Order! I intimated yesterday that I would make a statement on the use of the expression “cover-up”. In the past, and also in this debate, the expression has frequently been used in a general, impersonal and political sense. In that sense the expression is permissible. The Chair will, however, have due regard to the particular context in which the expression is used when it is used with reference to an hon. member, and will give its decision according to the merits of the case.

Mr. Speaker, I was saying last night that it was now necessary that we must start accentuating, and that the media must accentuate more, the things we have in common and the wonderful prospects we have in this part of the world, rather than everlastingly keep on harping on the same old string of our differences and of the things that divide us. It is sickening to witness the attempts and the efforts being made by some to divide the English and Afrikaans-speaking sections of our nation and to estrange the Indians, the Coloureds and the Blacks from the Whites.

Let us have some specific references! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I was paying respect to the Press, a free Press, wanting to make it more free! But, the “gimmick” of building a story on so-called “reliable sources” or “impeccable sources” is a ready-made tool for cover-ups; and we do not want cover-ups! [Interjections.]

Would it therefore be unreasonable to make it compulsory, when the honour or interests of a person or an organization or of the State are at stake, that such sources must be disclosed?

We want to avoid the possibility of a con job. We want to avoid the possibility of a con job—again with acknowledgment to the hon. member for Durban Point, who recently described the new policy blueprint of the PFP as “a neat attempt at a con job”.

That will be the end of a lot of timewasting gossip-mongering in this country.

I have personal experience of this sort of thing. For instance with reference to the premier stakes: On 1 October last year, when I was overseas, Fleur de Villiers wrote in the Sunday Times—

Now, nobody, but nobody, knew at the time, or knows now, who I voted for. So, what kind of reporting is this? What is the sinister motive involved? As a matter of fact, Dr. Connie Mulder never asked me to vote for him. I was seen in his company, yes. I was seen in his company, but he was helping me with the problems in my constituency. [Interjections.] He took the trouble to visit troubled spots there. I thank him and respect him for that [Interjections.]

We must realize that our destiny most definitely depends upon maturity and wisdom in politics; and “peephole politics” must be avoided; i.e. looking at issues or policies in isolation. For instance, before condemning a policy, make sure that a better alternative is possible and available, and that a sufficient number of people will go along with it and give it their support.

Petty, personal and over-emotionalized party politics should be replaced by politics based on factual information, basic principles and the unavoidable facts of life. [Interjections.]

We must cut out the cackle. What I have in mind is that we must stop making jeering, pettifogging, party speeches which divide our nation.

I would not be surprised to find, should it be possible to computerize and eliminate scientifically just 50% of the endless repetition, that parliamentary sessions could be cut in half and that there would be no need for evening sittings. Talking of saving the taxpayers’ money!

Yes, the Information affair is a sad one in our history, but we have a destiny that transcends such a shame.

Every day we can see all around us what we are achieving in this virile country.

National Party policy is aimed at a Southern African Community of Nations cooperating to the fullest possible extent in all matters of mutual interest, but on a basis of no domination by the stronger or larger in numbers over any one of the various States, nationalities or ethnical groups aspiring towards national self-determination. Why? Because we do care about how many would die!

Furthermore, National Party policy is directed towards the complete elimination of race discrimination in a logical, evolutionary manner.

In the year 3000?

Our pattern for development is the same as the European background and that which Europe has now been aiming at during the last three decades.

I should like to see that we build our friendships across party lines and face the future with unwavering ideals.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself to a large extent with what was said by the hon. member for Pinetown and especially with regard to his requests concerning our future conduct. Last year, during the short session, we discussed the question of the former Department of Information for two full, long days and half a night. Since yesterday we have been discussing it again. If I have to consider our discussions since yesterday, I must come to the conclusion that they have not produced anything really new with regard to the former department…

Just answer the questions.

… except perhaps for the fact that the Gen. Van den Bergh affair has been something of a stimulus for some of the hon. members opposite. Apart from that, there has not really been anything new. Last week on Friday I visited a very good friend of mine in Cape Town. He is an English-speaking man of advanced years and is held in great esteem. He told me, “This Information affair has been a godsend to the Opposition parties, because if they did not have the Information affair to talk about, there would have been very little for them to talk about” That is so. I want to agree with him that it has been a godsend to the parties opposite …

But not to South Africa.

… because over the 30 years that the NP has been in power, they have become frustrated and have repeatedly looked for something on which to attack the Government. Now that they see the Government has sustained a light wound, they have turned upon it like a pack of hungry hyenas … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister permitted to use that kind of language?

Order! I should prefer it if the hon. the Minister did not express himself in those terms.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to withdraw it, because I should not like to say something which would hurt hon. members on that side of the House. They turned upon that wound like starving people, they sprinkled salt and pepper on it and scratched it open. I do not blame them, for I suppose that is what they have to do. However, one wonders whether it is in the best interests of South Africa at this stage to keep harping on that one string while there are so many other matters in South Africa which merit attention. If there had not been explanatory reaction to the affair, it would have been another matter, of course. We are not really concerned here with what happened, but with the standpoint of the Government. We must be honest and admit that irregularities such as these take place all the time and we must bear in mind that they occur in all countries of the world. I do not want to advance this as an excuse, because two wrongs do not make a right. However, we in South Africa are not accustomed to such irregularities, and for that reason we are all deeply shocked by them. We are accustomed to good government, especially over the past 30 years. Therefore we are not accustomed to events of this nature, and for this reason it may be a greater shock to us than similar events would have caused in other countries. The Government’s attitude and sentiments with regard to a matter such as this were clearly spelled out as follows by the hon. the Prime Minister on 7 December (Hansard, col. 34)—

How could we state the standpoint and the intention of the Government in clearer language to the people outside? In advocating that we should now put an end to this negative debating, I am not without motivation. In this connection there are a few matters I want to refer to. The words “cover up” and “toesmeer” are being used repeatedly in this House, and people outside are cracking jokes about them. There are certain matters which must be kept secret and I want to know whether there is anyone in this House who would deny us the right to keep State secrets. Is there anyone here who would allege that there should be no secrets? I want to make it quite clear today that the things we do not want to disclose today cannot be regarded in an ugly sense as a cover-up. Nor does the reason lie in any desire to protect certain people or in other ulterior motives on our part. I want to state unambiguously that it is in the interests of South Africa. Hon. members on the other side of the House have begun to ridicule us when we speak of the national interest. [Interjections.] Apparently they do not know what it means. Let us consider the former Department of Information itself. This is the department we are dealing with at the moment. I shall refer later to the many projects to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred during the short session last year, projects which we believe should be continued in secret.

If I went overseas as a Minister of this State and I made certain statements there which were favourable to South Africa, then the people, especially the enemies of South Africa, would be reluctant to believe what I said. When the hon. member for Houghton says positive things about South Africa abroad, they find it more acceptable. [Interjections.] I am not joking. It is true. There are certain ways in which one should handle overseas information, because we know that, for reasons familiar to everyone, South Africa has many enemies in the world.

Is the hon. member for Houghton one of your secret projects?

Mr. Speaker, in the first place it should form part of the task of a Department of Information to neutralize damaging information about or against South Africa abroad and to minimize the harm it contains. On the other hand, it must also be their task to project an objective and, if possible, positive image of South Africa to the world. But if we openly undertake projects abroad with South Africa's money and people—I could mention many examples of this—then people naturally fight shy of them. Therefore it is essential that these projects be undertaken in secret. This applies especially to foreign countries, where many of these projects have to be undertaken in secret. Therefore it is an absolute fact that these projects to which the hon. the Prime Minister has referred cannot be made public today. If the Department of Information were to proceed from the assumption that there need not be any secrets, that everything can be done in public, we would be wasting our money.

We are not alleging that.

I am glad that there is someone opposite who says “We are not alleging that” and I should like the people outside to accept that in so far as we are unable to disclose certain information, it concerns secret projects of the Department of Information which are in the national interest and must be continued in secret.

Does that include The Citizen?

The Citizen is not relevant here. The Citizen has been rejected as a project.

May we have all the information pertaining to it?

Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege, since the present hon. Prime Minister assumed this office, to serve on the State Security Council. There I have been privileged to obtain information about many of these matters. In column 18 of the Hansard of the short session in 1978, the hon. the Prime Minister set out the various projects which had been considered. He appointed a commission which was later expanded into the Pretorius Commission. He says in column 18 that 138 separate projects of the Department of Information were identified. They were submitted to the State Security Council. He went on to say that 68 of these projects must be continued. Of the 138—at that stage—there were 68, therefore, which the State Security Council approved of and which must be continued for various reasons, as he indicated. It was decided that 56 of the 68 should be continued in secret. Therefore we cannot give away all these things today. However, this is what this secrecy is about and this is why we feel compelled not to disclose certain information. This House and the people outside must know this. The 68 projects to which I have referred—i.e., the projects we have approved for continuation— we have approved because there is no fault to be found with those projects, because there are indications that they can be continued successfully in the interests of South Africa and because they are financially justified. However, it has been indicated that the 56 to which I have referred are to be continued in secret.

All of them abroad?

Here I want to associate myself again with what was said by the hon. member for Pinetown and I want to indicate that 68 of all these projects have been approved. This means that the things done under the former Department of Information were not all bad. The hon. the Prime Minister said so himself last year. There is much that is good. Even if the projects did cost the former Department of Information R64 million, I cannot tell you with any certainty that we did not get more than value for that money.

Oh!

That is the absolute, gospel truth. [Interjections.]

Order!

There are certain of these projects which we rejected, and The Citizen is a good example. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, hon. members must give me a chance. I am not going to argue with them across the floor of the House.

Do not argue with blowflies and communists. [Interjections.]

Order! That hon. member must first withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

I say frankly today that many of these projects are worth much more to South Africa than the money spent on them. On balance, therefore, it would be difficult for us to say whether we have lost or gained by the transaction.

The evidence given before the Erasmus Commission or anywhere else concerning those projects which are regarded as secret projects cannot be made public now.

We are not asking for that.

Then what is the hon. member asking for?

We have already told you.

What is the hon. member asking for if he is not asking for that? I should like to call the hon. member for Yeoville to witness, if the hon. member does not mind my doing so. He, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I had discussions in the hon. the Prime Minister’s office last year, and that hon. member insisted on all this evidence being made available to them. I then told him, “But Harry, it is not fair of you to expect the Prime Minister to give you a specific reply on this issue today.” I explained it to him in those terms. I told him that he should understand that this information will contain a great deal of information about the kind of project we cannot discuss in public. If he asks us to make available to them the evidence which does not concern the secret projects, I can only reply that it will be difficult to unravel it. I do not think it is a practical proposition. A man gives evidence before a commission; at least, this is the way I picture it to myself. Hon. members are entitled to disagree with me. A man gives evidence before the commission, evidence concerning innocuous matters, secret matters, matters which cannot be made public, etc. To sift the evidence and to separate the secret evidence from the rest would be a difficult task. That is why I specifically brought it to the attention of the hon. member for Yeoville that day.

What was my reply? You must quote the whole conversation.

Yes, yes, I am sorry! I shall. I asked him to write to me, and I said that we would reply to him on these matters. He then wrote me a letter in which he asked a whole lot of questions, concerning the Van der Walt Commission as well. I gave it to my colleague, the Minister of Finance, who is in control of the Van der Walt Commission. He then furnished the relevant answers to the hon. member for Yeoville.

You are being very naughty now.

The hon. member for Yeoville was reasonable. I did not say he was unreasonable. All I am saying here today is that I told him this even at that stage. I want to repeat it in this House because I want it to be understood that the evidence concerning the secrets cannot be made public.

I do not intend to discuss the Rhoodie and Van den Bergh cases, but with regard to Rhoodie the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked across the floor of the House, “Why do you not charge him?”

I asked, “When will he be charged?”

Very well: “When will he be charged?” I just want to ask the hon. member what we should charge him with. Is he aware of theft, corruption or anything else of which Rhoodie is guilty?

Just read the report of the Erasmus Commission.

On page 88 of the report, par. 11.417, one reads—

It says there: “… which point to theft”. Does the hon. member want us to go to court with this document?

No, with the evidence.

The hon. member for Parktown says, “With the evidence.” Sir, he is a medical man. If he had been a lawyer, he would have known that one cannot go to court with the evidence of the Erasmus Commission and say that on the basis of this evidence, Dr. Rhoodie should be found guilty. Even the hon. Chief Whip opposite will be able to tell him that in order to prosecute Dr. Rhoodie, one has to get affidavits and new evidence all over again. It cannot be the same evidence that was submitted to the Erasmus Commission.

Is there no evidence, then?

Sir, I am not the investigating officer. As recently as ten or fourteen days ago, I was told, in reply to a question which I asked as a member of the State Security Council, that at that stage it was not yet possible to start criminal or civil proceedings against Rhoodie.

They got to the Rand Daily Mail damn fast.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it I shall say “very fast”.

This is the position with regard to Rhoodie. The Erasmus Commission is still continuing its work. I have been told that files have been opened in that process, and the evidence being given before the Erasmus Commission will obviously give an indication of when an action can be started against Dr. Rhoodie, whether a criminal or a civil action.

The next point I want to make is that the Government, under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister, has repeatedly proved that we not only condemn what has happened, but that we are also doing everything in our power to set matters right again.

Yes, you fire Mostert.

We appointed the Pretorius Committee, for example. Allow me to say that the Pretorius Committee did very valuable work. In the first place, they evaluated all the various projects of the old Department of Information and made recommendations in this connection to the Government and to the National Security Council, on the basis of which we took certain decisions. In the second case, the committee was instructed—and they complied with the instruction—to protect the assets of the Government as far as possible. What has been done is impressive. The hon. the Prime Minister has already furnished information concerning the things which were done last year, and since then, much more has been done to protect, in the interests of the State, the assets such as property and shares which were bought.

What else has the Government done? The Government also convened Parliament for a special session last year. To its arch-enemies in politics, the parties on the other side of the House, the Government afforded the opportunity of putting their case and criticizing. They made full use of the opportunity, although to my mind they were not always successful. However, they did not only use the opportunity, but in fact abused it. But that did not bother us. On that occasion they reviled and abused us as never before in this House. I want to refer to what was said here by the hon. member for Berea, who is probably the youngest member in the House. I quote (Hansard, 8 December 1978, col. 482)—

The hon. member’s father was sitting in the gallery, feeling ashamed of the hon. member. [Interjections.] He went on to say (Hansard, 8 December 1978, col. 483)—

He went on to say—

There are two lies—I withdraw that—two untruths contained in the statements made by the hon. member, and he should have known it. The first untruth is that we laughed and joked; they were the ones who laughed and joked. The second untrue statement made by him was when he said, “We have been regaled with tales of how the total onslaught against us was the reason for the corruption, crime and intrigue … ” As if anyone on this side of the House ever said that! Surely this was not so; this is absolutely wrong. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister also said, however, that these secret funds, which had not been audited in the past, would in future be audited with the permission of the House. Hon. members can look it up in column 11 of Hansard, 7 December 1978.

I want to conclude by saying that we are not concerned here with what happened, because it will happen again, just as we shall always have the poor with us. There will always be people, too, who are dishonest, who make mistakes and who contravene the rules of the State. I am afraid that there will always be such people, but the test is—and this must always be impressed upon the people outside—what the attitude of the Government of the day is. The attitude of this Government is that such a thing must not happen again and that such things must be eradicated. For that reason I plead today that we should put an end to this negative conduct and that we should give our attention to other important matters and to the things required of us by the State.

Order! Before calling upon the next hon. member to speak, I want to request the hon. member for Bryanston to withdraw the words he used by way of interjection, namely “Who is responsible for the corruption?”

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them.

