, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Vote No. 35— Public Works, reported that the Committee had concluded its proceedings.

Mr. Chairman, although I am not in a position to use it fully, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

Technically we are dealing today with the Information Vote and we are being asked to approve an amount of almost R16 million for the services of the Department of Information. In practice, however, we are dealing with a sinking ship. In the words of the statement made late yesterday by the hon. the Prime Minister, the effectiveness of the department and its head have been destroyed, and unfortunately this was caused incalculable damage to the country. The hon. the Prime Minister did not say which head of the department he meant—the political head or the administrative head. [Interjections.] Perhaps he left the issue open deliberately, but his statement, or rather, his admission, could not have been more final than it was. The Department of Information cannot, in fact, continue to exist in its present form. In the circumstances, therefore, it cannot be expected from the Official Opposition to approve money for the continuation of the services of department and therefore we shall vote against the acceptance of the Vote as a whole.

It has happened before in politics that a Minister or a Deputy Minister has destroyed himself and has then been obliged to leave. This, however, is the first time in history, as far as I know, that a whole department has been destroyed together with so many bodies and persons that are involved. Now we get the impression that the Government does not know how to handle the complicated situation that has developed. During the past week we have had three statements: one by the political head of the department, the hon. the Minister of Information; one by the Secretary for Information, the administrative head of the department; and last night by the head of the Government, the hon. the Prime Minister. All three of these statements differ. They have, however, one thing in common. That is that there is a frantic search for whipping-boys.

I want us to remember one thing. That is that the hon. the Minister of Information announced as long ago as 1972 that his department would adopt a more dynamic method of operation, and would make use of more unconventional methods in order to achieve its goal abroad. Therefore this is nothing new. That was six years ago. Generally there was no public criticism of that; nor, in this House either; on the contrary, the English-language Press referred with praise and high expectations to the Secretary for Information as “the architect of a new diplomacy”. They described the trio—the two Rhoodie brothers and Mr. Les de Villiers—as “an ambitious, muscle-flexing troika”. There has never been, nor is there now, any objection to the use of unconventional methods when the good name of South Africa is at stake.

Generally our people are sympathetic towards the work of the Department of Information as well as the Department of Foreign Affairs. That is why business leaders of South Africa—and I make bold to say that the majority of them are supporters of the PFP— collected millions of rands to establish an organization such as the South Africa Foundation in order to help improve the image of South Africa and to win friends and influence for South Africa in the outside world. What we find amazing, however, is that over a long period of time, neither the responsible Minister of Information nor the hon. the Prime Minister has done anything to save the Department of Information whereas they have known for a long time, or should have known, that things were going awry.

As we see it, what is happening to the Department of Information is symptomatic of what is happening to our country. [Interjections.] Our country has never been in such a dangerous position as it does today. [Interjections.] Our destruction is being sought. [Interjections.] On and over the border of South West we are already involved in war. [Interjections.]

Order!

As far as I can see, the war has only started. At the moment war is only being waged against Swapo, and our troops have dealt them a grievous blow. Apart from Swapo, deadly forces are building up in Angola and in other neighbouring States—so we suspect—against us. These are powers who are not there for the pleasure of Dr. Neto or any other political leader. At the moment it seems as if there is a top priority, i.e. Rhodesia, yet no one can tell when the storm is going to hit us, and whether we are not going to be faced with a “Pearl Harbor” tomorrow or the day after. [Interjections.] We have seen what happened at the UN and in the Security Council. There was no one who wanted to take our side. Not even the concessions the Government made with regard to the situation in South West helped us in any way. The West has written us off, and unfortunately our enemies feel encouraged as a result. France had its South East Asia and has bitter memories of Algeria, which formed part of that country, as it were. America had its Vietnam. Western Germany is still suffering from Hitler’s illusion that military power is everything. Britain has bitter memories of the terrorists under Grivas in Cyprus and the Mau-Mau in Kenya. It is a tragedy, but they do not believe that we will make the grade unless drastic changes of policy are effected internally. It was against this background of the worsening international position in which South Africa found itself that the Department of Information was called upon to play a more forceful role and not to hesitate to use extraordinary and unorthodox, even secret methods to try and improve the position. The Government would make money available for that secretly.

I checked the last three reports of the department, which were tabled in the House by the hon. the Minister. This has a significant connection with what we are discussing here today. In 1975 the department reported that it had met with success for the first time that year. That was the year of détenté, of action on the part of the Government. Actually it was not the Department of Information as such which met with success. Its work was only facilitated as a result of the Government’s promise that discrimination based on race and colour would be eliminated, and the fact that one door after the other opened to the hon. the Prime Minister in Africa as a result of that. And, Sir, the lesson was this: It is not pamphlets, books or films of the Department of Information which helps to rectify matters for South Africa, but only positive action by the Government and the Prime Minister himself in the field of policy. Only a year later the report of 1976 told an illuminating story. That report points to the Government as being responsible for the collapse. It was a report tabled in this House by the hon. the Minister himself. Time will not permit me to quote more than a few extracts, but amongst the reasons given for the decline of South Africa’s image we find, for example, the position in Soweto. According to the report the Soweto riots had a “devastating effect on South Africa’s image as a politically stable country”. It is not I who say so, but the department itself. I quote further—

The department goes on to say that “the lack of visible follow-up in dialogue with the West African states” was a further reason for the collapse. A great number of other reasons are given, but he reaches the following conclusion—

This was the first open confession that the department is powerless, no matter what it does, to influence the outside world if the Government itself does not undertake meaningful and positive action internally and effect changes. The 1977 annual report, which the hon. the Minister submitted on 14 April, re-emphasized all this, actually in stronger words. In this latest report the Government, the politicians, are being pointed to in even clearer language by the officials as being the real scapegoats for the powerlessness of the Department of Information. When Mr. Les de Villiers went to America, he said bluntly that one could not sell the Government’s policy abroad as it stands. The Secretary for Information recently addressed a meeting in Stellenbosch and said the following in public—

This is the problem as far as the impotence of the Department is concerned. Mr. John McGoff, a great friend of the hon. the Minister and Government members, recently visited here. When he returned, what was his judgment? He said the following—

Under these circumstances the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government made the cardinal error of thinking that the Secretary of Information and its officials can be dressed up like James Bond and that this political James Bond could then, with all manner of fancy apparatus and vast sums of secret funds to work with, work a miracle for the Government abroad. What this effort to get a political James Bond to do the job for the Government has done, however, was to cast suspicion on officials, to expose them to the image and accusations of swaggering, of a wastage of money, of abuses and the improper utilization of funds, and all this while the political leaders were the architects of the whole debacle.

I referred to the three statements of the past week. Together they attest to internal mistrust, backbiting—the word “treason” was used in the statement of the Secretary for Information—a sordid naming of scapegoats and administrative chaos such as this country has never seen before in its history.

†The statement by the Secretary was the most remarkable of all. Surely the hon. the Minister must have been aware of the statement and must have given the Secretary permission to make the kind of statement he did make, and if the Secretary did not have the co-operation of the hon. the Minister in the matter, he should have been sacked the moment the statement appeared. That was, however, not done, and I therefore have the right to assume that the hon. the Minister knew and co-operated. Never has there been a case of this sort, a case in which an official has been allowed to implicate Parliament, where an investigation in which he is involved is in progress. Never has an official been allowed to reveal matters affecting the Cabinet, its policies and its manner of work, as was done in this case. We saw an unheard-of attack on the office of the Auditor-General, which again shows that when a Government becomes too strong its agents become arrogant.

The Auditor-General is appointed by this Parliament and has the national and constitutional duty to scrutinize the work of every department and report the slightest trace of corruption and the wrongful spending of moneys, and once his credibility is brought into jeopardy by anybody connected with the Government or with Parliament, the country is on the sliding load to corruption. What is even worse, however, is that in his statement the Secretary revealed that the hon. the Minister had, in fact, misled Parliament in the replies to certain questions he had given to this House. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that we take an extremely serious view of this matter. The hon. the Minister must know that we would prefer to have no answer rather than one that is inaccurate or misleading.

The Opposition has never been unreasonable on matters affecting foreign relations. For years now I have had an understanding with the Department of Foreign Affairs. Its officials contact me when they have special problems with questions we raised and we sort those problems out confidentially. On several occasions, in fact, I myself offered to withdraw questions which the department found diplomatically awkward. On other occasions the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated in his reply that he could not make all the details public, and since we understood his reasons—because there was communication—we accepted the position as such. What is completely unacceptable, however, is that a Minister should give a reply to this House which is misleading.

Finally, we have the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement, which contains an admission that the effectiveness of the department lies in ruins. We are in complete agreement with him. But there is something we cannot understand. The hon. the Prime Minister was surely well aware, over a period of time, of the unsatisfactory state of affairs that was developing in and around the Department of Information. He knew that for years his Government was allocating secret funds for certain projects and that officials, amongst them officials of the Department of Information, are involved. When he was informed that irregularities and abuses were suspected, why was there all this fatal delayed action which, in his own words, has now caused the country incalculable harm? Why did he not act? Why did the hon. the Minister of Information not act? How did it come about that the Minister of Information, according to reports, was unaware of the fact that the Auditor-General was investigating what was called some of the worst irregularities of their kind in our history, and that he and the Secretary of his department came into conflict with the Auditor-General if the necessary certificates which cover secret funds had in fact been issued? Why was the hon. the Minister of Information himself not confronted with the allegations so that the matter could have been cleared up and South Africa spared the debacle? What on earth is going on? Who gave permission for documents to be destroyed? What operation can be so secret in any country that the documents have to be destroyed? I believe that the public cannot be blamed for being highly concerned. I think the hon. the Prime Minister should know—I am sure that he does know it—that a wide section of the public rightly or wrongly believe that certain newspapers like The Citizen and other publications are secretly funded by Government sources for party-political purposes. So far as the Department of Information is concerned, people have been noting for a long time that the same round of political connections and the same round of political business houses always tend to come out on top where major material benefits are involved and which flow from the activities of the Department of Information.

I said in an earlier debate that a simple repair job is impossible. The credibility of the department cannot be restored either here or abroad. We therefore believe that the hon. the Prime Minister should use the responsibility which he has, and which he has accepted, and shunt aside all those who are involved in the collapse of the department, including the Minister of Information, and appoint a caretaker. People who have become part of the problem cannot be expected to help successfully with its solution. Parliament will be in session for at least another month and the hon. the Prime Minister should take the opportunity to co-operate with Parliament and appoint a committee of the House to look at the best ways of overcoming the problems that have arisen and to undertake together the job of reconstruction. Only in this way can we expect that confidence will be restored both here and abroad.

Mr. Chairman, this afternoon the hon. member for Bezuidenhout attacked the department, the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Information with a vengeance. He did so in the same vein, in the same way and with the same attitude as the one with which the whole of the outside world attacks South Africa. The methods used are unparalleled. The way in which they attacked South Africa in the past, was clear as crystal to all of us. The outside world gained a powerful partner in the hon. member for Bezuidenhout today. The hon. member made a fairly drastic statement here. He said that the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister knew what was going on and that they did nothing about it. What happened as regards this department, its entire structure and other matters? The Auditor-General submitted a report and his report came before a Select Committee of all the parties in the House. The offences committed were spelled out clear as crystal in the committee’s report. What really happened? In the first place, Treasury regulations were contravened, as were auditor’s regulations and Public Service regulations. In some case, money was paid out while there were no guarantees to indemnify the State against any losses. This is the type of offence which was committed. These are technical offences. However, what is the impression one forms if one looks at the onslaught being made on this department? It seems to me as if the hon. member did not read the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement last night. What really happened? The moment these occurrences came to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Information, he did everything a Minister would normally do. He called in officials to launch an investigation, and this, after all, is what is done. The assistance of the Public Service Inspector was called in. It is true that this was done by the Secretary himself, but it took place with the approval and the knowledge of the hon. the Minister. The Public Service inspector was called in at once with instructions to institute an investigation into the activities of the department and its whole administration. This was done because the report of the Auditor-General mentioned the fact that the administration and control of the department were not what they should be. With the knowledge of the hon. the Minister, an advisory financial committee was at once appointed under the chairmanship of the Deputy Secretary in order to look at all these matters. When it became clear that the tender regulations were not complied with, aids like production control boards were introduced and even the computer was brought in to programme all the Public Service regulations so that if any mistake should slip in, it would be clear where the mistake arose. In this way the officials could see beforehand and realize that a certain regulation first had to be complied with.

What happened to the statement which the hon. the Minister made on 3 May? He put it clearly that he asked the Cabinet to approve that the Public Service Commission should launch a thorough investigation in order to establish how the department may be restructured because the department had been ttacked so much by means of malicious onslaughts by newspapers here while there is agitation against the department abroad as well. Why is the department being attacked like this? It is exclusively because the department has achieved so much success abroad. The department has projected South Africa’s message. It has reached the policy-makers and the opinion-formers abroad. There is only a small number of overseas officials of the Department of Information. In America there is only one information officer for every 15 million inhabitants. These officials projected the message, and they did it in such a way that we can see in many places what success they achieved. [Interjections.]

Interim changes were also made in the department. After the irregularities had been reported to the Select Committee and that committee had investigated them, the hon. the Minister announced that two of the posts in the department, that of Chief Director: Information and that of Chief Director: Planning would be eliminated and regraded. Another post was created, that of Chief Director: Administration to which will be entrusted the administrative and financial control measures. This is everything which has been done and as a result two senior officials had to vacate their posts. What did we have last night?

Were they guilty or not guilty?

That hon. member probably wants to say that they are not guilty. The hon. the Prime Minister issued a statement last night. How can the hon. member for Bezuidenhout say that the hon. the Prime Minister did nothing? His statement reads—

[Inaudible.]

That hen is cackling so much that she may lay an egg any moment. The hon. the Prime Minister put it very clearly that when the Auditor-General brought certain matters to his attention, he appointed a person, with the knowledge of the hon. the Minister and the co-operation of the Auditor-General, who is capable and well-equipped to investigate all the sensitive projects which gave rise to the problem in the department, and to reach finality in that regard. What did the Prime Minister say? I quote—

This is what the hon. the Prime Minister came up with. This has been in progress for a long while, and now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants to vote against this Vote and makes out that this side of the House is not supporting the Auditor-General. I have already repeatedly said on behalf of this side of the House that we stand by the Auditor-General and we support him. He is an official of Parliament and we listen to what he says and accept his reports. If there is any fault to be found with him, it is the duty of Parliament to criticize him and to remove him. However, it is not my duty or the duty of those hon. members or anyone else to do so.

Let us look at the areas where the Auditor-General encountered problems. He encountered problems with the use of officials by the Department of Information to carry out certain sensitive projects. As a result of the problems which arose in this regard, the hon. the Prime Minister spelled out the situation clearly in the statement which he made. I want to state frankly that I take exception to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said because he is trying to create the impression, and trying to insinuate, that we on this side of the House are questioning the work of the Auditor-General. What did those hon. members do when the report of the Select Committee was discussed last week? They did not want the Select Committee to negotiate further with the department and continue with its investigation. Nor did they want to accept that the Public Service Commission should start another inquiry. They have no confidence in those bodies. In the light of the motion they moved here, it seems that they do not have any confidence in the Auditor-General either. Apart from the quality of the officials of the department and apart from the expertise of the department, there are no fewer than four investigations into the affairs of the department. These investigations were requested, inter alia, by the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Information and by this side of the House in order to prove clearly to the world and to spell out that nothing is being covered up here and that there is nothing which we have to be ashamed of here. The hon. the Prime Minister also put it very clearly that the well-equipped person who is investigating the matters will go directly to the Attorney-General if anything irregular, anything which justifies prosecution, should arise. What stricter, more drastic action does that side of the House ask of any Government, any department and of any Prime Minister than what has been done recently? The hon. members of the Official Opposition want to cast suspicion on the department and the Government in all respects. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am entering the debate immediately on behalf of my party because I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister’s intervention last night into the “Rhoodie-gate” affair has moved the issue from an ordinary departmental debate over the administration of a department to an issue which affects the Government itself and the image of the Government of South Africa.

