Mr. Speaker, would you ’allow me to rise on a point of personal explanation?

Yes, the hon. member may put his point of personal explanation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement regarding a matter I raised in debate on Monday. I referred to an informal conversation in which the words “there is a higher authority” were used in reply to my questioning the reasons for the reversal of the undertaking to release the Erasmus Commission’s evidence.

I today met the commissioners at their request and have undertaken to detail the circumstances in which the remark was made and the import of our discussion. These are that, while lunching in a restaurant, Mr. Justice Erasmus and others passed me on their way out. I rose to greet him and we had a brief discussion during which I asked the question and heard the reply quoted above. Mr. Justice Erasmus has explained to me that, after saying that the commission had decided this, he had said: “It is now for higher authority to decide,” or words to that effect—meaning that their decision had been reported and the matter was out of their hands.

I accept that in the casual circumstances of the discussion it is possible that there could have been a misunderstanding when we heard this as “there is a higher authority”. I accept the categoric assurance of the commissioners that there was no attempt at any time to influence the commission in regard to its work or its decisions and that no such attempt would be tolerated. I also accepted the bona fides of the commission across the floor of the House this week.

I make this statement of my own free will because, while I believe it was my duty to raise the matter, I do not wish to cast an unfair reflection on the commission’s integrity or independence, having always had the highest respect for South Africa’s judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, before going further I should like to move a further amendment, as follows—

I said last night that I accept this task of mine with the necessary humility, that I believe that it is not owing to myself that I am capable of it, but that with the necessary cooperation and, moreover with the help of Providence, I shall be able to carry on the task successfully. Now I shall rightly be asked which path I am going to follow in this regard. I reply by saying that I am a member of a team, a team of Cabinet colleagues of whom I am very proud and with whom it is my privilege to co-operate. I have been a member of the NP for many years, a lifetime in fact, and I have been following the path of the NP for almost 40 years. It is a winning path, the path of success, and if I am asked what path I am going to follow, my reply is brief, concise and clear, viz. that I am going to follow the path of the NP because it is a good path, a winning path, a path of success. I am going to follow the path of my hon. Prime Minister and Leader.

Then, too, I wish to point out that we, the Whites, the Black people, the Coloureds and the Indians of tins country, share South Africa’s wealth. We share its splendour and its history. If by way of technological and other co-operation and ideas we can retain what we have and not only retain it, but also build a better future, then that is the path we should like to follow. We as Whites have been anchored here on the southern tip of Africa since 1652. This anchor is the symbol of the White people in this part of Southern Africa. We also have our own language, a language of Africa, the Afrikaans language, a language that was born here. Our roots lie deep in this soil of the continent of Africa. Here we are going to stay for many years to come. Here we are going to stay as long as God Almighty is pleased to have us stay here. It is our right, our birth-right and our privilege. That is the path we should like to follow.

There is one matter I should like to be quite clear on and that is that the principle on which the NP Government and I base ourselves, is the principle of self-determination, self-determination with justice and equity and fairness. In my dealings with the Black people, our first priority is the economic development and other forms of development in the Black States. There must not be the slightest doubt about that either. The intentions of my Government and myself, together with my department, the development corporations and other bodies, are to give special attention to this and to create a climate for the development of the Black States because it is in the interests of all the people of Southern Africa. In order to bring this about I should very much like all the interested, major and prominent economic bodies and persons in this country, irrespective of their political views on this matter, to come forward and contribute their share to help create the mentioned favourable climate because I honestly believe that it is in the interests of Southern Africa and its people that this be done. I invite the leaders of the Black States to bring their problems to my attention through their commissioners-general day and night, without any hesitation. After all, I am the Minister responsible, and that, too, is the main reason for the appointment of the commissioners-general.

I want to emphasize to the Black people that my slogan is live and let live, and that I shall do everything in my power to help assure the Black people in this country a happy and a meaningful life. This is on one condition, of course—namely, that they wish the same for me and my people. That is the road we should like to follow. Housing, food and work must be provided to Black people in South Africa, Black people who are going to double the numbers in South Africa within 22 years at a tempo of 2,9% per annum. In order to achieve this there must be order, discipline and creative work in South Africa. There can only be talk of creative work if there is hope, inspiration and a national and a creative drive.

My question is whether the hon. Opposition is taking part in the establishment of such a national and creative drive or whether they are not perhaps engaged in undermining this effort to bring about a national and creative drive and are injuring it to the root and to the marrow. I ask that they should search their own hearts because the will to achieve this must be cultivated and must be present. That will must not be present among the Whites alone but also among the Black people. What a challenge that presents to our own youth, what a challenge that presents for the Black youth and for the Coloured and Indian youth! Mr. Alvin Toffler succeeded in putting it very well: “Today as never before, we need a multiplicity of visions, dreams and prophecies.” Therefore the youth as a whole—Black, White, Coloured and Indian, must have a part in this. Then we shall be able to succeed in building up a fine South Africa. The new era, as outlined to us by the State President, and which we are now entering, is not merely a new era for the White people, Coloureds and Indians, but equally a new era for the Black people. It is not necessary for me to dwell on consolidation again this afternoon after the hon. the Prime Minister did so effectively, except to say that it is one of the most important political events in South Africa for a long time. It gave new hope and will undoubtedly be pointed to in the future as a turning-point in the history of South Africa. Equally, a prospect is being held out of a new era for the Black people living outside the Black States, the so-called urban Blacks. I want to stress this afternoon that as soon as the Cabinet Committee appointed for this purpose is in a position to make recommendations as to where these Black people will fit into the constitutional framework of South Africa, the recommendations will be submitted to the Government. This is a major and difficult task and speculation will not further the matter. All I ask is that we be given a fair opportunity to find an answer to this important question, together with the Black leaders from the Black states and from the White area. I want to say clearly that my method will be “let us plan with Blacks and not for them”. We shall certainly do that because there is great strength in co-operation and negotiation.

May I ask a question?

My time is very limited. If I have a minute left at the end, I shall answer a question with pleasure. I have a few important things to deal with and I ask that I just be given an opportunity to do so.

There is great strength in co-operation and negotiation. I cannot go into that further at this point. We shall do so later, however. I am however in a position to make certain facts known in regard to the new era for urban Blacks this afternoon, and to stress them. As far as housing is concerned I want to stress that with the introduction of the new 99-year lease scheme for Black people it is now being made possible for them to obtain a loan from building societies or other financial institutions, since they are thereby able to obtain right of possession of a stand against which they can register a bond in the Deeds Office. Therefore the Black man is now getting the opportunity, just as the Whites have, to negotiate an investment without fear of financial loss, and make a contribution to his own housing needs. With the introduction of this 99-year housing scheme we are entering a new era with many implications. The most important is that the urban Black man now acquires stability and security and need no longer feel uncertain about his future in White South Africa.

Why do they not get full right of ownership?

He is getting something which is worthwhile defending, in a common South African loyalty.

Another important implication is that employers are now in a position to make a real contribution to the provision of accommodation for our Black workers on a permanent basis. The employer derives benefit from the services of the Black employee and I imagine that this is important when I emphasize that a happy family life among his Black workers will ensure the employers a contented workers’ corps. I therefore make an earnest appeal to the employers to assist their Black employees now with good housing, since the employer is now getting financial security in that a bond is registered with the Deeds Office. I want to stress that if there is co-operation, the whole issue of a healthy Black family can now be placed on a sound basis in South Africa. For that I personally shall be very grateful because this forms a cornerstone of a healthy life in general in the life of any nation.

As far as Black labour is concerned it is our aim to simplify the identification system of Black people, in order to make it convenient and to curtail the administrative processes in regard to the labour flow between Black States and White South Africa; in other words, to do away with the so-called “dompas” as soon as possible—as soon as it is practicable—and replace it with an identification document similar to the one carried by the Whites and other population groups. I am grateful to be able to say that my department is making very good progress in this regard and I am trying to get the system operating as soon as possible by providing the necessary encouragement.

As far as commercial matters are concerned, I am very grateful to be able to inform the House this afternoon that it is our aim to allow the economy in urban Black residential areas to operate as freely as possible by means of the market mechanism and thereby bring about the establishment of economic opportunities for the Black man in his own urban residential areas. In the spirit of this aim various restrictive measures are at present being withdrawn, for example all restrictions relating to the type and nature of trade, business undertakings and professions which may be practised in urban residential areas. Residence qualifications relating to Black traders, including shareholders and partners, are being removed and as a result, any Black, and any company of which the shareholders are Black, may now obtain commercial rights in any Black residential area in White South Africa. The limitation on the maximum size of commercial buildings is also being withdrawn, as are other restrictions previously in existence. This means that Black people can now trade with complete freedom in urban Black areas and can become entrepreneurs. What is more, as a result the Black man can now become an entrepreneur and a developer in the true sense of the word. If he can afford 10 to 20 houses, then he may for example let 19 of the houses to other people and keep one for himself. Therefore he can now become a full developer or entrepreneur.

I have cherished the following ideal for about seven years—viz. from the time I left this department as Deputy Minister—and I am now grateful to be able to say that the development of a central business nucleus or nuclei in urban Black residential areas will now be stimulated. Places like Soweto and elsewhere must get attractive central business nuclei. Planning for these business nuclei will link up with the already withdrawn restrictive measures in regard to business activities in Black residential areas. The substantial capital resources required for the provision of buildings at these central business nuclei can also be obtained from private sources of income and loans. The latter can, inter alia, be obtained by making use of the 99-year lease arrangement. I have requested my officials to plan in such a way that we shall be able to begin constructing a fine, modern business centre in Soweto before the end of the year.

It will in future be possible to establish service industries in urban Black residential areas. This opens a totally new vista for Black entrepreneurs in Black urban areas. I have in mind, for example, panel beaters, plumbers, welders, sheetmetal workers, cabinet-makers, etc. All kinds of qualified Black tradesmen who wish to render service to the Black community will be permitted to do so. Stands for service industries will be set aside specifically for this purpose. It will be possible to establish assembly and distribution points for use by Black industrialists from the Black States.

Are these benefits restricted to Black residential areas?

I am referring at present to those Black residential areas in the White area and therefore to the urban Black who finds himself in the White area outside the Black States.

The utilization of non-Black capital by way of a loan is admissible subject to certain conditions. The methods in accordance with which such capital and non-Black skills is admitted will be determined in consultation with the interested parties. We should like to attract private initiative, but this must be done in an orderly fashion and on a sound basis and we must not fail to bear in mind that the economic development of the Black States is an important priority and that the necessary balance must be maintained.

As far as community councils are concerned I am grateful to be able to tell this House this afternoon that at present there are 164 community councils either established or in the process of being established. The best evidence of the interest taken by the Black people of South Africa in these community councils is that the average voting percentage at the election of their Black councils was 41,02%. Among the Whites the percentage of votes for the election of their local governments was substantially lower, and in eleven wards in Pretoria, for example, the percentage varied between 9,7% and 32% last year. Therefore the Blacks have throughout maintained a higher average percentage of votes in comparison with that of the White people. These community councils have been given effect to in a dynamic fashion and I wish to announce this afternoon, with gratitude to my officials, that the results obtained thus far in the establishment of the community councils are in large measure ascribable to the healthy spirit of co-operation prevailing between our White officials and responsible Black people around the conference table. I myself sit for hours, days and weeks with them around these conference tables, and we do not always agree with each other, but when we go our ways, we know that we have spoken to each other and a communal spirit has been created which has yielded very good results in the past.

The urban Blacks want their own city councils. I tell them that they will get their own city councils as soon as possible through these community councils—not in as long a time as possible, but as soon as possible. Therefore the urban Black man will obtain full autonomy over local management affairs in order to govern himself to the full extent in that sphere. The councils have now also been vested with borrowing powers, and in order to handle the most urgent problem, viz. housing, they will be placed in a position to make use of these borrowing powers in regard to the 99-year scheme as soon as practicable. I see no reason why large sources of capital should not invest in this in the future. This is something we are still going to see. Each community council has its own treasury. The community councils must be assisted to obtain finance in order to afford their voters maximum satisfaction. For this purpose I ask the co-operation of everyone. Particularly that of White city councils that are neighbours of these urban Black towns. These councils serve as further proof of the stability and security which the new dispensation and the new era for the urban Black man entails and of the establishment of a common South African loyalty.

However, good government does not depend merely on sound local management by community councils; it also rests on sound regional management. This, too, is enjoying our earnest attention, because sound regional management, too, must be built up in this country for the Black man. We shall attempt to do this.

Co-operation, negotiation among the Black people and ourselves, confidence, the will to work and to solve problems, is necessary. I invite all the Black people in this country to take part. But then the Black people must come forward with their best brain power so that we are able to tackle these matters and take them further.

