday-observance legislation in this House, and our main argument was that the authorities cannot do the Church’s work. The authorities must, however, create a milieu, an atmosphere, in which the Church can do its great work fruitfully. We are a Christian State. It is no excuse to say “switch off’, because then one violates the norm, and then one can present any programme and simply say that those licensees or taxpayers who do not like it, can simply switch off. That is not an argument.

This discussion is the first occasion on which the hon. the Deputy Minister has had to give account of his stewardship. We congratulate him on his appointment, but we want to tell him in very clear language that his performance thus far has not impressed us. Any person holding his post must be well-mannered. He must be easily accessible and engaging. He must definitely not be arrogant. His references to Advocate Langley’s comments on Dr. De Klerk’s dismissal from Die Transvaler, his reference to the television broadcast of almost every movement of the United State’s President was arrogant and childish.

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

No, I have only 10 minutes. It goes without saying that the comments of the CP’s main spokesman on information about Dr. De Klerk’s dismissal are newsworthy. The United States President is in quite a different category to that of the South African Prime Minister.

Another aspect in connection with which I want to link up with the hon. member for Sandton, is in connection with the prejudice favouring the Government, particularly in the political debate. It must be remembered that it is not the Government that is involved in this political debate. It is the NP. It is the NP that is taking part in this election. We accept the fact that the Government must have priority when it comes to Government matters. But here we are dealing with a political struggle. Besides, Monday evening’s report was a contemptible prostitution of our television service. [Interjections.] Yes, of course it was. [Interjections.]

Order!

That the hon. the Minister had to speak there about splinter parties, and that on the eve of the by-elections, attested to dubious timing. It was indeed scandalous. It was indeed scandalous.

Yes, of course it was. [Interjections.]

Just before Christmas, on 20 December 1982, Mr. P. G. du Plessis and Mr. Harold Pakendorf, two Perskor men, set out the guidelines of NP policy. That happened just before Christmas.

Yes, just imagine!

What is more, they botched it completely. They alleged that the President’s Council was not virtually a Parliament.

At least they did no mud-slinging like you people do.

They over-emphasized certain things and under-emphasized others, to the benefit of the NP, of course.

Lackeys of the Nats. [Interjections.]

On Sunday evening it was just as bad. The programme leader was Mr. Otto Krause, and he put leading questions. The other people taking part in the programme were Prof. Van Tonder, someone who is prejudiced in favour of the guidelines, Prof. Barry …

I do not watch TV on Sundays. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister does, however, take part in television programmes on Sundays. [Interjections.] No, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister must not try to be a clown now. He surely knows that he appears on television virtually every Sunday evening. [Interjections.] He appears on television virtually every Sunday; so frequently that he was recently almost “over-exposed”. [Interjections.]

Order!

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

Order! The hon. member has already said that he is unwilling to answer any questions now.

As I have already said, there was Prof. Barry, Prof. Van Ton-der and, can you believe it, also Prof. Rautenbach, a person who is the hon. the Minister’s right hand where these matters are concerned. There was no one else. Not a PFP Professor, not a CP Professor, nor an NRP Professor, if there is such a thing. [Interjections.] Really and truly, Mr. Chairman, is that what we had to look at on Sunday prior to the by-elections? It is scandalous. It was, moreover, counter-productive. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, that is, of course, why the NP did so poorly in the by-elections. Our people are in revolt against this sort of thing. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. member for Brakpan the opportunity to continue with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by pointing out that those mixed advertisements, in which Whites and people of colour appear together, do not find favour with our people. Hon. members on that side are free to carry out their own investigations amongst people in the business world. Their own employees, for example, do not like advertisements for butter in which Whites and people of colour take part together. It simply does not work. [Interjections.]

There is one thing more I should like to say, Mr. Chairman. It could perhaps hurt, but it nevertheless has to be said. Our people are very sensitive about the fact that ministers of religion of other population’ groups do religious broadcasts on television. [Interjections.]

Now you are being absolutely pathetic. [Interjections.]

Quite a number of inquiries have already been received about this, Mr. Chairman. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction about it. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would use his influence to rectify this matter. [Interjections.] We receive all the complaints. [Interjections.]

Order!

You do not receive the complaints; you cause the complaints.

Ah, Mr. Chairman, that poor little old Deputy Minister. He is the next to go; the next after Mr. Fame Botha. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Will you please not throw that Deputy Minister out? [Interjections.]

Order! That is most definitely not a point of order! The hon. member for Brakpan may proceed.

Mr. Chairman … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: is the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation entitled to refer to the hon. member for Sandton as a despicable man? [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. the Deputy Minister indeed say so?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I did say so.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw them [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Brakpan may proceed. He has one minute left.

In conclusion I just want to say that these hon. members of the PFP, and hon. members of the NP, accompanied us, on occasion, on a visit to a German bank in Bonn. [Interjections.] There the people told us that they had investigated the whole question of the labour situation in South Africa. They came to talk to people in South Africa, and they asked Black people if they did not also want to live near the industries, near their places of work, like the Whites do. The Black people’s reply was, however, that they did not want to live there because they wanted to live with their own people. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the nature of the matter we on this side want to express appreciation for the positive things that the hon. member for Brakpan had to say about the SABC and the television service. However, I have a problem with the logic of the CP, and particularly that of the hon. member for Brakpan. [Interjections.]

Order! I should prefer not to impose a total ban on interjections, but if hon. members carry on as they are doing now, I shall be obliged to do so.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

Sir, on the one hand the hon. member for Brakpan says that the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister use their influence in the SABC wrongly, and he objected in general to the so-called influence of the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister in the SABC. On the other hand, and virtually in the same breath, he says: “Please, use your influence to take people of colour off television.” I just want to say that I do not share the hon. member’s view that coloured clergy be removed from the service. The hon. member’s bench-mate and party colleagues objected this afternoon to the hon. the Minister’s saying that they created the impression that they hated, disparaged and despised people of colour. Here, however, they are again creating that impression. I want to ask the hon. members of that party bluntly: Is a Brown or Asian Christian less Christian than a White? [Interjections.]

Is that not an own matter? [Interjections.]

Order!

I also wish to say to the hon. member for Brakpan that I would be worried if the hon. member for Sandton had courted me as he is courting the CP this evening. However, I must say that this does not surprise me in the least any more. In any event the hon. member for Brakpan picks the strangest bedfellows. In the debate yesterday he found himself in the company of the socialist Minister of Foreign Affairs of France, Mr. Cheysson. Therefore this is totally opportunistic. It seems to me that the qualification for becoming an Opposition party in South Africa is opportunism. When the hon. members of the CP were on this side of the House they defended the impartiality of the SABC and rejected the accusations of partiality. Shortly after I had come to his House from the SABC I spoke to a number of those hon. members and they asked me to help them write their speeches … [Interjections.] One of them told me: I want to refute the allegation by the Opposition of partiality on the part of the SABC; please write that part of the speech for me. I did so and he presented it here verbatim. As long ago as 1974, before the coming of television, the hon. member for Sunnyside said in this House—

Now those hon. members are performing a somersault, just as they performed a somersault with regard to all their principles. I shall come back to this point.

†I should now like to say a few words to the hon. member for Sandton. Sir, I like the hon. member for Sandton. [Interjections.] I want to congratulate Mr. De Villiers on his long and distinguished career in the SABC and wish him well in his retirement. Unlike the hon. member for Sandton, I should also like to congratulate the incoming Director-General, Mr. Riaan Eksteen, and wish him a long and happy career in his new position. You see, Sir, I find the innuendoes and aspersions that are being cast upon the person of Mr. Eksteen quite uncalled for, unkind and unreasonable. Mr. Eksteen was a career diplomat. He was not a political appointment. Career diplomats are public servants. I want to tell those hon. members that I know career diplomats presently in the service who are supporters of the PFP in their private lives. There are also numerous people in the radio and television services—I know them—who are also not Government supporters. If Mr. Eksteen had been one of those gentlemen would that party make the kind of innuendoes and cast the aspersions that they are now? I do not know Mr. Eksteen well enough to know what his political views are—I have not asked him and I do not care—but I want to tell the hon. member for Sandton that I saw in one of his comments on Mr. Eksteen’s appointment that one of his objections was that Mr. Eksteen had defended this Government at the United Nations. Of all the far-fetched statements to make, that takes the cake. Career diplomats and diplomats get their letters of accreditation from the head of State and they hand them over to the head of State of the host country or the organization concerned. Mr. Eksteen served his country well and in a distinguished manner. I think it is really farfetched and almost disgusting to want to now penalize a man for having served his country. That party’s slip is constantly showing. I am very much tempted to repeat what I have said once before in the House in this context, namely that patriotism, like justice, needs to be seen to be done.