It is correct that, in the discussion of a Vote, one discusses—as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did towards the end of his speech—specific issues. That we will deal with at a later stage in the debate. At this stage, however, I refer to the hon. the Prime Minister who issued a statement on the eve of this debate in which he himself accepted responsibility, in the name of the Government, for what has happened and for what is still happening in respect of our information services of South Africa. I therefore think it is important, and I want to do so for my party, clearly and unequivocally to place our stand on record in regard to the fundamental issues which are at stake here.

The first one deals with the total onslaught against South Africa and the use of secret funds and unorthodox methods to counter that onslaught. I want to say immediately that this party accepts—and accepted when the Secret Services Account Bill was before the House—the fact of an onslaught on South Africa, and it accepts the need to counter that onslaught by unorthodox and unconventional methods. However, in that debate the NRP made its standpoint very clear, i.e. that the expenditure of those funds and the control over the expenditure had to be under the full and unquestioned control of the Auditor-General and that this Parliament would bear the ultimate responsibility for those funds and their expenditure. That is what this debate today is about.

Which previous debate are you referring to?

I am referring to the debate on the Secret Services Account Bill— now an Act—which established a secret fund which could be used for this sort of purpose. What is important and essential is that where one is dealing with secret funds the Government itself must, like Caesar’s wife, be above all suspicion. This is even more so than in other cases when those funds are secret.

I regret that the timing of the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement last night appears to have been an attempt to pre-empt the discussion that he knew would take place today on this question. The hon. the Prime Minister himself has condemned the Official Opposition for conducting in the Press debates which should be conducted in this House, and I believe he correctly made that criticism. However, now the hon. the Prime Minister is himself guilty of exactly that action. On the eve of a debate he issues a public statement to the Press which affects and pre-empts the debate about to take place. I think this was not in the true parliamentary tradition. I believe, and I think it is fair to say this, that it was an attempt to defuse the issue and to protect his Minister against the criticism which he knew would be coming today.

Remember Nixon!

The hon. the Prime Minister placed the interests of his Cabinet— as he has done with other Ministers, for instance the hon. the Minister of Justice— above the interests of South Africa. When the interests of South Africa demand action by the hon. the Prime Minister, he protects his Ministers to the detriment and at the expense of South Africa as a whole, and I believe this too is not in the truest tradition of parliamentary responsibility.

The hon. the Prime Minister has accepted full responsibility for the allocation of funds spent by the Department of Information, but that of course is not the issue. The issue is how those funds were spent and how the hon. the Minister of Information controlled and administered his department—how he kept his finger on the pulse. I do not have the time to deal with it, but there is a precedent, i.e. that of the Crichel Down case in the British Parliament in 1954. In that case a commission found that there had been maladministration, but that there were no mala fides on anyone’s part.

No blame whatsoever was attached to the Minister in that case and yet, nevertheless, the Minister conceived it his duty to resign because he was responsible to Parliament for the administration of his department. That is the parliamentary tradition we follow and we believe that irrespective of the hon. the Minister’s person—I like the hon. the Minister—and irrespective of any personal feelings, parliamentary tradition required that when it was unanimously agreed by a Select Committee that irregularities had been committed in his department, the hon. the Minister should have acted immediately. Instead of taking immediate action he allowed, encouraged and, in fact, led Parliament into taking a decision to have a long-term investigation into the irregularities and the structure of the department. At that time, as the NRP stated, in moving its amendment censuring the hon. the Minister, there was sufficient proven evidence for the hon. the Minister to have acted immediately instead of waiting for a long investigation. The hon. the Prime Minister has himself admitted that the effectiveness of the Department of Information has been destroyed and that incalculable harm has been done to South Africa. Yet the hon. the Prime Minister knew about this in July or August last year, nine months ago.

You have not read my statement.

He knew about this in the latter half of last year. I will not quibble over the month. I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that he was aware of the first reports before the last election, according to common talk. Still, even if that is wrong, he knew about it last year and now it is May. All this time the hon. the Prime Minister has remained silent, whilst he allowed the department’s effectiveness to be destroyed and whilst he allowed incalculable harm to be done to South Africa. That is the gravamen of our charge, namely that the hon. the Prime Minister allowed this knowing that these things were happening, knowing, as he admitted, that rumours were spreading and that damage was done to South Africa.

Why do you not say that I said the effectiveness of the department had been destroyed as a result of the rumours which were spread and the statements which were made? [Interjections.]

I am saying that he knew there were rumours—about money in tin trunks, secret accounts and secret Swiss accounts, etc. The hon. the Prime Minister said that rumours did the damage, but he allowed those rumours to grow, escalate and run wild. I do not want to repeat them. The hon. the Prime Minister knew about the sort of rumours that were being spread … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer very briefly to the hon. member for Durban Point and his criticism of the hon. the Prime Minister for having issued that statement last night. He claimed that the hon. the Prime Minister attempted to defuse this debate and to protect a particular Minister. That statement was completely in accordance with parliamentary traditions. In no sense did it protect a Minister. In fact, that is why we are having this debate this afternoon. [Interjections.] As a matter of fact, that statement clarified issues in the public interest. It was needed and was fully justified in its timing in all respects.

I briefly wish to return to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I want to say that it is surprising indeed for a parliamentarian of his worth and standing to insinuate that a leading newspaper in this country receives money from Government sources, particularly when this newspaper is critical of his party and is the only English newspaper which adopts a neutral viewpoint in relation to the Government and attempts to be objective on fundamental matters. [Interjections.] However, what one finds disturbing, is the fact that there has been an attempt of the part of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to turn a debate on the Department of Information into the usual condemnation of Government policy. He quite simply started off by immediately saying that South Africa’s unpopularity in the rest of the world and the criticism of South Africa are all the result of the Government’s race relations policies. It is as simple as that. The attempt was then made to argue in general terms that Government policy was responsible for the animosity and criticism in the world against South Africa.

But the fact is that what this ignores is the role which the Department of Information has played. What it ignores is the challenges which the Department of Information has had to meet in the kind of world in which South Africa finds itself in the last quarter of the twentieth century. The twentieth century has been described as the age of the common man, as the age of democracy, as the age of the mass society. It has also been described as the age of advertising in commercial relations, or the age of propaganda as far as politics is concerned. If one looks at this century it is the age of “isms”; national socialism, socialism, communism, liberalism—you name them. It has been the age of great ideological movements. It is an age, too, in which States aggressively promote a particular image of themselves and an image of other countries. It is an age in which propaganda has become an important factor in foreign policy and in diplomacy. The fact is that South Africa has run into that in a way that other countries have not. The fact is that that great super-power conflict which emerged after the Second World War affected South Africa. It was leftists in the ’fifties who created the image of South Africa as being a Nazi State and who used the Nazi tar brush in relation to South Africa. One can mention names such as Brian Bunting and Ruth First. One can mention names of books such as The Rise of the South African Reich, a book which was generally available in the world and was published in an important paperback series. But there were leftists who attacked South Africa in those days, leftists who attempted to class South Africa as a racist society. It is South Africa which has had to meet the enormous challenges of this situation.

But there is a second important challenge which South Africa has had to meet, and that is the fact that we, perhaps more than any other country, with the possible exception of Rhodesia, have had to face up to probably the most important event of the twentieth century, viz. the coming to independence of the peoples of Asia and Africa. There, too, the image in which our society has been case has been an unfortunate one. It has been one of a society which is a hangover from colonialism, of a society which is left over in the wake of the withdrawal of colonialism, of the last bastion after the southern States of the USA of racism in the world. This is how our society has been depicted. That onslaught on our society has been total. That onslaught, in its intensity, in its scope, in its nature, cannot be exaggerated. In that situation the Department of Information, particularly in recent years, has had to play a major role and has had to meet that challenge. It has to meet that challenge, as has been conceded by the hon. member for Durban Point, by unconventional means, by unorthodox means, as do other information organizations in the world.

A third very important factor as far as South Africa is concerned which this department has had to meet has been the institutionalization of opposition, not just to the policies of this Government, not just to South Africa as it is presently constituted, but to the presence of Whites in a dominant role in South Africa. [Interjections.] There are scores of people, as the hon. member who is making noises over there will know, in the USA and Western Europe who earn their living from opposing South Africa. There are dozens of organizations who depend for their continued existence on opposition to South Africa. That is the reality which this country has had to meet and that is the reality which the Department of Information, over the years, has had to contend with. That is the reality of the situation as far as our country is concerned. The image which South Africa is trying to get across through its Department of Information in the face of the distortions, in the face of media which very frequently have been controlled by leftists, I would suggest to hon. members is the following. I suggest, too, that if the hon. member for Bezuidenhout looks at those publications and films, as well as the activities of the department, he will find the image which it has tried to get across. The image, I want to stress, which most visitors to this country, even critical visitors to this country, have gone away with is the image which that department has tried to get across.

That is an image of a country which has been blessed by Providence with physical and natural beauty and with enormous mineral resources. It is a country, a society which has managed to achieve high levels of excellence. One thinks in this respect of Dr. Chris Barnard, of Nadine Gordimer and of a poet like Dirk Opperman.

Why do you not speak to the issue?

I am dealing with the point, my friend! This is the image of a country which has produced someone like Lucas Sithole or somebody like Sydney Khumalo. It is a society of great potential, but simultaneously a society with a great problem. It is a society with a uniquely complex problem. It is not a monolithic society; it is a society very much wrestling with itself on the fundamental question of what answers should be found.

The Department of Information, over these years, has in composite form managed to get that image across.

In conclusion, I want to state that the Department of Information has put that image across with the assistance of many loyal South Africans, many loyal individual South Africans in all walks of life, businessmen, academics, journalists, physicists, etc. It has done it with the aid of South Africans from all population groups, White, Brown and Black. It has done it with the assistance of all political parties and all political leaders. Without that support it would not have done it, and I believe that on occasions such as this, in recognizing what the department has achieved in this respect—and everything is relative to cost, relative to the means which are available to that department and to the difficulties which it faces—one must recognize too the role of the ordinary loyal South African and groups of South Africans in assisting the Department of Information in the enormous task which it has had to fulfil. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps the most important part of the speech by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens was the fact that he drew attention to the plight in which South Africa finds herself today. I do not believe that there is any difference of opinion in this House with regard to the dangers that beset our country. In fact, that is the greatest indictment against the hon. the Minister of Information and his department, because in our hour of need he has failed us! [Interjections.] He has failed South Africa! [Interjections.] The ordinary South African is looking to see what can in fact be done in order to project our image correctly. The ordinary South African is looking to see what can be done to meet the onslaught against us. What the ordinary South Africans want to see, are lean, dedicated men living frugally, putting forward a case for South Africa. However, instead of that, the image of South Africa that has been created overseas is one of high living, of people who are living it up overseas, of people who are living at a rate which is not in keeping with that of a nation fighting for survival. [Interjections.] That is the image that has been created and that is the tragedy of all this.

It is all very well for the hon. member for Sunnyside to talk about the newspapers. Let me tell him something. No healthy body can be destroyed by a newspaper. Only when something is rotten can the newspapers act effectively against it. [Interjections.] However, if the Department of Information were healthy, nothing could have been done. [Interjections.] That is the truth! [Interjections.]

That is the simple truth. Hon. members can shout and they can make a noise, but truth will prevail. But, Sir, let me tell you, so that there can be no misunderstanding, that I for one am very pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister has intervened in this matter, because I actually believe that he is the only one who can save the situation that presently exists. That is the reality of the situation. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that I believe he has a duty to intervene in this debate. I believe that he has a duty to tell us a number of things that are important. I also want to suggest, with all respect to him, that there are certain things that I believe he is obliged to do for South Africa at this moment in time.

The first thing we have to know—and I think this House is entitled to an honest answer—is whether in fact there is an effective information service available to South Africa at its most crucial time in the whole of the history of its existence. Is there such a service available? Only the hon. the Prime Minister can tell us whether he considers it to be adequate and whether he will take steps to see that there is an adequate service, because I actually believe that what has happened in this particular situation as a result of the disclosures in the Auditor-General’s report and as a result of the statements made by the Secretary for Information, is that South Africa has been betrayed in its hour of need.

There is a second thing I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister. There is no question about the fact that we accept that in the kind of life which we are living one has to have secret funds and people who do things that one cannot publicize. I know that the hon. the Prime Minister will not allow the cloak of secrecy to be used as a cover-up for wrongdoings in any department, never mind the Department of Information, but the tragedy in what has happened is that whereas the hon. the Prime Minister acts entirely properly and entirely legitimately in seeking to use the provisions of the law that have been made available to him, I am not satisfied that those who shelter behind those provisions are playing the game with him. That is the true test, because when there are secret funds it is more important than ever that those should be adequately controlled and that there should be no danger to those funds.

The third question I want to put to the hon. the Prime Minister is whether he accepts that public servants are arrogantly entitled to ignore the rules which are designed to safeguard the tax-payers’ money. The rules which are prescribed, whether by the Treasury or by the Tender Board, are rules which are there to protect the tax-payer, and no public servant is entitled arrogantly to ignore those rules. Perhaps the most symbolic thing of all is the photograph on the front page of the Sunday Express, which appeared last Sunday. It depicts the Head of a department giving a certain sign. The tragedy is that one has to ask whether he is giving that sign to the photographer or whether he is giving it to this Parliament and telling us where to go. [Interjections.] The arrogance which lies behind that gesture is unreal.

I want to go further. One of the most damaging statements that has been made in this connection was the statement made by the Head of that department which was published last Saturday morning. The hon. the Minister of Information has kept silent on the matter. He has been incommunicado. He has not been available to people who have tried to ask him whether in fact this statement was authorized by him. If in fact that statement was not authorized by him, then he must fire this man immediately, because as a member of Parliament I defy any hon. member to say that the hon. the Minister would stand by a statement such as this—

It is the Auditor-General who is being accused here in this statement that the enemies of South Africa are laughing their heads off at the way the Auditor-General has destroyed the department. Either the hon. the Minister will immediately dismiss the Secretary for Information or, if he has approved of this statement, he will tender his resignation to the Prime Minister today if he is a man of honour in this Parliament, because the Auditor-General is this Parliament’s man.

He is our instrument. He is the instrument of Parliament to safeguard Parliament in the face of the actions of the executive, and to have him attacked in this fashion calls for the hon. the Minister to speak. There is no question of silence. Either he says that that man did what he did without his authority and the hon. the Minister gets rid of him, or if it was done with the hon. the Minister’s authority, the hon. the Minister goes and goes but fast from this portfolio. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us carry out a test to see whether this is an effective department. We are told about secret operations that are being conducted, but let us be told of one single major success that has been achieved by these Keystone Cops in the Marx Brothers Circus running around the world. Let us be told of one! Let us be given one single example. Let us look at the simple proof of the pudding. Look at the mess that South Africa is in. If we had an effective information service, if we were able to convince people of our cause, should we not be in a better position? Should we not be able to convince people? Instead of spending one’s money on right-wingers overseas, who support South Africa in any case and who think we are not far enough to the right, what have we done to persuade the average person in the Western World? What have we done to persuade the middle-of-the-road man to be with us? What have we done to persuade the people who are antagonistic towards us to go the other way? Let me give a simple example. Only yesterday I obtained statistics showing that the percentage vote at the annual general meetings of banks in America which support anti-South Africa activities has gone up again this year. What effort have we made to try to stop this? It is true that we have had a man, who is known as an agent of South Africa, get up at a bank meeting and put a case, but what have we really done to achieve our goal?