I am also grateful to be able to say that consultation has been established at the local management level between the White bodies and those of the Black people, the Coloureds and the Indians, each with its own local management in the service of its own local population group, concerning joint problems such as provision of electricity, drainage, water and innumerable other matters. In this way a new further vista is being opened and I hope that this is clear to hon. members.

Most important, however, when all is said and done, is the creation of good relations. This is the path I should like to follow. This is also the path which the NP Government wants to follow. It is pleasant to live together in harmony; and the Almighty gives his blessing to that too. Let us all participate in this: If we do, we can achieve success. We must not simply undermine; we must build together.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to sound relations I want to tell you about the lady who told me recently that she stopped at a traffic light in Lynnwood. There was a small Black child there selling newspapers. He was crying. She asked him why he was crying. He told her that two Whites had stopped and that he had sold a newspaper to each of the drivers. When the light turned green, both drove away, and consequently he was 36 cents short. It was his first evening selling newspapers. The woman then took exactly 36 cents out of her bag and gave it to the Black child. As was her habit, she stopped there the following day and bought a newspaper. The little boy was there again. A few days later, on a Friday afternoon, when she stopped there again to buy the newspaper, a stout Black woman was standing next to the little boy with a pumpkin in her hand. When she stopped, the boy said something to the Black woman, who then approached the White woman in the car and said: “Madam, I brought you this pumpkin to thank you for helping my child the other day because that was the first evening that he was selling newspapers and if he had returned without the 36 cents he would have lost his job. Thank you very much, Madam.” That is good relations. This White woman set right what two other Whites bedevilled by creating bad relations, because what you sow, you will reap. The Black woman came right through Pretoria from Mamelodi on a Friday afternoon, not knowing whether the White woman would pass there again, to thank her for a simple, good deed by a White woman through which the bad influence on good relations of other White people was rectified. That is good relations. I believe in good relations, but then they must be based on good order and sound discipline. There must be sympathetic understanding, but there must also be strength and power that compels respect. That woman did not give more than 36 cents; she only gave the money that was short.

The Zulus have a fine saying, which goes “Ngikhala nghameshlo amabili”. It means “I cry with both my eyes”. That means “I am sincere and I am sympathetic”. They understand that. It seems to me that that Opposition is, as the Zulus say “Ukhala ngeliso linye”. That means “they cry with only one eye” about South Africa. That means they are not sincere. We should like to be sincere. [Interjections.]

I say to the Black people in Soweto—and then I address more than a thousand of them—that I know them, because I stayed with and among the Black people in Zululand for months at Nkosi Manyala’s kraal and learnt to know them well. I therefore say to the people of Soweto that I know the Black people, but I also know my own White people. I say to them: As sure as the sun came up this morning, I know—I did not merely hear or read it, I know—that if the White people and the Black people in this country want to co-operate, we can build a fine and wonderful South Africa. And you know what happened then? Then they give me a loud, standing ovation because they would like that.

This new era of which I have tried to give an indication, an era based on the sound foundation of self-determination, shows that the charge that the new dispensation concerning the White people, Coloureds and Indians is a front against the Black man, is in fact not so and was never intended to be so. We are determined to co-operate and to avoid the chaotic situations which have arisen in certain areas north of our own fatherland. The challenges and possibilities, the chances and opportunities, for our youth in particular, the young Black people, Coloureds and Indians, are exciting. It is a certain road to success, and in this way we can work together to build a happy South Africa for all, on the basis of nationhood but also on the basis of humanity, because as Prof. Evert Potgieter, Commissioner-General of Gazankulu, put it so well: If the leopard dies, it dies with its white, its black and its brown spots. They say “Jingwe Jamabala”. That means “the speckled cat”. That is our beautiful South Africa. We must not allow this speckled cat with its white, black and brown spots to die. We want to live and we want to strive, all of us together in this country, to build a fine South Africa. I believe that is absolutely possible, but what is necessary is consultation and, in particular, co-operation.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all listened with great interest to everything the hon. the Minister said. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am also sure that most of us agree with the sentiments the hon. the Minister has uttered, broad generalizations that all sound very fine indeed! As one of my colleagues, who was here with me many years ago, remarked: “Shades of Daan de Wet Nel.” I must say that very many of the things he said today sounded very much like those of one of his predecessors. We are with him, however, in his good intentions, and I wish him well on his first speech as Minister of Plural Relations. I can assure him of our co-operation in realizing all the good intentions he expressed this afternoon. I must tell the hon. the Minister, however, that he has to do more than just, as he put it, plan with Blacks. He has to plan with representative Blacks. In other words, he has to find Blacks who have the confidence of other Blacks, otherwise the whole business is going to be pointless. That is one bit of good advice I want to give the hon. the Minister.

The other is that if he wants the 99-year leasehold plan to work, he has to see that the regulations governing the presence of Blacks in the urban areas are changed so as to remove the powers of the superintendents to put people out of their houses at will. He also has to remove obstructive officials because there are some obstructive officials who have been making it very difficult to get the 99-year leasehold plan under way.

I leave the hon. the Minister there, because I want to talk about a subject which I was rather hoping he would deal with, viz. the Information scandal. [Interjections.] Yes, I want to tell hon. members that this is not going to go away as they are hoping. The hon. the Minister promised us during the short special session in December that he would tell us about his connections with the attempted purchase of the Natal Mercury. Up to now we have not heard one word from the hon. the Minister about that and I thought he might have told us something about it today.

I am glad that the hon. the Minister of Justice is present, because I want to come back to the question of … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, may I have your protection? I have a very bad throat. Since nobody was allowed to say a word while the hon. the Prime Minister was speaking, I should in turn like to get on with my speech. I want to come back to the non-prosecution of Gen. Van den Bergh. Let me say at once that I consider the law that makes it an offence to criticize a commission to be a nonsense law. I believe that that law should be scrapped. I do not believe that anybody should be prosecuted for criticizing a commission. However, while the law is on the Statute Book, it must be applied fairly and to everybody who breaks that law. When one considers the unseemly haste with which the Rand Daily Mail was rushed into court, there can be no excuse for exempting Gen. Van den Bergh from prosecution for this so-called offence. The issue then is simply equality before the law. That is the principle we are upholding when we ask for his prosecution.

Much more important—I hope the hon. the Minister of Justice will give me his attention—is the question why Gen. Van den Bergh is not being prosecuted for a much more serious crime, viz. attempting to defeat the ends of justice. When I asked him this during the short session, he said to me the authorities would deal with it. So far no authority has dealt with it. There is a prima facie case because in the first report of the Erasmus Commission, on pages 81 onwards, it is shown clearly that both Dr. Connie Mulder and Gen. Van den Bergh were guilty of incitement to commit fraud. They tried to incite Mr. Reynders—and indeed did so—to submit a false report about the Department of Information. That, I believe, is the important thing. I hope that when the hon. the Minister comes to explain this at some stage or another, he is not going to say that that, too, was in the national interest. I must tell him immediately that everybody knows that when he says “national interest”, what he means is NP interest. There can be no question about that.

The hon. the Minister owes the House an apology for the incorrect statements he has made in the House. The first concerns the case under which the Rand Daily Mail was prosecuted. Secondly, he made two very damning statements about the Sunday Express, both of which are untrue. One of those was that the Sunday Express faked a photograph of a woman in a Vereeniging hospital. She was handcuffed as a mental patient. He insinuated that that photograph was a fake, just as he has tried to insinuate that other photographs were faked. He also told us that the Sunday Express has a “stringer” working for what he calls the “uiters linksgesinde” Guardian newspaper. This is also untrue. That Minister is a mine of misinformation and it is very dangerous indeed to have a man wielding the power he does and locking people up without trial, paying scant attention to facts.

I want to turn to the hon. the Prime Minister for a moment. I want to say that I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister owes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition an apology for the studied insult and the slur he deliberately cast upon him yesterday when he insinuated that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was not trustworthy. [Interjections.] That was the obvious insinuation and all of us took it that way.

He should be ashamed of himself.

Yes, he certainly ought to be ashamed of himself. The Leader of the Opposition has proved his loyalty and integrity to South Africa over and over again. [Interjections.]

Order!

He first proved it when, as a boy of 18, he broke into his studies at the university and went up north to fight for his country. What was the hon. the Prime Minister busy doing during those years, during World War II? During World War II he was busy organizing gangs to break up meetings while the leader of my party was up North fighting for his country. I believe he owes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition an apology. What the hon. the Prime Minister has done, is very dangerous. It is a dangerous ploy in “threatening times”—as he has called the present times—to cast suspicions on the loyalty and integrity of the duly elected Leader of the Opposition in South Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister’s generous offer made yesterday to resign and go to the country should it be found that any member of the Cabinet had prior knowledge of what Dr. Connie Mulder and Dr. Eschel Rhoodie were busy with, is really laughable. First of all, the only two men, Dr. Connie Mulder and Gen. Van den Bergh, alive and well and living in South Africa, men who can reveal all, have been effectively—so far anyway— prevented from telling what they know. That is number one. However, the hon. the Prime Minister obviously hopes they will continue to be effectively prevented from telling all they know. The other thing I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister is that he and his entire Cabinet should in fact resign for not knowing what was going on. They, should resign, because there is no clearer proof of their utter and sheer incompetence that things like that could go on without other members of the Cabinet knowing about it. Either way, therefore, the hon. the Prime Minister and his entire Cabinet should resign.

The hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister now responsible for Information can wish that the Information scandal will go away just as the hon. the Minister of Justice wishes that the Biko case would go away. But neither will go away. These gentlemen are going to be haunted for the rest of their lives by these two cases, namely the Information scandal and the death in detention of Biko, scandals which, I believe, have left indelible black marks on the reputation of this Government. Those scandals will not go away.

During the 1977 election the NP placed a full page advert—I have a copy here—in English-language newspapers with a beautiful photograph of the former Prime Minister under the headlines “Meet the National Party. English-speakers, it’s time to let your conscience speak.” The advertisement read further as follows—

I think the least the Government can do to atone for its sins concerning the Information scandal, is to buy equal space like this in Government newspapers and address themselves to NP supporters by the following two simple questions: “What have I been led to believe about the National Party?” as opposed to “What do I now know about the National Party?” We will then see if the conscience of NP supporters will speak out. What a very different South Africa would we have in that case!

I want to discuss another aspect concerning the Information scandal and that is what is the fons et origo of this whole business. Why was it in the first instance necessary for South Africa to have secret projects run by the Department of Information? I am not talking about defence secret projects or intelligence secret projects. All countries have their CIA’s, MI5’s or their equivalents. I am talking about Departments of Information. I do not believe there is a single Western country which has secret projects connected with their Departments of Information and which had to employ a lot of shifty frontmen to try and explain away the policies of their Governments. Only South Africa had to go in for these mysterious and very expensive artifices, because the policies emanating from Pretoria and translated into legislation in this House are thoroughly offensive, not only to the Western World, but to the entire Third World as well. That is why we had to employ these expensive devices, using, as I have said, these shifty frontmen all over the world in order to counter what came from Pretoria and from this House. To the Government it was obvious that if these counter-devices came from people who were not ostensibly connected with the South African Government, they would be far more effective. That is why our information service, unlike the USIS or unlike the Central Office of Information of the British Government, does not just run libraries, show films and produce fact sheets about South Africa. That is why force majeur they went in for all those extraordinary deals of trying to obtain control over newspapers. That is why they tried to buy Drum and, West Africa—two journals that circulate in the Third World. That is why they tried to get control of newspapers here in South Africa in order to convince English-speaking voters that they should support the National Party. That is why we had front organizations like the S.A. Freedom Association and the Foreign Affairs Association, organization which spent thousands of rands of taxpayers’ money trying to lure visitors to South Africa, visitors who were never told that they were really guests of the Government. That is why millions have been spent with frontmen trying to obtain control of the publishing firm of Morgan Grampian with all its influential trade journals. We know that the Government attempted, but failed again, through frontmen to obtain control of the very influential Investors Chronicle in England as well. We still have something like 56 secret projects that are going to be carried out by the new information service. All of this is due to the fact that South Africa has policies which are completely unacceptable to the Western World.

Finally, I want to say that the real irony of the whole Information scandal is that even if the entire Defence Vote were filched and spent on secret propaganda projects by the Department of Information, South Africa’s policies would still remain completely unacceptable, because nothing can offset deaths in detention. Nothing will counter the destruction of Crossroads. Nothing will obliterate the disgust at the recent outrageous behaviour of the police who burst into the bedroom of a young woman in the hope of catching her in flagrante delicto with what was called a “swarthy complexioned” man, a description, I might say, which could fit many people whom I know. No amount of money spent on a multitude of secret projects can present a respectable image of the Government’s many disreputable practices.