Order! The withdrawal will be recorded in the appropriate place in Hansard and I want to ask the hon. member henceforth to count his words.

Mr. Speaker, we have had in this debate so far four members of the Cabinet who have spoken, and what is remarkable of course is that in the four speeches from four members of the Cabinet we have not had one single answer to the innumerable questions that remain unanswered in the Information saga. Newspapermen write about Parliament and about their impressions of Parliament, and I think there is one particular impression about Parliament by one newspaperman which I would like to quote because it actually demonstrates what is happening here at the present moment. I would like to quote from Rapport of Sunday last where it says the following—

*I withdraw that word “damn”, Mr. Speaker. The report continues—

But he has reason to be sad.

Because of the drought.

There is a drought not only in Namaqualand but also in the NP. That is the reason for his being sad.

†The hon. the Minister of Transport is a person whom one cannot let get away with what he has said here today. The first thing that I want to say to him, through you, Mr. Speaker, is that I am utterly shocked that he should select something from a discussion which took place in the hon. the Prime Minister’s office when in fact the hon. the Prime Minister said at the end of that meeting that he regarded those discussions as confidential and wanted nothing to be said about them. If that is how the hon. the Minister acts and uses confidentiality when it suits him, that he selects things from a meeting which suits him, then one knows how to deal with that situation. The hon. the Prime Minister himself would not have done what the hon. the Minister of Transport has done. However, I shall answer the hon. the Minister, and I shall answer him very clearly, not on what was said in the hon. the Prime Minister’s office, but I shall give the answer to the problem which the hon. the Minister of Transport posed. How does one sift the evidence as to what concerns real State security in the true sense of the word and that which can be published? The answer is a very simple one. The matter should be referred to a Select Committee of Parliament. That committee must be allowed to go through all the evidence and decide what should be published and what should be deleted. This is our supreme legislative body, Parliament. This is the highest body in the country. It is for us to decide what is in the State interest. It is not something for the hon. the Minister of Transport to decide. The difficulty which I have with the hon. the Minister of Transport’s proposition is that I accept, and we in these benches do accept, that there are secret matters which should not be disclosed. But we have been bluffed before. The public has been bluffed before. We have been told that because certain matters are in the interests of the State, they could not be disclosed. But it was proved to have been untrue. The hon. the Minister of Transport has been bluffed—or was he not?—because he was not told about The Citizen. He was not told because it was in the interests of the State.

Even the hon. the Minister of Finance was not trustworthy enough in the eyes of the people concerned. They could have told him what they were spending the money on. So, who has been bluffed? That is why the public of South Africa do not trust this situation any more. They are looking for a safeguard, and that safeguard lies, I want to say without any hesitation, in the Opposition, because the Opposition are regarded as the watchdogs of what is right and wrong to be done in this regard. If the Opposition is not allowed to play a part in this matter, trust will not be restored in South Africa. It is up to the Government to decide whether they are going to allow that safeguard to be introduced, because one of the major problems in South Africa is the restoration of trust, trust in what people say, trust in the organizations, because the situation as it exists today is that one does not know who may or may not be a front for the Government. One simply does not know whether a politician is or is not telling the truth. That is what the public are so disturbed about. They are disturbed about it, and we are as much disturbed as anyone is, because trust in the governmental structure of the country is essential. If the hon. the Prime Minister wants to do his job in this country, his first priority is to restore trust in the machinery of government so that the people can once again accept the word of others without question and not be filled with suspicion. That is what is needed on the South African scene.

You cannot expect us to trust you!

I do not expect the hon. member for Von Brandis to trust me, because he is the sort of person who cannot even trust himself. [Interjections.] However, let us deal with what sort of debate this has been. The hon. the Minister of Transport expressed his desire to bring this thing to an end. He knows he cannot bring it to an end, because it cannot be brought to an end while two commissions are sitting. It cannot be brought to an end until the feeling of security, safety and trust on the part of the public is restored. Therefore, it does not help to say it has to be brought to an end. During the early stages of this whole scandal, at the beginning of last year, I said to the highest authority in the land: “Do not let that drag on. Cut it off or it is going to damage South Africa. Come out with it. Get it over with.” However, that was not listened to, and what is happening now is a tragedy for South Africa because it comes out by drips and drabs and continues to damage the whole structure of government, a structure of which we are all a part, not only the NP. That is the tragedy of this.

Then we had the arrogance which was displayed here, and I regret to say that the hon. the Minister of Justice is an example of that. Just look at his approach to this matter. He displays no feeling of wanting to tender an apology to the public of South Africa. He does not feel that he forms part of a Government that is responsible for a situation … [Interjections.]

We have a situation of arrogance. Only arrogance is shown. No humility is shown in this situation. I expected to come to Parliament and to hear from one of those four honourable Cabinet Ministers that they would tell us precisely what had been done to recover the money that the State had lost. Not one of the four said a word about it. I expected them to tell us what had been done until now in order to see to it that the wrongdoers were punished. Not one word has been said about the steps taken. [Interjections.] I expected somebody in the Cabinet to say what had been done in order to institute the controls we had been promised to prevent this from happening again. No, that is not to be dealt with. No answers are given to the questions. All that we get is a lack of humility and a display of arrogance.

What really is the significance of all these things that have taken place? If we look at the scene we can see, and the public of South Africa can see, how South Africa has been governed by the NP and by an NP Cabinet. South Africa has been governed by a system in which there was, firstly, no control over secret funds. It has been governed in a manner in which the hon. the Minister of Finance was regarded as not being sufficiently trustworthy to be told the secrets in respect of this expenditure. The people would not tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that he was dealing with a budget containing things that were regarded too secret to be revealed to him. It was so secret that he could not be told on what that money was to be spent. He said so himself. Nobody else said that. This is how South Africa has been governed. South Africa has been governed by the people being asked to make sacrifices for defence purposes, with eloquent speeches by the hon. the Minister of Finance telling us how we had to spend more money on defence, while, in fact, the budget contained money allegedly earmarked for defence purposes, but in actual fact destined for the Department of Information. [Interjections.]

We have been governed in South Africa by a system in which the head of the Defence Force has had to say: “I do not want my Minister to lie in Parliament” That is the system of government we have had. We have been governed by a system in which an hon. Minister got up in Parliament and told what was a downright lie. Another hon. Minister sat in this House knowing it was a lie. I am referring now to The Citizen episode, in case anyone should still want to know. [Interjections.] What is even more significant is that South Africa has been governed by a system where a person who is not accountable to Parliament has wielded the most tremendous power behind the scenes. It was not the second most powerful man in the country. According to the Erasmus Commission’s report he was the most powerful man, because he sought to manipulate the most powerful man as he wanted it. He exercised sinister powers and had sinister organizations. Hon. members opposite cannot attack General Van den Bergh, because by attacking General Van den Bergh they are attacking themselves, attacking the National Party Government, as he was part of that structure. That is the Government they offer South Africa. That is what took place in South Africa; that is how South Africa was governed. What the people of South Africa want to know, is whether that era has come to an end. What has been done to make sure that that kind of era in our politics is not perpetuated?

Like every scandal and problem it depends on how you deal with it as to how the consequences turn out. In our situation in South Africa I wish to say, with respect to the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government, that the handling of the scandal has brought even more problems to South Africa than one would have hoped would exist after the scandal itself. I will give an example. The hon. the Minister of Justice waxed eloquent yesterday about how he would never interfere with the decisions of the Attorney-General. He would not answer whether he has ever interfered with a decision of an Attorney-General before. But that is not the issue. The issue which faces the Government fairly and squarely is whether all people are equal before the law. Does it depend on how much you know as to whether you are prosecuted or not? That is really the issue—the issue of equality before the law. What has happened is that the hon. the Minister of Justice has allowed to be created in South Africa a new constitutional crisis while people feel strongly that in all our circumstances, whatever else there was in South Africa which could be criticized, we have had a system where all people irrespective of colour, race, age or whatever are all equal before the law.

We are proud of that system, and that is why you find people from all ranks now protesting against this action. I do not care two hoots about whether General Van den Bergh is found guilty or not on what is a relatively minor offence. What is important is the principle that is involved, viz. whether in fact people are or are not equal before the law and whether the knowledge they possess gives them immunity from prosecution.

Let us take the example of Dr. Rhoodie. Dr. Eschel Rhoodie probably knows more than General Van den Bergh about some of the secret projects. On the assumption that he has committed offences, is his knowledge sufficient reason to give him immunity from prosecution? This is a very important question which the hon. the Minister of Justice did not reply to. I wish to put a further question which he did not answer. How serious does the offence have to be which General Van den Bergh commits before this immunity ceases to exist? What factors do you take into account? What is so sad is that the hon. the Minister of Justice gave the game away completely as to what he regards to be in the national interest and what he regards as being sufficient for no prosecution to be instituted. Yesterday in his speech he said the following (Hansard, 5 February 1979)—

What he is saying here is that because an allegation that General Van den Bergh would stop not even at killing would be taken out of context, was contrary to the true security interests of South Africa. Anybody who sits in judgment on that situation will be able to tell you that that is not a true issue of what is in the national interest or in the interest of the security of South Africa. We are now talking about real security matters and not about little propaganda tricks, e.g. that he is afraid that somebody might take some allegation out of context and use it for a party political purpose. That is what is involved here.

The second issue that has arisen from this situation is the issue concerning the Press. What is going to become of the rumour-mongering legislation which was threatened? Where are we heading in regard to that issue? The hon. the Prime Minister has so far been very silent during this debate; he has not interjected; he has not said a word and has really been very quiet. I want to read to the hon. the Prime Minister what the New York Times, which is not exactly a friend of South Africa, said about the Press in South Africa. I quote—

Think about that. The reputation of having a free Press in South Africa is not only important to us in the Opposition benches; it is also important to the hon. the Prime Minister, because he leads South Africa.

The third issue is one that I have dealt with earlier on and concerns the question of the confidence in the process of government. The confidence in the process of government would have been strengthened if the Government had immediately dealt with the matter, had opened it up, had cleaned it out and had satisfied the people. That confidence in the process of government has now, however, been shaken. The fourth issue and a consequence that resulted from the handling of the matter by the Government is that innocent people are being involved in a situation where not everything is being opened up, ' but which gives one the impression of being a cover-up. People who had no part in the matter suddenly find themselves involved in it. In this regard I want to refer to a simple example.

In the case of The Citizen issue we had a whole series of Cabinet Ministers denying one after the other that it was not they, that they knew nothing. When The Citizen was disposed of to Perskor, however, it was done by Cabinet decision. The whole Cabinet was part of it, everyone from the hon. the Prime Minister downwards. That decision is as morally indefensible as was the starting of the original Citizen. Every Cabinet Minister had a part in that decision. They disposed of a Government asset without calling for tenders and, further, they disposed of it to a group which they knew would carry on the anti-Opposition point of view that The Citizen had adopted. That is the whole issue. If that is not morally indefensible, then I do not know what is. That is what happened and not one Cabinet Minister can say that he had not been party to that situation. In regard to the attitude of certain Cabinet members, of “not being a party to any situation”, I would like to say that I have never heard of a Cabinet anywhere in the world which has heard so little evil, which has seen so little evil and which only speaks evil when dealing with the Opposition. In this regard I think immediately of the spectacle of the hon. Minister of Finance who said: “I knew nothing, I knew absolutely nothing; I kept asking questions, but they said it was secret and I could not be told.” I would like to know from that hon. Minister: What is the position in regard to the guarantees given by Volkskas? Surely it is very strange that a bank in South Africa finds itself giving guarantees on the word of Dr. Rhoodie without checking with the hon. the Minister or with the Reserve Bank. Did he know nothing about that? Let us come to the overseas loan. I would have expected that by now the hon. the Minister of Finance would have told us how it is that Dr. Rhoodie could raise a loan overseas without his knowing about it. I would have expected him to tell us what happened to the money and what he has done in order to remedy that situation. But I do not hear a word from him in this respect. All he tells us is that he does not know. [Interjections.]

I talked about The Citizen yesterday …

Did the hon. the Minister know about this loan?

I shall answer that.

I am not looking at the hon. the Minister’s notes. They are a bit far from here for me to read. All I want to know, is whether the hon. Minister knew about the loan or not.

I will refer to my own notes as I please.

So far he has not told us anything about this loan. So, we now have to deal with the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister is a fairly tough guy-

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

What must I withdraw, Sir?

Surely the hon. member can use other words. We are not talking here of “guys”.

Mr. Speaker, I regard that as a compliment. I think he is a tough person. It was not intended to be derogatory. Far from it. He is a tough man. Here we have a picture of a tough man in this situation where he does not like what is going on. Letters are written, but he also does not know what is happening. The money is going through his Vote and he does not know how it is being spent. Hear no evil, see no evil! I do not know what is going on.

The other point is that The Citizen was being sold in the streets. Nobody on the NP benches seemed to be interested as to who was paying for it. Nobody seemed to be interested in what Dr. Mulder was saying and they never discussed it with him. We were told, not once, but repeatedly, in this House about the onslaught against South Africa. The then Prime Minister wrote a letter in which he put it on record as to what has been done, but this very talented and inquiring Cabinet for years and years never wanted to know what was being done about that total onslaught. They did not want to know. They knew that there was a total onslaught, but they did not know what was happening.

The hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development has not told us what he was doing about The Natal Mercury and where he thought the money was coming from. The hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development did not know about it either and I hope that he is going to tell us about The Natal Mercury one of these days. What is remarkable, is that you have Gen. Van den Bergh, the confidant of the former Prime Minister, who was seen with him everywhere and was at his side wherever he went and he too never discussed what this was about with the Prime Minister. It is a most remarkable situation that the Cabinet comes here to Parliament and says that there is a total onslaught against South Africa, that we have to do something about it, and yet over a period of years not one of them ever asked what was being done to meet that total onslaught. What about the blame that is being put on Dr. Mulder alone and The Citizen? I would ask the hon. the Prime Minister to deal with this in his reply. What about the magazine To the Point? My information is that R4½ million of Government money went into To the Point. There is not a word about it in any of the reports. I will tell you why: Because my information is that that money never came from the Department of Information. It came from another department. If it came from another department, then it is wrong to blame only Dr. Mulder for this situation. I would ask the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us about To the Point. He must tell us what was happening here and tell us what is being done to get that money back. But it is not only To the Point. We have a situation where even a small publication, circulating on the university campus of the University of the Witwatersrand, also apparently received money from a particular source, and the hon. the Prime Minister should tell us what that source was. I am going to read a little letter which was written in 1978—

We need to know something about them too—

[Interjections.] What threats are now coming from the backbenchers over there? [Interjections.] Whenever they do not like what is happening they make threats. They threaten, but there is only one Gen. Van den Bergh. There are a lot of little Van den Berghs there, but only one real one. The letter goes on—

I do not blame them. So the letter goes on. I shall not quote the whole of it, but it states further—

And so I expect the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us whether this is a front organization which cannot be disclosed today. Can what happened at that time not be revealed? Is it, in fact, in the national interest to have Government money behind student publications on campuses in South Africa? These are questions that we need to have answered, and we cannot avoid getting answers to them.

Tell us about the National Front.

