Mr. Speaker, in connection with the business of the House for the coming week, I just want to say the following: After the discussion of the Information Vote has been concluded the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs will be considered and after that the Justice Vote. The discussion of the latter Vote will be continued on Friday, 12 May. On Monday, 15 May, we shall deal with legislation in this House, while the Agriculture Votes will be disposed of in the Senate Chamber. On Tuesday, 16 May, we shall proceed to dispose of the Police Vote and the Prisons Vote. On Wednesday, 17 May, the Interior Vote will be discussed.

Mr. Chairman, a week or two ago, and again yesterday, we had a very unfortunate debate in connection with the Department of Information. I say it was an unfortunate debate because it was often dominated by emotion and ulterior motives instead of common sense. We discovered this again yesterday from various statements on the part of the Opposition. For instance, I am thinking of the fact that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout took delight in referring to the Department of Information as a sinking ship. He described the normal activities of the Government as a frantic search for scapegoats. But surely the activities of the Government are quite normal. When there is any suspicion that irregularities may have taken place, an investigation is made in order to determine whether this is actually the case. Sir, the only success which the Press and the Official Opposition have achieved in this debate is that they have caused tremendous damage to South Africa. On the first preliminary report of the Auditor-General alone, they loosed all these tirades of theirs about South Africa on the world, and this was only a report in which the Auditor-General expressed some doubts. No evidence at all had been produced yet. Then, of course, some newspapers did their very best to create an atmosphere of opposition to the Government and the department in South Africa. Of course, they have been doing so for several years. This is how we know them. The hon. member for Yeoville said: “No healthy body can be destroyed by a newspaper.” However, I want to tell him that a greater philosopher than he said—

Edmund Burke said this. This is precisely what the Opposition and the newspapers have been doing over the past few years. They have been carrying on a campaign against the Government to see whether they could not cause a crack in these walls, but unfortunately for them they themselves have fallen flat in the process.

The pattern in this whole debate, however, is very clear, and of course one understood this much more clearly after the speech made by the hon. member for Von Brandis yesterday, when he exposed certain activities on the part of the Official Opposition. In this way, the pattern became clear to us. The Opposition and the pink Press was not only satisfied with occurrences like the Soweto riots, the detentions which took place last year or the Biko case. They wanted to see whether they could not take the matter further, and that is why they came up with this tirade of theirs.

What are actually the questions which are relevant? In the first place, was there any corruption? The reply to that must be a definite “No”; no corruption has been proved at all, no money has disappeared and no damage has been done to anyone. Secondly, one may ask whether the department failed in its specific task in the interests of South Africa. In reply to that we must also say “No”. On the contrary, the department has performed its task with a great deal of success over the past year, and I think everyone of us can pay tribute to the success which the department had already achieved. We may also ask: Was there any wrongful or unauthorized utilization of funds? Perhaps there was. I do not want to question this. I cannot say “No”. Of course, it is a pity if this is the case, but after all it was not for personal gain. So one asks oneself: What is all the fuss about?

As I have already explained, the fuss was also about the utilization of the secret funds. However, as the hon. the Minister made quite clear yesterday, this whole matter is being thoroughly investigated. A fund like this is absolutely essential for our struggle against the battle of hearts and minds which is being waged against South Africa at the moment. No one on this side—and I am not even talking about our hon. the Prime Minister— has ever tried to hide any irregularity of any kind at all. In fact, I think the opposite is true. The fact that the Department of Information may perhaps not be able to continue in its present form any longer is not only logical but is actually a tragedy as well, because this department must take up the cudgels for us in so many spheres throughout the entire world. This is not the first time that a department has been investigated by a Select Committee, nor will it be the last time. Mistakes are made. Often people are reprimanded. One asks oneself why there should be so much opposition to the Department of Information and the Secretary for Information in particular, a man who has done so much good work in the interests of South Africa abroad. There may indeed be mistakes. Nor do I want to defend the statement which he made to the newspapers. It may be indefensible, but I nevertheless think that a degree of balance should be maintained in connection with this whole episode.

I want to go on to one or two other matters. In December last year, the General Assembly of the UN decided that 1978 would be an anti-apartheid year. That is why we need a strong Department of Information so much more today in order to help us against that campaign. On 7 April this year, Ambassador McHenry of America addressed the Cape Town Press Club and tried to spell out the so-called good intentions of America towards South Africa. He said the following, inter alia—

I think one can quite correctly ask Ambassador McHenry: Actions speak louder than words; who is the cause of all the distrust in South Africa and South West Africa towards the whole world? Is it not perhaps his own country, America? Are these not matters which one should try to investigate and should take a look at? Is America not the cause of it; America which often applies double standards to South Africa; America which is in favour of boycotts and sanctions against South Africa; America with its cowardly behaviour in Angola, Somalia, Rhodesia, Uganda and elsewhere; America with its placatory policy towards Russia and the Marxists? This is the type of matter which our Department of Information must expose, and they are performing that task with a great deal of success. That is why we must act in a much more purposeful way.

In this debate I should also like to point out once again how important it is for us to take strong action on the continent of Africa. Not very long ago President Sadat of Egypt called the Arab countries together and told them that they must try to act unanimously in the interests of Africa in order to eradicate the Marxist expansionistic urge in Africa. Our Department of Information also has a tremendous task in Africa in that respect. It has to support Egypt in that tremendous campaign. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when one listens to the hon. member and to the other hon. members on Government side, it would appear that the problems which caused the downfall of the department and which form the subject of this debate, are all problems outside the department and that the problems within the department are mere trifles. The hon. member said it was just a question of the Auditor-General having had misgivings and that there was no corruption. He continued in that vein. However, the hon. the Minister himself said in a previous debate (Hansard, 21 April 1978, cols. 5350-1)—

We are speaking of what has happened within the department. According to that statement by the hon. the Minister the credibility of the department has been eroded from within.

†The hon. members opposite do not seem to realize, from the point of view of this Parliament, of good government and of the public, the very real concern there is at the management and operations that have taken place within the Department of Information. We listened carefully to the hon. the Minister yesterday. What he said increases some of the apprehensions that we had had and certainly did not allay them. He used these words (Hansard, 9 May 1978)—

What is the hon. the Minister here saying to the House? He says that when the issue of South Africa is at stake “geld geen reels nie”. That is what the public suspects, that is how they suspect the hon. the Minister and his department are operating. I want to put the following question to the hon. the Minister: When he uses the phrase “geld geen reëls nie”, is he saying that the rules laid down by Parliament for the proper conduct of ministerial departments and for the expenditure accountability of money, have not been adhered to? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Minister has said that “no rules apply”. This is what we believe and what the public believe. This is why we believe that we have to cut right down to the bone and open this whole thing so as to cure the disease that exists.

We are discussing this Vote against the background of the death throes of the Department of Information. The department and its head have been destroyed. The hon. the Prime Minister has said so. To us in these benches there is an element of both national and personal tragedy in this. It is a national tragedy because at this very time South Africa could do with a competent and credible information department, and there is an element of personal tragedy because, as we understand it, it cannot be said that the senior officials in that department have not been hard-working, have not been dedicated and have not been inventive. Nevertheless, the head of the department and the department have been destroyed. Hon. members will talk about the problems from outside and the assault from outside, but let us leave it there. Other hon. members will hail the infallibility of the policies of the Government. Let us leave that there as well. What we have to apply our minds to today, Mr. Chairman, is the actions of the people within the department which have contributed to the destruction of that department. We on these benches want to make it quite clear: We hold the hon. the Minister of Information co-responsible, as the Minister at the head of this department, for the destruction of the department and of the head of that department. Whatever the faults of the Secretary may be, this hon. Minister failed to provide the supervision, the guidance, the restraint which Parliament and the people are entitled to expect from a senior Minister heading a sensitive and important department of State. The hon. the Minister’s dereliction of duty—and it is a dereliction of duty—is even more deplorable when one realizes that in his own admission his department was involved in conducting very sensitive and unconventional secret operations. So the hon. the Minister failed to give the department that leadership, that direction, that sense of discipline which we would expect from a wise and responsible Minister.

I had a look at just three elements of this. In a situation where discretion was clearly of prime importance, this department and its heads succeeded, as no other department and no other heads of departments, to attract attention to themselves and to the activities of their department. They were in the news all the time, and let us look at the reasons to see whether the hon. the Minister should have acted or not. There was a flamboyancy of style which is not commonly found in the Civil Service of any country. Some of the images that emerged were “modern jet-setters”, “swish hotels”, “expense accounts”, “holiday parties”, “private jet rides” and “intercontinental tennis weekends”. I mention these because they were bound to attract attention. Sir, when one is dealing with secret and sensitive matters, this is not the way to operate.

Is that a fact?

Secondly, Mr. Chairman …

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

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to answer any questions at this stage. [Interjections.] The second point is the strange and unique combination of associations with businessmen and business houses, South African and foreign, who appear to do important business with the department and who also acted commercially in related fields. I do not wish to bring in the names of all the people that were involved in this. I presume that when the hon. the Minister said that he was at a resort on a farm, he was at the Reënberg farm over the weekend. We therefore start with the association, including the hon. the Minister, of all the people who have an interest in this farm resort. In the USA one has the Panax operation and in South Africa one finds its subsidiary, the Xenap operation, which is controlled by Panax. One also finds African Mirror, South Africa Today, the African International Publishing, To the Point, and The Citizen. Here there is a strange interlapping set of companies with many of the same people appearing in key positions in these companies. There was also a unique relationship with Mr. Louis Luyt. He stated to the Press that he was virtually a courier and that he met in the offices of Thor Communicators to convey sensitive messages to Dr. Eschel Rhoodie from African heads of State. There was this unique association, and it is understandable that this has given rise, as it would in any part of the world, to a spate of rumours and speculations as to the department’s activities. I want to come back to a point made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, i.e. that included in the speculation is the widely held belief that the newspaper, The Citizen, is assisted by secret Government funds. This view is widely held and I believe—I am glad the hon. the Prime Minister is here—that it is in the interest of the public of South Africa … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the Leader of the Opposition a chance to complete his speech.

I believe it is in the interest of the public of South Africa and that it will only be fair to The Citizen itself that the hon. the Prime Minister in this debate— the hon. the Minister of Information can do it with the hon. the Prime Minister’s authority —states categorically whether or not this speculation is true. I believe it will be fair to the public and to The Citizen itself.

Then there is also a company called “Thor Communicators” with a $3 million Swiss banking account. In his statement the Secretary for Information referred to this company by saying: “Whatever role Thor Communicators played in our work …’’He did not define the contact, but merely said: “Whatever role it played in our work.” This role has involved the purchase of flats at Clifton, maintaining offices around the corner from the offices of the Department of Information and it has been a focal point of interest as far as Mr. Louis Luyt is concerned.

All we wish to do is to clear the air. The hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Information referred to rumours, and I believe that this is the debate in which the Government could clear these rumours. Seeing that the Secretary for Information has referred to Thor Communicators and Mr. Louis Luyt has said that this was part of the contract arrangements, we believe that these rumours can be put at an end to when the hon. the Minister can, at the end of this debate, state in specific terms what role this mysterious Swiss bank-funded company played in the affairs of the Department of Information.

On the part of the Secretary of the department there has at times appeared to be an extreme lack of discretion. This can be seen even in some of the evidence volunteered before the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

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

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

As I have said, there has been an extreme lack of discretion, particularly so in the statement issued on 5 May this year, i.e. the Friday statement by Dr. Eschel Rhoodie. This was the statement which forced the hon. the Prime Minister to come out in the end and issue what he believed to be a clarification of the situation as it obtained. Much as one would blame the Secretary, I want to put the blame fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister of Information. He was aware of an extremely sensitive position. On Wednesday he issued a statement in this House. Thursday was a public holiday and on Friday the Secretary phoned him and said that he wanted to issue a statement. The hon. the Minister was told that the Secretary wanted to issue a statement and that he wished to put certain matters straight. I believe it was an extreme dereliction of duty on the part of the hon. the Minister which created tremendous embarrassment to the Government and which finally destroyed the Department of Information. We blame the hon. the Minister in charge of the department for the issuing of that statement. He did not say to Dr. Rhoodie before he issued the statement that he first wanted to see the statement. He did not say as he should have said: “If there is anything to be put right, I will put it right and not you, the Secretary of the department.” After the damage is done the hon. the Minister disassociates himself with the statement and comes to the House and says that he blames it all on a farm telephone line because a few people might have listened to the conversation. Does the hon. the Minister realize that millions of people have read the statement? Does he really expect us to accept this as a valid explanation for allowing that statement to go through? The hon. the Minister should have prevented the Secretary from issuing that statement. He should have been man enough to say that he issues his own statements and that he does not need the Secretary to correct the records. If the Secretary defied him, he should have dismissed him. Instead of that, when one asks the hon. the Minister why he does not dismiss Dr. Rhoodie, the hon. the Minister says, as he did to the hon. member for Groote Schuur—

*I >am asking the hon. the Minister: What are the reasons that prevent Dr. Rhoodie from being dismissed? I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he is creating the impression that in one way or another Dr. Eschel Rhoodie has a hold on him and the Government. [Interjections.]

†That is the impression which is created. We believe the best thing the hon. the Minister could do at this stage is to resign and hand the department over to the hon. the Prime Minister and let him try to reconstruct something out of the wreck that was once the Department of Information.

However, this debate goes far beyond a department, a Minister and a Secretary. It goes to the very roots—the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement reinforces this—of parliamentary Government and the relationship between Parliament and the executive in South Africa. Fundamental to this is the accountability of the executive to Parliament, not only for its policies and its performance, but also for the expenditure of public funds appropriated by Parliament. Secondly, it concerns the role of the Auditor-General as the agent of Parliament in monitoring and reporting to Parliament on this expenditure. Unless the web of confusion and contradiction which has resulted from the many statements, for instance that of the hon. the Prime Minister’s as well as the clumsy explanations about certificates given by the hon. the Minister in the House yesterday, is cleared up parliamentary Government and the concept of executive accountability to the legislature will be struck a cruel blow and we will continue to wallow on in mistrust and suspicion on the basis of rumour. This is how we see this debate. We believe the lines have to be clearly drawn.

I should also like to refer to the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement. I shall leave out the aspects of the timing and the circumstances and come to the more specific areas concerning the question of the allocation of funds. In the first part of the statement the hon. the Prime Minister said that the Government had decided in 1972 to allocate funds to the Department of Information and that it was later decided to canalize these funds through other departments. Let us get it quite clear. The allocation of funds in the first instance is the prerogative of the executive, but the approval of that allocation and the appropriation of that money is the prerogative of this Parliament and no executive can thwart that decision. Funds available to the executive are subject to appropriation by Parliament so that there can be no juggling of funds behind the back of Parliament.

If the Government allocated funds to other departments who would then transfer them to the Department of Information without the knowledge of this Parliament, and without following the procedures laid down in the relevant statute, this would be a subterfuge which strikes at the roots of our parliamentary system in South Africa. We say this advisedly, because Parliament has the right, not only to allocate and to appropriate, but also to control. As the hon. the Prime Minister knows, such financial transactions in the ordinary course of transferring funds from one Vote to the other would be irregular. There is nothing in the Exchequer and Audit Act which would allow this. This was brought to our attention when the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced the Secret Services Account Bill when he made it quite clear …

Why do you not read my statement further where I made that quite clear?

Which part of your statement, Sir?

The next paragraph.

“It can therefore not be said that these were unauthorized funds.” The hon. the Prime Minister accepted responsibility. Since 1972 certificates have been issued. I shall refer to the certificates in a minute.

You are talking about the second paragraph concerning the unauthorized expenditure.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that it could not be said that these were unauthorized funds and that he accepted full responsibility …

No, that is not all.

… for the way in which funds are allocated, because in his judgment it was in the highest interests of South Africa.

No, you have still left something out.

You said it could be canalized “through other departments which could use it for this purpose if they had the apparatus and the trained personnel at their disposal. The purpose was to withstand the subversion of our country’s good image and stability”.

Precisely. Why did you leave that out?

That is what I have been talking about. It has been channelled through other departments. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister must not try to wriggle on the hook. There has been glib talk about secret funds. In fact, there are no such things as secret funds per se. There can be funds for secret and confidential purposes, but all income, from whatever source, and all expenditure handled by all State departments must be accounted for. In that sense there are no secret funds. Save for three departments, the Departments of the Prime Minister, Defence and Foreign Affairs, all are subject to the same audit provisions in terms of the Exchequer and Audit Act. Those three departments are subject to specific provisions in terms of which there can be a departure from the normal audit procedure, but there shall nevertheless be a full audit unless the hon. the Prime Minister or the other hon. Ministers concerned issue a certificate stating that the money has been spent in good order, in which case the audit is limited. It is unthinkable that any hon. Minister—I am not suggesting the hon. the Prime Minister has done this—could use this authority to issue a certificate of this kind to shift money from the department for which the money has been appropriated by Parliament to another department and so flout the decision of Parliament in so far the money which it appropriated is concerned.

So one comes to the question of these certificates. The hon. the Prime Minister has said they have been issued ever since 1972. He said he had not signed one of them himself. He, and I presume the other two hon. Ministers concerned as well, have not in any way limited the audit as has been their right to do. However, the hon. the Minister says …

I could not catch what you said about me.

I said you said that you had not signed the certificate to which we referred.

I regularly issue a certificate to the Treasury every year.

We are talking about the certificate relating to the transfer of funds. I raised this matter with the hon. the Minister yesterday. The hon. the Prime Minister said he had not signed it. The hon. the Minister then explained that it was an interdepartmental exercise, that each department had an accounting officer and that he was in fact talking about the accounting officer. If it was the role of the accounting officer, it could not be in relation to a secret fund. No accounting officer or a head of a department can keep the Auditor-General out of a full and comprehensive examination of the books and the procedures. The only thing which can keep the Auditor-General out is a signature that the funds have been taken from those accounts of the Departments of Defence, the Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs. I believe the hon. the Minister has to explain what is the status of the certificates referred to in the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement. Who signed them, and what was their significance? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to participate in this debate, but I think every hon. member in this House will realize that it is essential for me, as chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, to enter this debate in pursuance of the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I shall come back to that later. I should like the hon. members for Yeoville and Parktown to take note of the speech which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made in the House today, because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made certain allegations about mistakes which were allegedly made in connection with “jet-set”, luxury hotels, etc. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not know that this is the subject of the investigation by the Select Committee on Public Accounts at the moment, he should consult the hon. members for Yeoville and Parktown. [Interjections.]

We are now reaching the situation—and I want to put it very strongly—that the Official Opposition cannot manage the factual situation in connection with the Department of Information as we have progressed with it. They now want to use other allegations to continue a political campaign which is not worthy of South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members of that party thought fit to draw the hon. the Prime Minister into this debate.

He issued a statement. [Interjections.]

If the hon. member for Bryanston would only keep his mouth shut, one might be able to see his face. I am now coming to the matter which was raised here in connection with the so-called secret funds. I do not know what hon. members are making such a fuss about. The hon. the Prime Minister issued his statement, and they are now clutching at it in order to try to make political capital out of it. All the reports of the Auditor-General to date have been laid on the table of this House. It is well known that secret funds are dealt with under the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Defence. It is also well known, it is general knowledge, that in terms of the legislation which applies to those funds, the Auditor-General accepted the certificates for the financial year under discussion in the reports which have been laid on the table. The Auditor-General has accepted them; it says so in his report.

There is no mention in the report of the Department of Information.

I am coming to that. I just want to emphasize that the certificates which were issued by the competent Ministers in terms of existing legislation and under which secret funds can be dealt with, were accepted by the Auditor-General. It says so in his report for the financial year under discussion. In his statement the hon. the Prime Minister said that the certificates which he was referring to, dealt with secret accounts. The hon. the Prime Minister said so. I shall come back to that point. I first want to deal with something else. How can those hon. members allege that, if secret funds are set aside in a budget in terms of an Act, those secret funds were not handled correctly? Parliament has not been bypassed. Parliament voted secret funds in terms of an Act.

What Act?

I am sorry that unfortunately I cannot communicate with that hon. member because he does not know what this is all about at this stage. On the recommendation of the Select Committee this Parliament has accepted budgeting by objectives in the past. We also agreed to secret funds for three departments in this House. We agreed to this without spelling out the objective for each one of them. Those departments do not budget by objectives. They are departments which simply budget. The hon. member for Park-town is shaking his head. If he can indicate to me whether any one of those three departments budget by objectives then it is another matter. It therefore means that if a secret account is created in terms of any of the relevant laws, then the people in control of those secret accounts are in a position to allocate, to annotate and administer those funds at will. And they do so. We went further this year.

This is a weak argument.

No It is not. However, we went further. We passed the Secret Services Accounts Act this session. We did so knowing—and now I am referring to the first paragraph of the hon. the Minister’s statement—what the onslaught on South Africa entails. Now, when we allocate funds in terms of the abovementioned legislation, is the hon. Official Opposition going to insist that such allocations should be made according to the system of budgeting by objectives? [Interjections.] This is a question which hon. members of the Opposition must answer for themselves. [Interjections.]

Will one hon. member of the official Opposition tell us today that a budget for any secret account must take place according to the principles of budgeting by objectives and that it must be specified in detail what is done with the money from the secret fund? [Interjections.] The hon. Official Opposition must not try to make political capital from the declaration which the hon. the Minister issued, or from the prevailing situation, without telling us what their own standpoint in connection with secret funds is. I find it childish of those hon. members to raise the argument that the hon. the Minister of Information should specifically indicate who issued the certificates. Everyone who has done his homework, knows who issues certificates. In fact it is also mentioned in the reports of the Auditor-General. It was done, and all the hon. the Minister did was to confirm it.

In conclusion I nevertheless want to say that I feel it is a serious matter when the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition rises to his feet here in the House of Assembly and discusses matters which at that specific moment are the subject of consideration in the Select Committee on Public Accounts. [Interjections.] My question to the official Opposition is therefore—since they are making such a fuss and professing so piously to be the custodians of the parliamentary system—why they can allow the hon. Leader to make a speech such as the one he made this afternoon. By allowing this, we in South Africa are reaching the situation where a Select Committee like this one on Public Accounts—a committee which has an important function to fulfil—will no longer have any status in the eyes of the outside world. [Interjections.] I should like to concede that the Secretary for Information possibly contributed towards lowering the status of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. This may be the case. However, I do not want to express an opinion on this matter at this stage. What is in fact true, and which I do want to express a clear opinion on, is that the campaign which is being waged in the Press, and which is being waged with the knowledge of hon. members of the Opposition, has caused more damage to the status of the Select Committee on Public Accounts than anything else.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to go right back to the beginning of the debate when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout told the House that he and his party would in fact be voting against the passing of funds for the Department of Information. I want to inform this House that we in the NRP will in fact be abstaining on that particular issue. [Interjections.] The reaons why we will be abstaining is because we do not believe it just that members of the Department of Information— people who can be totally innocent and who can only be doing 9-5 jobs and who have in fact been doing 9-5 jobs in that department for many, many years—should have the funds cut out from underneath them and thus be rendered incapable of earning a living within that department at this stage. What we would like to do is to propose the deletion of the Minister’s salary, but unfortunately the Minister is paid under the Vote of another department, so we are not in fact able to do that. As, therefore, we believe that the person who is next most responsible is the Secretary for the department, we therefore move—

This is, we believe, the best we can do in this regard because, as I have said, we cannot go for the Minister himself although we believe that he carries the responsibility. No amount of spreading of the Prime Minister’s skirts over the whole issue in terms of the statement that he made, not to this Parliament, but to the Press a couple of days ago, is going to obscure this issue. In fact, this whole House, including all the members on those benches and the hon. the Minister himself, have been seeking to obscure the whole issue by talking about security and the onslaught on South Africa. I believe that we must cut through this smoke-screen and get down to the basic facts.

Order! The hon. members for Bethal and Brakpan must not converse so loudly. That goes for the other hon. members as well.

Thank you very kindly, Mr. Chairman. I have said that the NP has raised a smoke-screen. I believe that we must cut through that smoke-screen. They have alleged that the whole issue has been blown up in the Press and that it is all the fault of the Press, whereas this whole issue started with a report by the Auditor-General which was presented to Parliament and referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. That report has now been dealt with. The fault in my opinion lies in the fact that the secrets of this country have been disclosed by the Secretary for Information himself. He has seen fit to make Press statements, with the concurrence of his Minister. Although that Minister did not know exactly what he was going to say, he trusted his Secretary to make responsible statements. He gave him the authority to go ahead and in so doing, the hon. the Minister of Information made a very serious mistake, a mistake which I believe is sufficient for us to call for censure against him and for the hon. the Prime Minister to take action. Let us see what the statement by the Secretary of the department in fact says. He first of all discloses to the country as a whole that money was secretly used for the purpose of counteracting the propaganda war. For the first time he disclosed that money was secretly used for this purpose. These are his words: “I inherited from my predecessor at least two major secret operations.” He then said that this was overseen by “a secret though unofficial three-man Cabinet Committee from which I received approval for secret projects”. These are all disclosures made to the Press. These are disclosures which were made not to Parliament and not to the Select Committee, but directly to the Press. He continued: “The secret fund was provided to the department, but I do not intend now or ever to say how much”. He discloses the whole thing, Sir, but he will not tell us the amount. Really, how ridiculous can one get? He says that in more than one letter the Auditor-General was warned that secret funds and projects were involved, but the Auditor-General has the right, unless there is a certificate, to audit those funds. He in fact refused to provide him and his two assistants with details of the operations.