That brings me to the final point in reply to the hon. Minister of Public Works—my congratulations to him on his elevation to the Cabinet—and to the hon. the Prime Minister, who both claimed that we have made great advances in removing discrimination and in providing amenities for Blacks in South Africa. If taking down the “Whites only” signs in post offices and elsewhere, signs which the Government should never have put up in the first place, is progress, I am quite prepared to give the Government credit for that. They are making progress. As for all the amenities which have been provided, I want to point out that these are the ordinary amenities provided by their Governments to the populations of all Western civilized countries, e.g. decent housing, decent schooling and education, proper recreational facilities and attention to the conditions of workers. These are normal facilities and it is high time that the Government should pay more attention to this.

The hon. the Minister of Public Works rightly says that Blacks are more concerned about housing, recreational facilities, wages, etc., than anything else. He is quite right, but I also want to tell him that it is a sad fact that unless people have the vote, they do not seem to get these amenities provided for them. The hon. the Prime Minister has told us of his plan to enlarge the Plural Relations Commission—the old Bantu Affairs Commission—by, I think, one member and to set up regional committees in order to reinvestigate the whole question of the consolidation of the homelands. I really think it is absolutely laughable that more than 40 years after the 1936 Act has been passed we are still having to acquire 1½ million hectares of land to complete the quota. I consider it even more laughable that more than 25 years after the blueprint for separate development, i.e. after the Tomlinson Commission Report was produced, the Government is now setting up another commission to try to see how it can make the unworkable work. It is quite extraordinary. The hon. the Prime Minister need not think that anybody in this House, on this side certainly, was in any way particularly impressed by his plans as far as the consolidation schemes are concerned.

Finally, the hon. the Prime Minister blames the British for the fact that not enough land was available for Africans in the homelands. He said it was because the promises the British had made to hand over the High Commission Territories had not been fulfilled that the African homelands were short of land. No such promise was ever given. Certainly, the preamble to the Act of Union does make provision for the eventual handing over of those areas. However, it became more than obvious that the Government of Britain had obligations to the Native populations, as they were called, of those High Commission Territories. No negotiations could be completed because the Native populations of those territories adamantly refused to be handed over to White control in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

It makes no difference. There was never a promise. There is also, in exactly the same preamble, provision made for the handing over of what is now Rhodesia. Does the hon. the Prime Minister want Rhodesia to be handed over to South Africa as well? I can only point out that what he would acquire with the High Commission Territories would have been 2 million more Africans. He would then have made every attempt to turn what is now Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho back into independent African territories, which is what they are anyway.

We wish the Government would come forward with plans of some imagination and some practicability so that we in the House, at last, will be able to support some of their plans for the African population.

Mr. Speaker, this must be one of the most remarkable debates to have taken place in this distinguished House for a long time. Here we have a motion moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a motion, we are told, of no confidence in the Government and one which apparently consists of four legs. Firstly, the Government is to be censured about the Information scandal, as they call it. Secondly, the Government is to be censured for its failure to provide a constitutional framework for all our people, for the failure to eliminate race discrimination, and for the inability of the Government’s economic policies to ensure equality of opportunity, full employment and prosperity for all our people.

This is the fourth day of this debate and a whole number of Opposition speakers have taken part. Yet not one of them has yet come to the fourth leg of this motion. No one of them has tendered …

Where were you?

I have been here all the time. The hon. member for Parktown made a very clumsy attempt to talk about constitutional development in this country. He should rather stick to his last Now it seems he wants to say that he talked about finance and economics. But I have been sitting here all the time, and I have also read his Hansard. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, nothing has been said to substantiate this attack on our economic policy at all. [Interjections.] All I should like to say on that is that if one compares the state of our economy today with what it was, say, a year ago, then it is of course a completely different state of affairs. We have a credit rating today of which we could be justly proud throughout the world. As a matter of fact, we have evidence of that every day of the week. Our growth rate, although not what it should be, has improved measurably over the last year. We have systematically engaged in certain stimulatory measures—not wild stimulatory measures, but moderate and systematic measures carefully applied. These are lifting our economy out of that state of recession which has been a characteristic of the world economy since the end of 1973. We can talk at length about these things when we have a major debate on the Part Appropriation later this month. When one looks at the current account of the balance of payments one sees that it has never been better in our history than it is today in a difficult world. That reflects a great deal. We are still paying off external debts, especially short term external debts, on a big scale, which means that our net reserves of foreign exchange are rising all the time. In this whole situation we have been able to adopt the recommendations of one of the most important commissions of inquiry into the general financial and economic fields that I suppose we have had in this country. We have accepted the proposals contained in the first report of the De Kock Commission and I think this step has been extremely well received, not only in South Africa, but throughout the financial and economic world by people who know something about us. I believe that that in itself is going to be a very important stimulatory measure in that I think it is going, in a sense, to raise the whole climate of confidence in our economy and in our country. When we have something to bite on I will on another occasion, which will come quite soon, be very happy to talk at greater length on financial and economic policy.

I am almost sorry that I have to follow the hon. member for Houghton, because I do not particularly like to attack a lady. [Interjections.] But what a speech we had to listen to! From beginning to end there was nothing good said about this great country. Everything was derogatory, negative and condemnatory. The hon. member for Houghton has sat here a long time; has she not learnt anything? Has she not learnt that when your country happens to have certain great and good policies which it is carrying out, it behoves any responsible South African to talk constructively about them, and not all day long with your face on the ground to bemoan your fate that you are a South African? [Interjections.]

There is no doubt that the hon. member for Houghton has been hit on a very raw nerve. She had the temerity to turn to the Information affair, an affair which some newspapers delight in exaggerating all day long, in misrepresenting the facts and in pulling the whole thing out of context. What is this Information affair we are talking about? A small number of people most unfortunately went gravely wrong. I have said before in this House and in the Other Place that I cannot condone their actions in any way whatsoever and that we are doing everything possible to safeguard the interests of the State in this context and are succeeding well beyond what any of the Opposition members are interested in knowing. This small number of people have done certain things which appear to amount to serious irregularities in the use of public funds. Because that has happened and because the Government under the former Prime Minister and particularly under the present Prime Minister has day and night been taking every action that it reasonably can to contain this situation, to safeguard the assets of the State and to recover whatever of the proceeds they can in this whole matter, we are told that this is a cover-up. Mr. Speaker, it is the easiest thing in the world to get up and to talk nonsense. [Interjections.] Hon. members should not laugh too soon; I am only starting! It is the easiest thing in the world to talk nonsense as this hon. Opposition, backed by their newspapers, have been doing all along. Their newspapers have been telling them what to say all along. What is the true perspective of this matter? I maintain that there has been no cover-up in this matter and the truth of this is going to prevail in the light of events. I repeat that there was no cover-up and that the Government has never been corrupt and is not corrupt.

What did the hon. Opposition do? They started off by shouting from soap boxes that there had to be a judicial commission of inquiry. This was then the great cry. Dr. Mulder, according to them, had to go. Dr. Mulder went, and we said that no sooner would Dr. Mulder be gone, than they would start shouting for somebody else to go. That is, of course, what has happened, because it suits the whole mentality of these little men. To them the facts are not important; it is merely a question of blind prejudice, complete disrespect and complete ignorance of all the rules of fair play and the whole procedure of our legal system. They completely ignore this, try to put innocent men in the dock and call upon innocent men to resign. Who do they think they are bluffing? Do they think that they are bluffing the South African electorate? What does the hon. Leader of the Opposition say about the issue? He says that he rejects the report of the Erasmus Commission. I have read his speech very carefully …

Read it again.

The hon. member will get a chance to reply and then he can refer to his previous speech. I maintain that he has rejected the essence of the report of the Erasmus Commission and I challenge him to deny it He will have to answer to that when he replies. [Interjections.] I will not read his speech; I have many better things to do than read that speech. The commission, under leadership of a judge of the Supreme Court, is one of the strongest commissions that could possibly have been appointed. In addition it has as members one of the most experienced Attorneys-General we have and the Senior Law Adviser of the country. That, however, is not good enough. The angel Gabriel would not have been good enough if he were to have published this report. Of course he would not have been good enough, because selective morality is the order of the day with the official Opposition and double standards apply. If the report had suited them, then these commission members would have been heroes, but because the report, based on hours and weeks of sustained taking of evidence and deliberation, upholds a number of people whom the official Opposition, in their blind prejudice, thought they had a chance to reach, challenge and condemn …

It does not uphold you.

… they are sitting there as the most frustrated, disappointed and misguided group in the country. Let us take a look at what the hon. Leader of the Opposition had to say. He said it was not Dr. Connie Mulder alone; it was not even the former Prime Minister alone who knew that Dr. Mulder was telling a lie. Listen to this positive statement made without any qualifications. I challenge the hon. member to substantiate that statement. If he cannot provide the necessary evidence, I say he is the most irresponsible member ever to occupy that seat. It is a public scandal that he should make such an unqualified statement; unless of course he can provide the evidence. If the hon. member has got the evidence to justify his statement, has he put it before the commission? [Interjections.] Answer me: “Yes” or “no”? I am not talking to that turbulent priest. I am talking to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. The turbulent priest should calm down, because I have not even started with him yet.

I am waiting.

Order! Hon. members are making too many interjections.

We know that the Opposition are now very much on the defensive and we are going to hit them harder and harder. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said further—

That is a scandalous statement. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot substantiate that on the facts, then he must resign immediately. [Interjections.] Of course he must resign! That is a scandalous statement and we challenge the hon. member to appear before the commission. [Interjections.] Yes, we are going to challenge him. If he does not, then the country is going to condemn him as the most irresponsible leader of any Opposition in our history. That is what it amounts to. What does the hon. member say further? Talking about me he says that I signed a warrant for expenditure of R14,8 million. I never did anything of the kind.

You did nothing!

He says I signed such a warrant and then tried to withdraw it. Mr. Speaker, I have explained this already.

What was it then?

The hon. member need not ask me. I am going to tell him once more. It will be the third time and he will still not understand it but perhaps one or two other hon. members on that side might understand it. Information officials came to the Treasury in the normal way and thrashed the matter out. They wanted a good deal more than R15 million. The Treasury said that they were unable to allocate more than R14 million for this purpose. That was the R14 million. Just before the end of April last year we passed a Bill which the hon. the Prime Minister and I had a great deal to do with. In fact, we initiated that legislation to bring the control of this secret money under the Treasury for once and for all. After the passage of that Bill during last year’s session, Dr. Connie Mulder said to me during the course of one evening at the end of April that in the light of the new Act he had been to the Auditor-General to ask how we could not get money released—part of that R14 million for whatever purpose. He told me that the Auditor-General said it was absolutely essential that I sign the document which he put before me.

And you signed?

Yes. There happens to be a relationship between Cabinet Ministers—if the hon. member doubts this he can go and look at what Churchill said on this point—of utmost good faith, of uberrima fides. I discussed this with the hon. Minister and I had no reason whatsoever to have any suspicion that anything was irregular. I did not look at the detail because most of it was in a sort of code form. But I said that if he insisted that it was the only way that any amount could be drawn I would sign it because he said that he had to have money the next morning for a certain project. I said that I would sign to help him to do it.

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

No, certainly not. I said that I would immediately go into the matter because I did not think that that ought to be the system and if I found that it could be done in another way, I would immediately withdraw this authority and we would do it in another way. That position was put fully to the commission. It is not what that hon. member thinks …

This is a new version!

Not at all.

It is a new version.

The hon. member is talking rubbish! I am giving the facts. I am giving hon. members the facts and, unfortunately for the hon. member for Yeoville, I also put it in writing. When I consulted the law advisers I found that it could be done in another way and I thereupon immediately cancelled my signature. I did not try to withdraw it, I cancelled it [Interjections.] I am giving the facts no matter what the Opposition want to say. The facts are before the commission and the commission heard all the evidence from all sides and they accepted my evidence.

Was it mentioned in the schedule?

That is not the point. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also alleges that R14 million was transferred from the Treasury to Volkskas but the hon. the Minister knew nothing about it. This is absolute and complete nonsense. Where does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition get that from? [Interjections.]

Produce the accounts.

Where does that come from? He does not know. [Interjections.] He knows nothing! He tells me I know nothing. He makes a statement to the effect that R14 million went from the Treasury to Volkskas. But it is absolute nonsense. [Interjections.]

Order!

What about the court records?

You see, Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made himself completely ridiculous in this debate by making these statements, statements which are themselves ridiculous, completely ridiculous! I want to go further.