We talk about secrecy. We are told that secret funds are used, but people go secretly to Wimbledon! Is it secret to be at Wimbledon? We speak about cable cars that we spend money on. Well, I remember a book called Where Eagles Dare. Is that where the idea comes from? I do not know. Let us be realistic. We are told that there is a secret mission to the Seychelles. The papers are full of it. What do we do, bearing in mind, of course, that it is a secret mission? It is so secret that the Secretary starts off by sending a telex message to a hotel, the Reef Hotel, in which he says: “I am coming, and I am coming to see the President so you must have accommodation for me!” That is very secret! It is so secret that a party of 10 people goes to the best hotel. He takes his Deputy Secretary with him, he is met by a Mercedes when he arrives at the airport and he is given a banquet by the President. That is how secret it is. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to react to the rantings and ravings of the hon. member for Yeoville, the rantings and ravings which we have become accustomed to. I shall, however, be dealing with him further in a moment or two. I should like to confine myself to an attempt at identifying certain interests to whom it was essential, if the propaganda sabotage campaign against South Africa was to succeed, to negative the efforts of the Department of Information which was the only bulwark against such a sabotage campaign. Let me say at the outset that I do not regard this debate as a discussion of the work of the Department of Information, its successes or its failures. This debate is really about an attempt, now being made openly by a large section of the English Press, to discredit abroad the work and activities of our Department of Information.

That is rubbish and you know it.

They have set about creating a worldwide credibility gap by attacking the bona fides of the Minister and the officials who have had the responsibilities of the department on them. It is unquestionably the most unscrupulous campaign every conducted by a section of the Press of South Africa to undermine the National Government of our country. They have done so by misusing the freedom they enjoy. They now have only one objective: To sow abroad the seeds of distrust in the Information Department which in any event stands in the front line as far as presenting South Africa abroad is concerned.

Where is it now?

The department has openly admitted that, standing in that front line, they have made use of unconventional methods. This is clearly stated in the annual report of the department, which we have before us. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not force me to rule that I shall allow no further interjections. An apt interjection is the salt of debate, but I think hon. members are carrying their interjections too far. The hon. member may continue.

One is therefore entitled to ask with whom these sections of the English Press are associated in this campaign and with whom they have planned it. First of all, these sections of the English Press look upon themselves as the real Opposition and they look upon the Official Opposition in the House as their puppets. These sections of the Press consider that they speak for the voiceless millions of South Africa. This viewpoint they have very carefully cultivated abroad. They do so by alleging that there is a White dictatorship in South Africa over millions of Blacks.

It is an indisputable fact that at least 70% of the negative Press coverage of South Africa overseas is initiated through or owes its origin to statements or comments made in South Africa as part of this campaign of what I term journalistic racialism. Let me give the Committee a few examples out of the many. They follow a certain pattern and I believe that all of them have widely appeared in the overseas Press. I am glad that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has stated that he has made a study of the department’s reports from 1975 to the present time.

In the time at my disposal I want to try to complete the examples I have in mind. The first example is a statement which was sent to the people in Europe and which was the basis of the campaign in Europe, as follows—and I quote—

Who is the originator of that? The hon. member for Johannesburg North! This was widely spread throughout Europe.

Let me give the House a second example.

What is your source?

To support this Hitler concept, this Hitler-type of propaganda against South Africa …

Will you tell us when he said this?

… and knowing of the European reaction to any suggestion of that nature, it was said—and this is the next example I want to quote to the House—

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Would the hon. member give me the details of where … [Interjections.]

You can get them from me afterwards.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. member may continue.

Let me repeat—

The instigator of this line of talk and propaganda spread by the English Press overseas, in Europe, was the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

I come to my third example. In support of the 79 organizations that daily, weekly and monthly besmirch South Africa in the USA, the following words were widely reported all over the USA—

I bring as witness the hon. member for Houghton who is in fact a material source of information for these people.

I come to the fourth example. Reported very widely in Europe, America and Africa were the following words—

Who are the originators of that line of campaign and sabotage? I quote the source and the originator, the hon. member for Yeoville. [Interjections.] The following was widely reported in the United Kingdom—

Who is the originator of that theme? No less than the hon. member for Pinelands. [Interjections.] We come back to another hon. member. The following was also widely reported in the world Press in support of the world’s embargo against South Africa—

Who is the originator of that sabotage theme? No less than the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Groote Schuur. [Interjections.] I could go on giving endless examples but I do not want to take up all my time giving examples of statements made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

It will not get you off the hook!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: That hon. member has suggested that the actions of hon. members on these benches have sabotaged South Africa. Is he allowed to make such a statement?

Order! What did the hon. member mean by his words “sabotage theme”?

Mr. Chairman, I have not used the word “sabotage”. However, I am quoting …

Order! The hon. member must withdrawn that word.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what word to withdraw.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member did not use that word.

Order! I know what the hon. member said, and it was not part of what he quoted. He quoted and afterwards used the words “this sabotage theme”.

If I used those words, I withdraw them, Mr. Chairman. It will be noted that in the few examples that I quoted here there is the same propaganda theme, namely White versus Black, all designed to discredit the White Government of South Africa abroad. I have no doubt that this planned international sabotage campaign…

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

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

Order! The hon. member for Von Brandis may continue.

I thank you for the privilege, Mr. Chairman. I would like to quote an additional example because I think it is perhaps one of the worst. If one studies the reports of the Department of Information it is clear that the department had to meet certain propaganda themes over the last three years. The example I want to quote is perhaps a very apt example of such a theme. This theme was very widely reported by way of an attack against South Africa—

The originator and author of this type of propaganda was no less than the hon. member for Pinelands. [Interjections.]

Scandalous!

The whole theme of the propaganda that has been used against South Africa is White versus Black and it is all designed to discredit the White South African Government abroad. I have no doubt whatsoever … [Interjections.]

Order!

I have no doubt that this planned international sabotage campaign is by a frustrated Opposition whose only hope of a political future …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The allegation made by the hon. member is that this Opposition is indulging in a planned international sabotage campaign and I would like to know whether that is parliamentary. [Interjections.]

Did the hon. member for Von Brandis use words to that effect?

I referred to the Opposition party, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. This international campaign of contumely against South Africa—and I hope that the hon. member for Yeoville does not object to the word “contumely” now …

I object to that hon. member entirely … [Interjections.] His behaviour is filthy and distorting.

That is all we saw of the hon. member for Yeoville, when the birds came home to roost …

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must withdraw that expression.

Which one, Sir?

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

I withdraw the word “distorting”.

And the word “filthy”.

I withdraw the word “filthy”, Sir.

If one is to identify the source of this type of propaganda, it has to be recognized that it has a pinpoint from where it comes. In this case it is clear that it comes from a frustrated Opposition who see their only hope of a political future in South Africa in the policies of confrontation between White and Black in South Africa. They have been supported by a racist section of the English Press who have used their freedom, which they would not have enjoyed in any other African country, as licence to destroy the work done by the Information Department in a campaign of unequalled character assassination. To combat this type of sabotage propaganda conducted by a political party and its Press, the South African taxpayer has had to supply the Department of Information with R20 million. The first essential for the success of this propaganda campaign conducted by the Opposition was to break the influence of the Department of Information. I must admit that they have succeeded to a degree at present. I hope, however, that they do not delude themselves that this is the end of the story. I believe that the time has arrived when steps will have to be considered in order to control and to restrict racist-type journalism in South Africa, journalism which has as its one objective to sweep up racial feelings. I want to say immediately that this racist journalism is not directed at the Blacks, but at White South Africa. From clear assessments the department has made in an objective survey at least 70% of this racist journalism originates within South Africa. I allege that the majority of it flows from the indiscriminate criticisms and the false accusations made by the Official Opposition not only against the National Government, but also against South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the last speaker but one was the hon. member for Yeoville and, as happens on occasions, so again today the hon. member for Yeoville spoke for himself and not for his party. Recently he appeared on television and he made Press statements praising the raid by South African soldiers on Swapo bases in Angola, but his colleagues did not follow suit. One also thinks of his recent statement on television criticizing the Western powers for letting South Africa down at the United Nations, but his colleagues did not follow suit. This hon. gentleman is known as a loner; I happen to admire loners! [Interjections.] He says he is in favour of secret funds, but I must remind the hon. member, however, that only this session his party spoke against departmental secret funds for use in the interests of South Africa. I can understand the hon. member himself having some sympathy for secret funds, because it was not so long ago—in fact it was about five or six years ago, if my scrapbook is correct—when the hon. member and some colleagues established a secret fund of approximately R2,5 million over a period of five years on the Witwatersrand. [Interjections.] As far as I know that fund was not used against his political enemies, but against his political colleagues in the party to which he and I both belonged. [Interjections.] Sums of money were collected, and if my memory does not leave me in the lurch—some people say I sometimes have a memory like an elephant—I remember that as part of that secret fund of R2,5 million there was something known as a chairman’s fund, and for the life of me I can never remember seeing on any committee on which I ever served an account on how the disbursements were made in terms of the authority of the chairman’s fund. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the issue of this debate. I and my colleagues accept the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement made last night in the light of it being a statement of intent. We see it as a statement of intent that there will be a thorough and searching inquiry made into all the matters that have been referred to in the last month in the public Press and in the Select Committee. We see the hon. the Prime Minister as having pledged himself to the people of South Africa to shield no one in that inquiry, and that the inquiry will result in the cutting open to the bone of all the matters that have been so controversial during the last month. He even goes so far as to say that the Attorney-General will be brought into the picture should there by any suggestion of corruption or malpractice. In that spirit we accept the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister. We welcome it and we think it is in the interests of South Africa that it should have been made.

The hon. the Prime Minister’s statement refers to a total onslaught on South Africa. If hon. members will turn to the report of the Secretary for Information they will see that on the first 20 pages of that report a detailed analysis of the onslaught on South Africa that is taking place. In the resumé they will see that 1978 is the anti-apartheid year. Under the heading “The Foreign Opposition” they will see that reference is made to a new movement in the United Kingdom known as the Christian Peace Conference. On page 17 of the report it is said, inter alia, that—

I suppose Boraine is a member.

Who says that?

I am quite sure the hon. member for Pinelands knows much more about this organization than I do. [Interjections.] In the United States there has recently, in October of last year, been established an ad hoc Monitoring Group and there is for all to see a 60-page publication called Action Guide on Southern Africa. If hon. members will read the conclusion to the first 20 pages of the report of the Secretary for Information to which I referred, they will see the Secretary’s considered opinion, under the heading “Prognosis”, of what lies ahead of us. The Secretary says that he detects—and it is obvious for all of us to see—that there has been a move in the United Nations from criticism of South Africa to actual punishment of South Africa; in other words a movement from words to action against South Africa. We have seen that in the imposition of the arms embargo and the talk that has been bandied about in the halls of the United Nations of an oil embargo against South Africa.

We have seen and have read in the Press of attempts to curb foreign investment in South Africa. We know of $270 000 that has been voted by the United Nations as part of an anti-South African publications campaign involving the Press, the radio and television. We will see, says the report, an increase in the activities of the Anti-apartheid Movement, the World Council of Churches, the communist powers, obviously, and of course in the case of the United States, further pressures from the Carter Administration. According to the report we can also expect agitation against South Africa on their university and college campuses and in the labour fields. The department forecasts in its report that the department’s efforts abroad will be attacked in the media by the enemies and critics of South Africa because, in the words of Congressman Charles Diggs, who is no friend of ours, of the “sophisticated public relations mechanism” that has been built up by the Department of Information and its attempts to go to the people over the heads of Governments, more particularly in the Western countries. As far as I know the Department of Information is the only Government department contesting the attacks, particularly the publicity attacks, made against the Republic in the outside world.

It is against this background that we look at what has happened here in South Africa in the last month. I say without any fear of contradiction that what has happened here in the last month has come at the worst possible time for our country. The department has been rendered virtually ineffective and crippled. What do we want to arise from this debacle and what does the public of South Africa want? Without any hesitation I want to say that the public calls on the Government, firstly, immediately to clear up all doubt in their minds; secondly, to see to it that the committees that are already established and working, must complete their work as expeditiously as possible; and, thirdly, to restructure the Department of Information as has already been promised, so that it can get on with the job of counter-attacking those who are attacking South Africa, and of launching aggressive attacks on the enemies of South Africa. That is what the public of South Africa wants.

There are two questions which remain to be answered as far as I am concerned. The first is what I would refer to as an extraordinary breach of what I as an ex-lawyer have always regarded as a sub judice rule, viz. that proceedings which have taken place and matters which have been discussed in a Select Committee of Parliament, in this case, the Select Committee on Public Accounts, have been the subject not only of comment in the public Press, which I think is deplorable, but also by the Secretary for the Department. That calls for an explanation from the hon. the Minister. Secondly I think that the country requires to be reassured that every step possible will be taken to ascertain how it came about that a leak took place of a highly confidential document from the offices, possibly out of the safe, of the Auditor-General of South Africa. This is a most disturbing thing to have happened and I, the people for whom I speak, and the public outside want clear assurances that both of these matters will be dealt with by the Government.

I think this Vote is actually being discussed too early to enable us to reach a proper conclusion. At the moment the Public Service Commission is sitting to investigate the restructuring of the department, there is a Treasury Committee investigation, a Parliamentary Select Committee is sitting and an auditor has been appointed by the hon. the Prime Minister as he said in his statement last night. It is a pity this Vote has not been delayed; indeed, I think it should have been delayed, because when the full picture emerges, Parliament must be brought into that picture and there must be a full debate at every level on everything that has transpired in the House.

There is much more at stake than just the future of a department and some of its officials. What I and all patriotic South Africans are worried about, is that if continued revelations are made in the public Press, South Africa is going to be endlessly harmed. Somehow or other there has to be a return to confidentiality of matters such as those with which the department has been engaged. I think the hon. the Prime Minister, as the head of the Government, was right to have made a statement last night. I think the country expected this of him. If I have criticism of him, then it is that he should have made that statement before, because I think that is what the country wanted. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, for several months now the Department of Information has provided the theme for publicity and stories in South Africa. I want to make use of this opportunity to put the matter in its correct perspective. I hope this hon. House will give me a chance to do this fully and to do so in silence. As the responsible Minister I want to put this matter in its correct perspective at once. This department has a long history, but I just want to deal with it in respect of the 10 years I have been the Minister in charge. I want to rectify the background against which this scene is being enacted today. In 1968 I became Minister of Information, with the secretaryship in those days in the competent hands of Mr. Barrie, at present the Auditor-General. It is incredible if one thinks back to it now, but in those days the political climate was such that it was only in 1971 that it was possible for me to pay an official overseas visit to the officers of the department there, because of the reaction in South Africa if Ministers went abroad. This is incredible if one thinks of it, in the world in which we are living. However, these are the facts. It was only in 1971 that I was able to go overseas for the first time on an official visit to my officers to establish what the real problems were which which people were faced and also to establish more or less what the actual onslaught on us was, in what form the onslaught was being made and what we should do to repel the onslaught in order to serve South Africa’s interests in the best way. I then paid that visit. The then Secretary, Mr. Barrie, accompanied me. We visited quite a number of countries and upon our return he and I jointly devised a plan and in the debate in the House of Assembly on my Vote in May 1972 I made a statement in regard to the department. I am quoting from Hansard, col. 7712, of 19 May 1972—

Subsequently, in column 7715 of the same day, I stated the position as follows—

Once again it was a race against time, as usual—

I then spelt out the four pillars. This will put the entire matter in its correct perspective—

This is specific material and we concentrated on specific persons—

Experts and professional people should now be brought into the picture to perform this professional task for us. That is standpoint No. 2—

Fourthly, preferences will very definitely have to be determined in respect of information projects, and who should be informed. These will be adjusted from time to time.