In yesterday’s debate the hon. member for Sea Point wanted to know a great many things from the hon. the Minister. He wanted to know more about the recent talks with Lesotho, about the recent Komatipoort talks with the Mozambican government, about the talks which were held with the Angolan government in the Cape Verde Islands, about South West Africa/Namibia and about the progress towards the Cuban withdrawal and the implementation of Resolution 435. [Interjections.] He even wanted to know the Government’s attitude to the policies being propounded by a certain political party internally in South West Africa. I should like to know from the hon. member for Sea Point and his party whether he wants the Government to give him the answers to this kind of information only when he asks questions in the House and only when it suits him, or whether he wants the public to be informed on a continual basis about current affairs and about what the Government is doing in this regard. I think the PFP, like the CP, very often want to have their cake and eat it. When it suits them they accuse the Government of withholding information, but when the Government gives information, as the hon. the Minister did on all these subjects on “Verslag” on the eve of the debate on his Parliamentary Vote, which was an opportune time to do so, the hon. member for Sandton objects. The hon. member for Sea Point wants the information and he wants the public to have the information, but the hon. member for Sandton joins the hon. member for Brakpan and does not want the information. One simply cannot have one’s cake and eat it.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

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

I should like to thank the official Opposition although I realize the irony of the situation.

The hon. member for Umlazi pointed out that this interview on “Verslag” received very favourable comment in both The Cape Times and The Argus. In fact The Argus headed its comment: “Pik interview entertaining.” It then said: “Who would have thought that the interview was entertaining,” and so forth, but I am not going to quote it all again since my colleague has already done so. However, the point is that the gist of these comments is that it was not entertaining in the sense of being amusing, but entertaining in the sense that it was interesting. It is natural that in the particular circumstances South Africa now finds itself, both internationally and internally, people are interested in internal developments concerning the country and naturally they are interested in what the Government thinks about them and what the Government is going to do about them. In that sense I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Sea Point that we need to know these things. We want more information. In as much as the hon. the Minister did not do it in “Verslag”, he did it today and so the information will be published anyway. However, one cannot want to have the information on the one hand and on the other hand say that the hon. the Minister, when he uses the most logical medium to give the information, is biased and that it is a NP propaganda ploy, etc.

This question of bias is very interesting. The hon. member for Sandton has used extravagant phrases, such as “the hon. the Minister and his toy, the SABC”, etc. Now, really Sir, that seems to be quite uncalled for, because the fact of the matter is that if one looks at the SABC’s news bulletins one comes to the conclusion, as I have done, that the American Secretary of State, Mr. George Shultz, appears on SABC and radio news bulletins holding forth on Southern African and South African issues far more frequently than the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. I think that that is a very peculiar situation indeed and that South Africa must be one of the very few countries in the world where foreign Foreign Ministers appear on the domestic news services more frequently than their own Foreign Minister. That is a ridiculous situation, and because I find it so peculiar I made certain inquiries. I wanted to know what was going on, and what did I find? I heard that the hon. the Minister is turning down 14 out of every 15 requests to give television interviews—and not only on SABC. I have known the hon. the Minister on and off now for 28 years. I have great admiration for him and I absolutely share the sentiments expressed by The Argus and The Cape Times. I therefore do not want to be critical of the hon. the Minister. I do not wish to be like that party that makes quite uncalled for and derogatory remarks about him; I want to say to the hon. the Minister: “I do not want to criticize you, Sir, but I really think it is my duty to say that this reticence on your behalf is quite uncalled for.” What is needed in South Africa is not only that the hon. the Minister should go on television far more frequently, but that the hon. the Prime Minister, in fact every member of the Cabinet, should go on television far more frequently. [Interjections.]

Order! I put the question.

Mr. Chairman …

Mr. Chairman, I thought you said that my time had expired.

No. The hon. member for Benoni may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I beg the hon. member for Umhlanga’s pardon, but I do not hear very well in this part of the Chamber. It is very noisy around me and I got the impression that my time was expired. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must now afford the hon. member for Benoni an opportunity to complete his speech. I make a final appeal to hon. members. The hon. member for Benoni may proceed.

Now, when hon. members of the Opposition parties allege that the SABC is partial—and the hon. member for Sandton referred to research carried out by certain academics at the University of the Witwatersrand—they are of course guilty of a basic logical error, and those academics are making this same error of logic. It is that there is a recognized constitutional difference between the government of the day in any country where elections are held to appoint a government, and the various political parties, including the governing party. There is an important difference between the governing party on the one hand and the government of the day on the other. Once a certain political party has won an election, it has been given a mandate to appoint a government and to administer and govern the country for the period of its mandate on the basis of its own principles and policies. Once it is in power, the Government does not speak on behalf of its own voters only. It speaks on behalf of the entire country. It speaks on behalf of the people who voted for it, the people who voted against it and the people who refrained from voting. When the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, or any other member of the Cabinet, speaks on behalf of the Government, then he also speaks on behalf of those hon. members of the Opposition. He speaks on their behalf as well. Because the Government has a mandate, the Government’s actions are of real importance for every member of the population, because what the Government does and says is put into effect, whereas the Opposition parties can only express opinions and comment. However, they are unable to achieve anything. That is why we have that constitutional difference, and that constitutional difference is recognized by autonomous broadcasting stations the world over.

†They subscribe to the general policy directions of the Government of the day. It would be a highly anomalous situation and peculiar in the extreme if the SABC did not do the same thing.

*The problem with the hon. member of the PFP is that they are always carrying on about democratic conventions, the rule of law and matters of that kind, but when it suits them they adopt an entirely different approach to the matter. Having lost elections and, what is more, lost fairly miserably, they want to proceed as if they have in fact been given a mandate. They also want equal treatment. They do receive equal treatment in comparison with the NP, but not in comparison with the Government.

The NP also has its chief spokesman on foreign affairs, and it is not the hon. the Minister. It is the hon. member for Pretoria Central, who is the chairman of our study group. The chairman of the study groups of those parties are not the counterparts of the hon. the Minister. They are the counterparts of the hon. member for Pretoria Central. I think we should see this matter in perspective. Then, when one counts the minutes which the Government and the NP were given and how much the PFP and the HNP were given, a distinction must be drawn between the announcements of the Government on drought aid for the farmers and situations of that nature, and party-political statements in election surveys, parliamentary surveys and the general comment in respect of which the parties are always given equal treatment by the SABC, and I hope the SABC will continue in this way. I sometimes gain the impression that the SABC—and I have a great deal of compassion for that organization to which I devoted 15 years of my own life—allow themselves to be intimidated by these entirely uncalled-for and unjustified demands made by the Opposition parties, which the result that they concede that these people who do not justify it, those hon. members and their parties, obtain an excessive amount of time. I want to say to the SABC that if those people are sometimes dissatisfied with them, we too are sometimes dissatisfied. I want to give an example of this. Yesterday’s debate was an example. The hon. the Minister stood up here and spoke in this Committee for one hundred minutes. In all the news bulletins I heard in this regard—and the hon. the Minister said a great deal, as all the parties here will acknowledge—they only made mention of one point and that was the hon. the Minister’s question as to whether we should sit with our hands folded when the ANC attacked us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, one of the first shows that we saw on television when it was first introduced was the “Knicky Knacky Noo Show”. I think that we should call this debate the annual “Knicky Knacky Noo Show”.

Before I make my contribution I should like, too, like other speakers, to pay my respects to Mr. Steve de Villiers who, I think, has served South Africa and broadcasting well for many, many years. This gentleman has done a fine job of work and we say farewell to him this year. We wish him well in his retirement. Equally we welcome Mr. Riaan Eksteen—I mean this very sincerely—because we in these benches do not look upon Mr. Eksteen’s as a political appointment. We look upon Mr. Eksteen as a gentleman who has served his country well. We look upon him as a man who is going to make a fine job of the task he has been set. We wish him well in it, and we hope that he makes the success of it that we know he will.

The hon. member for Benoni said that bias is a very interesting subject. Yes, that is so and this debate is what this is all about. This is what this Knicky-Knacky Noo Show is all about. It is about the SABC and particularly the SABC’s television service and the bias which is displayed by them. I want to say that we feel very strongly about it. I also want to say that we have come to realize that the SATV is no more and no less biased than the printed media.

Let me be brutally frank about it. We in these benches know that we have no medium. We have no medium to speak of. So we can sit with quiet and detached amusement and watch what goes on between the left and the right of the political spectrum both attacking the SABC which they both believe is biased towards the Government.