He then goes on to disclose even more facts. He says: “I gave instructions, with approval at Cabinet level, to destroy certain records of completed operations.” One must assume, Sir, that that hon. Minister was one of the people consulted. I think one must ask him why this permission was given. Why were these documents not put away in a very safe place? Why do they have to be destroyed when the Auditor-General and someone else—we do not know who—are busy auditing these accounts? He then discloses the following about the visit to the Seychelles—

Why on earth does that Secretary disclose this information when the hon. the Minister has, in reply to a question from my colleague, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, said that no departmental funds were used and that that was not an official visit, being in fact a private holiday visit? That Secretary, however, discloses the fact that it was a secret visit. Is he, I should like to ask, entitled to carry out secret visits and negotiations with heads of state? On what authority does he do this? Surely this must fall to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. If one is, after all, going to have negotiations with the heads of foreign countries, must one leave it to a Secretary for Information? No, I believe that this is a totally wrong way to go about things, and these were all disclosures that were made in a Press statement by the Secretary for that department.

He further discloses that private companies were used for their travel arrangements instead of using the correct agency which, of course, should be the Railways travel bureau or the SAA itself. Is this in the inherests of the country? Is it more secret to go through a private travel agent than to go through our own State travel bureau or our own S.A. Airways? I doubt this. I doubt this very strongly indeed.

Lastly, I want to come to what should, in fact, happen to the Department of Information at this stage, because all of us in this House accept, I am sure, that its credibility has been destroyed. What should we do about this? The view of the members on these benches is that the department should be done away with. There are three sorts of information. Firstly, one gives information to the White people of South Africa, and in this regard I do not believe that we need a Nationalist propaganda machine paid for out of public funds. [Interjections.] Secondly, one needs to give information to the Black people of this country telling them what their future is and trying to put over policies to them, and I believe that the best people to do this would be the members of the Department of Plural Relations who are, in fact, in day to day contact with the whole operation of plural administration; I do not believe this should be done by the Department of Information. Finally, there is the third aspect, that of foreign affairs. As far as foreign information is concerned, we in these benches believe that this should be handed over to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and that information outside South Africa should be handled wholly by his department. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for East London North that the onslaught on the security of South Africa is no smoke screen, but a total onslaught on this country, an onslaught in which every rule of international law and decency is being broken in the actions taken against this country, an onslaught which knows no rules, an onslaught which is attempting to isolate and demoralize this country, and to bring about polarization between Black and White. That is why it is an absolute tragedy that the Department of Information has had to lose its effectiveness at this particular point of time in its history. I think most hon. members in the House will agree with me that the principal reason for this was the allegations, the suspicion-mongering, the insinuations and the trial by Press. The speech by the hon. Leader of the Opposition this afternoon was a model example of these insinuations. This is a tragedy, for up to now the Department of Information has been a formidable weapon in the hands of South Africa against this onslaught on us.

I have personal experience of the climate that has been created as a result of this onslaught. When Dr. Kissinger visited South Africa for important discussions in September 1976, Johannesburg and Pretoria were swarming with foreign correspondents who had free access to the studios of the SABC to edit their films and to transmit them abroad with the aid of our satellite facilities. There was also a free exchange of information. At that time a certain Tsietsi Mashinini, a leftist inciter of violence in Soweto and the suspected murderer of Dr. Morris Edelstein, alleged at a Press conference in New York at the UN that the S.A. Police had cold-bloodedly and deliberately shot women and children in Soweto and that some of his sisters and brothers had been amongst the victims. The next day the SABC traced old Mr. Mashinini, his father, in Soweto and took him to the studios and old Mr. Mashinini stated that his children had not been anywhere near the police, that none of them had been shot and that he did not know why his son had said those things in New York. The SABC then offered this interview to the people who had broadcast the son’s interview on every network in the USA and in Europe and Britain. However, they refused the interview with the father. They did not want it. They did not want to spoil a good lie against South Africa with the truth. These are now the organizations which are held up by the Opposition to be a paragon of impartiality!

Where does this prejudice come from? Admittedly it is fanned by our enemies abroad, but they obtain the ammunition for this from South Africa and, as the hon. member for Von Brandis indicated so effectively here yesterday, even from this House. When Transkei severed its diplomatic ties with South Africa, did we not witness the lamentable spectacle here of how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition availed himself of the opportunity to attack his country while he failed to refute the nonsensical allegation by Dr. K. D. Matanzima that South Africa had killed thousands of Black people? Did we not hear how the hon. member for Musgrave said here, à la Andrew Young, that South Africa’s policies were furthering communism? Did we not hear the hon. member for Pinelands say in this House: “I admire Donald Woods?”

We are fighting for survival as Britain fought for survival 35 years ago. I wonder what would have happened if an hon. member had stood up in the British House of Commons at that time and had said: “I admire Lord Haw-haw.” This is not all. Did we not hear the hon. member for Bryanston comparing the consequences of the Group Areas legislation in this country with conditions in Nazi Germany? Where does the outside world get the idea that we have a Nazi Government here? It is derived from such irresponsible statements as these. What is the implication? The implication is that this Government is being identified with the régime of a paranoic megalomaniac who killed 6½ million people in gas ovens as we kill rats. That is the implication. The tragedy is, however, that it is not only said in this House and that it does not remain between us only. It is publicized and noised abroad by the newspapers of the PFP establishment. I quote from the Sunday Times of 9 April—

They do not say the Government or the party, but refer to “country”. The report goes on to say that we are responsible for the situation in Angola and that we are responsible for the fact that Swapo has gained international recognition. I can continue in this vein. One pays 30 cents for such a newspaper, but the real price for any South African writing or publishing something like this, is 30 pieces of silver.

If the Opposition are trying to imply that they still have a trace of patriotism left now, after the Department of Information has been denigrated to such an extent, I wish to make an appeal to them to stop making these irresponsible statements in the House. Furthermore I wish to appeal to them to ask their Press not to denigrate and besmirch South Africa abroad. I challenge them to do this if they are patriotic South Africans.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Benoni tried to close the sluice gates after the water had stopped flowing. This debate deals with the Vote of the hon. the Minister and the administration of his department. The hysteria of the hon. member for Benoni has nothing to do with the matter. I want to say specifically to the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke …

Don’t talk to me. I am fed up with the lot of you!

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I ask permission to address a few words to him. The arguments we are advancing here are based on information and facts. They do not deal in any way with unfinished business in his Select Committee. The information we are using to prove our arguments is based on information that has already been published. It is based, for example, on statements that were made by the department.

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

I thought you said you were not on speaking terms with us!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville will have another turn to speak and then he can reply further to the allegations of that hon. member. Now I want to come, however, to what was said about the certificates and I have the Hansard of the hon. the Minister here with me. It reads as follows (Hansard, 9 May 1978)—

†Therefore the hon. the Prime Minister did not see the certificate and did not issue the certificate. It was given to the department concerned.

Who are “they”?

Surely there is not one fund only.

†I want to put that on record and add that we are dealing here with a series of incidents which are not concerned with the proper and orthodox conduct of the department’s affairs. That we have discussed in other years. We realize that the department has a very difficult task to perform.

*We accept that the department has extremely difficult problems with the anti-South African ampaign abroad. We understand the department’s inability to sell the Government’s policy abroad. They say it themselves, and we accept that they have problems with that. We want to congratulate the department on the efforts it is making to rectify matters by presenting the positive aspects of South Africa’s assets and development. We also congratulate the department on that. Our charge against the department, however, has to do with another matter. We admit that the department is doing a good job, but the debate today deals with the hon. the Minister’s Vote and with the administration of his department.

†We have heard a sorry tale of incompetence and maladministration, but these facts are still half buried by a cover-up which can only serve to increase suspicion and to destroy the trust in the work of the department. We are here dealing with default or defiance in respect of the spending of public money voted by Parliament. The time has come for Parliament to speak about these matters, and when I say Parliament, I do not mean just the hon. members on this side of the House, but all hon. members of Parliament who are concerned about proper administration and about proper control over public funds. They should get up and speak on these matters.

I want to limit myself, in the time available to me, to two key aspects of the defence which has been offered. The first aspect concerns the entire operation with all its irregularities that appears to be justified by the claim that valuable clandestine objectives are being achieved which supersede the laws of Parliament and the practices of parliamentary democracy. That is the first case I wish to deal with. The second case is the ministerial responsibility which attaches to these practices, that is to say, whether the hon. the Minister, by taking certain actions within his department, can escape with immunity from his own responsibility in this matter.

In regard to the secret operations within the department, the hon. the Minister and the department have given themselves plentiful testimonials as to the value of these cloak and dagger operations. They have referred to it as an apparatus “which unknown to the public, has achieved incredible success.” They say that the department “acted virtually as courier in international relations”.

They also speak of communicating sensitive international messages from African Presidents. The hon. the Minister said: “Dit word van die Departement van Inligting verwag om sekere sensitiewe en onortodokse skakelbedrywighede en inligtingsaksies te behartig.” Who are these skilful operators, and what special training and what special qualities have they to supplant traditional diplomacy and to make their own foreign policies? What special qualities and training do they have to do secret service work and to operate in that grey half-world of spying and intrigue? These are the things that they claim they are doing so well. Let us judge them by their own actions. Let us judge the Secretary of the department by his extraordinary views, e.g. regarding the purchase of journalists, or his undisciplined statements in recent weeks, e.g. about the “treachery” of the Auditor-General. Let us take a look at his senior officials of whose activities the Auditor-General says the following—

Let us judge them by their paid agents in America, their paid lobbyists and their intrusions into the internal affairs of Congress and the State Department. Let us judge them by the actions of the Minister, his own adventures into foreign affairs, by his foreign policy incursions and by his letter to President Ford in 1975, a letter which was described in Washington as a disaster in backdoor diplomacy. Let us judge him by his 1976 offer of giving Simonstown to America.

I have already read that in the newspapers; therefore you need not repeat it.

I shall nevertheless continue.

†Let us judge him by his 1977 proposal about closer relations with Red China and his journey to Rhodesia to pressurize Mr. Smith. Are these actions, and these men and their apparatus, suitable instruments to deal with the delicate and sensitive issues of foreign policy or of secret service operations? I say, Sir: Judge them by their own words and their own deeds.

I come now to the silent witnesses, the silent witnesses who include some 25 ambassadors abroad. These ambassadors have not made any public statements, but I am aware that they have been appalled by the tactless methods, the misconceived tactics, the clumsy interferences into diplomatic intercourse and the costly associations with strange political factions and persons in the political half world of America and other countries. The so-called aggressive approach, the contempt of normal diplomacy and diplomatic methods have embarrassed our embassies abroad—I say this with personal, direct knowledge—and have undermined in certain cases their prestige and integrity in the capitals where they represent South Africa.

I believe in all these matters—I say this with regret because of the person involved— the ministerial responsibility is total. I believe the hon. the Minister has been responsible from the day when he insisted on appointing Dr. Rhoodie as Secretary for Information against the advice of the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission said that this man had many qualities, but that he had no experience of administration or financial control. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, throughout this debate the hon. members of the Opposition have been trying very hard to limit the discussion of this Vote to the very narrow field of their own emotional campaign which they and their newspapers have been conducting during the recent weeks. In the newspapers there is talk of a scandal and this type of thing, and as soon as speakers on this side of the House start pointing out the broader interests which are under discussion here and the more important matters which are at stake, hon. members of the Opposition say, as the hon. member for Constantia has just done, that what the hon. member for Benoni, for instance, said when he spoke about the broader picture, is not really relevant. Surely the reason for this is obvious. The hon. members of the Opposition know that if their true aim with this whole debate should be revealed, the voters of South Africa will reject them to a greater extent than they have already done in the past.

What is that aim?

Surely the hon. members of the Opposition have an opportunity in the Select Committee to discuss the specific incidents, the specific items to which they should like to limit the debate. The real aim of the Opposition in this debate is, just as it was the aim of their Press over the past few weeks, to get at the Government and not only at the Department of Information and the defensibility of South Africa against the onslaught on it.

That is an absolute untruth!

This is why one gets such an immediate reaction when the hon. the Minister says that when the interests of South Africa are at stake, no rules apply. Let us forget for one moment the question whether rules should apply to us and see whether any rules apply on the part of our opponents. We have on more than one occasion heard in this debate that the onslaught on South Africa is a total onslaught. We know that the communists, the Russians and their cohorts do not burden themselves with rules.

I do not wish to elaborate on the activities of the organizations in the West which are conducting a campaign against South Africa. The hon. the Minister referred to them in detail. I only wish to refer very briefly to one of 79 organizations in the USA, i.e. the Council on Foreign Relations. The 1 400 selected American members, to whom reference is also made in the report of the Department of Information, have now, through Ferguson and Cocker, put forward 41 proposals in recent months on how South Africa should be attacked, for example by way of oil boycotts, arms embargoes and an active encouragement of terrorist organizations. In a book consisting of 1 300 pages entitled Tragedy and Hope by Dr. Carol Quigley one reads that this organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, has as its aim, inter alia, the destruction of South Africa. As a member of the inner circle Dr. Quigley proudly relates that this organization, during the past 30 or 35 years, has in fact formulated the foreign policy of every American administration of the Democratic as well as the Republican Party. One then comes to the conclusion that the American voter has very little choice between the two alternative administrations. One then sees that the whole democratic basis of the leader of the Western democracies has indeed become nothing less than a swindle which violates the principles of democracy. Surely it then becomes clear that no rules apply any more in the relationship between the West and South Africa.

In pious indignation the hon. Leader of the Opposition says that the statement by the hon. the Minister that no rules apply in this campaign, means that any dishonesty or illegality will simply have to be tolerated now. He says that this is what the hon. the Minister has in fact suggested. I think it is important that we should know what the tremendous extent of the onslaught is. We should regard this information offensive of ours as a single extension of South Africa’s total defensibility in the struggle for her survival. We know who the eventual victim of this attack by the Opposition and its Press will be. In the first place it will not be officials of a department or a department itself; not even the Minister. As the hon. the Prime Minister said in his statement, it will be South Africa itself. We have become accustomed to this action by the PFP and their tame Press.

The information offensive by South Africa is one extension of our total defence. As the hon. the Minister of Information said in 1972, the information officer is the frontline soldier. When we examine everything closely and one looks at the NRP and how zealously they are participating this undermining and character-assassination of our information officers, one feels compelled to say: “Et tu, Brute.” This is the party which boasts of being the greatest supporters of our defence effort.

This is the party which, as their leader, the hon. member for Durban Point puts it, should always like to be in the forefront when our defence effort has to be praised. As an ex-soldier, the hon. member should know that intelligence is one of our most sensitive and one of our most cardinal aspects of defence. When he so zealously participates in this attack and when the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South asks the Department of Information: “Who pocketed the money?” then I ask: How sincere is their concern about South Africa’s defensibility. Is it as sincere as the ballot box, for they know that when defence is discussed, there are soldiers, members of the Citizen Force and Commando members in every constituency. The staff of the Department of Information is, in contrast, a small group of people, who do not form as great a factor in every constituency. [Interjections.] If we boast about the fact that we are concerned about South Africa’s defensibility, we should see South Africa’s defensibility in its broad spectrum and then, as the hon. the Minister said, the information officer is the front-line soldier and hon. members of the second Opposition, or the non-Official Opposition, would do well to bear this in mind.

Mr. Chairman, my time is limited today and I therefore shall not have time either to deal with interjections or to answer any questions. It was not my intention to speak again in this debate, because I think that yesterday I made my position and that of my colleagues clear, namely that as we saw it this debate had come too soon and that we were not in full possession of the facts. We voiced criticism about those matters which we thought should be criticized and we asked questions of the hon. the Minister, some of which have been answered. In the light of the fact that there are these continuing investigations and committees, we do not feel that we are able to support either the motion of the PFP or of the NRP. Under these special circumstances and because the work of the department must go on, we shall support the appropriation under this Vote.

The reason why I am speaking today is because of certain remarks that were made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout yesterday and which were also referred to by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said (Hansard 9 May 1978)—

That way the first open attack on The Citizen, in Parliament, and on its editor by a leading member of the PFP. It has come after months and months of attempts by the Saan and Argus newspaper groups to discredit The Citizen. That is understandable, because there is always rivalry between newspapers, and the most obvious explanation for their attacks on The Citizen is the fact that The Citizen is doing well and the Rand Daily Mail is falling behind The Citizen in its White readership. However, there are also certain hidden reasons. In my opinion one hidden reason is the fact that the Saan and Argus groups resent most bitterly the only English-language newspaper that is not pushing a Prog-liberal line, the only English-language newspaper which is criticizing the Carter Administration and its countless pressure groups in America and the only English-language newspaper in South Africa which is exposing the Western World’s attempts to bring about radical change here in South Africa, the same policy as that of the PFP which they support. [Interjections.] Let us have a look at some of the attacks that have been made in Saan and Argus newspapers. There has, of course, been “samewerking” among the various newspapers in the Saan group. It began with an attack by the Sunday Express on The Citizen, referring to it as an “organ of the NP”. That was followed up by a leading article and other reports in the Rand Daily Mail in which it was suggested that The Citizen newspaper was funded secretly.

This was followed up further by attacks in the Sunday Times, which said, in its editor’s column, that the only known owners of The Citizen were foreigners. All of these newspapers belong to the Saan group. Then, of course, the newspapers of the Argus group entered the field. The Star, for example, said: “The Citizen is the voice of dismissed Government officials. The Citizen has done a disservice to the journalistic profession in South Africa.”

In other words, what we have seen is a combined assault by the newspapers of the Saan and the Argus groups. When the shareholding of The Citizen was queried in a leading article in the Rand Daily Mail on 3 May this year, I issued a statement, since I had referred to these matters in this House on countless occasions. I sent that statement to Sapa, as well as to the Saan and the Argus newspapers. I called upon the Rand Daily Mail to publish the names of the owners of Argus and Saan shares. That statement of mine was newsworthy, in view of the controversial character of my previous statements and speeches in this House, but was not referred to in The Cape Times. It was not referred to in The Argus or in the Rand Daily Mail. It was also probably not referred to in any of the other English-language newspapers in South Africa.

In 1974 I raised the question here in the House of shareholdings in the English-language newspapers. I concluded one of the passages of my speech by saying—

And do not forget, I had analysed the shareholdings. I had made a careful research of them—

The next day the heavens of anger opened. There were denials. There was abuse. There was everything except the facts. The former hon. member for Parktown, Mr. René de Villiers, stated here in the House, as well as in the Press, and also on public platforms, that no editor in the Argus or the Saan groups had ever been dictated to in all the years of his being associated with those two groups, that there had never been any interference from any level with his journalistic objectiveness. Now however, there is a deathly silence when the editor of The Citizen is referred to by implication as a Government stooge. The editor of The Citizen was for eight years with the Argus group, for 28 years with the Saan group. He was the assistant news editor of The Star, the news editor of the Sunday Times, the news editor of the Rand Daily Mail, the assistant editor of the Sunday Times, and thereafter, I think, for 13 years the editor of the Sunday Express. He has been in the newspaper world, in journalism, since 1938. Why then, has this man been singled out, by implication, in this House by hon. members of the PFP, as well as by the English-language newspaper groups of Saan and the Argus?

The first reason is because the editor of the Sunday Express, as he then was, warned against the combined assault that was then taking place on the old UP by those seeking leftist liberal radical political change here in South Africa; the same objectives as those of the PFP. [Interjections.] For that reason he was not made editor of the Sunday Times. Since then he has been editor of The Citizen, the only independended-minded English-language newspaper in South Africa, uncontrolled by a newspaper group. [Interjections.] Secondly, it is of course because he is intensely pro-South Africa in his writing, and thirdly because what he is writing is what South Africans want to hear and not what the leftists and the liberals in South Africa want to hear. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the Minister of Information specifically, since he has also been Minister of the Interior, a direct question: Are Government funds at any level channelled to The Citizen? Are Government funds made available to that newspaper? [Interjections.] It has been said in this debate and in statements before this debate that the Department of Information is going to be restructured. I said yesterday in the course of my speech that this restructuring was absolutely necessary because the effectiveness of this department, in whatever form it is restructured, has to be restored. But, Sir, I want to tell the Minister and hon. members that no matter how this department is restructured and no matter what changes are brought about in the complexion of this department, it will never succeed in portraying South Africa in proper perspective inside or outside South Africa as long as there are English language newspaper groups like the Argus and Saan groups constantly portraying South Africa only in a biased and non-objective light. All the Minister’s efforts and all the department’s efforts will be of no avail and will be frustrated as long as that is the position. I say now, today: It is the Government’s responsibility and the Minister’s responsibility to South Africa to take action to bring an end to this state of affairs.

Last year we saw the introduction of the Newspaper Bill by the hon. the Minister in his capacity as Minister of the Interior. It is now in cold storage. Since then we have had an announcement that a special monitoring committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Neville Krige is studying the Press. I want to ask when that committee is going to report. I want to ask the Government and the Minister more particularly what they are going to do about this state of affairs. The Government cannot continue to wring its hunds and to do absolutely nothing. I say it is the duty of this Minister to report to the Cabinet that all his efforts externally to sell South Africa are being white-anted from within South Africa by South African journalists … [Time expired.]

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

I thank the hon. member; I have nearly finished. I was saying that all the Minister’s efforts and the department’s efforts to sell South Africa objectively and well overseas are being white-anted from within South Africa by South African journalists sending unbalanced newspaper reports overseas. Sir, I have never asked any journalist in South Africa, in all the years that I have talked about the Press and its attitudes, to support the parties to which I have belonged, or to write anything other than objectively in their newspapers. That is all I am asking. I am asking that journalists who send their reports overseas and from whose reports in South Africa quotations are made overseas, should give both sides of the story and report objectively and fairly. The Minister must say that all his efforts are being broken down by journalists of the Argus and Saan newspaper combine, who are always pushing the same leftist-liberal political line to the exclusion of all other viewpoints and objective news of all kinds. Bearing in mind the limited time at my disposal and the fact that I have made three full-scale speeches in this House on this matter, in 1974, in 1976 and again earlier this year, I do not think it is necessary for me to build up a further case before asking the Minister to ask the Cabinet to appoint a Select Committee, or else a commission, to investigate the English language Press monopoly, the Argus and Saan, and to explain to the Cabinet, in motivating his request, the effect this combine has on the work of his Department of Information in helping the Republic inland and outside South Africa in its battle for survival. If he is not the appropriate Minister to whom to direct this request, then may I ask him to direct this request to the Minister of Economic Affairs, who is indeed in a position to examine monopolistic conditions here in the Republic. The present situation cannot be allowed to continue. What I am saying today—and there will be shrieks of laughter, but let me nevertheless say it—is that it is not a case of interfering with Press freedom. There is a Press monopoly and this Press monopoly is the very negation of Press freedom here in the Republic. What I want— and it is all I have ever asked for in the speeches I have made on the subject in this House—is an independent Press, a responsible Press and a pro-South African Press, uncontrolled by secret trusts, nominee companies and vested financial interests. [Time expired.]

Like The Citizen.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a few statements and I should like to tackle him on those points. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made certain allegations and accusations. There is, however, a Select Committee which is investigating certain matters and still has to make certain recommendations. The Official Opposition condemned officials before the report concerned has been presented. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made certain allegations, and I want to ask him to present himself voluntarily to the Select Committee to prove those allegations. [Interjections.] I say that in view of the fact that those aspects are still being considered by the Select Committee. Will the hon. the Leader please indicate whether he will come voluntarily? [Interjections.] He does not want to come.

Order!

I want to give the Leader of the Official Opposition notice here that I am going to ask in the Select Committee that he be summonsed to give evidence. [Interjections.]

Will you summons Waldeck as well?

He sits in this House as a member with parliamentary privilege making accusations and allegations on the basis of hearsay and newspaper reports. [Interjections.]

I want to repeat what I have said: If the hon. the Leader does not come, I am going to ask that he be summonsed to give that evidence. He must produce his evidence. One must not think that one can make wild allegations in this House about officials who cannot defend themselves here, officials who still have to be either censured or exonerated by the Select Committee.

But this is not the worst thing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did. The hon. the Leader quoted the hon. the Minister’s reasons as to why the Secretary could not be dismissed. Then he said accusingly that the Secretary had some hold on the hon. the Minister. What a shocking thing to say! In other words, the hon. the Minister is not free. His hands are tied or he is being blackmailed by the Secretary. This amounts to casting aspersions and reflections on the integrity, the character and the honour of the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] I think this is a matter for Mr. Speaker. I think it constitutes an infringement of parliamentary privilege, and if it does not, it comes very close to doing so. I am prepared to resume my seat now so that the Leader of the Opposition may tell the House what kind of hold, according to his insinuation, the Secretary has on the hon. the Minister. What does he mean by that? What is he implying by that?

It is a leader, no less, who acts in that way.

It is a leader, no less, who acts in that way. And on top of that, he is so rude that he does not listen to what a person is saying. The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition must please tell us that. [Interjections.] Two members of the Official Opposition are members of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, but they condemn officials—I am referring to the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Yeoville, who are members of the committee and also the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who is not a member—before all evidence has been heard and before the committee has been able to reach a finding. What manner of judges are they?

