Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the following announcement in regard to the business of the House: The Railway budget will be introduced on Wednesday, 7 March. The debate on the budget will commence on the following Monday, 12 March. The Post Office budget will be introduced on Tuesday, 20 March, and the debate will be resumed the next day.

The main budget will be introduced on Wednesday, 28 March, and the debate will be continued on Monday, 2 April.

The Easter recess will be from Saturday, 7 April, to Monday, 16 April.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the official Opposition finds that it is unable to support the motion of the hon. the Prime Minister. Let me say immediately that the decision which has been taken has been a painful one. It was certainly not taken lightly, yet it was a decision which could not be ignored just as the circumstances in which we find ourselves in South Africa today cannot be ignored. It would be our earnest hope that Government and Opposition could be united on a motion involving an address to the State President. We were in the past, in spite of the fact that various parties had put forward rival candidates for the office of State President. Yet, such a wish on our part has been shattered by the reality of the situation in which South Africa finds itself and over which the Opposition has no control. Our wish is that the office of the State President and the incumbent of that office, being above party or section controversy, would be a symbol of unity and of national purpose.

The reality is that the people of South Africa at this time are caught up in a fierce controversy involving the former Department of Information and the use of secret funds. The extent to which this controversy rages is evidenced by the front page of Die Transvaler of Saturday, a newspaper which supports the NP in the Transvaal. The newspaper alleges on its front page that the motion by the Prime Minister is: “ ’n Set teen die PFP.” In other words, a NP supporting newspaper goes to the extent of accusing the Prime Minister of using a motion of this kind to try to embarrass the PFP. I find it quite shocking that the hon. the Prime Minister should be accused by one of his own journals of this strategy. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister owes it to this House and to the people of the country to give an explanation as to whether this is correct or whether his motives are quite different.

The tragedy of the situation in which we find ourselves is compounded by the fact that it need not have happened. Had the information which has now been disclosed by the Erasmus Commission been made available fully and frankly to the people of South Africa, the embarrassment which we as a people are having to endure need not have happened.

The issues involved were dealt with in the special two-day debate in December and will be dealt with again during the course of this week. Although the terms of the hon. the Prime Minister’s motion are unacceptable, we, as the official Opposition, wish to record our respect for the office and for the constitutional duties of the State President. We also wish to support the parliamentary tradition of an address to the State President on his election to office. In these circumstances I move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, the NRP’s Central Federal Executive recently gave consideration to the constitutional implications of a situation in which the incumbent of the office of State President was concerned with the inquiry of the Erasmus Commission. The party unanimously reaffirmed its fundamental commitment to constitutional government in South Africa, to its practices and to its traditional usages, irrespective of the person of any incumbent holding any office. While our constitutional system is under attack at present, we shall do nothing to help to destroy this system. We shall therefore, in the normal course, adhere to the normal practices which form part of the system itself. In that normal course, the motion which is before the House today, would have been such a traditional usage. Once the official Opposition, however, decided to use it as a political platform, and while the Government nevertheless persisted in introducing it, it ceased to be a simply procedural usage.

There are constitutional procedures for opposing the election of a State President, and this party used them last year when we proposed our candidate and voted against the present incumbent. Another constitutional procedure provides for the removal of the State President from office. It requires 30 petitioners. It can therefore be seen that provision is made in our Constitution for procedures in terms of which one can deal with the incumbent of such an office.

In regard to this motion, having become a political issue, we believe that the office of the State President as well as the incumbent is affected. In the light of our esteem for that office and our commitment to constitutional practice, we see this debate as harmful and as bringing disrepute to the institution and not only to the incumbent. We shall therefore take no part in the debate, or vote on the motion, as a protest against the harm which we believe such a debate can do to the maintenance of respect for our system of government, including its associated usages.

Mr. Speaker, our attitude has always been that a non-political figure of national stature—and I mean national stature in the truly national sense— should be chosen as State President. We maintain that the office of State President should be above party politics and that the person elected should personify that unity which we would like to see among all South Africans. That remains our view today.

The motion before the House is a formal message of congratulations to the State President, on his election as State President, by us as members of Parliament. It assures him of our co-operation and expresses the hope that the present incumbent will be long spared to serve South Africa. We cannot find fault either with the wording or with the spirit of the motion and we shall support it. To do otherwise is to show rank bad manners and pettiness beyond description.

Question put: That all the words after “President”, where it occurs for the first time, stand part of the Question,

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) the Government’s responsibility for the Information scandal and the patent attempts by the Government to cover up aspects of that scandal;
2. (2) the failure of the Government to provide a constitutional framework in which all our people can participate in just government and through which the security and stability of the Republic can be assured;
3. (3) the failure of the Government to eliminate race discrimination in a meaningful and fundamental way;
4. (4) the inability of the Government’s economic policies to ensure that there is equality of opportunity, full employment and prosperity for all the people of South Africa,

Let me say at the outset that it is not my intention, in what is the first speech of a five-day debate, to deal with all four legs of the motion. I shall deal with two of them, and during the course of the debate my colleagues and I, in reply, will deal with the other legs of this particular motion.

It may be considered trite to say that 1979 is going to be a critically important year in the life of the Republic and the people of South Africa; yet I believe that it is. Never before in the history of our nation have we faced such a build-up of problems and such a concentration of dangers as we face today.

So it is that on the steps taken by those of us who are White and privileged, and on the steps taken by the Government that wields the power, will depend not just our prosperity and our comfort, but also our stability and our survival. The harsh reality is that, seen against the broad sweep of history, the options for peaceful co-existence in South Africa are narrowing and the prospects of violence are increasing. South Africa, under this Government, is moving at gathering speed towards a point of no return where frustration will have replaced reason and where violence will have replaced negotiation as the option for solving conflict.

These circumstances pose great challenges to, and make great demands on, the leadership in our country, whether that leadership is White, Black or Brown. I believe that these circumstances require a Government with very special qualities. The situation requires a Government that is strong and decisive and at the same time has an understanding of the real nature of the people’s problems. It requires a Government that knows what it is about, not only a Government that is competent in implementing its policy but also one that has a policy to implement. Above all, at times of danger, at times when the future is largely unknown, what South Africa needs is a Government that the people can trust.

And what do we find in the Republic today?

We have a Government strong in numbers, but weak and ineffective in bringing about the essential changes which, as it knows in its own heart, must be brought about. One has only to look around to realize that we have a Government that is divided and strained within itself and that is floundering around, unsure of the direction it should take. We have, regrettably, a Government that holds up no hopeful vision for the future, no real plan that can provide the basis for agreement and reconciliation between Black, White and Brown South Africans. We have a Government that continues, and will do so right into the 1980s, to delude itself that it can eliminate the evil of race discrimination while still maintaining the structure of apartheid in South Africa. More than this, we have a Government which, because of its direct responsibility for the Information scandal and because of its patent attempts to cover-up aspects of that scandal, has forfeited the trust of millions of ordinary South Africans. It has gone even further than that: It has destroyed the faith of ordinary decent South Africans in the integrity of government and of Government leaders.

There can be no doubt that the Information scandal has already done South Africa incalculable harm. It has tarnished our image, it has debilitated our Government and it has diverted our attention from the real problems with which we in South Africa should be grappling. We in the Opposition would have hoped that by now the whole ugly truth would have been known to the public, that those responsible at all levels would have been put out of public office and that the scandal would have been something of the past. Regrettably this is not so. So the investigation and the cross-examination of the Government must, in the interests of South Africa, go on until this whole sordid scandal has been flecked open to the bone.

As far as the public is concerned, the situation at this moment in time is even worse than it was when the special session of Parliament ended in the early hours of Saturday, 9 December. Since then a combination of events and circumstances has strengthened the public’s view that the Government is now engaged in a cover-up. That is the charge the Government will have to face.

It is not our intention on this side of the House to go over all the ground that was covered in the two-day debate of 8 and 9 December. It is, however, necessary to recap the position that obtained when that debate ended. You will recall, Sir, what the situation was. We had a blustering Prime Minister suddenly resuming his seat. We had a totally unsatisfactory reply to what was one of the most important debates in South Africa’s history. Instead of dealing with the issues— we have just had an unprecedented attack on the commission by Gen. Van den Bergh—the Prime Minister remained silent. Instead of replying to the questions that were asked and to the allegations that the Government was involved in a cover-up—the hon. Chief Whip in these benches enumerated 20 instances of cover-up by the Government—instead of telling the people of South Africa what the Government was going to do, thereby reassuring them that it would bring government back on to the rails of integrity, the Prime Minister preferred to launch a personal tirade against. Opposition members in these benches. His attack on the Chief Whip on this side was quite disgraceful. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister still owes the Chief Whip and the House an explanation as to the meaning of the words he used. I believe that, on the face of it, he owes the hon. Chief Whip an apology.

The hon. the Prime Minister then went on to attack the hon. member for Houghton. She was attacked because she dared to receive a Human Rights Award from the UN. I noticed the face of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time. He was holding his head in embarrassment as the hon. the Prime Minister once again launched an attack on the UN, the very body with which he was busy negotiating. [Interjections.] We had the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs negotiating with the UN and the hon. the Prime Minister attacking it for giving an award to the hon. member for Houghton. I believe that the award to the hon. member for Houghton was a credit for South Africa as a whole. The problem of the hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues on that side of the House is that they are unable to distinguish between South Africa as a whole and the NP. In spite of the provocative and unseemly attack by the hon. the Prime Minister upon the hon. member for Houghton, it is interesting to know how this lady responded in the face of an audience which as a rule is not very generous to the people of South Africa. This is what the hon. member said to an audience which honoured her with this award—

Yes, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the attack by the hon. the Prime Minister this hon. member is prepared to put the South African scene in the correct perspective.

That was the one factor which was raised at the end of that debate. The other one was that the Opposition made its position clear— and that position obtains still today—namely, that the Opposition is not able to evaluate the specific findings of the commission in the absence of the record of evidence and the exhibits which were presented to that commission. The PFP has always considered it essential that Parliament itself should have access to the evidence on which the Erasmus Commission has based its finings. In persuance of that point of view we originally said that what we wanted was a parliamentary commission. We asked to be able to attend the sittings of the Erasmus Commission. We asked to be able to receive a copy of the records. We called upon the hon. the Prime Minister and asked him to see whether he could assist us in obtaining a copy of the evidence. We raised the matter in this House during the short session in December. We had meetings—as did the hon. members for Durban Point and Simonstown—with the commissioners and were left with the feeling that we would obtain that evidence. In fact, we were delighted when on 10 December 1978 Mr. Justice Erasmus announced that—

*That was the statement made by the judge on 10 December 1978.

†We in the PFP find the recent decision of the commission to reverse its earlier decision and not to release the evidence, unsatisfactory and disturbing. With due respect to the commissioners we find the reasons given for the reversal of that decision entirely unconvincing. Time does not permit me at this stage to deal in detail with those reasons, but we find them completely unconvincing. However, in the interest of the commission, its status, and for the sake of simple justice we believe that there are now even more cogent reasons why the evidence relevant to the already published findings of the commission should be published without any further delay. There are four reasons for this. First of all we must be very frank and say that the logic of the commission’s findings, especially in relation to the former Prime Minister, is certainly not clear from the summary of evidence which is published in that report. Secondly, the findings of the commission have been openly and publically attacked by one of the key figures in the scandal, the man who was as the Secretary of the BSS, the right arm of the former Prime Minister, the man whom the former Prime Minister brought back from retirement to do an evaluation of the various projects being undertaken with secret funds. This man has attacked the findings of the commission and has alleged that the evidence produced by that commission so far is one-sided.

Thirdly, the Transvaal Attorney-General, Mr. Nöthling, in a statement on 24 January, after having studied all the evidence, said—

Here is a senior member of the hon. the Minister of Justice’s department saying that if this was exposed, if it was brought out into the open, it might place the findings of the commission at issue.

Fourthly, there has been conjecture as a result of two mysterious gaps which appeared in both the English and Afrikaans copies of that report; there have also been newspaper reports and speculation that certain excisions were made from the report, either when it was in its draft form or when it was printed. Be that as it may, the fact is that, while the judge himself will not comment on what words were excised or whether they were in fact excised, quite clearly some editing took place at a fairly late stage. Hence the gap that appears on the relative pages.

Over this last weekend, a newspaper published what it believed to be the words which were excised from the report of the Erasmus Commission. It puts them in English first of all, words which were alleged to have been spoken by Gen. Van den Bergh in giving testimony before that commission. The alleged words were—

The Afrikaans words were—

Speculation in respect of this matter has now gone on for about seven or eight weeks. It was raised by the hon. member for Bryanston because Die Transvaler, on the day of the debate, alleged that certain words were missing. Whether these words are correct or not, I do not know, but the fact is that it is alleged in the public Press that these words were uttered by the former head of Boss, the fact is that in the present set of circumstances a judge feels that he is not in a position to deny that these words were used. These words are so chilling, these words are so terrifying that no self-respecting Government can afford to allow them to remain unauthenticated as a formal record of evidence before this commission.

On the question of the publication of the evidence the hon. the Prime Minister has gone on record as saying “Let the commission publish if it wishes.” This is a strange statement for the hon. the Prime Minister when he sacked Judge Mostert for doing exactly the same thing. Be that as it may, I want to call on the hon. the Prime Minister, in view of the set of circumstances, in view of this chilling statement which is alleged to have been made, in view of the fact that the findings of this commission have been publicly challenged by Gen. Van den Bergh, and because the Attorney-General of the Transvaal said they could be at issue, to ask the commission to present to the State President such evidence as is relevant to the findings of the commission that have already been published and then himself to accept responsibility for publishing it and making it know, to the public. If the hon. the Prime Minister is not prepared to do that, I believe he or the hon. Leader of the House should approach the commission and ask that the evidence should be made available to an all-party Select Committee of this House. This is essential. We cannot carry on month after month with this ugly, gruesome speculation as to what this evidence contains. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister in any event, whether the evidence is published today or in the future, should give this House an assurance that once the commission has done its work he will see that the commission’s evidence is referred to a parliamentary commission to take such further action and to hear such further evidence as Parliament believes is in the interests of the protection and the proper control of public funds by this Parliament. When the House adjourned six weeks ago, we made it quite clear that on the basis of such evidence that had already been released by the Mostert Commission, and on the basis of the summary evidence released by the Erasmus Commission, the official Opposition could not accept the findings of the Erasmus Commission that the only Cabinet Minister who could be held responsible for the Information scandal was Dr. Connie Mulder. We cannot accept that. We are not prepared to accept that Connie Mulder on his own, in a Cabinet of 18, was responsible. We are not prepared to see him as the scapegoat for a situation in which the Government as a whole has to accept collective responsibility. Let us recap those views. If Dr. Mulder was responsible for the activities of the Secretary of his department, then I believe the former Prime Minister, who was the head of the Government at the time, has to accept responsibility for the activities of Gen. Van den Bergh, who was the head of his department, his Bureau for State Security. If Dr. Connie Mulder’s department was responsible for misappropriating public funds, we believe that the former Prime Minister, the present hon. Minister of Finance and the present hon. Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Defence, are responsible for their respective parts in the corruption of a system of parliamentary control and audit so that secret funds voted by this Parliament for specific departments were funnelled into the Department of Information. Those three gentlemen must accept full responsibility. They must accept full responsibility as key members of the Cabinet and as custodians of the public purse for what took place.

Thirdly, if Dr. Connie Mulder, who is now no longer a Member of Parliament, is to be condemned for lying to this House, then we in these benches must condemn all those who sat in silence knowing that he was lying and in doing so giving credence to the lie. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, it was not Dr. Connie Mulder alone, it was not even the former Prime Minister alone, who knew that Dr. Mulder was telling a lie. As I see 16 of those 18 Cabinet Ministers I do not believe that any one of them can say that he had no knowledge that The Citizen was being funded with State moneys, and that it came as a shock to him when—only in September last year—he suddenly found that Dr. Connie Mulder had been doing these things.

You are absolutely wrong!

I just want to test the hon. the Minister of Finance. He says he knew nothing. When he had to provide that R14 million at the time of framing the 1976 budget, he says he knew nothing.

About what?

About The Citizen.

I knew nothing. [Interjections.]

Right! In framing the 1977 budget, whereby R2 million extra was added to the R15 million, the hon. the Minister says he knew nothing.