I too believe that it is biased. I really do believe that it is biased, but this is quite an unedifying spectacle because in the past we had the SABC torn from one direction; we now have it being torn from either side. When one does not have a medium it is easier for one to recognize the bias.

Somebody said the SABC is a monopoly; I venture to suggest so too, does the Press. Can anyone say there is no bias in the Press? Does anyone want to tell me there is no bias in Nasionale Pers, in Perskor, in Saan, in Argus? Those are the monopolies of the Press. Bias depends on how one looks at it. If one is a Nationalist one will say that there is no bias in Perskor or Nasionale Pers; if one is a Prog it follows that neither Argus nor Saan is biased; they are completely unbiased.

Oh, but Die Burger is.

Bias, I am sad to say, in South Africa, depends entirely on one’s political convictions. That is how we South Africans measure bias. All of us measure bias by our political convictions. I want to submit there is an hypocrisy here. I want to submit it is all hypocrisy. What fascinates me is the way in which the SATV can be criticized daily by the printed media, not only by the English Press—I am not having a go at just the English Press—but also by the Afrikaans Press. It can be criticized by either of the media. I want to make a suggestion: Why do we not think in terms of having a new television programme? Why do we not have a daily “crit” programme on the Press? Why do we not have on television a daily programme where TV and the radio—let us have radio programmes as well—criticize the Press? It seems to be “high day and holiday” for the Press every day. Let us therefore give these chaps a chance too.

Who is going to pay for this?

It could be a service to the public.

I think if we have this daily “crit” on television it would make for fascinating viewing and I think it would certainly balance things out quite nicely. We the NRP, get precious little from either the the television or the Press, but this will certainly balance things out. Although we get precious little, I want to say that television and radio are usually more accurate in their reporting. That brings me to the survey that was done recently by a young gentleman whom I personally know very well. He happens to be a family friend, namely Mr. Greg Garden. It is a very good survey and it is worthy of note. I believe that everything that Greg Garden has put in this article is accurate. He is not the sort of young man who would put his name to a thing if it was not accurate. But when one looks at the results, when one looks at the bar chart that he has produced, and one sees that the NP got 79,1% of the total coverage as against 8% for the CP, 5,2% for the PFP, 4,9% for this party and 2,8% for the HNP, I accept it, I want to say that that is not out of kilter with what one would read if one were reading Die Burger. One would get the same sort of balance. I also want to say that if one were reading The Star, The Daily News, The Argus or The Cape Times one would get the same sort of balance the other way round. The 79,1% would be for the PFP and the 8% would be for the NP. This is the name of the game.

While on the topic of surveys, there are certain surveys that I do not appreciate. I do not think they are clever. This is something which I believe the TV people should have a say in too. There is the sort of survey that appeared for a week in a local newspaper. It is called “The Viewers Revenge” and it shows a gentleman about to break his television set. Quite honestly, he looks like a raving idiot. It tells about an enraged viewer in Green Point who could take it no more. He leapt from his armchair, charged across the lounge, grabbed his large TV set and hurled it out of the window. I think he should have hurled himself out as well because that would have solved all his problems. The newspaper asks viewers: “Write and tell us what you do not like about television”. As an afterthought, it says that if readers have anything nice to say, they can say it too. I want to suggest that we should have this on television as well. Let us have a survey like this and let people be invited to write in and reply to a survey questionnaire in Family Radio and TV on what they don’t like about the Press. I think it would be a lovely idea. Then we can get it from both sides. Let us hear what it is all about from both sides. [Interjections.]

It was Jannie Smuts who said: “The dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on”. You know, Sir, the dogs may bark and I may be one of the dogs that is barking about bias, but I know that the ministerial parade will carry on. I do not like it. I object to it, but I also know that if the PFP were in power, a ministerial parade of PFP Ministers would be broadcast. If the CP were in power, they would have a ball on the box. If we were in power, we would do the same thing. There is just one difference. If the conservatives were in power, they would do it blatantly with no conscience at all.

No box.

No box, you might say. Certainly no mixed adverts. They do not seem to realize that people live together in this country; we are all mixed, but they cannot see that.

Can you imagine the caucus if the PFP were in power? Can you imagine somebody standing up and saying: “I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, that if Helen gets more time than I, I am going to have to reconsider my position”. [Interjections.] Can you imagine the riots and the chaos that there is going to be in that caucus? Can you imagine what will happen? I think that it would be better if they did not come to power because I do not think they could live with television.

Mr. Chairman, bias is something we can discuss all night, but what I want to say is that bias in this country is merely a matter of what your political conviction happens to be. That is how we see bias, and that is the shame of it.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to tell the hon. member for Umhlanga that I agree with almost everything he said. I think he displayed a very balanced view of matters. The suggestion he put forward suits me very well, and I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will probably be replying to that. Before making my brief contribution in respect of the use of television for what is, in my opinion, a very important purpose, I should just like to react to a single sentence the hon. member for Brakpan saw fit to use in his speech. In a single sentence he objected to advertisements in which Blacks and Whites appear together. I repeat “advertisements”. The only remark I want to make on that score is: How far will we still go? On a daily basis we are in close contact with Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in our homes, in the labour sphere—everywhere. What earthly reason could the hon. member have for making that remark in this House? How far can we go with something like that? Sir, surely we are playing a hypocritical role here, and I really want to tell the hon. member for Brakpan that personally I think it is petty, and I do not think we will get very far by adopting that attitude.

I should like to express a few thoughts in respect of the use of television for educational purposes. I am aware that since 1976 television has become a powerful information medium in this country. I am also aware that the Meyer Report of 1971 envisaged that television would serve as an important aid in education, particularly outside the school context. However, I regret to say that at this stage not as much of this has transpired as I personally would have liked to see. I wish to point out that in the HSRC Report Prof. De Lange set out two principles in respect of the provision of education, viz. that the positive relationship between the formal and non-formal aspects of education should be pursued at school and in the social and family content and, secondly, that the private sector and the State should be co-responsible for the provision of non-formal education. These two principles for the provision of education have been accepted by the Government. Moreover, there was also the undertaking to improve the quality of education in the Republic of South Africa, as well as to create opportunities for equal education within the guidelines laid down by the Government. I realize that to achieve this objective is not going to be quite so easy, since we have to contend with particular problems. I just want to discuss these problems briefly before getting round to suggesting a solution and making a request.

In this country we have to contend with a tremendous increase in the number of pupils, particularly as far as the Black population is concerned. At present there are almost 3,5 million Black pupils at school. Of course it is very difficult to give them the necessary training at the educational level we should like. There is a second problem, however, and that is the lack of sufficient trained teachers, not only in respect of the Whites, but also in respect of all the population groups, the Black population group in particular. Furthermore, I want to say that there is a general shortage of well-trained teaching staff for particular subjects, in White education as well. Economic development brings a tremendous demand for trained manpower to the fore, which, in turn, makes heavy demands on the educational system in the Republic of South Africa. Moreover, 65% of the country’s potential labour force is Black. 40% of them have never had any formal education and 60% of that Black labour force is to be found in the four metropolitan areas.

I wish to pinpoint a further problem. The tremendous drop-out rate among Black pupils in particular causes a marked demand for the provision of non-formal education. Only 47% of Black pupils who started in Sub A reached Std. 5 in 1982. This means that there is a particular need for the provision of non-formal education for these people.

I wish to refer to a final problem. The present in-service training of teachers and high-level manpower, as well as the technical training of various occupation groups, is unsatisfactory.

In this respect we have problems with regard to the provision of formal and informal education. Now I am aware that since 1964 the SABC has been providing formal education, at the level of various educational requirements, by way of the school radio service. This service is provided in conjunction with the Department of Education and Training. I agree with the HSRC which, after ordering an investigation in this regard, found that the school radio service was an exceptional aid in the school context. I have also heard that the SABC has just established a department of educational programmes, with the sole purpose of planning and broadcasting programmes for formal education—those I have just spoken about—for television, and in addition, for providing programmes for informal education for the post-school pupil as well as programmes for informal and non-formal education for adults. We are very grateful for this.

However, this still does not meet the tremendous need that exists in this country. Consequently I want to make a number of requests. My first request is that we should make a concerted effort to begin utilizing existing buildings, staff and other facilities as soon as possible in order to improve the general quality of education, fill the gaps and dramatically extend formal, as well as informal, education in this country. I know that a great deal of money will be need for this. However, we must also sympathetically consider making money available.