In his speech the hon. member for Simonstown happened to ask many of the questions I wanted to ask. However, I should like to give a very clear exposition of my case this afternoon. I am in favour of a free Press in South Africa. I believe in a Press which is not bound. But what do we have in South Africa? On 7 May the Sunday Express wrote—

For a period of four months the Department of Information was the subject of an active investigation but during this entire period, the SAAN group, i.e. the South African Associated Newspapers, and the Argus group spoke exactly the same language, spoke with the same voice, spoke from one mouth. If we take a closer look at the matter, we also see that they have been discrediting this department systematically and have been committing character assassination on the officials. We must find out whose voice this is and who control the SAAN group and the Argus group. In this regard, I want to second the motion of the hon. member for Simonstown.

Let us see who is behind this. About 2½ years ago, Mr. Louis Luyt was in the process of taking over the SAAN group which was halfway to bankruptcy. Who voiced vehement objections to that? The hon. member for Yeoville. As far as I know he travelled in secret to and fro between Johannesburg and Cape Town to stop the take-over. It is interesting to note that at the time the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition said the following in a speech which he made in Pretoria—and I am quoting from Hoofstad of 9 September 1976—

He went on to say—

He said “op ’n ander manier’’; i.e. in an extra-parliamentary manner. He added—

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether the type of policy he wants to implement, is to manipulate these newspapers—newspapers which, so I believe, are absolutely controlled by certain powers, these being either Mr. Harry Oppenheimer himself, or some of his affiliated companies, or a certain group or money power which the hon. member for Yeoville tried very hard to get into the same fold.

Members of the Cabinet serve on the boards of directors of your newspapers!

What did we get? These papers have been telling infamous lies throughout. I should like to quote two recent examples from newspapers. On Sunday, 23 April, i.e. the Sunday after the House had discussed the First Report of the Select Committee, I also appeared on the front page of the Sunday Times. Can you believe it, Mr. Chairman? They wrote a whole piece about a clash that had allegedly occurred between myself and the chairman of the Select Committee. They wrote, inter alia, the following—

That is a lie. That was not so. I took it up with the Sunday Times. I said to them, “Listen, you are going to put that matter right or I shall refer it to the Press Council at once.” On the same day, in the same paper, there was a banner headline: “Samuels awarded R12 000 against the Sunday Times." In other words, the newspaper was to pay out R12 000 for the lies it had told and the character assassination it had committed. But on the same day they tackled me. [Interjections.] Sir, the newspaper dropped from my hand: It is not worth holding it in one’s hand; one ought to throw it away. The next Sunday, they rectified the matter, but at the same time told further lies. I want to contend that it is the PFP which is behind it. That is the method they employ, i.e. character assassination …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is it proper for an hon. member to say that we are standing behind lies and that we … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I do not think that hon. Minister is the Chairman.

Order! What did the hon. member for Sunnyside mean by what he said?

Mr. Chairman, I said that these newspapers committed character assassination and that the Official Opposition was behind these newspapers as they themselves were the owners of the newspapers. Surely the hon. member for Parktown is …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The statement which is referred to by the hon. member for Yeoville was made before that particular phrase was used.

Order! I asked the hon. member what he had said. He then got up and said what he had said. I did not hear exactly what he had said in the first place and I have to accept his word. The hon. member may proceed.

It is untruthful. It is unparliamentary.

Mr. Chairman, can I ask your ruling whether the hon. member for Yeoville is entitled to say that the explanation given by the hon. member for Sunnyside is untrue?

Of course it is untrue. You can look at Hansard.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member alleges that the hon. member for Sunnyside is not telling the truth.

Order! The hon. member can get up and put a point of order, but he cannot stand up and indulge in an argument with the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Sunnyside may proceed.

Mr. Chairman … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it appears that a Press war has broken out in the middle of the debate on the Vote of the hon. Minister of Information. For those who sit on these benches and in this party it would be a very happy day indeed for South Africa if we had a free Press and if we did not have pressure groups and influence groups which control both the English Press and the Afrikaans Press. If we were able to have a Press that is really free and objective and without strings attached to it and which is not being controlled by anybody on either side of the House, it would be a very happy day indeed. [Interjections.] That is one of the problems that the hon. the Minister faces. This is precisely the problem the hon. the Minister and his department faces in the world outside. One of the problems we face is that the media, by and large, is controlled by the left in all the Western countries. It is one of the problems the hon. the Minister himself will acknowledge. It is so and one of the reasons why South Africa is continually being subjected to this kind of onslaught which is being mentioned so often on television and in the Press, is because people are dedicated to a certain end, for the very reason that this country of ours is one of the last bastions in the world of capitalism, a country where capitalism is working. Group collectivism, the group idea, which is being accepted and punted overseas, is not accepted by us here. This is the very problem the hon. the Minister has to deal with. Hon. members talk about the onslaught against South Africa as if it is something new. Anybody who has done any reading in depth on the Communist Party, who has studied propaganda and who has read about the efforts of the Communist Party and Facist Party between the wars, will know that this is old hat and has been going on for years. Everybody who has read about the left book club and the right book club, the Soviet Writers Guild and the Facist Exchange and those sort of things, will acknowledge that this has been going on for years and that it is nothing new. The hon. the Minister is not acting in that league at all.

The work that his department is doing, for which he requests funds from us and for which he has been using from outside the normal budget Vote of his department, is not taking part in that broad ideological battle which is going on in the world outside. He is trying to punt a specific idea which is tied to the policy of the Government. That is his problem. That is why he is not being accepted and why the old outmoded ideas which the Government itself is abandoning, are not going down overseas. No matter how hard his department may try to do it, they will not succeed, because of “die gisterpolitiek van die NP” which is discredited and outmoded even here in South Africa. That is the problem which the hon. the Minister and his department has. The hon. member for Umlazi accused this party of merely talking for the sake of defence of South Africa, but are not really interested in the “breë weerbaarheid” of South Africa. I think that is an absolutely outrageous remark. The real problem that we face and what this debate is all about, what we have been talking about since yesterday, is the fact that the “breë weerbaarheid” of South Africa is being affected in a very significant degree by actions of people within the department of the hon. the Minister of Information. That is where the matter starts and that is where it will end. The answers we want in this debate about what has been going on in his department, will have to come from that hon. Minister. We have been talking for a long time now and there are certain aspects that are now being accepted by everyone. One of these is that there has been irregularity in expenditure. That has come from the Select Committee and will be dealt with further by the Select Committee. It is now common knowledge. In regard to the question of the certificates in respect of expenditure we have not yet had a satisfactory answer. As I understand it, the accounting officer of the department is the Secretary of the department. The hon. the Minister must tell me whether the certificates were signed by the Secretary of his department or not. The Select Committee has not concluded its investigation and further reports will come before the House. We are therefore debating something here which is only halfway through and all the indications are that we will not have a chance to debate the matter when those reports are tabled in the House. That is why, when the first and second reports were debated, I moved the adjournment of the debate so that it could be continued when the other reports are tabled. I want to ask the hon. the Minister now, as I have asked him before, whether he will undertake to arrange with the Leader of the House that time is allocated to debate the other reports about the Department of Information that will come from the Select Committee. I ask the hon. the Minister to give us a categorical undertaking that that will be done and that he will use his influence—the hon. Chief Whip on that side can also use his influence—to see that time is allocated to this House so that we can discuss the complete matter.

It can be done during the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill.

The Third Reading stage is not the answer, and the hon. Chief Whip knows that. This debate will be concluded, the hon. the Minister will have made his speech, but the matter will not have been concluded. There is no way in which it can be concluded by the hon. the Minister’s reply here today. Does the hon. the Minister agree with me that the problem is being caused by serious insubordination in his department? It is no good for the hon. the Minister to shove off the matter and say that he expects the House to be satisfied as there might be reasons why the Secretary cannot be dismissed. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, as he sits there: Does he wish to dismiss the Secretary? He is the Minister, he has repudiated the statement issued by the Secretary and he has indicated that had he known what the contents of that statement were, he would not have authorized its being issued. The hon. the Minister must now tell me whether he wishes to dismiss the Secretary or not.

He must tell us whether he wishes to do so, whether he intends to do so and, if there are reasons why he cannot do so, he must tell us what these reasons are. I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House, the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke—he is the chairman of the Select Committee investigating these affairs—and the hon. member for Sunnyside, whether they are satisfied, where their Select Committee has reported to the House that serious irregularities are taking place …

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

Sit down. Are they satisfied, in the light of this, that the hon. the Minister is in a position where he may take whatever actions he … [Interjections.]

You are a coward.

Who said that I am a “coward”?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Moorreesburg refer to the hon. member for Mooi River as a coward?

Order! The hon. member for Moorreesburg must withdraw that immediately.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister how he can maintain discipline in his department and I want to ask hon. members how they can maintain discipline in that department if their Minister is in that situation? I want to ask that question of any hon. Minister on that side of the House.

If you allow me to put a question to you, you will get your reply. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister can give me the answers when he replies to the debate.

The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the issue of the certificates and I think the hon. the Minister himself will also reply on that aspect. I can only hope that he will give us a complete and satisfactory answer in regard to that particular matter. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister has made his statement prior to this debate in order to reaffirm the authority of the Auditor-General and the authority of Parliament. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he accepts completely, absolutely and utterly that the Auditor-General and Parliament have to figure in all matters which relate to the expenditure of public money. The hon. the Prime Minister indicated that he had told the Auditor-General to go ahead with the investigation regardless of who is affected. The hon. the Prime Minister has also taken the further step of announcing that he has appointed somebody to go into the areas where, in terms of legislation, the Auditor-General may not penetrate and that that matter should also be brought to the attention of the Auditor-General. I am myself of the opinion that that is a situation which is absolutely essential if we are going to control departments or expenditure in the way in which it ought to be controlled. I must confess that the hon. the Minister appears to me to be the invisible man. He has told us that in regard to his other departments he is going to work himself out of a job. In regard to the Department of Information, however, he tells us about all the successes he has had—and the Lord bless every success that he may have had—but he cannot tell us about these things. What situation is this where we have to vote money for a department, but may not know or discuss the successes and achievements of the hon. the Minister and his department? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have almost reached the end of the debate now and I should like to state my standpoint in respect of the Department of Information very clearly. It is my premise that the enemies of South Africa should be destroyed in whatever sphere they may wish to attack us, and if they choose to attack us in the sphere of information and propaganda, they should also be destroyed there. At the outset I should like to make it clear that I am not a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and for that reason I should like to approach this debate as an ordinary, informed man in the street. I have had no personality clashes with anyone in the Select Committee, and I have no grudge in my heart against anyone who has testified before the Committee. I am not a person who played prosecutor in that Committee and who cannot detach myself from that role, and would therefore like to continue to be a prosecutor here in the House.

I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the detailed report which he delivered in the House yesterday. He replied to all questions honestly, sincerely and without beating about the bush. I would agree with the hon. the Minister that when the survival of a nation is at stake, no legal rules apply. If there is a state of emergency, one speeds through a red traffic light on the way to hospital, and when the survival of a nation is at stake, it is a state of emergency of the severest kind. I cannot understand why the hon. Leader of the Opposition cannot realize that it is a state of emergency in which we find ourselves. [Interjections.]

After the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister, and after the hon. the Minister’s speech here yesterday, there is not much to say in this debate. The statement by the hon. the Prime Minister makes it very clear that there has been no unauthorized expenditure of funds which had not been earmarked for a specific purpose. The funds which were spent, were spent for the purpose for which they had been earmarked by the House, or for the purpose for which they had been placed in the secret fund. I can therefore not understand why they are being debated. It is very clear that the funds were correctly applied. Perhaps, during the application of the funds, the rules and instructions were not strictly complied with, but it was nevertheless not unauthorized expenditure.

The major complaint of the hon. members for Parktown and Yeoville is that they would like to know from what fund the money is being provided. The answer is quite simple: Certificates have been issued and accepted by the Auditor-General that proper provision has been made for the funds which have been expended. All I can believe, is that this information is to be used to inform our enemies about the magnitude of our effort and how we are going about it. Is it fair to expect that we should bruit this information abroad now? Those hon. members are intelligent people …

Never!

I am sorry; perhaps I am wrong. Those hon. members of the Opposition know that when we evaluate this aspect, we have to do so within the legal milieu of South Africa, and the legal milieu of South Africa lays down that when someone alleges anything, he must be able to prove it. The prima facie evidence can be obtained from the report of the Auditor-General. Everything is in order. If those hon. gentlemen have the courage of their convictions, they ought to present counter-evidence. They ought to stand up and testify that there has been a mistake, and they ought to submit affidavits. That is the legal milieu of South Africa with which no fault can be found, but those hon. gentlemen are using the “rule of law” as and when it suits them. I should like to ask them not to act so recklessly. They must not make charges which harm South Africa, purely to give vent to their emotions, unless they have sufficient conviction in their hearts and are prepared to testify.

During the past few weeks, the Department of Information has constantly been weighed, but we must weigh with the correct measures and where it has done well, we ought to praise and where it has been at fault we must censure and, if necessary, punish. So the first question we should ask ourselves is whether this department is serving its purpose and whether it has defended and stated the case of South Africa at all times. There has not been a single charge from the opposite side of the House that this department has not carried out its duty to the full. In that respect, we should give the hon. the Minister and the department credit for putting South Africa first—to such an extent that even the Opposition cannot point a finger at them.

I want to refer to another aspect. The second question we should ask ourselves, is whether the administration of this department has been properly managed.

Let us look at the personnel administration in the first place. I have heard no complaints or charge that the personnel administration was no good. On the contrary. What I have indeed heard …

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

No, I do not have time. There have been complaints that certain financial regulations have perhaps been contravened. I do not wish to pass judgment. I want to make it very clear that I am not a member of the Select Committee. But if one reduces the whole gravamen of the charge to its simplest terms, it appears that only the bookkeeping system was not in line with Public Service regulations. That is all. It centres round the bookkeeping system. I want to state clearly that if a bookkeeping system is wrong, it can be rectified afterwards. If one finds that there has been a criminal act, one refers it to the Attorney-General, and the hon. the Prime Minister has already said that he would do so in this case. But if one cannot rectify the bookkeeping system because one cannot find the supporting vouchers for expenditure, there must be another consideration, because if in a legal milieu one has no corroborating evidence, one must accept affidavits. One then accepts the corroboration of the expenditure on a balance of probabilities and not beyond a reasonable doubt. If one is not satisfied with that, one must furnish proof to the contrary. However the hon. Opposition has produced no proof to the contrary. They are not prepared to analyse and to solve this problem in the legal milieu of South Africa. I want to make it clear that I can accept that were there has been unconventional conduct, there cannot always be proof. I believe that one should be able to realize that.

Finally, I should like to ask whether we have not perhaps been expecting too much of the Department of Information and whether we did not perhaps hamstring it so that it could not perform its function properly. The Central Office of Information in England has a budget of R42 million per annum; the Department of Information has a budget of R16 million per annum. And not only that. The onslaught is on us. Britain does not have this terrible onslaught on her. Must we not consider that we are perhaps hamstringing the department? I want to point out that the books of the American State Department are audited in a different way. It has been laid down—

I conclude by saying that I blame the PFP for the fact that, without any evidence at their disposal, they are fanning this terrible onslaught on South Africa. I do not know what is going to appear in the subsequent reports. We can only debate on what we have before us at present. In the circumstances, my indictment against the PFP is that they have not acted in accordance with the legal milieu of South Africa of which they—so they profess—are the patrons.

Mr. Chairman, I do not follow the hon. member’s argument. He is being utterly unrealistic in attacking and arraigning the Official Opposition. There is a Select Committee of this Parliament of which the vast majority are members of that side of the House. That committee was so perturbed by the poor internal control, the inefficient utilization of staff and the non-compliance with financial instructions in the Department of Information that it regarded a further in-depth inquiry to be essential. The hon. member for Pretoria West voted for that. Therefore I reject the accusation that blame is to be attached to this side of the House.

The hon. member for Simonstown was really somewhat ridiculous this afternoon. There was no attack here on any newspaper or editor. Nor would I apologize if I wanted to attack any newspaper or editor. They attack politicians and politicians have the right to attack them. That is not what it was all about. We simply said that it was believed that The Citizen and other publications are secretly being supported by the Government. Yesterday, after the question was put, the hon. the Minister spoke for more than 1½ hours, but gave no reply to that.

It was not a question.

Of course it was a question! The hon. the Prime Minister himself must realize that that rumour is doing the rounds. Everyone knows about it. We are entitled to raise it here and to try to get clarity in regard to it. Therefore I was amazed that we had the hon. the Minister on his feet for 1½ hours yesterday without saying a word about it. That is the reason why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came back to that point again.

The hon. member for Sunnyside has endless complaints about the English-language Press and monopolies. Where can we find a greater monopoly than the Afrikaans-language newspapers, almost all of which belong to the NP? [Interjections.] Those hon. members are always concerned about double standards, but this argument is the greatest double standard one can apply. If a great number of newspapers can be under the control of one political party, surely there is nothing wrong with other newspapers being under the control of a group of businessmen.

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

No, unfortunately I do not have the time. One of the main weaknesses of the Department of Information is its total negation of our position in Africa and of our African interests. The hon. the Minister is someone who is always talking about the importance of our position in Africa, about the fact that we are an African country and that we have to seek our future in Africa. I can quote numerous examples of that. In the report which is before us this year, there is not a single indication that he or his department is doing anything to try and improve our position in Africa. This simply gets no attention. This is serious, for while we are sitting here, a debate is being conducted in the Transkeian Parliament. The Prime Minister of the Transkei announced this morning that he is terminating the non-aggression pact with South Africa. I quote further—

Therefore, a “Transkei bulge”, is now developing on land and on sea, at least as far as our position is concerned. [Interjections.] The Transkei does not have a great military force of which we need be afraid. What is important, however, is that we are doing everything in our power to find favour with European countries, with America and others, while we are doing nothing in this sphere where the future of South Africa lies, and while we are not doing anything to improve our position in Africa either. [Interjections.] More than two years ago I asked the hon. the Minister of Information what he was doing to train Coloureds, Indians and Blacks for service in the Department of Information so that we could subsequently have people who could perform this task too in Africa. However, there is nothing but talk. It is already 1978 and still there is no indication whatsoever of any activity on that front. I shall be very glad if the hon. the Minister will tell us how many non-White information officers he has, and in what countries they are active. What is being done to improve our delicate position in Africa? We see nothing of that.

The hon. the Minister accused me of quoting selectively, with ulterior motives that give my quotations a distorted image. Surely the hon. the Minister cannot expect me to read out the entire annual report to this House. The quotation I made was absolutely justified. The hon. the Minister submitted a report of his department here in which it was stated that “it is now generally accepted that unless the domestic relations pattern is right, no amount of money or manpower will be able to promote the South African cause abroad”. It is not I who say that, but the hon. the Minister’s own report. It says—

This is an admission that the foreign operation is producing no results, that it keeps on ending in failure while there are no internal changes in South Africa itself. Therefore, according to him, he is making special efforts internally. [Interjections.]

In his statement here in Parliament, on 3 May, the hon. the Minister said that it was clear to him that the Department of Information could no longer continue to exist in its present form and that he would therefore submit a request to the Cabinet for a total restructuring of the department. He said that the Public Service Commission would be requested to make an inquiry in this connection. Now I am asking the hon. the Minister why it is necessary for the Public Service Commission to do this work. Is this not the sort of task that should be entrusted to this Parliament? [Interjections.] What is the reaction of the hon. the Minister to our request that a parliamentary committee be appointed to perform this task? There are people in this House who have experience of what is happening in other countries and of the methods that are being applied there. I want to ask the hon. the Minister directly what his reaction is to our request that the co-operation of Parliament be sought in the intended restructuring of the Department of Information.

Then I want to put another question to the hon. the Minister. The Department of Information operates in South West Africa as well. I should like to know what the Department of Information’s plans for the future are with regard to South West Africa. What are his future plans with regard to the offices as well as the department’s officials who are working there? I should very much like to know from the hon. the Minister why the post of Deputy Minister of Information was abolished. One would have expected that the hon. the Minister would be assisted by a Deputy Minister, especially in the light of the fact that the hon. the Minister also occupies another exacting position and also has to cope with all the problems which arose round the functions of the Department of Information. Therefore I should like to know for what reasons the post of Deputy Minister of Information was abolished.

Mr. Chairman, since the discussion of this Vote began yesterday, I have been listening to the debate with great interest. During the discussion, the meaning of a few English proverbs have become very clear to me. One of these is “cut your nose to spite your face”. Another proverb which has become very clear to me, is “it is a storm in a teacup”. What are we discussing, Sir? Are we availing ourselves of this opportunity by dragging intestines across the floor, or trying to derive an advantage for our own petty party-political gain, or are we discussing the interests of our nation? When I say that, then I think of an Afrikaans expression, namely “dit gaan nie om die hondjie nie, maar om die halsbandjie”. It is not this cause which is involved here, but the possible, questionable benefit which those who are making such a great fuss, are going to derive from this. I just want to tell the hon. members on the opposite side: They must be careful that in the strenuous effort to tie their shoelaces, they do not break their backs.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move onto another level. I should like to try to make a contribution. For that reason I should like to move into a field where I shall try to be progressive and to suggest something which is worthwhile. I say this in all modesty. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has made mention of sound relations here in South Africa As far as that statement is concerned, I want to agree with him, but I cannot agree with him about the steps which must be taken to achieve those sound relations. It is of utmost importance to me that the relations between the different population groups in South Africa should be of the very best. I am convinced that if the different peoples in South Africa can understand one another’s viewpoints and one another’s strivings and aspirations as nations, even the external onslaught will not succeed in its purpose, because then we shall be able to offer strong resistance as a united nation. That is why I want to say something today about what the Department of Information has done to improve ethnic relations in South Africa When I say that, it is important that we should realize what is involved.

It is important that we should realize, in the first instance, what the particular circumstances of South Africa are. South Africa consists of a group of separate nations, from different ethnic groups. We have already stated that we are ultimately going to lead those ethnic groups to national independence. But these nations are living together in the southernmost point of Africa and it is very important that we should approach and regard the matter from that viewpoint. If we want to do that, our very first duty is to tell these people what the common problems are. If we look at what is happening in South West Africa, Angola, Moçambique and Rhodesia, nobody can be so blind that he cannot see the common danger. That common danger is namely the fact that international communism has set its sights on Southern Africa. For that reason it is our task to point out these problems to these people. That, the Department of Information has done.

The message which should also be conveyed to these people, is that what is involved here, is not the expulsion of the White man from Africa, but the obliteration of all forms of nationalism. That is the danger and that is the problem. Secondly, Sir, it is our task to make these people aware of the options which the White man is offering the various nations in South Africa. There is namely the road to sovereign independence, the road to the right of self-determination. That is the road along which every nation can decide for itself according to its own morality and habits, how it wants to live. It can live its life to the full in its traditional part of South Africa. Then, in the third place, I want to congratulate the Department of Information on the way in which its officials have taught the different nations how they can understand one another. If we read what is written on page 28 of the annual report of the department, we shall see what the Department of Information has already done in connection with the improvement of race relations in Southern Africa.

I have had the privilege of attending meetings together with Mr. Tommie Muller of Ficksburg, at which he addressed students, groups of farmers and Black people on race relations. I can testify here today that that man’s attitude has established nothing less than a wonderful improvement in race relations. If we want to be responsible in this House today, we must say that we will do everything we can, positively and objectively, to strengthen this principle, to inspire the people within South Africa—we have already discussed the people outside South Africa— for the sake of those common interests which these different nations have here, interests in respect of which we must stand together and which we must promote. Then we will not crawl around in the mud after these petty matters. We will look past these small matters and look at the ideal and the future of a common country in which all will have to attend to the common problems. But then we must look at them as nations, each as a nation in its own right.

According to the latest calculations, the farming community in South Africa accommodates 37% of the Black people of South Africa, and I put it to hon. members here, without any fear of contradiction, that the measure of confidence, patience and understanding which exists between the farming community and its Black people, is an example of the good relations in South Africa. Those relations have also been built up by arriving at a mutual understanding, by the fact that we are different but are also prepared to understand one another.

In conclusion, I want to say that our hon. the Prime Minister and our hon. the Minister of Information have given the assurance that the law will take its course and that justice will prevail in South Africa I want to state that we on this side of the House have absolute confidence in that. We will do what South Africa demands of us. That is the direction which we will take. But we should realize, in the times in which we live, that if South Africa demands that serious things be done in this struggle for existence which we are conducting, we should be prepared to do those things.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Heilbron must forgive me if I do not deal with the matters he dealt with since he dealt with issues which I think were somewhat unrelated to the debate. As we are now near the end of this particular debate, I think that we must firstly state our attitude towards the Vote. We believe that the department should disappear. It is quite clear that it is going to disappear and therefore we shall vote against this particular provision.

There is, however, an amendment which was moved by the NRP. We want to make it quite clear that in the normal course of events we would not support an amendment which relates to an official’s salary. Even in this particular case, even though we feel fairly strongly about the individual, we would have preferred not to have singled him out as far as his salary is concerned. In the particular circumstances that exist here, however, we have no choice but to support the NRP amendment [Interjections.]

We are near the end of this particular debate, and one of the matters about which I want to take the Minister to task concerns the attitude which he has adopted and which hon. members on that side of the House have adopted. Instead of dealing with the problems of the department, they have sought to put the blame for the troubles of the department either on members sitting in these benches or on the Press. Some of it has been in the most exaggerated language. I can quote a few examples. The hon. member for Bloemfontein North, for instance, had to withdraw certain words and spoke in derogatory terms of the Opposition. The hon. member for Von Brandis became emotional about “international sabotage” and he also had to withdraw certain words. So we had a whole series of hon. members carrying on in this vein.