Nothing.

The hon. the Minister says he knew nothing.

I knew nothing about The Citizen, and I said so in public.

In the transfer of all those loans by Treasury to Thor and all these other funds, in the whisking of money backwards and forwards to secret accounts to finance The Citizen, the hon. the Minister who is in charge of finance in this country says he knew nothing.

Correct.

Then there was the printing contract between Perskor and The Citizen, and there were other Cabinet members sitting on the board of Perskor at that time. A printing contract was entered into, committing the Government for 10 years in advance. But when we ask the hon. the Minister of Finance whether anybody told him about it, he tells us he knew nothing. And when Mr. Barrie, who worked in the department of the hon. the Minister, reported to Mr. Vorster in July 1977 the hon. the Minister of Finance says he knew nothing.

In whose department?

The Ministry of Finance. [Interjections.]

What are you talking about?

Mr. Speaker, when I say the “Ministry of Finance” I mean that he fell under the overall control of the hon. the Minister of Finance. When Mr. Reynders told Mr. Vorster what was taking place, when Adv. Van Rooyen told Mr. Vorster what was happening, when Mr. Vorster called the five men to his house—he there felt ill and had to retire—through all of this, the hon. the Minister of Finance maintains that he knew nothing. He says he was told nothing.

Yes, I say that.

Mr. Speaker, in the beginning of last year The Citizen was bought by the State from Mr. Louis Luyt, but the hon. the Minister of Finance knew nothing.

That is correct. [Interjections.]

He knew nothing. Meanwhile, there was a guarantee by the State to meet that newspaper’s costs for the next two years. However, the hon. the Minister of Finance knew nothing. There was a R16 million loan, raised overseas by the Department of Information. Yet the hon. the Minister knew nothing. He drew up the budget for 1978, providing for R34 million under the new Secret Services Account, but yet he knew nothing. From March until June R400 000 a month was being paid out of public funds. Yet the hon. the Minister of Finance knew nothing. He signed a warrant for expenditure of R14,8 million, which he then tried to withdraw. But he knew nothing! R14 million was transferred from the Treasury to Volkskas, but the hon. the Minister knew nothing! Mr. Speaker, he should either resign because of gross dereliction of duty or he should realize the utter contempt with which the hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues dealt with him. They ignored him. They were running this vast clandestine business and they did not even tell the man who was accountable to Parliament for this expenditure.

If Dr. Connie Mulder is to be condemned for getting an English language newspaper going with public funds to support the National Party, it is ironic that the hon. the Prime Minister, having got rid of Dr. Connie Mulder from his Cabinet and having forced him to resign from his party, went on to complete Connie Mulder’s nefarious work by allowing Perskor to take over the newspaper which was funded with public funds. As part of the cover-up, Connie Mulder has been silenced. The Prime Minister has made sure that he will have no opportunity to state his case in caucus or in Parliament and he knows that he cannot publicly challenge the commission outside this House. Connie Mulder is being used as a scapegoat.

Let us leave Connie Mulder and ask where Eschel Rhoodie is. He was the pivot-man in the former Department of Information. He was the man at the centre of the scandal, a man who, other than General Van den Bergh, probably knows more about the people who knew and about what went on than anybody else in the world. I cannot say in South Africa, because he is not in South Africa. In spite of the damning evidence released by the Mostert Commission and in spite of the fact that the Erasmus Commission heard his evidence and was aware of its implications, Dr. Rhoodie was allowed to retain his passport and to leave the country. Having retained his passport and having left the country, suddenly the Government swung into action and asked Dr. Rhoodie to surrender his passport and to return home. I wish to ask these hon. Ministers where Eschel Rhoodie is today. He has been asked to come back and to surrender his passport, but one reads in Rapport that he is somewhere in Europe writing two books, the one on Women’s Lib and the other one a novel. If this is so, he is treating both the Government and the commission with contempt. We want to know from the Government what steps it is taking to track him down. What steps are being taken to get him back to South Africa? Is the Government in fact in touch with Eschel Rhoodie? Is it trying to do a deal with Eschel Rhoodie to ensure that he is not prosecuted when he returns to South Africa? Is he still receiving his monthly pension as the former Secretary of a department? I ask the hon. the Minister of Justice, who never interferes with an Attorney-General, when charges will be officially laid against Eschel Rhoodie. Or are we going to be told one day, as in the case of General Van den Bergh, that it is not in the national interests to charge him? The public believe, and we support that belief, that this Government is as scared as Eschel Rhoodie as it is of General Van den Bergh.

I now come to General Van den Bergh. The hon. the Minister of Justice is, by his handling of the situation, making a travestry of the administration of justice. He is not only making a comic figure of himself, but is also bringing our whole South African legal system into discredit. No one disputes that there is a prima facie case against General Van den Bergh for his scathing and premeditated attack on the Erasmus Commission. In a newspaper report he is quoted as having said the following about the findings of the commission:

These are statements made by Gen. Van den Berg. Judge Erasmus immediately reacted to this by laying the case before the Attorney-General in the Transvaal. He said—

Judge Erasmus said that if the Attorney-General might decide to do that—

The judge asked for a prosecution and laid the case before the Attorney-General of the Transvaal. On the 24th of last month South Africans were stunned—I believe hon. members on that side of the House would have been stunned had they not been on the inside of this scandal—by the fact that Attorney-General Nöthling said that he had decided not to prosecute Gen. Van den Bergh. He said—

Can this be a reason for not prosecuting? I would have thought that this will be a reason for bringing the evidence forward and having it tested in court. How can a senior official cast doubt and, having cast doubt, say that he does not want the evidence to be tested in an ordinary court of the land? It is no wonder that Mr. Lategan, one of the commissioners, reacted by saying—

So we have the Attorney-General of the Cape taking a completely different point of view to that of the Attorney-General of the Transvaal.

The second reason that was advanced by Attorney-General Nöthling was that a prosecution would probably bring about the disclosure of certain evidence that was given before the Erasmus Commission and which is of such a nature that it will, in his opinion, not be in the national interest to disclose it. “National interest”, as even the hon. the Minister of Justice will agree, is a very wide concept. Dr. Connie Mulder and Dr. Eschel Rhoodie did what they did, and they argued that in favour of what they did, because they believed it was in the national interest. “National interest” is not a legal concept and is not material to the legal merits of a particular prosecution. “National interest,” if it is a factor, is essentially a political factor about which politicians, and not Attorneys-General, are best equipped to decide. If the reason is national interest, then it is not the Attorney-General who should take the final decision, but it is the political head of the department, the hon. Minister of Justice, who must take the decision and accept the responsibility. I believe that he has made a decision in that he has decided not to prosecute. He has decided that it is in the national interest not to do so.

I want to discuss the status of the Attorney-General in this matter. I speak from the benches of Parliament when I say that it would be an intolerable position if State officials not responsible to this Parliament were to defy Parliament, were to defy Parliament’s decision in the form of the laws passed by Parliament and decide that irrespective of what Parliament wants, it was not in the national interest to apply such laws. They cannot do that. In the end it is the decision of the Minister. It cannot be the decision of an official of the State.

The hon. the Minister has conceded that he has the power to institute proceedings, irrespective of the fact that the Attorneys-General agreed to it or not. I want to deal very briefly with the hon. the Minister in this respect and I want to say to him that the reasons that he has given so far are not going to bluff anybody in South Africa. His first reason is that it is in the highest traditions in the administration of the law not to interfere with the decisions of an Attorney-General. This comes strangely from a Government that is constantly trying to limit the authority of the courts of law, from a Government which is constantly usurping judicial authority by ministerial bannings and detention without trial and from a Government that sacks a commissioner for publishing evidence and at the same time saying that it has no objection to another commissioner publishing his evidence.

It can therefore be seen that this is a political issue and not a legal issue and that it falls fairly and squarely onto the shoulders of the hon. Minister of Justice. He tries to hide behind what the Attorney-General and Judge Erasmus said. The Minister said that Judge Erasmus too said that he could not disclose the evidence because of the national interest. He did not say so. He did, however, refer to the work of his commission in carrying out the recommendations. Let us make it very clear that until this weekend Judge Erasmus has made it clear that he favours a prosecution, that he believes that a prosecution is the correct course, that he is disappointed that the Attorney-General has not prosecuted in this case and that had it not been for statements by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Justice, he would have been able to take the matter further. That Minister has therefore been the spoke in the wheel. That hon. Minister has refused to exercise the responsibilities which are on his shoulders in terms of section 3(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977. I want to leave this for one moment and say to the hon. the Minister: You have the responsibility. The decision is yours. You yourself admitted that you had the information about this decision prior to its announcement. It was indicated …

[Inaudible.]

The fact is that an instruction went out that a decision should not be taken without the Minister’s prior knowledge. In the statement he made he said that both the decision and the motivation were placed before him. What did he do with that motivation? Did he agree with it or did he disagree with it? It is his responsibility to weigh up the decision. Does he agree with the motivation of the Attorney-General or does he not agree? Or does he say that he did not apply his mind to it? If he did not apply his mind to it, then he is guilty of a gross dereliction of duty. If he agrees with the Attorney-General, then he is party to the decision not to prosecute Gen. Van den Bergh, and if he disagrees with the Attorney-General, he should have the courage to exercise his powers in terms of the law and set the wheels of prosecution moving.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that the hon. the Minister of Justice has failed in his responsibility to the country. In spite of his denial that he and his Government are scared of Gen. Van den Bergh, when the chips are down he shows that he is in fact scared of Gen. Van den Bergh and is going to show that he is scared of Dr. Eschel Rhoodie as well. This is not because of any damage that these gentlemen may do to South Africa. He is scared of the damage they may do to a few senior individuals in the National Party. He is scared of what they will do to the National Party and to the Government.

So the cover-up is on. For the sake of a few individuals and for the sake of the Government the smell of the scandal is going to linger on in South Africa. Let me issue this warning to the Government: One day the whole truth will be out. One day it will come out. It will come out because the ordinary South African voter—whether he supports the NP, the NRP or the PFP—wants to know the truth. He has not received the truth and he knows that the Government is bluffing him. The public of South Africa is angry. They are disillusioned because whatever political party they may belong to I believe that the ordinary, average South African wants a Government that he can trust, and he has come to the conclusion that he cannot trust the Government. The tragedy about the Information scandal is that it has immobilized the Government and diverted the attention from some of the real issues facing South Africa today.

I said earlier that it was my opinion that 1979 was going to be a critically important year for all of us in Southern Africa. During this year, the futures of Rhodesia and Namibia are going to be settled one way or the other. When that happens and Namibia and Rhodesia are free and independent, we in South Africa will be the last remaining State in Africa where apartheid and race discrimination are a formal and legalized part of the social, economic and political structure. That is the reality which is going to develop in Southern Africa during the coming 12 months. Once that happens we in South Africa will have to try to solve our internal problems, difficult enough as they are, against the background of intense international interest and mounting international pressure. And while this pressure and this interest will have an effect on us who are White and have the vote, it will also have a very powerful effect on the masses of our people who do not have a vote and who are looking for liberation from apartheid and discrimination in their South Africa. I want to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that he has this year to come to terms, we have to come to terms with one another in an atmosphere of relative tranquillity. By coming to terms I do not mean taking down a sign here or handing out a permit there, but by coming to terms I mean examining the structure of government, examining the constitutional framework within which we can make the social and economic changes in South Africa. The Government appears to be talking hesitantly in this direction, far too hesitantly and in far too limited a way, and of course always within the framework of the policies and the rules laid down by the Government.

The State President, in his opening address to Parliament, spoke of South Africa entering a new epoch in its history, an era in which a new constitutional dispensation is awaiting Whites, Coloureds and Indians, also indicating that the Black people would see a meaningful consolidation of their areas. There is going to be an opportunity later in this session, I understand, to examine, in detail, some of the Government’s proposals. So right here, in this first major policy debate since the hon. the Prime Minister assumed office, I call upon him to lay it on the line. I call upon him to make clear, beyond all doubt, his and the new Government’s attitude on certain fundamental issues. Let him, the new Prime Minister, in the confusion which exists within that party—and I see the hon. the Deputy Minister looking at me whenever I use the word “confusion” and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs sneaking down in his seat—say whether there are any shifts in policy away from that of his predecessor. [Interjections.] Let him indicate whether there are any changes in attitude or shifts in policy away from that of the mandate given by the voters some 15 months ago.

*I therefore want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister seven questions, questions concerning vital matters of policy. [Interjections.] I want to ask seven questions about his policy so that we may be sure of where he and his Government stand with regard to certain vitally important policies in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I put my first question. Is the hon. the Prime Minister prepared to share sovereignty, which is at present vested in the White Parliament, with other race groups?

Andries says no.

Secondly, is he prepared to accept the principle of effective power-sharing in matters of common interest? Thirdly, is he prepared to abandon the principle of compulsory separation between race groups as the basis of his new constitutional dispensation? [Interjections.] Hon. members over there say “No”, but the hon. the Prime Minister is smiling. He is going to say “Yes”. [Interjections.] No, those hon. members are not yet fully informed. They have not yet had a caucus meeting to find out whether the right wing or the left wing is going to draw the hon. the Prime Minister more to the one side or to the other side. Fourthly, is he prepared to abandon the fundamental premise of his predecessor, that one day there will be no Black South African citizens in South Africa? That was a crucial element in the policy of his predecessor.

Fifthly, is he prepared to accept the permanence of Blacks as South African citizens, and is he then prepared to include such Black South African citizens in the constitutional structure which he is envisaging for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, with all the political implications of such acceptance?

Sixthly, what exactly does he intend with regard to the consolidation of the homelands? Does he intend to make more land available for Black occupation than was envisaged in the 1936 legislation, and if so, where? Or does he want to bring about a larger consolidation by simply including in the homelands land presently owned by Whites, i.e. by extending the jurisdiction of the homeland governments to such land and its inhabitants? On the one hand, therefore, there is the question of the acquisition of land, and on the other, the extension of the jurisdiction of the homeland governments to certain areas and their inhabitants. [Interjections.]

We now come to the hon. member for Rissik. The seventh question, a question which is of great relevance to him, is whether the Prime Minister is prepared to abolish compulsory apartheid—the lift apartheid of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs—in the social and economic spheres. Is he prepared, for example, to repeal the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act?

No. You got your answer to that long ago.

The hon. member says they are not prepared to do it. Then I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to abolish compulsory segregation on the trade union level. Is he prepared to abolish that compulsory apartheid? I put these questions pertinently to the hon. the Prime Minister.

In the realization that there is an urgent need for a new constitutional dispensation for South Africa, the PFP, at its Federal Congress in Durban in November 1978, considered the report of its Constitutional Commission chaired by the hon. member for Rondebosch. With a few minor amendments, the report of that commission was accepted unanimously and enthusiastically by the delegates. I have arranged with the hon. member for Rondebosch for that report to be made available at a special price of 50 cents to National Party members who may want it. Therefore, it is available from him. [Interjections.] In that report, the essential components of our proposed constitutional structure are explained, a structure by means of which, we believe, peace, stability and a democratic form of government can be guaranteed in South Africa. Secondly, it sets out the essential procedure and steps which have to be taken to implement that new constitution. I intend to lay the five main features of that policy approach before this House at the outset of this session.

It is high time.

There are five vital elements in this policy. The first—and this is the basic premise—is: We recognize the plural nature of the South African community and we accept the political implications of that plurality.

Is that your new policy?

It has always been our policy. I am referring to the Molteno report. It is spelt out quite clearly. We accept the implications of the plural nature of South African society. This means, on the one hand, that we are not dealing with a South African society which is homogeneous or uniform and, on the other hand, that we are not dealing with a simple Black/White situation in South Africa. What we are dealing with is a multiplicity of groups which distinguish themselves from one another in terms of race, ethnicity, culture, language, religion and specific social and economic factors.

Does Helen agree?

Of course she agrees. At the same time we are dealing with groups which have common interests cutting across these divisions. We are not in separate compartments. We have in our society a multiplicity of minorities which we can separate from one another on several bases while we still have a common destiny in South Africa.