The real tragedy of this Government, as I see it, is that it is able to rule but it cannot solve problems. It has power because it adopts the attitude that it can do what it likes because the people are going to vote for it in the end and it will remain in power. However, it cannot solve the problems of South Africa because its credibility has been damaged irreparably by the Information scandal. Its policies have such an image, both on the international and the national scene, that even changes to that image would seem to be merely a disguised form of apartheid and mechanisms to ensure racial supremacy. The ranks of the NP are divided on the racial question by sharp ideological differences which, in fact, paralyse the hon. the Prime Minister. With respect, it is not only the hon. the Prime Minister who is paralysed, however. There are three Bothas who are being imprisoned by one Treurnicht. All three of them are being held to ransom by the verkrampte image that perpetuates in, and percolates through, that party. When I refer to the three of them, I am referring to the hon. the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Labour. They are all prisoners of this verkrampte attitude that is typified by the hon. the Deputy Minister who sits there smiling like a sphinx. That is the situation. No solutions are offered by the NP, and the great tragedy for South Africa is that there can only be peaceful change here in South Africa by way of this Parliament. This Parliament is the only instrument for peaceful change in South Africa. That is the only way we can solve the problems. While the NP is in power, however, that cannot come about, so there consequently has to be a change in South Africa.

In conclusion, let me say something to the hon. the Prime Minister. He must, with respect, be his own man. The mandate obtained in November 1977 was obtained by withholding the true facts on the Information scandal. He is the person who stands here in the place of the previous Prime Minister who was elected. He must go to the country, not on the basis of a “Boerehaat” election or on the basis of artificial, foreign fears. He must go to the country on the basis of his record and on the basis of his handling of the Information situation. We should have an election this year, and I challenge the hon. the Prime Minister to go to the country, to have a general election and to get his own mandate from the people.

Mr. Speaker, on the cover of one of the issues of Deurbraak, namely the December 1978 issue, one finds the arrogant representation of the PFP leader as a white knight on a white horse and the hon. the Prime Minister as a black knight on a black horse. Having heard the Opposition on that side speaking—I am now referring to the official Opposition—I can only say that at this stage I am sick and tired of these little white knights.

In the first instance, I am tired of the arrogant expressions and remarks of the hon. member for Yeoville. I wish to deal at once with the magazine To the Point. The hon. member for Yeoville has a specific philosophy on South Africanism for which I want to give him credit, but I wish to ask him whether he thinks it tallies with good South Africanism to attack a non-political paper like To the Point in this House … [Interjections.]

It is a Nationalist organ.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, suppose the hon. members opposite are correct in their laughter, and I am wrong. If the hon. member for Yeoville knows certain things about To the Point and has suspicions or certain information, I wish to ask him—this in fact applies to the whole official Opposition—why did he not give evidence about it before the Erasmus Commission?

I am a member of Parliament.

Why do they just make insinuations and not give evidence before the Erasmus Commission as ordinary citizens would do? [Interjections.]

Answer the questions.

I wish to deal with another white knight, namely the hon. member for Groote Schuur.

He is a white devil.

I first wish to deal with him specifically because …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “devil”.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur issued a specific challenge to me in The Cape Times of 31 January. I quote the article—

†I gladly take up this challenge. I want to say to the hon. member for Groote Schuur that he has made a pathetic faux pas by issuing this challenge and relying on an Act that was repealed years ago. [Interjections.]

*The judicial position is that Act No. 62 of 1965 was repealed as a whole in 1973 by the Government Service Pension Act, Act No. 57 of 1973, as amended. The specific provision referred to by the hon. member has not been included in the new Act at all. The old provision was an extreme provision and has therefore not been included in the new Act.

Is it in any other Act? Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to answer questions. My time is limited. As I said, the old provision was an extreme provision, because its only qualification was that if one did not comply with a reasonable request by a Minister by supplying information to which you as an official had access, your pension could be reduced. This was not included in the new Act. The hon. member made a miserable blunder by referring to it. However, what does appear in the new Act, is section 9(3)(c) of the Government Service Pension Act, No. 57 of 1973. I quote—

This is something completely different to the previous provision referred to by the hon. member. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that this provision has the express qualification built into it that one may reduce someone’s pension or make deductions from it only once theft, fraud or negligence has been proved in court. My contention is, therefore, that if I made this stupid mistake, I would be, in the language used here recently by those hon. members, a liar guilty of a sordid attempt to cover up. This is the language normally used if a member of the Cabinet makes any mistake. I shall not repay them in kind. I only wish to say to the hon. member for Groote Schuur that as a senior advocate he made himself ridiculous by issuing this type of challenge to me on the grounds of an incorrect fact.

I shall speak to the person who services my Butterworth.

Now I again wish to concentrate on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In spite of the fact that we debated this matter fully in the short session in December, he has once again made the unqualified statement that “the Cabinet as a whole must accept collective responsibility”. I now wish to quote briefly from Wade and Bradley, Constitutional Law, 7th edition, p. 86—

Did that not include the hon. the Ministers of Defence and Finance?

The hon. member must allow me to deliver my speech. One of the senior hon. members on that side of the House, the hon. member for Parktown, agreed with me after I had made this statement in the short session, but in spite of that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has again made this unqualified statement. I now want to accuse the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of expounding a legal falsehood when he expresses it in as unqualified a way as he has done in his speech. The hon. member apparently proceeds from the assumption that if one expresses this untruth at frequent intervals, you will eventually hammer it into the minds of the people to such an extent that they will believe it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has again made the accusation that Dr. Eschel Rhoodie’s passport was withdrawn only after he had left the country. In fact that accusation came from many hon. members on that side of the House. That is so. This matter is under my jurisdiction and I probably owe the House an explanation. I as Minister of the Interior have the right to withdraw a passport under two circumstances. In the first instance at the request of a body or person which provides prima facie evidence that it is in the interests of the country to withdraw the passport. No such representations were received by me. In the second instance I shall readily concede that I may withdraw such a passport on my own initiative if I myself find prima facie evidence that it is in the interests of the country to withdraw such a passport. The hon. the Leader of the House referred to this matter. The earliest possible moment that I could ascertain that prima facie evidence, was the moment. I received an early copy of the report of the Erasmus Commission.

The Mostert Commission must have indicated it.

Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now want to come and tell me that I should concern myself with published untested evidence and the findings thereon? Let us not waste each other’s time with the Mostert Commission.

What about all the passports you have taken away from everybody else?

The hon. member for Houghton can question me about all those passports during the discussion of my Vote. However, I should like to add something to that. I am often criticized about Rhoodie’s passport.

Which one?

If it were a leftist radical under discussion here then the uproar from the Opposition would have made it seem as if the heavens had descended on me if I had withdrawn the passport before there was at least a conviction of guilt in the court. With this type of thing double standards are always applied.

Rhoodie’s passport has nothing to do with leftist or rightist politics.

The Opposition has consistently been scrounging around the rubbish dumps in connection with the Information scandal. Why do they not let us hear a positive note in this debate and tell us about their constitutional plans? As the Government we shall introduce our constitutional proposals later this session and there will be an opportunity to debate them fully. I can just say to the hon. member for Houghton that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition only referred to them in passing.

Other speakers will still speak about it.

I think they have a reason for not wanting to discuss it. I think they realize by this time that their constitutional proposals are a fairy tale to the practical man in the street. To begin with, take for example their national convention. The Slabbert Commission says in its report—

Now is that not a fine joke! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave us only a year in which to put our house in order. For themselves they demand a sort of eternity. They say “a lengthy, wide-ranging process”. That will be a lengthy process.

It has taken you 30 years to get where you are!

Now I want to set the Opposition straight. It will not be a lengthy, wide-ranging process. The pitiful plan will never leave the ground. Not even the convention. In the first place, certain non-negotiable predetermined conditions are put to the participants in the convention. Do the hon. members opposite honestly want to tell me that that will attract radicals in that way? In fact radicals are welcome at their convention. The only qualification is that it must just not be a radical who advocates violence.

But is the hon. the Minister not also a radical?

Furthermore I should also like to know whether they will actually take the lead at such a convention. I wonder if they remember the conference or convention—or whatever one wishes to call it—which they held a few years ago. There they were to have taken the lead from the very beginning. However, the Chief Minister of kwaZulu immediately took the initiative and prescribed to them.

You are talking nonsense!

How will one ever get effective decision-making both at their convention and—if they ever get that far—at government level?

As in South West Africa! [Interjections.]

I am referring to the basic principle which they will apply throughout, and I wish to draw your attention to page 11 of Deurbraak of December 1978, containing the following words—

They are discouraged in advance. We find the same when we study their constitution and note the built-in vetoes of minority groups and so on. Under their system one will get no effective government, no effective decision-making. Moreover, in my opinion they are also shaky when it comes to the cardinal basis of good government. Throughout the world it is a cardinal principle of good government that ethnicity or the grouping of nations should be recognized. Even in a highly developed country such as Canada it is now obvious that it is a basic principle of good government. I am referring to the proposed or possible partial secession of Quebec.

But you are destroying it!

What does the Slabbert Commission say? This is typical of the way in which the PFP blows hot and cold throughout its system. In the first place the Slabbert Commission states that the PFP believes—

It states that in the first place.

That is correct.

Just a little further on it turns around again and says—

I want to conclude because I promised not to speak for a full half hour. It is correct that we on the Government side are not going to hold a national convention on our constitutional plan. As the hon. members on both sides are aware, it is correct that we said that we would not hold a national convention. What in fact we are busy with at the moment, is the holding of far-reaching discussions with the population groups that have an interest in the new dispensation. Well and good, in the eyes of the Opposition we can do nothing right, but it will probably be appropriate for me to hold up as an example what was done in a Third World country. I am referring to Sri Lanka which is similar to us in many ways. Just as we were, Sri Lanka was a British colony. Like us, they too have the Roman Dutch judicial system as a basis. That country has a plural community and is plural on the basis of race, culture and religion. All groups do not share fully in the political process there. The country’s system of constitutional law and parliamentary system are in many ways similar to those of the Republic.

In 1972 and in 1978 Sri Lanka underwent two far-reaching constitutional changes without a national convention and only through the action of their legislative assembly. In 1972 they became a republic—a far-reaching change—and in January 1978 their nominal state president became a president vested with executive authority, as we consider it in our proposals.

I therefore conclude by saying that the Opposition will not hold us fast to the Information circumstances. We and our supporters are convinced that under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister the Government is doing everything to institute remedial action in order to purge the country’s administration. We are strengthening the country with courage and conviction and with courage and conviction we shall create a practical dispensation for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be following on the hon. the Minister of the Interior and Immigration. I do not intend reacting to those parts of his speech when he was attacking the official Opposition for perhaps mistakes in an hon. member’s Butterworths. I do, however, intend questioning him in regard to another subject he mentioned which was in regard to passports and more specifically the right which he has to withdraw passports from various people. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he did have the passport of Mrs. Kate Rhoodie withdrawn.

There is a question on the Order Paper to which I shall reply in due course.

It was reported in the Press that Mrs. Kate Rhoodie’s passport had been withdrawn. If this is the case, I think it is one of the most despicable things that I have heard of in a long time, because in what way did she fault? Did she break any law? Was she in fact mentioned in the report of the Erasmus Commission at all? No, her sole fault was that she was married to Dr. Eschel Rhoodie. Are we now starting a new principle in these laws of South Africa that a wife must share the responsibility for her husband’s wrongdoing? I think it is a despicable thought.

I am sorry for your wives.

I think that the women of South Africa should realize what the Government is seeking to do.

I also want to put a question to the hon. member for Pinetown. I see that unfortunately he is not in the House at the moment. He also participated in the debate and it is very interesting to me that he did since the Information scandal is not the only scandal that has happened in the history of NP Government in South Africa.

There have been many others, one of which was the Faros coal affair in which Babaletakis and a Mr. Georgeu were implicated. At the end of that little debacle, certain unanswered questions remained. I am led to understand that it is possible that the hon. member for Pinetown might be able to help us in answering some of those questions. I want to stress that I am not accusing, in any shape or form, the hon. member for Pinetown of having done something that he ought not to have done. What he did, he was perfectly entitled to do. At that stage he was not a public servant; he was not a civil servant in any shape or form. I understand, however, that in the years when the Babaletakis and Faros coal affair took place, there was a yacht trip in the Greek islands. Babaletakis and Georgeu hired a yacht at the apparent cost of R50 000 and took a number of people cruising on this yacht. At the time there was newspaper speculation as to who was on that yacht, and I am led to understand that it is possible that the hon. member for Pinetown happened to have been invited to go on that cruise.

So what?

I have said that I am not attacking him and that he was perfectly entitled to take part in this cruise.

What is your point?

If hon. members would care to wait a little, they might hear what my point is.

Are you trying to damn him by association?

I am not trying to damn him by association, but if he was on that trip, he should be in the position to tell us who else was aboard that particular yacht.

What business is that of yours?

I believe it is the business of South Africa to know who was on that particular yacht, because rumours flew around and, in fact, the ex-wife of a Deputy Minister at the time informed the Sunday Times that her husband had been on board the yacht. I think that we should know if that is so and that the caucus members of the NP should find out from the hon. member for Pinetown exactly who was on that trip.

As a result of that particular event a number of prison sentences were passed, and that brings me to the hon. the Minister of Justice, of Police and of Prisons. I want this hon. Minister to tell me how long prison sentences were served in the issue that came before the court concerning the Babaletakis affair. I believe that certain officials received a sentence of four years’ imprisonment, and I would like to know how long they actually served. Stories to the effect that some of them served only three months of their four years’ sentence, have travelled around the country. These questions therefore need to be asked. I found it very amusing yesterday when the hon. the Minister of Justice, with a holier-than-thou attitude, declared how he wanted to uphold the judicial system in South Africa. In view of the number of people that that hon. Minister has banned and imprisoned, and in view of the number of organizations that he has banned, I find it extraordinary that he should have made the statements that he made yesterday. Our whole judicial system, the whole concept according to which people are tried by a judge, a jury and only then imprisoned, has been disregarded in many, many cases by the hon. the Minister of Justice by banning people and by imprisoning them without trial. This is one of the albatrosses that the NP will have to carry around its neck for ever.

I now want to deal with another issue which received a lot of publicity yesterday as a result of a statement made by the leader of this party in connection with the conversation he had with Mr. Justice Erasmus. Subsequent to that the Press has got hold of Judge Erasmus and The Cape Times of this morning reports the reaction of Judge Erasmus to what was stated in the House yesterday. According to The Cape Times of today Judge Erasmus said the following—

There we have it Here we are told that the executive—and I presume that by the “executive” the hon. judge means the hon. the Prime Minister—not to release the evidence of the Erasmus Commission and Mr. Justice Erasmus himself. It was a decision made by the Government. Judge Erasmus said that. It is here in black and white for everybody to read. This makes a lot of things that were said yesterday in this House look somewhat silly, because it shows that the Government has given orders to the judiciary in regard to the releasing of the evidence of the Erasmus Commission. This raises a number of questions. Firstly, the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government stand or fall on the credibility of Mr. Justice Erasmus and his commission. During a state of crisis that has paralysed South Africa the hon. the Prime Minister sacked one judge and appointed another one, in a somewhat different situation, but to discuss the same things. The crucial test for the hon. the Prime Minister is his promise to clear up the issue and that the judge must be seen to be independent. It was all important that the judge should be seen to be independent, but now that very judge has told us that the executive was the higher authority and that he had to listen to that higher authority. The fact is that the accused in the particular issue— and let us face it, it is people in high places in the Government who are mentioned in the report—are issuing instructions on certain matters to the commission. I believe that South Africa needs to know this, because when we talk about cover-ups one then has to ask the question whether the executive’s decision not to make the evidence available is in the national interest or in that of the NP. These two things are not synonymous. I will be the first to agree with anyone we must not harm South Africa by releasing this evidence, but if that evidence harms the NP, then I do not see the NP as being synonymous with South Africa. I think that this is the mistake made by many people.

One must ask about the Attorney-General of the Transvaal. Surely his job as the Attorney-General is to decide on matters of law and not on matters of politics and national interest. It is his job as an Attorney-General to inspect a prospective case against an accused and to decide in terms of the law whether there is a case or not. That is his function. Apparently in this particular issue he has exceeded his function. What did in fact happen? Did he go to a higher authority and ask what he should do in regard to the political issues? Because, I submit, in law it is relatively clear that Gen. Van den Bergh should be charged. This is another question that the hon. the Minister of Justice should be asked.