I then concluded the debate with these words—

That is the premise which I adopted in 1972 when we transformed the structure of the department into the new form in which it has since found itself. The new structure was immediately established. The Secretary, Mr. Barrie, and I examined the matter from all angles. We coped with the new challenges in our own way and put our heads together in order to devise a comprehensive plan for the new era. We were engaged in this, we had already effected a number of changes and had already initiated certain projects when Mr. Barrie was promoted to Controller and Auditor-General. In September 1972, as I had wanted to do, I brought in the professional, in the person of Dr. Rhoodie, to be in charge of the department and to accept these new challenges and this new task, for the sake of South Africa, for the sake of the image of South Africa. At the same time I submitted the entire matter to the Government and it was at this time that the decision was taken to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred in his statement last night, viz.—

Truly, the hon. the Prime Minister was 100% correct. It was in the highest interests of South Africa to allocate those funds at that stage and in that way.

Nor was it incorrect in terms of the charge to the Department of Information, for it had a task to fulfil. The Department of Information—formerly a Bureau of State Information—was established as full-fledged department on 27 November 1961. Government Notice No. 1142 of 1 December 1961 contains the tasks of and the terms of reference of the Department of Information, defining precisely what the department may do. In the first place the department was authorized to take over all the duties and responsibilities previously discharged by the South African Information Service at home and abroad. In the second place the department took over all the functions previously carried out by the information service of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. In the third place it was the task of the Department of Information to provide the Coloured and Indian communities with an effective information service, and in the fourth place its task was the co-ordination of all the publicity services of the State. In the fifth place the Department of Information had to render all further services, through the use of media, which could be useful in order to furnish accurate information, wherever it was required or desirable, on all aspects of the way of life, the activities and the natural resources of South Africa and South West Africa. Finally, there followed the general enabling provision that the Department of Information would be responsible for performing any other functions which might be decided upon from time to time.

It is these “other functions” which may be decided upon from time to time which, in terms of the provision in this proclamation, became the responsibility of the Department of Information at that stage.

Therefore this is not authorized expenditure. The department did not operate outside its sphere of action. Everything is 100% in order in accordance with the instructions of Parliament. The onslaught on us was a total onslaught. It was a military, economic, political and propaganda onslaught. The Department of Information was entrusted with the task of countering the propaganda onslaught on South Africa.

In all modesty I want to ask who else in this House is better equipped to evaluate the extent, the effectiveness and the intensity of the propaganda onslaught on us than we are who have been intimately involved in it and who have had to contend with it for 10 years? For 10 years we have been involved in this every day. For 10 years we have been observing this onslaught, we have watched it increase in intensity, we have seen it become more sophisticated in approach, we have seen it growing in magnitude and we have seen it become subtler in its methods. It is against this onslaught that we have to build an apparatus to defend South Africa. Through hard work and with a great deal of difficulty, by gaining the confidence of people in influential positions, by gaining the confidence and support of people who are able to exercise an influence elsewhere and take decisions in other countries, by liaising and by gaining and building up confidence, by stating our case and by persuading people of its correctness, we have, between 1972 and the present day, created an apparatus consisting of individuals, organizations, etc., which can take up the cudgels for South Africa and has frequently done so.

And then, what went wrong?

I shall tell the hon. member for Groote Schuur in a few moments. He must please give me a chance to get around to it. I want to discuss the onslaught on us and how vast it really is. The tragedy, in the case of South Africa, is that this onslaught is not coming from the communistic world only, as is the case with many other countries. The onslaught on us is also coming from the Western world. [Interjections.]

The onslaught is also coming from this Parliament!

In the USA there are at present 79 organizations which are operating on a daily, weekly or monthly basis to denigrate South Africa, to exert pressure on the American Congress and to force American companies to withdraw from South Africa. [Interjections.] It is progress at the moment.

We all know that.

No wait, give me a chance, please.

Order!

For how many months have people not been attacking me; give me a chance to defend myself, please. It is only fair.

I want to elaborate further on this onslaught. In a leading article in the Daily Telegraph under the headline “The West and South Africa” the following was written—

This is the shape the onslaught is taking: It is revolution—this man says so openly—that is being encouraged in South Africa. The Daily Express of London stated in a leading article—

This is how it is summed up. I can continue in this vein. I have a good deal of evidence but I am not going to occupy the time of the Committee with it. I want to quote just one more passage in regard to this onslaught. I must demonstrate this onslaught in full because it is as a reaction to that onslaught that the department had to perform its task and had to apply the unconventional methods that were expected of it. The next passage I want to quote deals with the onslaught on us by the communist States. It is very strongly worded and very clear—

I continue—

But you have the answer.

The hon. member must not become so irritable now. I gave him a chance to speak without interruption. [Interjections.] I want to demonstrate the onslaught.

You are stating the problem; what is your reply?

I shall furnish the reply. Hon. members need not be concerned; I shall not evade one question, and that is a promise. Hon. members can, if they like, put questions until tomorrow evening, and I shall reply to each one of them. I have nothing to hide. [Interjections.] Here we have the objective blatantly stated. Over the weekend a senior deputy premier of Red China and a former British parliamentary secretary warned the West against Russia’s intentions in Southern Africa—

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must keep quiet now.

I quote further—

So it continues, and no one need have any doubts as to what the onslaught of the communist world comprises.

We need not even discuss the onslaught of the African States—I am referring to the militant African States—I am not going to waste time doing so. Apart from all these onslaughts we also have to cope with the onslaughts of the World Council of Churches, the anti-South African sports organizations which organize action against our country throughout the world and particularly in New Zealand and Australia, the anti-apartheid movement and various other bodies.

To ward off this onslaught, we are, inter alia, using unorthodox methods. This is not unique. It is not that I ever tried to give this Committee the wrong impression about this. I have stated very frequently in this House and in public that we are using unorthodox methods to improve South Africa’s image and to convey South Africa’s message to the world. I have never tried to conceal this in any way. I have frequently added that the more successful we are with these methods, the more fanatical our enemies would become in an effort to attack South Africa and to try to discredit us. [Interjections.] That was never in dispute. It is the order of the day, everywhere. I say this clearly, and it is my honest standpoint: When the survival of South Africa is at stake, no rules apply. Then we fight with everything we have.

Even lies?

I am not referring to the hon. member’s speeches. I am referring to mine.

Even lies?

I am not referring to the hon. member now. He is the person who does those things, not I.

Order! What does the hon. Chief Whip mean by “even lies”?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister said that in the interests of South Africa no rules would apply, and I asked “even lies?” [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, I asked a question. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister said that in the interests of South Africa no rules would apply. I then asked “even lies?” My words were interrogative.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

What must I withdraw, Sir?

The words “even lies?”

Sir, I withdraw those words. May I now put a question to the hon. the Minister?

The hon. member can put his question when I have finished speaking. I am busy developing an argument, and I do not want any interruptions now.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: You have called the hon. member to order. The hon. the Minister, however, said to the hon. member: “It is not I that do that, it is you that do that.’’ In other words, he implied that the hon. member tells lies. He should therefore be asked to withdraw his statement.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, in this department we have unorthodox …

Are you not withdrawing that?

I have not been asked to withdraw anything.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. the Minister to say: “It is not I who lie, it is you who lie?” [Interjections.] That is what he said.

Order! Did the hon. the Minister say that the members on the opposite side were telling lies?

Mr. Chairman, I did not use the word “lies”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.] Order!

Mr. Chairman, I should like to address you on this subject, a very serious one. The Chief Whip was asked to withdraw his words and he withdrew them although he asked a question and he did not make a statement. He asked a question. He asked “even lies?” The hon. the Minister then said to him: “Those are your speeches, not mine.” The implication is therefore very clear, and I ask you, Sir, to reconsider your ruling. [Interjections.] Let us have some honesty here.

Mr. Chairman, to help you, I withdraw the words. [Interjections.]

Order! Very serious attacks have been made on the hon. the Minister, and I think it is only right that hon. members should give him a fair chance to reply as he prefers. Hon. members can afterwards have another opportunity to speak.

Mr. Chairman, we had to use unorthodox methods to deal with this matter because the onslaught on us, and the people launching these onslaughts on us, recognize no rules of any kind. They are not bound by any rules, regulations or restrictions. They are not bound by any shortage of funds. They have an abundance of money and this flows in to them from all quarters. They need not tell the truth either, and they need not report to a Parliament or to anyone else. They are waging a ruthless onslaught with every means at their disposal on this country, South Africa. We must try to outsmart and neutralize those people. With this goal in mind our department began to perform certain tasks. As I have already said we tried to perform this task under difficult circumstances and tried to build up relationships in order to improve South Africa’s image. The hon. member for Yeoville asked me from the opposite side to indicate any successes. He asked what we had achieved. First of all let me say that my greatest problem this afternoon is that I cannot mention 90% of our successes because I would then destroy them. Must I disclose here this afternoon who is doing what for us and where? If I did that, surely I would be destroying our entire effort.

That would be irresponsible. It would be recklessly irresponsible. However, that is what the hon. member is asking me to do. Must I, to satisfy his curiosity, destroy what has been built up over a period of six years for the sake of South Africa by disclosing those things? That is what he requested.

Then you have got nothing to tell us?

I shall nevertheless, without disclosing our secrets, mention certain things to indicate our success. Let me begin. In Washington Maxine Bums wrote in October 1975 that the Department of Information’s strategy in the USA was succeeding —this is a free rendition of his standpoint. He went on to state that South Africa’s critics had not yet developed strategy which could counteract this offensive of the Department of Information. This is the standpoint of an American.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I appeal to the hon. member for Yeoville. I know he is fond of talking, but he shall still have a great many chances to do so.

Chase him out!

Order! I want to tell the hon. Chief Whip that I shall decide whether or not an hon. member should be asked to withdraw from the Chamber. He need not give rulings on my behalf. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I shall go further and refer to the successes. In the Guardian John Lawrence wrote as follows, and please note the way in which it is stated—

Is it not proof of success if this is said about our people? [Interjections.] Therefore we are also succeeding in persuading Black Americans. [Interjections.] I go further. In a report of the UN’s Special Committee on the Policy of Apartheid it was stated—

I continue. The Kairos organization in the Netherlands expressed its concern in an article because the Department of Information’s office in the Hague was persuading the so-called rightminded group to view matters in a different light. In addition one reads in the Financial Mail of 18 October 1974 that—

The UN’s committee on apartheid was therefore asking for more money because we had been so effective. I shall quote further—

So we can continue. I just want to point out one more success—

This is stated in the Guardian of London—

Eventually we got our own way, and our film was shown.

My problem with the hon. member for Yeoville’s question is that there are some successes which I cannot identify here. I now want to make the hon. member an offer in a private capacity. [Interjections.] I am prepared to discuss a number of our successes with him as a private individual in my office. [Interjections.]

It does not work like that.

It would be irresponsible of me to do so here in this House and in that way create problems. [Interjections.]

However, let us get back to the onslaught. Since 1972 my department has with difficulty been establishing an apparatus, internationally and internally, to rectify this matter. We have achieved a great deal of success, as I have already said. In the process, however, unorthodox methods have been employed and it was not always possible to disguise these methods. Information officers were observed boarding aircraft more frequently than other officials because they were engaged in this effort. They travelled more frequently because they had to perform tasks overseas. They were noticed, and questions were asked …

Why should they go about it in such a way that they are noticed?

Should the officials disguise themselves when they go overseas? Should they don a disguise? It was demanded here that they should travel on the S.A. Airways, and they were criticized because they travelled on the aircraft of other airlines. They were also criticized because they made their reservations with other travel agents. It was said that they should make their reservations with the S.A. Airways, but at the same time they should not be seen. Hon. members must be realistic.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister entitled to refer to evidence given before the Select Committee? He appears to be aware of it.

Harry Schwarz, will you sit down?

Mr. Chairman, I am referring to newspaper reports in which precisely the same things were said.

Order! So much information on these trips has appeared in the Press that it is impossible for me to judge what was said in the Select Committee and what not. I read about all the facts which the hon. the Minister mentioned in the newspaper myself, and he may therefore proceed.

Lately a campaign has been waged against the department by the spreading of rumours, the expressing of misgivings in the Press, the making of insinuations and by causing a large number of charges from all quarters to appear in the Press. I am referring now to the complaints made in the Press and to the stories which appeared in the Press. I want to ask a question, and I am asking it in all fairness: Which of those so-called irregularities or contraventions have up to this date, 9 May, really been proved? The complaints and irregularities on which we have facts could be proved or rejected. Let us check up on this. All that has been proved, is what is set out in the Select Committee report that has already been tabled and on which we have already had a discussion. Those findings we have. That is all the evidence we have to date. The rest consists of insinuations and rumours and have not been proved. They are still rumours only, for they have not been proved.

I want to adopt a standpoint at once, and I am adamant about this because I do not want there to be any illusions about it. Public funds, State funds, must at all times and under all circumstances be employed to the best of one’s ability. There must be no doubt about this: No one has the right to waste public money. That is my point of departure.

Secondly, it is the duty of the Auditor-General, when he comes across irregularities in any department, to report them to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. In that committee the circumstances must be investigated, fully analysed and uncovered completely to get at the facts. This is correct, because the Auditor-General is the watch-dog of the State and the watch-dog of Parliament. I support that principle 200%. After that the Select Committee on Public Accounts must institute the investigation, hear evidence, draw its conclusions, make recommendations and make its reports available to Parliament.

What was found? Firstly, it was found that not every relevant financial instruction had been complied with. That was the finding, and I accept that at once. I accept that it was the correct finding of the Select Committee that not every relevant financial instruction had been complied with. Secondly, it was found that non-compliance with financial instructions had given rise to unauthorized expenditure. I accept that at once, and I am not arguing about that. However, unauthorized expenditure is in itself a misleading concept. It is not expenditure which was incurred while the money was not available. Nor is it expenditure in that the money is employed in a different way. It is money which was available for a specific purpose, but which was not used in accordance with instructions and with the rules applying to that purpose.

That is why it is unauthorized expenditure. It is not because money was misused or squandered in some other way. The Select Committee recommended that the expenditure be authorized by Parliament. After the Select Committee had instituted an investigation into the matter and had established that the regulations had not been fully complied with, it recommended to Parliament that the expenditure be authorized and declared at the same time that the Select Committee was satisfied as to the circumstances. The committee further recommended that a further investigation be instituted. What is another very important aspect in this report? What I think is of great importance is the fact that the Secretary for Information had already, before the Select Committee had finalized its report, requested the Public Service Commission to appoint a senior inspector to investigate the administrative weakness in his department so that the administrative side of the department could be strengthened. The Secretary had already made this request before the finding of the Select Committee, because he, as the Secretary, immediately sensed the problem.

Moreover the Select Committee found that, in spite of the fact that instructions and regulations had been disregarded, the State had not suffered any loss and that the contracts had been carried out to the full satisfaction of everyone. That was the finding of the Select Committee. If one reads the report in the newspapers, one would swear that in this instance there were a number of rogues in the department who had stolen money. The Select Committee’s finding in this regard was that the State had not suffered any loss. Yet my entire department is now being regarded as a number of rogues who are embezzling money, etc. That is the impression which is being created outside. The Select Committee found therefore that no money had been squandered. They did say that the money of the State had not always been very safe, but that there had been no waste of money, and that no loss whatsoever had been suffered.