In the same context we accept that if the plural nature of South Africa is a reality—I take it that hon. members on that side will agree with this—that plurality will manifest itself on a voluntary basis during the process of political mobilization. It will happen on a voluntary basis during the process of mobilization of political forces in South Africa. Consequently we are completely opposed to any form of compulsory group membership or group classification. Strangely enough, such compulsion makes a mockery of the plural reality of our society. In addition, we all realize that we are living in a dynamic and changing world, and therefore it is senseless and impractical to separate and isolate people into predetermined racial or group compartments. That is a basic approach.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he recognizes the fact that the Xhosas and the Zulus want to be two separate nations?

As far as nations are concerned, it may be true that ethnicity is the major factor of separation in certain parts of South Africa, but in the urban areas economic factors are uppermost, and there is no separation between the Xhosas and the Zulus. In such a case there is no formal predetermined delimitation. It comes about naturally, of course, subject to those aspects or those factors which become relevant at that stage.

†That is the first aspect.

Stick to the mealies.

Yes, the hon. Minister should stick to mealies. Let us look at the second cardinal feature, i.e. that no new constitutional structure will work or survive in South Africa if it is not the product of negotiation and agreement between the various political groups in our society. Unless it is the product of genuine negotiation and agreement, not between carefully chosen individuals, but between the people representing the reality of the political structure in South Africa, that constitutional structure does not have a snow ball’s hope in Hades of succeeding. For that reason we believe it is essential for the Government of South Africa—whatever Government it is—to call a national conference or national convention where representatives of all those groupings can meet and negotiate. We will be asked who should come. It should be the people chosen by the various groupings themselves. However, I want to stress one proviso, i.e. that we in the PFP are firmly opposed to violence and subversion as a means of change. Therefore no political group which advocates or used violence or subversion will be invited to send a representative to the national convention. Furthermore, as all the decisions at the national convention are taken by consensus, the number of representatives of each groups is not a vital factor. The convention stands in an advisory capacity to Parliament, whose sovereignty is not questioned. If the convention breaks down, the sovereign Parliament of South Africa will therefore have to continue governing until circumstances allow a new convention to be called. If the convention is successful, the sovereign Parliament of South Africa will have to give effect to the agreement reached. Only when the new constitutional structures are working effectively, will that sovereign Parliament relinquish its sovereignty in terms of the new constitution.

Will you sell that to the electorate?

I am selling it to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture.

†Thirdly, any new constitutional structure must incorporate two fundamentals. One is the sharing of political rights without discrimination on the grounds of race or colour and the other is the principle of no domination of any one group by another. Because we do not accept the concept of domination, we reject the concept of simplistic majority rule. Majority rule is no guarantee of democracy and of human rights. We reject “winner takes all” political systems as they exclude minorities from participation. We believe in a consensus approach to government in which consent of all the significant groups is required before a Government can take action on what are considered fundamental issues.

Fourthly, we believe a new constitution should contain certain basic structural elements to avoid competition at one dominant site of power. It should involve a decentralization of power to self-governing federal States, a separation of power between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, and a limitation of power through an entrenched Bill of Rights guaranteeing the basic rights of individuals.

Finally, we believe that the principle of government by consensus should apply on all fundamental issues. In order to achieve this we argue that the principle of proportionality should apply: proportional representation, not the winner-take-all system, but proportional representation both in the House of Assembly and in the executive. We believe that there should be proportional representation on the one hand and a minority veto on the other hand in order to bring together the various elements of the political structure, in a form of consensus.

Minority rule!

No, no minority rule, but the guarantee of the protection of minorities, whatever they may be, on issues which they consider vital to themselves. We stand for full political participation with an equal vote for all South African citizens, subject to the protection of the constitution which will guarantee that minorities are not ridden over roughshod. We are satisfied that this combination of proportional representation and minority veto will promote consensus. We challenge the Government, we challenge hon. members on the other benches, during the course of this session to produce any other realistic alternative for the people of South Africa. Let them produce the alternatives. We have presented ours.

I conclude by saying that South Africa is at the watershed. As we see it, the fields of government where separate decision-making is possible are becoming smaller. The fields of government where shared decision-making is essential are becoming greater and more vital to our common survival. Apartheid, separate development—call it by whatever name you wish—is no longer an option if we want peace in Southern Africa. Old-fashioned minority rule is no longer defensible. Unchecked majority rule will not ensure peace in our plural society. This is the reality. Those are the ambits within which we, during this debate and in the coming months, must discuss with a real sense of reality, with a sense of urgency and a need for fundamental change within South Africa. 1979 is a year of decision. I say to the new Prime Minister: Do not do as your predecessor did. Do not waste 12 precious years trying to make apartheid work. It was indeed a waste of 12 precious years trying to make apartheid work, and it could not work. In any case, the new Prime Minister does not have 12 years. The new Prime Minister has something like 12 months to abandon those of his policies which are essentially structured on race discrimination.

Why do you say that?

Because there is a sense of urgency. Unless and until the hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues have the courage to abandon race discrimination and all it means, not to get rid of the facade of race discrimination, but to break down the structures of discrimination in South Africa, and until the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to get rid of the albatross that is hanging around his neck, the albatross of the Information scandal, he will not effectively be able to lead this country to a peaceful resolution of problems. In those circumstances he certainly does not enjoy the confidence of this House.

Mr. Speaker, we have now been listening to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for about an hour. He covered a very wide field. It will not be possible for me to reply to everything which he raised today. It will not be possible for me, although it is pot even necessary to reply to a great deal of what he said. However, he did say a few things about me and I should like to reply to those sections. He said: “The hon. the Minister of Justice is making a travesty of justice by not charging Van den Bergh.” He kept on saying that we ought to charge Genl. Van den Bergh and that the responsibility was wholly mine. I do not take it amiss of the Leader of the Opposition for broaching the non-prosecution of Hendrik van den Bergh in Parliament. He has the right in fact, it is his job, to do so. Nor do I take it amiss of the hon. member for questioning the motivation of the Attorney-General. He has every right to do so. Nor do I take it amiss of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for calling me to account for the decision of the Attorney-General. Not only has he the right to do so, but according to law it is my duty to report to this House on this matter. However, what I do take amiss of the hon. member is that a tragedy is taking place here this afternoon. For the first time in the history of this Parliament—a place which is a sanctum for all of us, something of inestimable value in our country—we experienced the spectacle of an Opposition, which was present at the democratic election of a State President, refusing to pledge its support to an address which was submitted to the House, an address which has over the years been traditional, a formality in this House. Today we had to put the motion to a vote. [Interjections.] That is why I say that a tragedy is taking place here.

Now I am also being asked by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today to alter the decision of the Attorney-General of the Transvaal and to institute legal proceedings against Gen. Van den Bergh. I must now do this myself. I must disregard the Attorney-General and take the matter into my own hands. If I were in fact to do so, that same hon. Opposition would squeal to high heaven like a lot of stuck pigs tomorrow or the next day. [Interjections.] That is what they would do if I should dare to do so. The request which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now addressing to me will be a weight around his neck for a very long time to come. I can assure him of that. It is contrary to the highest principles of our administration of justice. It is contrary to the traditions … [Interjections.] But those hon. members do not know what traditions mean. [Interjections.] I am very pleased that they are reacting in that manner. They do not have the foggiest notion of traditions. After all, that “Black Power priest” does not know what traditions are. [Interjections.] It is contrary to the traditions of our country, as set out in our parliamentary publications. However, I can understand why that is the standpoint of the Opposition. The unsavoury events surrounding the address to the State President today have indicated clearly that the Opposition is caught in the grip of the radicals in South Africa. [Interjections.] They are caught in the grip of those who no longer have any respect for parliamentary traditions, those who are prepared to overthrow the entire system in South Africa, not in an evolutionary, but radical way and, in my opinion, establish a socialistic system in their place. It is my contention that as far as the Attorney-General is concerned, a very important principle is at stake here.

Your swan song does not sound very good!

Look out, I might set my son onto you. [Interjections.] As far as the matter of the Attorney-General is concerned, there is in my opinion a very important principle at stake here. I should just like to remind hon. members of what the traditions in this Parliament are. Prior to 1910 it was the position that all prosecutions, in all four provinces, were exclusively in the hands of the Attorneys-General. At that time, however, prior to 1910, the Attorneys-General were all members of a ministry. Consequently the Attorney-General himself was a member of the Cabinet, and therefore also a member of Parliament Consequently they were themselves accountable for their decisions. That was the position prior to 1910. In the interim the National Convention was held. These days we often hear about a national convention, but I should like to know whether the hon. members opposite, if a national convention is ever held, will respect the decisions of such a convention. I should like to establish whether they are prepared to respect the decisions of the National Convention of 1909. In 1926, when an amendment to the criminal procedure legislation was before this House, Sir Patrick Duncan had quite a lot to say about the National Convention. I shall indicate what I read in Hansard.

You are putting up a smoke screen.

The hon. member must not be ashamed; there is no smoke screen. The hon. member should simply listen and then deny it if he can.

You are doing very well.

Yes, that is true. The hon. member need not tell me. According to Hansard of 3 March 1926, Sir Patrick Duncan said as far as the National Convention was concerned that “the provision in the Act of Union by which public prosecutions were to be undertaken, not on the responsibility of the Government”—and therefore not the Minister—“but on the responsibility of the Attorney-General, was, I think, adopted by the National Convention after very serious and prolonged deliberation.” He said: “No doubt this step was taken by the National Convention with the object of removing as far as possible the question of the conduct of public prosecutions from any possibility of political influence.”

South Africa’s Constitution was agreed to after the termination of the National Convention, and it was provided in the Constitution that prosecutions were left exclusively in the hands of the Attorneys-General without any parliamentary control. Since that stage the Attorneys-General were no longer members of Parliament, and the right to institute public prosecution without reporting to Parliament vested in them. That was the position from 1910 to 1926. During that period an Attorney-General could, in his discretion, institute or terminate a public prosecution without there being any parliamentary control.

In 1926, however, it was felt that that was an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Parliamentary control was then obtained by means of a suitable amendment to the 1917 legislation. Added to that legislation was the statement that the Attorney-General should perform his task “under the general supervision of the Minister of Justice”. The then Minister, the late Adv. Tielman Roos, then laid down the rules determining when a Minister would intervene in the decisions of an Attorney-General. The hon. member over there is laughing, but I can understand why he is doing so: He does not have any respect whatsoever for this matter. Let us look at the criterion laid down by Adv. Tielman Roos. According to Hansard of 22 March 1926 Adv. Tielman Roos said “the important point is to make the Attorney-General, through the Minister, responsible to Parliament”. Consequently there would be parliamentary control. He went on to say that “except in exceptional cases, where the Minister would interfere is where there is some danger to the public interest at stake”. Tielman Roos then furnished two examples of such dangers which could entail the Minister undertaking the prosecution himself: Strikes and riots. To those two I add subversion. That is why I can act in such a manner in such cases. The rules are therefore that there may be no interference with the decisions of the Attorney-General except in a situation of a danger to and subversion of the interests of South Africa.

Incidentally, I cannot imagine that the terrible duststorm kicked by the young politician, a certain Mr. Bertellsman, should be regarded as a danger to South Africa and that I should consequently institute legal proceedings against Genl. Van den Bergh.

In 1961 there was a very interesting debate on the position of the Attorney-General and I should like to quote from it. Mr. Tucker—I take it that he was one of the predecessors of the hon. members on the opposite side in previous parties of which they have changed the name …

He was Japie’s and Helen’s leader.

... was asked whether he, if he were the Minister of Justice, would intervene and take over a certain prosecution from the Attorney-General. From the Opposition benches he then said (Hansard, Vol. 107, col. 4920)—

Have you ever interfered?

That hon. member need not talk; I shall deal with him in a moment.

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

No, Sir, I am not prepared to reply to any questions. [Interjections.] I want to quote the following words of the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Frans Erasmus, on 20 April 1961 when a certain case was brought to his attention—

He went on to say—

†Whatever my collective responsibility, as a member of the Cabinet, might be in law as far as the Information matter is concerned, I would like to say that I personally had nothing to do with it at any stage, at any time or in any form.

A washing of hands?

No. I did not say that I said that “whatever my collective responsibility. Do not misconstrue my words. I had absolutely nothing to do with it. I would also like to say that I hold no brief for Gen. Van den Bergh, not one way or the other … [Interjections.] I do, however, hold a brief to uphold the traditions of Parliament and those of our judicial system, and I am not prepared to interfere in the decisions of an Attorney-General, decisions made in good faith without fear or favour and with the due ability that is required of such a person. [Interjections.]

*For the sake of those petty jurists piping away at the back there, I should like to report to this House on the merits of the Attorney-General’s decision. The Attorney-General notified me by way of a report that he was going to refuse to prosecute in this case. I quote him from his report—

Hon. members referred earlier today to the national interest and, in view of this, I want to say that the “national interests” to which the Attorney-General is referring here are not the interests of the NP. These are interests which extend far beyond NP interests; these are interests which include even that little party, and all the other parties in this House; these are interests which include our children, our grandchildren and all the people in South Africa. It is in that light that the Attorney-General approached the matter. I also saw it in that light.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to know from me whether I examined the information myself. If it had only been the Attorney-General who adopted such a standpoint, it would perhaps have been necessary for me to work through the mass of evidence myself. I read a great deal of the evidence myself, and if it had been only the Attorney-General who had adopted such a standpoint, I would have had to work through the evidence of Gen. Van den Bergh, which went on for nine hours, the evidence of Dr. Connie Mulder, which went on for 10 hours, as well as all the other evidence.

However, it was not only the Attorney-General who reached this conclusion. The commission also reached this decision and consequently it was not necessary for me to read through all that evidence. The commission heard all the evidence itself; it was able to evaluate the matter properly and was able to determine its entire attitude towards …

And which changed its mind!

Is the hon. member disputing the findings of the commission? [Interjections.] The chairman of that commission stated on television, even before the Attorney-General reached his decision, that the commission had come to a decision and that one of the decisions was based on the fact that it was not in the national interest that the information ought to be made public.

The official Opposition rises to its feet each session to carry on very sanctimoniously here about judicial commissions. Now they have suddenly done an about-face. Now it must be a parliamentary commission, and judicial commissions are out. Now there is something wrong with them. As long as the judge finds what they would like him to find, they are satisfied. When he finds against them, however, they are angry. They ask for a judicial commission, but then the backbenchers in that party dispute the findings of the commission.

I said that they changed their minds.

Surely it is not strange for a commission to find that its evidence should not be made public. There is nothing strange about that Show me the commission that did make its evidence public.

Cillié.

The report of the Cillié Commission is not even there yet. Is that hon. member asleep? I wonder whether his benchfellow should not wake him up. He must tell me whether he read the evidence of the Potgieter Commission. It is not available to the public. He must tell me whether he read the evidence of the Schlebusch Commission. It is not available to the public. He must tell me whether he read the evidence of the Erika Theron Commission. It is not available to the public. He must tell me whether he read the evidence of the latest De Kock Commission. It is not available to the public. No one pays any heed to that, but because it is possible to make political capital here out of the evidence of this specific commission, those … [Interjections.]

The hon. member also referred to the unsavoury article which was published yesterday in the Sunday Express. In my opinion the Sunday Express is probably one of the dirtiest newspapers in South Africa. They came to light with the disclosure that Gen. Van den Bergh had allegedly said what his agents did: “Kill! And then they did so, regardless of the importance of the people concerned” If this story is true, then, if there was ever any proof that the Attorney-General was right in his decision, this disclosure is such proof. If those words were to be stated there, the world would wrest those words out of context and distort them against South Africa, and the Opposition and the Opposition Press will wrest them out of context and distort them. It would not be in the interests of the State to make those words public. If those words had been stated there, then I say that the Attorney-General has been proved right today because they published them yesterday. The question arises whether such words should be brought to light by us or by the Press. I say that such words should rather be brought to light there because the unsavoury Sunday Express at least revealed in that way its cunning subterfuges for getting hold of that information. They sent it to a publication abroad to cause South Africa to be vilified in that way. Let them rather expose and reveal such information, rather than that decent people such as the Attorney-General, the commission and I do so.