I am not going to discuss the merits of the State President or the State President’s role, or anything else, I assure you. I know better than to do that, and I hope I have better manners. I hope I have a better sense of respect for the supreme constitutional authority of my country. But I do, however, want to say something today to the hon. Opposition and the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Their action of opposing the address to the State President will go down in this country’s history as one of the most scandalous acts ever perpetrated by an Opposition. [Interjections.] I shall tell hon. members why. They were so unhappy and uncertain about it that they did not go the whole hog and oppose the address. No, they said they would be prepared, as it were, to issue that address to the office of the State President, but not to the person. That is what they did. [Interjections.] What I want to say is that in all countries, and I even think in countries behind the Iron Curtain …

Particularly behind the Iron Curtain.

… but certainly in all Western countries, people throughout the ages have been prepared to die to uphold the majesty and the sanctity of their highest constitutional office and the incumbent of that highest office. [Interjections.] That is the position. What do these people stand branded as by their own actions? They stand branded as utterly unpatriotic and anti-South African. [Interjections.]

Order! I have closed discussion of that subject and I would prefer the hon. the Minister not to pursue the matter any further.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to say that the Opposition is unpatriotic? [Interjections.]

Order! The word “unpatriotic” has been decided upon in the past on a number of occasions as being parliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: What about the word “anti-South African”? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may continue. I ask hon. members on both sides of the House to help me bring back the debate to a calmer level.

Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling, but I think you will agree with me that I had every right to uphold the great dignity, what I call the majesty, of the office of the State President, and its incumbent.

Order! The hon. the Minister certainly has every right to do that but I must in all fairness allow replies to every statement made in this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have made my point and I shall abide by your ruling. [Interjections.] So we come to this position in a no-confidence debate that one of the most important legs of that motion, that dealing with economic policy, has practically not been touched upon at all. Arguments about the others have been conducted in such a way that I think I am entitled to say that the debate has fallen flat on its face. If ever there was an anti-climax, this is it. Their newspapers were whipping the country up by announcing that there was going to be a tremendous, sustained attack on us because we were corrupt and everything else that was to be condemned. What has happened? By virtue of their own attitude, their own statements and actions, it has become a boomerang that has hit them squarely in the face and I do not think they are going to recover from it.

So we come to the point that the Opposition will have to learn that, when there is a judicial commission of inquiry, one honours that commission. That is the South African system.

Like Mostert.

That is the South African philosophy and the South African faith. I stand here as a humble South African who is prepared to fight for the honour, the good name and the reputation of his country all the time, without ceasing, under any conditions whatsoever. I take full responsibility for my own conduct over the years I have been Minister of Finance. I do not have the time now, but I could give a list of the things I, the hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. colleagues have done in an endeavour to contain this matter as soon as we heard there was something awry and to protect the assets and interests of the State. We are still doing it day and night, helped by our most senior officials. I say that this Government has absolutely nothing at all to be ashamed about and this Government’s name is absolutely clear and undefiled, and nothing the frustrated Opposition can say or do can touch one word of that.

Mr. Speaker, with reference to his speech I wish to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance: Does he not honestly think that we could have avoided a great deal of the type of debating we have had over the last three days, if we had had the evidence of the Erasmus Commission at our disposal in advance? In that event many of the questions would have been solved. However, we are now faced with another dilemma—and I am saying this is an ordinary member. That dilemma is that the questions are just not being replied to. We put certain questions. They are simple questions. They are questions arising out of the report of the Erasmus Commission. We put them repeatedly, but we receive no reply.

The same hon. Minister, for example, was asked in the House how it was possible that Eschel Rhoodie could procure a loan of approximately R16 million in Switzerland. Where do the guarantees come from? How is it possible that no one knows about it? That question has not yet been answered. [Interjections.] No, that question was not answered. Another question which is repeatedly put and which has again been put during this session is whether it is true that Government money is involved in To the Point. No one has spoken about that yet. The hon. the Prime Minister had the opportunity to do so yesterday. However, no mention was made of it. We also read in the newspaper that Gen. Van den Bergh says that he could trace Rhoodie within three days. The Government, with all the resources at its disposal, has, however, been struggling for months now to get hold of him, therefore, what are the people beginning to think? Isn’t it perhaps a case of the Government not wanting Rhoodie to be traced? That is the question which arises. Another point is that Dr. Deneys Rhoodie, his brother, is in the country. He was accused of the same thing as Dr. Eschel Rhoodie who is outside the country. Why, then, is progress not being made with him? [Interjections.]

What was he accused of?

The same insinuations which are being made against Dr. Rhoodie, are being made against his brother, but we hear nothing. For that reason I say that this debate will not die down. Even though this session goes by, it will not die down, because the ordinary man in the street will continue to ask these questions. Nor does this constitute a sowing of suspicion: It is information which the commission of the Government itself brought to light. The questions arise out of that source. It is not something that has been dug up by the Opposition. It comes from those people themselves. They give us the information and we are merely asking: How does this tally with that? When we ask that, they say that we are trying to sow suspicion. Surely they should explain to us what is happening. It is simple: They need only reply to the questions. If they reply to the questions, we can make progress again.

Another accusation made is that we are hammering on this Information story because we supposedly wish to avoid our own policy proposals. That of course is absurd. Our policy has been made known. It has appeared repeatedly in the newspapers. It has already been discussed and articles concerning it have appeared. Surely we need not defend anything before we are attacked on something. There are a few hon. members opposite who did, in fact, attack our policy. I wish to react to the points raised by them. In the first place there was the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. Let me immediately say that I have a great deal of respect for him, especially when he speaks about agricultural matters. However, I must say in all sincerity that his participation in the constitutional debate had about as much value as a treat on a stud bull. All he did was go round in circles.

A second contribution was made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and of Education and Training. I am surprised that the hon. the Deputy Minister has to refer to the pronouncements of lecturers at English universities in order to attack our policy. His whole speech depended on one article written by De Crespigny and Collins and another article written by Frankel. As it happens, Frankel’s article deals with the necessity for majority government, but the hon. the Deputy Minister used it to attack the idea of consociation, while the article of De Crespigny and Collins advocates partition. It is important that the hon. the Deputy Minister, by implication, pleaded partition, too. I wish to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that as far as I see it, throughout the world partition has only taken place after a violent war within a society. The lines are then drawn at the termination of the war. It has never worked on the principle that the one cuts the cake and the other chooses, or that the one decided which part belongs to the other and then sits back. If, in fact, the hon. the Deputy Minister wishes to plead partition, he must discuss it clearly so that the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations after his speech today can hear exactly what the hon. the Deputy Minister has to say about it.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Development delivered an unpleasant speech. He poured out a lot of political rubble, was guilty of character assassination, and kicked around the whole question of patriotism. I wish to make one thing clear: Patriotism in South Africa is still going to be tested. We are going to go through a crucible, and the sheep will be separated from the goats. The words of that hon. Deputy Minister, who now arrogates to himself the role of the good shepherd to decide who is patriotic or not, will still bum his mouth in future. We shall see what is going to happen.

The hon. the Minister of the Interior was the fourth one to attack our policy. What arguments did they advance? The first dealt with the question of the national convention. The question was put whether it could last a long time and my answer to that is that it could indeed last a long time.

How long?

That does not matter. Most important is that such a question completely fails to appreciate the nature and meaning of a convention, because a convention means in effect that the most important political interest groups in the country sit together and negotiate a peaceful alternative constitutional dispensation, and even if it lasts 100 years it is preferable to confrontation and violence. However, it did not last 100 years in South Africa. The first convention in South Africa lasted a mere two years, and there were only three sessions. Therefore, it is not necessary that it should last 100 years, but the principle this underlines is that one should get the most important political groups so far as to participate in it [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister now asks how many groups there will be. All the important political interest groups must be represented.

It has also been asked: “What of the radicals?” We have clearly stated that they must accept the importance of negotiation and bargaining.

Just name those groups.

I shall do that. The hon. the Minister must just give me a chance, because I did not shout whilst he spoke. They must also discount violence as a means of change.

People will now also ask: “What about somebody like Mandela?” I wish to make it clear that if the future of South Africa depends on peaceful negotiation, and a man like Mandela is prepared to participate in that under the conditions which I have just sketched, in that case a Government which refuses to speak with that man and prefers war, will be cursed by White and Black posterity. That will still happen and about that there is no doubt in our minds.

The second question put was whether the PFP is going to take the lead at such a convention. Surely the policy clearly states that only the Government of the day may convene such a convention, and nobody else. However, the question is whether that Government, with all the power which it has at its disposal, will have the courage, without surrendering any of that power, to convene such a convention to ascertain what the people are prepared to negotiate about. The Government can do that without surrendering its power. It can still sit here and exercise control over the Defence Force and the Police and still take steps, but it convenes a convention to ascertain what the people wish to discuss. The Government does not even have the courage for that.

The second matter discussed was the so-called non-negotiable requirements. Basically, there are only two. The first is that there may be no discrimination, and the other is that there may be no domination. Those are the most rational and reasonable requirements to stipulate, because one thing is certain of the Black man. He will accept no dispensation which discriminates against him. One thing is certain of the White man: He will accept no dispensation in which he thinks he will be dominated. Therefore, we say that we accept that there may be no discrimination and we accept that there may be no domination. That must not be negotiable. That is the same as a declaration of intent. For 18 months they struggled to get a declaration of intent going in South West Africa, before they could negotiate. That is what we are saying in these benches. It is the simplest logic.

But then we come to an important point, the third point to which they referred, viz. the question of ethnicity. The Minister of the Interior says that we are only paying lip-service to the question of ethnicity. Nowhere in any textbook or in any research on ethnicity which I have read—and I challenge anyone to bring me one—is it said that ethnicity embraces an element of compulsory membership. Nowhere! The choice of an ethnic group is a voluntary association on the part of the persons forming part of that group. And the cardinal weakness of the Government’s policy in respect of ethnicity is that they enforce compulsory ethnicity on South Africa. By doing so they confuse the whole plural nature of our society. That is exactly what they are doing. Precisely as a result of that policy the Government had a counter-productive effect on the urban Black man. There is a total counterattack on the part of those people …

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

No. Unfortunately I do not have the time. It is as a result of the Government’s approach to the problem of ethnicity that we have Black Power, that we have Black consciousness, that those people deliberately say that they want nothing to do with it. Their point of view is that the way in which the Government manipulates ethnicity in South Africa is nothing but than an attempt to divide and rule. That is why our policy states that there is a challenge issued to the Government. If it is so that South Africa comprises a majority of plural or ethnic groups, then the best evidence thereof is that they be allowed to associate voluntarily and to manifest the number of groups there are. That answers the hon. the Minister’s question. Surely one cannot decide in advance with whom one wishes to speak. If one excludes an important group from a convention and they create unrest, one can have no peaceful development, but in order to ascertain who must come, one must give them the freedom of association in order to determine who in reality they want to represent them. Until such time as the Government has done that, in respect of the urban Black man, in respect of the Black man in the homelands, in respect of the Coloureds and everyone else, they will never in a million years have peaceful negotiations with the Black population groups. They can forget about that. They will never have it.

Then we come to the fourth point of attack, and that is the whole question of consensus. I find it interesting that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and of Education and Training attacked consensus strongly. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the other hon. Deputy Minister launched a violent attack on it too. They said, inter alia: What is this consensus and veto story? It is nonsense! If we had had it, where would we have been now? If, however, one examines here and there the comments made by those hon. members themselves on their own constitutional proposals which they have for the Coloureds and the Blacks, you find the words there. I shall just quote to hon. members what the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said when he spoke at a congress. With reference to the Government’s new constitutional proposals he said—

All of those six points centre around the whole idea of consensus politics. Then the hon. member proceeds and explains in detail how those principles are included within the new constitutional proposals. I now wish to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: Is he opposed to the principle of consensus in politics? Does he discount it as a measure? [Interjections.] Does he not discount it? Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister then not tell us what he thinks? At least I went to the trouble to explain what I meant by consensus. It has not been done even once by the hon. members of the NP. The only explanation we have heard up to now, is that consensus means: “I decide what you like.” That is what the hon. members opposite have said to us. [Interjections.] Apart from that we have had no explanation. I wish, honestly and in all sincerity, to make an appeal to hon. members opposite that they should beware that consensus does not become as much a swear word in our South African politics as apartheid. It is important that we should have a thorough debate op consensus. [Interjections.] No, we must not distort it. We must not attempt to score political points off one another, at least not in that.