Nobody has remembered the headlines appearing in Afrikaans newspapers controlled by the NP. Let me quote a few: “Rhoodie— nuwe storm” in Beeld; “Dr. Rhoodie se geheim”; “Hoe koppe waai”; “Dr. Eschel ook weg?”; “Rhoodie pak Waldeck”; “Mulder praat met Rhoodie”; “Storm woed oor Inligting”; “Dr. Rhoodie gevang”. So it goes on. In Die Transvaler one read “Fondsgeheim uit”. Other headlines read: “Rhoodie is uit” and “Inligting verdwyn”. Then there was “Inligting—nou vyf ondersoeke” in Die Vaderland and further “Dr. Connie brandpunt”. So it goes on.

The hon. the Minister said—

That was a wicked statement on the part of the hon. the Minister.

You cannot deny it!

Because of that, I am now going to disclose certain facts which I had not intended disclosing. I am going to disclose them to the House so that there will be no misunderstanding about this. I want to deal specifically with the first public knowledge that was had of secret funds and how that became public knowledge. I am going to reveal the facts. I was approached by the Sunday Express to comment on the story which concerned the secret fund of the Department of Information. At that stage no report was mentioned to me at all.

When was that?

A statement was given to me that there was such a report which they intended to publish. I told them on that occasion, firstly, that they should not publish that statement until they were certain of their facts.

When was that?

The date was 21 April if the hon. member wants to know. I was on my way from here to the airport in a motor-car.

Then you should have recused yourself from the Select Committee.

Just a minute. Hear me out I told them that rumours should not be published and that they should be certain of their facts. Secondly, I said to them that, in deciding whether or not to publish, they should view the matter not purely from a journalistic point of view, but from the point of view of the national interest as well. Thirdly, I told them that, before they published, they should consider the implications of the Official Secrets Act and other legislation, because I considered it to be a question of what was in the national interest. As a result of that discussion and other discussions that took place publication was withheld on that particular Sunday, as the hon. the Minister knows.

In due course, during the week that followed, the hon. the Minister was in fact visited in Cape Town and certain events took place. The next thing that occurred was that we then read the statement of the Secretary in the papers for the first time when he made disclosures about the secret fund, about matters pertaining to three Ministers and the Cabinet Committee, about the secret report of the Auditor-General and about the incorrect answers the hon. the Minister had given about the Seychelles.

In all fairness, I want to ask the hon. the Minister across the floor of the House: Who acted in the national interest? Who acted responsibly in these circumstances? Can the allegation of irresponsibility be directed at this side of the House? Who saw to it that the newspapers were at least advised by a member of the Opposition not to rush into print? The truth is that, when the hon. the Minister was put in a position to take action if he so wished in respect of the publication of that information, he decided that it could be published and he did so on his own responsibility. After I had given the warning about the Official Secrets Act and after I had indicated that they should consider whether or not it was in the national interest to publish this information, he adopted the attitude that publication could take place—because publication did take place and no action was taken. In fact, it has now been clearly established that not only did that newspaper act responsibly in that instance. It is also quite clear that there were facts which they would not have published on the Sunday if they did not get confirmation of those facts from Dr. Rhoodie’s statement which he made on the Saturday.

Who told you that?

That is a fact. Therefore, when we talk about responsibility, I make this statement with full cognizance of the facts. To make allegations against this side of the House in those circumstances, is a scandal. These allegations of lack of patriotism and the attack on our integrity, I throw back in the teeth of the hon. member who made them. [Interjections.]

Sir, we near the end of the debate and the question that has to be asked now is: Where do we go from here? Is this going to drag on until the information service of South Africa is going to be paralysed at this crucial time, or is the hon. the Prime Minister going to bring it to an end? Only he can bring it to an end if he himself takes over the department pending the reorganization and if he sees to it that there is a new allocation of functions. We believe that the external aspects should go to the Department of Foreign Affairs and the others to individual local departments. That will solve the secret fund issue, which I believe cannot be put right unless the hon. the Prime Minister is in charge of this and unless legislation is introduced in this House. I believe we need a Select Committee of Parliament with the assistance of the hon. the Prime Minister’s own investigating auditors to investigate and report to Parliament in order that an end can be made to this and in order that our information service may function properly again. When it comes to the question of Dr. E. M. Rhoodie, I want to say quite frankly that I believe that one could use his services on a contract basis. If the hon. the Minister wants him to complete things which he is busy with and if he wants to use him on a contract basis, we will support him on that so that he can use the talents that he possesses in his own particular direction. [Interjections.] I want to make it quite clear that as far as we are concerned, we believe that if this matter drags on and if a situation arises where South Africa’s information services are paralysed, as seems likely to be the case for months ahead while this reorganization goes on, a disservice is being done to South Africa. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, who is going to speak now, to accept what I say to him in the spirit that I am putting it across the floor to him. It is South Africa’s interests which are at stake. We believe that we are in a time of peril. We believe that we need an efficient information service. Accept this offer we make to you to co-operate with you on this kind of basis. Accept it across the floor of the House and see to it that we again get an information service which can help us in this most crucial time in the history of our country.

Mr. Chairman, we have now reached the end of this long debate during which a horde of questions was asked to which I should like to reply. I want to begin by requesting the hon. members on my side of the House who have taken part in the debate to excuse me if I do not reply to the questions of each since it will take me a great deal of time to reply to the questions put by the Opposition. However, I want to convey my sincere thanks to them for their positive contributions, the vigorous standpoints stated, the evidence of sound study and the support they gave me during the debate. Therefore I am not going to reply to the questions of individual members on my side of the House due to the time factor. I am therefore going to deal now with the questions put to me by members of the Opposition and I shall deal with the questions one by one, as they were put to me.

I was asked why an interdict was not requested in regard to the report. This question was asked, inter alia, by the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Simonstown. I went into the matter and have now been informed as to the situation. Hon. members will recall that a report appeared in the Sunday Express the previous Sunday to the effect that they had withheld publication at my request and that discussions were to take place during the week between the legal advisers on our side and on their side so that an agreement would be reached. I was informed that the question of an interdict had been duly considered in this particular case, but that the advocates and attorneys had come to the conclusion that an action might not succeed in this case because the Act in question is inadequate. Instructions have in the meantime been issued that the Act be revised. This is the reply in regard to that specific case.

In the second place I want to deal with the whole question of the issue of certificates. I thrashed out the matter this morning with the experts in the various departments. All I can say is that the customary certificates, as required by the various Acts, were issued by the Ministers concerned.

The Prime Minister said that he had issued no certificates.

That is not so.

The hon. the Prime Minister said here today that he had issued the certificate in respect of his department every year.

We are talking about yesterday.

Yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister said that he did not issue this specific certificate. Suffice it to say that the customary certificates as required by the various Acts were issued by the Ministers concerned. I shall let that suffice and I have nothing more to say about the certificates. The issues that were made were done according to law and were dealt with to the satisfaction of those to whom they had to be issued.

Were they conveyed to the Auditor-General?

Of course they were conveyed to the Auditor-General. He has the say in respect of those funds. Surely that goes without saying. In the nature of the matter the Auditor-General received and accepted the certificates, otherwise he would certainly have taken the matter further.

Yesterday the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South launched a personal attack on me. As an older member of this House I am going to give that hon. member, as a new hon. member of this House, a little good advice. The hon. member will learn in time that when an hon. member attacks the person of a Minister or another member in this House, then the image and the character of the one launching the attack is undermined and not the image of the person he attacks. That is what experience teaches one in this House. It is a lesson the hon. member must learn, and the sooner he learns it the better. Subsequently the hon. member asked certain questions concerning the book Stepping into the Future. In my opinion it is old hat still to be referring to that matter at this stage. Two or three weeks ago we conducted a full debate on that matter with reference to the report of the Select Committee.

Notwithstanding that, the hon. member has raised the matter again despite the fact that the Select Committee thoroughly investigated the matter and submitted a report to the House, after which the House took a decision and the matter was disposed of. I therefore regard his attack on this occasion as a reflection on the Select Committee, on his colleagues who served on the Select Committee, on this House, and on the entire parliamentary system. That all these procedures were followed is insufficient for the hon. member and he felt that he still had to say something about it in conclusion. Nevertheless I do want to react to what the hon. member said. I have before me Stepping into the Future. It is a hardcover book printed on glossy paper, full of photos, tables and statistics and every possible thing one could think of. It consists of 152 pages.

It does not impress a single soul.

I want to know from the hon. member whether he thinks that in present circumstances it is physically possible to print such a book at R1 per copy? 80 000 copies were printed and this hon. member maintains that the printing costs could have been R90 000. Is that physically possible? The hon. member is a good businessman and he must now tell me whether it is possible to print a book of this scope at R1 per copy. That is certainly impossible. Sir, that argument is too ridiculous to do the rounds. Surely one has to take into account the cost of the paper, the question of the compilation of the book, the photos and many other factors as well. I find it simply incredible that the hon. member can put forward that argument. Nevertheless he maintains that he is a businessman. Nowadays three Sunday newspapers cost almost R1. How, then, can he maintain that such a book can be printed at R1 per copy?

The third matter raised by the hon. member is the charge that after 40 years service we had sacked Mr. Waldeck. Mr. Waldeck has not been dismissed. On the recommendation of the Public Service Commission and after due investigation of the Department of Information by the Chief Public Service Inspector at the request of the Secretary of Information, it was decided to reorganize the department and certain posts became superfluous whereas other new posts were created. In the process, due to this reorganization, two officials retired from the service on pension. One of the two was Mr. Waldeck. The hon. member’s criticism is therefore a reflection on the Public Service Commission and on the Select Committee of this House that recommended such a reorganization in the Department. The Select Committee—and the hon. member’s colleague over there—recommended that such a reorganization should take place in the department and that an investigation be carried out by the Public Service Commission. Now that the investigation has been carried out and the necessary action taken, the hon. member casts a reflection on this through his arguments. I regard this as a reflection on the Public Service Commission, the Select Committee and this House.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether the manner of retiring is not in itself a reflection and whether it does not imply that he was retired due to these circumstances?

If that is the inference, then it is an incorrect inference, because in the statement I issued, in which I referred to the reorganization of the department and the fact that the two persons were going on pension, I made it very clear in the last two lines that the Public Service Commission adopted the clear standpoint that these people were not being placed on pension due to lack of ability or incapacity on their part or poor service rendered, but due to the reorganization of the department. That is expressly stated in the statement I read out in this House.

Pure coincidence!

Can we not reorganize the Cabinet as well?

With just one month’s notice?

It was done on the recommendation of the Chief Public Service Inspector.

I want to come back to an aspect which I omitted to mention. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South referred to the difference between R90 000, which he now states the cost of the books could have been, and the R230 000 eventually paid for them, and asked in an insinuating fashion: “Who pocketed the money?” I want to state, with full responsibility and deliberately, that I reject this charge with the contempt which such a ridiculous insinuation deserves. [Interjections.]

The next matter I want to deal with is the issue of the destruction of documents, a matter which has been raised in the debate a number of times. The question has been asked: “Who authorized the destruction of documents?” The hon. member for East London North, among others, referred to this. Where unorthodox methods are used there is an instruction to take all precautionary measures to prevent a project being traced back to the department. That is the aim, it must be done in this way. On that basis it was considered that documents relating to secret projects that had been disposed of should be destroyed after two years for the protection of the people involved and for the sake of the matter itself. If one does not do this and it should subsequently leak out, the hon. member and other people will be the first to attack me and say that we have been careless in not destroying the documentation. Therefore, two years after the project is disposed of, the documents are destroyed.

At this critical time?

At any stage. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville spoke on a few occasions and I shall deal with each of his speeches separately because I have not had the time to reorganize my notes. In the first place he put questions relating to the certificates issued. I want to let what I have already said about the certificates, suffice. I really cannot add anything to that. I should like to say something about the secret funds. I had time to thrash out the whole issue with the people concerned this morning, the experts and other officials of the departments dealing with them, and I cannot do better than merely to read the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister. Let us clearly understand that statement It reads—

The Prime Minister goes on to put it as follows—

Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

The hon. member must please give me the opportunity to finish and to develop my argument fully. After that he can ask the question. The statement reads as follows—

Do the hon. members not see anything in this statement? The statement goes on—

It goes on—

I have nothing to add to that.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he contends that the hon. the Prime Minister has the power to ignore the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act in terms of which he can transfer money from one Vote to another?

I want to reply to the hon. member on that score. He is a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I want to suggest that in the Committee on Public Accounts he asks the Auditor-General whether he is satisfied that these moneys were in fact authorized. He shall receive a reply there, a reply which I shall acquiesce.

I did ask him, but he did not reply.

He must ask the Auditor-General, who is responsible for this. Can we please drop this matter now? [Interjections.]

There has been a cover-up.

The hon. member for Bryanston will have to cover up a few more things before I am finished with my speech.

I now want to deal with the speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. To begin with, I want to deal with the point to which I take the strongest exception and that is the standpoint he adopted when he asked what hold the Secretary of Information had on me as Minister of Information. He has no hold of any nature—“nil” is the word. However, I at once want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what he is insinuating thereby. What is he trying to suggest thereby? The hon. member for Yeoville is far more intelligent than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and understood my problems far better and more clearly. In his last speech he suggested solutions to some of my problems. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is far too obtuse to be leader of his party. That is his trouble. The hon. the member for Yeoville has shown that he has a sense of responsibility and knows what is going on. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not know what is going on.

I want to refer to another argument. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted from my speech during the debate on the first report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. He said that I myself said that “quite serious offences” had been committed in the department. If I understand Afrikaans and English correctly, an “offence” is an infringement of regulations and not corruption or a crime. Is an offence corruption? Is it a crime?

[Inaudible.]

No, the point of departure of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that because I speak of an “offence”, I must sack these people. “Offences” take place every day in certain places. It happens from time to time. [Interjections.] I shall react to the speech by the hon. member for East London North in a moment. I just want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he really owes the Secretary for Information an apology, since he said in the same debate last year that the Secretary for Information had falsified a certain letter due to a heading of a certain newspaper report. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition recall the instance? Shall I quote from Hansard?

Yes.

Last year the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made an attack on the Secretary for Information in the debate on this Vote. Not only did he criticize him, he also levelled an accusation at him when he could not defend himself. The newspaper headlines in the Rand Daily Mail read as follows: “Compulsory schooling for Africans”. I quote (Hansard, 10 May 1977, col. 7271)—

The Secretary for Information then had the decency to write him a letter to point out to him that he had read one edition of the Rand Daily Mail whereas the hon. member had read another edition. He sent the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a cutting in which the headline ran: “Compulsory education for Africans.” He pointed out that that was the only edition in his possession. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition replied to him—

Read on.

I quote further—

Well? I did apologize!

This apology was made in a letter to the Secretary, but the charge was made in the open House. That is the difference.

What is the date of that letter?

The date of the letter is 19 July 1977.

After the session.

Yes, after the session. I want to reply to every question, but the hon. member must not come and act sanctimoniously here as if he is untouchable. If the hon. member had been a Leader of the Opposition worth his salt, he would have said in his speech this afternoon, among other things, that during the discussion of this Vote last year he had done a man an injustice and now wanted to set matters straight. [Interjections.] The hon. member tackled me about my standpoint that when South Africa’s future was in danger, no rules apply.

What do you mean by that?

I mean that I shall fight to save my country with all the means at my disposal. Would that hon. member prefer not to use all possible means, but instead go under? That is nmt the kind of patriotism I show. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I cannot speak under these conditions. I am speaking against a wall of interjections.

Order! Hon. members have attacked the hon. the Minister for two days and must now afford him an opportunity to continue with his speech. He listened patiently to hon. members and they must now give him an opportunity to reply. If hon. members want to put a question, they must rise and ask whether they may put a question.

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

The answer now is “no”. Why does the hon. member want to ask a question? It is only so as to demonstrate further. That hon. member is a real demonstrator. Consequently he now wants to demonstrate. I want to continue and discuss my standpoint that no rules apply. Of course the rules that apply at all times are those basic and fundamental rules to which my party’s principles are bound. They are the rules of human dignity, of moral standards, of certain Christian concepts and certain basic concepts which we recognize in our country. That is my point of departure.

You did not say that yesterday.

It is a fact, however. After all, it is a part of our outlook on life. Within that framework no other rules apply when it comes to the survival of our people and our country.

The hon. member asked me about a number of organizations. He asked me whether the Department of Information were the owners of, or operated, organizations such as Panax, Xanap (S.A.), African International Publishing, The Citizen, To the Point, Thor Communicators (Pty.) Ltd., African Mirror, African Films, etc. In order to absolve the newspapers I want to say at once that the Department of Information owns no newspaper in South Africa and operates no newspaper in South Africa. We have nothing to do with them. However, if the hon. member continues to ask these questions in regard to organizations he must not think that I am so obtuse as to play his game. If he asks a question in connection with a certain organization and I say “no”, he asks the same thing again in regard to a different organization and I say “no”. Then he goes on and as soon as I refuse to reply he states that that organization receives money from the department.

I am not going to reply to that type of question because every organization in the country could be placed under suspicion in that way. I have adopted an unshakable standpoint in regard to newspapers. As far as newspapers are concerned, I have disposed of the situation entirely. As far as other organizations are concerned I want to say at once that I do not intend to carry on replying to the hon. member about every organization, domestic or abroad, or else he could be placed in the powerful position of being able to unmask every organization. The hon. member first asks whether one receives funds. When I reply “no”, he keeps on and on and as soon as I refuse to answer he states that that organization has in fact received money. I shall not play that game; I am not prepared to play it nor am I prepared to go any further in this connection.

I take it that this does not apply to an organization to which the Secretary himself has referred. I refer here to his words in the statement—

Would the hon. the Minister answer what that means and whether there is any connection between his department and this company, and what that connection is?

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to reply to that question. [Interjections.]

But why not?

Because whether I reply “yes” or “no” makes no difference whatsoever. The hon. member will in any event make his own inference. If I reply to that question then he will put another question and yet another one. I am going to adopt the standpoint on principle that I am not going to reply to questions about organizations because I am not prepared to identify people. [Interjections.]

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

No. I have now replied to enough questions. [Interjections.]

What about my original question on the Order Paper?

Questions placed on the Order Paper I shall reply to. I shall send the hon. member for Bezuidenhout an answer to the question placed on the Order Paper by him. I have simply not had time to do so yet. I have been too busy over the past few days.

The hon. member for East London City and his party propose that we should accept an amendment here today that the salary of the Secretary of Information be deleted. This amendment is no doubt based on certain observations or standpoints of the hon. member and his party. However, a Select Committee has carried out an investigation. In his capacity as accounting officer of the department, the Secretary of the department appeared before the Select Committee. The Select Committee has submitted a report and also made certain recommendations. Now I want to know from the hon. member for East London City what there is in the recommendations of the Select Committee which justifies such a decision.

I took it from the statement that the Secretary made. [Interjections.]

In that case I think the hon. member’s proposal is presumptuous because the Select Committee is still in session. We are awaiting another report at a later stage, a report in which certain matters can be made known and for which the Secretary can be called to account. [Interjections.] The hon. member for East London North argues that we should do away with the Department of Information as a whole and that a department replacing it should be organized in such a way that no information whatsoever be provided on the Whites because the department is ostensibly a Government propaganda machine for which State funds are appropriated. [Interjections.]

I have said that we do not need it.

The hon. member states that we do not need an NP propaganda machine on which the State has to spend money. When the Government takes a decision and lays down a policy or carries something out, then that affects the responsibility of the Government and it also affects every voter. This is the case because it becomes policy, because it is carried out and because it is applied to the voter. Is it not, therefore, the duty of the Department of Information to inform the voters as to how a specific policy is sometimes going to affect them?

They do not need it.

Is it not therefore our duty to tell the voters? If the hon. member is so certain that our policy is wrong, then surely information given to the voters will help to strengthen his party. Surely the voters will then obtain the information which will cause them to turn against the Government if its policy is so wrong. I am therefore assisting the NRP if I inform the voters in regard to the policy of the Government. That is, of course, if the NP is wrong. Surely that is only logical. Nor do I think it is false logic. What are the facts, however? The hon. member argues that we should not inform the people. According to him the Whites should not be informed. However, the decisions of the Government affect the people. If the Government wants to undertake something it ought to inform the public in that regard. Let us take the new constitutional dispensation, for example. The new constitutional dispensation is going to bring about drastic changes, changes which will affect the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites. It will be a drastic change. [Interjections.]

But it is the policy of the NP that is being put forward.

And it is being put forward incorrectly too.

It is going to become the Government’s policy in this country. [Interjections.] It is necessary. It is a Government decision. Now the people are informed. [Interjections.] I want to mention a few examples of the kind of task we are expected to perform. For example, agitation occurs in Soweto as a result of an increase in rents. Certain sections of the Press and of the Opposition join in. They say that rents may not be increased. The Department of Information then launches a poster and pamphlet campaign to give the people the facts and to explain why rents have to be increased. Reference is made to the extent to which costs have increased. Here I have in mind for example increases in the cost of water, services, etc. After that, the increase in rents is accepted. Nevertheless we are attacked for doing this. Allow me to refer to another example, namely the writing of examinations and the youth action programme. In this regard we had the same story. There was opposition, but eventually our information campaign succeeded. A further example is that of community council elections. I could continue to mention further examples. The department therefore has to inform people about those matters which arise out of the policy of the Government of the day, because it affects each voter. One day when hon. members are in power I shall not take it amiss of them if they bring to the attention of the voters in that way the policy of the Government of the day. It would be their task to do so.

I now refer to the hon. member for Constantia. I must say that I always appreciate the contributions of the hon. member for Constantia. He is one of the few people who has a real understanding of the problems of this department. I welcome his understanding. Nevertheless the hon. member made the remark that in spite of everything being done, “we are still trying to cover up”. Sir, I really reject that with contempt. What has already been done in this connection? The Auditor-General himself has carried out certain investigations and published reports which have been submitted to the Select Committee. The Prime Minister has announced that he has appointed a special person who enjoys his confidence, the confidence of the Auditor-General and my confidence. That person is investigating these specific matters. He too will furnish a report on the matter.

Who is he? [Interjections.]

The Public Service Commission and the Treasury are engaged in investigations into the department. Recommendations will be submitted by them in which proposals for amendments will be embodied. What more does the hon. member want apart from all these investigations?

I was referring to a speech yesterday in which you failed to mention a number of things.

I am now engaged in furnishing replies. I am now replying to every question. The hon. member asked me whether the officials of the Department of Information were given the necessary training to do the kind of work they are called upon to do. He referred to the secret projects. After I came to the department I established a special training branch in the department. In that branch people are trained on a full-time basis for three to six months to carry out their task. In the process they must at least learn a third language. In the process they learn to appear before television and how to conduct television interviews. They also learn how to answer questions in a question and reply session. They learn how to answer Press questions and how to convene a Press conference. These matters are gone into in detail. Subsequently we take these people on a full tour through South Africa. Formerly we also took them to South West but that will no longer be necessary now. We even take them down a gold mine. They have to know what it looks like down a mine. They have to be able to speak on the basis of first-hand knowledge. We therefore have a full training programme for them.

I concede all that but I am referring to diplomatic and secret services for which they are not trained.

Part of that training for those who will take part in secret projects is specially oriented to those aspects. They are therefore trained for this. I also want to point out that the co-operation between the Departments of Information and Foreign Affairs has always been sound. I want to mention an example. The hon. member for Algoa proposed that we should launch attacks on those countries that attack us. As he puts it, we must take the skeletons out of their cupboards. Sir, we do this from time to time but we only do so after the closest consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs, because we could be antagonizing a certain country at the same time as the Department of Foreign Affairs was making contact with that country. Therefore there is the closest co-operation between these two departments. There have never been problems at the ministerial level and at the top levels in the department. There may be problems at the lower levels, but at the top level there has always been perfect co-ordination. Last year, just before he retired, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs once again paid tribute to and expressed gratitude for the co-operation between the departments. I have said in public on a number of occasions that the two departments supplement each other. That is the case in practice.

Sir, I want to go further. The hon. member attacked the Secretary for the department because in his statement he supposedly said that the Auditor-General had committed a treacherous act. Let me just set the hon. member straight on this point. He should please just read the statement again. The following is stated: “Die lekkasie was ’n verraderlike daad”. Will the hon. member please look at that again? He has the report there. What he said is: “Die lekkasie was ’n verraderlike daad.” It is not stated that the Auditor-General had committed a treacherous act He never accused the Auditor-General of having caused a leak. [Interjections.] The hon. member must please just be fair and read the statement. I have no objection to him attacking anyone but he should at least be fair. I repeat that what was said was: “Die lekkasie was ’n verraderlike daad.” If the hon. member wants to read something else into that report I should like to hear it. However, his attack is unfounded. [Interjections.] He states: “Die lekkasie was ’n verraderlike daad.”

He is referring to the Auditor-General’s department.

The statement by the hon. member for Constantia is that he said that the Auditor-General had committed a treacherous act.

That was his statement this afternoon. I refute and reject that here and now. [Interjections.] However I want to go further. The hon. member’s standpoint is that my information officers ought not to make contact with leaders of other countries; that must be left to the diplomats.

I did not say that.