There is another report in the Sunday Express in which it is stated that the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with these words of Gen. Van den Bergh before his caucus. I say that it is an infamous lie, and I am prepared to repeat the words I have now spoken outside this House. In addition, a photograph of a Black woman lying in chains in a certain institution for mental patients appeared in yesterday’s edition of the Sunday Express. Why, no one knows. I doubt whether she was ever fastened with chains there. My suspicion is that that newspaper put that chain round her and then took a photograph. This has often happened before in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

I wonder whether that newspaper realizes that it is also in the public interest to tell us that one of its writers is a “stringer” for the far-left newspaper The Guardian, in England, and I just about refuse to touch that newspaper, even with a bargepole. I read it at a distance. But when I see it, I have no doubt that there are more leftists behind that newspaper than South Africa can afford.

I have been asked whether there is a precedent for the step taken by the Attorney-General. Of course there is a precedent. On 23 January 1979 the Attorney-General reported to me that a certain Mr. Japie Basson had, at a public meeting on 22 January 1978, said certain things which amounted to an affront to the dignity of the State President and which impugned his honour. But, said the Attorney-General, owing to the fact that the hon. member had already used those words in Parliament under parliamentary privilege, he felt that it would be better not to lay a personal charge.

He did not have a case.

He decided it was not in the “national interest”.

I did not then state that, according to law, I was entitled to charge Mr. Basson. I respected the decision of the Attorney-General. Now there are two people who are “above the law”: Mr. Japie Basson is “above the law” and Hendrik van den Bergh is “above the law”. [Interjections.] Certain newspapers and certain people are insinuating that I influenced the Attorney-General in his decision. However, the law gives me the right to speak to the Attorney-General.

And you did so.

I did not do so. The hon. member is telling an untruth if he says that.

Did you say nothing to him?

Order! The hon. member will be given an opportunity to speak.

It is my right to do so, but in this specific case I did not do so, and I deliberately did not do so because I knew that the Opposition would draw all kinds of inferences from it. [Interjections.] I did not, with a single word, try to influence the Attorney-General as far as that decision was concerned, but allowed him to make that decision all by himself. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to tell the hon. member for Bryanston and other members of the official Opposition that the debate will last for five days and that they will receive every opportunity to say what they have to say. They have had an opportunity to make interjections, but I think that they have now used up their full quota.

Now I find that I am being criticized.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether anyone else made submissions to the Attorney-General.?

Order! The hon. the Minister has already indicated that he is not prepared to reply to any question.

They now want to try to insinuate that I wanted to see the Attorney-General’s decision beforehand in order to tamper with it. First they blamed Dr. Connie Mulder for ostensibly not knowing what was going on in his department, and now, because I want to know everything that is going on in my department, I am also being blamed. When does one win? With them, never! The Opposition does not want to have Van den Bergh prosecuted in order to do justice to Van den Bergh. No, they simply want to use the issue to make political propaganda with it. They simply want to use it to incite the people against the NP and against the Government. That is all they are trying to do. They are trying to ride the crest of this wave. That is what they are trying to do. But they do not have a single principle to back them up, and the sooner our people realize this, the better. I want to ask the hon. Opposition whether they are serious. Not a single jurist of repute has asked for a prosecution of Van den Bergh, in other words for an alteration of the Attorney-General’s decision. I want to put a question to the hon. member for Yeoville. He must imagine himself to be in my position. Does he wish a prosecution to be instituted contrary to these traditions? Does he or does he not want it?

May I reply to that? [Interjections.]

There is no such tradition.

Of course he cannot reply to that. Why does he say it then? There is a deathly silence on his part. He need only say “yes” or “no”, but he says nothing. Sir, I maintain that he himself would not have wanted to do so. It is contrary to every possible tradition of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, may I answer the hon. the Minister?

Order! The hon. member cannot make a speech now.

Then the hon. the Minister must not say that I am not replying. If he says that, he is telling an untruth.

People ask me why the Rand Daily Mail was prosecuted immediately, while Van den Bergh is not being prosecuted. Hon. members must not forget that the commission was dissolved on 5 December. When its report had been completed, it was dissolved. Van den Bergh made his statement on 7 December. The commission was re-established on 8 December … [Interjections.] That is the first point which the advocate defending him will use. I understand that they will see to his defence. I understand that there is some well-known advocate or other who will defend him. It is an offer—I am not saying that he will accept it. I understand that he received such an offer.

Then there is another legal question which is staring us in the face. That is the other problem. What is the difference between the actions of the Rand Daily Mail and those of Van den Bergh? The Rand Daily Mail evaluated the report of the Mostert Commission, which had at that stage already been handed over to the Erasmus Commission, and in that way tried to influence the commission in its verdict.

No.

That is what the court found. Is the hon. member questioning the court as well? [Interjections.] The charge dealt with an attempt to influence the commission. The Rand Daily Mail commented on the work of the commission. What is at issue in the case of Van den Bergh is the evidence which was given and a record which was compiled and whether it is in the public interest for that record should be submitted to a court. There is a world of difference between the two cases.

Are you defending him now?

There is also a difference between the Van den Bergh case and the case of Rhoodie. I have been asked whether Rhoodie is also “above the law”. The hon. Leader of the Opposition asked that question. Of course that is not the case. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has never given the matter any thought. The Van den Bergh case concerns Van den Bergh’s statements about the commission. As far as Rhoodie is concerned, the Police are still investigating the matter. They are establishing whether a crime was committed. If crimes were committed, witnesses will be brought before court who will present relevant evidence to the court. Consequently it has absolutely nothing to do with the report of the commission. That is the difference. Consequently Rhoodie has not been indemnified at all. I have said this repeatedly. However, the more one tells those people something, the more one realizes that they do not want to listen. They are on the road to a socialistic State. That is all they are interested in. They are only interested in their national convention and in the multiracial situation in South Africa, but they care nothing for the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Justice spoke about a “major principle” which was supposed to be at stake here. He devoted his entire argument to that, i.e. to proving that the independence of an official was the be-all and end-all of the matter. But are there not other principles at stake, too, e.g. the principle that no person should be above the law? Is it not one of the keystones of our system that a judicial commission …

In what respect is that at issue? Surely the Attorney-General went into the question of whether the person should be charged.

The hon. the Minister evades the fact that a keystone of our judicial system has been destroyed by the action of the Attorney-General. There was a refusal to prosecute a specific person and in that way he was placed beyond the reach of the law. He forgets that the refusal to have Gen. Van den Bergh prosecuted led to the fact that a commission has been insulted, and a judge of the Supreme Court has been implicated. Apart from that he forgets—or he does not want to realize—that the findings of the Erasmus Commission concerning every issue, including those Ministers about whom findings were issued, have now been called into question. I shall refer to that once again in the course of my speech.

The hon. the Minister admitted that undermining was one of the matters concerning which he would act on his own responsibility.

I was referring to the undermining of the security of South Africa.

Does the undermining of our constitutional system, our judiciary system, not also constitute undermining? Does that not constitute sabotage of South Africa’s good name? I believe that the undermining of our constitution is just as subversive and dangerous for the country as any other kind of undermining. The hon. the Minister also spoke with contempt of Advocate Bertellsman. I am not ashamed to admit that he is one of the chairmen of my party in Pretoria. I am proud that he started the campaign which has led to thousands of South Africans signing a petition demanding that Gen. Van den Bergh be prosecuted. Among the people who have signed is Gen. Van den Bergh himself. Is the hon. the Minister maintaining that the right hand of the former Prime Minister, the man who has been responsible for the security of South Africa through the years, will give evidence in a court which will undermine and endanger the country? Is that what he is implying? Will he say this outside this House? I do not believe that he will do this, because his allegation is a reflection on the honesty of the man in whose hands our security rested and in whom our former Prime Minister placed his complete trust.

I shall refer to certain other aspects of the matter in the course of my speech. There are many issues I want to mention.

†I should like to start a new session with good news, but I must admit that this year I have had a great deal of difficulty finding it. The only real good news I found this year was the solid progress and growth of the NRP. [Interjections.] Sir, I expected a bit of reaction. In the absence of other good news I think I am entitled to refer to this little bit of good news. A year ago we entered this House for the first time as a hesitant, small group of M.P.’s with little or nothing more than a deep-rooted conviction that this party had a role to play in South African politics. We have come back here now with that conviction solidly reinforced by the events during this past recess and by the grass-roots support we have received throughout South Africa from South Africans loyal to South Africa, people seeking a way out of the mess this country is in. What is more important, is that the focus of constructive political thinking in South Africa has turned more and more towards the basic policy of this party, its policy of a federal/confederal system for the country. I shall come back to that issue later to indicate what role I believe we have to play.

However, when I look for the good news on the Government side, I could find only two things to welcome, and I want to mention them immediately. The first is the last-minute avoidance of confrontation with the five Western countries on the question of South West Africa. I believe that that was in the interests of South Africa, and I want to place on record my hopes for a final peaceful settlement. The other is the recent acceptance of the De Kock report, provided of course the Government is prepared to implement it properly. These are the only two compliments I could find to pay the Government out of the whole seven months since this House last met in normal session. For the rest it has been a black recess, a black recess for the Government, for the institution of government itself and for the country as a whole. The Information scandal has naturally held the focus of attention. That one can understand and I intend to deal with it. Let me say now that while we shall criticize and attack the Government, as we intend to do, we shall not get bogged down in pure negative criticism and mudslinging, but shall seek throughout this session to offer positive alternatives.

This brings me then to the Information scandal which is on everyone’s mind. I do not intend to rehash old arguments. If there is anyone who is not yet shocked into a realization of the fundamental implications of this affair for South Africa, then nothing we can say in this Parliament is going to open their eyes at this stage. I want to touch first on a by-product of the affair that should concern those hon. members of this House on that side. I said last month that the issue was one of political responsibility and not simply of re-stabbing scapegoats or corpses. What disturbs onlookers is the unsavoury spectacle of Government members scuttling for cover when the lights went on and then joining in the massacre of a colleague caught out in the open. It reminds one of walking into an old storeroom, switching on the light and seeing all the cockroaches running for the skirting-boards. A couple get tramped on and then when one switches off the light again the others come back to eat up the squashed ones. Which hon. member of the NP knows in his heart of hearts that he would not be sacrificed in the same way—depending of course on who was calling the tune—purely on suspicion, on accusation or on red guilt, but with no opportunity to defend himself? Which Government member can count on the loyalty of his colleagues in the light of what we have seen over this whole issue? Once the principle of collective responsibility is abandoned, then anybody is liable to be thrown to the wolves without even being given the chance of presenting his defence before his own caucus or before this Parliament. I think this is something for Government members to think about.

Let me now deal with this question of responsibility, the question that lies at the heart of everything. Responsibility ends with the hon. the Prime Minister. It rests with him at the top and with his Cabinet. The hon. the Prime Minister stands or falls on three basic assurances which he has given this House and South Africa. The first was that he had no knowledge of the Information scandal; secondly, that he promised a full exposure— oopvlek tot die been—and thirdly, that he promised “no cover-up”. I believe that events have shown that those undertakings have proved meaningless. Let us look at the first one, viz. that of no knowledge. The hon. the Prime Minister knew that as Minister of Defence he was budgeting money under the Special Defence Account, money which was being used for other purposes to the extent that the head of his own department, acting in the highest tradition of the Public Service, refused to have his Minister—and I quote from the report of the Erasmus Commission—“lie to Parliament”. That his predecessor, Mr. Vorster, knew of the situation and failed to rectify it is a matter of undisputed record.

It seems inconceivable to ordinary people that the present hon. Prime Minister, with his senior status and his high responsibilities, the deputy and the right-hand man to the former Prime Minister and with the powerful intelligence services at his disposal, could not have found out what was going on when he clearly suspected that there was something wrong. He clearly suspected there was something wrong or otherwise he would not have bucked the system of budgeting. Yet, the hon. the Prime Minister did nothing about it and failed to obtain the information which, I believe, it was his duty to obtain. I do not believe, and I do not think South Africa accepts, that the mere fact that he was not told by the former Minister of Information excuses him from responsibility for not having found out if he did not know. After the assurances the hon. the Prime Minister gave Parliament that he exercised full control over the Special Defence Fund as required by law, was he so irresponsible that he could transfer tens of millions of rand for other purposes—illegally—and could then wash his hands of responsibility merely because he had objected to the procedure?

Let us now turn to the other two promises. As Prime Minister responsible for administering our constitutional system he has condoned an action—I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Justice has left the House— which, however sincerely motivated, destroys one of the very cornerstones of that very constitutional system by placing one person above the law. In terms of the Criminal Procedures Act that person, who is not a judicial officer, acts, as the hon. the Minister of Justice admits, fully under his control and direction. I call upon the hon. the Prime Minister, who is in charge of all government, to instruct the hon. the Minister of Justice to intervene, to exercise the powers vested in him by law, in order to protect the system itself from disrepute, to prevent a judicial commission from being brought into contempt and its findings from being publicly discredited.

I believe that to subvert the reputation of our constitutional and judicial system is a revolutionary act, whether it is intended as such or not. By refusing to act when it is beyond doubt that this is how it is seen by the public, the hon. the Prime Minister, if he fails to act makes himself an accessory to the undermining of confidence in a fundamental principle of democracy. The hallmark of totalitarianism is a security establishment above the power of the law. And when the former head of a security establishment seems to be above the law, then it undermines confidence in our democratic system. Others are already flouting the law with impunity. Are different standards to be applied to them?

However, the Van den Bergh issue does not stand alone. It links with other incidents to create a general picture of a desperate government determined at all costs to prevent the full facts becoming known—apart from sensitive security matters, which we all accept—and trying desperately to prevent the key figures being able to defend themselves in a privileged court or in Parliament.

I do not have the time to deal with them all. However, there was the attempt by this same hon. Prime Minister to prevent the release of the Mostert report and his sacking, when his efforts failed, of Mr. Justice Mostert. There was the blatant failure—which has been referred to—to take any action to prevent Dr. Eschel Rhoodie freely and openly leaving the country after his complicity was already known. Yet no action was taken. The Prime Minister has not responded to my demand that the retirement benefits be frozen until the matter has been cleared up. Everybody is asking just how seriously the Government wants Rhoodie to appear before a court. I am afraid that question is one that has to be answered by finding him and getting him back. Lastly, there was the pressure brought to bear on Dr. Mulder to prevent him from defending himself in this Parliament. What does the Government fear he would reveal? What has the Government got to hide that Dr. Mulder would reveal if he stood up in this House and defended himself?

There is a final point and I mention it with hesitation and with a sense of responsibility, because it involves a remark made in an informal conversation, but in the presence of others and in a public place, a remark which has cost me sleepless nights as I pondered its significance and one which I believe it is my duty to raise in this House. Two weeks ago, on 17 January, when I was questioning the reversal of the undertaking to release the Erasmus Commission evidence and asking for this to be reconsidered, I was told in reply: “There is a higher authority.” The implication of this is so far-reaching that I call on the Prime Minister to tell this House whether he has discussed the question of the release of the Erasmus Commission evidence with that commission since 8 December 1978. South Africa is entitled to know what authority is higher than the judiciary, whether a commissioner is subservient to the executive and whether there has been any attempt by any member of the Government to influence this particular commission on the release of evidence.

In the light of all I have said, this cumulative series of incidents, leads me conclude that the Government has not only destroyed its own credibility, but has also undermined that of the Erasmus Commission. The effect of this has been to put the Prime Minister and his predecessor, Mr. Vorster, back in the dock of public scrutiny over their political responsibility and that of other Ministers. Without the evidence being available and in the absence of any prosecution, few, and certainly not this party, are going to be convinced, on the basis of secret evidence which has been publicly challenged, by any whitewash or exclusion from responsibility. Not just persons are on trial: Our whole system of government and of justice is on trial and that at a time when the forces of marxism and subversion are aiming at destroying that very system. This is a time when the system itself should be our strongest weapon in the fight for the hearts and minds of Black South Africa. It should be shown to be superior to marxism and above abuse by any power group.

I do not have the time to deal with one of the consequences, namely the paralysis that has hit the Government, a paralysis similar to the paralysis of Watergate. I am talking about the post-Watergate paralysis in America which has had such a tragic effect on Africa itself and on the fight against communism. The same sort of paralysis has appeared here in South Africa. Nothing this Government can do can shake off the image it has created. It has come with new red herrings like the 1936 Bantu Trust and Land Act which has made some people excited, but I do not have the time to deal with that fully. We hear of more consolidation. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to tell this House what exactly he meant by his “reconsideration” of the 1936 Bantu Trust and Land Act. Then we can debate it intelligently. Merely to say that he is going to look at it again is meaningless. If he did consolidate fully it would still amount to no more than a cosmetic improvement of a policy that has already failed beyond recovery. One can understand the frustrations of Black leaders and therefore one welcomes, as I certainly do, those still prepared to negotiate. They know that the Blacks will go down with the Whites if South Africa goes down. This makes it all the more urgent that we find answers while we can still talk. Whether there is an answer, hinges on whether we can create a constitutional structure for our plural society in which all our peoples can be accommodated and in which their identities will be secure from domination by other groups.