For that reason hon. members on the Government side reach clarity on what they mean by it. They cannot go to the Indians and Coloureds, use fine and lofty words and speak at seminars and symposiums without stating exactly to those people what they mean when they use that word. And when the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations says that we should have co-operation and negotiation, that there is great strength in that, that we should plan together with the Black man and not for or against him, that we should have a common South African loyalty, I should like to know how that links up with the idea of partition, the idea raised by both the hon. Deputy Ministers. What do they mean by partition? Is partition merely separate development, or do they mean by partition that it is an equal partition, that the Black man will plan together as regards the partition, that he will be allowed to state which part of the country he wants, or is it merely a question of the same people deciding once again? The underlying philosophy in our proposals is very simple. We state that the status quo in South Africa must change. The Government says that too. We all agree on that. We all agree that the status quo has become untenable if we wish to cope with conflict in South Africa. Then, however, we ask how it is to change if we have to change it. The status quo can change in one of two ways. It either changes by means of confrontation and violence, or by means of negotiation and bargaining. When speaking of negotiation and bargaining, we must not bluff one another, because no one negotiates in a vacuum. Each party should say: This is my declaration of intent on the strength of which I wish to bargain. Ours is clear. There will be no discrimination or domination. What are the Government’s non-negotiable requisites? Do they mean, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, that the White man must maintain control over his own interests? If the White man’s interests are similar to the interests of all the people in this country, we shall never solve the conflict. Therefore, it should be made clear what the NP mean by their interests in this connection.

Furthermore, when we have stated these principles, when we have a convention and can negotiate, we must, on the strength of these principles, these non-negotiable principles, plan constitutional models. I put it to hon. members opposite that the PFP—and I include Black and White political parties—is the only political party which has worked out a complete constitutional model. [Interjections.] The PFP did so on the strength of those principles. Show me another political party which has done the same. I am not now referring to an ad hoc chopping and changing, to a commotion about how the homelands should be enlarged, or commissions that have to be appointed, etc. We stated it clearly. It may, indeed, be attacked, and the Government has the fullest right to attack it, to state that they do not agree with this or that. What, however, is theirs, and what are their non-negotiable requisites? We state our plan clearly in that book. We do not state that every particular of each constitutional measure is there for all time. We do say that particulars may be replaced, but that it may be replaced only on condition that the non-negotiable principles are not thereby infringed.

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

No, I am sorry, but I cannot answer questions now. I only have one more minute at my disposal.

Can’t I have half a minute of that?

We can speak outside later. Each change which is accepted, must remain true to the non-negotiable principles. This logic, this philosophy—as far as I can ascertain by means of research already done by others— has been followed in each situation in which bargaining in a society had to take place in order to reach a peaceful alternative constitutional order. For that reason I have to put it very simply to the Government that, if they do not now avail themselves of the opportunity to start such a structure operating in South Africa … [Interjections.] They do not have to follow our model, but they must obtain co-operation. If, however, they do not now have the opportunity … [Interjections.] I challenge them. If they do not begin with it now, we are approaching an era in which even the option of bargaining will be taken away from us. This has in fact happened. Here Rhodesia can serve as an example. The hon. Mr. Ian Smith later went about with a man who had had him on his assassination list and began to pray for peace in the world. That is what happened there. Surely we cannot close our eyes to such things. At the moment, with the co-operation of the UN, we want Swapo to participate in an election and we invite them to do so. Can we honestly visualize that situation that we in South Africa avoid that course of history? Surely we cannot bluff ourselves. We do still have time, and that is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition emphasized. We must, however, utilize that time and not score political points off one another. We must not crack jokes about constitutional alternatives, but approach these matters seriously. Only then is there perhaps a faint possibility that by means of negotiation politics we can get out of the morass in which we find ourselves at present. That is what the PFP plan outlines. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend replying to the speech made by the hon. member opposite. In any case, I think it is impossible to understand his logic. When the hon. member says first in chorus with some of his people that we still have a few months left, and then later makes another statement to the effect that there is still time to arrange conventions, one cannot follow his logic. Where one moment he talks of the chaotic situation in Rhodesia at present and then the next moment compares Rhodesia with South Africa where we have possibly the most orderly conditions in the world, I cannot follow the logic of his argument. I leave it at that.

I want to come back to the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I shall not dwell long on it but I do think it is necessary that I as a newcomer who had no part in the discussions when this question was raised but had that privilege at a later stage should mention a few things here. At the outset I want to say that we find something very interesting on pages 380 and 381 of a recently published book by our former colleague. Ex-minister Ben Schoeman deals here with an important matter and hon. members would do well to read it. He speaks in his memoirs of an incident in 1972 when a member of the NP—many hon. members here will know who he is—at a meeting of the executive committee of the party in Pretoria drew attention to the fact that land had been bought adjacent to an airport at a price which he felt was much too high. These are the factual memoirs of ex-Minister Schoeman and this concerns the previous Prime Minister—

Mr. Schoeman goes on—and hon. members should read it themselves—to say at the end—

I do not want to read further but just want to say this: “How does history repeat itself?” The then Prime Minister acted immediately an irregularity was brought to his attention, but because of a sustained campaign, that Minister too was relieved of his post at the time. We experienced the same thing recently.

Do you think that gave satisfaction? We have just heard again from the hon. member for Rondebosch the echo of The Cape Times when he said that these things would not go away: “It won’t go away, Mr. Botha.” Let them take the responsibility for that. We find, inter alia, the following in the motion—

I want to state clearly that I, together with the Government that I have the privilege to serve, accept full responsibility for the manner in which action has been taken since this matter was brought to the notice of the Government. I want it to be clearly understood that this affair was not brought to light as a result of the Opposition’s detective work or as a result of other people’s obtaining certain information but because of the operation of the state machinery which over the years has become known all over the world and which those hon. members are now trying to destroy. The affair was unravelled further by means of the machinery of Parliament, that is, the Select Committee which also did excellent work in this connection. The inquiry is still being pursued by our judiciary.

I accept full responsibility but I also like to see the other man’s point of view. I am reminded of the words of Rudyard Kipling: “If you can trust yourself where all men doubt you; yet make allowance for their doubting too …, ” and I want to make the allowance that people may doubt the sincerity of the Government. However, when a matter has stood the test of time and over the past weeks and the months certain information has been disclosed, I think one must also be able to expect fairness from those people for whom one makes that allowance.

I do not want to repeat the long drawn-out story—as the hon. the Minister of Finance put it this afternoon—to show that there has been suspicion-mongering which cannot be substantiated. But in my opinion it is nevertheless necessary to warn the Opposition—this includes hon. members of the NRP whom I have respected for many years—that when in the heat of the battle one does something irresponsible it must also be borne in mind that the verdict of history may sometimes be quite different to the verdict given today.

Hon. members must give thought to what will remain of these debates when the history of this specific matter which has dragged on for days, weeks and months, is written. I agree with those who say that one is sick and tired of the futile debate on this matter, not only in this House but also in the newspapers. One must accept that the outcome will be that one friend no longer trusts another, that suspicion is cast on the most upright people and that everybody is put under a magnifying glass. Certain remarks are made in circles where one would not have expected them and one can well compare this with the rotten apple which taints everything in the sack containing the fruit.

I think the time has come for us to act responsibly and to ask ourselves: How far can this matter still be taken? Must we agree with the hon. member for Rondebosch and with The Cape Times when they say: “This thing must drag on for ever”? The hon. Opposition may maintain that we can put an end to it but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following in the introductory remarks to his speech, and I agree to a large extent with some of the statements he made—

Not only has South Africa been harmed through this but just think of the harm already done to the most efficient Public Service in the world. Just think of the suspicion that increased over the past year when one, two or three officials were guilty of malpractices. According to ex-Minister Ben Schoeman it is nothing new and this sort of thing has happened before. This time the suspicion mongering is dragging on for an unusually long time, in spite of the fact that properly constituted bodies are investigating it. Debate on the matter continues unchecked and avails us nothing because the people who are doing the debating are in any event not qualified to pass judgement on the culpability or otherwise, the criminal actions or otherwise, of those who are accused.

Dr. Connie Mulder has paid the price although—according to ex-Minister Ben Schoeman—he was not expected to know of every transaction within his department. Whose blood are those hon. members after now? There are people who for understandable reasons are placed in the dock and there are people who have paid a heavy price. I have always had the greatest respect for Dr. Connie Mulder and, as far as I am concerned, until it can be proved I shall never believe he was guilty of theft. But he has paid the price because he did not give his full attention to this department as was expected of him. What does the Opposition still want of him? In the light of the price he had to pay I want to know: Do we no longer have faith in Parliament, our highest institution, to pursue this affair right to the end? If there are still guilty people, as the hon. the Prime Minister has promised they will be brought to book. But innocent people and an innocent future must not be allowed to suffer because of this cancer which rages on. Can any reasonable person tell me whether he thinks that this scandal can be researched to its full consequences before the Erasmus Commission completes its investigation in May? We were unanimous that the other commissions should also complete their work. When will we stop talking about these things in the way the Opposition talks about them? I think there is another more important aspect than this harm we have suffered because of the Information irregularities.

†The question is not so much the damage that is being done to us now, but the damage that is being done to our future. The second part of this quotation from the motion of the Leader of the Opposition states that we should have been grappling with other problems of course. The greater problems of South Africa, Rhodesia, South West Africa, economic problems which arise from the situation in Iran, from circumstances beyond our control—so many other things that should keep us busy.

Why don’t you clean up the Information group?

We are going to clean up the Information, group if the hon. member will give us the time to do it. I would ask that hon. gentleman to just please give us the time to do it, together with the Opposition. Then I say we will, in fact, solve the problems for the benefit of all of South Africa. [Interjections.] I listened to hon. members like the hon. member for Groote Schuur at the end of the debate during December last year in which he put forward 20 points after having listened to the introductory speech of the hon. the Prime Minister in which he had dealt with all those 20 points. I listened to my good friend, the hon. member for Mooi River, yesterday when he said we must give them the evidence. I will quote it to him because I could not believe that he had said this—

In the meantime they had already partially joined forces with the official Opposition in finding the previous Prime Minister guilty. His party opposed the hon. the Prime Minister’s motion to the State President. Now, before deciding to accept the challenge of the hon. the Prime Minister, he says that we must give them certain facts and then they will decide whether or not to accept the challenge.

Once again let me say that we will give all those facts to the Opposition. I am not afraid of doing so and the Government is not afraid of it. However, in all fairness to the people who stand accused, if it is impossible to give the information in a day, then it is unfair towards those people to give it today. I think that some time or other we should stop just casting doubts on the integrity of our opponents. I think politics can be clean and I think it should be clean. It can be clean with Whites and Blacks.

I want to put a matter to the Opposition, to the people of South Africa and all the newspapers who, in so many instances, have furthered the cause of South Africa and will be needed in future. I also want to put it of all hon. members on both sides of the House. There is a difference between a cover-up—a phrase mentioned over and over again—and the keeping of secrets. Those two terms are not synonymous. There are certain things which we cannot run away from. I have only recently been allowed into the Cabinet.

*I do not want to be dramatic about that. But it was a great day for those hon. members—and I am thinking of the hon. member for Prieska—who stood here and took the oath in Parliament. The day I took that oath I went cold. The oath reads as follows—

The Constitution which provides for Select Committees, etc.—

To respect and maintain “all other law”, such as a Select Committee, such as the Bench and such as a commission of inquiry. It also states—

There were 18 members of the Cabinet and there may have been things which came to their notice from time to time on which there may have been difference of opinion. The hon. the Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Defence, said so quite openly here. I want to ask hon. members opposite as responsible people who may one day find themselves in a similar position of trust: Do they think it would have been honourable for the then Minister of Defence to start a gossip campaign because he differed with a colleague? Or was his conduct the conduct to be expected of a Minister of South Africa? A valued member of the NP caucus is sitting to the right of me, a confident of leaders of the Opposition Party. As a member of the caucus he did not take an oath, just as these members of the caucus did not take an oath either, to keep the secrets of the caucus, but there is one thing I can say about him. Never, as far as I know, has he disclosed one of the secrets which were within his knowledge when he was a member of that caucus since he has been a member of this party. That is the way of an honourable man. [Interjections.] That is also the way of honourable people in a Cabinet—to stand together and accept responsibility together. But what does the acceptance of responsibility mean? When one colleague has erred, or if a few officials have erred, the acceptance of responsibility means that one tries to help rectify what was wrong. One does not run away. The hon. member for Rondebosch spoke of only 12 months apparently remaining. He spoke of a watershed year. If that is all true and we have to resort to an election, do hon. members really believe that any Government but this will take over? This Government must accept—and I too as a newcomer to the Cabinet—that what went wrong is not a good page in our history, but for the sake of the Public Service, whose fine name must be restored, for the sake of good government which has prevailed all these years in South Africa and, in the words of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, for the sake of South Africa and not only for the people of today, this scandal-mongering must now cease.