Well, someone said it. [Interjections.] What are the facts? If, in execution of their duties, officials of the Department of Information build up contacts with people whom they have been instructed to make contact with and if one of those contacts develops into such a good relationship that the person concerned tells the official that he can get him an interview with this Prime Minister or one of his Ministers, must the information officer say that he is not prepared to accept the offer and that it should be left to the officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs to do it? Or must he say that he accepts the offer, that he is going to conduct the interview and perhaps come back with a message from the leader in question? That has happened before in practice. The message has been conveyed to me and through me to the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. A country with which we had previously had no contact made contact with us in this way. Must I prohibit my people from making such contacts in the interests of South Africa? I ask this in all fairness. Such contacts do occur from time to time.

The hon. member for Simonstown put a question to me in regard to the newspapers. I have already disposed of that. He asked me about the Press Act. However I am no longer Minister of the Interior and consequently I am unable to report on that. In the course of the discussion of his Vote which will take place within about a week, the new Minister of the Interior will be able to report on the agreement with the National Press Union That is now in his province and he can furnish a reply in that regard. He also put a question to me about a Select Committee. I just want to say at once that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs handles such matters. If he has not heard about this yet I shall convey the information to him and he will react to it when his Vote is discussed.

The hon. member for Mooi River said— and this is correct—that the world Press and the world media are in general controlled by leftists. If I remember correctly it was Mr. Agnew who said in America while he was still vice-president that in America they were not in favour of Press control. He said that they were not in favour of any type of censorship because the Press had to be free. However in America they have the most stringent Press control in the whole world because the Press belongs to a few select people and what they decide is to be published, is published, and what they decide must not be published is simply suppressed, because they control the Press. Mr. Agnew said that he could not even decide what would be published about the speech he was making then. A few people would decide what was good for the people and what was not good for them. That was the point of departure. Subsequently the Press attacked him and broke him and destroyed him in America. [Interjections.] Well and good, he destroyed himself, but the Press co-operated. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Mooi River put a question to me about certificates. As far as the certificates are concerned, however, I stand by what I said. I am not going to say anything more about them. That matter is disposed of.

He also asked me to give an undertaking about the further report. I repeat that I shall try to arrange that that report be discussed because I do not want to hide anything. Why should I try to hide anything? I shall try to arrange it but I cannot give any assurance. I do not know what the situation is as regards the work which must still be disposed of by this House before the end of the session. Nor do I know what the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the House is. However I want to tell the hon. member that I shall use my influence and ask that the report be discussed if possible, even if we have to create the opportunity in a debate. Or perhaps we could table it in time so that it could be discussed in a later debate, depending on when it is completed. However I cannot commit the Select Committee and say when it will conclude its activities. That is impossible.

It is said that there are certain serious misgivings as to my department. Yes, insinuations, misgivings and doubt exist. Mistrust has been sown and there is dissatisfaction due to certain things that have been broadcast. However let me tell the hon. member at once that the majority of the misgivings are due to the fact that people have accepted rumours or insinuations as facts. They accepted what was mentioned by the Auditor-General in a preliminary report and although he himself subsequently indicated in a more thorough and comprehensive report that he had been given satisfactory replies, they still accept what appeared in the preliminary report. However the misgivings continue to be spread because the Press has got hold of the preliminary report and has published it section by section. Secondly, the fact is that the Select Committee did find certain things—I accept that at once. In this regard I want to repeat briefly what I said yesterday. These offences in my department were not committed due to laziness, dishonesty or a tendency towards corruption. They were committed because there were people who were so enthusiastic to perform their task that they decided not to take the long way around as prescribed by all the regulations, and took the short cut to success through their activities. Quite often the success of a reply to an attack against one lies specifically in what one is able to do in a short period of time. One has a day or two to furnish an appropriate reply and if one then has to comply with all the rules and regulations it makes it impossible. That is the problem we are saddled with. One has to react by compiling something within a day or two. To take the long way round under those circumstances is virtually impossible. I accept that certain evidence of this will appear in the Select Committee’s report. There are such matters under consideration at present and I do not want to discuss them.

The hon. member also asked how discipline in the department could be maintained. It will be maintained because the necessary changes in the department have already been effected. As has already been announced, the second highest post in the department is now occupied by an administrative man. The expertise is in the hands of the head of the department. He is a skilled man with a lot of drive and great energy. With all his knowledge, contacts, information and links with people abroad with whom we work, I cannot get rid of him at the moment. I want him there. He is needed. He must be there for the sake of South Africa to maintain the contacts he has at present with numerous organizations. At the moment there is no one who can take this over. He must handle this and, if necessary, pass it on to other people. However, I cannot take action against him now in any way. Nor do I want to do so. I hope that this is clear and that the leader of the Opposition also understands this once and for all. When I intimated this by implication a moment ago, he failed to understand it.

The hon. member for Mooi River went on to say that the Minister was gradually disappearing because he was fully occupied in his other post and, according to the hon. member, could not speak of successes in regard to this department. I want to make the same offer I made to the hon. member for Yeoville, to the hon. member for Mooi River. If he accepts my offer I shall show him some of these things in my office. I shall tell him what we are doing and I shall show him some of the successes which we can boast of but which I cannot make public because it would destroy the successes of such an organization. I am pleased to make that offer to him as well. If they want to accept it, then they can come along.

In conclusion the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked me about our African interests. Our African interests are extremely delicate. At the moment we cannot work openly in African States. The hon. member knows that as well as I do. However, we can operate covertly in certain African states.

And in our neighbouring states?

In the nature of the matter we can operate covertly in our neighbouring States, and sometimes openly as well, but obviously it is also necessary that we first open an embassy in such a country before we can place an information officer there. Diplomatic relations first have to be concluded and a consulate or embassy opened before we can accredit staff to the embassy. In countries in which we do not have embassies, we cannot place information staff. The hon. member will surely know that. In those countries where we do have embassies at the moment there are also information staff. Therefore, as foreign affairs progress in Africa, we too shall progress there openly and officially. Unofficially, however, we are operating in a number of African States. At present we have contact at various levels with more than 10 African States. However I cannot give details, nor shall I do so. Nor would the hon. member expect of me that I should reveal them.

The hon. member also asked me how many Coloureds and Indians we have in the Department of Information. We have four.

My question was how many Coloured and Indian officials the department had abroad.

We have four information officers abroad who are non-Whites. We have two Coloureds in America as information officers and we have two Indians in Britain as information officers.

Are they full information officers?

Yes, they are full information officers. The hon. member can go and see for himself how they work. We therefore have four of them at the moment: Two in America and two in Britain.

And Black people?

We had a group of Black people overseas. We had a group of Transkeians overseas. They returned and they are now all in the Transkei. Subsequently we trained a group from Bophuthatswana. They went overseas and returned and they are now in Bophuthatswana. We shall now give a group of Vendas—that is the next homeland to become independent—the necessary training. They will be transferred overseas to acquire the necessary experience there. Subsequently they will return and work for their own Government in Vendaland. That is our policy and we are carrying it out.

The hon. member states that the report mentions that it is essential that our domestic pattern should come right. Yes, that is correct. The domestic pattern must come right. I myself have often said in public that the key to South Africa’s success lies in our own hands as far as our domestic relations are concerned. In other words, we must reach an agreement domestically with our Black, Brown and Yellow people so that we can get them to reach agreement with us and coexist in a peaceful society. That is the basis of my approach in the Department of Plural Relations and Development and our approach in the Department of Coloured Relations and the Department of Indian Affairs, of rectifying relations here—the hon. the Prime Minister has done more in that sphere than anyone else—so that we can improve internal relations among peoples on a personal basis and on a national basis to such an extent that we can speak with one voice to the outside world.

I am convinced that we should then have a chance in the international sphere. I have already said that the key is in our hands. The pattern must come right, but that is not to say that the policy of the NP should be overthrown in the process. Indeed, our policy provides that the pattern may be rectified within the framework of that policy. That is my point of departure.

The hon. member asks me why the Public Service Commission and the Treasury were asked to carry out the investigation into the reconstruction of the department and why I had not appointed experts from this House. However, I do not know what experts in the field of information and in the field of reconstruction of the information effort are sitting in this House. In any event I have not yet been given the names of such hon. members. There may well be such hon. members. The Public Service Commission and the Treasury are two specialized bodies. One specializes in staff affairs whereas the other specializes in financial affairs. They are in a position to carry out a thorough study of the systems in Britain, America and other countries. They can do so due to their background and knowledge of staff and financial matters and are therefore in a position to come forward with a structure we can accept and carry out. That is why the matter was referred to them and I am awaiting their report.

The hon. member for Yeoville spoke last and said that he wanted to reveal certain things. I want to say to the hon. member that that newspaper was with me in the Cape the previous Friday and that the newspaper then had the report in its possession. I told them that it would not be in the interests of the country to publish the report. The issue at stake is not my party, myself or the Department of Information. It would not have been in the country’s interests to publish the report, because it is a secret document which they have obtained in some way from the documents of office of the Auditor-General. I have said that it would not be in the interests of the country to publish the document.

They then held it over.

They held it back for a week at my request and I think it was responsible of the newspaper to do so. In the course of the week agreement was to be reached as to what could be published and how the matter was to be dealt with. As I have just made known, our legal advisers were not certain that we would succeed with an interdict because there was a loophole in the legislation in question. However this legislation is now being revised to eliminate that loophole. If that is the hon. member’s standpoint—and I accept that he told the newspaper that the national interest was at stake, that they should not publish the report and that they should take that and the Official Secrets Act into account before they publish it—I want to thank him for his patriotic conduct. I am very grateful for that and I appreciate it sincerely. [Interjections.] However the report was eventually published in any case. However, before the report was published we also had indications from the Secretary of Information as to what appeared in the report. He gave an indication of what would be published on that Sunday and in his wisdom, he judged that it would be advisable to state his standpoint in the Press the previous Friday or Saturday so that he could make known in advance that there were secret funds so that this fact would not come as a shock from the other side. I repeat that I do not agree with the details of his statement. I have already said that. I am not prepared to approve all the details. Indeed, I am unable to do so. However I have no fault to find with the principle that he wanted to issue a statement to indicate that there was in fact a case. If that had not been done, the gossip would of course have been everywhere because it would come initially from that source that a secret fund existed. We should then all have been asked to resign immediately because what was the basis of our right to deal with secret funds? That would have been the argument.

Can the hon. the Minister tell me, in regard to the information that was used by the Secretary to prepare his statement—in other words, what he anticipated would be the publication—whether the hon. the Minister was aware of this and, in the second place, does it not differ in a number of respects from what was eventually published, because eventually more was published because of the very statement by the Secretary?

Mr. Chairman, I did not see precisely what was submitted to the Secretary because I was not up in the north; I was here in the south over the weekend. As regards the report eventually published I just want to say that any newspaper can decide on a Thursday, a Friday or a Saturday to include or delete certain things because its deadline is only much later. In other words, the newspaper could include or delete certain matters…

Based on the Secretary’s statement?

I cannot say what it was based on. I have no reason to accept or reject it, because I do not know whether that was the decisive factor. However, a newspaper could of course change its reports by lengthening or curtailing them.

I think I have now replied to all the questions put to me.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister said that he had answered all the questions, but I want to remind him of the questions that were put to him in regard to the Seychelles issue and why he gave an incorrect answer. The hon. the Minister also owes me a number of answers in regard to the incorrect answer he gave me before and which appears in Hansard. The hon. the Minister then said he would furnish the required replies. But the hon. the Minister still has not given those replies and I shall appreciate it if he will do so.

I shall furnish the replies at once.

Mr. Chairman, I too put a question to the hon. the Minister to which I have not yet received a reply. We specifically asked the hon. the Minister whether the rumour that the Government was making secret funds available to the Citizen was true …

Surely I have already replied to that.

The reply furnished by the hon. the Minister—he may correct me—was that the Department of Information were not owners of newspapers. We know that. But that was not the question and I do not want it to be said again at a later stage that we are making insinuations. Therefore I again put this simple question to the hon. the Minister and we should like to have a direct answer to it.

I shall reply to it directly by saying that the Department of Information does not give funds to the Citizen. Is that clear, and does the hon. member accept it?

And the Government?

The Government does not give the Citizen funds.

Why did you not say so?

But I am saying it. The question asked by the hon. member for Yeoville was: “What were the titles of books bought from South African publishers by the department during 1975?” The hon. member referred to the various prices at which the book Stepping into the Future was available. This amount varied. The hon. member put his question in a different way every time. That is why he was given different amounts in reply. I quote question 238—

We then give the titles. The hon. member then asks—

We then give him the answer, viz. 80 000. The hon. member then asks—

The answer to this was—

†I am giving him the facts. He asked for the calendar year. He can check them tomorrow. It is question 238. Question 256 reads as follows—

1. (1) What firms of (a) advertising agents, (b) publishers and (c) printers were employed by his department during the period 1 April 1974 to date;
2. (2) What amount was payable to each firm on each contract entered into during this period …

*The hon. member is now referring to the full contract and the reply he gets here is different, viz. R320 000, and no longer R238 560. The former amount was the amount for the calendar year. The amount of R320 000 which he gets now includes the cost of the total contract. That is why there is a difference between the two. I read further—

That is the reply. I quote further—

It was therefore he who rounded off the amount of R238 000 to R250 000. I then went on to say—

In other words, all the amounts were accounted for. It is merely a question of the way in which it was put and the way in which words were used. It is not I who used the figure of R250 000. It was the former hon. member for Parktown who used it. I merely followed that in practice.

The final question put to me by the hon. member and to which I want to reply relates to the issue of the visit to the Seychelles. I want to discuss the question openly. In the first place I want to point out that the trip to the Seychelles was not paid for from ordinary departmental funds. The question asked—the hon. members must please read it—was whether the Department of Information had paid for the trip. My reply to that was: “No”. [Interjections.] Hon. members can run away from what they asked if they want to. My reply to the question is that the Department of Information did not pay for it from its funds. [Interjections.] The hon. members made a major issue that the department did not have secret funds.

You say they have.

Wait a moment. Hon. members made out here the whole afternoon that the Department of Information did not have secret funds and was not entitled to secret funds. If that is the case then surely the department did not pay for the trip. [Interjections.]

The hon. members must not be unfair now. The Department of Information did not pay for that trip. I can say with a clean conscience that the department did not pay for it.

In the second place there is the question of whether it was an official trip or not. Seen from the point of view of the Department of Information it was not an official trip. I misled no one in this connection and I want to tell hon. members the full story. On one of my visits abroad—I feel it is a mean thing to do but perhaps I can discuss the matter because in any event the man no longer holds his position and I do not think it makes much difference in any case—I was in Paris and, through their contacts, the Department of Information arranged that I conduct an interview with this specific African leader, the then President of the Seychelles. I conducted a discussion with him and certain agreements were reached between us. He said to me on that occasion that I should send someone to him again to finalize certain matters further and regulate further matters with him. However, he requested that the person I send should come under cover of a holiday trip. The President did not want it to seem as if this person was there on an official visit. In other words, he wanted it done as inconspicuously as possible. The visit was then arranged on that understanding and consequently the person who went to conduct those discussions there arrived inconspicuously in that way. Hon. members can now say anything they like about it. They can say that we used bad judgment and made a mistake. The fact remains that the visit was arranged in that way at the request of that leader. We merely complied with his request. That was what happened and that, too, is why I said that it was not an official visit but in fact an unofficial visit. Both of my two standpoints are therefore correct, and the Secretary is wrong when he states that it was an official visit which was paid for from secret funds. From the point of view of secret funds it probably was in fact an official visit but from my point of view it was quite in order for me—I did not mislead the House—to say that it was not an official visit and that it was not paid for from the funds of the Department of Information.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he took note of the fact yesterday that the hon. member for Yeoville himself has a secret fund?

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—24: Bamford, B. R.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. W. B. Page and W. M. Sutton.

Noes—119: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. P. A. Reyneke, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Amendment negatived.

Vote put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—120: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. P. A. Reyneke, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Noes—15: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Marais, J. F.; Myburgh, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No. 24.—“Commerce”, and Vote No. 25.—“Industries”:

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half-hour?

When one looks at the estimates of expenditure for these two Votes, their most important characteristic, of course, is the large additional amount which is being requested for the purposes of export promotion services. The overall increase in this connection amounts to round about R50 million, and it is in general to be spent on measures which will keep down the costs of manufacturers. It is concerned mainly with transport, electricity and financing. In the present economic situation, I do not think any reasonable person could object to the principle of this increase. Nor are we going to object to it.

Under the present circumstances, in particular, since world markets are very unfavourable, and therefore even more competitive than usual, something must be done in an attempt to promote our exports. This is at least a method of trying to accomplish this. I refer to this so that I may make a positive suggestion for the consideration of the hon. the Minister. If he feels able to do so, I want to ask him whether he could react in the course of this debate to the proposal I am going to make.

All export is really the art or the science of marketing. It is a special form of marketing which also makes special demands on those who want to practise it. It ought to be conducted in accordance with the well-known marketing philosophy which actually teaches that all trade begins with a demand.

This is the source of every form of trade. That demand must be met. In order to meet it, the demand must first be specified and identified. Then it is also necessary to design the right product and to make it available at the right price. Only then is it necessary to work back to the necessary raw materials which have to be obtained. Now I want to suggest that the department of the hon. the Minister should consider finding the necessary funds and concentrating on a programme of intensive market research in all countries to which we should like to export, for the purpose of recognizing export opportunities and identifying them in detail.

As I have said, all trade is competitive. Export trade is perhaps especially competitive. The steps which are being taken at the moment, which are intended to make our products more competitive as far as price is concerned, are quite sound, but in actual fact this is not the only or necessarily the best way of promoting our export trade. I say this because it is unfortunately too easy for others to do exactly the same and to compete on a price basis. What one is actually doing here is to transfer the cost of these products to other accounts and to other parts of the national economy. I repeat: I am not saying this is wrong, but it is not the ideal way of promoting our export trade. On the other hand, if one could design a product which would really be tailor-made for the market requirements, there would be a chance of capturing the market on a sounder and more permanent basis than merely the basis of price, and to carry on a really profitable trade without passing on additional costs to the economy or other departments.

We are dealing here with large amounts of money. Although market research is not cheap today, I believe that intensive market research can be done on a large scale at a price which can very easily be recovered from amounts such as those we are concerned with here. I am thinking of the example of the Japanese in the years after the Second World War. They built up enormous economic strength on the basis of exports. In classical economics it is often said that one first has to find an internal market, so that one may produce on a large enough scale to lower one’s costs so that one may then be able to export, but in actual fact it does not always work this way. If the export opportunity can be identified specifically enough, it may be possible to design special products for the export market. I should like to receive the assurance that everything which can be done in that direction will in fact be done.

†I now want to turn to the general economic situation and to say a few words about the Minister’s long-term policy in that regard. It is fairly obvious what the practical necessities of our economic situation are. We are in a no-growth position. We have rising unemployment. We have a continuing anxiety—if that is not too strong a word— about our balance of payments situation. As we have learnt from other debates earlier this year, and as I think we have all agreed, it is necessary that there should be some stimulation of the economy now. That is now being done. That is essentially what we have to do today. One does not necessarily have to point a finger of blame at anybody when one surveys the rather gloomy state of our economy at present, but I think we have to remind ourselves of where we stand so that we can try to see where it is we have to go in the future. There is little doubt that a considerable part of our present economic misery is attributable to the prolonged recession which has affected the Western World for several years now. Indeed, it is probably fair to say that one can no longer regard the Western World’s recession as being merely a cyclical phenomenon. I think we have to accept that, due to the high petroleum prices and possibly other factors as well, there is a structural change in the Western economy. It may well be the case that the rich nations of the world will have to accustom themselves on a long-term basis to lower real living standards with all that that implies for those of us who trade in this area.

Not only have we in South Africa not escaped from the Western recession. We have problems of our own to add to it. We can all rejoice in the spectacular improvement in our current account, which has been brought about principally through the export of minerals via Richards Bay and Saldanha Bay, yet in a sense the fact that despite that spectacular improvement in the current account we are nevertheless still in a deep recessionary situation, still with little or no growth, only serves to emphasize the importance of the negative factors which are affecting the balance of payments in the other direction. Perhaps the most depressing figure of all that we have to look at relates to fixed domestic investment. The most recent report of the Bureau of Economic Research at Stellenbosch uppeared a day or two ago and points out that real gross domestic fixed investment by the private sector fell by no less than 9% in 1977 as compared with 1976 and that after allowing for the public sector also, the total fall in domestic investment was 10%.

Statistics for real per capita income are hardly less depressing. Prof. J. L. Sadie, in the same publication, estimates that over the last three years this has been reduced by more than 8%. As everybody knows, these distressing figures are reflected in a very serious unemployment problem. Prof. Sadie also points out that of the increase in the male labour force in the three years, 1975 to 1977, an increase which amounted to 480 000 men, only 220 000, or about 46%, has been provided with jobs.

It is always foolish to oversimplify when one is analysing economic situations, but I think it is reasonably fair to say that if we can stimulate investment in South Africa, we would at last be properly back on the road to providing jobs and increasing buying power, to utilizing our capacity and to returning to a growth rate which could offer us some hope of coping with our growing population problem. As we in these benches have said many times, the name of the game is confidence. It is true that there is very little foreign capital coming into South Africa, certainly as far as equity investment is concerned, and in so far as loan capital is available, it is available on terms which are little short of punitive. It is also true however—and this is what I want to say in regard to confidence—that savings are at a high level, in fact a record level, and that the banking sector has, on the whole, been pretty liquid in recent times. This would indicate that quite apart from the lack of foreign capital, there is a lack of investment confidence here at home amongst our own people.

I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister, whose task is a difficult one in these circumstances, that at a time like this he could hardly do better than to rededicate himself and the Government to the long-term aim of preserving, strengthening and developing the free enterprise system in our country. I believe that this is one of the most constructive things that can be done in restoring the confidence of investors. However we may argue about our future political system, there seems to be no serious difference between us in regard to the sort of economy that we hope to develop. We all want to modernize, we all want to raise productivity and we all want to improve living standards. We are all agreed that all South Africans have to participate, both as producers and as consumers, in this process, and it follows that we must all wish all our people to understand and to have faith in the system itself.

I think that there are few White South Africans who would consciously prefer a centrally planned economy to a free one. There is a grave danger, however, that the position amongst our Black people may be quite different. Again I am not saying these things in order to point a finger at anyone. Yet it is simply a fact that it is tragically easy for a Black man in our country today to compare, with those of a White man, say his educational opportunities, his housing opportunities, his pay packet and, perhaps especially in this context, his opportunities for obtaining capital so that he can get into business for himself. In short, there is a very serious danger that Black men may see the free enterprise system, as we practise it, as an instrument of their oppression. I do not believe that this has ever been intended, and I am sure the hon. the Minister does not believe that it is so and does not intend that it should happen. Yet I am afraid that it is happening. I am afraid that it is a fact that unless we can quite soon provide convincing evidence that the free economic system will benefit the Black workers just as much as the Whites, we may create a fertile seed-bed for the Marxists.

The wealth gap in our society is dangerously wide. It must be narrowed, and there are a few people in our country who are so simplistic that they think this can be done simply by robbing the rich to give to the poor. I say that this is simplistic not because I do not accept that the general standard of living of White South Africans has been very high, probably too high—I do accept that— but because, given the small number of wealthy people in the country and the enormous number of poor people, simple arithmetic demonstrates that the mere distribution of wealth on a “rob the rich to pay the poor” basis would actually not result in a very meaningful enrichment of the poor. The divisor is so large that the dividend is too small to be worth having.

This is why I want to return to the question of investment and confidence. I suspect—and the hon. the Minister will know better than I—that there is a process going on in our country now of what the Australians call “buying back the farm”. This is their phrase for the acquisition by Australian shareholders of assets in their country formerly owned by foreigners. I think that quite a lot of the capital that is being invested by South African corporations at present is going into the purchase of industrial assets here from foreign owners. This has its attractions. In the long run it means that the earnings from these enterprises stay at home instead of leaving the country, which is a healthy thing. That is in the long term. In the short term, however, it means that we are applying such investments funds as we are applying in such a way as to create no new employment and no new spending power. There is no stimulus or benefit to the economy in this. This is not the ideal time for “buying back the farm”. There have been times in the past which were appropriate and I dare say there will be such times in the future, but this is the time for us to seek new investments, much of which will have to come from abroad. This is the only feasible road to renewed growth, more job opportunities, a rise in living standards for the poor and the salvation of free enterprise. I do not say this because I have any lack of appreciation for the many things that can be done and in many instances are done at home to strengthen our position and to promote our prosperity, but confronted with a population growth of some 2,8% and confronted with a world in recession with limited opportunities for our current account to continue to improve, with the likelihood, indeed, that this year we shall not do as well on current account as we did last year if only because after the tremendous drop in imports last year there is bound to be some rebound effect and some greater growth of imports this year—for all these reasons I do not believe we can look towards renewed confidence and renewed prosperity, except on the basis of regaining at least some of the capital inflow to which we have been accustomed in the past.