Furthermore, I wish to point out that in accordance with the report of the HSRC, it is the responsibility of the State as well as the private sector to do so. That is why I believe that the private sector will also have to make its contribution in this regard. Education through television, as in many other countries, will have to become an integral part of the education system of this country in order to meet an extremely important need. What is needed, is programmes for non-formal education covering the whole spectrum; from literacy programmes to part-time courses at university level, including occupationally orientated programmes for people in the semi-skilled and skilled categories, continuous occupational training and public and non-formal cultural training at the advance level. This also includes the training of workers during the course of the day. I believe that it is worthwhile investigating whether these services could not be financed by the industry itself. After all, I assume that the television transmitters of the SABC are switched on during the day in any case and that they would therefore be available for the transmission of programmes of this nature. This would mean that capital would mainly be needed only for the compiling and production of programmes, and for nothing more than that.

If we should need additional money, I think advertisements could be used during the presentation of those programmes as well. Then I just want to add that the educational transmission is an undertaking in itself, an undertaking which should be based on educational principles. As a result, there should be very close liaison with the headmasters, educational advisers and teachers, and so on, in the production of these programmes.

In conclusion I wish to point out that programme research is extremely important. By this I mean that there must also be feedback concerning the quality and effectiveness of those programmes as far as those being served by them are concerned. I believe it will be a wonderful day indeed when we can computerize these programmes so that a conversation could take place, as it were, in putting across this formal and non-formal education. Then television in this country would be able to make an enormous contribution in meeting the tremendous needs that exist in this sphere of education. Then I also want to request that this service be linked to the services of the neighbouring States. I cannot acept that we should continue with this only in the White areas of South Africa. We should also try to bring about the necessary liaison with other television services.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Virginia, as is customary, gave a number of very interesting and worthwhile suggestions to the hon. the Minister and his Deputy and I am quite sure they will continue looking at the possibilities in education and training. I want to return to a comment he made very early in his speech with reference to the CP and their spokesman’s remark about advertisements. Clearly, he will not be surprised to hear that I support him entirely in his comments.

I am not surprised to hear that.

No, of course that hon. member is not suprised either. However, I want to ask the hon. member for Virginia whether he is going to be consistent and whether he was speaking only about advertisements or about television as a whole when it comes to participation by Coloureds, Indians and Blacks on the same television we enjoy now. Was he only referring to advertisements, or was he referring to the entire programme?

I was reacting to the question of advertisements, because that was the matter which the hon. member had mentioned.

Can I then ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to take the logic of his argument one step further by saying that this ought to be introduced right across the board?

We have various television channels … [Interjections.]

Not for Coloureds and Indians. Could I then ask that hon. member to extend that to the Coloureds and the Indians? I get no reply. [Interjections.]

I assume that the hon. the Deputy Minister is replying to this part of the debate and I want to welcome him in this new responsibility he has. He and I have been in Parliament together since 1974, and I believe that he has many gifts and graces with which he can perform this job very well. The first question I want to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister is the following: Flowing from the new dispensation, the new constitutional proposals, where the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites will be in one Parliament, can we take it that that will also be reflected in our television and radio service? That is certainly not the case today. That is my first question.

The second point I want to make is that I am amazed at the speech made by the hon. member for Umhlanga. He and I often disagree, but I want to say that I have listened to speeches he has made in previous debates on the SABC and I have admired his attack on the bias of the SABC and SATV. What did we have today, however? We had condonation. We had a remarkable comparison drawn between the Press on the one hand and the SABC and SATV on the other, as if two wrongs make a right. Has he lost all his critical faculties? Is this a joining in the psycophantic chorus? Is this a first move of the NRP straight into the Nat fold?

That is very unfair.

No, I do not think it is unfair at all. The hon. the Minister knows that the hon. member has criticized repeatedly over the years, and has done so trenchantly and very well.

I criticized them again tonight as you would have noticed if you took the wax out of your ears. [Interjections.]

That hon. member knows that, with the 312 votes the NRP gained in Waterkloof, there is no place for them, whether on television or off it.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister and his Deputy that it is overdue that we should get some clarification of the policy regarding political debates on the radio and in particular on television. I want to urge the hon. the Minister and his Deputy not merely to allow, but actually to encourage, debate between spokesmen from different parties. In the debate on Foreign Affairs the hon. the Minister quite rightly emphasized that it is important for us to understand one another and for the people to hear the truth. I accept that without any reservation—and I am not being funny at all. I want to say that we have a marvellous opportunity to do just that, but we are not using it. No one can force anybody to appear on television or on the radio, but certainly the opportunity should be given. For example, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition challenged Minister Chris Heunis to debate the Prime Minister’s constitutional guidelines on television. They will never do that. What a marvellous opportunity would that not be for the public at large to come to their own conclusions regarding these constitutional proposals? What better opportunity could there be for listeners to grasp the differences of approach between the various parties? [Interjections.] Instead of that, however, we have the usual parade of Ministers, with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs—and I am sure he will accept this—well to the fore. In fact, I am very pleased to see him in the House tonight. I thought he might be on television and radio again. [Interjections.] I think he is extraordinarily good on television. I know he is good. One has to hand that to him. I just wish that he would give a few other people an opportunity too. What I do take exception to is that not only do we have the hon. the Minister but also a bunch of tame and often obscure Government spokesmen giving their, quite clearly, servile views. I want to tell the Government that to obscure and avoid the truth is not to destroy it but merely to suppress it at the cost of all the people of South Africa.

Why do you not tell the people of South Africa that you stand for Black majority rule?

They know that.

One of the greatest disservices ever done to the people in then Rhodesia was the Smith Government’s deliberate manipulation of the truth. This made the transition even more painful and more difficult. I say to the hon. the Minister: Do not fear open debate but encourage it. It is truth that sets men free.

The SABC is already described by many as the South African National Party with the Minister of Foreign Affairs as its favourite son. If this continues the credibility gap which exists now will become a yawning chasm and no one will believe anything that they see and hear. Instead of frank, objective reporting we have news reviews, comment and interviews, and the only distinction is whether it is hard or soft, and I choose my word, propaganda.

The hon. the Deputy Minister’s initial comment in Bloemfontein regarding SATV and the CP was bad enough. However, his comment when he returned from the United States was even worse. He was reported to have said when he came back that he was right because he had noticed in the United States that whatever President Reagan said was always reported in full. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that surely he must have also noticed in the United States—I was there more or less the same time—that Opposition spokesmen, those who disagreed with the President, had every opportunity to make their case known on television and radio. He must have noticed that. I saw it. He must have seen it. I want to urge the hon. the Deputy Minister to assure the House that he will do everything in his power to see that the SABC reflects news fairly and honestly without bias towards any one party.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member prepared to take a question?

No, my time is very short. It is interesting to note the comments made by the Director-General designate, Mr. Eksteen, in an interview published in The Argus of 7 March 1983. Mr. Eksteen rightly described television as “a powerful medium”. The interviewer then said—

Mr. Eksteen replied—

That we all know. I quote further—

I concede immediately that there are problems. However, I do not think they cannot be overcome. For example, if the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and Mr. Eksteen really wanted to ensure objectivity, what is to prevent them from appointing an ombudsman, someone who stands outside? [Interjections.] That chorus of pseudo Nats is boring in the extreme. I believe that some independent approach is extremely overdue. I want to urge the hon. the Minister to break away from this dull one-sided presentation of news which takes place. I can think of nothing more exciting and liberating than for SATV to have a series of face-to-face encounters, not between Mr. Pik Botha and Mr. Cliff Saunders but between key Cabinet Ministers and members of the Opposition. I obviously do not limit the Opposition to this Chamber only. The sparks would surely fly if we had a number of dissenting voices offering their views and ideas as to the problems and solutions facing South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, …

Tell us about the AWB!

Allow me to tell the hon. member for Brakpan that Brits settled the hash of the AWB as far back as 1981. Now the AWB are the storm-troopers of the CP. This will become increasingly apparent in the future. I wish to motivate what I am saying; I wish to prove what I am saying. One of the most shocking statements ever made in this House, was made by the hon. member for Brakpan this evening. In fact, he demonstrated here this evening who is really behind the telegrams of the Kappie-kommando concerning a White heaven and a Black heaven for White Christians and other Christians. He took exception to services being held by Christians of colour on White TV channels. Now he is sitting there laughing. Let the people outside know this; let the churches outside know that he is sitting there grinning like a hyaena. It will catch up with him. I am telling him that tonight.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “He is sitting there grinning like a hyaena”.

I withdraw them, Sir.

The hon. member may proceed.

I wish to state categorically that the CP told us tonight that they regard heaven as being a matter for own affairs because there is no place in the Hereafter for mixed saved souls.

That is a downright lie.

That was what the hon. member for Brakpan said, and we are placing it on record this evening. [Interjections.]