The commission had obviously taken the decision to release the evidence because Mr. Justice Erasmus made this announcement at the end of the short session of Parliament in December 1978, and one can only assume that his mind has since been changed by the executive.

I now want to leave this matter to come to the hon. the Prime Minister because this is, after all, a no-confidence debate, and I believe that when we say we have no confidence in the Government, we also, of course, mean that we have no confidence in the Prime Minister of that Government. I want to come to precisely what it was that the hon. the Prime Minister did, as Minister of Defence, as far as the Rhoodie affair was concerned.

To start off with, did he act in conformity with the laws of this land? That is a question that must be put. Did he, in fact, mislead Parliament or did he not mislead Parliament when he placed, or caused to have placed, on the Department of Defence’s Vote, moneys which he knew full well were not intended for the Department of Defence? He took this money from the Defence Special Account, this account being governed by Act No. 6 of 1974. The Act clearly states in section 2(2)—

This was not, however, expenditure of the Department of Defence, nor was it expenditure of the Armaments Board. So, in fact, has the law of this country been contravened? And if this law was contravened, who contravened it? I quote from section 5 of the same Act, under the heading “Audit”—

So one must assume, quite clearly, that the money which was not audited by the Auditor-General was covered by a certificate issued by the Minister of Defence. Therefore the responsibility is ultimately his. He signed those certificates to the Auditor-General without, on his own admission, knowing for what that money was to be spent and without, in any shape or form, seeing that it was spent properly, judiciously or in the interests of South Africa. I believe that these questions need to be asked over and over again.

While he was doing this, in fact making these moneys available to the erstwhile Department of Information, what was he saying to us? In his budget speech on 9 September, 1974 he said the following (Hansard, col. 2538)—

And yet in 1974 R10,5 million was paid over by that Minister of Defence to the Department of Information.

In 1975 the situation was even worse. In the light of subsequent evidence, the statements made by the then Minister of Defence have to be read to be believed. I refer to 22 April 1975, (Hansard, col. 4579)—

So I can go on and on quoting. That is the sort of statement the hon. the Minister made in the defence debate, but at the same time he was making R56 950 000 available to another department, moneys which I am sure the general in charge, Gen. Magnus Malan, could have used for the defence of our country, for the saving of the lives of our children on the border. That money could have been better used.

Finally, in the time remaining to me, in view particularly of what the hon. member for Pinetown said, I want to tell the House how the hon. the Prime Minister sees the National Party, because I believe South Africa should know this. One must ask whether the hon. the Prime Minister sees himself as the leader of a country or as the leader of a small section thereof. In the debate of 7 and 8 December he said, inter alia, that one of the things he had going for Dr. Connie Mulder was that “hy was my mede-Afrikaner”. In addition, after a very distasteful display, he said at the end of the debate (Hansard, 8 December 1978, col. 532-3)—

Who are the Prime Minister’s “people”? Surely, every South African should be; not just the Afrikaner, but the Afrikaners, the English, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks.

How does the hon. the Prime Minister see the National Party? I quote from column 8581 of the Hansard of Tuesday, 17 June 1975. The then hon. Minister of Defence, who is now also Prime Minister, on that occasion said the following—

He did not say “an instrument in the service of South Africa”. He seeks to speak for only one section of this community of ours and, as important as that section might be, I believe it is scandalous that the party that is in government and seeks to govern every single facet and every single section of the South African community should seek to represent only one small portion of that community.

Go home, man.

That is why, when the hon. member for Pinetown accuses the Opposition of trying to keep the English and Afrikaners in this country apart, I find that an absolutely laughable accusation. He brings no evidence for that accusation, but I submit that in the passages I have quoted from Hansard I have brought evidence that the National Party in fact sees itself as an instrument of Afrikanerdom. I believe South Africa must ask them: If a question comes to light in which the interests of the Afrikaner conflict with the interests of South Africa, whose side would the National Party take?

Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing that the hon. member should conclude on such a note. He also uttered a few other notes which, in my opinion, bordered on the discordant. I wish to begin where the hon. member left off. He maintained that the NP was purely an instrument of Afrikanerdom.

The Prime Minister said it, not I.

The hon. member would do well to listen. He created the impression that the NP is purely an instrument of Afrikanerdom. He would do well to read the constitution of the NP. In it he will see that this party does strive to bring about goodwill between the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people and further the interests of both these groups. However, if it should appear that there are people in South Africa—and there are such people, and it seems to me that I am looking at one now—that begrudge the Afrikaner living space in South Africa, if there are people, such as, inter alia, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who begrudge the Afrikaner upholding and taking pride in his own sentiments, the NP will not hesitate to take up the cudgels on behalf of the Afrikaner. However, the hon. member must not interpret the words of the hon. the Prime Minister incorrectly.

The hon. member referred to the speech by the hon. the Minister of Justice and intimated that this hon. Minister had acted in conflict with the legal system in South Africa in the banning of certain persons and organizations. However, the hon. the Minister of Justice took action in terms of an Act of Parliament, an Act which authorises him to take certain steps and order certain restrictions. Does the hon. member wish to maintain that the hon. the Minister of Justice implemented that act incorrectly, or that the Act in terms of which the hon. the Minister took action, meant nothing? In other words, does he wish to intimate that Parliament means nothing? Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take over your task but I am just wondering whether the hon. member did not come very close to assailing the authority of Parliament.

I am not going to react to everything that the hon. member said. He put a number of questions to various people and also had a great deal to say to the hon. the Prime Minister. However, the hon. the Prime Minister is capable of replying to the suggestions, arguments and questions he raised. He also intimated that we have paralysed South Africa, and I react to that by saying that I think we should guard against the danger of a political rabies epidemic in South Africa, of people in South Africa going round with poison in their mouths, spreading ruin wherever they bite. I ask that we make an end to this matter concerning the Department of Information. When I say that, I do not mean that we should cover up, that a cover-up is taking place or that we should follow a kind of shortcut by, as it were, overlooking problems. But we in this country cannot afford a process of scandalmongering and negative discussion, concerning not merely Parliament and the Prime Minister, but even the State President, to continue. I do not think we can permit this if we really have the good of this country at heart. We must get beyond this thing as soon as possible and bring to book the people responsible for offences. I think it is high time we reached that point. We must prevent a disease of the spirit which threatens to paralyse us, from taking root in South Africa This is an appeal to all of us, including those hon. members on the other side of the House who never stop.

I do not intend repeating what I said here in December during the short session. I shall let that suffice, but if necessary I could refer to the steps the Government has already taken in this connection, steps which constitute a loud protest at the charge that the Government is engaged in a cover-up. I want to point out that both the Government and the Opposition are in fact in a dilemma. Just as we do, they acknowledge that there are certain secret projects which are carried out by any country in the world, but which are not for public consumption, projects in the interests of all and not merely in the interests of the Government, the Opposition or any other group. But in that process a certain degree of control must be exercised. The Erasmus Commission pointed to a deficiency in this regard and consequently their recommendation that a certain degree of control over certain projects be exercised, was accepted by the Government. I refer now to paragraph 14.484 of the commission’s report and its recommendations. That recommendation has been accepted. As I say, we are confronted with a dilemma, namely that whereas on the one hand there must be secrecy, on the other, control must be exercised. We have accepted a recommendation which, as I see it, makes that control possible and eliminates objections in this regard. I shall not deal any further with the accusations of a cover-up, because I think we have already taken a great many steps. I made a note of approximately 13 steps taken by the Government, the former Prime Minister and the present Prime Minister after the Auditor-General had drawn the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister to this matter in order to deal with the problem situation.

I should now like to turn to the new constitutional plan of the PFP. We have been studying these documents. We have also read newspaper reports about it. We have it in Afrikaans in Deurbraak and I also have it in this blue pamphlet “Report of the Constitutional Committee of the PFP” at 50 cents per copy! There are a few things here that incline me to think that the Opposition has, after all, made a little progress. I quote first from section 4, paragraph 3, which reads as follows—

They reject it now. I do not know how they got two specific people through that drift. However, there are two people whom they had to drag through a drift and I wonder whether they did not perhaps swallow a lot of water in the process. I think there may have been two drifts. The one is Bamfordsdrift and the other Suzmansdrift. For example, I shall now quote what Mr. Bamford said on 11 May 1976, when he was still a Senator, and was replying to a few questions. He furnished certain replies which he gave at a political meeting. I shall just read the final sentence in his Hansard—

I therefore think that they dragged someone through this drift and I do want to give the hon. member for Groote Schuur credit for having displayed insight in rejecting that standpoint. However, there is another drift through which someone else had to be brought and that is Suzmansdrift. I now quote from what the hon. member for Houghton had to say according to a quote from Minister Fanie Botha (Hansard, col. 91, 1977)—

She foresees that there are going to be more Blacks than Whites on the voter’s roll. She goes on to say—

This, to them, is a unitary system and there will therefore be more Blacks; in other words, they are a black majority on the voter’s roll and will therefore constitute the Government. That is Black majority rule.

But you say that there are going to be no Blacks in South Africa.

The Opposition states that they now reject majority rule, or should we take it that, just as there is now a new policy, they may have yet another policy tomorrow, or perhaps by sundown and will then be back with majority rule? In reply to a question the hon. member for Houghton went on to say—

In other words, progress by means of an evolutionary process must be made towards a complete take-over, according to her standpoint as stated here. I say that these are two drifts that have been passed and I want to give hon. members credit for having made progress.

I think they have forded a third drift as well, namely Eglinsdrift, the drift of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. According to their plan, paragraph 4.7.1—

However, in the past that hon. member has made a few remarks to precisely the opposite effect. As long ago as 1960 the hon. member said—

However, that hon. member has now forded his drift and must admit that he had said a few things in the drift.

The difference is that you are still saying the same as you did in December.

Let me warn the hon. member for Yeoville that he should not tempt me at this point to remind him of his “skins” speech in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal. [Interjections.]

Order!

I do want to point out that it seems to me that those hon. members have in fact made progress. Now I also want to say a few words about the consociation plan, the plan for consensus government. There are authorities who maintain that there is only one out of three choices. In the first place, there is a majority government. Then there is the consociation system and, thirdly, a system of partition.

This very week two academics from the University of Cape Town, Prof. De Crespigny and Mr. Collins broke a lance for partition, for separation. Those two gentlemen asked that we should give new attention to the possibility of separation and to a more meaningful consolidation in South Africa in order to make the right of self-determination of peoples possible in a more meaningful fashion. However, the PFP comes forward with a consensus government, a consociation idea, which has not really shown any significant progress anywhere in the world apart from Switzerland.

The consociation plan is an effort to solve the problem of multi-nationalism, the problem created for democracy where a multi-national set-up, a plurality of peoples, of communities and cultures is to be found in the same country. There are many examples of this. In Austria there was a consociation between the years 1945 and 1966. This was therefore over a very short period. In Netherlands it existed from 1917 to 1967, a mere half-century. In Lebanon we encountered it from 1943 to 1975, in Malaysia from 1955 to 1961 and in Cyprus only from 1960 to 1963. Then, too, there are Belgium and Switzerland, both of which also qualify for this model. Some people maintain that Israel and Canada also qualify for it. However, it is very clear that this system has had one failure after the other, wherever it has been implemented. Apparently it has only been a success in Switzerland, and even there is doubt whether in modern circumstances it will in fact be capable of being successfully maintained over the long term. Therefore only one success can in fact be proved here.

Allow me to refer, too, to a contribution which appeared in the Sunday Times, a contribution from the pen of one Philip Frankel of the University of the Witwatersrand. Please note that this is not one of the so-called verkramptes to which hon. members opposite are always so fond of referring. I am now quoting the opinions of people at our universities, people who have to deal with political philosophy and who look at the situation in South Africa, look at our multiple national and cultural structure, and then ask what national structure suits it. Now I find that these people, one after the other, are levelling criticism at the proposals which hon. members opposite are trying to dish up to us.

Consensus government, as these people see it, sets political leaders and their communities or their nations, special and exceptional demands of tolerance and self-control. It sets special demands, demands which in my opinion are too great to have a chance of success. Those communities and those political leaders must be willing to adapt themselves to a complicated network of compromise, of cross-coalitions and of concessions.

Now Frankel has the following to say in the Sunday Times—

He goes on to say—

And then this sentence—

That is what this man has to say. He says that that thing cannot work. Now I can only point out … [Interjections.] I do not know whether hon. members understand this. I can also quote another authority. Last year, discussing the same matter, Prof. A. H. Murray said: “You are attempting something which does not work in a country with a plurality of nations.” Does the hon. member wish to doubt that? Prof. Murray said this on 1 February 1978. He pointed out that such a system does not work in a multiracial or multi-national country. Its political parties remain for the most part national or race parties. National or race interests are soon placed before the interests of the State. A majority vote for essential legislation is difficult to obtain. These are facts, but hon. member opposite always simply want to bring about consensus and consult until the cows come home and then they still hope to succeed with that in a country like South Africa which, as it is said, has such a deeply divided society.

Hon. members opposite are so fond of speaking about realities. The reality of South Africa and that of the situation I am trying to put forward, is that the absence of mutual confidence, as is depicted in South Africa when people are forced upon each other, hinders the function of a head of State if a checkmate situation arises. That policy is based on a compromise and is undesirable. With such a policy, racial and national awareness will penetrate the Public Service.

One also encounters another fact which we in South Africa experience—and hon. members opposite know what we are referring to. Due to the inter-dependence of states, when one tries to force together a plurality of nations that are not acceptable to each other at the social, political and other levels, and achieve consensus, there is always an appeal for help from outside by one or other of these communities that thinks it has been done an injustice—an appeal to interfere in the internal affairs of such people. That is a fact.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the new constitutional proposals of the Government do also not depend upon consensus?

Not consensus as the hon. member understands it in the sense of power-sharing where one has a joint body which, by means of majority votes, takes coercive decisions for all. Therefore there is a very big difference. Our history, race and national disputes, our social diversity—and now I am again quoting Frankel—are simply not amenable to such a political system. Consequently that, too, is not viable. It is as little viable as it would be viable to try to transplant the heart of a mouse into a cat. The rejection mechanism is simply so strong that this thing would not work in South Africa.

Hon. members opposite proceed on the assumption that one only needs a few doses of goodwill, fine words and slogans to handle South Africa’s politics.

What do hon. members say, for example, to a Black leader such as Chief Minister Lennox Sebe who said, inter alia, the following in Potchefstroom—

What is wrong with that?

Of course there is nothing wrong with that, but according to that party’s recipe this man cannot do that, because he cannot realize himself, because whatever State those hon. members establish—they will establish a number of States—nowhere, as far as I can judge, will there be a single State among them with a White majority which can send a White to their federal parliament. In that state this man’s language will not be tolerated because there must be no discrimination on the basis of race, nation, religion or sex.

If I understand that side of the House correctly, then by “no discrimination” they understand that there may not be any separation either. There must be mixed residential areas and if one has mixed residential areas, a city like Johannesburg, for example, will be just one state. Johannesburg will then send only one man to the federal parliament and he would definitely not be White. If that is so in the case of Johannesburg, it will probably be so in large number of the other so-called states as well.