They will gossip themselves to death. They will never stop!

In conclusion I also want to appeal to the newspapers—and I am also referring to the Afrikaans newspapers— not to allow themselves to be further mislead by this campaign of incitement which will benefit no one.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the matters raised by the hon. the Minister of Education and Training weigh very heavily with him. We on this side of the House appreciate it He is a man who takes this whole matter very seriously and I believe that if he is sincere in his attitude—and I take it he is—we shall go a long way in preventing this kind of scandal which we have recently had in South Africa from being repeated. The hon. the Minister said he accepted that joint responsibility means our rectifying these things together. I believe I understood him correctly in that regard. But then I must ask the hon. the Minister whether that also means that the new Cabinet under the new Prime Minister can tell us today that the new Cabinet will definitely and without doubt accept responsibility for offences which might be committed by Ministers in the future. The hon. the Minister spoke about officials and said we were all human.

Yes, if the Cabinet is informed about it.

There is the possibility of an official being misled. Nevertheless, the Minister concerned should accept responsibility for the senior officials whom he appoints in his department. After all, that applies in the world of commerce and industry as well.

I think the hon. the Minister would agree that there were three basic reasons why this scandal took place, why it was possible for this scandal to develop. In my opinion the first reason was the fact that a basic principle was disregarded. This scandal had a chance of developing because the former Cabinet of which some members are serving in the present Cabinet as well, did not accept joint responsibility. That is the crux of the matter, and it applies in particular to things like secret funds. We on this side of the House think the hon. the Prime Minister, or perhaps one of the other Ministers, should now tell South Africa whether they have now changed their viewpoints and will accept joint responsibility or not.

That has always been the case.

That is not so. That is not what we were told during the short debate. Each Minister in turn got up and started that he did not know anything and did not ask any questions. That is no acceptance of the joint responsibility, particularly not as regards delicate matters like secret funds.

The second reason why I believe we had this scandal, is because we in Parliament became aware of certain gaps regarding answers to questions. I want to quote one of the recommendations of the Erasmus Commission.

†I quote paragraph 14.485 on page 99 of the report—

I believe that, if the Government is sincere in its attempts to avoid future scandals of the magnitude of the scandal involving the defunct Department of Information, it must tell us now whether it is in fact going to implement that recommendation. We know it has accepted the report in toto. I believe the Government owes it to South Africa to tell us now whether it also fully accepts and will implement that recommendation. It is common knowledge that, were it not for the persistence of the Opposition and certain newspapers, some of which did go slightly overboard, the Information scandal would never have been opened to the core as it has been. The hon. Minister who has just spoken has said we must work together to prevent this sort of thing happening in the future and to solve the problems we have. I believe that, if he is sincere, the Cabinet will accept joint responsibility in the future and will not implement that particular recommendation. The hon. the Prime Minister admitted during the short debate in December “dat die administrasie ’n paar dae lank lam gelê is ná hierdie skandaal oopgevlek is.” I should like to suggest that a reason why we had that paralysis in Government, which was admitted by the Government, was that too few people were involved with secret funds and what was happening to them. Coming back to the responsibility factor, I believe that the more people who are able to give accountability for secret funds, the safer South Africa is going to be and the smaller the possibility of a future scandal and the misappropriation of funds.

However, let us now leave the question of the Information scandal because I should like to take the Government to task in regard to an aspect of their constitutional proposals. I believe the Government has to reconsider very seriously one fundamental assumption which they make in respect of their constitutional proposals and that is that there is no difference between the urbanized and the non-urbanized Black citizens of South Africa. We have heard this said by the hon. the Prime Minister as well as by certain other spokesmen on the other side of the House. The assumption they are making is going to lead to the shipwrecking of their constitutional proposals. We can tell them that right now. I have not read the book the hon. the Prime Minister showed us yesterday, but we have had the opportunity and advantage of reading certain researches—let me say that these were funded by the Government— conducted in South Africa by experts in the field of ethnology. They indicated very clearly and conclusively—and I would welcome inquiries from hon. members on the other side of the House so that I could give them the necessary references to allow them to read these themselves—that the value systems of the urbanized Blacks and the non-urbanized Blacks differ to the same degree as the differences between the White population and the non-urbanized Blacks in South Africa. I think their own people are telling them this, but I do not think they are listening.

*I want to quote from a publication of the Instituut vir Suid-Afrikaanse Politiek at the Potchefstroom University. The author is Mr. H. J. Swanepoel and the title is: Die Stedelike Swart man in Suid-Afrika: Die politiek-administratiewe aspek. The date of the edition is September 1978. On page 9 he refers, inter alia, to the recognition of urban Blacks as a separate ethnic group in South Africa. He speculates about the bodies which could be created for them to enable them to exercise their political rights outside the homelands. I quote—

That is the urban Blacks—

Those were national systems, of course—

In this publication he concedes, and solely in the administrative sphere, that it will have to be accepted that the urban Blacks must be treated differently from the un-urbanized Blacks. Yesterday an hon. member asked the hon. member for Mooi River where he obtained the information that approximately 20% of Black people were urbanized. We obtained it from the research of many experienced people here in South Africa. We cannot understand why the Government does not take any notice of those investigations. Are they blind, and are they going to try to stuff the toothpaste back into the tube? Surely that is impossible.

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

I shall be very pleased to answer questions at some other time. I should like to point out to the hon. member that it is a very serious flaw in the basic principles of the NP to assume that there is no difference between the urbanized Blacks and the non-urbanized Blacks. It is a basic principle. The hon. the Prime Minister told us yesterday that they had had talks with the urban Blacks in order to prove to us that the system propounded by the NP was being accepted by these people. I should just like to refer the hon. member to an article on President Lucas Mangope of Bophuthatswana which was published today. He was reacting to what the hon. the Prime Minister said yesterday regarding the borders which could be changed.

†According to this article which appeared this morning in The Cape Times—

He goes on to say that he would welcome the White farmers remaining in Bophuthatswana, and that means that consolidation need not necessarily take place.

In terms of the NRP’s policies the need for land consolidation falls away. It will not become an issue at all. The only party with this problem is the NP. It appears that even the leaders of the independent and semi-independent States in South Africa, States which are creations of the NP, do not all believe that land consolidation is absolutely necessary.

I should now like to go a little further and to speak about the Government’s attitude towards provincial councils. We heard the hon. the Minister who spoke just now say that we must solve problems together. I take him at his word for what he is—an honest man. The Nationalist Government must now come clean with people in South Africa and tell them what their attitude is going to be to provincial councils under their new constitutional proposals. From the history of the NP, going back to 1930 and 1931, we know that continuous attempts are made to remove provincial councils from the political and constitutional set-up in South Africa. If the Nationalist Government is not going to be honest about this, if in fact they are going to try to eliminate provincial councils and to substitute regional directors who would not be elected but appointed, I believe they must tell the electorate that now. They must try not only to sell their policy to the other minority groups in South Africa; they must also tell the White people of South Africa where they stand.

This Government has a very poor record in the way they handled the Information scandal. We know that, and the more they stand in the mud, the deeper they sink into it. The greatest danger to South Africa today from a Government that has not realized what the realities of life are, is that they are busy devaluing democracy in this country. We do not want that to happen. Why does that side of the House not take the people into its confidence and tell them what their intentions are with regard to the provincial councils? The hon. member who sits there muttering and the hon. member on my left, are still going to fight the fight of their lives with their own people with regard to the provincial council issue. We know that they do not have all the answers to the Information scandal, but I believe, too, that they must tell us what the answers are regarding the provincial councils in terms of their new constitutional proposal.

One can go on for quite a considerable time arguing about constitutional proposals and differences. One can argue the toss across the floor, and we are going to be doing this still for quite a long time, but I would like to recommend to hon. members on that side of the House that they should take a very serious look at the proposals which the hon. member for Mooi River put up here yesterday and on previous occasions. Therein lies the future salvation of all minority groups in South Africa. I should like to tell hon. members that the proposals of our provincial council in Natal, proposals of which we are very proud, are going to bear fruit, peace and harmony long before the Nationalist Government has even got their first blue-print off the drawing boards. There has been a certain amount of criticism recently from certain hon. members in other parties about our new dispensation in Natal where we have a living example of our successful policies. In this connection I want to read from a publication called Woord en Daad of February 1979.

Potchefstroom!

That’s it! And what do they say here about the new dispensation? What are they saying about Natal? [Interjections.] This is what the author says here—

He is talking of municipalities, border areas, etc.—

I remind hon. members that it is a plan of the NRP’s—

So I just want to point out to hon. members on the other side that they might perhaps have the answers to some parts of their new political dispensation. But there are definitely flaws in their arguments and in their basic principles as regards the urban Blacks. I want to state clearly that we are referring to urbanized Black people. There are 9 million Blacks resident in urban areas, and according to the latest research more or less 2 million of them have become completely urbanized. They embrace a system of values which is the same as that of the Coloured group, the Indian group and of the Whites in South Africa. They have a profound belief in democracy and in the economic system of private enterprise. They uphold Christian values. They are the people with whom we should co-operate if we want to be successful and preserve peace and prosperity in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the hon. member for Durban North. Although I will not be able to react to all his arguments, I should nevertheless like to tell him that, as far as future responsibilities are concerned, as far as the solving of this problem confronting us all is concerned, I and my colleagues in the Cabinet—all of us—accept responsibility. However, we cannot accept joint responsibility for things that happened about which we knew nothing. I think it is only fair. If one is not aware of a thing, and when in the normal process of Ministers informing their Cabinet colleagues, one Cabinet Minister fails to do what he is expected of him, the principle of joint responsibility does not apply. It is absolutely unfair to contend that it does apply in such a case.

In connection with the provincial councils I can assure the hon. member that should we decide to make any changes in the existing system in terms of our new constitutional proposals, such changes will not affect only the Provincial Council of Natal. [Interjections.] Whatever we decide to do will affect all provincial councils, and not only that of Natal. We will not discriminate against Natal. That is one thing on which I can assure him.

*Mr. Speaker, a number of arguments have been advanced here, arguments to which I cannot reply in full. I do not have the time now. Unfortunately the hon. member for Rondebosch is not present at the moment, but I do just want to mention that he again dwelt on constitutional matters in his usual arrogant and very clever way. In the hurried discussion he conducted with us here he showed that he had read very extensively in regard to the issue of constitutions. That is so. The names he mentioned are the names of people who have written about this matter a number of times in recent times. I do just want to say to him that there is consensus and consensus. He apparently put a question to someone here but did not receive a reply. I was not present. He asked whether we agreed with consensus as a concept as far as agreement between people and their Government was concerned. There is indeed much to be said for that, depending on the circumstances in which one finds oneself with regard to the nature of the community and with regard to the background and tradition of that community. I do not think the kind of consensus he has in mind is the same kind of consensus which the National Party advocates.

I do not want to say any more about the events surrounding the former Department of Information, because I think that more than enough has been said on that score. There are going to be no reproaches from me, for example by dragging up old war stories, as the hon. member for Houghton did. I only want to make a few remarks in this regard.

Certain consequences of the Information affair profoundly affected and hurt the Government and came as a shock. That goes without saying. It simply must not happen again. The work of the Erasmus Commission has not yet been finalized. I am pleased that the hon. member for Pinetown stated here today that he had respect for this Commission and that he would show it in the future. Those were the implications of his words.

Pinetown?

I beg your pardon, I mean the hon. member for Durban Point I regard this as an exceptionally good sign that we should at least begin thinking along those lines. The continuation of the work of the Erasmus Commission surely gives the hon. members’ Press, the media which they have at their disposal, 40% of whose tail wags a very big dog, the opportunity to carry out the orders of their “cover-up” bosses in a decent way. Take the gossip to the commission. Hon. members, as the Opposition, can of course do so. They have four months in which to do so. The public is now getting sick and tired of this kind of thing. The public wants the country to be governed and knows that only one party can govern the country at this period. I am not referring to the minority of the public, nor do I refer to people who have been ordered to cause this phantom to continue in existence. The public is sick and tired of this because they have an innate sense of fairness and the Opposition must take that into account. This thing is going to backfire. Like the hon. member for Durban Point, the public, too, sees us as a new Government. It sees us as a Government that wants to work, a Government that is not involved with what happened. They realize that the Government need not stand in the dock. This Government must be afforded the opportunity, and if it is not, it will do so in any event Even if we were to incur the tremendous expenditure of calling an election tomorrow, everyone sitting here now would come back, after all. Can hon. members opposite furnish evidence of anyone sitting here being involved in the Information saga? The challenge of the hon. the Prime Minister is that hon. members can do anything in their power to prove that any Minister was involved or knew what was going on up to the date of the election of the hon. P. W. Botha as Prime Minister. He meant that this was a sword hanging over everyone’s head. Decisions taken subsequently were decisions taken in the process of the solution of a problem. What could be more fair than that? I think I have now said enough about this matter.