Firstly, we on this side of the House have a great deal of appreciation for Mr. Steve de Villiers, who for many years has rendered excellent services to South Africa as Director-General of the SABC. I know that he is present in the benches of departmental officials and I want to say that we want him to know that we of the NP, the governing party, have the highest regard for him and for his work. At the same time, I associate myself with speakers on both sides of the House who conveyed their best wishes to Mr. Eksteen, the new Director-General.

I now turn to a very important matter, viz. the Government’s standpoint with regard to sport, the sport transmissions and sporting activities on Sundays. Our hon. Prime Minister has repeatedly expressed his opinion on this matter. The guidelines are so clear and simple that a Std. 1 child could understand them if only he were prepared to listen. I wish to state categorically tonight that the Government unequivocally endorses the standpoint of the recognized churches in South Africa, and that is that we associate ourselves with the view that the Sabbath should be observed in South Africa, that the character of that day should as far as possible be preserved. The hon. the Minister of National Education spelt this out clearly last week and stated unequivocally that the Government gives no support whatsoever to sports meetings held on Sundays. Furthermore, the State makes no provision for police services or transport in respect of sporting activities on Sundays. This side of the House has no problem as far as that is concerned. I think it would be very fitting to consider what the DR church decided in this regard at its General Synod in 1982 in respect of legislation concerning the Lord’s Day. Dr. Verwoerd and Adv. Vorster tried in their time to see whether we could not place legislation on the Statute Book with regard to the rule concerning the situation on Sundays. As a result of discussions with the churches, both concluded that this would not be possible in practice. This Government, through the initiative of our hon. Prime Minister, has repeatedly initiated talks with the various churches. Firstly, I wish to refer to the decision of the General Synod of the D.R. Church in 1982, p. 1256, where the following is stated—

We also greatly appreciate the attitude adopted by the Nederduits Hervormde Kerk on 25 April of this year with regard to the playing of sport on Sundays. They expressed the following view—

In conclusion we are told—

They went on to say—

We greatly appreciate what they have said.

Since my time is limited and since I still have a number of remarks to make, I should very much like to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on the exceptional distinction which has been bestowed on him. We have a high regard for him as a person, for his family and his work, as well as his dedication, and we want to wish him everything of the very best with the extremely delicate work he is performing, work which is extremely sensitive, but which he performs with utmost distinction. We want to wish him everything of the best for this work in the future. I also want to address a request to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I address this request against the background of the profound gratitude and appreciation I wish to express on behalf of this side of the House to the radio and television services in respect of the degree to which they have elevated religious broadcasts on the radio and television to a very high level, particularly as far as excellence and Scripturalism are concerned. We have the greatest appreciation for what the SABC is doing in this regard. It is against this background that I wish to address my request to the hon. the Deputy Minister. It concerns the diverse situation as far as radio and television services are concerned. When we consider that religious broadcasts on the radio—sermons and religious programmes—are presented in 20 languages and that these religious programmes are transmitted in seven different languages on television, and that the time in hours per week devoted to this constitutes more than 5% of the total time, we have a great deal of appreciation for this. One does not find this anywhere else in the world. We must thank the SABC most sincerely for this tonight. This does not include ordinary radio and television programmes that deal with the discussion of religious matters, reports on Synods, etc. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in his speech the hon. member for Virginia attacked my hon. colleague on his standpoint in connection with television advertisements. I am not surprised that the hon. member did so, because he is now beginning to adopt the principles of mixed government and integration in the field of politics. It goes without saying that in the process he has to condition people to adopt the same attitude. I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that he should remember that, as far as I understand the governing party, advertisements will be a general affair; the other things will be own affairs. In due course we shall see what will be own and what will be general affairs.

That is precisely the problem.

I should like briefly to pay tribute to my hon. colleague for many years, my former bench-fellow Adv. Thomas Langley, who was our main speaker and who forced the hon. the Minister of Manpower, who has already been the Acting Prime Minister, to his knees, from which position he will never rise again. In the near future my hon. colleague will be back on the path he elected to follow early in his life. He will undoubtedly return and South African politics will still see and hear a great deal of Adv. Thomas Langley. [Interjections.]

Order!

I now come to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to remind him of the speech he made on Wednesday, 9 June 1982. In that speech he said the following (Hansard, 1982, col. 8863)—

He had the following to say with reference to Dr. Treurnicht—

In col. 8864 we read—

In col. 8865 it is stated—

He went on to say—

And who kicked him out? Andries did.

A little further on he said—

With reference to Dr. Treurnicht, he said in col. 8866—

Towards the end of his speech (col. 8867) he said—

He said that with reference to us. He went on to say—

A few days after the hon. member had made that speech, he gave the following personal explanation in this House (col. 9337)—

The statement the hon. the Deputy Minister made was not correct. The hon. the Deputy Minister kicks up such a fuss about the integrity of other people, the so-called banality of other people who become involved in intrigues. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not mention my name that day; he cast suspicion on all my hon. colleagues concerning what the CP supposedly says to foreigners. After he had made his speech, the hon. the Deputy Minister walked out and I confronted him in the passage near the entrance and told him that he had referred to me. The hon. the Deputy Minister then admitted that he had referred to me. When I told the hon. the Deputy Minister that what he had said in this House that day was not correct, he felt very uncomfortable. I then told the hon. the Deputy Minister that it was not true that I had said these things to a foreigner. I told the hon. the Deputy Minister that I would immediately contact the relevant foreigner and tell him that he had made public a conversation he had had with me in a very unsavoury way. Then the hon. the Deputy Minister said that the foreigner had not told him this, but a third party. I then told him that I would confront the third party—the third party was a former private secretary of the hon. the Minister—with the fact that he had told the hon. the Deputy Minister an untruth, namely that I suffered from a shooting syndrome, and all kinds of similar things. The hon. the Deputy Minister then told me that I should not confront the young man because he had bullied him into saying this. A few days later the hon. the Deputy Minister made a statement here after he had allegedly read his Hansard speech. We have so much to say about integrity and about people who stand up in this House and say that certain people were kicked out and were engaged in intrigues. However, I want to say that this statement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister is not true. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that it is not true. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that before he had read any Hansard report of his speech, I discussed the matter with him. I drew the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to that statement. He subsequently made this statement and it is not correct.

Order! Did the hon. member say that it was not true and that the hon. the Deputy Minister knew it was not true?

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw the words “He knows it is not true”.

I withdraw them, Sir. We are living under very difficult circumstances in this country. There are problems with the relations between Coloureds and Whites and Indians and Blacks. A Minister of Foreign Affairs and a Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs have a very great responsibility, not only in connection with the dissemination of the viewpoint of their party, but also the viewpoint, the integrity and the truth of Opposition parties. A few days after this incident the hon. the Minister of National Education—I think it was at Vereeniging—repeated that the CP is suffering from a shooting syndrome. I now want to state categorically that the hon. the Deputy Minister and the governing party is creating a climate in this country in connection with its own people in order to bring about a conflict situation with the CP in connection with Coloureds, Blacks and Indians. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that I was the chairman of the NP’s study group on Indian affairs for many years. I was frequently sent by the NP to address Blacks and I want to say that the principles of the CP are the principles for which the NP stood a long time ago. The principles according to which the CP wants to put its standpoint to South Africa and the outside world, is that in the policy of separate development, in the policy of a diversity of nations, in which each seeks to maintain its own sovereignty and wants to have its own territory, there is no built-in conflict. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat shocked at the hon. member for Rissik, who referred at the beginning of his speech to mixed race groups appearing in television advertisements, and in doing so linked the NP directly to the standpoints of the PFP. However, he made no reference to a part of his electorate, whose leader, a woman, has adopted the shocking, blasphemous standpoint of a separate hereafter for each separate race. This is a standpoint which, in principle and in every other respect, is diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Bible as I know it. But the hon. member for Rissik did not refer to that at all. The hon. member did not say a single word about that. However, the hon. member saw fit to join the ranks of those persons who are slandering the NP and who are trying to link this party to the standpoints and statements of a political party with which the NP has in any case never had any links. The hon. member also devoted a large part of his speech to a vindictive personal attack on the hon. the Deputy Minister. Mr. Chairman, I can honestly say that this is the sort of thing that sometimes makes me feel extremely unhappy in this House. Why can personal quarrels and differences of opinion between two hon. members of this House not be settled in private by the hon. members concerned? Why do such personal quarrels have to give rise to a slanging match across the floor of this House? After all, it does no one credit. On the contrary, it is offensive. However, I shall not pursue this matter now.