In this regard I can also refer to something said by Captain Buthelezi. Hon. members opposite are fond of quoting him. Three years ago he virtually pleaded with the editor of The World not to bring about a division between the so-called rural Zulus and the urban Zulus. He pleaded that a distinction should not be drawn in this case, and he recently reconfirmed that idea, for the simple reason that even someone like Buthelezi is at heart a Zulu nationalist, in spite the imperialist ideas he does sometimes express. He is proud of the fact that his Inkatha Movement has tens of thousands of members in Soweto. This confirms what we on this side of the House maintain, viz. that our approach is a national approach. We want to see those nations as a unity and not as divided into a state situated in the Eastern Transvaal or in Northern Natal and a state in Soweto. It is not our approach that the Zulu nation be divided in that way.

In this regard I could also refer to Venda. As far as the Venda people are concerned it is its Government’s approach that wherever a Venda may be in White territory, he be regarded as a Venda, and moreover he acknowledges that link with his people.

In this connection I can also refer to the condition set by the official Opposition for their national convention. This condition reads that there are certain basic principles which are not negotiable. According to them they are not “verhandelbaar” (saleable), and I just want to say that they will not get them sold to us. They provide, inter alia, a comprehensive statement on discrimination, an open community, etc. If the hon. Opposition want to hold a convention, and if they want to achieve consensus before holding the convention, we can tell them in advance that we do not endorse their view of what no discrimination means. Nor do we endorse their view of an open community; we do not subscribe to the idea of an integrated community, but we stand for nationalism, for separate development, and we can tell them in advance, before they begin with then convention, that before they achieve that consensus they will first have to get past the NP, because the NP must also be present there. I want to tell them in advance that there is no consensus between separate development and self-determination of nations on the one hand, and integration and sharing of power—which they advocate—on the other.

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to see the tactical battle that is being waged by the other side of the House. We are in the middle of a debate about the former Department of Information and hon. members on this side of the House have asked for answers, but we have had no answers. Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister has spoken, but no answers have been forthcoming at all. We are now experiencing a patently obvious attempt to divert—it is quite understandable; I appreciate it—the argument away from the Department of Information. We are not, however, going to be diverted at this stage, but I can give the hon. the Deputy Minister the assurance that before the end of this debate, we shall talk about our constitutional plans and we shall answer .… [Interjections.] We are not, however, going to allow the spotlight to be turned away from the Department of Information, because we have to have the answers.

I listened with interest to the few remarks which the hon. the Deputy Minister did make about the former Department of Information. One of those remarks was a plea that the guilty should be brought to book as soon as possible and with that I wholeheartedly agree. We want more answers and we want more than that. I regret that the hon. the Minister of the Interior is not here …

[Inaudible.]

My hon. colleague from Houghton disagrees; she does not want him to be here …

He has disappeared.

I would like to tell the hon. the Minister that the parliamentary staff have checked on a question raised by him concerning a reference by the hon. member for Groote Schuur to a certain pension provision which has been repealed. There has been an error in the official Butterworths’ Statutes that belong to Parliament. In the light of the fact that the statute series is published under contract for the Government, the hon. Minister who is responsible for that should do something about it. The question nevertheless remains— and this is the substance of the whole argument—what is going to be done about Dr. Rhoodie’s pension? Is the Government going to do anything about Dr. Rhoodie’s pension?

Where are they posting it to?

Yes. Perhaps they do know; we do not know.

I want to return to what I consider one of the most disgraceful aspects of the whole scandalous Information situation, a matter that was raised by the hon. member for Yeoville and which concerns The Citizen. During the short session last year we on this side of the House expressed our disapproval in the strongest possible terms at the way in which senior members of the Government who were involved, or were aware, of the Department of Information’s financial backing for the newspaper had not disclosed this to Parliament. One of the findings of the Erasmus Commission was that the decision of Mr. Vorster, who was then a sick man, that publication of The Citizen should continue temporarily to see whether the newspaper could not be sold at the least possible loss, was in the circumstances a salvaging attempt in the interests of the State. I think we should examine this finding because it is now time for a further explanation from, I hope, the hon. the Prime Minister, but at least from some senior member on the Government side as to what the situation is in regard to The Citizen’s financial transactions, so that we in Parliament can know exactly where we stand. The Erasmus Commission stated that the State could have suffered damage if the newspaper had been closed immediately. An amount of roughly R13 million could possibly have been claimed by Perskor, as printers, for breach of contract. The first thing that we should know is the status of this possible claim. Since The Citizen has been sold to Perskor, has this claim fallen away and do we no longer have the contingent liability of R13 million? Are we now in the clear? What exactly was the nature of the contract of sale to Perskor? We should like to know what the benefit was to the State from this so-called salvage attempt. The hon. the Prime Minister is laughing away as if it were a matter he did not care about.

He also does not know.

I would like to know how the State benefited, because all I can see is the benefit to the NP and that is perhaps why the hon. the Prime Minister is laughing away in his front bench. Everything seems to have been sorted out very sweetly indeed in the interest of political advantage for the Government. The unwilling taxpayer has been forced to finance an English-language, NP orientated newspaper and one can only say that The Citizen will stand, for as long as it does stand, as a monument and a lasting testimony to some of the most arrogant and cynical actions ever perpetrated by any Government.

We were led to believe that The Citizen was Government property and there is no doubt at all in my mind and the minds of hundreds of thousands of people throughout South Africa that morally the correct and honest thing to have done was for the Government to have closed down The Citizen and taken the consequences. It might well have been embarrassing to be sued by Perskor which at various times had and still has on its board of directors a number of prominent and leading figures in the NP hierarchy, including several Cabinet Ministers and ex-Cabinet Ministers and an Administrator. When we talk about credibility, this is what we are referring to, because by allowing The Citizen to be appropriated by Perskor the Government has forfeited its claim to sincerity in clearing up the scandalous situation which has arisen. Greedy for political advantage, the hon. the Prime Minister must bear the responsibility when the Government stands condemned for compounding the fraudulent and dishonest actions of their servants. A victory has now been achieved for everything that Dr. Mulder stood for and for everything that Dr. Rhoodie stood for. To the best of my knowledge and belief. Dr. Mulder is still a director of Perskor. So, in essence, The Citizen has been sold to a company in which Dr. Mulder is involved. How very convenient! How very convenient for the NP.

They send Rhoodie his copy every day.

Other directors such as Mr. Sybrand van Niekerk, the Administrator who will not listen to what the hon. the Prime Minister says, must be delighted with this business coup which has brought them a newspaper.

At the taxpayer’s expense.

Yes, at the taxpayer’s expense as my hon. colleague says. I believe that there are aspects of the sale of The Citizen and its assets which have to be probed further. I believe that the Government owes us some answers, and I am asking specific questions in the hope that there might be somebody on the other side who will answer them.

They never know.

There is the question of The Citizen printing press …

It is too secret for them to be trusted with it.

… which was presumably owned by the Government, though it is a little difficult to track down exactly who the owner was at that time.

Or who the Government is.

It appears that a company owned by the Government—and this was admitted to by the hon. the Prime Minister—sold the printing press to Perskor for an amount of R375 000, a bargain price far below its real value. Even an Argus company offer of R600 000 was ignored completely. Now, firstly, I should like to know whether South Africa had the right to sell that press at all. Did it not belong to the Government?

The answer is that we do not know.

Surely he will tell us.

Surely, when one disposes of Government assets, it is normal procedure to put these assets out on tender.

Ah, it is a pity Connie is not here to answer a few questions.

No, it is a Government liability.

Not a word is forthcoming. How does it come about that Perskor is able to buy it at far less than its real value without its being put out on tender? I think it indicates the grossest kind of misconduct, and I think we should have an accounting for this side of the House.

Hear, hear!

Were there perhaps other assets, owned by the State, which were disposed of in similar fashion without being put out on tender?

The hon. member for Sunnyside is going to tell us.

We need an accounting because we have not yet been told where the State stands financially, and I believe we are entitled to know. If rumour is to be believed, and this rumour wandered around the Union Buildings for some time, the Government was willing to sell The Citizen’s name for as little as R1, purely and simply to get rid of a millstone from around its neck. We need an accounting because there are far too many unanswered financial questions. For 28 months the erstwhile Department of Information financed The Citizen whilst incurring losses in the region of R½ million per month. This accounts for R15 million of the R32 million, but I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what happened to the other R17 million. Where did that go? Again, we get no answers.

Dead silence!

Where has that other R17 million gone to?

Why do you not make your speech?

No doubt The Citizen will continue to play its role of His Master’s Voice and taxpayers will know that they have been ripped off. I must, however, say what other hon. members in these benches have said, and that is that this reflects very badly on the credibility of the Government.

I now want to return—and again I regret that he is not here—to some aspects of the speech made yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Justice, and I must say, at the outset, that if the rumours about the hon. the Prime Minister dispensing with his services in the Cabinet were not true two or three days ago, perhaps after yesterday’s speech the hon. the Prime Minister will have had time to consider and might have changed his plan, because after that performance he would be very justified indeed in suggesting that the Minister of Justice leave the Cabinet.

There is hope for you yet, Andries.

Yes, I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister has had to invest to make sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister who is leader in the Transvaal gets into the Cabinet. We are just interested in knowing who is for the chop, and if we could make any suggestions, the hon. the Minister of Justice would be that man.

He is doing his best not to get him in the Cabinet.

The reasoning of the hon. the Minister of Justice was most extraordinary. His legal argument was tortuous in the extreme. I am not a legal man myself … [Interjections] … but even to me it lacks substance. Admittedly, he did have a difficult role to play because he had to try and find excuses for the inexcusable. No person could be blamed if, after having taken an objective view of recent events, such a person came to the conclusion that the administration of justice differed, depending upon whether or not one’s political views were for or against the Government. One only has to look at the speed with which prosecution was instituted against the Rand Daily Mail on a relatively minor charge. One only has to look at how the editor of the Rand Daily Mail was held in custody because he did not have R50 in his pocket to pay a fine. So they were going to put him in gaol for 25 days, which was the alternate sentence. Why was this sort of treatment not meted out to Gen. Van den Bergh? The failure to prosecute Gen. Van den Bergh makes us suspicious because it is so much at variance with the way people who are against the Government have been treated. I am not questioning the bona fides of Mr. Nöthling, the Attorney-General, but what I do question is his right to base his decision not to prosecute Gen. Van den Bergh on matters which have nothing to do with the legal merits of the case, matters which have nothing at all to do with the law. This is one of my quarrels with the hon. the Minister of Justice, who has just entered the House. He claimed that for a variety of reasons he did not want to interfere with the decision of the Attorney-General. He would have had a case if it was a question of law that was at issue. It was, however, not a question of law, but a political decision based on the Attorney-General’s own opinion—it had nothing to do with the law—of what was in the national interest. I believe it is the duty of Parliament, and not of the Attorney-General, to decide what is in the national interest. Nobody should be above the law. I think I understood the hon. the Minister of Justice to say that the Attorney-General had access to the Erasmus Commission’s evidence before he came to his decision. Did I understand him correctly? [Interjections.]

He cannot hear you!

Well, I believe I understood him to say that Mr. Nöthling had access to the Erasmus Commission’s evidence. It would have been interesting to know how he had made up his mind had he not had access to that evidence. In his statement to the Press when he announced his decision, the Attorney-General said he had good reason to believe that, if a prosecution were instituted, the correctness of certain findings of the Erasmus Commission would be placed at issue. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Justice will confirm that the Attorney-General was in a happier position than any member of Parliament. Perhaps he would also like to tell us or get one of his colleagues to tell us just how many other people had access to that evidence. We in Parliament, who are supposed to be the representatives of the people, are not given access to that evidence even though Parliament is supposed to be the highest court in the land.

Do you call Parliament a court?

It would also be interesting to know who consulted with Mr. Nöthling and whom he talked to when he was persuaded, if he was persuaded, what was in the national interest.

Another matter which indicates very clearly the double standards which appear to operate when legal processes are convenient to the Government, was evident in the treatment meted out to the deputy editor of the Sunday Express, Mr. Kit Katzen, following on a story dealing with the murder of Robert Smit Although he had already indicated his willingness to answer all questions relating to his source of information, this was just not good enough. His offer was refused and he was subpoenaed in terms of section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act to appear before a magistrate. It is interesting to note that the questions appearing on the subpoena were exactly those he had voluntarily offered to answer. Why was it necessary to haul him in front of a magistrate when he was quite willing to answer in any event? What were the authorities trying to prove? It is quite evident that the insistence that section 205 be invoked was not a decision of the local police.

I am afraid that we are going to need a lot of convincing that double standards are not being applied.

It is all intimidation!

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice how he feels about the main story in Die Afrikaner of 2 February. It was headed: “Vorster en Botha moet uit.” How does he feel about that? I do not know whether he has read the article. If not, I suggest he does so and then decides whether it might not be convenient in this instance to look into the possibilities of instituting a prosecution, or would this be an embarrassment or not in the public interest? I ask this because there is no doubt at all that the people of South Africa are suspicious that the suppression of certain facts and evidence is considered necessary because, if those facts saw the light of day, they would reflect very badly on certain highly placed individuals. I wish that hon. members on the other side would accept that it is absolutely inevitable that the truth will come out eventually. Until the Government demonstrates by its actions that the publication of all the facts is in the public interest, they will be under suspicion— and they are under suspicion. What is more, they will be subjected continually to contemptuous attacks along the lines of the comments by Gen. Van den Bergh and the article in Die Afrikaner. We have not seen the last of that. It is going to go on. I see that Gen. Van den Bergh is going to hit them for 100 runs and not just a six. There are many unanswered questions.

Finally, I should like to examine one last aspect of the Erasmus Commission’s Report which has led to a considerable amount of disquiet in the public mind. That is the section which deals with the former Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster. The evidence shows that at the time Dr. Mulder told the House that there was no Government money in The Citizen, Mr. Vorster was fully aware of the true situation; yet he said nothing. A lie was told in the House, Mr. Vorster knew it was a lie and yet he said nothing. The question, then, is why he said nothing. Until that question is answered, considerable disquiet in the public mind will persist.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the very outset that I am not going to lose my temper or become excited. I want to reply to a few things because certain things have happened which are alarming to any South African. The hon. the Minister of Transport pointed out that we have already devoted two days to a special debate on the Information problem. We expected the Opposition to help us to govern the country by weighing up and debating opposing policies. However, the hon. member for Orange Grove said that we would not divert them from the Information scandal, that they will confine us to it. The hon. member again raised certain aspects to which the hon. the Prime Minister gave explicit replies during the short session already. These concerned the take-over of The Citizen. I quote from the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister (Hansard, 7 December 1978, col. 20)—

The Citizen therefore belongs to the owners and shareholders of South Africa Today—

These matters can be gone into in detail. [Interjections.] I want to know why the circulation of The Citizen is increasing. The circulation is increasing because English-speaking people in this country want to hear both sides of a matter. The English-speaking people in this country are experiencing a profound need to read in their own language that everything which is bad and rotten in this country is not solely attributable to a party which has been governing for all of 30 years. Because of that need of the English-speaking people the circulation is increasing, and the figures demonstrate this.

R30 million of the taxpayers’ money went into it.

That does not matter. Everyone in South Africa and abroad has been informed about The Citizen and we have already reached the stage where the man in the street is already beginning to adopt a “so what” attitude to The Citizen matter. [Interjections.] That is how the man in the street is beginning to feel about it One commission after another is investigating and exposing these matters to the full. To my mind there is something tragic about this matter, something which the hon. the Minister of Transport also pointed out. If the former Department of Information did 100 things of which 10 were wrong, those 10 things that were wrong may be condemned, but we should not also condemn the 90 good things which made it possible for us to conduct our economic and financial affairs.

The hon. member for Orange Grove suffers from one great malady. As soon as something goes wrong at an abattoir or a municipal market, or when a story is told to him by a person whom I would rather not discuss in this House and who is dismissed by Imperial Cold Storage and other people as having a tile loose, he gives vent to his feelings in no other newspaper but the Sunday Express. This is one-sided reporting. He actually comes to this House and quotes Die Afrikaner which says “Vorster en Botha moet uit”. Die Afrikaner said that I, too, must go. It said Fanie Botha must go; Mr. Horwood must go, and everyone who is here, must go. That is the newspaper which he quoted. One should at least try to be balanced in one’s actions.