I have to end, as I so often seem to do in the House, by conceding that it is not specifically the fault of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs or of his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, that the investment climate is what it is. To the extent that it is not due to factors entirely beyond the control of any of us, it is actually due to the policies pursued by certain of their colleagues. These two gentlemen have a Herculean task to perform in persauding their colleagues in the Cabinet that policy generally will have to be so changed as to recreate confidence that South Africa is and will remain politically stable and a free enterprise society with a minimum of Government interference in the control of the economy. Obviously, I am not saying that the Government should be taken out of the economy altogether. However, the mixed economy we have to be, must be strongly bent and trend towards the free economic system. I believe that the task the hon. the Minister and his colleagues have to perform on their Cabinet colleagues does not necessarily call for radical political change the day after tomorrow, but it does demand evidence that we are prepared to provide equal educational and economic opportunities for all our people, training for all our workers and freedom not only in the economic sense but in every way. I suggest that the most important service the hon. the Minister and his department can render South Africa is to lead us to a new commitment to free enterprise and free Government on this basis.

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciated the positive attitude of the hon. member for Parktown. I think this is a new kind of note which is very necessary in South Africa, because the problem with which we are faced, concerns all of us. In connection with what the hon. member said about confidence in particular, it is we South Africans who must show the world that we have confidence in our own country and in our own systems. If we do not have that confidence, we cannot expect foreign countries to have confidence in us and to provide us with capital.

I wholeheartedly endorse the hon. member’s statement that we in South Africa believe in free economy and private initiative. In this regard I should like to quote what a judge said—

†This was said by Mr. Justice Jan Steyn, an executive director of the Urban Foundation.

*I wholeheartedly endorse this and I believe the hon. member for Parktown endorses it too.

However, private initiative cannot undertake everything, and there are some projects which the State must undertake. Although the West has accepted a system of free enterprise, which implies that the domestic economy is relatively free to work out its own salvation by means of free competition, land tenure, the free market mechanism and the profit motive, there are nevertheless certain spheres where the private entrepreneur cannot meet the needs of the country. One thinks of general services like education, health and some aspects of the infrastructure, like roads, bridges, the police and the defence force. Provisions must also be made for miscellaneous services like transport, communication, the Post Office, telephones, radio and television. South Africa has set an example to the world in these spheres by providing the community with a service by means of service organizations, an example which is perhaps unprecedented in the world. One must allocate these spheres to the public sector and not to the private sector. It is a sphere in which the public sector can achieve greater success.

However, it is ultimately a question of what participation the State should have and what the private entrepreneur should have. It is here that one may perhaps have a shift of emphasis by preferring to have the private sector administer certain activities. For instance, one can think of our public corporations, those corporations that had to put up with a great deal of criticism in the past, especially from the former Official Opposition that repeatedly, year after year, launched an attack on these corporations. They accused us of actually becoming socialistic in South Africa. However, I noted with appreciation that the main spokesman of the present Official Opposition did not harp on that string this year.

The public corporations fulfil a very important service in South Africa. Iscor is one of our monuments, in spite of the high prices of today. I also want to refer to Foscor and Viskor and actually one can mention all the “cors” because “cor” is not an unpleasant name. The policy of this Government is that when the private sector can take over an industry which was previously managed by the State through one of its corporations, the private sector is very welcome to do so. It is Government policy that it does not manage affairs which the private sector can manage.

One can also think of enterprises like the Sishen-Saldanha scheme launched by Iscor, a public corporation. I doubt whether any private entrepreneur would have ever been interested in initiating a project like that. The hon. member for Parktown correctly referred to the large quantity of ore exported last year and this is chiefly ascribable to the Sishen-Saldanha scheme and the Richards Bay scheme.

Apart from private initiative which we all endorse, we in South Africa also believe in honesty and integrity in the sphere of business life—and I think we must put this to the world. We trade with many countries in the world and I do not believe that there is a single foreign country that can accuse South Africa of not having fulfilled a contract or an undertaking in any way.

It is actually one of the most favourable things which we can say of ourselves: Since South Africa was first established as a State, we have always kept our word. Even as far back as I can remember—and I am not so old, although I look it—there was a time when there were not even written contracts between parties. There is an integrity in our business life which forms part of our tradition, because our word was our bond and we are still keeping to this in the international sphere. I can quote an example. Hon. members will probably remember the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT as it is known. This was negotiated in 1947 by the Government of the day and I do not want to reproach them for it. Circumstances were different then and perhaps they could not see so far into the future. Although that agreement is not to our advantage in all respects, we keep to it faithfully and no international organization can accuse us of not fulfilling our contracts, even to our detriment.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, in an earlier debate today, we heard about the total onslaught against South Africa and in the light of this I want to state that the economic onslaught on South Africa may be just as important and just as dangerous as the military onslaught, if not more so.

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

Perhaps at a later stage.

I want to ask the hon. member whether he is now talking about the economic situation while we are without an Official Opposition in our parliamentary system? [Interjections.]

That is a very intelligent question from the hon. member for Durban Point. I do not think he should concern himself too much about the fact that the Official Opposition benches are empty, because I do know that the benches of the second Opposition are full. Perhaps it is not unlikely that they will be the Official Opposition again one day.

Before the hon. member asked his question, I was referring to the economic situation in the world and to the onslaught on South Africa. I should like to quote from a lecture given by someone who approached questions relating to the economy in a very academic way. I do not agree with everything he said, but I should like to quote him because some of the things he said are completely correct. He said, inter alia, the following—

I agree with that statement. We are aware that there is a tremendous economic onslaught on South Africa at the moment. Hon. members themselves know about the threats of sanctions from throughout the world and from the platforms of the various world organizations. [Interjections.] In this world which is not only politically confused, but economically confused too, it is as well that South Africa … [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, perhaps you will be able to hear me better if I stand closer to you. [Interjections.] In the annals and in the forums of the world, there are threats of total sanctions, including oil sanctions, against South Africa, and I feel the economic threats against South Africa are perhaps just as important as the military, if not more so. Therefore, it was a pleasure for me to hear from the hon. member for Parktown that they have an entirely new approach to the debate on economic affairs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the absence of the Official Opposition I rise to give the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to continue my speech.

*In contrast to the rest of the world, South Africa has a philosophy, a policy, of not supporting sanctions of any kind whatsoever. I think South Africa has a very good record in the sense that we have fulfilled our trade contracts and other economic obligations to the letter over the past few years, not only with friendly nations, but also with nations whose political philosophies are not shared by us. I can mention a few examples. In 1965, when the whole world was clamouring against the unilateral declaration of independence by Rhodesia, the then Prime Minister, the late Dr. Verwoerd, said that we in South Africa do not believe in sanctions and boycotts. We continued to trade normally with Rhodesia. I think South Africa set the world an example and at the same time assisted the Rhodesians, both White and non-White, in maintaining a high standard of living over the years. After all these years— 12 to 13 years—I think the world is also beginning to see this matter from our point of view viz. that one cannot achieve political objectives with this type of thing. As regards Moçambique, which now has a Marxist Government, although we differ from them politically, we have fulfilled our contracts.

I think it is necessary for us to spell out our economic philosophy once again in this confused world. I think that even on the part of the West there is a great deal of doubt as to the supply of strategic minerals in the world. If one thinks of the trade links with the world, one thinks in particular of the trade links we have with the BSL countries, i.e. Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho. These three countries are our biggest trading partners in Southern Africa. We have always ensured that they get their rightful share. If one takes into consideration the threatening boycotts and sanctions, one wonders whether these countries would not perhaps suffer more than South Africa itself as a result.

Economic sanctions against South Africa are a threat. Let us now consider the position in other countries for a moment. Britain, which is our biggest trading partner, will probably feel the consequences of a trade boycott most. The British Industrial Association, for instance, has already calculated that unemployment in Britain would increase by 70 000 as a result of a trade boycott against South Africa, and as you know yourselves, Britain already has an unemployment problem. At the same time the United Kingdom will have to cut down its export market of almost R1 000 million to South Africa. This may mean that even a harbour city like Southampton could be crippled. The USA and West Germany both export goods to the value of at least R1 000 million to South Africa; a market which is definitely not to be sneered at. Since 1966, France’s exports to South Africa have increased fivefold, viz. from R76 million in 1966 to R418 million in 1976.

The consequences of trade boycotts are twofold. They affect the country which is being boycotted and they also affect the country which institutes the boycott. I want to tell the West that they must come to their senses. South Africa does not believe in boycotts and sanctions and in spite of their attitude towards South Africa and in spite of the fact that they have left us in the lurch in many respects, South Africa will continue to give effect to its economic philosophy to the finest detail. We shall not apply boycotts to any country in the world.

We in South Africa have a record which I think is unique in the world. It is a record modelled on old values, according to which, as I have already said, one’s word is one’s contract. We must continue with this. The Western world, and America, the EEC countries, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which are themselves being threatened by Marxism and communism, will come to their senses at some stage, despite the Carters and the Callaghans. If their Governments do not come to their senses, their voters will come to their senses and kick those people out, because those people have moved away from the old values and are playing into the hands of Marxism and communism. They implement policies which the Russians themselves cannot implement. They do it for the Russians. They are the fellow-travellers of the communists, but they will come to their senses. The old values will return to the world sphere and then they will discover that South Africa has always been on the right path, both economically and politically. South Africa has stuck to the truth and genuineness, the things which count.

As the hon. member for Parktown correctly said, we in South Africa are in desperate need of economic growth because we want to offer employment opportunities to all the unemployed. What is necessary to get economic growth going? Apart from the inflow of foreign capital, over which we have very little control, while the present economic climate continues, all of us, hon. members on that side and on this side of the House, must create an internal climate of confidence in South Africa. I welcome the new attitude that we must not use the economy to try to score political points off one another. We must use this debate to create a climate for repairing economic confidence in South Africa. [Interjections.] We need generals in the economic sphere. What does a general do? He is not a person who preaches failure and disaster, but someone who keeps the morale of his defence force and troops high.

A general is someone who is absent when his team is not here.

I am not talking about that general. A general is someone who creates confidence in his men. Just as the Defence Force of South Africa is not the defence force of the NP only—it is the defence force of the whole of South Africa—so too the economy of South Africa is the economy of the whole of South Africa. That is why I believe that we need generals, commanders, in the economic sphere. I want to ask all three Opposition parties to see this in the light that we see it in, viz. that we must restore confidence in South Africa. We can hardly expect countries abroad to have confidence in South Africa if we ourselves adopt negative standpoints and spread negative stories about South Africa. I do not want to criticize the hon. member for Parktown, because I should like this spirit to continue in this debate.

The role and the task of the Opposition would also be to assist South Africa to survive the struggle. If we want to survive it, we need the support of every man, woman and child in South Africa. It is our task to ensure that the climate is such that all the people in South Africa will assist in this process of survival. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to see from the two speeches which have already been made in this debate, namely those of the hon. members for Germiston District and Parktown, that both their parties subscribe to the free enterprise system. I am pleased to hear this because the NRP is basically a free enterprise orientated party. We believe in the individual and we believe in the right of the individual to opportunity and his right to improve himself and to prosper. I also agree with what the hon. member for Germiston District had to say with regard to the economy of the world and the threats against South Africa and the whole of the Western world, especially in the light of the challenge which the communist world is directing towards the West at the present time.

The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is this Parliament’s guardian of the economic welfare of South Africa. Later in this speech I want to put some questions to him which I sincerely hope he is going to answer when he replies later on this evening. I agree with the hon. member for Germiston District where he says that the economies of the West are being threatened today. I include our own economy in this. A recession exists throughout the Western world today which is leading to a tremendous amount of unemployment. At the same time there is a rising cost of living which is eroding the standards of living of the people in the West, as the hon. member for Parktown said earlier on. He also went so far as to say that maybe the Western nations are going to have to accept a lower standard of living, but I do not necessarily agree with that. However, all of these threats are leading to a certain degree of frustration and disillusionment and also to a certain degree of scepticism in the minds of many people about our systems of economics and also about our Government institutions. Today many people are fearing for the future.

In analysing these things one finds that enemy No. 1 is inflation, which can be described as the destroyer of national wealth. If ever an enemy of South Africa which was seeking our destruction had an ally within South Africa, then this ally would be inflation. Therefore as such it is a threat to the very security of South Africa, and not only of South Africa, but, as I shall point out in a moment, of the entire Western civilization as we presently know it. I am not alone in these thoughts. I should like to refer to Time magazine of 24 April which contains a feature article on America’s campaign against inflation. I merely want to quote two short passages, one being right at the beginning and which is a quotation from a speech made by President Carter about three weeks ago, where he said—

I should now like to ask the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs whether this is not the case in South Africa at the present time, or are we not reaching that point? The article goes on further to say—

I point this out in the light of a statement in today’s Citizen which says that the hon. the Minister of Finance may have to stimulate the economy in order to create more employment. I agree with the hon. member for Parktown when he said earlier on this afternoon that this is an extremely difficult problem to solve and that there are many factors affecting it. However, I do believe that it is essential for the Government to first of all acknowledge that it is a major problem, and having done that, to take every step possible to correct this problem. As I have already said, this presents a great danger to the very security of the State. Already we find that in the United Kingdom, in an effort to balance its budget, the British Government has reduced its armed forces to a mere shadow of what they were. In the USA similar campaigns are being conducted by certain groups in order to try to cut down on Government spending, and we find that these groups are trying to achieve this by reducing defence spending as a means of trying to fight inflation. This is being done at a time when Russia is concentrating its entire economy in building up its military might and its military influence throughout the world, e.g. in places in Africa. We in these benches believe that this could spell disaster for the West in the not too distant future. Therefore we in the NRP consider inflation as South Africa’s enemy number one. Thus it should be receiving the top priority of every hon. Minister of this Government, especially this hon. Minister. To many—and I also include many hon. members of this House—inflation is a mystery. I think I should also include hon. Cabinet Ministers among these. Many people do not understand what causes inflation. However, be that as it may, inflation is the result of the Government’s fiscal and monetary policies, whether it is this Government or any other Government. Either by pursuing their own ideological goals, or alternatively, by pandering to demands for more and more Government spending with less and less productive effort on the part of the citizen, they achieve the result of causing an out of balance economy. Throughout the world we find that such countries are spending far more than they are in fact earning. This is the case with South Africa at the present time.

Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into this at great length, but we do know that there are two types of inflation, both of which can result, and do result, from the Government’s fiscal and monetary policies. The first one with which we have had a lot to do in recent years is the demand pull type of inflation which the hon. the Minister of Finance has endeavoured to curb by applying in South Africa a very strict and a very disciplined money supply system or policy. I do believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance has, to a point, succeeded in that effort, because we find that, during March this year, inflation actually dropped on an annual basis to 5,8%, which is a remarkable drop in the inflation rate. For the year so far inflation is now, on an annual basis, under 10%. This policy does, I believe, have its merits.

However, despite this, all indications are that within a month or two—I will refer to this later when I speak again—inflation is going to start increasing again, not because of the demand pull phenomena to which I have already referred, but rather because of the other type of inflation, namely the cost push type of inflation. Cost push inflation has many causes. However, when I return to this in the course of this debate—probably tomorrow—I will elaborate on this. Nevertheless, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister now, in the one or two minutes I still have at my disposal, just what his department has done in this connection. This hon. Ministers’s portfolios cover commerce and industry. Surely, he has an influence within the Cabinet over the other departments, such as the Department of Transport, a department which, after all, has one of the biggest budgets of all departments in the country, since it also includes the Railways Administration’s budget. The hon. the Minister also has an influence over the private sector. He controls the prices reigning in many of the industrial spheres of today. Just to what extent has he used his influence with his hon. colleagues in the Cabinet, with the hon. the Minister of Transport and with the private sector to reduce this cost push inflation?

I have many points I would like to put to the hon. the Minister later in this debate in connection with what we can see happening. One of the main causes of cost push inflation is too heavy a tax burden. We have said this before during debates on finance in the course of this current session. It is also the result of an excessive increase in public corporation tariffs, such as electricity, and also transport and railway tariffs. Worse still, there is another cause. That is this phenomenon which we now have, namely the phenomenon of inflation budgeting where businesses, including Government departments, automatically put up their wages and their costs, and by doing that, build into their budget an inflation rate of so many per cent a year. We found this in the Railway budget. In respect of matters like depreciation we find that a system which I call inflation budgeting is built into the budget. All these things are tending to increase the cost of production of certain consumer items, which in turn result in prices being pushed up. This is the phenomenon which is referred to as “cost-push inflation”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has commented on the question of the free-enterprise system. This is a subject which is of particular interest to me, and I shall comment on this subject during the course of my speech. The hon. member also made certain remarks about the inflation rate. This is of course a world-wide phenomenon, and I do not wish to devote any time to that subject at this stage.

*Mr. Chairman, in these times in which we are living, it is advisable for us to take a serious look at certain aspects of our basic economic philosophy. We are living in a time of political uncertainty, especially as regards world politics, and in a time of economic recession and sanctions, as our chairman of the economic group also indicated. The Opposition adopts the premise that all South Africa’s problems could be solved if the Government were to make adjustments to our domestic policy. Of course, our economic problems are not that simple. I think even the Opposition knows that. I am quite prepared to concede that certain adjustments will have to be made in South Africa. However, these must not be short-term solutions. Nor must they be the type of solutions which the hon. Opposition offers South Africa, because these would lead to the downfall of South Africa in any event. The solution which the Opposition suggests, must inevitably lead to Black despotism which will not offer any solutions in the long term.

No one will question the necessity of a strong, dynamic set-up in South Africa, because our political viability emanates from economic power. Therefore, what are the basic requirements for a strong, dynamic economy? The first basic requirement is managerial skills and vision. The second requirement is manpower and knowledge. A third basic requirement is the resources of our country. A fourth basic requirement is a good economic system. In the fifth place there must be enough capital. As far as managerial skill is concerned, we in South Africa are in the fortunate position of having some of the best men and women in the world.

We also have a Minister with a vision which often amazes me. He is not a man with economic training, but a person who basically has a healthy philosophy of life, together with a knack for analysing a situation. He is absolutely honest in his approach to our economic problems. This is the essence of the whole matter. We must be absolutely honest in this regard.

We also have the manpower and the knowledge which is necessary to provide a dynamic economic future. We welcome the high priority which this Government has placed on education and training, for the purpose of achieving this very objective.

We also have the necessary raw materials in South Africa. Ours is one of the richest countries in the world as far as raw materials are concerned. However, we still fall short when it comes to the most effective utilization of our natural resources, and the ideas which were expressed recently about the possibility of a natural resources plan and a natural resources programme for South Africa, should be welcomed.

However, Mr. Chairman, I should like to dwell briefly on the fourth requirement for a strong, dynamic economy, and this is our economic system, to which both the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and the hon. member for Parktown referred. A good system must succeed in raising the standard of living—and here I agree entirely with the hon. member—to keep up with the population growth rate and to serve as encouragement for private initiative and a reward for the entrepreneur. If not, it is not serving its purpose and it will therefore be rejected by the people themselves. Therefore, there must be growth, and the free entrepreneurship should not be unnecessarily curtailed. In order to achieve these objectives, a few things will have to be done to expand our system of free enterprise seriously and to expand the economy to the maximum efficiency.

I want to agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Parktown on this point. The advantages of the system must be actively marketed. They must not only be brought home to the Whites, but to every non-White in South Africa too, because if we do not succeed, this capitalist system will be exchanged for a socialist system. We shall have to market this system actively in South Africa. Even more will have to be done to activate the Black man to act as entrepreneur in South Africa too. The hon. member for Parktown referred to this as well. However, he attaches another connotation to it. We shall have to train him to act as entrepreneur in South Africa so that he can move away from this idea that he can just stand there passively and receive. The infrastructure, the development and the achievements in the scientific sphere in South Africa did not simply fall from the sky. The beautiful White suburbs, the theatres, the hotels, the businesses, the schools, the universities, the national parks, the churches and the sports fields in South Africa were established through the entrepreneurship of generations, by risks which were taken and capital which was pumped in. Then we must come to a point in this, country where our people will know where everything comes from. I request the hon. Opposition not simply to talk about the redistribution of wealth without qualification. It is a dangerous thing to do because the White nation in South Africa has not stolen anything from anybody. [Interjections.]

In South Africa I grant the Black man every luxury which the White man enjoys, but he must do his share. He must become an entrepreneur himself. Only then can one appreciate the facilities which are so often and so easily squandered in this country and even burned down. However, the non-Whites must also be trained as entrepreneurs to an increasing extent for the sake of the economy, regardless of the tasks which this Government is still doing in this regard. We shall have to give the Black man more active assistance to teach him to help himself. South Africa’s economy is not strong enough to hand out alms. I should like to offer the following for your consideration:“It is better to help a man by showing him how to catch a fish than to give him a fish.” We shall have to eliminate completely the existing image that the system is based on exploitation in South Africa if we want to see an economic future for South Africa.

In fact, we shall have to actively advertise the legislation which we already have to prevent exploitation and we shall have to apply that legislation effectively so that the people know that the system is protecting them too. We shall have to do so if we want to succeed in South Africa. That is why I say that we must give this the maximum publicity so that we can sell this system. At the same time we shall have to look more carefully at legislation which places unnecessary restrictions on trade and industry, legislation which is sometimes well intended but which may have a seriously inhabiting effect on free enterprise. The time has come for us in South Africa to eliminate unnecessary red tape for the sake of economic development. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, please permit me, in the brief space of ten minutes, to discuss a matter which is a matter of very deep concern to us in the Western Cape. We wish to express our concern about the particularly negative factors which exist in the Western Cape and which have an effect on our struggle to enable the existing industries to compete on an effective basis and, on the other hand, get to new industries established in the Western Cape. By way of summary, I want to mention a few of those negative factors. Firstly, there is the fact that the distance between this area and the largest potential market is particularly great. Connected with that, there is the fact that the industries in the Western Cape have, in the nature of things, to pay very high transport costs. The second element which is also of great importance and which has an inhibiting effect in the Western Cape, is the high cost of electricity and coal. Thirdly, there is our relative scarcity of raw materials and, fourthly, the growing labour market of relatively expensive labour for which the industries in the Western Cape have to provide employment opportunities.

In mentioning these factors, it is not my intention that we should discuss this matter in a spirit of pessimism, but much rather in the spirit that we want to request the Government in general and the department of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs in particular, to take an in-depth look at this problem with a view to providing possible stimulants to the industries in the Western Cape. I believe that it is also the objective of the Government’s economic policy—apart from the national growth rate—to ensure that our country develops in a balanced way from a geographical point of view. That implies, again, firstly that there should not be an over-concentration of economic activities in a particular area; and, secondly, that employment opportunities should be brought to the available source of labour rather than the other way round.

In the debate on the Railway budget this year, I discussed one particular negative factor in detail, namely the relatively high cost of transport over long distances. Time will not permit me tonight to do more than just refer to that in passing. I venture to state that in order to have economic development in an area, there must be industrial development. Electricity is one of the highest cost elements in the establishment of industries. The position is that the tariff structure of Escom in the Western Cape is considerably higher than on the Rand or even in the Port Elizabeth and Eastern Cape areas. I have a table of tariffs with me in which a comparison is drawn between the costs of electricity on the Rand on the one hand and in the Peninsula on the other, as supplied to a particular industry situated on the Rand and to a similar industry in the Cape Peninsula. Without going into the details of tariffs, it appears from this comparative table that it is not only the cost of labour which is three times higher than on the Rand, but also that the total cost, all factors or the provision of power included, is three times higher in the Peninsula than on the Rand. The cost input in respect of electricity in the particular industry to which I have referred, is at present so high that it will be more profitable to stop its local manufacturing and, notwithstanding the high cost of transport, to manufacture on the Rand only and to distribute to the Cape Peninsula from there. If that should happen, it would mean that 400 Coloured people would immediately be without employment.

Furthermore, there is also a difference in electricity tariffs within the Cape Peninsula itself. Escom supplies electricity directly to industries as far west as the Epping industrial area, Extension 2, which falls under the Cape municipality. In terms of an agreement, they supply electricity of the Cape Town municipality, which again supplies it at a charge to industries in the rest of the industrial area of Epping, which is also situated in the municipal area. As a result of the difference in tariffs, the production costs of an industry carried on in the Epping industrial area, Extension No. 1, and supplied with electricity by the municipality of Cape Town, are much higher than those of his competitor, whose factory is on the opposite side of the street, and which is supplied with power by Escom. I am aware of the fact that the Board of Trade and Industry is engaged in an investigation into a national tariff structure. The Western Cape is looking forward with great expectation to the findings and recommendations which will, it is hoped, eliminate this problem for us in the Western Cape. I know that the Government accepts it as a fundamental standpoint that the employment pattern in the greater Western Cape area should be geared mainly to White and Brown workers. The Government has already shown that very clearly by the establishment of Atlantis. But there is grave concern about the decline of existing industries in the Western Cape— industries which to an increasing extent have to supply work to the growing Coloured labour corps. For these reasons, we cannot afford further losses of industries in this area.

Until now, everyone has speculated about the relative detrimental effects of the establishment of industries and the carrying on of industries in the Western Cape, but we have never had quantitative evidence of this, and for that reason no remedies have yet been considered for this area. For that reason, I should earnestly like to ask the hon. the Minister tonight for a scientific investigation in all these negative factors in the Western Cape which I have pointed out to him. I realize that the State cannot subsidize private undertakings on a permanent basis. But regarded in the long term, this area has a great market potential, although the Government will have to do something in the interim before this potential can be fully developed. When the information is at the hon. the Minister’s disposal, rebates and other incentive measure, as are also applied to decentralized industries, will also have to be considered here in order to instil new life into the industries in the Western Cape. We can perhaps go even further by considering tendering concessions for this area in competition with other areas.