This party believes that there is an alternative, provided that it is based on respect for individual dignity and the right of every community to protect its own identity and to control its own intimate affairs. The fundamental choice before South Africa is the choice between a plural system which accommodates community or ethnic identity and an integrated common society under majority rule and domination. There is a time factor involved in making that choice. Some people ask: “What is the hurry?” By the end of this year both Rhodesia and South West Africa will be under majority rule and South Africa will be the last State in Africa which will still be able to make a choice. This does not apply only to the Whites, but to all South Africans. Ours is the last generation which can control our destiny through the laws of this Parliament. Our children—and even many in this House—will have to do so with different instruments, the instruments of consultation and negotiation. What threatens the very choice we have before us today is the fact that the same Government, which stands for ethnic identities, has discredited ethnicity itself as a factor in pluralism by making it the hallmark of rejection and the symbol of inferiority and oppression. A large section of our people equate ethnicity with domination and suppression. The official Opposition, as is their right, has decided against ethnicity other than on a voluntary basis. They have opted for a common voter’s roll and a common Parliament based on universal adult suffrage or “one man, one vote”. That is their right. They temper this with constitutional safeguards, but I do not wish to deal with their policy today. The official Opposition are accepting the “nochoice” situation, but I believe that we are not yet faced with that in South Africa. I do so for various reasons that I shall not deal with now. The challenge facing us is to transform ethnicity in the time available to us from a hated symbol of inferiority and rejection into an instrument for co-operation and belonging and a key to the elimination of conflict.

This poses a fundamental dilemma for NP supporters, because their party has made ethnicity a swear word. If they want to have a choice, it must in the first instance be between their party and an ethnic base for our future. If they desire an ethnic base, they will not be able to get it through the NP, because the NP has discredited this. We cannot afford the “no-choice” alternative of confrontation or reliance only on constitutional safeguards.

What other alternatives do we have? There are the new constitutional proposals of the Government which are now apparently to be forced through the House without being referred to a Select Committee until after the Second Reading stage by which time all the principles will have been approved of. I challenge the hon. the Prime Minister to prove his sincerity in calling for co-operation by undertaking to send the draft legislation to a Select Committee for proper negotiation before the principles are adopted. I also want him to undertake, in this debate, that, when the constitutional example that has been pioneered by Natal is put to the Government for assent in the form of amendments to the ordinance, the Government will not veto those changes. We have signposted the future and we are prepared to implement this and face the consequences should it go wrong. I believe it lights the way for a completely new deal for South Africa and that it is a step towards interracial co-operation. I believe it sets a pattern for all levels of government. If this system fails, the electorate of Natal will deal with us, but if it succeeds, we will have made the greatest contribution to peaceful coexistence of this generation to South Africa. It will transform South Africa and sweep it into the next century.

In conclusion I want to say that, justly or unjustly, this Government cannot save itself from its decline. No whitewash, no witchdoctor nor any change of policy can eradicate the curse of its own history of 30 years. What other alternative is there for South Africa? I am not so stupid as to think that the NRP will be able to win an election this year or next year, but the one after that it is certain to win. The official Opposition cannot win an election this year, nor next year nor any time thereafter because it represents a limited strata of the electorate. Its policies and its attitudes towards South Africa make it unacceptable to the large majority of the people. What is the answer then? Is the NP in power for ever? I believe not. I believe that there is another way and that is to respond to the disillusionment of the public in party political squabbling and divisions then disillusionment in the system, and to save South Africa. For that we need a Government of national reconciliation. By reconciliation I mean reconciliation between White and White, White and Black and Black and Black, reconciliation between all groups dedicated to restoring credibility in Government, to giving South Africa clean and credible government and to creating and providing a future which will bring hope to future generations as well. I therefore move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, we have listened closely to the speech by the hon. member for Durban Point. We on this side of the House always look forward with great anticipation to his speeches. Apart from the one positive observation he made in respect of which I agree with him, namely that there is not a single party on that side of the House which stands a chance of winning the next two general elections …

Not the next one but certainly the following one.

… apart from that one remark, we on this side of the House were disappointed. I am not trying to be funny when I say this but, unlike him, he reminded me today of an alarm clock that has run down. The alarm did not go off; it merely made some soft rasping noises and, during his entire speech, the hon. member did not advance a single argument which really merits a reply from this side of the House. He insinuated that prior to the commencement of this session this side of the House, through the medium of the hon. the Prime Minister, made positive announcements to divert attention from the Information affair. He said that when the Prime Minister makes an important announcement in connection with consolidation, it is only part of a political hoax, a red herring that he draws across the trail.

Buying time.

It is because of that attitude of theirs that they will not come into power. Does he know what the Black man of South Africa has already said about that announcement? Has he been receptive to the voice of the Black man of South Africa regarding the hon. the Prime Minister’s remarks? No, he did not listen. They do not listen to what the Black man of South Africa says. On the contrary. The hon. member tried to make political capital out of an announcement which is of vital importance to the future of South Africa and, similarly, they do not listen to what the Black, Brown and Indian leaders say when the future of the nations within the present borders of South Africa is being discussed. As long as they try to make petty political capital out of this sort of thing they will remain where they are; a mere handful of people who have no influence over the politics of South Africa. [Interjections.] This statement of his will re-echo in his ears when he talks with people like Mr. Buthelezi, Mr. Sebe of Ciskei and other Black leaders again.

What did they say?

They are interested and if that hon. member is not interested, it will be just as well if he withdraws from the programme of consultation and building the future of South Africa together. He might just as well play with his political “dolosse”. [Interjections.]

You can give them land, but that does not solve anything.

This side of the House will still have a great deal to say about these solutions. During the course of this debate we are going to hear a great deal about that because we have a duty, not to join those hon. members in mud-slinging but to govern this country. That is why we shall not hesitate to spell out the solutions we have and to indicate clearly the road we intend following.

The hon. member insinuated further that there was secret interaction between the Erasmus Commission and the Government. I ask him directly whether he is insinuating that the Erasmus Commission is not bona fide and that it takes its instructions from the Government?

That is my question.

In other words, he is accusing a judicial commission of not being independent, bona fide and objective but of merely being a tool or trowel in the hands of the Government.

What does “higher authority” mean?

Before I reply to the hon. member, can I take it that he and his party accept that the Erasmus Commission is objective and bona fide?

Yes.

Thank you. I now want to put a question to the official Opposition. [Interjections.] Do they question …

That is not at issue.

Of course it is at issue! Surely that is the basis of their attitude. Do they question the objectivity and bona fides of judge Erasmus and the other two members of the commission?

I do.

There is a member who says “yes”. [Interjections.] However, he is the exception. What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? [Interjections.] I do not get a reply.

Ask Gen. Van den Bergh.

I just want to finish quickly with what I have to say to the hon. member for Durban Point Had he paid attention, he would have heard or he would have read in this morning’s newspaper that Judge Erasmus himself doubts whether his commission has the right to release the evidence in terms of the Commissions Act read with the regulations. Hence the point of view that there may well be a higher authority and that the commission itself does not have the power to release the evidence.

That is not what the Prime Minister said.

Go and read regulations 11, 12 and 13 …

That is not what the Prime Minister said.

… which govern the commission.

Your Prime Minister says the opposite.

The hon. member need not worry about differences between myself and the Prime Minister. I do not want to speak for the Prime Minister. When he speaks he will indicate himself whether or not he agrees with the point of view I have just stated.

He will not.

That is what it is all about. The hon. member need not be worried; unlike those hon. members we place a high premium on the independence, the authority and status of a judicial commission, as I shall show in a moment.

Like the Mostert Commission!

Was a decision taken on whether the evidence was to be released?

The chairman of the commission made an announcement but he subsequently gave the reasons why he could not adhere to it. At a later stage he said that he was in any case not competent to give effect to such a decision even if that were his decision. He had gone deeper into the matter and had come to that conclusion. There is nothing sinister about this. I am pleased to gather from the expression on the face of the hon. member that he was not serious with that insinuation of his and that he accepts the explanation.

I said that I accepted his bona fides but not his judgment.

The question is whether the hon. member accepts that he is independent.

I said that I accepted his bona fides …

The hon. member also said that he accepted his objectivity.

… but I do not know whether he is allowed to be independent.

He has his terms of reference and as long as he acts within that framework—something which Judge Mostert did not do—he has all the power the law confers upon him and the regulations allow him.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister how he squares his commitment to an independent judicial commission with the action of the Prime Minister vis-à-vis judge Mostert?

I have just explained that. When a judicial commission goes beyond its terms of reference and concerns itself with matters not covered by its terms of reference or on a selective basis make public certain evidence only, evidence which really has nothing to do with its terms of reference, the Government has the right to say that it has lost confidence in the commission. We also stated publicly that that was the reason for our actions.

That will not wash!

An atmosphere of hysteria has developed round the Information incident, a hysteria that is being spurred on by Opposition newspapers and by certain prominent members of the PFP in particular …

And Die Transvaler!

… a hysteria which is not in the interests of South Africa.

Let us work together and decide calmly and quietly—I appeal mainly to the lawyers on that side of the House—what the limits are beyond which we should not go as far as this matter is concerned. I think it is essential in the first place that in the interests of the country—the Opposition has a great deal to say about that these days—we should seek perspective calmly and soberly. To start with we must once again reject the accusation that the Government is trying to cover up something, an accusation which is clearly and blatantly apparent once again in the motion moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

But everybody says so.

Sir, I shall not weary you by repeating what we have done. It is a well-known fact that the Government has on numerous occasions taken steps, based on such facts as were known at the time, to expose malpractices in an orderly manner, to identify those that were guilty and to safeguard the interests of the State. Hon. members know the steps that were taken, all of which eventually culminated in the appointment of the Erasmus Commission and the Pretorius Committee, the members of which are still busy with their work and whose final reports are still awaited. Those who regard the actions on the part of the Government at this time as a cover-up are being obstinate and unreasonable.

The recorded facts concerning the Government’s handling of this matter are such that any accusation of a cover-up is untrue. This accusation is still being levelled at us today but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now qualifies it—he has become somewhat wiser since he became leader—by saying that we are trying to cover up certain aspects although he realises that it is unreasonable to accuse us of a cover-up.

His reasoning for this accusation of a cover-up is based on three aspects, namely the non-release of the evidence, the fact that Gen. Van den Bergh is not being charged and the fact that Dr. Eschel Rhoodie is out of the country. Not one of these matters which worry him is the result of a decision by the Government. Does he not realize that? [Interjections.] Let us now discuss the question of responsibility. It seems that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agrees that it was not as a result of a Government decision that Gen. Van den Bergh is not being charged but as a result of a decision by the Attorney-General. It is not as a result of a Government decision that the evidence is not being made available. The Government has not yet made any decision in connection with the evidence. I think the time for that will only be after the final report of the commission has been received. It was the Erasmus Commission which allowed Dr. Rhoodie to leave after he had given his evidence. What is the Government covering up then? [Interjections.] However, the hon. member says we are responsible for it.

The hon. the Minister of Justice has dealt fully with the decision of the Attorney-General and his right to decide why he should not interfere.

However, one important question arises in connection with these three matters, a question which places equal emphasis upon both the failure to prosecute Van den Bergh and the non-release of the evidence, and that is whether we dare allow the hysteria surrounding the defunct Department of Information to force us as a Government and a Parliament to suspend and violate those fundamental traditions and principles which are of the utmost importance to the status and authority of our legal system, our judiciary and our legal institutions. The hon. the Prime Minister has already put that question to hon. members during the previous session.

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

My time is limited, and I have already replied to one question. The hon. member should first listen to my argument and, if time permits, he may then put a question to me. During the previous debate the hon. the Prime Minister said the following (Hansard, 7 December 1978, col. 37)—

When we talk about structures which have been created in order to maintain order and to ensure honest administration we are referring precisely to structures like the office of Attorney-General, his powers, his discretion and his authority, and to structures like the independence and the recognition of the authority and objectivity of a judicial commission. The question that can be put to the Opposition in this debate is whether they subscribe to these traditions. Firstly, do they subscribe to the tradition that it is desirable or, to put it more strongly, that it is essential that there should not be any political interference in the exercising of discretion by an Attorney-General? [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister has indicated that there was no political interference even when an Attorney-General refused to prosecute a member of that party on the grounds of a complaint that had been lodged against him. Of course they have to agree. If they are as they say such advocates of the rule of law then surely they must know that if a Government politician were at this stage to interfere with the normal judicial process the discretion of the Attorney-General would be questioned in the future. Surely they know that that will open the door for this to happen on another occasion, the occasion when some little friend of the hon. member for Houghton is charged. If the Attorney-General says he will not prosecute him the Minister of Justice may say that seeing that he has already been asked on one occasion to interfere, he will do so once again.

However, I want to concentrate more on the second aspect, namely the release of the evidence. Linked to that is the authority of the commission, its objectivity and the acceptance of its bona fides. The bona fides and objectivity of judges—as well as that of judicial commissions—are traditionally above suspicion. And when it comes to evaluating the credibility of witnesses, this applies even more strongly than in respect of any other aspect. Surely the hon. member for Johannesburg North can enlighten his party to the effect that the Appeal Court practically never interferes when it comes to the discretion exercised by a judge over the credibility of witnesses. The judge of the first instance has seen the witness, has listened to him and has noticed his reactions and is therefore best able to decide on the credibility of the witness. Except in the case where a blatant mistake has been made, the Appeal Court will not interfere. That is why we should like to know from those hon. members why they want to ignore this tradition and why they suspect the credibility of the Erasmus Commission without being able to produce any proof or evidence of a single mistake?

This objectivity, this credibility of our judiciary of which we are so proud, this independence of our courts of law and of our legal process is something valuable which we have at all times guarded at all costs. I am not trying to say that judges never make mistakes. Not in the least. Appeal Court decisions regularly point to the fallibility of judges. What is true, however, is that it is unheard of in our history to attack the bona fides and objectivity of a judge or a judicial commission without being prepared to produce proof or to give evidence of it but rather to misuse one’s parliamentary privilege in order to state one’s case. Surely that is what the Opposition are doing. Let me prove that they are questioning the objectivity, the status and the integrity of this commission.

What did Van den Bergh do? He did something much worse.

They are actually the protagonists of the right of Gen. Van den Bergh to be tried. Is that another human right that has been added, the right to be tried. How did the hon. member for Yeoville describe this same Gen. Van den Bergh about whom they have such a lot to say today—as being the man who knows everything about the Information incident? Let me read it to hon. members. This refers to the same Gen. Van den Bergh who has now to give such vital evidence. He said this about him (Hansard, col. 214, 8 December 1978)—

That is right. That is true.

Yes, the hon. member should tell his colleagues what he thinks about Gen. Van den Bergh. He must tell us that he has good reason to agree with the Erasmus Commission.

He has committed a crime. That is why he must be charged.

The hon. member must tell us that he has good reason to agree with the Erasmus Commission as to the latter’s evaluation of the evidence of Gen. Van den Bergh. [Interjections.] The best proof of the fact that the official Opposition are attacking the very core of the Erasmus Commission— not only in respect of a finding here and there—and that they are departing from the traditional acknowledgment of the objectivity, authority and bona fides of a judicial commission, is to be found in their reaction to the motion moved by the hon. the Prime Minister in respect of the Address to the State President. They would do well to read paragraph 10.336 of the commission’s report once again. They will read there the commission’s finding regarding our present State President and his evidence. They should also read what they have said here today themselves and what they have even said outside to the Press. Then they will realize that they are attacking the objectivity of the commission and questioning the bona fides of the Erasmus Commission.