At this point I should like to address the hon. the Deputy Minister. I must say that it is a personal privilege for me to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his appointment to the position he occupies at present. Mr. Chairman, years ago it was also my great privilege to be a young teacher at the same school at which he was head boy at that stage. It was my first year as a teacher at that specific school, the Voortrekker High School in Boksburg—one of the best schools on the East Rand. In the last two lines of its school song we find the following moving words—

I therefore wish the hon. the Deputy Minister everything of the best.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to agree with the hon. member for Rissik with regard to his clear exposition of the dilemma to which he referred here. It is just a great pity that he did so at such a personal level. I personally feel that we in South Africa have to guard against the politics of this country going the same way as the Christianization process here did, where our people thought that a heathen was a person who lived further inland in Africa, far beyond our borders, and that those who were ignorant of the politics in this country, were only those who lived abroad. This is a view which entails the danger that we could concentrate on informing people abroad of our political conditions and policies. While at the same time neglecting to inform our own people properly and fully at home about the same matters. I can scarcely imagine that the electorate of South Africa, the generation growing up today, and indeed, the circumstances in the country in general, have at any time in the past been in the same crisis situation as is the case at present. In many respects the position is well-nigh critical; we are experiencing the culmination of a diversity of political approaches and schools of thought that are in conflict with one another.

Throughout the course of our history, from the beginning up to the present day, I do not think there has ever been a more obscured perspective, a greater distortion of facts, among our people than at present.

I also want to make another statement, Mr. Chairman. I do not think there is a single member of a single political party in this House this evening who is able to claim that his workers, those persons who have to inform and recruit the voters who support him, are themselves fully informed and equipped for the important task they have to perform, the task of explaining this extremely complex position in which our country finds itself, to the voters on a house-to-house basis. I believe that the fact that our people are so ill-informed about these extremely important matters, actually has a long history. I believe that this state of affairs has been developing systematically during the past three or four decades, and is a direct result of the rapid technological and scientific progress we have experienced during this same period. Our people have gradually developed a tremendous interest in and attunement to matters of a technological and scientific nature. This has fascinated our people to an increasing extent, with the result that our educational system and the content of education at schools has also begun to concentrate more in this direction. In the process our social science subjects, for example history, geography and economics, have become fields of study whose star has begun to wane. They have become dry and uninteresting to pupils because they have increasingly begun to believe that they cannot apply them in their future choice of a career. As a result, when they reach standard seven or thereabouts, children simply begin to battle to pass these subjects. After standard seven they want nothing further to do with them. This, of course, leads directly to these pupils later having very little knowledge and background regarding politics, history and geography. As a result, their knowledge of climatic conditions and regions, the topography and history of their own country, is pathetic. Their knowledge of the same subjects in respect of overseas countries is, of course, virtually non-existent. In the meanwhile we should not lose sight of the fact that the major part of the knowledge of the said subjects which these children acquire at primary school and up to standard six concerns overseas countries. So much for the background knowledge of these pupils.

In the long run they are only acquainted with their immediate environment and the situation in which they themselves live. We sometimes refer in passing to certain regions, and certain vitally important things such as economic viability and economic capability, our political destination, etc., without taking into account factors such as rainfall, the availability of water, the presence of underground minerals, agricultural possibilities, the available infrastructure, and the like. It is all to easy to say, for example, that there are 1,7 million hectares of land available for people somewhere, without mentioning or paying any attention to these factors. Then it is perhaps also fairly easy to sell the idea behind that.

Another important fact we should bear in mind is that our people are also very poor readers. The circulation figures of our newspapers and magazines prove this. This is one of the main reasons why our people’s knowledge of their own country is so poor. After all, knowledge is a prerequisite for reasoning about and debating political systems and structures. A debate on our country and its politics without the necessary knowledge is simply fruitless; totally futile. As a matter of fact, it is already becoming clear that our people are becoming somewhat weary of television material purchased abroad. This, however, of necessity means that in the long run our people know more about what is happening abroad than about what is going on in their own country.

Of course, while the session is under way we see relatively few television programmes. From comments I have heard, it would seem as if viewers greatly appreciate the programmes “1945”, and “And then came the English”. Generally, there seems to be only praise and appreciation for these two television programmes.

I therefore want to make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to have an investigation undertaken to ascertain whether it would not be possible to begin using our television service to sell South Africa and everything connected with this country. It could possibly be presented under the title “Ken my land”. I suggest that it be presented as a family programme in the evenings between 19h00 and 20h00. In this way we could inform our people about South Africa and everything associated with this country.

If I, as a person who does know something about the developed world and is at least well-read, were to tell this House what shocking ignorance I have encountered regarding politics in this country, it would be labelled as virtually unbelievable. What does one expect of the almost 2 million voters in South Africa? Moreover what confusion is being sown among our people by canvassers of political parties who, in every distorted way imaginable, are simply out to persuade people to adopt a specific political standpoint, without informing them properly and fully beforehand? Our political situation, complicated by the racial diversity of this country, is already dangerous enough as it is. For that reason I feel that there is a crying need for television to be used to inform people fully about the world in which we live, with all the associated factors—economic, geographic, historical, etc.

Once our people have complete knowledge of these things, and against the complete background of all the relevant factors, the leaders of all the various political parties can then state their views and put forward their solutions. Only then will people be able to judge for themselves on the basis of their firm factual knowledge, and then, I believe, we shall be able to conduct a meaningful political debate in this country. Then we shall also all at once have a new perspective on, as well as a greater appreciation concerning what is going on in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, there is an unpleasant matter which I first wish to dispose of before replying to my part of the debate.

Sir, the contribution made to this debate by the CP has consisted of attempts at character assassination. Last year when I stood at my bench and spoke I had no reason—nor have I any now—to call into question the integrity of the man who was present at that discussion to which the hon. member for Rissik refers, or to question the truth of what he told me. I regarded it as important to place on record in this House the message the CP was conveying to influential people in discussions. Hon. members will note that it was only the breach of the so-called confidentiality of the conversation in question that troubled the hon. member, rather than the content. I wanted to have placed on record on that occasion what they tell foreigners in private. This is a question of a member of a foreign Parliament who does a tremendous amount for this country of ours. While I was making that part of my speech, my time expired and one of the Whips tugged at my jacket, and I admitted after the time that I had expressed myself wrongly in that paragraph. In no way did I tell a deliberate lie. The hon. member confronted me on the matter and I realized how he interpreted what I had said. When I obtained my Hansard the next day, I saw that I had formulated it wrongly. I then did the honourable thing. I went to consult the officials who were able to assist me as regards the correct procedure and formulation. I also consulted my hon. benchmate, who was then Deputy Chairman—he is not present at the moment—to formulate it correctly and at the first opportunity I stood up in the House and rectified the matter.

You are now saying it wrongly again.

As far as I, personally, am concerned, I take that remark as coming from that party. I really cannot imagine that a decent person on this side of the House could take any further notice of the attacks from that side of the House.

There is one more thing I want to say to this House, and the hon. member for Rissik will know what I am talking about. The other day I wrote a letter to him asking him whether he was prepared to declare under oath what he said in this House. He did not look me in the eyes in that regard. However, I shall leave it at that.

You must not continue to state things incorrectly. Read what I wrote in my letter to you.

Order!

Very well. I do not wish to take this matter much further. I just wish to say that he wrote a letter to me this year and I replied to him as follows—

Read what I wrote to you in my letter. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must now be afforded the opportunity to make his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to take this opportunity to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. To me personally it is a tremendous privilege to be associated with him in this Ministry, not only because I have the profoundest appreciation for him as a person, a politician and a statesman, but also because I regard him as certainly the best qualified Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Western world. Pik Botha has no equal. Apart from his personal qualities, he has progressed from near the bottom to the top political post in that department. When one accompanies him in a negotiating situation, one sits there as a fascinated spectator watching the master negotiator acting in the interests of the Republic of South Africa. It is a privilege to watch and experience it. I hope to learn something from it. Many thanks to the hon. the Minister for the opportunity he has given me in our department and many thanks, too, to the officials. This is the first time in the history of this department that it has had a Deputy minister, and the creation of such a post certainly involves a degree of disruption in a department. Accordingly I wish to extend my cordial thanks to the officials for the warm and friendly reception they have accorded me and for their unfailing courtesy. They made a place for me and made me feel at home. I appreciate it. It is exciting to work with them and to experience every day their enthusiasm and their exceptional skill and ability.

I also wish to cordially thank the SABC people with whom I come into contact from time to time. I worked for that institution for seven very pleasant years. I am grateful for the courtesy with which former colleagues who, even at that time, were in very senior positions, receive me today. It is a pleasure to come into contact with them.