I believe that the hon. the Minister, as a practical person with a great understanding for the Western Cape, will, when he has the report at his disposal, feel that such action will, when … disposal, feel… is justified for this area. The hon. the Minister has already furnished practical proof in matters of this nature to which I have already referred, that he has succeeded in bringing the private sector and the public sector together in order to find the necessary solutions. His policy of appointing working groups—people who do the work and get done with it, rather than a commission which takes years to bring out a report—has already achieved excellent results. I think there is a particularly urgent task here for such a working group. It is no good our telling industrialists that they can negotiate further with the Railways about tariffs. If the Railways indicate that the tariffs levied merely make provision for a cost coverage of 57%, and an industrialist nevertheless feels compelled to move to the Rand—which will have as a result that 500 Coloured people will lose their employment—it is obvious that we shall have to find aid for this area.

I think the Western Cape industry is still true to the Boland tradition, because we have not yet learned to go hat in hand to the Government and ask for assistance and concessions. The facts, as I have tried to indicate in the short space of time, are overwhelmingly in favour of the retention of industries in the Western Cape in order to create the necessary employment opportunities for the growing labour corps and also to provide the resources which may be necessary in future. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Tygervallei on his speech. I agree with most of what he said and I feel that if the hon. member would always be so realistic as he was tonight, he would very easily be able to find a place on this side of the House. [Interjections.] The hon. member’s arguments were so logical and realistic that we on this side of the House have very little fault to find with them.

You need a little realism over there.

However, we find it a little more difficult to agree with what the hon. member for Newcastle said, because this hon. member accused us of a tendency to insist on the redistribution of wealth. The hon. member must not come to this House with a previously prepared speech. If the hon. member had listened to what I said last week and to what the hon. member for Parktown said today, he would have known that we are not in favour of the unqualified redistribution of wealth. This is an extremely difficult task and I quoted, with approval, the words of Dr. Rupert when he said, amongst other things, that the redistribution of wealth would bring only temporary relief, while the redistribution of opportunities could bring about a complete change in the economy of South Africa. That is where we stand, and not where that hon. member thinks we stand.

I am glad the hon. member has come to realize that.

I want to put three questions to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs rather than argue with him. The first of these questions relates to Iscor. The hon. the Minister has come to this House, in the discussion of his Vote, to ask us, the public of South Africa, as shareholders, to contribute another R100 million to Iscor. The hon. the Minister has not produced a prospectus as any industrial leader would do when asking for R100 million from the financing public. This is a very large sum of money. I believe the hon. the Minister owes the investing public certain explanations and I hope that he will, in the course of his defence of his Vote, provide the kind of prospectus …

I did not think my Vote was being attacked.

… which any reasonable investor is entitled to expect from the person who appeals for support from his shareholders. We on this side, to be frank, are a little bit reluctant to invest in this particular project. We are reluctant, because we are sceptical. In the first place we would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this large sum of R100 million is required to cover deficits or whether it is required for future development. This is an important question that any shareholder or prospective shareholder is entitled to ask. We would like to believe that the purpose of this money is for future development. In this respect we would like to know whether it is true that Iscor is in the market to sell some of its subsidiary companies or whether it is in fact in the market to increase its investments. Another question is: Is Iscor suffering losses? We know that Iscor ran at a loss, on its accounts last year, of approximately R50 million. Are we now being asked to subscribe to a cover-up for the losses suffered by Iscor? If there are such losses, we would like to know from the hon. the Minister—because as an honest promoter of a company, he would no doubt wish to tell us—whether losses are being suffered and for what reason these losses are being suffered. The hon. the Minister will remember that I predicted in this House for a number of years that Iscor was going to suffer losses as a result of the Sishen-Saldanha scheme. I predicted that while it was right to develop Saldanha in the long run, the project was ill-timed and the amount of money involved on loan account was too great to be covered by the kind of sales of iron-ore and semi-processed steel which would cover the servicing of Iscor’s very high loans. I believe that, although Iscor has earned valuable money through the Sishen-Saldanha scheme, this money could have been earned more cheaply and at greater profit through the St. Croix scheme. This was always my thesis.

Now I believe money has been lost and that Iscor is in trouble, and the hon. the Minister, in coming to the House for R100 million of the taxpayer’s money by way of share participation, is in fact asking us to cover up losses which were predicted in the House some time ago. I take the matter no further than that because my time is limited, but I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister who is, in a manner of speaking, the chairman of the company which is asking the shareholders of South Africa, the taxpayers, to invest R100 million, would provide us in the course of this debate with a convincing prospectus which will persuade us that the investment of R100 million of further shares in Iscor is, in fact, justified. That is my first question.

The second question relates to oil. I believe the hon. the Minister and I are agreed that the importation and use of oil in South Africa is vital to our economy. The hon. the Minister must take the public of South Africa into his confidence to a greater extent than he has done so far. We are interested not only in the importation of oil and the oil bill, which may to a certain extent be a strategic question which the hon. the Minister, with our support, will refuse to answer in meticulous detail. However, there are certain questions which must be answered because it is in the interests of the economy and of future developers who depend on oil for their developments, that the answers should be known. Without going into a lecture on the subject, I should like to say that oil or petroleum imported from abroad is split up into various components. It is used for things like fuels, waxes, paraffins, solvents, chemicals and so forth. The rate at which one has to import petroleum into South Africa depends on the irreducible demand in respect of one or other of these things: the irreducible quantity imported depends on the irreducible minimum for waxes, paraffins, solvents or fuels, as the case may be. Suppose, for example, that there is a particular developing industry, shall we say like the conversion of road transport, passenger cars, from petrol to diesel. What security do the producers and buyers of diesel motor-cars have that diesel oil will be available and is not going to be a commodity in short supply? The use of diesel passenger cars could in fact offer quite important economics, but surely if we invest in diesel passenger cars at reasonably high cost for a period of five or six years, we want to know that diesel oil will be available and that diesel oil as one of the fractions of the production of petroleum plants is not going to be precisely that commodity in short supply because of the ceiling placed on the import of petroleum. One could go on in this way in regard to many other commodities, for instance waxes or chemicals.

I get the point.

The hon. the Minister has got the point. I am merely pleading with him to give some lead, some indication, some illumination, to the public of South Africa, the investors and the developers, as to where this will lead them and what kind of developments they can anticipate.

Lastly, and very briefly, I want to deal with the question of the Conference Lines contract. There is a contract between the hon. the Minister’s department and the Conference Lines of South and East Africa to carry certain goods and to provide certain cargo services and certain cold-storage services between South Africa and Europe and other places for the benefit of trade between South Africa and the rest of the Western World. I should, however, like to ask: What about our mail services? There used to be a mail service catered for by this contract with the Conference Lines. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the mail service is in a state of shambles. There is no regularity, there is no predictability and there is nothing in the contract, which I studied today, to provide for a guaranteed weekly mail service in each direction. Will the hon. the Minister kindly tell the House what is being done in this regard? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to steal the thunder of my benchmate, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, by replying to the questions put by the hon. member for Constantia, because I saw him jot down all the questions with a view to replying to them. All I want to say about the general tone of the speech by the hon. member for Constantia is that to a certain extent, it perhaps reflects a lack of confidence in the economic viability of our fatherland. I cannot praise him for that, because if there is one thing which is necessary for economic growth, it is confidence. I miss that note of confidence in the hon. member’s speech.

I should rather confine myself to a matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. It concerns the local manufacturing of agricultural chemicals. In the ideal conditions of free world trade, it is obvious that it is advisable that each country should produce what it is best equipped for. In a system of free economy, he then exports those products to other countries and he buys from them those products which they are better able to produce economically. However, this happens only in normal conditions of commerce. In the world of 1978, even in the Western world of 1978, these free or normal commercial conditions simply do not exist, because trade blocs, like the EEC for example, destroy this concept of free world trade. Then I am not even mentioning political boycotts, sanctions, etc. For this reason, the idea of free or normal trade conditions in the world of today has become a hollow phrase. Because South Africa is more and more having to face both these factors, we must determine our priorities very carefully. It means that we must protect our own industries more and more so that, within bounds, we can become self-sufficient as far as possible. Of course, there is still GATT which we must take into account, but I am of the opinion that this agreement is of little value to us today.

It is difficult to strike a balance between the availability of essential supplies on the one hand and the price factor on the other hand. In the case of military supplies, we are placing the emphasis more and more on the former consideration, namely the availability of supplies. In the case of most other supplies, of course, the Board of Trade and Industry must always look at the price factor as well. As far as strategic supplies such as oil are concerned, the price factor is, however, of less importance.

I now want to talk about agricultural chemicals, which are, in my view, commodities which are just as strategic as oil— because without agricultural chemicals, we can simply not continue with our present system of sophisticated agricultural production. One can divide these agricultural chemicals into five categories: Weedkillers, fungicides, fumigating chemicals, insecticides and hormones. It is calculated that if these substances are not available, the gross value of agricultural products may decline by as much as R1 000 million; in other words, we will lose one-third of our agricultural production if these substances are not available. South Africa’s present consumption of pesticides is approximately 30 000 tons, which is not at all high, with a wholesale value of R85 million. More than 300 active ingredients are involved in this volume of trade of approximately 450 registered pesticides. Almost all these substances are imported, with the exception of only nine which are manufactured locally. The country is accordingly very vulnerable in respect of the supply of pesticides. Fortunately it is not necessary to manufacture all 300 active ingredients locally. Formulations are already being done locally to a considerable extent with these 300 active ingredients. Most of the active ingredients are obtained from giant chemical producers who operate on a world-wide scale. If we had to manufacture these 300 ingredients ourselves, it would be totally uneconomical—even with the highest import tariffs. But that is not necessary. We should begin to standardize in time in order that we may not have the same experience as with many makes of motor vehicles.

The most economical manufacturing requires standardization on the minimum range of products in order to cover a high percentage of the volume of pesticides consumed. It further requires that local basic raw materials and intermediate products should be reasonably available or obtainable at reasonable prices. We do not need 300 active ingredients. A chemical industrial organization which I know well has calculated that we can cover the major part of the spectrum with only 23 active ingredients—nine of which we are already producing and 14 of which we can also produce from local raw materials. The market of 30 000 tons is, however, too limited for economical production. Fortunately, many of these active ingredients can be used for other industrial purposes than pesticides. They can be used for other purposes; for example, the same series of amines which are used for pesticides are also used in the manufacture of explosives, detergents, etc. Phosphorus penta-sulphide is used for the manufacture of pesticides as well as oil additives and mining chemicals. But we have a lack of expertise. While it is still possible, I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to see to it that that expertise is obtained and accumulated, just as we accumulate oil, for example. In the same way, we must also accumulate the expertise to manufacture these substances. A positive policy of tariff protection to ensure economic viability, is necessary. I very strongly advocate that a Cabinet Committee, assisted by a departmental committee consisting of representatives from Industries and from Agricultural Technical Services, should assist the Board of Trade and Industries in determining priorities, in order to protect those essential ingredients so that they can be locally produced. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to participate in this debate as a layman at this stage, after so many experts have displayed their knowledge in learned economic terms, is certainly no easy matter. However, I want to talk about those things in the economy I have become aware of as a layman. It is undoubtedly a fact that a special interaction exists between the economy and politics. That is the case in every community. To be more specific, politics is influenced by economic conditions, whereas the converse also applies.

The most telling example of this in recent years, has, of course, been the drastic increase in the price of oil and the new importance which oil has assumed in the world and in the world economy. In the first place, it has changed the economic situation in the countries which produce oil as well as in the countries which buy oil. The sellers have obtained higher prices for their oil, and, of course, the purchasers have had to pay more for their oil. In both the exporting and the importing countries of oil, this has undoubtedly had certain effects. These include political effects. As far as the political effects are concerned, these are readily discernible if one has kept an eye on politics and economics in the world during the past few years, i.e. that the political approach of countries—especially of America—has undergone a particular change of emphasis in their relations with countries like Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, as well as with Israel and South Africa. Therefore, there is a definite connection between political conditions and the economic effects of the increase in the price of oil.

As far as South Africa is concerned, we also have to accept that there are a number of factors—economic factors—which influence the economy in our country as well. The oil crisis has undoubtedly also had a drastic effect on local conditions. If one takes that into account, along with phenomena such as the world recession, inflation and the growing isolation of South Africa as a result of pressure, then those factors, economic and political, are very clearly discernible in the present South African economic set-up.

A sound economy in South Africa is not only important, but also essential, for political stability. An aspect which is important and which we must face, one which was pointedly brought to our attention once again during the debate on the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Information, is the fact that South Africa’s race policy is unacceptable in practice as well as in terms of all international standards. Now the question is what is the Government’s policy and approach in consequence of the international condemnation of our race policy? The Government’s policy has always amounted to this: We in South Africa have to contend with unique problems and for that reason the policy of the Government offers the only practical political solution to our local problems. The approach of the Government has, however, been completely realistic at all times, and as regards the matter of change, its deeds and attitude have always been positive. Wherever changes have been effected, they have not been effected for the purpose of satisfying the outside world. Changes have been effected where and when they have been deemed good and correct, their object being the promotion of the policy of separate development Such changes have been effected in an orderly manner and in a way aimed at preventing friction and ensuring the White man as well as other races retaining their identities. In the light of the large number of negative reports and views and the vast amount of criticism which appear with regard to the Government’s policy, I should like to refer to a few changes which have been effected in South Africa over a period of time as well as to certain new trends. These may be regarded as very important political adjustments in the development of this policy. In an economic sense as well, it has been deemed necessary to make available more skilled labour, of which we do not have an insufficient supply in this country. Let us look, for example, at the question of job reservation. More and more employment opportunities have systematically been thrown open and made available to all race groups. In the economic sphere this has resulted in more employment opportunities being created for tens of thousands of persons—Blacks as well as Coloureds and Indians—in both the private and public sectors. There has been a real wage increase of more than 40% in the case of these race groups during the period between 1972 and 1977. Those developments have taken place because of the importance to our economic development and our political stability of providing employment to that larger labour force. As a result of Government policy, more industrial training centres are systematically being established to train unskilled Blacks in progressive steps for placement in positions of employment in which they are very essential. The Government has also encouraged businessmen to train workers in order to make more of them available for such positions. The Government has also made tax concessions in this regard in order to supplement those needs.

As far as the policy of the Government is concerned, cognizance has also been taken of the position of our local communities, especially as regards hotels, restaurants, theatres, etc. In many cases practical adjustments have been effected in view of the political and economic future of our country. In this regard, one thinks of the dynamic sports policy of this Government. It is possible today for members of all race groups to realize their highest ideals and to reach the pinnacle of success in the sport they choose to play. Unnoticed, all these things are being done for the sake of stable government. Industrial areas have been made available in a way to make them accessible to Coloureds as well as Indians. Businessmen are also being encouraged systematically to create more employment opportunities not only for their own people, but also for South Africa as a whole.

A further positive aspect of Government policy is that the principle of equal pay for equal work is being applied. During the past few years, the wage gap has diminished drastically. Such a step is justifiable not only on political grounds, but also on the grounds of all sound economic principles.

The principle of public expenditure on education being equal per capita, has been accepted and expenditure for that purpose has increased six-fold during the period from 1964 to 1976. For the financial year 1977-’78, there has again been an increase of more than 50% in this regard. This has resulted in more and more trained Black people entering our labour force.

A further positive aspect of the Government’s policy is the granting of full local management powers in places like Soweto, as well as the granting of house-ownership. The recommendations of the Theron Commission have by and large been accepted by this Government and have been implemented in the social, political and economic spheres. This is drastically improving the position of 2½ million Brown people.

All these steps are positive aspects of Government policy, which also have important effects in the economic sphere. The increasing political consultation at Cabinet level … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Roodepoort should pardon me for not reacting on his speech. My time is very limited. However, I can assure him that I have watched the hon. the Minister very closely while he was speaking. The hon. the Minister made many notes. Therefore he will be able to give the hon. member a very full reply. The hon. member for Tygervallei dealt with the problems of the Western Cape. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we have the same problems in the Eastern Cape. Therefore the hon. the Minister has to make concessions to the Western Cape as well as to the Eastern Cape. This is a very urgent matter.

Come to Jo’burg!

I would rather come back to Port Elizabeth.

†Priority No. 1 is to create jobs, even at the risk of increasing the rate of inflation. Investors’ confidence is a most important factor in this process. The Government, as a prime investor, must take a lead. Low-cost projects with the greatest employment prospects should be given the highest priority. Is it not possible for the large number of unemployed to be taken up in housing projects for the elimination of the backlog in housing? I know that the hon. the Minister is going to tell me that an extra R250 million has been allocated to relieve the backlog in housing, but I should like to suggest that a little more be allocated to eliminate the backlog in housing and, at the same time, to create jobs for the unemployed. At present we must pull out all stops and restrictions must be removed, at least for the period. I am referring to those restrictions that impede the optimum development of each area. I believe that restrictions contribute towards unemployment We would like to see the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area exempted from section 3 of the Environmental Planning Act and also exempted from the Coloured labour preference provisions. During the present difficult period the hon. the Minister could exempt the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area, even if it is for a trial period, to see how things work out. Naturally we on this side of the House would like the exemptions to be of a permanent nature. Concessions must be given to established industries to expand further and also to enable new industries to commence operations. I can see that the hon. the Minister is with me. So I hope we are going to get this concession. The concessions I should like to see given to industries are concessions which need not be as good as the border concessions but could be similar to some of the border concessions that are given. I believe that if such concessions are given also to the other areas, there would be an improvement in the industrial areas throughout South Africa Concessions should be given for a limited period in order to promote growth in other industrial areas. We realize that it is important that there should be decentralization, but it must be done on a sound economic basis. Where, however, despite all the advantages of border concessions, an industrialist does not want to move to the border areas, that industrialist should be allowed to locate himself in the area in which he wants to locate himself. I can see the hon. the Minister of Health smiling. As the Minister of Planning he gave us trouble in this regard. A few years ago we were given statistics by the Minister of Planning and with those statistics he showed us that many applications for factories and extensions were refused, 19 applications for new factories, were refused and three applications for extensions were refused, three were from the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area These applicants are part and parcel of the free enterprise system and part of the lifeblood of our economy.

The Government was not in a position to tell us what happened to these applicants. In other words, we do not know whether these industrialists located themselves elsewhere or not. In an area like Port Elizabeth where one has the complete infrastructure to set up industries at minimum cost—for instance, we have the labour, the water, the power, the land, the harbour and the transport—we basically suffer from three disabilities. One of the disabilities is that we cannot give the concessions offered to industries in border areas. That I can understand, but we also suffer from the disability of section 3 of the Environmental Planning Act and the fact that we are a Coloured labour preference area. I hope that that matter will be rectified in the very near future. In fact, I hope it will be rectified in the course of this debate. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to help the Cinderella City of Port Elizabeth by suspending these restrictions and by giving the concessions I mentioned earlier to encourage industrial development in our area. An industrialist coming to Port Elizabeth should be free of restrictions because we in Port Elizabeth are too heavily dependent on the motor industry. We are very grateful to the motor industry and all the allied industries, but our area must diversify to a far greater extent. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to give Port Elizabeth a boost. In giving us a boost, I want to suggest that he gives us a major project to start the ball rolling. If, for example, the next Iscor were planned for Port Elizabeth, even though the project may be many years away and it may be a long time before it is commenced with, a statement of intent now would be like manna from heaven to create business confidence in our area Whilst I am not saying that the project must be another Iscor, I am asking the Government to give us some Government project to start the ball rolling in Port Elizabeth.

I now want to turn to another matter. South Africa is an exporting country and it is more vital than ever that we redouble our efforts to export more. I am very pleased to see that in the budget the amount set aside for export promotion has been increased to R92 million. I think that, whatever we have done in the past in regard to export promotion, we must increase those efforts because it is absolutely essential and absolutely vital to South Africa that we export more.

I should now like to deal with the spending on Sasol 2 and I should like to look at the foreign exchange savings that we will make as a result of that expenditure. We will spend close on R2 500 million on Sasol 2 and earn, at full capacity until 1985, a net saving of approximately R230 million per annum and thereafter approximately R350 million per annum. I think that that is very, very good. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that it is absolutely essential that, instead of exporting raw materials, we must export semi-finished products. In this regard I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what is happening to the semis plant at Saldanha. I realize that this project will cost thousands of millions of rand, but I believe that it will earn so much in foreign exchange for South Africa that it is absolutely essential that the hon. the Minister should investigate this matter very, very closely. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to float, say, a public company with preference shares, and have a consortium of banks in South Africa underwrite the floatation, perhaps with some assistance from the Government. At one stage, I know, the question of overseas partners was being considered. However, I think we have reached the stage where we must look at this project, even if overseas partners are not to be found. If they are to be found, so much the better. In view of the vast expenditure by Iscor, Sasol, Escom, etc., which will run into thousands of millions of rand, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether they are making the fullest use of their enormous buying power to get long-term foreign credits. If they are successfully getting long-term foreign credits, it is the same thing as getting a foreign loan. I think the hon. the Minister will concede that. I also feel that, if they are successful in getting these long-term foreign credits, they will be in a position to borrow less on the local market and therefore there will be more money available for other enterprises on the local market. The borrowing of overseas or foreign credits by private and public companies should also be encouraged. The Government could encourage this development to a far greater extent if they guaranteed to the importers who take long-term credits that, if they suffer a foreign exchange loss, the Government will indemnify them against that loss.

The second last point I should like to raise is that the increased cost of living is making it impossible for the “have nots” to make ends meet. Many people on fixed incomes and many pensioners are going through the most difficult times they have ever experienced. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister that he and his colleagues in the Cabinet, more especially the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, should consider very seriously subsidizing necessary foodstuffs to a far greater extent.

The last point I wish to make is that we are of Africa. I know that we have made contributions in other countries in Africa, even though we cannot broadcast the contributions we have made, but I should like the hon. the Minister to hold the ideal of establishing an African economic market similar to the European economic market. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Walmer raised a local matter and I know that the hon. the Minister will give him a satisfactory reply.

The remarkable turnaround from the great deficit to a considerable surplus on the current account of the balance of payments—a turnaround of almost R2 400 million—has proved that South Africa is able to exercise control over its money supply as well as its spending. It also means that additional revenue has been generated in the internal economy and that our net gold and other foreign exchange reserves can be increased under normal economic circumstances. The salary increases and the concessions in respect of company tax and personal income tax, can give raise to an increase in investment. In view of the fact that within the foreseeable future we shall have to reply to an increasing extent on ourselves and mainly on our own capital and other resources, I want to make an appeal tonight for greater thrift, for better utilization of our capital and other assets, for greater self-sufficiency, for increased purchases of South African products and goods, and for greater efficiency and harder work.

Wastage is a subject which covers a wide field. I am not merely referring to the physical squandering of money, goods and our natural resources, but also to the squandering of our talents and even time in our country. Capital will continue to remain scarce. In fact, a net outflow of capital is being experienced at present. According to the statistical analysis of economic tendencies by the Bureau for Economic Research at Stellenbosch, South Africa has, during the past eight years, financed 12,8% of its gross domestic investment with foreign capital. Companies contributed 47,5% in the form of ploughed-back profits and depreciation, while personal savings provided 25% of the investment funds. Although individuals savings will not be able to compensate for the diminishing inflow of foreign capital, it could nevertheless play an important role in placing the South African economy on the road to recovery. For that reason, we dare not squander money in such a manner that it is harmful to the monetary equilibrium of the country.

What can the individual do to counter wastefulness? He can do a lot—in fact, too much to mention. He can conserve energy, fuel, electricity, water and many other resources every day. By good road manners he can even save lives. He can also save by countering wastefulness in his own home. Even in his eating and drinking habits, he can save by giving preference to South African products. In his daily life, he can behave in such a way that wastefulness is kept to the absolute minimum so that he does not create unnecessary work for other people. Just think of the amount of littering strewn on our roads, our beaches, at public gatherings and in fact everywhere. The Romans had a saying: “Not to waste is already a source of income.” This is a way of increasing our revenue without it being taken away from us again at a later stage. According to estimates, it costs approximately R50 million every year just to empty the refuse bins in our larger cities. That includes the cost of labour and transport, and the removal and disposal of garbage. Most of the paper and containers— and especially plastic containers—can be used over and over again but it is easier, but also more expensive to us, merely to discard them.