That is why we want to tell them in the clearest of terms that we are prepared to expose the Information incident to the very bone. That is also why we appointed the commission. That is also why the Pretorius Committee is busy with its investigations and that is also why the Police are busy, on the basis of the interim report, investigating possible charges that may be laid against Dr. Eschel Rhoodie. That is why every finding and all the evidence that becomes available indicating that somebody has committed a crime will be subject to a police investigation and followed up by legal action. However, we are not prepared to sacrifice the important principles of the maintenance of the tradition relating to the discretion of an Attorney-General and of the acceptance and recognition—with respect—of the authority, the objectivity and the honesty and integrity of a judicial commission and to go ahead in that way simply because the hon. Opposition, for the sake of political gain, has blown up an incident to crisis proportions far beyond reason. As a matter of fact, these principles are fundamental to the rule of law which they advocate. I should like them, by way of argument, to prove to us that the rule of law will be safeguarded if we cease to maintain the authority of the judiciary and the sanctity of the discretion of the Attorney-General.

That is why it is our responsibility, alongside with what we have to do in connection with the Information question, to maintain the rule of law. We too believe in it and we shall continue along the road on which we have embarked.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Justice owes the House an explanation. He told us that the Attorney-General of the Transvaal had told him that he did not want to institute a prosecution against me because I had already said in Parliament what I was supposed to have said outside. It was impossible for the Attorney-General to have told him that. The meeting which I addressed was held on 22 November 1978 and Parliament then met on 7 December. [Interjections.] The simple fact is that I know the law. I did not contravene the law and the Attorney-General simply did not have a case. [Interjections.]

I shall inform the Attorney-General that he may prosecute you! [Interjections.]

I am also going to reply to the question of the Attorney-General and of Gen. Van den Bergh which was raised by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications but, I want first of all to address a few words to the hon. the Prime Minister.

I remember that Dr. A. L. Geyer, a former editor of Die Burger and later South Africa’s High Commissioner in London, when he was chairman of the old Sabra often issued the warning that no policy would ever succeed in our country if it did not have the co-operation of those population groups that were affected by it. Of course, over the years there have been other intellectual leaders who adopted the same standpoint, for example, church and academic leaders, who stressed it just as strongly. I think time will show that the real tragedy of the past 30 years has been the fact that one Prime Minister and political leader after the other has disregarded this fundamental truth and has followed a policy in terms of which one population group in this plural society of ours has governed everybody without consensus and often without consultation with others. At the moment there are signs—it is still no more than that but there are indications—that the present Prime Minister will have a different approach. I want to tell him immediately that this is welcomed, but I hope that he will be careful not to raise false hopes. The first signs came in the final negotiations on the question of South West Africa.

†What has happened is in fact deeply significant. On 11 July 1970 the International Court of Justice at The Hague at the request of the United Nations gave an advisory opinion on the international status of South West Africa. The thrust of that opinion was—

The United Nations as a body accepted the opinion. We, together with the Soviet Union and the Communist Block, rejected it. That is where the dispute really started and from where it was carried on for 28½ years. What has now happened, is that the Government have shot back over the wasted period of 28½ years to the point where the dispute started and have corrected their posture. In a few weeks’ time United Nations troops and personnel will be arriving in the territory, thereby assuring that South West Africa’s change of status to independence becomes sponsored jointly by South Africa and the United Nations.

I am satisfied that the hon. the Prime Minister and particularly the Minister of Foreign Affairs who had to conduct most of the difficult bargaining, handled the final stages of the negotiations with the United Nations in a manner which is in the best interests of South Africa and the future of Namibia, and I want to give them credit for that. But I seriously hope that the Government will stick to the principles adopted, and while requiring others to do the same, they will not allow any breakdown on matters of lesser importance.

Secondly I wish to express the hope that once the Government’s co-operation with the United Nations on the very intricate matter of South West Africa has been successfully concluded, the Government will in the interests of South Africa follow up the effort immediately and try to seek a better understanding as far as relations between our country and the United Nations are concerned. We can discuss this matter more fully later in the session. In the global struggle which is now spilling over on to the continent of Africa we as a country and a people have a duty to place ourselves in a position of relevant influence and to go all out to seek partnership with the West, accommodation with Africa and wider understanding with the United Nations.

*We have also had positive sounds from the hon. the Prime Minister on the question of consolidation. Here again there has been a welcome vault back to the Tomlinson Commission over 24 wasted years. I welcome this new thinking but the hon. the Prime Minister will find that he will have to think more broadly. The old colonies which made up the Union of South Africa were carved out just as arbitrarily as any of the old colonial states in Africa.

In this connection we have already had to make certain adjustments as we did last year in the matter of Griqualand East. The best alternative would be to redraw the map of the Republic of South Africa and indicate our new provinces or states on it. If that is done there is no reason why some territories could not be built round the core areas which are known as homelands. They could still be given the right to become independent in terms of the provisions of the present policy but it is better for people to be left where they are so that there will be no large-scale removal of people. In any case, such a process is not worth the expense; it takes a long time and would be economically impossible for South Africa to implement. What we can do is to give people the assurance that if they find themselves in a state or province which is to be separated from South Africa, they will be given the option to transfer to South Africa if they so desire, and in such a case they can, where necessary, be compensated. However, I hope that later in the session we will be given the opportunity to discuss this matter more fully.

Linked to the hon. the Prime Minister’s indication of a new political style to be followed there is also a negative aspect. The hon. the Prime Minister has allowed this negative element to overshadow the good in the new approach. In this regard I refer to the Government scandal in connection with the former Department of Information. We find it inexplicable that the hon. the Prime Minister has not applied himself more to breaking down and eradicating this stigma on our national image once and for all. In the days of our childhood, a horrible dose of castor oil was often prescribed for the whole family. This was followed by a day-long, fierce purgation and after that everybody felt clean and well again. [Interjections.] In his speech on the Day of the Covenant last year, Judge Erasmus deplored the corruption which had been revealed in the administration of this country. He said—

It is regrettable and every South African deplores the incidents. But history has shown that this sort of thing happens when a Government arrogates too much power. However, the problem is that the affair is not being set to rights and we will not achieve a situation of clean administration until the whole purgative has been applied and the full scope of the scandal has been revealed. It is useless for the Government to imagine that certain facts will remain secret for all time. People are going to speak to defend themselves and to try to conceal something will only prolong the pain, aggravate the damage and delay a final settlement of the matter.

In this regard I should like to refer to the spectacle that has developed around Gen. Hendrik van den Bergh. As a result of the decision of the Attorney-General of the Transvaal not to prosecute Gen. Van den Bergh and the fact that the Government has condoned that decision, the position of the Erasmus Commission has been prejudiced. Gen. Van den Bergh has put the commission in the dock and the commission is now suspect. This did not occur because of a remark on our part but because of what Gen. Van den Bergh said. I wonder if all hon. members are fully aware of all that Gen. Van den Bergh actually had to say. He was not just letting off steam. Apart from various press conferences he held he also issued a typed document consisting of eight pages in which he replied point for point to the Commission’s findings in regard to himself. In it he cast doubt on the integrity, the fact-finding, the authority and the impartiality and competence of the commission. We all know that the commission had very little time at their disposal and worked under great pressure, but I regret to have to say that if one takes Gen. Van den Bergh’s document point for point and compares it with the Erasmus Commission, the Commission definitely comes off second best.

Subsequently the Attorney-General of the Transvaal dealt the commission another blow. In one of the two reasons the Attorney-General gave as to why he did not want to prosecute Gen. Van den Bergh, he made the following amazing statement. He said that he had studied the evidence before the commission in full and if certain evidence were to be made public—and he did not say whose—“then the correctness of certain findings of the Erasmus Commission might be disputed”. In other words, there could be some doubt and he apparently wanted to avoid that. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that I cannot see how the Government or the commission can simply leave this matter there because if the Government allows the allegations of Gen. Van den Bergh to remain of record undisputed, this commission will have no honourable choice but to resign immediately and to ask the Government to appoint another commission in its place. So the matter must be cleared up.

There are two ways in which the matter can be cleared up if the hon. the Minister of Justice does not wish to interfere. Gen. Van den Bergh’s wishes could be complied with and he could be brought before the court. If he is brought to court, he will himself explain why he accused the commission of mistakes and we can then all be sure as to who is speaking the truth. There is a second method. The Erasmus Commission and the hon. the Prime Minister must place the evidence heard by the commission in its entirety before Parliament. After all, that is the custom of every court in the country—that the evidence submitted to it is made available so that every member of the public …

Have we become a court now?

No, but a court is a higher body than a commission. It is the policy of our courts to make available the evidence given before them so that every member of the public is free to test a magistrate’s or judge’s decision in terms of the evidence adduced. There is not a single reason, apart from political consideration, why this should not apply in the case of the Erasmus Commission. Shortly after the commission had started its proceedings, Judge Erasmus promised publicly that he would not hide a single fact laid before him. But unfortunately this has not happened now. What other facts are there which have come before the commission apart from the evidence? The evidence constitutes the facts; there are no other facts. Early in December last year he gave a further undertaking in regard to this matter and announced that all the evidence given before him would be made available to all members of Parliament before this session of Parliament. It was also reported—

At that stage neither of them considered it to be a question of national interest. The hon. the Prime Minister was in agreement, and now suddenly we are told that it is in the national interest not to disclose certain evidence. Unfortunately, the phrase “national interest” has been flogged to death and no one believes in it any longer. “National security” is another phrase which is used regularly in cover-up actions. It is striking that in this instance the Attorney-General of the Transvaal did not suggest that national security would be affected in any way should Gen. Van den Bergh talk freely in court. All that he decided was that it would not be in the national interest. That is a purely political concept and I want to issue the warning that this is a dangerous concept that has been profounded by a man in the position of the Attorney-General, namely that the national interest in a political sense has now become a reason why a man can challenge the law without being punished. We must reject this and Parliament will have to give earnest consideration to it. The immediate question is why those people who up until recently were prepared to make all the evidence available to members of Parliament, have suddenly found that it is not in the national interest to do so. My view is that people undeservedly occupying high posts are being protected, while the small foxes are being used as scapegoats and hunted down.

In pursuance of Gen. Van den Bergh’s document, I have once again considered the commission’s report in great detail and very carefully, and I am struck again by the responsibility which rested on the former Prime Minister for the irregularities which took place in the country’s administration. The decision that provision should be made for secret funds for the former Department of Information in the Department of Defence’s budget came from him. That was an irregular, illegal action. There was no legal provision by means of appropriation funds could be transferred secretly from one department to the other. [Interjections.] The result was that this Parliament was misled in a calculated manner because of the conduct of the former Prime Minister. To use the words of the chief of the Defence Force, Gen. Magnus Malan … [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member say Parliament had been misled in a calculated manner as a result of the actions of the Prime Minister?

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member may not say that.

Well, Sir, if I am not allowed to say it I shall withdraw it. [Interjections.] I shall say it outside. Now I come to the words of Gen. Malan. He said that in effect the Prime Minister expected his Minister of Defence, who is now Prime Minister—and this appears in the report—to stand up in a budget debate in this House and “onwaarhede voor te dra ten einde addisionele fondse te bekom”.

And he did so.

And the Minister of Defence objected “heftig en aanhoudend” to Mr. Vorster and Dr. Diederichs, then Minister of Finance, about this arrangement, obviously because the hon. the Minister of Defence knew that it was not only a serious irregularity but was also extremely unethical. Personally I think the hon. the Minister of Defence should have made stronger objections although he did in fact protest. At least he protested.

It is a fine thing to shoot at a man who is not in the House.

But on the instructions of the Prime Minister this thing continued for four long years, and eventually an amount of R64 million was channelled in a misleading way as far as Parliament was concerned from the Department of Defence to the Bureau for State Security, and from there to Information. Of course the Prime Minister knew that the Defence Special Account could not be audited by the Auditor-General, and this is my reply to the reproach of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications that we should be honest in the attitude we adopt today. More than anybody else the Prime Minister had the fullest, in fact the whole responsibility to ensure that the funds which he arranged and which in terms of his arrangement went to the Department of Information, were properly controlled. Mr. Vorster’s most important henchman, Gen. Van den Bergh, worked for two decades directly under the Prime Minister. On the other hand there was Dr. Connie Mulder who was his Minister. The responsibility rested on him as Prime Minister to consult Dr. Mulder if in fact Dr. Mulder did not consult him which, of course, I do not believe.

You believe only what you choose to believe.

Yes, of course I believe what I choose. I read and draw my own conclusions. [Interjections.] The facts are there!

You are hitting at a man who is not here. [Interjections.]

Order!

These people had to go to the Prime Minister for funds. Nobody else could provide the funds. Every man of importance involved in the drama has testified that the Prime Minister was informed. According to the Erasmus Commission’s report, in 1976, i.e. long before he got into trouble, Dr. Rhoodie advised officials in his department in writing that certain documents had to be destroyed. He said openly in a circular that the instruction to destroy them came from the Prime Minister, and this was confirmed by Gen. Van den Bergh.

As far as The Citizen is concerned, Dr. Mulder testified that Mr. Vorster was fully informed about the plan and the way in which it was implemented. Gen. Van den Bergh stated categorically—and I quote from an interview he had with Die Transvaler on 8 December 1978—that Mr. Vorster—

He is prepared to repeat this in court under oath.

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

Unfortunately, my time has almost expired. [Interjections.] All right then, put the question— my time has so to speak expired.

I want to ask the hon. member on what grounds he now accepts the evidence of people like Gen. Van den Berg and Rhoodie while the chairman of the commission has rejected it and has motivated his reasons.

Sir, the hon. the Minister is now making a speech. My point is that not a single piece of evidence by the former Prime Minister appears in the commission’s report. But there is a lot of evidence from others. The fact is that this dispute exists and these allegations have been made and there are people who quite rightly feel bitter that they are being made the only scapegoats and have to pay the price—I refer to Connie Mulder and others—while they know that they did not stand alone. All that we want is that justice should prevail and the evidence should be made available so that we can judge who spoke the truth and who did not speak the truth. I want to conclude.

Stick your knife in his back. His back is unprotected.

We know that Mr. Jan Haak managed his department very well. Nevertheless he was put out of the Cabinet because he became involved in a Land Bank loan for his son. Mr. Vorster put him out. There was also Mr. Dirkie Uys who was put out of the Cabinet because some of his officials became involved in the Agliotti scandal.

No.

Yes, Sir, and who put him out? Mr. Vorster put him out.

He resigned.

Dr. Connie Mulder was asked to resign. I do not dispute the right of the hon. Minister to do so. I think it was unavoidable. He applied the principle that a man responsible for a department in which a scandal had occurred had to be put out, and all I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister is whether as Prime Minister he is going to ensure that this principle will always be applied from the highest to the lowest, and whether he will apply double standards.

In conclusion I want to say that the hon. the Prime Minister has still not expressed himself unequivocally in regard to a matter which should enjoy the highest priority in politics, viz. the removal of all discrimination on the basis of race and colour which is laid down in our legislation. I do not want to remind the House again of the undertaking which the Government gave the Security Council in 1974 because I think we all know about it. The promise was made that the Government would do everything in its power to move away from discrimination on the basis of colour and race. We would like to see the hon. the Prime Minister, apart from the other good attitudes he has adopted, give a clear decision in this regard, because there is nothing that is more important or deserves higher priority than the removal of discrimination. All our international and national problems revolve around this. In South West Africa a complete polarization between White and Black has been avoided in the political sphere for just one reason, viz. that the White Leaders, the Whites under the leadership of Mr. Dirk Mudge, told the Blacks unequivocally that they would see to it that discrimination would be removed. Had it not been for this, the DTA would never have come into being and there would never have been an understanding between the Whites and the Blacks in South West Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister will also find that in spite of any attempts he might make to create a better climate for negotiations with the Coloureds, the Indians and the Black population groups, everything will depend on how strongly he binds himself to the removal of all apartheid measures. He will find that he cannot build new constitutional laws on the old discriminatory laws. Because this is a matter of the highest priority, I sincerely hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will make an unequivocal statement in this regard. The greatest service he could do South Africa would be to make this his chief priority. If commissions have to be appointed to investigate how new policy is to be arrived at, there is none more necessary than a commission, possibly one made up of members of this Parliament or other experts, to begin immediately to consider how we can cleanse our legislation of all discrimination on the basis of race and colour.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s unpleasant—I know I may not use a stronger word—attack on the former Prime Minister I could come to only one conclusion and that is that if there is one family in South Africa that drastically needs a good dose of castor oil it is that lot sitting there. We should then also perhaps have a cleaner political scene in South Africa. However, I shall leave his attack at that because I am aware that the hon. member will be answered very effectively by the hon. the Prime Minister.