Much that is wise has been said about South Africa’s position vis-à-vis the outside world and its position in regard to the domestic problems experienced. I want to agree that our most important task at the moment is to review the future and debate the constitutional dispensation we have in mind for our peoples. Extensive reference has already been made to consociationalism, the so-called consensus model. The author Frankel wrote about the consensus model and disparaged it. The only alternative Frankel could foresee was majority government. Subsequently he was reasonably well answered by Theodore Hanf. Other authors, such as Du Plessis, etc., also discussed the matter, and all these speculations indicate that there is an idea which is taking root more and more in recent times and a word which is increasingly coming to the fore, viz. the word consensus. Together with it, of course, is this difficult word consociationalism. I agree that we must discuss these aspects and I believe that we hold fast a little of the truth but that we differ with each other in regard to certain cardinal aspects. A few months ago Mr. De Klerk stated in Die Transvaler that there were at least aspects of essential difference, whereas as far as terminology is concerned we are in agreement with each other. I want to try to indicate where those differences lie.

†Let us read what J. J. G. Boot says in the summer publication of Plural Societies, 1972. He says the following—

Hon. members would do well to bear this in mind when referring to circumstances in Rhodesia and in South West Africa—

*In my opinion, the biggest mistake hon. members make in this regard is to think that by means of free political and social association they can allow the benefit of a plural community to accrue to both sides. They do not realize that the essential idea here is contained in the words “national existence”. Do hon. members not realize that the essential difference here is that these 4½ million people have become a nation?

How many?

4½ million people. I concede that there may perhaps be a half million of them who do not wish to belong to the nation, just as there are hundreds of Zulus who do not want to be Zulus, etc. The 4½ million Whites in South Africa has become a nation on their own, within a plural community. Another term I have been hearing more and more in recent times— although I used the same terms six or seven years ago in a speech—is the word “pluralism”.

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

Unfortunately I do not have sufficient time at my disposal to reply to the hon. member’s question. The hon. Opposition has also heard the term “pluralism” here in recent times and has learned from it in the process. Hon. members must just bear in mind that the difference between South Africa, Rhodesia and South West Africa is that in South Africa there is a nation of 4,5 million people. 100 000 of them went to South West Africa and 250 000 to Rhodesia. It does not matter whether they were English speaking or Afrikaans speaking. A White nation with a tradition of 300 years did not come into being in these two countries. This nation will not agree to a system—even though it be stated in attractive Lorelei terms—which rests on that kind of consensus and which entails an integrated legislative assembly or parliament with a minority veto where there is not yet “one man, one vote”. They will not accept such a structure. They have learnt enough of this kind of thing from Africa in the past. What does Africa’s history look like? We can speak about federations and about unitary States. Some of those concepts can be forgotten if there are very large majorities. They simply do not exist. This can still work to a degree in homogeneous or semi-homogeneous communities such as Switzerland with its cantons. But it cannot and has never yet worked with any degree of success in a heterogeneous community in Africa or in any other part of the world. It has not even worked in a semi-homogeneous state such as Nigeria. When there is a large majority of a certain group in a plural community, this eventually leads to majority government—particularly in Africa—as brutal as can be, with contempt for minority groups. No-one can deny that. As far as consensus is concerned, it is true that the NP does regard consensus as the basis at the highest executive level, viz. in a Cabinet council. This is a kind of consensus which must work its way down from those top leaders to the lower leaders, to the parliaments, or chambers, as some people choose to call them—from the three groups of our society. Consensus in a Cabinet Council can work its way through to an association of States founded on the basis of the autonomy of those States. There are various degrees of independence but each is free to associate in matters of mutual interest. Then there can be consultation with them—and there will be consultation with them. Has the Opposition consulted with them?

Yes, of course.

We hope so. We hope the Opposition realizes, too, that whatever these people have told them they will not sell them that minority veto. We know these people and know what their view of that matter is. As such it is something which will lead to endless stumbling blocks and checkmate situations from the outset. Eventually the majority will make its authority felt and the constitution—with an independent judiciary and a charter of human rights—for which the Opposition has such a high regard—will not be worth the paper it is written on. I ask that we create a climate of co-operation among our people. Then we shall have consensus and co-operation. That is why we are trying to co-operate with other population groups without prescribing to them in the political sense. We are trying to co-operate in a modest fashion by way of certain departments. Since last year I have got eight of our homeland States and two independent States to sit together and discuss the problems of health in South Africa on a mutual basis. At the time we also decided to establish a Southern African regional health organization, because health knows no borders and does not allow itself to be diverted from its course by politics. In this health year we have at least 20 subcommittees that are co-operating splendidly, and each is comprised of all the race groups of South Africa. [Interjections.] It is really quite striking that those hon. members want to place health within provincial boundaries. Do they not realize that health is a universal matter, and that it ought not to have such boundaries? They must rectify that aspect in their proposed constitution.

Tell us about social welfare in your separate committees.

I just want to give them a little advice. At home, too, we try to cooperate, but what happens when one comes across a photo like this one …

A Prog newspaper.

… in the Sunday Express? On Sunday I had to read the following title—

The photographer went in there without permission. That patient was a patient who suddenly became confused. She was being treated by Black people and they eventually decided to fasten her and get her off the bed so that she could lie in comfort. At that time she had just been treated by a doctor. However, a photo of the patient is placed in the newspaper and the impression is created—and I say this was done in a calculated fashion—that it is our policy to treat Black people in this way. No White person had anything to do with this. It was Black people who did this thing. Of course we do not approve of this. It is not our policy. However, every case has two sides and I think it was a scandalous thing for the newspaper to do. Apart from the lie by the Sunday Express in regard to the hon. the Prime Minister they ought to apologize for this as well.

We, the Opposition and all our media can assist in creating a climate in which greater stress is made to fall on those things which link us together. However, let us not grasp at things like this and send them out into the world. I am sure it is to be found every where. Fortunately we have the information service of South Africa, against whose predecessor they object so strongly. However, this information service ensured that from today this picture, with an explanation of how false its presentation was, is being publicized throughout the world. Is that, too, work which we must put a stop to? I request the Opposition to co-operate with us. Even when they can hurt us a great deal, I appeal to them to begin by reflecting whether they are not perhaps hurting the country as well, because they sometimes cause the country endless damage. As long as this is their policy—and they also carry the responsibility for this, because it is their newspaper, the people who support them—they are damaging the country. [Interjections.] They can oppose the NP as strongly as they like, but they must always bear in mind that they must not damage South Africa. This is particularly true in these times we are living in with all their implications. If they carry on with this approach without any balanced view of how action must be taken in the delicate matter of human relations—that has always been a delicate matter—then they will remain in opposition for ever.

I just want to add something about the Information story and the matters raised by their leader. There is no reason why the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government should now have to go to the voters. But he is fully entitled to go to the voters in his own time. If the Opposition does not change direction drastically, it will come back with a still smaller minority than it has at present.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. gentleman who has just sat down has again emphasized the very considerable differences in political philosophy which exist between that side of the House and this side of the House. I am not going to respond in detail to his comments and his definition of what he terms consensus politics. He did indicate some form of qualified, if confused, support for the principle of consensus politics, but it is perfectly clear that, as far as that hon. gentleman is concerned, he cannot get away from the thought that the people of South Africa are for ever to be locked into separate compartments. He talks of a nation of 4½ million people when in fact we are a nation of nearly 30 million people. His entire political philosophy is dictated by the fact that he cannot stop himself from thinking of South Africa as being divided into separate compartments. I leave that matter there.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that at least he and his Cabinet colleagues have a great many things in common when it comes to the Information scandal and their attitude to it. One of the most significant features of this significant features of this entire debate since Monday has been the Government’s eagerness to move away as quickly as possible from debating the Information scandal. From the start we have had repeated pleas from Minister after Minister and member after member to end the debate on the Information debacle. One need but look at the contributions made by successive Ministers. The hon. the Minister of Transport, one of the early speakers in the debate, pleaded for an end to this negative debating. He said: “Let us have an end to it, because there are important matters to be dealt with.”

Then there was the contribution of the hon. the Minister of the Interior. I am glad he is present because I want to deal with a matter he raised in another debate later in the course of my remarks. That hon. Minister said he was satisfied with the remedial action that was being taken and he, too, pleaded that we should move away from this as quickly as possible. The same applies to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and of Education and Training who said: “Let us have an end to this scandal; we cannot afford rumour and scandal.” This was the case throughout.

This afternoon the hon. the Minister of Finance really dismissed the matter by saying that, in fact, this was a matter that involved a small number of people, who alone had been doing things which appeared to be irregularities. That is how he dismissed the Information scandal. He asserted with as much emphasis as he could muster that he believed that there was no cover-up. He went on to say that the Opposition wanted to put innocent people in the dock. No, Sir, that is not what the Opposition want to do. The Opposition want to see that this matter is exposed fully. That is what the public of South Africa want to see as well. One had the hon. the Minister of Education and Training a few minutes ago putting up the same sort of plea and saying: “Let us get away from this altogether.” He said he was sick and tired of this sort of debate. I believe that what is happening in regard to the Information scandal is certainly harming South Africa. Certainly, the Government have to look at their own record in this regard. They must stop being so sensitive to criticism that is being levelled at them, criticism which they have invited by the actions they have taken in this regard.

Actions they have not taken!

Yes, actions they have not taken. That is right.

The hon. the Prime Minister entered the debate on this issue yesterday. He was the one who recounted the actions taken by his predecessor and the actions taken by himself in order to get to the bottom of the Information scandal. He also responded to the following headline that appeared in The Cape Times: “It won’t go away, Mr. Botha.” Almost as an act of faith, the hon. the Prime Minister paused at a dramatic moment and, looking at you, Sir, said: “Mr. Speaker, it will go away. ” The members opposite are not going to wish this away. There certainly is agreement on all sides of the House that, while this thing continues, it can only be harmful to South Africa, but it cannot be wished away. It will only go away after there has been a total disclosure of all the facts. It will only go away when all those who have been involved in it have been brought to justice. Those are the two factors: There has to be a total disclosure and there has to be a follow-up.

And that is what the Prime Minister promised.

We are looking for evidence that this is so. I want to deal further with this matter. Until this is done, rumour will still be rife and the fear of a cover-up will remain. Whatever the intentions, unless it is seen that there is a total disclosure and a total follow-up of those involved, people will still be suspicious and the people’s fears of a cover-up will not be allayed.

I want to tell hon. members on that side of the House that the scandal will not be dispelled by means of unbridled and irresponsible attacks on the official Opposition, attacks which have also been a feature of this debate. The Government’s method of defence has been for speaker after speaker in the Government benches to attack the official Opposition for its part in trying to prevent a cover-up and trying to ensure that there is a total disclosure of the facts in this matter. During the course of this debate we have been accused of wanting to do harm to South Africa and of adopting an attitude which is foreign to South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. gentleman over here says “exactly”. We have also been accused of having no respect for the institutions and traditions of South Africa.

I want to say that the highest institution in South Africa is this Parliament, and we have seen it as our duty to defend and uphold its integrity and traditions in this whole affair. This has been the attitude of the official Opposition. It is not the Opposition which has assailed the traditions of this institution, but the Government. I want to ask whether it is in the interest of the traditions of the institution of Parliament to misappropriate public funds, for a Cabinet Minister to lie to Parliament and for a Prime Minister to remain silent when that lie is told and thereby condone the lie. I want to ask whether the present hon. Prime Minister agrees with the attitude of his predecessor in sitting silent when a lie was told in this House. Is this upholding the institutions of which South Africa is proud? Is this upholding the traditions of South Africa? While I am dealing with the question of the previous Prime Minister, I want to ask members of the Cabinet…

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order! I do not know whether I misunderstood the hon. member, but did he imply that the present Prime Minister knew that the former Minister had furnished incorrect information in Parliament with regard to The Citizen?

Order!

The hon. gentleman should read my Hansard. That was not a point of order. I stated my position perfectly clearly in what I said. However, I want to put a question to the members of the Cabinet who have taken part in this debate. I want to ask whether they, as members of the Cabinet at the time when a lie was told in Parliament and the then Prime Minister remained silent when that lie was told, though he clearly knew about the issue of The Citizen—because from the report of the Erasmus Commission it is clearly evident that he knew about it at that stage …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order! I seem to recall that Mr. Speaker yesterday ruled that no further criticism against the present State President may be expressed in this House. There is no doubt that the hon. member is contravening the ruling given by Mr. Speaker yesterday. I ask your ruling on this matter.