This brings me to the standpoint adopted by the hon. the Prime Minister on this matter. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to convey my thanks to him for having done so, because I believe that this is the correct standpoint. I accept the standpoint of the hon. the Prime Minister immediately and in full. What did he do when the matter was reported to him? He made his standpoint in this regard very clear, and I should like to quote his statement for the sake of the record, for it is not in the records of Parliament, and in my opinion it is still going to be needed one day. I have already read out the first three paragraphs, and I now read further—

This has been the case since as long ago as 1972—

The department had been engaged in these actions for five years at that stage—

We therefore have this combination now: The Auditor-General found that certain regulations and instructions had not been complied with and that stories had begun to circulate.

What year’s audit was that?

The report came to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister during the second half of 1977.

Was it therefore the audit for the year 1976-’77?

Apparently it was the audit of the previous year. There is no indication here of what year’s audit it was. In any event, the report was submitted to the hon. the Prime Minister during the second half of 1977. The hon. the Prime Minister then acted correctly, and at once. His statement continues—

Therefore there is no attempt at a cover-up here or at protecting anyone, but an open standpoint: Expose the matter, get to the bottom of it, find the faults and bring to book whoever must be brought to book. This was the standpoint of the hon. the Prime Minister, and I support it 200%. The Auditor-General naturally concurred and carried out his task in the best tradition of his office. I quote further from the statement—

It had to be completed first—

The hon. the Prime Minister uses the word “at the same time”, i.e. during the second half of last year—

The investigation is still continuing and if there should be any indication that funds had in fact been used by anybody for personal gain, the information will be conveyed to the Attorney-General for further investigation and steps as he may deem fit.

What more can one ask for than that? A person who enjoyed the confidence of the Auditor-General and I was immediately appointed. The hon. members made such a fuss about the fact that the Auditor-General is the watch-dog, and this man enjoys the confidence of the Auditor-General. Does it bother the hon. members?

Who is he?

Does the hon. member want the newspapers to descend of this person immediately and literally make his life impossible? [Interjections.] Is it not enough for the hon. members that this person has the confidence of the Prime Minister and the Auditor-General?

Will his report be submitted to Parliament in exactly the same way as that of the Auditor-General?

The investigation which he is carrying out, deals with certain secret funds and he will naturally report to the Prime Minister in connection with those secret funds. The hon. the Prime Minister will accept the responsibility in that regard, and if necessary order the steps which ought to be taken to be taken. I want to tell those hon. members that South Africa trusts the Prime Minister even if they do not trust him.

Hear, hear!

Since this person’s investigation deals with secret funds, he will report to the hon. the Prime Minister, and I know, and all of you know, that the hon. the Prime Minister will take the correct action.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I understand that there is a report which was submitted to the Auditor-General on 29 July 1977. Is the hon. the Minister aware of that report, and is that not in reality the document on the basis of which the hon. the Minister should act?

The report to which the hon. member is referring, is a report on a preliminary investigation by the Auditor-General. It was followed at a later stage by a full investigation. Matters which were raised in the preliminary investigation and not solved to the satisfaction of the Auditor-General were mentioned in part in the report of the Auditor-General to Parliament, and as progress was made, they were reported directly to the Select Committee. The hon. member for Yeoville is a member of the Select Committee and he therefore knows about the new things which were reported from time to time.

The Select Committee has not yet completed its investigation …

Did you see that report?

I shall come to that in a moment.

[Inaudible.]

Just give me a chance to reply; I shall not evade anything. As I have said, there was a preliminary report. A preliminary report is not of course the final report. In a preliminary report mention may be made of certain things which one suspects may be wrong and when one then draws up the final report, it may be found that satisfactory explanations have been given and that in fact there was nothing wrong. The preliminary report to which I am referring, a copy or a part thereof, fell into the hands of the Press.

How?

No one knows how it happened and I am not levelling any accusation either. The Press is now publishing on a piecemeal basis what was stated in that preliminary report, while many of the things which are being published and pointed to as blunders and contraventions by the department had in the meantime been satisfactorily solved by the Secretary to the department and the Auditor-General before the latter drew up his final report. So satisfactorily had they been solved, the Auditor-General received such satisfactory replies, that he did not even report the matter to the Select Committee. The Press, however, is still publishing extracts from the preliminary report which fell into their hands.

When did you see the report?

Let me explain. I did not see that report at that stage. Mr. Barrie gave me an oral report on certain aspects of the report and I thereupon investigated the matter. The hon. the Prime Minister also had the matter in his hands immediately, and we immediately arrived at a joint decision on the steps to be taken. These were, as the hon. the Prime Minister said in his statement, the appointment of a person to go into the entire matter in full, and for the Auditor-General to go into that part of the matter for which he was responsible in full. That is the whole picture.

Why not Mr. Barrie? [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow questions in this way. If the hon. member wishes to put a question, he must rise and ask whether he may do so.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister why the person who was appointed was chosen in preference to the Auditor-General? [Interjections.]

The Auditor-General and his office audit all the departments. At that stage my department was operating two sets of funds: Open funds, as well as these funds which were allocated to the department in a different way. I do not want to elaborate any further on the latter aspect. The Auditor-General and his office continued to audit the open funds and he had the right to get to the bottom of anything which worried him in connection with those funds. The other person, with the concurrence of the Auditor-General, gave attention to the other funds. He is still engaged in this today; he has not completed that task yet. He will submit his report to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Auditor-General with a view to any further steps.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether, in the light of the hon. the Prime Minister’s indication that certificates have been issued since 1972 stating that the funds have been spent and used in an ordinary way for the intended purpose, this special inquiry or investigation into the secret account is taking place in respect of money which has already been covered by a certificate from the hon. the Prime Minister?

That I cannot tell the hon. member.

It is not a certificate from me.

It is not a certificate which is issued by the hon. the Prime Minister.

By three Ministers!

I did not issue the certificate.

Except that it is your responsibility.

They did not give it to me either, for that matter. They gave it to the department concerned.

That is correct. The certificates are issued to the department concerned.

By whom?

By the persons concerned …

If the money was spent in an orderly manner, who issued the certificates?

The auditor of the department concerned.

Who else can issue it?

In terms of what Act?

That is the normal practice. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether I understand correctly that the hon. the Prime Minister is saying that the officials of the department concerned, namely the Department of Information, issued a certificate in respect of this expenditure or is it suggested that a Minister issued the certificate?

Each department has its own bookkeeping system and accountants. From time to time certificates are issued to the Secretary to the department concerned which is responsible for the funds that the funds have or have not been spent correctly. That is how it is done. This investigation is at present being carried out by a certain person, and I have every confidence that the investigation will continue.

A report was made to me in connection with this report. It is extracts from this preliminary report which are at present, according to my information and what I have observed, appearing in the newspapers. Hon. members will understand what happened. Certain misgivings on certain matters were expressed in this preliminary report. Questions were then put by the Auditor-General and replies given to them. The replies were satisfactory, but dealt with a secret project to which one cannot give publicity. I cannot announce it in this House and give it to the newspapers. I cannot do that. What are we doing now? We find ourselves in the awkward situation that the Auditor-General has in the meantime been satisfied in respect of his inquiries while the newspapers, on the other hand, still have the original document but cannot obtain the answers. Now they are levelling accusations at the department on that basis. Those are the facts. That is the problem I am facing.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question arising out of that?

Would the hon. member not prefer to make a speech and state his full case to me? Please, I am now trying to set out my case.

I want to point out one example which is appearing in the Press at the moment. An allegation has been made that certain staff members received additional salaries over and above their normal salary. This is something which was questioned in the preliminary report. In the meantime it has been established that the question of additional payments to certain officials has in the meantime been satisfactorily disposed of by the Auditor-General, the Public Service Commission and the departmental head concerned. In other words, the entire charge in that connection has been satisfactorily resolved, an explanation has been furnished, and it has been accepted. However, the charge against the department is still appearing because misgivings in connection with payments were expressed in the preliminary report. This is one example of the kind of thing which is happening here at the moment. I am not blaming anyone for this. The Auditor-General certainly has the right to draw up a preliminary report, subsequently to have a matter investigated and to satisfy himself whether the facts are correct. Afterwards he can report everything that was wrong, as is proper.

In my view it is wrong that a matter like this should find its way into the hands of the Press. They do not have the further replies which the Auditor-General received at their disposal, but they go ahead and publish yet another of these misgivings every Sunday. Sunday after Sunday, for how many weeks now, a new charge is published from that report to which, in the meantime, satisfactory replies have already been given. That is the climate which is deliberately being created at present and this is how my department is being criticized. This is how it came about.

The investigation is already in progress. We want to rectify the position completely. Many of these projects are producing excellent results for South Africa. I am not going to say anything more about them, except that they are producing excellent results for South Africa. I am not going to do anything to embarrass those projects or the persons involved in them in any way, because it is in the interests of South Africa that they should be continued with. What we have had here, is that people who have built up positions of confidence over a period of years, have now been so discredited by the misgivings and by the stories which originated from a preliminary report …

And also a few Ministers.

I admit that the statements …

By statements.

I agree. I immediately concede that. I make him a present of that argument. As a result of reports, allegations and insinuations and then statements which are drawn up to refute them, the people have at present been discredited to such an extent that we now have a problem in this connection. For that reason we shall have to continue to rectify the matter. I think, in all fairness, that we have tried to do the impossible in this department. We have tried to counter this propaganda onslaught on us which is being conducted ruthlessly and without any rules, and to defend ourselves against it with people who, in the nature of things, had to abide by the rules of a Government department. I have no problem with the rules, but to work within the rules which have been drawn up for an ordinary administrative department, is impossible if we want to counter that onslaught successfully. What has now happened in practice? I had to choose. I shall state the case very emphatically. Hon. members know me to be a person who can talk without mincing words when I have to. Should I rather take a person who tries a hundred things, makes 10 mistakes in the process, but registers 90 successes, or should I take a person without any initiative, who has no drive, who never tries to do anything and who therefore never makes any mistakes? What must I do? What is in the interests of South Africa? I admit immediately: Some of these people have made mistakes—but not as a result of dishonesty, nor as a result of corruption. I am prepared to vouch for that. The mistakes were made purely as a result of over-eagerness and over-enthusiasm for the cause of South Africa. That is why the mistakes were made. That is why the difficult, long road of rules and regulations requiring things to be referred back to this person or that, has sometimes been ignored, and short-cuts have been taken to achieve success and to produce immediate results. I want to say immediately that I do not endorse that; I do not approve of that. On the contrary, I disapprove of it. But the reason for any contraventions and blunders is nothing but over-enthusiasm and over-eagerness for the cause in which they believe and to which they have applied themselves slavishly for six years.

Did you approve of this at the time?

Keep quiet at the back, you there in the kitchen!

What happened at the time?

What you did.

In the nature of things, every single one of the projects was undertaken with my approval.

And the steps taken?

The execution of the projects was left to the people themselves. They are responsible people. But the projects themselves were approved by me and I accept responsibility for them. Until today I have not regretted a single one of the projects which I approved. Great success has been achieved with them.

Order! The hon. Chief Whip must withdraw his reference to the “kitchen” of the House.

Sir, I withdraw it.

I should like to reply to a few matters raised by hon. members. I assume that a considerable number of matters will still be raised, but I shall gladly reply to some of the matters which have so far been raised by members. I am not referring to the general principles which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised. He also mentioned a few specific matters and I should like to reply to those. The hon. member attacked the department and quoted from the department’s annual report as though the politicians of South Africa are to be blamed for the fact that our image is wrong in countries abroad. However, he quoted very selectively. The task of the department is to investigate the matters fully and to furnish all the facts concerning them. The hon. member did not mention all the other reasons why the department is experiencing problems. He did not read out, from the reports at his disposal, that the isolation of South Africa is being caused by the UN’s actions and resolutions, by the actions of the World Council of Churches, and the anti-White racism, leftist Press and dual standards, etc., which are also mentioned in that report. He omitted to mention all the other reasons, and because we are honest and say that discrimination on the grounds of colour—that is a simple fact which everyone accepts—is no longer acceptable in the world of 1978 … [Interjections.] Surely that is a fact. Surely there is nothing strange about that.

Why do you practise it then?

If the hon. member for Groote Schuur will only keep quiet, I shall reply to him further on that. I do not want to talk politics now. That is not relevant. But my department has adopted a clear standpoint in connection with colour discrimination on the grounds of colour and it has been stated as a fact that the world of today no longer wants to accept discrimination on the grounds of colour. That is a fact. It is no reflection on the hon. the Prime Minister, or on the Government, or on politicians. That is a factual statement. What criticism is there now really against that? Let us deal with the case now.

I want to continue. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout put a few questions to me. In the first place—I want to make this quite clear—he spoke about the squandering of money. I made a note of that. He said the department had squandered money. Up to date there has been no proof at all of money having been squandered. This may perhaps still become apparent at a later stage from further reports. For that reason I have kept my options on the matter open. If it should appear from reports that money has indeed been squandered—and I have kept my options open—it is another matter. To date, from all the particulars which are officially before me, there is as yet no proof of money being squandered. Therefore the allegation that money has been squandered, is not justified at this stage. It is pure conjecture from insinuations that have been made. That is precisely also my problem with the entire onslaught on us.

Furthermore, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked me specifically whether the Secretary for Information had consulted me in connection with a statement which he issued last Friday. I want to say at once that I was not accessible in the normal way last Friday. I granted myself one week-end at least. Apart from that, it was a long week-end. I was at a holiday resort somewhere.

Was it at Yzerfontein?

Unfortunately I was not at Yzerfontein. I wish I had been. I was somewhere else. The Secretary telephoned me there.

A secret resort! [Interjections.]

Oh, the hon. member for Groote Schuur … [Interjections.] I do not want to advertise a holiday resort now, but I shall write the hon. member for Groote Schuur a letter to tell him where I was, if he really wants to know. [Interjections.] The Secretary for Information telephoned me there. The only telephonic communication with that place is a farm line on which everyone down the road can listen to what is being said. They need merely pick up their receivers. It is impossible to discuss matters like these over a farm line. It is absolutely impossible. The Secretary told me he intended issuing a statement in order to state certain aspects. Let me make it clear now that I told him that if he wanted to issue a statement to rectify certain aspects, I had no objection to that. We could not and did not discuss the contents of the statement. That was impossible.

What do you think of the statement?

That is my own business. It is my privilege to say what I like about it. As I have said, the Secretary consulted me about the issuing of a statement in order to clear up certain aspects. But he was unable to clear the contents of the statement with me. That was physically impossible. The fact which I therefore have to state to the House, is that I knew that a statement was coming. But I did not know what the contents of the statement were going to be. I did not know that at all. [Interjections.] Now I want to say at once—so that there are no illusions about this—that if I had known what the contents of the statement would be, I would not have allowed it to be issued. [Interjections.]

Now, why did you not fire the Secretary this afternoon? [Interjections.]

Order!

Those are the facts in connection with the statement. I do not know what more the hon. members want to know about it. Those are all the facts in connection with it.

In the second place, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout alleged that the Department of Information has now been destroyed. According to him the department has been destroyed at home and abroad.

You yourselves admit that the department has become totally ineffectual!