The hon. member also referred to the reply to the report of the commission drawn up by Gen. Van den Bergh, but did the hon. member make any comment when the executive committee of Nusas drew up a very lengthy reply to a certain report of the Schlebusch Commission a few years ago? In that reply, far worse things were said than Gen. Van den Bergh could ever have considered saying in answer to the report of the Erasmus Commission. At that time not a word was heard from the Progs and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. A commission of inquiry appointed by the State President is subject to a certain Act and certain regulations, irrespective of whether a judge or someone else is its chairman. Whoever is appointed as a commissioner or as other members of such a commission, the status of such commissions and the laws applicable to them are exactly the same.

We in South Africa, however, are experiencing today the spectacle that the official Opposition, who are not even concerned with the things that Gen. Van den Bergh says and are not even affected thereby, have launched a public campaign to have Gen. Van den Bergh prosecuted and then, because the Attorney-General decided not to prosecute him, even appointed legal advisers to advise them whether they may institute a private prosecution. Have we in South Africa ever experienced anything so ridiculous—that a party which has not even suffered detriment wishes to institute a private prosecution? We then experienced the further spectacle that certain young Progs began arranging for all the retired old ladies they could find in the town to sit in the streets with petitions to be signed to have Gen. Van den Bergh prosecuted. Does Gen. Van den Bergh, as my hon. colleague here next to me said, have the right to be prosecuted? This is the spectacle we are witnessing. I had not thought that we in South Africa would live to see the day that we would have to experience such folly, namely that people go and sit on pavements with petitions they want signed in order to have someone prosecuted irrespective of the particular merits of the case.

I shall furnish evidence of the points of view adopted and things said by members of the PFP in and outside the House and by their public media. The hon. member for Houghton even said that she would be prepared to break the law. She sides with the transgressors of the law. Let our party put on record some of these things too.

In 1974 the Students’ Representative Council of the University of Cape Town passed a motion at a mass meeting. In the motion the following was said of a commission of inquiry appointed by the State President—

The chairman of Nusas—also a little Prog— said the following—

Thereafter he referred to the report as a biassed, second-rate melodramatic thriller. A second little Prog said—

This is a commission appointed by the State President, but she says she is not impressed by the trick produced out of his hat by Mr. Vorster; students can think for themselves and do not require the opinions of “big daddies”. The Sunday Times says under the heading “Schlebuschniks in wonderland of Nusas”—

Then they say further—

Gen. Van den Bergh is a child in comparison with these people as far as his assertions are concerned. What, however, does the hon. Leader of the Opposition say? The hon. Leader of the Opposition says in To the Point of 26 June 1975—

Look what they did to Beyers Naudé.

This was a commission appointed by the State President. A Prog lawyer, advocate Ernst Wentzel, said—

This is also a State President’s commission and thereafter also this Parliament which ordered certain action.

And is this not a different Act to the one at that time?

A member of the Nusas committee, Mr. Ainslie, said the following

You are misleading the House.

All this was supported by the Progs; everything was supported by the hon. members sitting there on the other side.

Order! What did the hon. member for Yeoville say?

I said the hon. member was misleading the House.

Does the hon. member mean that the hon. the Minister purposely misled the House?

No. I used the words “he is misleading the House”, but I did not use the word “purposely”. I said he is misleading the House. What happened was that the law was changed.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I shall ignore the hon. member. That is all we can do with him. Another member of the PFP, Mr. Ainslie, said the following—

In connection with the Wilgerspruit Report the following is said—

The Rand Daily Mail writes as follows—

Then I refer to The Cape Times, the hon. members’ mouthpieces. The Cape Times says—

It goes on to say—

Then the hon. member for Houghton says in a public meeting in the Durban city hall—

Of course, that is absolutely correct!

With reference to the Government, the hon. member for Houghton says, equally articulately—

Furthermore, according to another report the hon. member says—

Ask them if they wish to avail themselves of their right to be charged.

Yes, do those hon. members on the other side wish to avail themselves of their right to be charged? Now I shall give the hon. member for Houghton an example of why she ought to tell us whether she wishes to avail herself of that right. In this House, on 3 April 1973, the hon. member for Houghton said the following with reference to the members of a State President’s Commission—(Hansard, Vol. 43, col. 41)—

Later in the same speech the hon. member says—

Later in the same speech she repeats—

This is the example which the hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members—amongst others also the hon. Leader of the Opposition—and all the mouthpieces and members of their party, set this land. Now, however, they are the people who are making a spectacle in South Africa by having people sit on street-comers to have petitions signed for the prosecution of Gen. Van den Bergh, irrespective of the merits of the allegations he made and whether he may be prosecuted or not I believe the sooner the Opposition stops harping on this string, the sooner we have done with this attempt by the Opposition to hang the Information scandal around the neck of the Government as long as it suits them, the better. I want to put it to them that the Government does not intend to allow the Opposition to decide how long they wish to hang something around our necks. We also do not intend to allow them to dictate how long this debate will have any merit or not. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I, too, do not intend spending all the time at my disposal in this debate on it.

I now wish to come to the third leg of the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, namely that the Government is not moving away from discrimination or from points of friction. He states it as follows—

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also asks that the Government remove all discrimination. In fact, he chastises the Government for not having yet removed all discrimination at this stage. What, however, is the hon. Opposition’s own view regarding the removal of discrimination, as is clearly shown in the recent policy document published by the PFP? Their own view is the following—

This is the PFP, when they come into power. This is not the NP Government. Furthermore the hon. member’s policy document says the following in regard to a PFP Government—

They know that they will not come to power in a 100 years. That is why they say such things.

Exactly. What however, does the NP Government do? This Government is in fact systematically doing just that. We do not just say it. We state it as our policy. It has already repeatedly been said by the hon. the Prime Minister, and by the previous Prime Minister. This is the express policy of the NP. We do not merely say it, but we do it too.

Allow me to refer to certain examples. What is the Government not doing in regard to areas of friction and/or discrimination and/ or labour relations? We are all looking forward with great expectations to the reports of the Wiehahn Commission and the Riekert Commission. Then too there is the sphere of education, another sphere in which the Government has outstanding achievements to its credit. Here, too, the Government has removed all possible bottlenecks and forms of discrimination. I am referring to Coloured as well as Indian and Black education. The Government indeed has tremendous achievements to its credit in this regard. I refer, too, to what has been done in the field of sport. Are hon. members opposite seriously able to point a finger at the Government as far as sport and the removal of bottlenecks and/or discrimination and/or areas of friction in this area are concerned?

Let us look at the Defence Force. Long before it was done in Rhodesia, the S.A. Defence Force appointed Black and/or Coloured officers to its ranks. In the S.A. Police some of these officers have already attained a reasonably high rank, senior officers with senior ranks. Our prison service has excellent achievements to its credit in this area. The Government is insolved in all these matters. I am not referring to private bodies.

Let us also look at Government buildings, the post offices, the magistrate’s offices and other public buildings, and also at the Railways buildings. Note specifically the magistrate’s office in Durban, a beautiful building where no distinction is drawn between the races. As regards access to the building and its use, there is in no respect any distinction between the races. Then too there is the No. 1 Military Hospital in Wynberg. Those hon. members need only go to a little trouble and take a look at what the Government is doing in these matters. [Interjections.]

Order!

If it is true that the Government is not doing so much in regard to these matters, how do we then so readily explain that between 1971 and 1977, in the professional and technical professions, there was an increase of 71% in the number of Coloureds, 65% in the number of Asiatics and 49% in the number of Black people? These are indeed opportunities offered to these people by means of which they are able to achieve great things. To me, however, the question is still what hon. members opposite are doing in this terrain. The State has fine achievements to its credit. What, however, are the hon. members opposite doing in this terrain?

Mr. Speaker, do you know what they are doing? Do you know where the dialogue stops? We must speak to each other reasonably. We did, after all, grow up together and do indeed know one another. Then, for want of a further study and for want of further discourse, it is said that we should abolish the colour laws, the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act. Then we have finished discussing discrimination. With regard to the two Acts mentioned I can tell those hon. members here and now that they will not be abolished.

Why not? [Interjections.]

This is unfortunately the dialogue in South Africa. Those hon. members are so quick to point a finger at the Government. However, let us just look at the Coloured population and at the priorities set by this group. We need only look at the report of the Erika Theron Commission to ascertain this. According to that report the priorities to which the Government should immediately give its attention—not according to the decision of the commission, but according to the evidence submitted to the Erika Theron Commission by the Coloured population—are primarily housing, land, public facilities and services. In the second instance it is the improvement of their financial position, higher wages and a lower cost of living. Thirdly, it is the curbing of crime and social disruption and fourthly, political and civil rights. In the fifth place it is education and training, in the sixth place working conditions and opportunities, and finally, segregation, discrimination and so-called petty apartheid. These are the priorities. However, when one listens to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, one would swear that discrimination is absolutely priority No. 1 in South Africa. After all, that is not so. Major problems, regarded as such particularly by the urban Coloured, are the following—to indicate only the first six: Housing, crime with special reference to the skolly problem, telephones, police protection, public toilets and wages. The leadership corps see the following major problems in order of priority: Public toilets—we do not need to laugh about that; it is very serious—community halls, restaurants and café facilities, neat streets and pavements, sporting facilities, housing and hotel accommodation. These are the immediate problems which the Coloureds are asking the Government to attend to immediately or as soon as possible.

Nor is discrimination the only priority among the Black population. The question may be asked whether the Opposition have recently gone to the trouble to try to ascertain what the number one priority is even among the urban population. It would be found that discrimination is not the top priority of these people. The top priorities, on the basis of their discussions with us, are community councils, the unnecessary delay in implementing certain essential things in their areas, shortage of schools, beautification of pavements, suffocation in smog—here Soweto is an important example—inadequate sporting facilities, vagrancy, equal salaries, discourteous treatment, discrimination in clothing shops—not discrimination on the part of the Government, but in fact where Black people may not try on clothes in clothing shops …

Why do you not do something about that?

… inadequate shelter at bus stops, Black education and Training. They also speak to us—particularly the people of Soweto—about the Afrikaans and English Press which is putting the policy of the Government to them in an unfavourable and confusing light. [Interjections.] I can assure you that these people do not even consider it necessary to discuss the Immorality Act or the Mixed Marriages Act with the Government. What I have just mentioned are those things that are discussed with us when it comes to discrimination and points of friction.

I wish to conclude by saying that the Government has a fine record in regard to the one point on which the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is based. We have a record which we can debate with them for the rest of the week when it comes to the removal of points of friction and so-called discrimination as well as its application in practice. I would welcome it if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would argue with us about these things, because we have a fine case and it is becoming better.

If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition speaks to foreign visitors—not to people who have paid us a visit for the first time but over the last few years, say, people who have been here more than once over the last 10 to 12 years—he will not find one that will not comment in positive terms about the improvement of the relations situation and the alleviation of the state of tension in South Africa, and does not himself say that he encounters it at every turn in South Africa and is very pleased to learn about it.

What is very important in this regard, is that we should retain the initiative as far as these matters are concerned. We should also attempt to organize the initiative in these matters in the community. There, however, we have a problem because the hon. members and their people, as well as many of our people, expect that only the Government should do something in this regard. They think it is only the Government that should act. We should seriously ask our communities what they are doing in connection with these matters. What are they doing to keep this dialogue going? What are they doing to inform our other communities about what can be done, what cannot be done now and what can be done later, as well as about the reasons why certain things can be done in a particular way? It is no problem to do this; it is no problem to discuss it with these people. The hon. members should just take the trouble to ascertain what the relations committees are doing. The hon. members should just take the trouble to go and talk to the representatives of the different population groups, including our own people. In this way we can make a major contribution contribute in this sphere. However, I regret to say that all that is happening is that hon. members in this House are merely talking to their heart’s content and pointing a finger at discrimination, but that the dialogue reaches a dead end here, and the ideas are not put into effect outside. We on this side of the House are prepared to maintain the initiative we already have. We are prepared to continue with this dialogue and to stimulate it still further. We are prepared to act in a fair and Christian manner to remove points of friction and so-called discrimination. The hon. the Prime Minister, his predecessors, members of the Cabinet and hon. members on this side of the House have repeatedly said that we will not hide behind obsolete colour prejudice. In this regard I can refer to examples which show that the Government is not hiding behind obsolete colour prejudice. One is the Nico Malan. I could go on to mention examples of what has happened in my own constituency and also in other places. We shall proceed at a responsible pace and shall continue in a responsible manner with the work that is being done.

Mr. Speaker, any person would have been reasonably entitled to expect that the hon. the Minister who has just resumed his seat, would have utilized the opportunity given to him—being the former Deputy Minister of Information—to provide some answers to this House regarding the activities of that particular department. He was, after all, the Deputy Minister of Dr. Connie Mulder at a certain stage. We would like to know whether he had, at any given time, been informed about what his Minister was doing in his department, whether he had any knowledge about what was happening in the Department of Information or whether he is, like the hon. Minister of Finance, just another Minister who says: “I know nothing about nothing”. In other words, must we accept that he is one of those totally uninformed Ministers who knows nothing about anything and who is not prepared to provide any information to this House? I think it is remarkable that the hon. Minister did not utilize the opportunity to provide some of the answers which this House and South Africa would so desperately like to have.

The man who should really face up to the full responsibility of this whole sordid mess has been sitting in his seat in a bemused frame of mind and not attending to the debate at all, and I wonder whether he will participate in the debate during the following four days in order to provide the answers which he failed to provide on the previous occasion. The hon. the Prime Minister is really the man in the dock in this particular debate and not so much the Government of South Africa. This is not a no-confidence debate that conforms to the normal characteristics of the no-confidence debates of the past where the full performance of the Government was under discussion. In this particular debate the hon. the Prime Minister is the man in the dock, the man of whom it is expected to provide answers, to take action and to restore the trust and confidence of South Africa in the Government. Sooner or later he will have to, whether he likes it or not, face up to the dilemmas with which he is confronted. At the moment, in this particular debate, he is being confronted with two very big dilemmas. The first of these is a short-term dilemma—at least I hope it will turn out to be a short-term dilemma—and it depends upon the hon. the Prime Minister whether it will be a short-term dilemma or not. It depends on whether he is, for once and for all, going to display the courage and the sense of responsibility by answering the questions that are being put to him, as one would expect a Prime Minister to do. He should answer the questions rather than sit there in a bemused frame of mind and, when the opportunity comes to answer the questions, not to use it.

What is the debate about the Information scandal all about? It deals with the most gigantic tissue of lies, of deceit and theft of public money that has been experienced in the Western World and the Government is directly responsible for it. [Interjections.] The Government is responsible for these crimes, but it refuses to face up to its responsibility by facing South Africa and by setting South Africa’s mind at ease. Later in my speech I shall deal with a second and long-term dilemma which concerns finding a constitutional structure acceptable to all South Africa’s peoples, one that will ensure justice, peace and progress for our country. I mention it at this stage for a very specific reason, i.e. that it would be absolutely futile and pointless for the hon. the Prime Minister to come to Parliament with ideas and proposals for improving race relations in South Africa, no matter how good these new ideas might be, until he has finally and satisfactorily resolved the first dilemma, i.e. the Information scandal. I wish the hon. the Prime Minister would listen. I do not know whether he only hears with his left ear, but I wish he would listen and accept this as an absolute fact. It does not help to come with good ideas. It does not help to come with new policies under circumstances where the whole of South Africa has lost trust in the Government and where the entire South African nation has no more confidence in the Government. They believe that this Government is rotten to the core, dishonest and incapable of honest government. If the Government wants to come with good ideas and with positive new policies, then it has to regain the trust and confidence of the South African nation in the first place. At this point in time the South African nation just does not trust the Government and they have very good reasons not to trust them.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member implies the Government is dishonest by repeatedly stating that the Government is guilty of an offence. You have noticed that he is repeatedly accusing the Government of an offence. Is he entitled to make such a statement?

Order! I think that the hon. member is going too far. I did not quite follow whether the words used by the hon. member imply that or whether he was quoting from newspapers. In any event, the hon. member is going too far and must moderate his language.