In the short time at my disposal I should like to refer to a few other matters. In the first place I want to refer to the tragedy of a weak Opposition. We have an opportunity of holding by-elections. There is a person who is standing for election in Swellendam and what he is on about is the same old story: “Give us a chance to establish a good Opposition for you.” These people never have a desire to govern. Their only desire is to be an Opposition for the rest of their lives. The NP therefore has to bear all the responsibility. We shall test all these so-called misdeeds in future. Perhaps we shall suffer a minor setback at a by-election.

Test them on TV.

However, we still have contact with the people. [Interjections.] If we on this side of the House were able to have the people choose today, in spite of the Information story, and we as Afrikaans-speaking people can decide, this side of the House will continue to govern in spite of the error which came about through the former Department of Information.

Try that in Pinetown, Cape Town Gardens and Maitland. [Interjections.]

I shall return to other matters in a moment. I do not wish to swing the debate away from that now. I shall prove to hon. members in a moment why they cannot come into power.

Then why should we hold elections? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister a chance to make his speech.

The Opposition is being given an opportunity in Randfontein. The Randfontein by-election is coming. Why should we waste more of the State’s money by holding an election … [Interjections.] After all, it requires a great deal of time. I should very much like to hold an election, but if we were to hold an election now, what then? The hon. member for Rondebosch says that he now has an alternative to our policy. With all the faults we have—I am not saying we are perfect—that hon. member says that they have a policy which is going to give everyone something. Everyone is going to receive a slice of the cake. Everyone will therefore be satisfied to some extent. I am merely mentioning an example. He said that parties could be formed in accordance with proportional group representation. But he cannot tell us how many groups could arise. Can the hon. member tell me how many groups will arise under proportional group representation?

How many parties can there be in the country?

How many groups can arise according to this concept?

I think the farmers could be a group.

There is a farmers’ group and there is a labour group. This morning the hon. the Minister of the Interior asked that their constitutional proposals be submitted to a national convention and everyone should negotiate until consensus has been achieved. Can hon. members tell me how long they will negotiate?

As in South West Africa.

Say, for example, they want to negotiate for two years. Or do they want to negotiate for three years? Then we will never come to an end. I should like to hold by-elections and I want to tell the people there: “Here is the alternative of the PFP. Weigh up my policy against the policy of that party.”

Then you must first have a policy.

My goodness me! Then I want to ask this question: Do those hon. members know the negotiators? Do they know the people with whom they have to negotiate? Do they know what their make-up is, along what kind of lines they will argue? Each one of them has a different idea. In fact, we are dealing with people who still have to develop, people whom we have to take by the hand … [Interjections.] That is right, but in this case it is my request that we should put this policy of the PFP to the test, and do so in Swellendam and Randfontein. [Interjections.]

And Beaufort West!

Yes, and Beaufort West as well. [Interjections.] Yes, why not in Beaufort West as well? To my mind, however, there is one important thing. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to ask those hon. members to take note of what happened in Africa, of what happened in the whole of Africa. I want to refer to what The Argus said on 16 January of this year. These are things which began in precisely the same way as they began among those hon. members. They began by formulating things in the back of their minds, ideas on how they want to manage our affairs in future. This is what appeared in The Argus—

Mr. Speaker, … [Interjections.] The problem with the PFP is that they want to make everyone happy. Surely one can never adopt a strong standpoint with such a party. The hon. Van Zyl Slabbert, and, I think, Uncle Kowie as well … [Interjections.] Yes, they thought: “Let us find a policy which we can sell, a policy with which we can make ourselves popular, with which we can arouse the sympathy and interest of everyone.” [Interjections.] We come now to their policy, and what do we see? I quote—

Mr. Du Preez therefore took the policy of the PFP and tore it into shreds. Has the PFP ever discussed their policy … [Interjections.] I want to ask them to discuss their policy with a Coloured, a Zulu or a Xhosa. They utter a belly-laugh. They say it is better than Boswell’s circus. [Interjections.] Yes, that is the policy of the PFP. I speak to those people and I speak to them in their own language. [Interjections.] Now the hon. member of tire PFP say … [Interjections.] Is that not interesting now? Their newspaper says … [Interjections.] That is why I am of the opinion that we should also reach the English-speaking sector for a change by means of a level-headed newspaper. This is what their newspaper says—

I can only tell them that in spite of all these things and in spite of all their reproaches … [Interjections.]

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not angry with them if they make interjections.

Yes, but surely not all at once.

Yes, that is true, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Time and again that party wishes for a rift and division in the ranks of this party to occur. With what purpose? Because they know that they cannot destroy us at the polls. A rift therefore remains their only hope. But as far as this party is concerned, I want to say that there is a strong feeling of harmony among its members, particularly in the Transvaal. We are grateful that we have a Prime Minister such as the one we do have. Recently an interesting newspaper report appeared under the headline “Woelinge al erger in die Progressiewe Federate Party”. After all, we know that the hon. member for Yeoville does not, in every respect, align himself heart and soul with that party. This Information story is a delightful occurrence for those hon. members, for with it they are able to throw up a smokescreen around many things.

I come now to the idea that I want to bring home to hon. members opposite. The Opposition realizes that the National Party has gone from strength to strength. There are no more Afrikaans-speaking people who can vote Nationalist, and the English-speaking people in this country are already beginning to realize to a greater extent that the National Party is a party which can be trusted. From time to time, and last week we saw it again, they say that we on this side are fomenting hatred of the Afrikaners. But what is happening among their own newspapers? The English-language newspapers have been fomenting hatred of the Afrikaners for a long time now. In this regard I want to enumerate a few examples. I am not a person who bears a grudge. Some of my greatest friends are English-speaking people. I would even go so far as to say that my own uncle, Johan Schoeman, was a Roman Catholic. I forgive him for it [Interjections.] I am named after him, because my second name is also Johan. I was very fond of him, but he was a Roman Catholic and I was a member of the N.G. Church. Some of my best friends are English-speaking people and Jews. [Interjections.]

Oh!

I would not say that the hon. member for Houghton is also one! However, hon. members opposite are delighted that a wedge is being driven between Afrikaans and English-speaking people in this country. Do you know, Sir, what tactics these people are using? They will not succeed with this Information story. Nor will they succeed in sowing dissension in the ranks of the Afrikaans-speaking people, or between Afrikaans- and English-speaking people. In the Sunday Times a report appeared under the headline: “Down on the farm the Breeders run almost everything.” Farmers are shown bowing and kneeling in a circle before a pig seated on a throne. That is what we are dealing with here. In this article an attempt is consequently made to sow further dissension by saying that the members of Sampi are non-Broederbonders, while the members of Samso are members of the Broederbond. If one wants to get to the root of the matter as far as these rumours are concerned, it is my conviction that the hon. Opposition is not succeeding in sowing unrest among the public of South Africa. The times in which we are living compel the Afrikaans- and English-speaking people to take one another’s hands. There are people today who are not members of the Broederbond who are better Afrikaners and better Nationalists than people who are members of the Broederbond. Membership of the Broederbond has never been a norm and the Broederbond is no super Afrikaner organization; it is a small cultural organization.

If I make an appointment in my department or if a farmer comes to me with a problem, I never ask him to what church he belongs. As far as I am concerned, he can be a Dopper, Hervormer or Gatjaponner, or a member of any other church denomination; it makes no difference to me. I do not ask him to what party he belongs, nor do I ask him whether he is a Freemason or a Broederbonder. I have never become so petty as to use those things to sow dissension in the ranks of my people.

The time has arrived when the level-headed, ordinary English-speaking person yearns to have a newspaper which can inform him of the true situation in this country. In this article the Sunday Times reports that more than 80% of the farmers of South Africa vote Nationalist. But once again they are wrong, because more than 95% of our farmers vote Nationalist. Financially things are going very badly with the farmers and we shall discuss their financial situation this year during the present session. In spite of the record rainfall last year, things are not going well for the farmers financially. However, things are not going well with the industries either. I am speaking from experience, because farmers who have been brought to their knees as a result of the drought have told me that. I must ensure that no harm befalls the Government, since their future is also at stake. The accusations of the Opposition have not detracted at all from the support of 95% of the farmers in South Africa who vote for the National Party and I predict that 98% of them will eventually vote Nationalist, because they are dealing with a Government that can be trusted.

Hon. members can laugh if they like, but, believe me, I am shocked to the core by insinuations of this type, i.e. that the Government is at fault. It is unprecedented that such events can take place under a South African government. That is why the commissions of inquiry were appointed and why our hon. Prime Minister said last year during the short session that we would expose to the bone the errors which had arisen, but in the correct manner and not in the manner in which the hon. Opposition wishes to do so by deriving temporary political gain from them. Every word of truth will eventually emerge; I want to assure hon. members of that. But then they must listen to the hon. the Minister of Justice and other hon. jurists on this side of the House when they explain how one should act in a legally correct way and that one cannot simply grab a person by the throat and lock him up if it is not possible to lay a charge against him.

The hon. member for East London North really carried on this afternoon and alleged that the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Minister of the Interior had incarcerated certain people without a trial. Not one of us then made interjections referring to the time during the regime of Gen. Smuts when people were locked up in the same way when they apparently caused problems. I am not saying that they did cause problems at the time, but today we are definitely dealing with people who cause problems.

I should now like to refer to the second-class Opposition party, the NRP. The farmers laughed at what their leader had to say. I want to quote the following to prove that they, with their policy, have no chance at all in South Africa. The hon. the leader of the NRP was reported as having said the following, under the headline: “Boere moet betoog, sê Vause Raw.”—

Now hon. members must listen carefully—

I have been sitting with him in this Parliament for almost 13 years and every time I have introduced a price increase for these farmers whom he is so concerned about he has collaborated with the other people on the side of the consumer and has criticized me. When I address a farmers’ day meeting in Natal, he and I are great friends. Then he agrees that the farmers are suffering hardships, but when he rises to his feet here and the newspapers report him and it is recorded in Hansard so that I can use it to say that even our Opposition maintains that there should be a better dispensation for the farmers in this country, then he says that the NRP is trying to find solutions to these problems. For how long does the hon. member want to keep on trying? I say that it is idle talk. This incitement of the farmer by a leader of a party in order to protest and in order to put things like this in their mouths, simply proves … [Interjections.] The hon. member was not even able to put up a candidate during the first election in Swellendam because the farmers were harvesting, but that does not matter.

I want to conclude with the idea that there is not even a slender possibility of him impressing any voter when we go to a meeting, in spite of all his manoeuvres, regardless of whether it is during a by-election or a general election. When I come to these people—he wants to drive a wedge between us, he goes so far as to say through his mouthpiece that there is dissension between Sampi and Samso as a result of the stories to which I referred a moment ago and he tries to drive the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people into two separate camps—I find that he is making a mistake.

There are people who plan and see whether they cannot find employment at Secunda. The day before yesterday I received a phone call and I was told that Ernst Wienand, a neighbour of mine, had begun working for a fertilizer factory that day. He is a top-notch farmer who, since October, had only four inches of rain on his farm which resulted in a decrease of 30 bags per morgen in production. He threw in the towel. And then The Star publishes this leading article in their edition of 4 January 1979, under the headline “The mealie tradition”—

Mr. Speaker, it is a damned disgrace! While their are people who …

Order! I think the hon. the Minister should withdraw the word “damned”.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. It is a shame that, while there are people who are in distress, those people who eat their fill every day in this country do not rebel and say that this newspaper that has always proclaimed their policy is sowing this kind of ill-will. Not one of them reprimanded The Star and asked how it could publish such an article while it was striving to get them into office.

What newspaper is that?

The Star. When I think of all these things I must say that their could have been mistakes and that we tried to explain them.

The Opposition is trying to evade their policy. I am prepared to explain my policy to any voter from any platform. When I say these things, I am sorry that we do not have an effective Opposition which can argue with sincerity and with pride on problems and on the Information problem, but without hurting South Africa. The Opposition wants the Information debacle to be made public, while they know that certain things have been done for the survival of all of us, including the Black man and the Coloureds in this country. They say that we should expose everything, even if South Africa is hurt in the process. I am glad that I am not sitting on that side. I am grateful and pleased that I am sitting on this side of the House, which represents South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my turn to speak follows that of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. There are quite a number of farmers here and I think the hon. the Minister has unjustly offended us because we are in full agreement with him concerning matters effecting the farmer, and he knows it. He knows we have acted accordingly. The hon. member for Mooi River and myself have many times acted accordingly on behalf of farmers.

And he has thanked us for that.

And the hon. the Minister has thanked us many times and there are other people in the House who said afterwards that they knew we were with them on the side of the farmers.

And the more you champion then cause, the more they vote against you.

I also want to agree with the hon. the Minister that it is a damned disgrace that that article … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “damned”.

Oh, I thought it was acceptable. Then it is just an ordinary disgrace, but it is a disgrace all the same. The farmers’ problems are continually being exploited by the newspapers. [Interjections.] The Deputy Minister of Agriculture says we must demonstrate. [Interjections.] Well, I think we must! All the farmers will have to demonstrate! Do you agree? [Interjections.]

Calm down!

I quite agree that farmers should demonstrate, and I think the hon. the Minister will join us. Is that not true?

Louder!

I hear nothing. I am quite convinced that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture will be right in front on the foremost tractor when we farmers start demonstrating.

Furthermore, I want to agree with the hon. member that we are not in agreement with that HNP newspaper, Die Afrikaner. We do not believe all the Ministers should go. I believe we would like the hon. Minister to stay. We are in agreement on this. But we feel that that dirty little newspaper actually has another point, i.e. that there are perhaps people in that Cabinet who should in fact resign. I do not know who they are. They do not know who they are. I think the big problem is that that paper can publish a filthy article like that today and can get away with it and that the Government is too afraid to prosecute it. The Government is too afraid to prosecute it because it knows that Mr. Jaap Marais’ first witness will be Gen. Van den Bergh and this Government is dead scared of having that man in the dock.

Oh no, Gerrie!

Is it not true? Then prosecute him, gentlemen! Prosecute Jaap Marais! [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I want to ask you a favour today. [Interjections.]

Order!

There are those hon. members on my left who are bothering me so much and when it begins to upset me, Mr. Speaker, will you please just say “whoa”, for when my country gets hurt, I also feel hurt. In fact I think we are all being hurt, and then it is natural for me to become so excited. However, I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my excitement was in no way meant to be contemptuous towards you. I regard the Information scandal as a terrible blow to our country. The soul and vitality of our whole country has partly been paralysed by it. It must really stop now.

Well, stop it then.

It is possible, however, to get this thing over and done with. I want to suggest how we could do it. I shall come to that later.

First I want to praise the Government a little. Hon. members can please keep quiet now while I do so. I want to congratulate the Government on the positive steps which they have in fact taken over the past two months. But this was in another sphere.

Be careful now! They will chuck you out!

No, not easily.

†Mr. Speaker, I should like to start with the Department of Finance. I believe that the hon. Minister concerned has taken a brave and courageous step in commencing with the implementation of the recommendations of the De Kock Commission. It is pleasing to note that the Government is taking positive steps to move away from rigid fiscal controls and will move more and more towards a freer and more open monetary system in the future. Our special congratulations to Dr. Gerhard de Kock.

Thank the Minister!

I have already thanked the Minister for that. But I shall return to the Minister in connection with another matter.