Yes, I agree with that. I also said myself that the department could not carry on as it was, that it had become ineffectual and that its people have been discredited. But I must add that the steps which have already been taken, are in fact an attempt to rectify the matter. I believe that it must be rectified, and I do not in any way want to anticipate the investigation which is at present being carried out by the Public Service Commission and the Treasury. They must investigate the matter and they must decide how that which has been built up abroad during the past six years, can continue to be effectively applied in the interests of South Africa. We cannot throw away the work of six years. In the second place, it must be ascertained how we can restore confidence at home so that the department can continue with its task at home and abroad. If it is not to be this department, it must be ascertained what other institute or whatever it may be called is to continue with that. That is the task and the Treasury and the Public Service Commission at present have a charge to that effect. I am awaiting the report with great interest and recommendations in that specific connection.

The hon. member for Durban Point put a few questions to me. He has no objection to the use of secret funds and unorthodox methods, but the supervision must be fully under the control of the Auditor-General. I endorse that 100%. If the Auditor-General is satisfied that a person should carry out the investigation and report to him, then surely it is under the full control of the Auditor-General. It is his prerogative to decide. As the statement clearly indicates, a person has been appointed with his and my knowledge and consent to undertake the investigation and to report to the hon. the Prime Minister, to the Auditor-General, and to me. My contention is therefore that it is indeed under the control of the Auditor-General.

Is the person under the control of the Auditor-General?

At the moment he is not on the staff of the Auditor-General.

But is he under the control of the Auditor-General?

Yes, he is definitely under the control of the Auditor-General. I want to say more than the hon. member. My contention is that the secret funds should be supervised even more effectively than open funds, because on open funds the normal test can be applicable which is not applicable to secret funds. Secret funds ought therefore to be supervised even more carefully. I must add to that that in the type of onslaught we are experiencing at the moment, and in the type of defence which we must put up, much greater freedom of movement will be allowed within the secret funds without money being squandered. That will be allowed by the Auditor-General, because he understands the matter and the task which has to be carried out. He will not apply the strict rules which are applicable to an ordinary department. I think the hon. member will give credit for the fact that circumstances may arise which will entail that one must have a little more freedom of movement within such a fund. That the Auditor-General will be able to do under the circumstances.

The hon. member has also asked how the funds have been spent, how we supervise this and keep an eye on the money. I have already said that it takes place under the supervision of the Auditor-General, that certificates are issued and that it is done in the normal way. That is how it has been done over the years. When the Auditor-General discovered that there were things which he was perturbed about, he immediately compiled a preliminary report and submitted it. That report has been reacted to and the investigation is continuing. The hon. member said the structure must be investigated. I fully agree that it must be investigated.

The hon. member has also said that the hon. the Prime Minister had done nothing. Surely I have quoted from a statement by the hon. the Prime Minister. When the matter came to his notice during the second half of last year—the Auditor-General brought it to his attention—the hon. the Prime Minister immediately, with my co-operation and with the co-operation of the Auditor-General, appointed a person to institute a detailed investigation.

A routine investigation?

No, not a routine investigation, but a special investigation into the so-called alleged irregularities. I want to add that many of the investigations and many of the inquiries in the preliminary report—they have been published by the Press—have already been disposed of and satisfactorily resolved between this person and the Auditor-General. They have already been resolved and disposed of, but the Press publishes a new chapter or verse from the original report every Sunday. That is the position of powerlessness in which the department finds itself at the moment. The department is the victim of such a situation.

That is exactly my complaint: That it is allowed to continue. Why has this not been stopped?

The only way in which to stop this, is to curtail the freedom of the Press in South Africa, and nobody wants that.

No.

One could have tried anything under the sun. The Press had hold of something which they thought was juicy copy, and they are taking a fresh bite out of it every Sunday.

Why did you not apply for an interdict?

One could have done that, but then one would have been giving even greater publicity to the matter. I say in all honesty that I am not all that certain that some hon. members of the House have not also had access to that document by means of the Press. [Interjections.] That matter would then, in any case, have been exposed by means of discussions in the House.

Mr. Chairman, if, as the hon. the Minister said earlier, this document contains sensitive material—in other words, a report on sensitive matters— why has the Official Secrets Act not been applied to that document? That would have disposed of publication last Sunday of anything that followed upon that. Why was that not applied?

I want to tell the hon. member at once that I am not a lawyer. As the newspapers were writing, the matter was referred to the legal advisers, and it was ultimately decided not to ask for an interdict. I am not a lawyer and cannot therefore give a full reply. I am not in a position to reply on a point of law. The hon. member must therefore please pardon me. It is not my task and it is not what I have been trained for. Therefore I cannot reply to that, because I do not know. I do not know whether there is a deficiency in the Act. I do not know what the problem is. We felt, however, that it could not be stopped.

What is your opinion of the document?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister was kind enough to say that towards the end of his speech he would be prepared to answer questions. May I therefore ask him in terms of what law the secrecy provisions are being applied? Does he rely upon the Security Services Special Account Act? What Act does he rely on for these secrecy provisions in regard to the Department of Information?

I am not a lawyer, but the hon. member must not think I am as green as I look. The moment I tell him in terms of what Act it takes place, he will ascertain where the funds come from. I am therefore not going to tell him. I can just tell him that he knows as well as I do that certain departments have secret funds. They are covered by laws of this Parliament.

But not the Department of Information.

No. But that is no problem. The department which lawfully controls secret funds, surely has the right to use someone to handle those funds and to do certain things for it. As an agent, it surely has that right. It can use individuals, or it can use officials, or it can make use of another department. There is nothing to stop it from doing so. A department which controls a secret fund, surely has the right to use any person to spend part of that fund on the tasks assigned to it. There is nothing to prohibit that. It is not unlawful.

Mr. Chairman …

Oh, Mr. Chairman, must we carry on like this? I do not know how long the hon. member is going to keep on putting questions. I want to be fair, but … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for hon. members to keep on putting questions in a rude way to the hon. the Minister while they are sitting down?

Order! The hon. member for Brakpan must withdraw the word “rude”.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon. the Minister can decide whether or not he wants to answer questions. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say in all fairness that I cannot conduct a debate in this manner. We are now conducting a dialogue here. I want to finish my speech first. There are still many opportunities for hon. members to make speeches of 10 minutes each and to raise all the matters which they wish to raise. I have nothing to hide. I shall deal with everything. I have now finished replying to the hon. member for Durban Point.

The hon. member for Yeoville asked me a few things. This hon. member says the Minister and his department have left South Africa in the lurch in its hour of need. Sir, the department was highly effective and on the ball until certain information started appearing in certain newspapers. Those are the facts. In other words, if anyone is to blame, it is those—whoever, or wherever they may be— who began to leak information about the secret projects to the newspapers. I want to say at once that if the fault lies with the department, I accept responsibility for that. In any event, until that moment the department was highly effective. We saw the results and we received proof of that and recognition for that from many quarters. I want to repeat what I have already said. The more successful we are in our efforts, the more fanatical our opponents are going to be in their efforts to discredit us. [Interjections.] It has been said that South Africa has been left in the lurch at this stage. But we also feel that we have been left in the lurch. We thought patriotism ought to be the deciding factor when such things were published.

How can you destroy such a successful department …? [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to reply to another question. The hon. member for Yeoville has said that the officials of the Department of Information give the impression of “people believing in high living”. He evidently deduces that from the fact that the officials, when they go overseas, sometimes stay in a five-star hotel. Why does an official go to a five-star hotel when he goes overseas? He does so because the person with whom he has to make contact, is staying in that hotel, and has to be contacted there.

He must also have an address from which he can contact the official and one cannot tell a person at that level that one is staying at a third-rate hotel in a little back-street of Paris. That is why they stay in those hotels. They occasionally stay there. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to tell hon. members on the Government side that I do not think the hon. the Minister requires any assistance. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

That is why the officials stay in such hotels. If one looks into this, one will see that they do not stay there on every trip. When they do not have that type of conversation and do not make that type of contact, they stay in ordinary hotels. Is there anybody in the House who will take it amiss of me if a person in a highly delicate position is prepared to meet us in a certain hotel and my officials stay in the same hotel so that the contact may more conveniently be made? Should my officials do that, or should they stay in a small third-rate hotel? I am putting a question. [Interjections.] They travel first class on airlines. The rules of the Public Service Commission leave it to the discretion of the head of a department to decide whether he will travel first class or second class, he has the choice.

And if he gets a first-class ticket and then travels in another class? [Interjections.]

Order!

Is the hon. member not mentioning things that were said in the Select Committee now?

No. I have certain information. [Interjections.]

He can use that information whenever he likes, but when I say something about something that was written in the newspapers, he blames me for saying things that were said in the Select Committee. That is fairness for you! That is “fair play”! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville also said he was grateful that the hon. the Prime Minister had reacted to the matter. He said that it was the duty of the hon. the Prime Minister to enter the debate. I just want to tell the hon. member that I see no reason for the hon. the Prime Minister to enter the debate. On the contrary. My department is the subject of this debate here and I accept full responsibility for everything in the department.

He is responsible for the country.

The hon. the Prime Minister can judge whether or not I am accepting responsibility properly. Let me say at once that as the Minister, I am prepared to accept responsibility for the department and its actions. It is not necessary to involve the hon. the Prime Minister in this. He is not in the picture. [Interjections.]

Then why did he issue a statement?

He issued a statement simply because he wanted to explain the fact that secret funds had indeed been channelized to us. Only he could explain that. Nobody else could do that, because it was a Cabinet decision.

As far as Parliament is concerned, I want him to … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, may the hon. member …

Order! The hon. members must not force me to prohibit them from making any interjections whatsoever. They must please give the hon. the Minister a chance now.

The hon. member for Yeoville also asked whether there was an effective information service available at present. My reply to that is: “Yes, it is at present available.’’ There are a great many—I should not like to use the word monuments— successful achievements by the department in various parts of the world—I am deliberately stating this in vague terms—which will continue just as effectively, regardless of what happens. The publicity about this matter has been taken to extremes in South Africa; but overseas, 90% of the newspapers have ignored it. This debate may elicit publicity overseas, but 90% of the newspapers abroad have so far ignored this matter. Not one of my officers abroad has reported that they are experiencing problems at the moment as a result of this case and these stories.

Then why are you destroying the department?

There is therefore an effective department available, firstly because the organization is still there and, secondly, because there are still a great many officials who have fortunately escaped the ire of the Press and who have not been dragged into this issue. A few were seized upon personally and denigrated until nothing remained of them. In many cases, character assassination has been committed on them. I am sorry that this has happened, because they are people who could have meant a great deal to South Africa in the years that lie ahead. But they have now been discredited and accordingly I cannot continue with them. I am very sorry about that. These are the people who have been ready to make more sacrifices for South Africa than many other people. They worked longer hours than anyone else I know of.

I want to finish dealing with the hon. member for Yeoville. He has said they accept the secret funds and the secret actions, but because certain rules have been broken, he has asked what we are doing about it. We have done everything which has been expected of us. We have uncovered everything. Neither on my part, nor on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister, has the slightest attempt been made to protect, to conceal, to defend or to cover up anything. Everything has been raked open as far as is practicable. The hon. member then asked me to tell this House about the successes. But how can I do that? I have, however, offered to take him to my office; there I shall tell him of a few of the successes and also mention names. I trust him, because he is a patriotic South African. [Interjections.]

The hon. member has said a few things in an effort to belittle the department and as though he was trying to imply that the department was engaged in minor matters— “petty” things. He has said that we concentrated only on the rightists. Surely the hon. member knows that that is not the true position. Surely he knows that we do not work only with rightists. On the contrary. At the moment, we are avoiding the rightists. We talk to people who are objective and who have an open mind. We invite people who are openly our opponents here as guests. We also invite people here who are openly hostile towards us, because we firmly believe and are absolutely convinced that every guest who comes to this country will leave here with a different impression to that with which he came here. He may still not be convinced of our policy and he may still not support our principles, but he has a much better impression and he is at least aware of how tremendously complex our problem is. Such people are also normally aware of the fact that our people are working with more dedication than most people in the world on a solution to the problem. That is normally the impression with which people return overseas—regardless of whether or not they support our policy. We do not concentrate only on rightists, and I reject that argument. It is not correct and it is not true.

The hon. member has also talked about “cable car tickets”. In the modern set-up in which we are concerned, one buys a ticket for a guest who is in South Africa, so that he can travel free of charge on the cable car to the top of Table Mountain. That ticket is paid for from Government funds because it is in the interests of South Africa. [Interjections.] Must such a person pay for it out of his own pocket? That is a simple question. Is that an offence? I want to say honestly that I do not regard it in that light. If a guest comes here and he wants to visit the top of Table Mountain to enjoy the lovely scenery of the Western Cape, must I tell such a person to buy his own ticket? Is that the impression hon. members wish me to create with my guests? That is the problem and that is the argument.

The hon. member also spoke about the attack which my Secretary launched on the Auditor-General. I want to say at once that I do not endorse that, because I think it was wrong. I do not think any official is entitled to attack another official. Does that satisfy the hon. member?

What are you doing about it?

What am I doing now? I have summed up the matter very clearly, and we discussed the matter with one another.

What is going to happen?

What is going to happen? I am going to make a speech and I am already doing so. Does that hon. member want me to sack that official straight away?

I am not asking …

Is that your request?

Yes.

Must I do that because he criticized the Auditor-General?

No, because of the statement which you also condemned.

We can talk about that aspect. I have no problems about that. I can assure the hon. member, however, that the task which these people have performed during the past six years, is something for which South Africa must be grateful to them for many years. Foundations have been laid on which future generations can build for many years.

Nixon also did a lot for the USA.

The entire Opposition is trying very hard to associate these events with that story. They have already made four or five attempts. I request them to put the questions to me because then I shall give them a reply. I have no problems with that.

Are you afraid to fire him?

Mr. Chairman, I shall rather not answer the hon. member according to his folly. There may be considerations why it cannot be done.

I should also like to touch on a matter which the hon. member for Simonstown raised concerning the question of the sub judice rule. I am not so conversant with the Standing Orders that I know whether or not it is sub judice. The practical problem was, however, that what the Secretary commented on is in the newspapers every day. Whether it is at present before the Select Committee, I do not know. I assume that the report is there. But it is in the newspapers every day. The question is whether he reacted to the newspaper reports or to the report. That is what must be decided, because it is in the newspapers every day. It is precisely the same decision which you gave a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, and it is the problem which I am experiencing. The other matter which the hon. member raised, was the concern about the leaking of a highly confidential report. I want to say immediately that I endorse every single word he said, because I am also concerned about that. I am not saying what the source of the leak was, but the fact that such a report could be leaked to the Press, upsets me terribly and it probably also upsets the entire South African Public Service, because in the nature of things and in the light of the times, in which we are living, there are certain secret matters which, for the sake of the security of the country, should not be made public. In my view, this specific attention should be given to this matter. I have now replied to all the questions which have been put to me and I shall reply at a later stage to any further questions which may be put.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister indicated during the course of his speech that there was one question that he would answer after he had completed his speech. The hon. the Minister stated in the course of his speech that, in the interests of South Africa, there would be no rules as to what would be done by his department. The question I want to put to him is: Does he intend to indicate by that that he would have been prepared to see that his department would undertake work which would not comply with highly moral standards? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Information is a department which is true to the traditions of the South African Public Service. We do not do base things, and we do not do immoral things and we maintain standards as this Government maintains them for the sake of the Constitution which—we accept—is founded on a sound moral basis—and that is all I have to say.