Mr. Speaker, let me try to put it in perspective. If the events that surround the Information scandal are not accurately, technically and in every other way described by calling them lies, deceit and theft of public money and if this Government is not responsible for those lies, deceit and theft of public money then I would be wrong in what I have said. But I say that the Government is directly responsible for what has happened and therefore they have to take the blame for what has happened and they have to face up to that responsibility.

Order! I have already ruled on a previous occasion that it is not a matter of whether anything that is averred is true or not. It is a matter of whether it is parliamentary to use words like those, and I think that the hon. member cannot say what he has just said.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If theft or an act of dishonesty has occurred—not the Government having stolen money, but merely an act of dishonesty—and there is a responsibility for the people who have committed that act, I submit that the hon. member is referring to a responsibility on the part of the Government, which is a political responsibility and, with respect, Sir, that is parliamentary.

Order! The hon. member has not referred to the people who were responsible. The hon. member is referring directly to the Government. To that extent I rule that he is not entitled to use those words.

Mr. Speaker, then I withdraw the words, although I was under the impression that the former Minister of Information was a member of the Government.

Did he himself steal?

It happened in his department and he should accept full responsibility for it. In fact, the entire Government should accept responsibility for it, including the former Prime Minister.

†When the present hon. Prime Minister decided to have a special session of Parliament to deal with the report of the Erasmus Commission, he on the part of the Government, gave a number of undertakings to South Africa and they were given in a very dramatic way. I remember them very well. I remember the hon. the Prime Minister on that occasion, looking rather pathetic on television, saying that they would look South Africa in the eye, that they would expose all and cover nothing up and that they would hide nothing from the South African nation. They spoke of honouring Parliament and allowing Parliament to fulfil its role. They spoke about allowing justice to take its course and about anybody who was in any way responsible being brought to justice. That was the atmosphere that the hon. the Prime Minister created when he called the special session of Parliament. I think the whole of South Africa believed that the new Prime Minister was in fact going to do just that: That he was going to face South Africa, that he was going to expose all the machinations of the former Department of Information, that he was going to open up that sore and allow it to drain and that he was not going to hide anything. Those were the assurances which he gave to South Africa as the new Prime Minister. I think that we all accepted his words at face value.

However, what has happened since that statement by the hon. the Prime Minister? What has happened since he gave those undertakings to South Africa? Let us look at what has happened. He has not met one of those undertakings. He has not met one of the basic requirements which are needed to restore public confidence and trust in the Government. What has happened? After all the hon. the Prime Minister was the person who called that special session of Parliament to deal specifically with the report of the Erasmus Commission and—I think everybody believed—to fully answer the substantial, valid questions which were put to him. But what happened? After two days of debate and after spending an hour slinging invectives across the floor of the House at the people who had asked the questions, the hon. the Prime Minister sat down without having answered one of the really substantial questions which had been put to him across the floor of the House. What a total disrespect of Parliament! What a total negation of the whole concept of Parliament, not done by one of the back-benchers of the NP, but by the new Prime Minister, the person who had given those wonderful undertakings and to whom the whole of South Africa looked to clear up the matter. The hon. the Prime Minister in fact negated the whole purpose of that debate, negated the whole spirit of Parliament and failed in his duty towards South Africa by not answering those questions.

What has happened about the evidence that was heard by the Erasmus Commission? What has happened to the undertaking that was given that that evidence would be furnished to Parliament before this session? None of that evidence was made available, and it now appears that that evidence will never be made available. We would like to know the reason why. We can only surmise that the Government is petrified and terrified of the evidence that was led before the commission because that evidence may indicate more clearly than it already has the complicity and responsibility of the Government for the sordid crimes that took place as part of the Information scandal. [Interjections.] You are afraid to publish that evidence because you know that evidence will indict you before the people of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, there has been just one continuous sordid cover-up. The Government is not prepared to face the facts, they are not prepared to face South Africa and are resorting to a continuous, sordid cover-up of the facts. Under these circumstances, Parliament…

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order! …

Order! I really think the hon. member should moderate his language.

Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to moderate my language and to put the truth in a slightly different way. Parliament is struggling in the dark to fulfil its role. Parliament’s role is a role of responsibility towards the people of South Africa. Parliament must establish the facts, examine the facts, assess and judge those facts and take action on the basis of those facts on behalf of the people of South Africa. That is after all the democratic responsibility of this Parliament. Can this Parliament do so if the facts are withheld from it? Can this Parliament do this if it is subjected to a cover-up and does not have the opportunity of examining all the facts? This Government is frustrating and negating the very purpose for which Parliament exists, which is to serve the best interests of South Africa as a whole.

What about the prosecutions? They can say what they like on the other side of the House, but South Africa and the world believe that the rapid prosecution of the Rand Daily Mail is nothing else but intimidation and persecution. They can say that that is not so; they can deny it and they can stand on their heads, but South Africa and the world believe that their action in prosecuting the Rand Daily Mail and refusing to prosecute all the other persons who are responsible in this matter, is nothing else but intimidation and persecution of the worst possible order.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that he as Prime Minister must take the whole responsibility—not part of it, but the whole responsibility—for this entire affair because he is at the head of the Government in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister must take the whole responsibility for the fact that there is a cover-up of the facts and of this whole situation. If you do not do so, Mr. Prime Minister, then I am afraid that you are going to find that this thing is going to blow up in your face. I want to ask you …

Address the Chair!

Mr. Speaker, everybody says I must address the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member repeatedly accuse the Government of being engaged in a cover-up while this is not true?

Order! I shall consider the matter and reserve my decision on the matter until tomorrow. However, I think the hon. member has raised a valid point of order. The hon. member for Bryanston may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, everybody has said I must address you, but you are not the man who has sinned. So it is very difficult to keep on addressing you instead of the people who have sinned, those people who are sitting on the other side of the House. I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister—maybe he will be prepared to answer—whether it is worth risking what remains of his credibility. I ask this very seriously, because the credibility of the hon. the Prime Minister has suffered very greatly.

Order! Is the hon. member suggesting that the hon. the Prime Minister, who is an hon. member of this House, has lost his credibility?

No, Mr. Speaker.

Why then does the hon. member speak about what “remains” of it? I think the hon. member must use other words.

The hon. the Prime Minister’s credibility has been severely damaged as a result of his actions. He is the man who undertook to do certain things and who is now to a large extent responsible for the fact that we do not have the evidence we should have had. It is the Government that is involved and one cannot separate the hon. the Prime Minister from the Government. One cannot say that the actions of the former Minister of Information, the Attorney-General of Transvaal and the hapless Minister of Justice, who has tried so valiantly to divest himself of responsibility, are not the responsibility of the hon. the Prime Minister. If the hon. the Prime Minister wants to be absolutely honest about it, he should admit that his credibility is suffering as a result of the Information scandal. It must suffer because a great deal of the evidence indicates that the hon. the Prime Minister has in fact been involved in the entire scandal, particularly in respect of defence funds. This has been said inside and outside this House and has been published through the length and breadth of the country. What does that do to his credibility? It must harm and damage his credibility. What then about South Africa’s credibility? Does the hon. the Prime Minister believe that the credibility of South Africa is worth risking in the way it has been risked? What about the credibility of our parliamentary system and of our courts? The credibility of our parliamentary system is being seriously questioned all over South Africa, by the Afrikaans Press and, in fact, all over the world. What about the credibility of our courts which has always been very high indeed? As a result of the actions of the Government, our courts are brought into disrepute.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member has stated that the credibility of this Parliament is being questioned. I want to submit that by his statement the hon. member has questioned the status and privileges of this House, and I should like to ask your ruling about it.

Order! Will the hon. member for Bryanston explain what he meant?

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that I questioned the credibility of Parliament. But if the hon. member would just walk around and ask the opinion of the public outside, he will know that the public is questioning this credibility.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member is interrupting. I have asked your ruling on the statement made by the hon. member by which he questioned the status of Parliament.

Order! I understood the point of order and have asked the hon. member for Bryanston what he meant.

Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to explain that I did not question the credibility of Parliament. I think that hon. member will agree that if one walks outside in the streets of South Africa one would hear that the public are questioning the credibility of our entire system in South Africa, our Parliament and our courts. [Interjections.] It is true. One can see it in the newspapers. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to address you on a point of order. The hon. member made a very clear statement, which he is now attempting to talk away, namely that the credibility of this House is being brought into question. I should like to submit to you, Sir, that in terms of the rules of this House the hon. member is not entitled to bring the status of Parliament into question. I should like your ruling on that.

Order! The hon. member did say words to that effect as far as I can recollect.

Mr. Speaker, I referred to the public of South Africa. The hon. member can ascertain that from my Hansard.

Order! That is not my recollection of what the hon. member has said, but if he says that that is not what he meant, I shall accept it.

When the hon. member for Von Brandis, whom I consider to be the Aristotle of the 20th century, questions me, I am afraid I must throw in the towel because I would not possibly try to argue a point with him.

I have one more question to put to the hon. the Prime Minister. I do not think he has listened to anything anybody has said earlier today.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. Minister should rather keep quiet, for when he was the secretary of the Broederbond, he was the very first person to call for an English-language newspaper which would support the NP. As secretary of the Broederbond he bears the responsibility for having been the very first to put forward that idea.

†I want to ask whether it is worth risking the credibility of the Prime Minister, of our judicial system, of our Parliament and of South Africa any further by continuing with the cover-up operation which has been launched and is being maintained in respect of the Information scandal. Is the hon. the Prime Minister doing this in order to protect the former Prime Minister from the consequences of his participation in this matter?

Mr. Speaker, in a no-confidence debate I believe it is appropriate to illustrate the confidence features of the opposing political parties. Consequently I want to ask what the party political profile is of the people on the chicken-run away from South Africa, those leaving our country and salting away nest-eggs elsewhere. [Interjections.] Which political party or parties were they supporting or consorting with? Where did they live before they left, in which constituencies represented in this House by which political parties?

The Progs.

The answer, or answers, could be of interest to enterprising journalists and to the hon. patriot of Yeoville. I hope that enterprising newspapers, e.g. the Sunday Times and Rapport, will undertake this research. I have no doubt in my mind about what the outcome will be. I believe that those who have left or are leaving our country or are salting away nest-eggs elsewhere, come from the ranks of the official Opposition.

I now want to look a little closer at the South African situation today and at the psychological war and psychological onslaught against us. There is evidence, still mostly below the surface, that we are beginning to win this war and overcome this onslaught against us. It is taking place against a background of shifting international powers. It is therefore even more tragic—I would say rather stupid—that at the very moment when we are beginning to win this war, or to see signs of winning this war, we seemed to be hell-bound on destroying everything we have achieved: our weaponry, our contacts and our many wonderful friends around the world who have been and are still co-operating with and working for us. Let me put it in big, bold capital letters like the Rand Daily Mail would do. Matters like theft, fraud, all kinds of dishonesty and negligence must always be dealt with efficiently and expeditiously. They can never be condoned. That I want to underline. We have no quarrel about that.

The Government has taken steps to do just that, but to keep on harping on the same string and repeating the obvious everlastingly to illustrate one’s holiness, one’s honesty, one’s lily-white hands—a term borrowed from the hon. member for Durban Point— seems insane, and that is exactly what it is.

It has not yet been said, at least not clearly and specifically enough, that the assessment of the old Department of Information must, of necessity, remain a one-sided affair. The losses, the failures and the mistakes have been hung out on the international and national washing lines so that everybody can see them. They have been exploited in every conceivable manner by the enemies of this country and by the Opposition. And because the Opposition has trouble with inefficiencies and a lack of cohesion, have problems with their own constitution and have no policy yet, they are hell-bound on squeezing every conceivable drop of political capital out of the situation.

Every idiot knows that in big operations one has islands of losses in oceans of profits. So what about the profitable ventures of the old Department of Information? What about their successes? Who can tell what would have happened to our country and to many of us if the work of that old Department of Information had never been done? A true assessment will undoubtedly never be a matter of public knowledge. Even those who know everything will find it difficult to place a true and proper evaluation on its work. The losses, they said, were R64 million, but were the profits not perhaps R640 million?

Never! Do you approve of the losses?

Doing practically nothing in life is a good ploy for a safe job and peace of mind in retirement, but in doing a lot of things, getting into the action, one is bound to make more mistakes.

In all humility, I wonder how many who were involved in the Department of Information debate know something about the art, the science and the magnitude of psychological warfare? I wonder how many people and organizations are being used without they themselves being aware of it?

Like the PFP.

I find that from around the world I get feedback from my friends saying: What is the matter with you South Africans? You seem to be falling over like little tin gods, exhibiting and destroying yourselves. Who is to deny that practically every other country of importance in the world has secret operations of great magnitude? Some estimate that the USA spends something like six to seven billion dollars a year on this kind of operation. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the devils are laughing at our antics and that the angels are weeping. This is not, I repeat, not, meant to defend the old department for its mistakes. It is meant to put the situation into the proper perspective.

It is now necessary for members of the Opposition to realize that they did not discover the mistakes, or whatever was wrong and still may be wrong. The State machinery did that. Perhaps one should inquire about the time factor, because I always believe that internal audits, all audits which cannot be kept fully up to date daily, are usually less than useless. So I do hope we shall all aspire in future to keep matters absolutely up to date.

But look at what happened in the situation from the legal angle. Look at the antics of the Opposition and see how laughable they are. When Judge Mostert did something they did like, the legal man became a holy man, a hero. But when Mr. Nöthling does something they do not like, suddenly overnight they change their religion and the Minister must intervene. Where is the logic in that?

It is now necessary for us to re-affirm—I want to stress the word “re-affirm”—our belief and faith in a free Press, and endeavour to make it more free—I repeat, “more free”—more truthfully informative, projecting also the right perspective. But, greater freedom must not mean a free licence to lie or distort.

We must also remember that lies or a distortion can be clothed in many disguises.

Why did you support Connie Mulder?

The screaming, big bold capital letter headline that conveys a different, often over-accentuated, over emotionalized image of the situation compared with the facts in the text of the article—that is a lie.

The correction of a big, bold, capital letter, honest, or not so honest, mistake by means of a small-print, back-page correction is also a lie. Only a few people see it.

Mixing fact and comment so that people cannot get down to the truth is also distortion.

Keeping quiet about matters which some editors, journalists or the establishment do not like, while splashing everything they do like, is also distortion, and there is a name for it. It is psychological manipulation of the facts. It is also called advocacy journalism. We must get away from that too.

There is also wilful party political and envy-inspired character assassination— another land of lie.

We must simply—and this nation should be mature enough to do so—move away from this kind of situation and go for a balanced viewpoint Press, as I said in this House last year.

Please, this is not, in typical Rand Daily Mail headline fashion, a scathing attack on the Press. I admire the Press. I have many friends in both the English and Afrikaans Press. I know that there are men and women there who are eager and anxious to get away from this strange, strong and steel stranglehold of an inner establishment. Maybe that stranglehold is located in that 40% secret shareholding?

It is also now necessary to look into monopolistic and old establishment practices and hangovers in both the Afrikaans and English environments and to aim at making the Press really public.

It was a good step when the decision was taken that there should be no Ministers on the boards of Press companies. But we should also now have a full disclosure of nominee shareholders, of interlocking shareholdings and nominee shields. Let the true owners come to light. The Sunday Times has first-hand experience in handling the Broederbond. So maybe it wants to take the initiative in exposing that 40% which is sometimes strangling it.

It is now necessary for us to try—even if only by way of a public appeal—to terminate the situation of the Press being divided on language lines in their support of political parties.

I salute and pay tribute to Rapport as a newspaper that does not always slavishly praise the Government and slavishly criticize the Opposition. Why would an English-language newspaper not take the lead and do the same?

Take the much-maligned old Citizen. It might have been conceived and born in sin, but it never praised the Government slavishly. Many people think it did a fine job; and there are many who continue to read it. There are many who hope never to have to be without it.

It is now necessary for us to look into old establishments and put them under the magnifying glass. They may have done good things in their day, but it is just as well to see whether there are not some cancerous growths hampering our present-day efforts at building a great and united nation.

It is now necessary, in this country, for us to accentuate—and the media must help us to do so—the things we have in common rather than to harp everlastingly on our differences and those things that divide us.