Finally, there is another area which concerns me. I cannot neglect to mention that I appreciate the way in which the Heads of State, Cabinets and officials of the TBVC countries have received me thus far and, I trust, will continue to receive me in the future, in respect of those matters concerning them in which I have a small part to play. This always attests to courtesy and an earnest wish to make a success of the administration of our respective countries and all their components. I also wish to cordially thank on behalf of the Government another former pupil of our school, one to whom the hon. member for Brentwood referred, Mr. Steve de Villiers for his unselfish service, particularly during the last year or two, in an extremely responsible position in South Africa. He has handled it with distinction and dedication and we all owe him a debt of thanks. We also owe it to his successor to convey our best wishes, support and sympathy for what is undoubtedly one of the most difficult tasks to undertake in South Africa. It is what one could well call a real “high-friction” job. I do not believe its occupant can ever say that he is able to satisfy all the people entirely.

Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act is a very important section. It deals with the Board of the Corporation. It reads as follows—

I wish to state categorically that as far as I personally am concerned—and this is what I learned from the hon. the Minister too—I have no desire to become involved in the editorial content of SABC programmes, whether they be news or actuality programmes, Pop Shop or whatever. I believe that the line between the Government and the SABC is marked by what is prescribed for us in the Act. When I adopt a standpoint with reference to statements made by hon. members on the other side of the House, I shall, where necessary, state the standpoint of the Government if there is an explicit standpoint in that regard. Otherwise, I shall state the standpoint of the SABC on their behalf.

It is true that we do not have a say as regards the programmes of the SABC. I wish to present a very appropriate example in this regard, particularly with reference to a proposal by the hon. member for Umhlanga.

†I want to say to him right at the outset that I fully agree with him about a programme where one should get the Press to participate via television. I think that it is one way in which we can make a contribution towards responsible reporting in all the media, in this country. Television should, however, not be abused to get at the then media. I think that is one of many methods, and to my mind a potentially effective and efficient one, that can be used to achieve a certain balance of opinion and a deeper understanding of what is going on in our country and which is reflected in the newspapers. I want to tell the hon. members—SABC people can vouch for this—that from the very first meeting that I had with them I suggested to them the possibility of a programme such as that. If the hon. the Minister or I had the authority in terms of the Act to instruct the SABC to do it, we would have done it already. However, we requested them to consider that particular possibility. Up to now, however, they have had their own mind about this. If we had had the authority, certainly we would have instituted such a programme because I can clearly see the merit of it.

I wanted to use that very special example to illustrate to the House that as far as the SABC is concerned we also have our grievances on this side of the House. We are not satisfied with everything that the SABC does.

*However, at the same time we have a profound understanding of the problems with which the SABC battles. We cannot summarily condemn and generalize about the slightest thing with which we disagree. I concede that to the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Benoni. If I, too, may express an opinion, I think that the SABC gave too much attention to the hon. member for Sea Point this morning in comparison with the very important matters dealt with yesterday by the hon. the Minister. But I am not going to kick up a fuss about that because one must form an opinion on these matters over a longer term.

I now wish to refer to the survey carried out by someone and published in the Rand Daily Mail. At my request the SABC sent me the framework of one of the news bulletins falling within the period of investigation and in which various Ministers were reported. I made three marks—in fact this only concerns two points—at places where Ministers had made statements which had anything to do with party-political matters. All the other Ministers concerned made statements directly concerned with their specific line function. I am convinced that the sum total of all that time was allocated to the NP in that investigation that was carried out.

That is shocking.

Surely that is not right. [Interjections.] It is statistically wrong to do it in that way. It creates a totally incorrect picture. Are we really to reach the stage of having to tell a Minister that he may no longer personally make an announcement about a matter affecting his department and its responsibilities but must go and tell it to another person so that he may do so? Surely that is totally ridiculous. Surely it is the Government that is responsible for the activities relating to the day-to-day administration of this country. The SABC, and our department in its other capacity, certainly have a responsibility to convey to the voters and the citizens all relevant Government actions and ideas, because a voter has the right to know not only what is happening today but what the policy is that will affect his life in future. Who is in a better position to announce that than a Minister who performs a specific line function and has a specific line responsibility. If, then, it is true that a Minister must do so, why then are we constantly, every year, encountering this wretched phenomenon, viz. that that kind of handling of public events is passed off as party politics? It is getting monotonous. I want to say, with all due respect to hon. members of this Committee, particularly hon. members opposite, and in particular the CP—that now finds itself in an opposing position and is singing a different tune to the one it sang the year before last—that it is plain unprofessional to use a simplistic case such as that as a so-called strong argument every year. Hon. members of the Opposition should rather come to this Committee with firm evidence of things which in their opinion are done incorrectly. I listened very carefully this evening but I did not hear a single piece of evidence of anything that had been distorted or manipulated.

Sunday and Monday evening.

The hon. member speaks about Sunday. Let us just look at the programme “Verslag”. Is the inister to refuse to take part in it before the discussion of this Vote, while attention is focussed on several events in and concerning countries surrounding us and on Security Council sittings that are going to begin one of these days, if he he can be afforded such an opportunity to get specific messages across, not only to the people in South Africa but also to people abroad? An extremely important aspect of the matter which we must, therefore, bear in mind is that the hon. the Minister speaks not only to the people of South Africa—and this also applies when he speaks on an Afrikaans “Verslag” programme—but also to people from abroad who are listening. He therefore gets a chance to convey a message to them.

The truth is that the SABC has a very stringent news code that it drafted itself and that it sticks to. If there is any hon. member present who is able to accuse the SABC of a manipulation of news or of a distortion, he must please take pen and paper and write to the SABC or come to this Committee next time and submit evidence, because not a single piece of evidence has ever been produced in these debates. Do not forget, it is the newsworthiness of an event that determines which media will carry it. Is one now to expect of the SABC that an important event must be kept dark because they are afraid that hon. members of the Opposition will express criticism of it?

The second aspect of the matter is the issue of interpretation. There is no such thing as an objective opinion, because the moment any person sees something and registers it in his grey cells, connotations and associations immediately occur in his thinking. He locates that entire event in terms of his value system, in terms of his frame of reference and his previous experiences. Therefore, when he gives an account of it by way of a television or radio programme or in a report in a newspaper, that account of his will in the nature of the matter bear his personal stamp to a greater or lesser extent. I want to say this evening that if the SABC are not going to be unqualifiedly pro-South African in its interpretations of news, then they can expect trouble from either this Government or from any other Government of the day. An unqualifiedly pro-South African standpoint is expected of them, within specific norms that are clearly spelt out in the code of the SABC. Therefore, when we speak about a sensitive matter such as Sunday sport—and I think that the hon. member for Brits dealt extremely well with this matter, about which there is no unanimity even within certain Afrikaans churches or among the Afrikaans churches or other Christian churches—then we know that the SABC is displaying the utmost circumspection, always taking into account the norms and values of the community in which those transmissions are received.

The hon. member for Santon asked why there were no advertisements on television on Sunday. This is purely out of respect for the Sabbath.

What about the radio?

If those hon. members had understood more about the media they would have known that the impact of television is far greater and that it is far more a family activity, particularly with regard to the religious transmissions and discussions on Sundays. If we are to debate what should or should not take place on Sunday then we can do so in another debate. Out of respect for the people who watch on Sundays, the SABC crams the 8% of the time it is able to spend on advertisements, into six days, in order to help create a peaceful atmosphere on Sundays. [Interjections.] You know, Sir, if people are to quibble about these matters there comes a stage when one has to consider whether one should transmit at all on Sundays. I gain the impression that for some people it does not matter if footage of the Lebanon war be shown on a Sunday news programme in which people are really shot dead. When the camera moves away, those people still lie there dead. However, they will object if, just before that, a “cowboy” picture is shown but, when the camera moves away, the cowboy who has been shot, stands up. Let us take another example. Some people are crazy about watching ballet on a Sunday. What if the SABC were to start showing folk dancing and concertina music etc.? If one starts getting dogmatic and legalistic in this regard one gets into trouble. I think there is one thing we can say about the SABC, and that is that as far as violence and embarrassing scenes and the question of observing the Sabbath are concerned, the SABC has thus far displayed the utmost responsibility and circumspection. As part of the requests put to them in Bloemfontein in 1982 we asked them, when they were considering these matters, rather to err on the conservative side than otherwise. The truth is that each of us sitting here has a Christian national view of life and the world. I am now speaking about the majority of hon. members in this House, at least on this side of the House. One is not only involved as an individual but is also bound to one’s party’s constitution, which has a specific Christian character. One is also committed to the character of our State. However, we are also a country of religious freedom, and for that reason there are many problems with regard to broadcasting and other matters arising from these facts.

I want to say a final word about the right of the SABC to interpret news.