†While I am handing out kudos, I believe we should thank the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs—I am sorry that he is not here today—as well as the hon. the Prime Minister for their efficient and delicate handling of the South West Africa issue. We in this party wish them well in completing this important and very difficult task. I might, however, add that the hon. member for Simonstown is not making it any easier for them with his outburst to the Press, the same Press he so very often vilifies. May I respectfully suggest to the hon. member for Simonstown that before he lets his mouth run away with him again about the UN and the USA, he discusses the implications of it with the hon. Minister concerned.

I also believe it would be correct for me to compliment the hon. the Prime Minister on his tact and the attitude he has displayed so far when dealing with the leaders of other race groups. Please keep it up, Mr. Prime Minister. We also know that it must have taken a lot of guts on the part of the Prime Minister to have made the statement that he was prepared to look once again at the Native Trust and Land Act of 1936. We are aware of how the same subject was treated at the Transvaal congress only 18 months ago. Toe was dit “hoogverraad”. I believe that our old friend, the new Minister of Plural Relations and Development, Piet Promise, has also shown himself …

Order! The hon. member must not address other hon. members in that way.

I withdraw that, Sir. I believe that that hon. gentleman has also shown himself to be able to move consistently forward. It is heartening to see that he is tackling his new and delicate job with such understanding. We wish him well and we trust that he will eventually return to his old pet theory of the canton system when he realizes that it is really idiotic to fragment and dissect our country as his predecessors have done. Hopefully, he may eventually stumble on to the thinking of consociation of peoples within the framework of our Republic, i.e. the thinking of the NRP.

Tell us what that means.

I believe that that hon. Minister will eventually end up where we are right now.

It might be too late.

I hope it will not be too late. We are also very pleased to learn that the hon. the Minister of Tourism said only yesterday that the Government is really serious in moving away from discrimination. We only hope that the rest of the Cabinet feel the same way.

I now come to the point of my speech where I may have to be restrained, because I want to come back to the Information scandal.

Oh no!

I have been asked how we can put an end to this matter and I shall tell you. Most of us have by now assumed that there does in fact exist some form of massive cover-up which has been perpetrated merely to protect a few very senior members of the Government.

Oh, you do not believe that yourself.

I quite believe that and the hon. member believes it as well but he does not have the guts to admit it.

†No one in his right mind can come to any other conclusion and I am not alone in this assumption. Many millions of South Africans, as well as members of the NP in this very House, believe that this cover-up has in fact gone too far. All we, the people of South Africa, demand is the truth!—that is all. We demand no more than the truth. Why cannot the Government accept the simple words of Dr. Wimpie de Klerk which appeared in a newspaper on Sunday? I quote—

*Far too many lies have been told about this matter. This is the thing that hurts me and it hurts hon. members on that side of the House as well but they do not have the guts to admit it.

†The hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and of Education and Training discussed the question of a cover-up at length. He said that 13 major steps have been taken to clean up this mess, but why was it not cleaned up with the first step? It is 13 cover-up steps that have been taken. That is what the hon. the Deputy Minister said in effect.

Now you are talking nonsense.

No, it is true.

†If the Government had cleaned the matter up in the first instance, we would not have been debating this issue today. It is very easy for the hon. the Prime Minister to defuse and completely deflate this horrible mess. If he was honest in saying that he was prepared to “kloof hierdie saak oop tot op die been” and build a clean and open, honest administration, there are some very simple things he can do. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to refer to the hon. Prime Minister in the words “if he were honest” indicating thereby that he was not?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words and put his point in another way.

Mr. Speaker, may I change the word “honest” to “sincere”?

The hon. member must withdraw those words and then put his statement in another way.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “honest” and substitute the word “sincere”.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it not just as much a reflection on the hon. Prime Minister when the hon. member uses the words “if he were sincere” instead of “if he were honest”? Implying that a member of the House was insincere is just as wrong as saying that he was dishonest.

Let me phrase it in the form of a question rather than a statement. [Interjections.]

Order! Has the hon. member withdrawn the words “if he were honest”?

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member may continue.

The hon. the Prime Minister should call together a very small committee of parliamentarians who can be trusted to peruse all the delicate evidence. These men should also be able to hear for themselves what a few of the main characters, such as Mulder and Van den Bergh, have to say in their own defence. If one considers that dozens of clerks, typists and officials have read this super-secret information, surely the hon. the Prime Minister cannot say that he is unable to trust men such as, say, the hon. members for Durban Point and Yeoville with such delicate information. The hon. the Prime Minister will surely have to take such a step. This would immediately restore the trust of the people in the Government. If he is not prepared to allow four or five selected Opposition members to scrutinize this information, only one conclusion can possibly be drawn and that is that he is in fact keeping the lid on this total cover-up.

He would also be letting down his country. He should therefore resign forthwith as Prime Minister to make way for someone else who is prepared to take these steps. Unfortunately he is not here, but I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations whether, in fact, he would not have opened up this matter a long, long time ago. Is that too much to ask? We ask this, in fact we demand it! We in South Africa demand it. We have the right to demand an open and honest government, free of any corruption.

Who are the “we”?

We, the people of South Africa, we demand it! It must be remembered that it was the taxpayer’s money which went down the drain, and the same taxpayer now has the right to know what happened to his money.

Let me try to analyse how the Government has attempted to ward off this attack on the erstwhile Department of Information. It certainly has not done what it should have done in the first instance. It should have opened up the matter honestly, cleanly and totally, but this is what it has not done. However, what it has attempted to do, in order to defend itself, is to have used certain tactics. Clichés such as the words “national interest” or “in the interest of State security” flow fast and furiously as a smokescreen to cover up this whole affair. Fortunately the majority of the public have woken up, during the past few weeks, to the fact that the words “national interest” really mean “Nationalist interest”.

The second method of warding off the massive criticism is by an attempt to start another “boerehaat” campaign. I am sorry the hon. Minister of Agriculture is not here at the moment. This might have worked 20 years ago, but it certainly will not work anymore. The hon. the Prime Minister attempted to bring this matter to the fore in his disastrous final speech at 3 a.m. on December 9. He attempted to create the impression that the whole Information crisis was actually an attack on the Afrikaner. What utter rubbish! How dare he state that the Information corruption had anything to do with the Afrikaner?

*I am proud of being an Afrikaner, and I reject the statement that any attack was directed at the Afrikaner; and I reject it with the contempt it deserves. However, it is interesting that the hon. the Prime Minister found it necessary to pride himself on being one of those first-class, secret, super Afrikaners, super Broederbonders. Perhaps he actually meant that the attack was aimed at those first-class Afrikaners and not against us ordinary second-class Afrikaners, because all the people involved in this corruption debacle of the former Department of Information, were Broederbonders. We ordinary Afrikaners do not see this scandal as a burden of guilt on our shoulders. We are warning the NP that this dead albatross will keep hanging around their necks until they are completely open and honest about the matter.

†A further method the NP is using to avoid blame for this mess is the age-old military strategy that the best form of defence is attack. This tactic is not working either because they forgot the other basic military criterion, i.e. that one can only attack from a firm and solid base. At this stage the NP does not, however, have that firm and solid base.

During the past two months we have heard attack upon attack on the English Press and the Opposition. Is it not very strange that it is not the NP but actually the whole of the rest of the world that is out of step? Can you for one moment imagine what the rest of the world believes today on seeing a picture of Gen. Van den Bergh defying the Government and the judiciary and signing a petition to charge himself? Just imagine what a person overseas thinks when he sees that picture in a newspaper. What does he believe when he sees a man, a general, signing a petition to charge himself? I just cannot believe it! What a laughing stock the Government has, in fact, made of our country. Just think of it! Does the hon. the Prime Minister not understand what is going on outside of this House and outside this country? I believe we are living in Cloud-Cuckoo-land right here in this House if we believe that the ratio of people believing and disbelieving in this cover-up is merely 27:135. It is not so. There are millions who do not believe the stories they are told.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for me to react to the speech made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I should prefer to come to a statement made by the hon. member for Orange Grove—I see he is not here at the moment. He said—

It is obvious that hon. members of the Opposition are using the Information debacle in an attempt to pull themselves out of their political morass. However, if they continue in this vein, I am convinced that they will not pull themselves out, but will hang themselves on the Information rope. The people of South Africa do expect the Opposition to sound a positive note, especially in these times. If one considers the facts, I believe, one has to admit that this has been an opportunity for them. Up to now I am afraid they have not utilized it.

I should now like to refer to a complaint lodged with the Minister concerned by the hon. member for Yeoville when he objected to signs of anti-Semitism in South Africa. Now I must say that the hon. member was honest in making it quite clear that the meetings which had come to his notice were not characteristic of South Africa and were not an Afrikaner or a South African phenomenon. The people who want to stir up hatred on an ethnic basis are foreigners. In fact, this is what the hon. member for Yeoville is objecting to. However, Mr. Speaker, I want to complain to you today, and I want to lay my complaint at the door of the official Opposition. My complaint is that they engage in an anti-Afrikaner racism in South Africa from time to time. We have just seen it again on the part of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. He came up with the Broederbond story once again, the story of super Afrikaners. I think this is a very cheap story, a story which sows suspicion without producing anything which merits attention. He is simply repeating the sentiments of people who try to cast suspicion on Afrikaners.

However, I said that I wanted to lay my complaint at the door of the official Opposition. The PFP is a party which specializes in harping on this string. I therefore want to take this opportunity of quoting one of their mentors. I am referring to Mr. Harry Oppenheimer and his attitude to the Afrikaner and Afrikaner nationalism. In 1977, Mr. Oppenheimer addressed the American Foreign Policy Association in New York. On that occasion he explained the situation in South Africa and he introduced the NP of South Africa and the Afrikaners. How did he do this? I quote—

In a certain sense this is true, but it is a half-truth. The NP was founded with the specific principle of giving priority to South Africa and South Africa’s interests; not to Afrikaner identity or culture in the first place, but to South Africa and South Africa’s interests. This included the interests of Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people, as well as those of all the non-Whites.

However, he went on to describe the White people in South Africa, who find themselves in a position of minority as against the Black people who constitute 70% of the population, and he said—

Mr. Speaker, I object to this kind of representation of South Africa and of the Nationalist and the NP in South Africa. Therefore I do not believe that I am doing Mr. Oppenheimer an injustice in saying that he is speaking the language of the official Opposition. His view is very close to theirs. [Interjections.] He is practically the father of that party. In South Africa and in the development of the NP’s policy, this party has not served the interests of the “Afrikaner tribe” only, it has not kept only these interests in mind, nor has it had regard only to the freedom of this group. In its whole approach, the NP has in fact had regard to the freedom and the ethnic pride of the Black man and of the Brown man as well. We, who have been the leaders in the field of African nationalism, have also accepted, and have made it our basic approach, that other nations and population groups also have a national pride and a desire for freedom. For this reason I find it a great pity that responsible South Africans should display this kind of attitude, that they should reduce our national aspirations and the aspirations of the NP and of the Government to the narrow view of a “White tribe”, of an “Afrikaner tribe”. This is certainly not conducive to the development of good relationships in South Africa. In addition, it is a misrepresentation of the position in South Africa.

At the end of 1978, on the occasion of the graduation ceremony of the University of Cape Town, Mr. Oppenheimer continued in this vein. It seems to me that it has become an obsession with him. Referring to the role of General Botha and General Smuts he said—

Then he went on to say—

Anonymous Afrikaner leaders—

Afrikaner leaders, Afrikaans-speaking leaders, leaders of the NP, did not only think of Afrikaners. We can go back to the days of General Hertzog, to the days of Dr. Malan, to the days of any one. Those people worked and planned for South Africa, and there was always a very strong desire for Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people to be united. In fact, there was always a strong desire for good mutual understanding and peaceful co-existence and co-operation between the White and the non-White population groups. Why always expound this kind of view from foreign platforms? Why do it in South Africa on occasions such as a graduation ceremony of the University of Cape Town?

At the same university, a symposium was held a few years ago—I think it was at their summer school—where the theme was again a similar one: “The Afrikaner, quo vadis?” Then the Afrikaner is discussed as being a person with blinkered and narrow-minded views. Quite recently, these things were reflected in Britain in a series of four TV programmes. When one reads the Press comment on these programmes, I must say it is tragic that people should have such a poor understanding of South Africa and of national Afrikaners and of national South Africans in general as is reflected in these TV programmes. There are even references to the tragic trail of blood in the history of South Africa. If you will allow me to say so, I want to spell out the fact that an Englishman has no right to speak of the trail of blood in our history in South Africa. For this reason I find it reprehensible. I think it is tragic that the Opposition always tends to use that kind of language and that one always finds this kind of attitude and behaviour among them.

I want to mention a different example to you, and this has a bearing on the new dispensation which we are about to enter upon. I must say that their contribution has been insignificant. The day when this new dispensation was announced to Coloured and Indian leaders—I base my remarks on the evidence of responsible Coloured people—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition met those people. During the conversation it became clear to him that these people found the proposals very acceptable. His comment to them was: If you accept it, what will become of us? [Interjections.]

I am speaking under correction …

That is a blatant untruth.

… but this is the version given by leaders of the Brown people.

That is a blatant untruth.

In other words, the hon. Leader must keep the Coloured people better informed and handle them better than this. This is what they say. The fact is that the official Opposition keeps using the argument that the Coloured people and the Indians do not accept the new proposals. They have opportunities to comment, to make a contribution and even to propagate proposals for change, because the matter is still under consideration, after all.

I want to emphasize the fact that the official Opposition is going out of its way to wreck the new dispensation and to cast suspicion on it. [Interjections.] In addition, I can tell the official Opposition that no government in South Africa has ever approached and investigated the political rights of the Coloured people and the Indians so sympathetically and so seriously as this very Government and party. [Interjections.] What did the political rights of the Coloured people and the Indians amount to in the past? A handful of Coloured people had the vote. The Government has given the Coloured people a broad political representation. Now I want to admit that they have had a body with very limited political power and authority, but that body was not the end, but in fact the beginning of the road. It was the beginning of a line of development.

It is said that the CRC was a body with very limited power, a body which amounted to little or nothing. I do not agree with that. However, let us bear in mind that it has given those people precious experience in the democratic process, and today they are much riper and better prepared to participate meaningfully in the new dispensation.

I think that we should reconsider our attitude to one another. I regard these stories about the Broederbond as petty gossip by people who, in their impotence, attempt to denigrate other people without proving what they themselves are capable of. I have no objection to and no misgivings about competent English-speaking people, Coloured people, Indians or anyone else. Let us all make a contribution to the development of South Africa, but let us respect one another. I have never thought of ferreting out the Sons of England, the Freemasons or anyone else and of labelling them as super-this or super-that. I think this is a reprehensible attitude on the part of people who amount to nothing and who make no contribution. For this reason, I think that the new dispensation which is in the offing is an opportunity to us all to be positive and to make a contribution. For the official Opposition I have bad news. I met the representatives of my constituency before the opening of Parliament and they feel hurt about the Information scandal and the whole sorry business. However, they did not tell me that they were going to vote for another party, but that the NP should set matters right, and they will support it in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in a few moments I should like to continue with the theme which was started by the hon. member for Piketberg. First of all, though, I should like to deal with a few points still arising out of the Information issue and the debate to date. Yesterday the hon. the Minister of Justice asked whether we doubted the objectivity of the Erasmus Commission. Some hon. members, perhaps even the hon. the Minister, were a little shocked when I raised my hand and said: “I do”. I did so because I believe that today, as we sit here in Parliament in 1979, no one is holy at all and that very few offices are totally above doubt. There are a few questions I should like to put to the House. Would we have doubted the integrity of the Reynders Commission investigation a year ago? Would we also have dared to doubt the integrity of the holder of the office of that investigation? Yet, a false report was made to the hon. the Prime Minister. Would this House have doubted the word of the Secretary of the former Department of Information a year ago? Today, however, that man is not in South Africa. He is wandering around the countries of the world with money belonging to the State. Would we have doubted the word of the top man in South African security, Gen. Van den Bergh, a year ago? Would we have doubted his assurances? Yet, that man, the top appointee of the NP Government, misled the House, NP members as also my hon. colleague and lied, as has been revealed by the report. Would we have had the temerity, a year ago, to doubt the word, the integrity and standing as a person of a senior ranking Cabinet Minister who spoke only the truth? Yet there is a Cabinet Minister, no longer with us today, who was one of the architects of this great deception which we have all been learning about. Finally, would we have doubted a former Prime Minister a year ago? Yet we have a former Prime Minister who knew about the lie that was told in this House and yet did nothing about it, and who even held an election while knowing about it. There is something I should like to know. Who is there left in South Africa who can be trusted? In posing that question, I humbly submit that in the present exercise the commission and the stature and posture of the Government are not above suspicion. I have nine reasons for saying so, and I shall state them.