In parks and other public places, refuse is not even deposited in the containers which are specially provided for that purpose. No. After public gatherings, the grounds are normally littered with rubbish and this must later be removed at a very high cost. The irony of the matter is that the litterbugs themselves must also pay for this in the end in the form of higher taxes. The tragedy is that those people who never litter must pay, just as the litterbugs do. I myself am a farmer—and how often do we not see expensive farming machinery standing under trees or simply left in the open or in the farmyard to rust away unused. That serves as silent proof of the wastage of expensive machinery which often should not even have been bought in the first place. I repeat that in this connection I am examining my own conscience. But I am afraid that there is far more wastefulness in the private sector and in the public sector. When we look at some of our buildings, roads, streets, and whatever, we find that they are sometimes very extravagant. The time has arrived for us to reflect on this and to ask ourselves: Can South Africa afford these luxuries at this juncture? Economizing and not to wastefulness, will have to become our watchword. Our natural resources are one of South Africa’s most potent weapons in our struggle for survival. With the utilization of our resources, the consideration should always be where it is being done to the optimum benefit of the country, and in this field, too, Government control over the means of production should also be put to the test. To some people, the solution lies in a greater tendency to economize. In other words, more money must be mobilized from our own sources for internal development. Others, again, feel that one should guard against saving so much that one lapses into a depression. All these divergent views contain solutions to our present economic problems. If people buy more, factories can expand and unemployment can be reduced. But if they buy more overseas products, money flows out of the country and very little comes of internal expansion and economic growth. Although South Africa, in terms of international agreements, is not free to prohibit imports—the hon. member for Paarl referred to that—there is nothing to prevent the ordinary public from insisting on South African goods. Even if the South African goods cost more than the imported goods, it is still in the interests of South Africa to insist on South African goods. In order to survive sanctions against us, qe must endeavour to be self-sufficient. That means that there will have to be more factories to meet the demand for goods. But factories cannot be established unless there is a far greater insistence on South African goods. I therefore want to advocate tonight that in the interests of South Africa, we should save and that we should also, in the interests of South Africa, buy South African. The squandering of our people’s talents and the squandering of their time, remain, in my view, by far the most important problems. South Africa’s salvation lies in the individual’s drive and desire to work. We should foster more positive attitudes. In the work situation, we should be conscientious and punctual. If we are in earnest about a better future for this country we should make the very best use of our talents—not merely for selfish reasons, and not only for personal gain, but for the benefit of the entire society and of our country.

The most important of all our resources is our people, and therefore we dare not squander their potential. Let us follow the example of South Korea in this connection. No nation in the world has made such phenomenal progress during recent years as the South Koreans have done. Backed by a strong, well-trained, eager and dynamic workers’ corps, the average growth rate of South Korea for the past 15 years, has been 9,7% per annum, with an average growth rate of 15% for 1976. The South Koreans are regarded as the most hard-working people in the world. They work an average of 50,3 hours per working week. How does that compare with our working week? The South Koreans do not regard work as a burden or as an inconvenience, but as a heaven-sent opportunity to serve their families, their nation and their country. Let this also be our approach, and let every inhabitant of our country pass and utilize the time with systematic and hard work.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Smithfield on his very positive contribution. South Africa is faced with many challenges in these difficult times, but there is one challenge which cannot wait and which deserves the highest priority. That is that we must build as much strength and bargaining power as possible into our economy in these times, because it is on the economic front that we are going to win or lose the battle. It is quite clear that the onslaught of our enemies is aimed against our economy. Their objective is to weaken our economy so that we shall not be able to resist the political powers. But thanks to our vigilant Government, steps have been taken in time to protect our house from political and economic storms. It cannot be denied that the Government has done everything in its power to strengthen our economic and financial power base into a formidable one. In this way, our political and military power base is also greatly strengthened, because a strong and healthy economy is the basis of a strong political and military power base. The Government has laid foundations which are essential to the creation and strengthening of an economic power base. One of those foundations is the latest budget. This budget attempts to enable our people and our country to prepare themselves morally and materially so that they may stand firm in the difficult and challenging times in which we live. The Government is not neglecting its duty.

I want to mention a few things which have been done in this connection. Self-discipline has been exercised. We have pulled in our belts, the supply of money has been reduced, expenditure has been curtailed and we have taught our people to fend for themselves. Furthermore, we have learnt to create and mobilize our own capital, and in this way, South Africa has succeeded in becoming 90% self-sufficient as far as its capital requirements are concerned. It is a magnificent achievement on South Africa’s part that we have been able to finance 90% of our capital requirements from our own resources. Equally great has been South Africa’s achievement in converting an enormous deficit of R1 630 million on its balance of payments into a surplus of R751 million. There has been a dramatic swing of R2 400 million. I do not think there is another country in the world that could have done that. These things do not go unnoticed in the economic world. Our trade friends and trade partners are very impressed by this. We learn that the International Monetary Fund, international bankers and prominent economists notice and praise these things and that they do much to strengthen their confidence in South Africa. Therefore South Africa has been able to lay a sound foundation for entering a period of reasonable economic growth.

There is one thing which bothers me, however, and this is actually the subject I want to discuss tonight The aspect I am referring to is the fact that remuneration is not commensurate with performance in this country. Performance is not keeping up with remuneration, but is lagging behind. In our country, as in other countries in the world, it is customary for wages and salaries to be determined according to the consumer price index. The effect of this is that wages and salaries snowball along with the price index without performance being taken into account. This is a weakness in our economic equipment. I do not believe that any economic system can survive for long if it is simply borne along on the wave of ever-increasing salaries and wages which are not offset by improved performance. I want to furnish a few figures in support of this argument of mine. When we look at the important metal industry in this country, we find that since 1963, salaries and wages in this industry have increased on an average by 215%, while the average production per worker has increased by only 30% over the same period. This is alarming.

I want to quote another example. According to the Economic Journal, the average income per worker, expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product, increased by 130% in the 18 years between 1957 and 1975, while the average production per worker increased by only 70%. The remuneration was there, but the performance did not keep pace with it. The S.A. Productivity Institute alleges that our efficiency in this country is only 50%. This is only half of what it could be. This, too, is alarming.

According to a graph of the Chamber of Mines, the wages of non-Whites have shown a tremendous increase of 450% since 1970. This was out of all proportion to the consumer price index, which increased by only 65%, during this period; let alone the increase in performance. If there had not been an rise in the gold price, our mines would have had great problems with these tremendous increases in the salaries of the non-White mineworkers.

I want to say at once that I do not begrudge any member of our labour force in this country the salary increase he has received and that no one wants to blame them for the fact that performance has been so low in many cases. Many other factors are to blame for this in addition to the performance of workers. The entrepreneurs may be the greatest culprits in this connection, because they do not ensure that the enterprises are orientated towards greater production. The fact is, however, that the great gap between remuneration and performance is giving cause for concern. These are red lights which are flashing in our economy; they are danger signs which are being observed specifically in these difficult times when we want to build a sound economic power base in this country. If we cannot increase our productivity and performance, we shall be left with the problems of inflation, slow growth and unemployment. By means of improved performance and efficiency, we can very effectively counter these evils in our economy. This will remain a weakness in our economic power base if nothing is done about it. Salary increases must keep pace with performance, and if this does not happen, one is undermining the economic power base of one’s country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North will excuse me if I do not follow directly on him, except to comment that I think that his remarks in regard to productivity were certainly very correct, and that we certainly should make an effort in this country and in our economy to improve our productivity. During the course of my speech I also want to refer to the hon. member for Tygervallei and the hon. member for Walmer, both of whom made pleas for their particular areas. The one was in respect of the Western Cape and the other in respect of the Eastern Cape. I will, of course, be making a plea on behalf of the Border area, which is hardly going to be surprising to anybody in this Chamber.

I have in my hands a cutting from The Citizen, the NP’s favourite English newspaper, dated Wednesday, 12 April 1978. In this article they quote Dr. S. P. du Toit Viljoen, who is chairman of the Corporation for Economic Development The article is headed “Decentralize”. He states in this article that South Africa is faced with a challenge of providing 8,5 million new jobs by the turn of the century and that we should accelerate the policy of industrial decentralization or face enormous economic, social and human costs. I want to charge the hon. the Minister with the fact that in connection with economic affairs we are not really succeeding with a decentralization theme. Dr. Du Toit Viljoen points out that 88% of the country’s GDP was derived from just four areas. It is interesting to note that two of the areas which he quotes are areas mentioned previously in this debate. 52% of our GDP derives from the Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vereeniging complex, 15% from the Durban-Pinetown base, 14% from the Western Cape and 7% from Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage. Therefore, 88% of the country’s GDP comes from just those four areas. This is a very dangerous situation, particularly in view of the fact that the Government is causing our labour to be sent out into homeland areas, to be removed from areas of high concentration of industry into areas such as the area from which I come where they have great difficulty in finding sufficient industry to keep them employed and to keep them in their daily bread. This, of course, gives rise to a large number of problems. I have here another cutting from the Daily Dispatch, dated 19 April 1978, which quotes a certain Col. J. H. Fourie, the divisional CID officer for the area, who says that there has been an increase in the crime rate in this area recently, especially in the incidence of housebreaking. He attributes the increase in crime to the high unemployment rate for the area This is a police officer in East London, blaming unemployment…

Never knock on a dead man’s door.

I shall talk to that hon. member later. According to Dr. Viljoen, industry constitutes the growth sector of the South African economy. Its contribution to the GDP has increased from 9% in 1930 to 25% in 1976, and it is expected to rise to more than 35% by the year 2000. It is therefore basically very important that private enterprise and industry should get the maximum encouragement from the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. As an indication of what I believe the hon. the Minister should be doing in regard to encouraging decentralization, I want, also, as did the hon. member for Tygervallei, to touch on the situation as regards Escom. The charges that Escom makes are governed by the Electricity Act of 1922. They have no scope in how they may charge because they are governed by the Act, and it is going to take an Act of this Parliament to amend that Act in order to get the charges made by Escom on to a better basis. Therefore, I would urge the hon. the Minister to take steps urgently to amend the 1922 legislation, because the situation has in fact grown to be ludicrous in respect of Escom charges.

I would like to quote some figures with regard to what Escom does in fact charge. There are eight areas in Escom, each of which is a separate undertaking, and the demand per kva in the border region is R8,80. That is the demand per kva This, compared with the rest of the country, where the Eastern Transvaal pays R2,20—only 25% as much—the Witwatersrand and the Orange Free State R2,50, Northern Cape R2,30, etc., makes it clear that the border area has to bear a far heavier burden. Now, if one looks at the composite picture of demand and of the actual unit usage, and if one takes an average industrial user and bases this on 500 kva’s and 175 000 units a month, we find that the Eastern Transvaal pays 1,78 cents a unit, the Witwatersrand and the Orange Free State 2,21 cents a unit, and the Western Cape— which was mentioned by the hon. member for Tygervallei—2,35 cents. However, in the border area people pay 3,1 cents a unit Now, this can in fact make an incredible difference to a user, and particularly to a user who has a high demand. The border area is obviously being penalized by these high charges, and it is no good the hon. the Minister coming back to me in his reply to this debate—as the hon. the Minister for Transport did—telling me I am damaging East London by quoting these figures because I am publicizing them. In fact, any industrialist would … [Interjections.]

I told you that in East London.

That is something that just does not make any sense at all because any industrialist, before ever moving to East London or to the Border area, would in fact investigate these very figures beforehand. He will in fact find that these figures are operating against him and that …

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Allow me to quote a figure.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Langlaagte was involved, I believe, in an organization which economically did not do too well. Therefore, I think he should not open his mouth too widely. [Interjections.]

I know more about the economic situation in East London and the Border area than you would ever be able to learn!

I believe that the hon. the Minister must also, as a matter of urgency, get the report of the McCarthy Commission—I think that is what it is called—in connection with export process zones and make a recommendation and bring about some results from this particular investigation. The hon. the Minister told us in east London that if export process zones could be a workable proposition, and that if they proved to be a realistic idea, he would give serious consideration to East London in terms of export process zones. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for that. The people of East London do appreciate this and I sincerely hope that we can have some reaction to this at the earliest possible moment because the situation, as I have read out from the cutting, is not good in that part of the world and the number of unemployed is increasing daily.

I now want to revert to the Escom situation and point out that, since the takeover of the East London Power Station—and we were promised in East London a reduction in our costs at that stage—our costs are in fact still very high. For 40 years our costs have been higher than any other charged by Escom in South Africa. Where does this leave individual industrialists? I have a friend, and I am sure the hon. the Minister will know of this case … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I must naturally agree with the hon. member for East London North who proposed some development for the East London area. I think, in all fairness, however, that he should also tell this House that very recently the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs with several senior officials visited East London for a full day and spent the day there discussing matters pertaining to East London and environs. Quite perchance I opened my post only 20 minutes ago, and I think the hon. member must have received the same mail today as I did. I received from the Town Clerk of East London the minutes of that meeting, a document comprising a full 73 pages. That is indicative of the serious attention this hon. Minister and this Government are giving to development in the East London area.

That, however, is not the matter I wish to deal with. I think it has been made clear by various speakers in this very important debate, if not in so many words, then at least by implication, that the subject of economic affairs is of the utmost importance. If things go well in the economic field, things will also go well in other fields, for example, labour affairs, defence, internal affairs and foreign affairs. Likewise, if things do not go well in the economic field, things will not go well in these other fields either. It is therefore most important that all of us should do our utmost to improve the economic situation of this country, and we can do that in many ways.

We can do that, inter alia, by keeping our eyes open and looking for development opportunities in the field of economics. I feel that one such field of economic activity that can be of immense importance in this country in several respects, a field which has to date not received the necessary attention that it deserves, is that of aquaculture or fish farming, especially fresh water fish farming. At this stage I want to refer only briefly to some of the benefits of fish farming. Firstly, there is the provision of very necessary but relatively cheap and much needed valuable high protein food. Secondly there is the provision, at the same time, of many employment opportunities, because fish farming is a labour-intensive activity. Thirdly, much needed development opportunities will be brought about by fish farming, not only in our country, but also in the developing Black States and the independent Transkei. The Black States are all situated in well watered, temperate areas eminently suitable for fish farming. There are other reasons that I do not think I need to expound upon at this stage because after I had decided, some time ago, that I wanted to raise this matter, there were certain developments which now do not make it as necessary as previously for me to say too much in motivation of this matter.

Firstly, the 33rd annual report of the Fisheries Development Corporation of South Africa became available, and on page 5 the matter of aquaculture is dealt with at some length and its importance is clearly acknowledged. Furthermore, the Fishing Industry Development Bill, No. 91 of 1978, has been tabled and recently read for the First Time. The principle of fresh water fish farming is clearly accepted in this Bill and provision is made for training and research in this field. It appears, therefore, that I need not spend much more time pleading the case of fish farming as such.

I do, however, wish to refer to a matter which is closely connected with it, and in order to do so I wish to quote very briefly from the annual report I have previously referred to. Amongst other things in the report, one reads (page 5)—

As I understand the position, although fish farming is labour-intensive and will create many semi-skilled and unskilled employment opportunities, it really requires well-trained and skilled people in charge of operations. Apart from the technically-trained staff, there is also a clear need in our country for university-trained people, people who have studied what is known as “fisheries science”. This is an applied science embracing fish culture, fisheries management, stock assessment and ancillary matters. According to my information no university in South Africa provides a specialized course in fisheries science.

During the debate on national education recently I argued that, in order to save costs, there should be specialization in university teaching, training and research and that research in particular directions should preferably be done where the necessary infrastructure exists. Rhodes University has for some time now realized the need for teaching in this field of fisheries science. They have in various ways tried to raise funds to establish such a department, but unfortunately without success to date. The hon. the Minister will agree with me that academic study and research in this field is necessary. If I can persuade him that Rhodes University is the correct university where fisheries science should be taught, I trust he will use his very considerable powers of persuasion to influence those concerned, be it the Fisheries Corporation, some sectors of private industry and also his colleagues, the hon. the Minister of National Education to provide the necessary funds in this respect.

If necessary, I shall write to the hon. the Minister to furnish him with more information, but I wish to draw his attention now to certain factors in favour of establishing such a faculty at Rhodes University.

It is coming to the University of Port Elizabeth.

Before the University of Port Elizabeth even thought of anything in this direction, Rhodes University realized the need for training people in fisheries science and has already shown some initiative in this direction. As far back as 1972 Rhodes University already started to co-operate with the Fisheries Development Corporation in conducting research into the potential of freshwater eel culture. What is of great importance, is that Rhodes University has established on its campus the world-famous J. L. B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology, which is housed in a fairly recently completed building with ample space and facilities. That institute has the expertise to start training in the more practical and applied side of fish work. Rhodes University has also established a world-famous library at the institute. That library is considered to be one of the best fish libraries in the world. Furthermore, there is the well-established Institute for Freshwater Studies, again famous for its basic research. In addition, Rhodes University is situated only 40 km from the sea near to two very important ports. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Albany made an interesting speech on the role of freshwater fish breeding in the development of the economy and of agriculture. He also called for technicians to be trained for this industry. He and the hon. member for Walmer will have to thrash out the matter with the hon. the Minister of National Education to determine at which university that training will take place.

They are fishing in shallow waters. [Interjections.]

I should like to talk about another subject tonight: alternative sources of energy. It is generally recognized that the world’s crude oil reserves are very limited and that the demand will exceed production by 1980. For that reason there is quite understandably a search for alternative sources of energy all over the world and in South Africa as well. In South Africa, as in other parts of the world, the attention is focussed on the necessity of conserving energy and on the search for new sources of energy. In order to make our country less dependent on imported oil supplies, a number of measures have already been adopted in South Africa to enable the country to avert such a threat. For example, during the last few years there has been a large-scale search for oil in South Africa; without success so far. Furthermore, measures for the conservation of petroleum products have been taken, for example, by selling fuel between certain hours only, as well as by the introduction of speed limits. The success of these measures depends on the co-operation of the public.

Furthermore, attempts are being made to preserve our internal energy resources, such as coal, for the future. Finally, attempts are being made to develop alternative sources of energy. I want to exchange a few ideas on the latter aspect tonight.

We were delighted when, on Monday, 1 March this year, the hon. the Minister of Finance said at Klerksdorp that the Government had instructed the Department of Industries to undertake research on the manufacture of alcohol—under the trade name ethanol— from maize and sugar cane. In-depth study has yet to be undertaken with regard to this project, but the production of ethanol from maize and sugar cane, both agricultural products, will lend stability to and will also promote our agricultural sector.

There is another energy source which I should also like to deal with, however, and that is material containing cellulose, viz. timber. During the First and Second World Wars, ethanol was produced from material containing cellulose, but because of cheaper raw materials this process soon fell into disuse. However, the situation has changed, for the increase in the price of crude oil has made it feasible, under different circumstances, once again to consider the production of ethanol from timber. We have a surplus of the hardwoods like the wattle tree in particular, and in the Transvaal and in certain parts of Natal, this kind of tree has even become a pest. The demand for, and the capital expense of, erecting such an installation, should again be investigated. We are aware of the fact that since World War II no research has been done in this regard. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could give the CSIR or one of our universities the opportunity to try to unravel this problem for us. South Africa has the required timber at its disposal and more can be planted if it should become necessary. We also have the required research workers, and if the process were to be viable, it could be developed into an important contributor to our energy resources. As far as equipment is concerned, our engineering industry is in my opinion quite capable of manufacturing the necessary equipment itself. The study relating to ethanol production has many facets and many implications. For example it could have a significant effect on our import and export structure and also on our transport and distribution pattern of raw materials and raw materials for fuel. There are certain technical aspects which should also be examined, for example the pre-blending and utilization of ethanol for use in internal combustion engines. A major problem as yet unsolved, however, is the use of ethanol as a fuel in diesel engines. According to the Financial Gazette of 7 April this year the problem has been very successfully solved in Brazil. It is already clear from the research done that petrol could contain 25% ethanol without its having an adverse effect. However, there are still a number of problems, both of a technical and economic nature, which will have to be dealt with. In the present circumstances certain incentive measures will be needed for ethanol to be produced. I trust that the Government, at the instance of the hon. the Minister, will promptly organize such a study and that the Government will introduce the necessary basis and incentive measures so that the matter can be taken further without delay.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is somewhat late at night to try to wake up the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. Therefore I will not get the debate too worked up.

What did I do?

I would like to follow up on what the hon. member for Alberton had to say. The energy issue is of course uppermost in the minds of many of us, and the matter that I would like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention, is once again, whether the South African community is sufficiently conscious of the need to conserve energy and particularly whether the South African community is sufficiently conscious to take into account the dangers that threaten us in regard to an oil embargo. I would also like to be convinced that the South African public are sufficiently conscious of the political dangers that threaten a country like Iran, for example, which could have very serious consequences for the energy position in the Republic of South Africa.

The question that one has to put to the hon. the Minister—I hope he will be able to respond to it—is whether the country would be able to withstand a situation and whether he has a plan to withstand a situation when sanctions are applied to South Africa that will affect our energy resources, oil in particular. There is little doubt that, high on the list that our enemies have prepared for action against us, is the question of oil sanctions against this country. We would be failing in our duty if we did not ask the hon. the Minister whether, being aware of that fact, South Africa is prepared to deal with the situation and whether he, within the limits of what it is possible to say to Parliament without endangering the situation, will take us into his confidence in regard to those plans. I think it is most important that we should be told of such plans.

I should like to deal with another matter which falls under the hon. the Minister’s department, i.e. the question of seals. The hon. the Minister knows that I intended to raise this, because I gave him adequate warning the other day. I have an obligation to the young people in South Africa who feel very strongly about this issue, to people who are interested in conservation and to people to whom, when it is said that this is a sentimental issue, unashamedly say like I myself that we are sentimental about the killing of living creatures. I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to a letter written by the Secretary for Industries, with whom I have no quarrel in the normal course and I certainly do not intend to repeat what has happened in regard to other departments as far as he is concerned, because I think he is doing his job. The letter reads—

Sir, what is wrong about being emotional about this? Is there anything wrong about it? I think, with respect, that the hon. the Minister should not associate himself with this upbraiding of people because they are emotional about this or feel strongly about innocent creatures of this kind.

Let us deal with the issue specifically. May I ask the hon. the Minister specifically tonight whether he believes in his heart that it is necessary to do this culling and, secondly, whether it is necessary to do a culling of 4 500 pups and, if so, why it is necessary. I ask this because we are told out of the mouth of a senior official of the Division of Sea Fisheries of the Department of Industries that the culling was a commercial proposition unsupported by scientific facts of a population increase on Seal Island. If that is correct…

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he is referring to a Press report in that regard?

I am referring to a Press report and I am relying on it If it is incorrect, the hon. the Minister must please in reply say so.

I shall do so.

What is important is whether the hon. the Minister can substantiate the killing of these seals on a scientific basis, whether a decision was made on a scientific basis in terms of which it is necessary to kill 4 500 pups, and the number of adults that have to be killed on Seal Island and, if so, what that scientific basis is. The hon. the Minister must tell us so that we can make a judgment on it. I want to say, and I make no secret of it, that there are many people in the House and outside of the House—young people, keen South Africans, people enthusiastic about life—who object to the killing of these seals. On their behalf I want to plead with the hon. the Minister for this decision to be reversed.

Having dealt with that matter, I would now like to pay a compliment to those of the hon. the Minister’s staff connected with overseas offices in which they seek to obtain trade for South Africa, because I think that these people are doing an extremely good job.

I think they as individuals try their best to sell South Africa as an export market, they assist businessmen in all sorts of ways, and I must say that I have had only good personal experience with them. I think there can hardly be a businessman in South Africa involved in that kind of thing who cannot pay them a compliment. Unlike what I said in a previous debate today, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I think these people live frugally; in fact, sometimes they have to entertain within very, very strict limits, which make it very difficult for them.

Do they not travel first class?

No, they do not travel first-class, except if they are Secretaries of the department and in this case I have even seen Secretaries of the department not travelling first class when going overseas.

What about a secret account?

I can ask the hon. the Minister whether he has any secret accounts, but I quite seriously want to say to him that I think those overseas officials, in my experience of them, do credit to the country and credit to the department.

I want to deal with one other matter, a subject which is, as the hon. the Minister knows, close to my heart, and that is the question of assisting the small man in the community. Here I refer to the item on the estimates concerning the Small Business Advisory Buro. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister not just to give assistance to the Small Business Advisory Buro, but also greater assistance to the individual, the very small man, who wants to start a business. The function of the IDC I have no quarrel with. But the IDC is not designed to deal with the little guy who wants to start from nothing and buy a machine, but cannot obtain credit. He wants to start a business, however small it may be. That man is the backbone of the system the hon. the Minister champions, namely the true free enterprise system. They must be encouraged, because what is happening in South Africa, is that we are tending towards bigger and bigger units on the basis that this is supposed to give the benefits of economies of scale, while the small man, the new entrepreneur, the little guy who wants to start, does not have a chance. I should like to see that we have a small business bank which will investigate this kind of thing and give low credit—not of the kind one has to pay on hire-purchase agreements or on leases in the ordinary course—and true incentives to the really little guy who wants to start in business. While we are making this contrast, I want to put to the hon. the Minister a very simple proposition. There are very many people in South Africa who are great champions of what they call the “free market mechanism”. The free market mechanism can only operate if there is equality in bargaining power and if little people also have an opportunity of entering the free market. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have really been impressed by the standard of the debate conducted on this Vote so far. I have hardly any reason to differ from any hon. members’ contribution. I believe that proves what the House is capable of when it concentrates on its work. I appreciate the contributions of all the hon. members. I believe I would be failing in my duty if I did not begin with a specific aspect which is important in my opinion and which I have to refer to first of all. Several factors emphasize the importance of economic progress, strength and ability as the basis of a country’s abilities in other directions. For that reason it is clear that in the context of the threat to South Africa, those people who really seek the destruction of the country, who want to destroy the existing governmental and economic system and pose a threat to the existence of the country, will identify and concentrate on those parts of the country’s armour that are most vulnerable. I think the spirit of the debate so far, as well as its content, bear testimony to an awareness among hon. members of the special importance of economic strength and progress in strengthening our total capacity to resist. The fact remains, however, that the overall governmental system functions on four real power bases. The first is the economic ability; the second, political stability; the third the security basis; and the fourth, the spiritual and ideological. We must not doubt that the interdependence of these different group activities in the various spheres form the basis of our real capacity to exist and to survive.

I should like to take this matter further tomorrow and I feel that this is a suitable point at which to move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.