We must simply accept from one another that in its handling of actualities the SABC will abide by the general norms of South Africa. That, broadly speaking, is its directive. As regards the problem of the hon. member for Sandton concerning English or Afrikaans-speaking interviewers, I ask him to take the matter up directly with the SABC. We as a Ministry cannot express an opinion on the way in which the SABC recruit and utilize staff but I think that as a businessman who ought to have both feet on the ground, he ought to know that there are very few people in South Africa who are so bilingual that they are able to speak both languages absolutely faultlessly and without an accent in every interview. Is the SABC really to send a purebred Englishman as well as a purebred Afrikaner to conduct every interview? Surely that cannot be done. After all, we have to show toleration; this is one of the burdens that we, as a bilingual country, have to bear. We have a democratic country, and everyone—including the hon. member for Sandton—has the right to seek to have his standpoint accepted by the SABC.

I consider that, as the hon. member for Umhlanga also said, we owe the SABC a debt of thanks for the commendable way in which they deal with certain extremely sensitive matters. I think it is an absolute scandal that anything negative is said in this House about Brown people and Indians presenting the Word of God on TV1. Is that not a disgrace? To think that some of our Afrikaners have the arrogance to persist in saying that the purpose for which we were established in this country was to fulfil a calling to establish and promote Christian Western civilization, but then go on to grossly insult people of colour who accept our values, accept our religion and speak our language. They cannot but feel insulted if people tell them: We have brought you the Word but I do not want to see your face on television; I do not want to listen when you present the Word of God. I think that is a disgrace. [Interjections.]

Order!

I believe that the SABC will take careful note of the contribution made by the hon. member for Virginia concerning the educational utilization of television. I know that the SABC is at present concerned with several aspects of this matter. A great deal of attention is certainly being given to that at present. I am also certain that the SABC will duly investigate the suggestions of the hon. member for Brentwood. Due to a lack of time I want to turn from the SABC to certain aspects of the other part of our responsibility, namely the task of information. I wish to extend my cordial thanks to the hon. member for Durban Central and to all the hon. members who congratulated me. I appreciate it. I also appreciate the congenial attitude with which we have been able to eliminate certain problems and deal with other aspects thus far. I also appreciate the special trouble taken by the hon. member for Durban Central to keep abreast of what our department is doing. I think he spent more than five hours with the department. In a very skilful way he acquainted himself with these things in a short time. However, he made one mistake: He did not spend time with our media liaison division; if he had, he would not have said what he did this evening about the foreign correspondents. I give him the assurance that we go out of our way to help foreign correspondents.

†The many discussions which I have had with individuals and on one occasion with their executive committee are indicative to me of an entirely new relationship which is in the process of developing. I am sure that should the hon. member make some inquiries, he would find that we have made some tremendous strides of progress with them. I am sure that he knows that we have instituted a translation service which translates for them every morning, at great cost, some of the leading articles in Afrikaans language newspapers. I think this is of tremendous value to them.

In so far as his questions to me in relation to my utterances in July last year are concerned, I should like to point out that we are in the process of bringing about an entirely new structure in terms of media liaison in the State machinery. Unfortunately I have to admit—this is something with which shall have to live—that the machines of the State run slowly, but very responsibly, I may add, at the same time. An entirely new culture is in the process of coming about where every department will see to it that they appoint a suitably qualified person to look after their press and media liaision aspects. As far as we are concerned, we will provide certain training facilities at the request of the commission and will remain responsible for the arrangement of news conferences and so on.

As far as news conferences go, I want to tell him that towards the end of last year we did in fact arrange quite a few in Pretoria. But that need largely fell away when we came down to Cape Town for the session. Here we have the platform of Parliament, and Ministers use the platform of Parliament adequately. This obviates the necessity for us to arrange Press conferences here as frequently as when we are in Pretoria. Another thing. Our style of government is such that it does not enable us to necessarily follow the same routine as the Americans with their noon briefings, etc. But we have learnt from the way they do it. We have fewer news conferences.

I can assure the hon. member that in due course he will see an entirely new relationship developing and new channels being opened. Those correspondents who find it difficult to gain access to Ministers and who approach us as their brokers, if I may put it like that, will find that we will be in a position to be of assistance. If they take the liberty to approach us, we will help them. However, if they try to fight their way through numerous secretaries, etc., obviously they will encounter problems. I have no doubt in my mind that we will have a new dispensation as far as that is concerned.

*Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes left to me, I just wish to say that our department—and here I want to differ drastically from the hon. member for Durban Central and other hon. members opposite—draws the line as regards what we publish as information, in a very simple way. The Cabinet is the Government of this country, and the Cabinet can take policy decisions which drastically affect the country. The moment the Cabinet decides that anything is the policy of this country, it is the statutory duty of this department to make it known. I should like to-quote what the information division says about one of the newest democracies, viz. West Germany—

And then this one—

I have several examples on the table before me from France, England and the USA of how every speech on policy aspects in those countries is immediately published by their information service and distributed as widely as possible both domestically and abroad. That is where we draw the line. We cannot, as the hon. member proposes, come to Parliament with every matter of policy so that Parliament should first approve before we are able to publish it. Surely that is impossible. The fact of the matter is merely that the Government is in the position to announce policy and we simply have to publish it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank other hon. members for their constructive contributions. The time is up. For our part we shall reply in writing to those relevant matters which hon. members have raised and to which I have not been able to reply.

Mr. Chairman, for my part I should just like to thank a few hon. members.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein North referred to the interdependence of States in Southern Africa and appealed to our neighbours to refrain from destabilizing efforts on their part and on the part of the ANC. I thank the hon. member for his realistic contribution.

†The hon. member for Umhlanga made the point that South Africa was poised on the brink of a breakthrough in its international relations and that the Soviet Union was bent on destroying South Africa in order to dominate the whole of the Southern African region. I believe that these aspects are closely linked and I thank the hon. member for bringing them to the attention of the House.

*The hon. member for Klip River referred to the destabilizing role played by the Soviet Union in the West. Like the hon. member for Umhlanga, he also chose this theme. It was very interesting to listen to him.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp touched on matters which are close to the heart of the Government, viz. a co-ordinated development strategy for Southern Africa.

†I am fully aware that the hon. member for Yeoville has consistently opposed moves by certain groups abroad towards disinvestment in South Africa, and I thank him for his contribution in resisting such efforts.

The hon. member for Maitland drew our attention to the fact that the Soviet Union is now in the empire phase of its history—in this he is quite correct—and is seeking to bring Southern Africa within its sphere of influence. We should take notice of this.

*The hon. member for Innesdal spoke about the need to bring about change in good time before sanctions are imposed, as in the case of Rhodesia. He made an outstanding speech.

†The hon. member for Durban Point referred to the fact that our friends are giving us the opportunity to find a solution to our problems. He also drew attention to the fact that Blacks, Indians and Coloureds were watching what was going on in this House. I agree with him. Although I do not agree with everything he said, the hon. member certainly made a valuable contribution.

*The hon. member-for East London North asked that the Republic of South Africa become involved with its neighbouring States in order to stabilize them. I agree with him, but on certain conditions. However, what will have to be taken into account is that in my opinion, we in Southern Africa must reach an agreement among all States, and all States of the territory will have to make it a top priority to resist any form of subversion, undermining and aid to dissidents, or else there will always be excuses for so-called refugees or there will always be loopholes.

As regards the history of the relations between South Africa and Mozambique, the hon. member for Vryheid referred to the fact that good neighbourliness entails advantages for our neighbours. That is a fact that must be emphasized.

The hon. member for Pretoria East made a useful contribution concerning the result of the 1982 summit conference. I thank him for that.

The hon. member for Paarl praised the role of the wives of diplomats abroad. I thank him particularly for that and I am sure that our women abroad will appreciate what he said.

The hon. member for Roodepoort spoke about relations between the Republic of South Africa and the USA. Both as regards the style and the way in which he did so, his speech was an excellent and engrossing one. I thank him for it.

The hon. member for Vasco referred to salaries abroad and also to our relations with the countries of South America. He also asked whether the Republic of South Africa should not use its raw materials as a weapon. In principle, certainly, but here, too, we must be careful not to hamper our exports and markets.

All that remains to me is to say that I was pleasantly surprised by this debate. It took place on two historic days. I thank all hon. members of all parties for their participation in the democratic system of our country. While we may differ—sometimes violently—I find it important that another debate has taken place on the southern tip of Africa in a democratic way, a debate in which we were able to differ from one another and which the Press was able to report freely.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the way in which you and your colleagues have guided the proceedings. I wish to thank all departmental officials and pay tribute to all our officials overseas. Some of them are rising now while others are going to sleep, but whether getting up or going to sleep, throughout the world, and here in South Africa, too, they are doing their duty. This has been a pleasant debate and, in my opinion, a high quality one. For that reason I shall sleep well tonight.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.