Mr. Chairman, naturally the hon. the Minister has covered a very wide field, and in the time at my disposal I shall be unable to do more than to touch here and there on one or two of the aspects mentioned by him. I should like to start with the matter of the statement made by the Secretary for Information which was discussed across the floor of this House during the hon. the Minister’s speech. The hon. the Minister made it very clear that he disapproved of the Secretary’s statement and said that if he had known beforehand that there was any intention of issuing such a statement, he would have prohibited it. He explained that it was virtually impossible to reach him at the time when the statement was being drawn up. I shall take the matter of it being virtually impossible to reach him no further. I want to come back to the fact that we have now learned from the Minister himself that he disapproves of the statement and that the statement had never been submitted to him. If an official issues a statement which is disapproved of by his boss, it is bad enough, but if it does so without submitting it to his boss when it should be submitted, he simply sins twice. Measured in terms of the high standards which everybody, according to the hon. the Minister is trying to maintain, it is simply not good enough for the hon. the Minister to say here in this House that although his chief official issued a most important statement without its having been submitted to him, a statement he disapproves of, he is not going to do anything about it. He, the Minister, does not tender his resignation, he does not dismiss his official and he expects the world to go on just as before. There is certainly no self-respecting Opposition in any Parliament in the world that will accept such a state of affairs just like that, and we shall continue throughout this debate to try to obtain a satisfactory reply to that.

The other striking matter in the hon. the Minister’s speech, concerns the certificates. As far as my colleagues and I are concerned, we are completely dumbfounded to hear that these certificates, of which we had to learn from the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday evening, are issued by some internal departmental auditor. Perhaps I misunderstand the laws of the land, but then such actions should at least, in the interests of the country, be clearly expounded here. According to the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister and also according to what the hon. the Minister said here this afternoon, these secret funds have apparently been in existence since 1972. Up to six weeks ago when the special legislation on secret services was passed in this House, only three departments were entitled to such secret funds. One was the Bureau for State Security, the other was Defence and the third was Foreign Affairs. In each of these cases the Acts concerned provided that those funds had to be spent on services for those departments and in each case it was laid down that the Auditor-General had to audit the expenditure in so far as they were approved by the Minister concerned. The Acts provide that in each case the Auditor-General should accept a certificate from the Minister concerned as evidence of the money having been spent properly. Now we learn that large amounts of money—we do not know, but we assume that they are large amounts of money—have been spent over a period of more than five years by a Government department not entitled to secret funds. There are no ministerial certificates for this money. All we have heard, is that there is an anonymous auditor who says that he has no objection to the way in which the money has been spent. So why was it necessary for us six weeks ago to pass special legislation with regard to secret funds if the Government can create secret funds to its heart’s content and can spend the money as it wishes? We are dealing here with a very important question, one which revolves around the Executive and Parliament. The principle of Parliamentary government, a principle on which we base our standpoint, is that Parliament is entitled to know how public funds are spent. We do not really like the legislation on the Statute Book which restricts this principle, but we are prepared to accept it. However, unless I have a completely faulty understanding of this matter, what has happened here, is completely outside the scope of the legislation on the Statute Book at that time.

Towards the end of his speech the hon. the Minister further consoled himself with the thought that while the events in the Department of Information had caused a great stir here in South Africa, barely a word about it had been mentioned in overseas newspapers. What kind of a consolation is that? Does the hon. the Minister expect people overseas to be as upset as we in South Africa are about things which happen here in our Government set-up? Obviously we are the ones who are being hurt, because ours is the country that suffers and ours is the department that has been mismanaged to the extent mentioned.

It is interesting to place the two statements, that of the Secretary for Information and that of the hon. the Prime Minister, next to each other and to compare them. In the first place I should like to compare the references to the Auditor-General in the statements. We had to hear about the Secretary, and we learned a little while ago that there were possible reasons why no steps should be taken against him, that—

Later on, of course, the Secretary also states—

In the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement, on the other hand, we read—

In spite of these divergent statements we are expected to carry on as before. I assume the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister is the one which represents the opinion of the Government. If that is the case, how can we carry on without action being taken against the author of the other statement?

The Secretary’s statement also refers to a committee of three. I think he describes it as a “secret, though unofficial Cabinet Committee of three”. The hon. the Prime Minister does not refer to this committee and the hon. the Minister in his long speech this afternoon did not say anything in this regard either. This House is entitled to know who this committee of three is. [Interjections.] All that we know, is that the hon. the Minister of Defence is not a member of the committee. He told us that. But there are many other Ministers. Another matter which one should touch on, is the timing.

†I want to refer to the timing with which this whole thing has been managed. We must understand from the hon. the Prime Minister, and now again from the hon. the Minister, that this thing has been going on for five years. The hon. the Prime Minister nevertheless says that it is smelling like a rose; there is nothing wrong with it and everything is fine. There have been these mysterious certificates, but we have nothing to worry about. This has been going on for five years. As the hon. the Minister says, the rumours, trouble and criticism started sometime last year. The hon. the Prime Minister did not then explain to us that this was all perfectly above board, that he was responsible, that he was satisfied with the way the funds were allocated and all the other things which he said last night. The Government waited for the row to build up. The Auditor-General in the execution of his duties went ahead, audited the department’s accounts and produced the critical reports. These reports were given publicity; they went to the Select Committee; the Select Committee deliberated and made critical findings and there was a special debate on the matter in the House. The criticism builds up everywhere and, finally, we get the statement from the Secretary for Information, which unleashes a huge storm of criticism and then, out of the blue, we get the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister that everything is perfectly OK.

We also had a general election!

Yes, as my hon. friend points out, we also had a general election in the meantime.

However, if everything was all right from the beginning, why did the Government stand back and let the effectiveness of this department, of which the hon. the Minister has so many good things to say, and its head be destroyed? I do not think we can be expected just to sit back and say it is good to know that everything has been alright and that all this row has not been about anything really.

Why was it allowed to go so far that there were critical articles, not only in the opposition Press, but also in the Government’s own Press? Why was a newspaper like Rapport allowed to go out on a limb with a critical leading article? Why was the chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, and the hon. member for Florida, like good Parliamentarians and with the best motives in the world, allowed to make fools of themselves? We were told everything was perfectly all right and that there was nothing the matter with what was going on.

I never made a fool of myself.

I do not criticize them for it at all. It did them credit that they issued their statements. I want to come back to the point I want to make. What has happened here, is not a matter between the NP and the parties on this side of the House, but a matter between the Executive and Parliament. The Executive has been doing things of which Parliament has no knowledge. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the Official Opposition’s chief spokesman on Information, said that they would not vote the funds which must be voted for this department. It is obvious to me that this will be the standpoint of the Official Opposition, because after all they have not yet sown enough suspicion about this whole matter. It is clear to me that subtle, ruthless attempts have been made over a long period to launch an onslaught against the security of the State. It is clear that some elements of the Press and our enemies are after the secret activities of the Department of Information.

This was illustrated once again this afternoon when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wanted to know what secret activities were so secret that a directive had been given to bum the documents. He wants a revelation. The hon. member for Yeoville wanted to know what successes had been achieved with the secret activities. He also wants a revelation. The public must be so worked upon by suspicion and insinuations that, in order to retain its credibility and integrity, the Government will be forced to reveal these secret activities, with the extremely detrimental consequences this will have for South Africa as well as the great embarrassment which it will cause to those who have been co-operating with South Africa thus far. This is the whole reason and purpose behind this storm in newspapers supported by the Opposition. This is an onslaught which has been building up over a long period, but which has now gained such momentum that it has culminated—in the words of yesterday’s Argus—in the greatest Opposition onslaught against the Government since 1948.

Despite the fact that the Select Committee on Public Accounts, whose report has been laid on the table and discussed in detail, gave no indication of corruption or a financial loss to the State, the Opposition and the Press have continued sowing suspicion and making insinuations as if they were possessed. The hon. the Minister of Information has repeatedly said that if it should become apparent in the future that there has been corruption or any other misdemeanour, he would not hesitate to discharge any person, even those occupying the highest positions. This was said eight days ago, but even this was not enough. They intensified their suspicion-mongering and insinuations. Now I ask: Why was this done? The answer is very simple: The State secrets must be revealed. This is the whole purpose behind it, regardless of the irreparable damage which it may do South Africa now and in the future. How long can South Africa still put up with the luxury of such dissolute irresponsibility? I also want to ask: What priority does the Opposition place on loyalty towards nation and fatherland in relation to one’s own political gain? It seems to me that the former is very low on the list.

The hon. the Prime Minister made a statement in which it was clearly stated that this contentious matter is in the hands of knowledgeable people who are investigating it at the moment and who will publish a reply that will be considered to the satisfaction of Parliament, and therefore of the people too. That is why I should like to leave this matter in the hands of those knowledgeable people who I believe will ultimately be able to rectify the matter together with the hon. the Prime Minister and the others who are involved.

In the light of the annual report of the Secretary for Information, in which it is mentioned, inter alia, that the onslaught against South Africa will be intensified this year, and in the light of Russia’s obvious decision, as regards its blueprint for world domination, to pay more attention to Africa than it has done before, and more specifically to strategic points within Africa, and therefore South Africa too, our Black people must understand that the new vulnerable republics of Transkei and Bophuthatswana—as well as our homelands—as well as large Black urban complexes like Soweto will not be any less of a target for Russian domination than South Africa itself. They will not escape that onslaught. On the contrary, they may perhaps be the first victims if they disengage themselves from South Africa in an injudicious manner, as the Transkei recently did. Therefore, an obsession to join forces with the Whites in resisting communist indoctrination and domination—which is not only a vague possibility, but a reality—must be included in all the peoples within the borders of the Southern African subcontinent, because Russia is smiling in Africa. The Department of Information must give this high priority. That is why I think the time has come for the department to consider the possibility of establishing a special African department for specializing in the Southern Africa States, with the objective of effectively opposing communist indoctrination and revolutionary ideas. What I am proposing, therefore, is much more than merely promoting South Africa’s image or introducing this country to the outside world. However, it is in line with what the hon. the Minister envisages, viz. the restructuring of the Department of Information. We often hear that we are the bulwark against communism in Southern Africa, but merely saying so, as well as the fact that South Africa is indeed anticommunist, is no longer enough. Russia’s activities within Africa now require the Department of Information to become extremely active in a new structure as regards all Southern African States. The African department which I propose should be manned chiefly by Black officers of the department within the new structure.

Another aspect which our Black people must take note of is that driving the Whites out of Africa has never left this mighty continent any better off. On the contrary, it has led to decay, disorder and poverty on an unprecederted scale. The position of most of the African States is assuring catastrophic proportions as regards the world economy. As a result of the enormous amounts of money which the great powers are pouring into these States, the imperialist involvement of these powers has become more intense than in any other time in the history of Africa. African history has to be seen together with our own history, which has been characterized by the upliftment of Black people by White people, in contrast to Chaka’s wars of extinction in the past. Or are our Black people forgetting their own history so soon in the face of indoctrination and propaganda which will mean disaster for this country and its people? The Russian imperialists and their hangerson, the Cubans, are simply the White Chakas of Africa. The horrors created by their deeds, for instance in Angola, where Blacks are wiped out by Blacks, are much worse than the historical Chaka’s aspirations in his wildest dreams. That is why it is our task to eradicate all the Chakas of modern times, those who inspire the murderous impis of the future. This task will be entrusted mainly to the Department of Information in its new structure. Let me qualify this statement immediately by saying that knowledge and informed people—and this holds good for hon. members of the Official Opposition, too—are the answer to the Chakas of modern times.

After all, there are people in our midst— White as well as non-White—who, in my opinion, on the basis of their actions and statements in the past, fall in the same group as Sam Nujoma and Robert Mugabe, who are pure revolutionaries, people who want a violent overthrow of the existing order and who will go to the most extreme revolutionary lengths without taking into consideration the pain, the human hardship, the suffering, the disorder, the degeneration which they cause, in fact, the absolute and total destruction of South Africa. This is a price which only Russia is prepared to regard as fair and acceptable in its striving for world domination. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I consider this a very sad day for South Africa. It is a very sad day indeed. [Interjections.] We have a very important department and today’s discussion is a very important one. It is however, a sick department. It is a department on its death bed. [Interjections.] I wonder why this hon. Minister is clinging so desperately to this very sick department. The answers that I reach, I am sad to say, are very very serious. I think it can only be one of several things. Could it be to protect his own super ego? The hon. the Minister cannot face seeing his baby go under. Or is the hon. the Minister afraid of giving it up now, and act which might damage the image of his beloved NP? Is this all that is happening? Or could it be that the hon. the Minister is afraid that his prestige might be lessened if his portfolio is handed over to maybe a more capable Cabinet Minister?

Or is it a possibility that the hon. the Minister desperately needs this department to propagate this undercover organization he has created to carry out the fragmentation policy he is evolving? [Interjections.] Or could it possibly be that this hon. Minister is so personally involved in the irregularities of this department that he cannot allow himself to look into the matter any further in an honest way? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw his last remark.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.] Or is it even possible that the hon. the Minister desires to obtain the post of Prime Minister at any cost? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. May the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South allege that the hon. the Minister of Information has his eye on the hon. the Prime Minister’s post? Should he not withdraw that remark? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South may proceed.

I now want to deal with patriotism and loyalty. These two concepts have been raised here over and over today. That brings me back to the Biko affair and to the present Department of Information issue. It seems to me that as soon as an affair like this arises, it is always the Press or somebody else who has to bear the brunt. Now it is even the Auditor-General who is causing this. I want to question the hon. the Minister’s patriotism. I question it since he questions everybody else’s patriotism. I am positive that the question of patriotism is involved here but the hon. the Minister cannot tell us about patriotism. We feel for this country as much as he thinks he does, but if he stands for a party or a department that is selling this country down the river we are not with him. [Interjections.] I want to put ten questions to the hon. the Minister.

I never cast reflections upon your patriotism.

I thank the hon. the Minister for that. What I am questioning is whether the act in this connection speaks of patriotism towards South Africa. That is what I am questioning.

What act?

The act of sticking by a department; that has been irregular and irresponsible.

The book Stepping into the Future cost R320 000, but it should have cost the department R90 000. I ask the hon. the Minister who pocketed the difference of R230 000. Why was it printed in Spain?

Ask your hon. colleague behind you!

Is it possible … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Minister spoke we did not have so many interjections. I should like to proceed with my speech. A deposit of R230 000 into a Swiss bank account could easily have happened. That is the difference between R320 000 and R90 000.

What are you insinuating?

I am saying it could have happened. I say there is a difference. I make no insinuation, however.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member asked: “Who pocketed the difference?” The insinuation is clear.

Order! Will the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South please explain what he meant by that?

Mr. Chairman, it is correct. I did say that, but I asked a question.

What did the hon. member mean by asking that question?

I wanted to know what happened to the amount of R230 000.

Did the hon. member make an insinuation in respect of any hon. member of this House?

No, Mr. Chairman, I did not.

The hon. member may proceed.

It could have gone to the NP. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is that not a direct insinuation?

Order! No, it is not an insinuation in respect of any hon. member of this House. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said that the difference could have been deposited into a Swiss bank account. Is that not an insinuation?

No, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said that he did not make any insinuation in respect of an hon. member of this House. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South may proceed.

I now come to the prepayments totalling R238 000. I know that the Select Committee considered these prepayments and that they found that there was no irregularity. To me, however, it does not seem right. I, as a businessman, do not accept it that one can make a prepayment of R238 000 without the books being delivered. The Secretary knew it and the hon. the Minister knew it; why was it not dealt with?

Ask the hon. member behind you.

I believe the hon. the Minister has incriminated himself on this.

Did the hon. member say that the hon. the Minister had incriminated himself?

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to continue by saying that the hon. the Minister is obviously incriminating himself by associating himself with …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the remark that the hon. the Minister is incriminating himself.

I withdraw it. I want to question the destruction of documents. Who authorized the destruction of documents? To me as a “leek” it seems obvious. As a man in the street… [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South a chance to continue his speech.