Order! I must call upon the hon. member to withdraw the innuendo in the words he used.

What is the innuendo, Sir?

The hon. member’s question was whether there was now anyone in South Africa that could be trusted.

I withdraw those words, Sir. The present exercise of the commission is, to my mind, not above doubt, and I wish to explain to hon. members why there are people in South Africa who feel like that.

In the first place there is Dr. Rhoodie who, after having given evidence and after his misdemeanours became known to the commission, was allowed to depart from South Africa. He has not returned and we have not had answers to questions about what passports he held and what representations were made to stop him from going. We have received no answers in regard to the loans that he raised on behalf of his department. We have had a blanket of silence and Dr. Rhoodie, who knows all, is gone.

In the second place, I doubt the honesty of the exercise of the commission because of the sacking of Mr. Justice Mostert who spoke out at a moment that was inconvenient to the Government.

In the third place I believe that the unhindered departures and the non-return of people like Abrahamson and Pegg, with some of their documentation, speaks badly of the Government’s intentions and actions. What for instance is being done about Mr. Les de Villiers who is in South Africa at present?

In the fourth place the non-disclosure of evidence by the commission—which I believe was done on flimsy grounds—is preventing a proper evaluation of the findings; for instance, the findings on the former Prime Minister which, in our view, are not borne out by that part of the evidence which has been disclosed.

Another reason for doubting the honesty of the exercise is the refusal to prosecute Gen. Van den Bergh for a blatant breach of the law, a refusal on grounds which become more spurious by the hour as they are spotlighted and as member after member and even hon. Ministers try to explain them. The seventh reason for doubting the honesty of the exercise is the failure to explain what the judge meant when he spoke of “a higher authority”—this was also raised by the hon. member for Durban Point—and the question of what the Government’s attitude is towards the judiciary in the light of that comment. The eighth reason is the failure to refute or explain the so-called “missing words” in the report which have been bandied about in this House and in a newspaper, words relating to murder and killing and, to use the commission’s words, “the sinister role of Boss”. The next reason is the non-prosecution to date of any of the main characters in the Information scandal. The Van der Walt Commission is another reason why I doubt the honesty of the exercise. We have the chairman’s apparent and reported reluctance to call Gen. Van den Bergh as a witness when requested by the Opposition to do so in regard to relevant matters. Finally, to cap it all …

It has not been put to the commission yet.

The hon. member did not hear what I said. I spoke about the chairman’s apparent reluctance. The hon. member must please listen and not interrupt. To cap it all, there is the silencing of Dr. Connie Mulder by the Government. They pushed him out of Parliament at a time when he patently wanted to put his case to Parliament and to South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, do you wonder that we have no faith? I ask the hon. the Minister of Justice: Does he wonder that we have no confidence in the proceedings presently being undertaken? In the light of all this, I believe that the commission has been reduced to farcical proportions. It is nothing more than a judicial tool in the hands of the executive. I believe that unless the whole record of the evidence …

Are you talking about a parliamentary commission?

No.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to allege that a commission appointed by the State President is “just a tool in the hands of the executive”? Does this not cast a reflection on the integrity and honesty of the members of the commission? Is he allowed to make such an allegation without substantiating it?

Order! A commission is not unassailable. A commission may be criticized in this House.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: Reference is made to “the honesty of the exercise”. The hon. member does not question the commission’s findings, but he does question the honesty and integrity of the members and that is, with respect, the point I wish to put to you.

Order! I must tell the hon. member for Sandton that the way in which he has been using those words in his speech has also troubled me, but I have not called the hon. member to order because I thought it could go through. However, I did not like the way in which he phrased it. The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my task to please the hon. members or even you, Sir. It is merely my task to remain within the bounds of what is parliamentary and that I will try to do.

Unless the whole record of the evidence is opened at least for parliamentary scrutiny, unless this is done in the higher national interest, a national interest much higher than that of the NP, the NP interests may well be served, while the reputation of our independent judiciary will, I believe, be in tatters. That is a very heavy responsibility for Mr. Justice Erasmus to bear as also for the Government.

The motion before us has, I think, sparked off two separate debates. One of those, the debate on the Information issue, has raised matters of great heat. I believe that in the long term it is, however, the second issue and its solution that is going to mean the difference in South Africa between war and peace, between poverty and development, between survival and an exodus. This second issue is the constitutional issue which has been raised by several hon. members here today. Peace under the democratic process in South West Africa depends in some measure on the actions of an apparently hostile United Nations and also on the whim of a man who has publicly stated that he is not interested in democracy or in majority rule, but that he is a revolutionary and is interested only in power. His followers have been guilty of atrocities and the murder of innocent people.

Who is he?

He is Sam Nujoma. In Rhodesia people are dying violently every day. The bitterness and the polarization have reached unprecedented proportions. World politicians stand behind these Russian-backed pedlars of death. Churchmen, their world body heavily infiltrated, provide succour to people in Rhodesia who will not negotiate a democracy. I will go one step further. Cuban troops sustain a Marxist dictatorship against the will of the indigenous Black people in Angola. The Cubans are regarded by some as being a stabilizing influence in Africa.

I do not have time to discuss these sick developments in depth, but I believe that it is necessary however to have our attention pertinently drawn to them because they affect us all in the constitutional decisions which have to be taken in South Africa. When the planned destruction of Rhodesia is complete and when South West Africa becomes Namibia, in whatever form, the pressure on South Africa will assume new proportions. Let us not bluff ourselves: Black and White South Africans, the Republic is the ultimate Marxist target in Africa. The Government must tell us what we are doing about it. What are we doing to avoid the disaster that we see looming from the north and within our borders?

The PFP, in the face of real issues, has not been idle. In November last year we adopted a policy and a philosophy which we believe can work and which is capable of broad acceptance; a form of consensus government within a federal framework, based on a commitment to negotiate that framework. Already the guidelines have been explained to this House by my hon. leader and more detail will follow in the course of the debate. These proposals have my support and I believe they are worthy of the deepest consideration at leadership level by both Blacks and Whites. The PFP is, however, not in power and, while our ideas and our suggestions are anything but theoretical, their practical implementation is not immediately foreseeable. They remain on record as a viable and just alternative to the Government’s present policies.

As at September of last year my personal opposition to the Government’s constitutional proposals were founded on several and solid grounds. They were, firstly, that the promised constitutional changes were not at that time negotiated. They were handed down. They were the brain-child and the command of one section of the White community and, as such, I could not see them succeeding. Secondly, in September last year they spelled the perpetual and fixed White domination over the Coloured and Indian groups, which in the long run would lead to polarization and conflict.

Thirdly, the Bantustan concept, one of the important elements in the overall plan, shorn of all its trappings, really boiled down to no more than a system requiring the unilateral and forced deprivation of citizenship of hundreds of thousands of people. It was at that time a solution which sought to reserve 13% of the geographic area of South Africa— representing just on 5% of the gross domestic product—for over 70% of the population. I believe, and still believe, that a policy of which the object is to maintain a White political and economic monopoly over 87% of South Africa which produces 95% of the gross domestic product, cannot succeed and cannot be acceptable to the vast majority of Blacks inside South Africa and to the people outside South Africa. [Interjections.] I see my percentages are being queried by hon. members on that side of the House. I may be wrong by 1% or 2%, but the crux of the matter is that it was a plan of that nature.

Fourthly, the whole constitutional package made no provision for the aspirations of millions of Black people living permanently in the urban areas or in that part of South Africa which is designated as being for the Whites. When the former Prime Minister handed over the reins of power to a new leader in September 1978, there was, according to my belief, very little hope of a solution on the horizon. Has anything changed since then? In substance there have been few visible changes; in spirit and intention, however, there seems to have occurred a discernible shift towards an accommodation. A greater willingness to talk before deciding, has staved off a total rejection by the Coloured and Indian leaders. The question of the future of the Black people living in the urban townships has to some extent been re-opened. However, what is most important, is that the new Prime Minister has at last acknowledged that the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936 is not sacrosanct and that a more advantageous consolidation of the homelands must be negotiated. If this is followed through—and I am not one of those who just dismisses that statement—this could well provide real momentum towards attaining the solution of at least one element of our country’s difficulties.

Constitutional changes cannot be successful unless progress is made in other fields as well. Here I refer to race discrimination, its removal, to the institution of a quality of opportunity in education and in the economic field, and to the removal of arbitrary and repressive laws. All these things will have to go hand in hand. However, let us not bluff ourselves. The key to change in South Africa lies in constitutional progress and the key to constitutional progress is based on what is before South Africa today, and that is the land question. Any consolidation must be seen in the light of what the Government’s objectives are. What should be the Government’s objectives in these circumstances? Firstly, the Government’s objective should be to create viable areas which are capable of sustaining the economic, political and social aspirations of the existing population and its natural growth. Secondly it should be an objective of the Government, within its policy, to attract—not by force— others into their borders or areas of influence by the very rate of expansion and growing prosperity within those areas. Thirdly, having done that, the Government should create a situation in the rest of South Africa so that a constitutional settlement becomes feasible without fear of domination. I think those should be the objectives of the Government.

If this dream of the Government, this concept, is remotely capable of succeeding, I believe these objectives must be clearly understood and agreed upon by all groups and by the leaders of all groups in South Africa. It is not a question of negotiating to part with as little land as the Government can get away with at the negotiating table. That is not the question at all. The Government has to negotiate in respect of the consolidation of the homelands, to include as much land, including existing growth points, which is required to achieve those objectives I have mentioned. I believe that shoestring financial aid to homelands will be of little assistance. If kwaZulu or any other area is to become a focal point for growth, the infrastructure must be created at a rapid rate.

Finally, the Government must realize that the hon. Deputy Minister Hartzenberg was correct and speaking the truth when he pointed out that even under the existing dispensation, within the confines of the 1936 Act, it would take 10 to 15 years to buy out, with the capital available, the remaining land to fulfil that pledge made over 40 years ago. We do not have that amount of time available to us in the light of what I have sketched at the beginning of my speech. I believe that if the Government wishes—and I believe it does—wants Whites to survive in South Africa as a force in politics, the map of South Africa will have to be redrawn. Redrawn by arrangement, negotiation and co-operation with both the Blacks and the Whites. It can no longer be the norm that the only land which is to be given to the homelands is that land which is bought at prohibitively expensive prices, thereby drawing this matter out for ever and ever. However, if the Government grasps this nettle and takes to heart the words of the hon. the Prime Minister a few weeks ago, I as one member of this House see the glimmerings of hope for our children emerging on the South African landscape.

Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the debate, I first wish to deal briefly with two matters to enable me to be in a better position to deal with other aspects tomorrow.

In the first place I am sorry that it has been found necessary in this House to treat my predecessor in the way in which he has been treated during the last few days. He does not deserve this from South Africa and his ex-colleagues. I must express my bitter regret in this regard. I think that every person with a feeling of decency will not feel very proud of this treatment. Suggestions were made about and reflections cast on the actions of my respected predecessor. I think he is the last person who would profess to be perfect, but we who were close to him are aware of the fact that he went through particularly trying times in recent months and that for a considerable time his health has left much to be desired. I did think that South Africa was mature enough to leave in peace a man who had served her for so long as Prime Minister, after he had retired from party politics. We have good examples of this. When the late Dr. Malan became Prime Minister and had defeated his arch-opponent the late Gen. Smuts, he had the decency to offer Gen. Smuts an official aeroplane to honour an official engagement in Britain. This was one of those splendid gestures in the lives of people engaged in public life. And I think, too, that as far as subsequent Prime Ministers were concerned it was always so that when they retired and when they died the South African public granted them to an exceptional extent that immediate position to which they were entitled. I do not think my predecessor deserves what he has received here during the past few days. I think that we are saddened by the way in which he has been treated and I think that tens of thousands of Opposition members will share my apology to him for the treatment meted out to him here.

While my predecessor was Prime Minister, the machinery of the State to investigate alleged irregularities came into operation. What was that machinery? The machinery that came into operation was an institution of this Parliament, namely the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General went to the Prime Minister to inform him that he suspected the existence of serious irregularities. My predecessor then expressly told the Auditor-General: “Proceed with the inquiry regardless of persons”. In other words, he did not try to obstruct the instrument created by this House to disclose irregularities. On the contrary. He encouraged it, regardless of persons, to expose the truth.

He had no control over it.

Oh please, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition …

He had no control over it.

Will the hon. the Leader of the Opposition just give me a chance? Surely I did not interrupt him, did I?

Go and get your Butterworths up to date.

In the second place: When the facts were brought to his attention by the Auditor-General, he took the following step and asked the Public Service Commission to deal with the department concerned. He then accepted the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, viz. that the department should cease to exist. The department was then dissolved and another instrument created in its stead. In the third place my predecessor saw to it that another recommendation of the Public Service Commission was also carried out, viz. that the post of the Secretary of that department be abolished. Is it correct now to say that he did nothing? (a) He encouraged the Auditor-General, regardless of persons, to proceed with his investigation; (b) he instructed the Public Service Commission to investigate the department and the department ceased to exist; and (c) he approved the abolition of the post of Secretary.

I want to go a little step further. During the past few months reference has been made outside, and at frequent intervals in this House as well, to a Cabinet committee which was supposed to have existed. At times my name has been associated with it and at times the names of other senior Cabinet Ministers. I have been in a position, since I have held this office, to be able to ascertain from all the Cabinet minutes since the beginning of 1975 what the position is. I asked two independent persons to work through those Cabinet minutes and after that I also did so myself. Nowhere, as from January 1975, could I find in any Cabinet minutes the appointment of any Cabinet committee, as is being alleged to have existed in connection with Information.

Was the Erasmus Report incorrect then?

I shall reply to all the questions of the hon. member for Durban Point. The Erasmus Commission received evidence in this connection. But I am saying that that evidence is incorrect, because the Cabinet minutes prove that such a Cabinet committee did not exist. Let me add something for the hon. member. I had the Cabinet minutes examined and I find that during that whole period decisions on State information were taken on two occasions, and not one of them dealt with the case under discussion. In fact, one was the rejection of an application that had been made.

Tomorrow I shall deal further with these matters. I am only mentioning these facts now because I wish to make an appeal to South Africa and I also wish to make an appeal to this House. I am not saying that the person of the State President is sacred. But if he must be chastised then we should have the courage to introduce a motion against him here. If we do not do so, we should have the decency to respect him in the position he holds today and we should have the propriety to tell the general public that they should not allow themselves to be misled by gossip for which no evidence exists. I am making this appeal tonight and I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: He is sowing seeds from which he will reap a wild harvest. He is sowing seeds in this country among uninformed and underdeveloped people and he will still pluck the bitter fruits of the lack of restraint he displayed here in his actions against institutions of this land.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.