I hope the hon. Whip on the other side will give me a little more time as well since I have been subjected to more interjections than that hon. member over there. I want to ask who authorized the destruction of those documents. Were they secret documents and, if so, why were they destroyed? Or were they incriminating documents? I ask this question. [Interjections.] Let me not be told that the Auditor-General is not able to look at them, or is the insinuation that the Auditor-General is not able to look at them? Can we not trust the Auditor-General? This is my question. I believe that a dreadful insult has been levelled at the Auditor-General. The insinuations and insults that has been levelled at him by the Secretary of the department, saying that he is waging a vendetta, are unbelievable. Let me post another question. Why was Waldeck fired? Why was Waldeck not brought before the Select Committee? Or was he not prepared to play along with the games? Perhaps he was just too honest. Is he the scapegoat? These are the questions I am asking? What is happening when a man with 40 years of service is dismissed like that! I cannot accept that. Arrogance is what we have seen in the NP. Here it is as well in this newspaper picture! If I gave that sign across this floor, what would I be called? Arrogant is what I would be called. I certainly call that arrogance. That is the Secretary of one of our departments. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat obviously does not fit into the role which he tries to play here today and which he has probably been told to play. It is clear that the whole NRP does not fit into the role which they are trying to play today. Of course, the reason for this is obvious. They want to outbid the Official Opposition with their standpoints in this debate, but their attempt is a pitiful failure. This furore around the Department of Information has been very informative, especially the Official Opposition’s share, both in Parliament and outside. In some respects the experience has also been very useful. One by-product of this furore is that the Official Opposition has shown itself in its true colours. [Interjections.] It has shown the Opposition in its true colours better than anything else could have done. It has undeniably exposed the PFP as people who like to comfort the enemies of South Africa and who encourage the enemies of South Africa, who always take a stand against South Africa and condemn South Africa in advance, and in this case an instrument of South Africa, the Department of Information. They side against the country and the Government in advance and they allow themselves to be used by the enemies of South Africa in the process.

What is our position today? Today, South Africa is in the dock of the world community. In certain circles of the world we are actually public enemy No. 1. We must realize that the Department of Information has a very important role to play in this situation. This department is the chief counsel for the defence of South Africa in this situation. In this situation we can see the court as so-called world opinion. The most important complainants and prosecutors are the militants of the world, the Black militants in particular, encouraged and assisted by their communist mentors. The witnesses are all the opinion formers in the world. We have a total onslaught in this situation, as the hon. the Minister has already said this afternoon, a total onslaught which has been globally planned and is being carried out against us with satanic cunning. Now it is the task of this department to see to our defence in that difficult situation. In this type of court case, it is probably also important for the chief counsel for the defence to take certain legal principles into account in planning his strategy and handling our case. In this regard I think we must ask where the department has been dealt a blow according to the evidence of the hon. the Prime Minister. A previous speaker spoke about a sick department. It is not a sick department, but it definitely is a wounded department, a department which has received a set-back. In that situation, we must repair the department where it can be repaired. We must also build on. We cannot simply forget or write off what has been done. Where there has been damage, we must repair it and build on.

The question is whether the department should not also utilize a different strategy when it handles South Africa’s case in future. Recently, a well-known columnist in one of our well-known Afrikaans newspapers asked whether South Africa should not hit back harder, whether we should not reply to the fierce propaganda campaign against us by highlighting all the things which are wrong and shameful in the domestic affairs of so many of those who condemn us, our prosecutors.

So far our strategy has been aimed at putting the positive, decent side of South Africa’s case. However, the columnist asks whether the department should not give serious attention to the possibility of exposing the negative side, in a certain sense, and emphasizing it by pointing out the facts and factors which reflect unfavourably on those who attack and condemn us; perhaps to act less defensively and more aggressively. We must take into account the fact that the so-called court which is condemning us is irrevocably prejudiced against us. We must take this into account in our strategy. I think the department is entitled to proceed from the premise that there is more than one so-called “very strange society” in the world. There are skeletons in many cupboards in the world. The question is whether the department should not change its strategy for once and act in a more aggressive way towards the prosecutors of South Africa. The question is whether we should not wrench open those cupboards for a change, so that we can also expose the skeletons which our prosecutors are hiding away. Of course, this will be chiefly for domestic consumption because we do not control the media abroad. But even if we wrench open these cupboards for the sake of our own people and expose these facts, I think it will be advantageous and valuable. It is necessary for us to boost the morale of our own people. In addition, it is very certain that many of the things of that kind which we show in South Africa will also find their way abroad and make an impression there, as the hon. the Minister indicated this afternoon.

If time allows, I want to point out a few things which the department can use in such a counter-offensive. There is one theme in particular which I should like to put to the department for its consideration. I want to do so by means of a quotation of what the hon. the Minister of Defence said in the House on 17 April, (Hansard, col. 4859)—

I think this is a very useful theme, to point out that what was done in the past by those people who condemn us so vociferously today is the opposite of what South Africa did. They cannot afford to have their actions highlighted. There are very revealing facts in this regard. For example, one can take the position of the Americans, because they are the greatest condemners today. Of course, they have reasons to have feel guilty about matters of this kind. There are undoubtedly things of this kind in their past and this is at the root of their feeling of guilt and the obsessions of their present president. This is also the reason for the ill-timed crusade which he is undertaking for human rights. In this regard I can also refer to a very informative article which is amazingly open and unbelievably honest and self-condemnatory. It is an article which once appeared in the American magazine Life. In pursuance of what the hon. the Minister said, I want to quote the following from it. In the article mention is made of the fact that over the years, the leaders of the Red Indians—

The article also refers to—

Therefore, there are many revealing facts in this article and it is actually amazing to see such things so openly stated, especially coming from the pen of a countryman of President Jimmy Carter’s. He also talks about Red Indians “who were shot down for sport by forty miners in California”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville said today, “South Africa has been betrayed in its hour of need”. I want to make the statement that not only has South Africa been left in the lurch by the Opposition, it has actually been stabbed in the back by the Opposition. It is the right of an Opposition to criticize and to act as a watch dog.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Will the hon. member please repeat what he said?

Mr. Chairman, I said that the hon. member for Yeoville had said here today, “South Africa has been betrayed”. I want to make the statement that not only has South Africa been left in the lurch by the Opposition, it has actually been stabbed in the back by the Opposition.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “stabbed in the back”.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw those words, but I shall let my statement suffice that this Opposition …

Mr. Chairman, he either abides by your ruling or …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words unconditionally.

I withdraw those words unconditionally, Mr. Chairman, but I repeat that this Opposition has left South Africa in the lurch. It is the right of an Opposition to criticize and to act as watchdog. However, what does this Opposition do? While our information men are fighting for South Africa in the front lines, they are launching a ruthless attack. While the onslaught on South Africa from outside is at its heaviest, they launch an onslaught from inside which is nothing but a political onslaught on this hon. Minister and the Government. Anyone who does not count his words when this matter is discussed, will be accused by the nation of having done South Africa harm while the blood of the sons of South Africa is flowing across the sands of South West Africa. An unpatriotic deed like this will not be forgiven by the people of South Africa. The Opposition is blowing up this matter out of all proportion because it is the only straw for them to clutch at after years of famine in the political desert of South Africa.

The minions of the Opposition, the leftist Press which is its extra-parliamentary arm, is actually waging the struggle for the Official Opposition since the Opposition is too weak to wage the struggle here. This extra-parliamentary arm of the Opposition has systematically been breaking down the country’s information machine bit by bit for many months, and now that everything is over and done with, there is only one loser in this matter and that is South Africa. However, they do not care about that. It does not matter how oppressive the times are; South Africa may suffer as much as possible, just as long as the Opposition can achieve its end of causing the heads of those in the Government to roll. The economic onslaught against South Africa is at its most severe at the moment. In America alone there are approximately 100 groups and organizations who are making it their task to turn off the flow to South Africa. As a result of the many effective counter-actions launched by our Information officers, large American corporations and influential businessmen in Britain and elsewhere are fighting back for South Africa. But now, alas, this good work in the interest of South Africa is being destroyed down to the ground by the action initiated by the Official Opposition. What did this Opposition do to help our Information officers? All along they have done nothing but obstruct the way of the Department of Information with their rash statements which suit our enemies down to the ground and in this way they have always been playing into the hands of South Africa’s enemies. They and their Press are hunting with the enemies of South Africa. One of the most venemous attacks which has ever been launched against South Africa, is based on what members of the Official Opposition have said. If we look at the type of attacks against us at the UN, at the World Council of Churches and at the OAU, and at the attacks emanating from Moscow and Peking, we see how venom is sucked from what this Opposition and the liberal establishment in South Africa feed them. A good example of this is that Radio Moscow praises the Rand Daily Mail for “exposing the terrible regime in South Africa to such an extent”.

It seems to me you listen to Radio Moscow.

Numerous utterances by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Houghton and other members of that party appear in the London Times, the New York Times, the Toronto Globe and in other newspapers abroad where they are used as ammunition against South Africa. The hysterical outburst we have had here, is nothing but a means to an end. We have seen what masters these people are at the art of gossiping, suspicion-mongering and character assassination. They do not care whom they destroy in this process. They destroyed Sir De Villiers Graaff and the old UP in this way and like a beast of prey they are consuming their own young. They can say what they like, but in these times when South Africa needs it so much, the Department of Information is being discredited in a campaign which cannot be described in any other terms but as a violation of the highest interests of South Africa. We welcome the announcement of the hon. the Minister to the effect that there will be a restructuring of the Department of Information.

We all know that we are dealing with extraordinary circumstances and that we find ourselves virtually in a state of war. Warfare has taken on a completely new dimension in recent times and that is why we have to fight on two fronts to defend ourselves. The Department of Information is in the front lines and its task is to wage the propaganda and verbal war. After that, physical defence and the military machine takes over the struggle. Therefore, the Department of Information is nothing but an extension of the country’s Defence Force in these times, and now we realize what a major task they are performing in this regard. One does not go to war with obsolete and with rusty weapons such as those which the department has had at its disposal. One does not fight missiles with clubs. If one’s country’s future is at stake, if one’s survival is being threatened, one takes action with everything one has at one’s disposal and in those circumstances one must not be hampered by rules. After all, we cannot allow rules to hamper us in this matter. We cannot deny that our Information men have done brilliant work for South Africa in past years. As the hon. the Minister has said, they have achieved extraordinary successes. It is obviously not necessary for this to be blazed abroad. They constituted a formidable team who, with their aggressive approach, caused our enemies great embarrassment by effectively throwing double standards and lies back in these people’s faces. The best evidence of their success is that our traditional enemies sent emergency requests to the UN for more money to take action against us when they saw how hard we were hitting them. I want to tell this House that the task of these Information men has been a superhuman one over the past few years. They do not deserve the criticism they are getting.

In these years the stops are turned full on against South Africa. I just want to give an example. It was not our knees which gave way in Angola; it was America’s knees. However, ours was the country that remained stuck with the black image that had been created abroad by propaganda. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the hon. member who has just sat down, who I have reason to believe is the information officer for the NP, I think he is doing as great a disservice to the NP in that capacity by the kind of speech he has made today … [Interjections.] … as some other people have done in other categories in information. [Interjections.] I just want to expose the hon. member for Von Brandis, who is shouting across the floor, for what he is. He is the hon. gentleman who today said that hon. members on this side of the House were causing trouble for South Africa because they, amongst other things, said South Africa was a Police State.

That is right.

Yes, that is what he said. However, if the hon. member for Von Brandis would care to look at his own Hansard he would see that he is the man who said in 1962 … [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to quote from Hansard, col. 8032 in vol. 4 of 1962 …

Why do you not discuss the Vote?

I know this hurts the hon. members a little bit. The hon. member for Von Brandis was asked by Mr. B. Coetzee: “Tell me, is South Africa a Police State or not?” What did the hon. gentleman reply? He said—

[Interjections.] He said this in the debate on the Information Vote in 1962. In that debate he attacked the then hon. Minister because the hon. the Minister was English-speaking and the hon. member said that the NP had appointed him in order to try and get English votes. [Interjections.] The hon. member continued—

So, Sir, who is calling South Africa a Police State?

*It is that hypocritical shadow which is now sitting over there.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member call …

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, for the sake of the record, may the hon. member for Yeoville call an hon. member a “hypocritical shadow”.

Mr. Chairman, I have already withdrawn it.

Order! The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister, through you, a far more serious matter. I should like to come back to the whole issue of the secret funds. I have stated what our approach is to this matter. The hon. the Minister was asked a number of questions and he told us who had certified and who had signed the certificates. I want to demonstrate to the hon. the Minister that the Department of Information has no right to any secret funds at all. The reason why I say that is that if one looks particularly at sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, one will see that there is no power to transfer money from one Vote to another. One may only exceed a Vote in certain circumstances, and special warrants are only authorized in certain circumstances. One may transfer within a Vote, but not from one Vote to another. If one seeks to transfer from one Vote to another, one is committing an illegal act.

No.

The hon. member says “no”. Now we are looking at the secret funds which are authorized by Parliament. We cannot look at this in terms of the Secret Services Account Act we have just passed. With respect I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister—unfortunately he is not here—that the power he really wanted was to deal with this situation retrospectively. The tragedy is that there are only four ways of dealing with secret funds, firstly under the Prime Minister’s Vote for the Bureau for State Security; secondly, under the Defence Vote; thirdly, under the Foreign Affairs Vote; and fourthly, in a very limited fashion, under the Police Vote. Under the Information Vote there is no money available for this at all. If one looks at the situation, one sees that one cannot use money out of the secret funds under the Foreign Affairs, Defence or Police Votes without the consent of those hon. Ministers. I have not asked the hon. the Minister of Police—he is not here—how he feels about it, but the hon. the Minister of Defence has already publicly indicated that he has nothing to do with this, unless we have misunderstood him.

The hon. the Minister of Finance almost cried the other day and said that we must leave him out of this and that he has nothing to do with it. I do not think the secret funds of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs have been used either. However, even if they had been used, it would have been invalid, because none of those Ministers have certified, according to the statements which have been made by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Information. Therefore none of those Votes can be used. Section 2 of the Security Services Special Account Act, No. 81 of 1969, specifically stipulates—

The moneys can only be used for matters which are concerned with the Bureau for State Security. In terms of this section there is no power to give money to the Department of Information. There is no power to transfer money from this account to the Information Vote. The only way in which it could possibly be argued that Boss money could be used, would be if the Secretary of the department were an agent of Boss. I do not believe that the Minister says that is the position. With great respect, I think the hon. the Minister is in a situation where we must now look at this Act. If one were to use money which comes from Boss, one would have to do the following, as stipulated by section 4 of the Act—

According to the information I presently have—in the hon. the Minister of Finance’s Vote I tried to draw him into this issue, but he would not be drawn into it and did not want to have anything to do with the Department of Information—he has not made a determination. However, if he has, will he tell us what he has said, because—and I quote further from section 4—

That is the Boss account—

Today we have heard in this House that the hon. the Prime Minister has not signed any certificate. Therefore there is no question that the hon. the Minister has issued a certificate in terms of which the Auditor-General has been excluded. I actually believe that that is what the hon. the Prime Minister actually believes, because his statement makes it clear that he was not prepared to exclude the Auditor-General. However, the Secretary of the Department of Information was trying to exclude the Auditor-General. We have a classic situation in which the Auditor-General, as the instrument of Parliament, seeks to exercise his duty and is excluded without statutory authority. Unless the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to say that this is Boss money, that the Secretary is an agent of Boss and that this has been done for Boss, this money could not be used at all in those circumstances. Then arises the question where the money came from. The hon. the Minister can say it is secret where the money comes from, but, with great respect, he owes us an answer, which must be given.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.