Order! I ask the hon. member to obey Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The Speaker’s ruling was to the effect that the conduct of the present State President could not be discussed in a context in which it was suggested that he was unfit for his present office. The ruling went on to stipulate that anything that related to his conduct as the head of a previous administration could be discussed. That was the ruling.

I did not ask the hon. member to withdraw anything. I just reminded him of Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

I shall bear that in mind. I want to ask whether, in view of those facts, hon. members of this Cabinet do not think it was the responsibility of the previous Prime Minister, at that stage at any rate, to have informed the Cabinet of what he knew. I want them to ponder that question. They each stood up here and said they did not know about this issue and that they therefore could not be responsible. That was the argument used by the hon. the Minister of Health, who has just resumed his seat. Do they not think that their previous Prime Minister owed it to them at that stage to have told the Cabinet, because then they could have taken action, and they might then have averted a great deal of what has subsequently taken place. They are therefore vulnerable to this sort of criticism.

Order! In terms of a ruling by Mr. Speaker I cannot allow any further discussion on the previous Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I am moving away from that. I have made the point I wanted to make, and I ask hon. members to consider that point of view.

I now come to the steps which this Government has taken in regard to this matter. The hon. the Prime Minister, in defence of his predecessor, referred to the action taken by the Auditor-General, Mr. Barrie. Mr. Barrie, however, was not a servant of the previous Prime Minister. The Auditor-General is a servant of Parliament. He went on to talk about departmental investigations, but we know that these took place. We know what happened to the Reynders Commission and we also know what happened to the appointment of Gen. Van den Bergh. If ever there was an act of total cynicism, it was the appointment of Gen. Van den Bergh to investigate a situation of which he himself was one of the initiators. That certainly does not give rise to a great deal of confidence.

Let us then see what has happened since this hon. Prime Minister took over. It is true that the Pretorius Committee has functioned, and he gave some indication yesterday of some of the investigations which the Pretorius Committee has undertaken. One would therefore give credit for that, and that is obviously the correct course. However, let us go further and look deeper than that On 8 December 1978 this House passed the hon. the Prime Minister’s motion in the short session of Parliament, a motion which, inter alia, expressed in subsection (g) that this House (Hansard, col. 12)—

What, however, has happened since then? How does the public see the earnestness of the Government’s intention to combat and punish those responsible for the irregularities and the irregularities themselves?

What more should have been done?

We know that Dr. Rhoodie has left the country. I want to repeat the question put by the hon. member for Rondebosch: I wonder how many Government members, in fact, want to find Dr. Rhoodie? I think that perhaps the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs would like to find him. However, I doubt whether the hon. the Minister of Justice would like to find him and I doubt whether a number of other Ministers would like to find him. Nevertheless, what has happened in so far as Dr. Rhoodie is concerned?

What is the charge?

Are you now defending Dr. Rhoodie like the hon. the Minister of Transport did?

I am not defending him; I am just asking what the charge is.

It was perfectly clear, since his passport has been withdrawn, and from the comments in the Erasmus Commission, that Dr. Rhoodie has a lot of things to answer for in this entire Information scandal, and so I am surprised that by their interjections hon. members on the other side would seem to be operating in defence of Dr. Rhoodie. That is the situation. This sort of thing will certainly not allay the fears and suspicions of the public of South Africa.

Then, of course, we have had the incident of the Attorney-General declining to prosecute Gen. Van den Bergh. That has already been referred to. We have also had the whole question of the release of evidence being denied. I would still say that I believe there is a very grave doubt as to who was responsible for the decision not to release the evidence of the Erasmus Commission. I still do not know who was responsible for that. Was it the judge, was it the commission or was it the hon. the Prime Minister? Who was responsible for the decision not to release the evidence of the Erasmus Commission? Was it the Cabinet? Who took that responsibility? It was the judge who initially said that he would make the evidence available, and then he changed his mind. There seems to be total confusion, in the ranks of the Government, on this entire issue. When Judge Mostert released evidence, the Government said he had no right to release that evidence. It was the hon. the Minister of Finance—and I am sorry he is not in the House—who went to great pains, during the short session of Parliament, to tell us of the legal opinion he had obtained in order to prove that Judge Mostert had acted incorrectly in releasing the evidence. That was said in this House during the short session. Then the hon. the Minister of Finance went to the Other Place and, on 8 December, said the following (Senate Hansard, col. 95)—

He was referring to the hon. Senator Henderson—

He was referring to the Erasmus Commission’s evidence. He went on to say—

Now, which is correct—the attitude in this House or the attitude in the Other Place? Is it still the view of the hon. the Minister that it is the commission’s responsibility, or is it the Government’s responsibility as to whether evidence is published? I do not understand it, and I do not think hon. members on the Government side do either. Because, if it is in fact the commission’s responsibility … [Interjections.] As the hon. the Minister said, if it is the commission’s responsibility to take this decision, I want to ask hon. members opposite how they reconcile the very chummy exchange which took place yesterday between the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Durban Point regarding the release of evidence. There was the hon. the Prime Minister offering the hon. member for Durban Point to supply him with the evidence. Now, whose responsibility is it? Is it the hon. the Prime Minister’s responsibility or is it the responsibility of the commission?

But that is not a release?

Oh, no, that was the intimation of what was taking place across the floor of this House yesterday afternoon. If the hon. member for Durban Point did certain things the hon. the Prime Minister would see to it that he received the evidence given before the commission. That was what the hon. the Prime Minister said. That was quite clear. Quite clearly, the responsibility is that of the Government. It is the Government that says to the Erasmus Commission whether evidence is to be released or not. That is the only thing that one can infer having listened to the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday.

That is the higher authority!

Yes, that is no doubt the higher authority. So, one looks at this entire situation, and despite the Government’s expressed intentions during the short session in December to combat and to punish irregularities it seems that there are growing doubts when the Government is able to trade evidence to a select few in South Africa.

I must point out too that the hon. the Prime Minister himself has raised considerable doubts as to the veracity of some of the evidence given to the Erasmus Commission. So, of course, has also Gen. Van den Bergh. Gen. Van den Bergh has also pointed out that a lot of that evidence is totally incorrect, that it is rubbish. Yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister told us of the great pains he had taken to investigate the whole position of this so-called Cabinet committee. Reference was made to this committee frequently in the evidence given before the Erasmus Commission, and one obviously accepts the hon. the Prime Minister’s word that in the minutes of Cabinet meetings he could find no reference to it. Again one has doubts regarding the veracity of at least some of the evidence given before the Erasmus Commission.

Now, I want to deal very briefly with Gen. Van den Bergh. We all know that he has attacked the commission in the most unbridled language. We know that he has signed a petition asking for his own prosecution. We know that he has refused to give evidence, or that he has said that he will refuse to give evidence before the commission of inquiry. Even yesterday he made the remarkable statement, a statement that cannot simply be ignored by the hon. the Minister of Justice, when he said that he could find Dr. Eschel Rhoodie in two or three days. Therefore, Gen. Van den Bergh continues to be a defiant and controversial figure. [Interjections.]

For what reason did your Party invite him to address a public meeting?

Well, perhaps he should be given a platform. He might tell us some more. However, we are entitled to ask …

Then you must be mad!

We are entitled to ask …

Order! No, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations and of Statistics must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them.

We are entitled to ask whether the Government is really earnest in its intentions to follow up this entire position, because one sees this sort of situation and the Government takes no action at all. There is, however, another matter to which I must refer, a matter also dealing with Gen. Van den Bergh. He seems to have enjoyed unprecedented powers in South Africa. During the short session of Parliament it was the hon. the Minister of the Interior who raised a very important matter. Let me say as well that we put some very important questions to the hon. the Prime Minister, questions many of which were not answered by the hon. the Prime Minister. I am sorry to see that the hon. the Prime Minister is not in the House now, but I still want to ask these questions.

The hon. the Minister of the Interior, referring to Gen. Van den Bergh, said the following (Hansard, 7 December 1978, col. 123)—

He then went on to say—

Then he said—

Now, I do not want to praise the hon. the Minister of the Interior, because …

No, I do not want the kiss of death! [Interjections.]

However, I should like to point out that this certainly was a very serious question. One took note of the manner in which he asked the question, and I am sorry that, in the early hours of that morning—perhaps owing to fatigue or other reasons—no reply was given to that question.

I think it will be interesting to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to reply to that specific question at the earliest possible time, because there is a major principle involved. Here one has a situation where the head of the Security Branch grossly abused the powers given to him and I believe that South Africa wants to know and be certain that no second Gen. Van den Bergh will arise in the post I think that is a matter to which the hon. the Prime Minister must address himself. I think it is that assurance which the hon. the Minister of the Interior was looking for when he posed that question. There are a number of questions which need replies, but I believe that there will not be an end to the Information scandal until there has been a total disclosure and until the Government comes clean with the public of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to me why the PFP does not want the discussion of this so-called Information scandal to come to an end. Last week in Cape Town and elsewhere in the country when they were collecting signatures to a petition asking for the prosecution of Gen. Van den Bergh, they distributed a pamphlet which read: “Stop the cover-up and support the PFP.” The PFP can neither move nor attract attention nor command respect nor get support unless it resorts to this kind of tactic. Gen. Van den Bergh, or whoever it may be, gets drawn in: “Stop the cover-up and support the PFP.” [Interjections.] That is one of the texts that that reverend is unaware of apparently, seeing that they are doing it behind his back. It is very clear to me what it is all about. That party got nowhere during the last election; they have to try therefore to get the attention of the public somehow because they cannot get it in any other way. That is why, together with their newspapers, they go to extremes in dragging this matter onto the public scene. The hon. member for Musgrave has accused us of trying to run away from the Information scandal.

Unfortunately, the hon. member for Rondebosch is not here at the moment because I shall want to deal with him shortly. He said a little while ago that we did not want to discuss their wonderful constitutional plan; that we were running away from it. What did the hon. member actually do? Once again he collected all possible and impossible little points to sow suspicion and then accused us of “doing harm to South Africa”. I want to emphasize one thing today. When one goes into the history of that party and considers who their followers are, one can go so far as to advance the sound argument that those people can be held directly responsible for the establishment of the Department of Information. They have within their ranks people who have spread stories about South Africa in the world that are untrue and they and their followers are still doing it.

You people got away with the whole sum of money.

I am quite convinced of the statement I have just made.

Order!

I do not think there are many people who will doubt that. Had we not had that party with its lack of patriotism towards South Africa and had they not projected a distorted view of the true position in South Africa, it would not have been necessary for us to enlighten the outside world. That was the reason why the defunct Department of Information was established. However, that department has landed in hot water and they are now feeding on that problem seeing that there is nothing else for them to feed on.

I do not wish to deal any further with the attacks made upon the former Prime Minister except to say that it is to be regretted that time and again these people try to involve a person who is not present to state his case, a person who has stepped out of public life with honour and who has served South Africa honourably over a long period.

Order!

I leave it at that I just want to repeat that that person is not here to defend himself.

The hon. member also had quite a lot to say about the publication of the evidence given before the Erasmus Commission. I believe that we should discuss this aspect of the matter at a later stage. Who must, in the long run, decide on that? I believe that the commission itself has the right to decide on that and that is why they came to that decision. The hon. the Prime Minister stated clearly yesterday that he had met the Erasmus Commission on two occasions and that he had not given them any instructions. In spite of that, the hon. member has alleged that he did do so. Sir, what must one do with people who will not accept one’s word when one explains the position honestly and clearly to them?

That hon. member has also dragged in the name of Judge Mostert and has referred to what he made public. What were the circumstances regarding Judge Mostert? He was given certain terms of reference and then he started to go into matters that did not fall directly within those terms of reference and he released certain information relating to those matters. Judge Mostert had to investigate and report upon the foreign exchange transactions. He had been busy with his investigation since early in the year and I should like to know why he did not publish the evidence given to him right from the start. Why did he wait until it could possibly cause a sensation?

It was in the national interest.

I did not know that Judge Mostert was concerned about the national interest as well; especially not after the way he acted. I want hon. members to bear in mind that up to a certain stage Judge Mostert did not publish any of his evidence. However, when he realized that he could possibly create a sensation, he spoke to the Press. When the hon. the Prime Minister wanted to discuss the matter with him, he turned his back on him and held a Press conference with the liberal press. Those were the circumstances. We could not allow a commission that could have received instructions to continue with the matter … [Interjections.] I suppose it is difficult for somebody who has the D.T’s to remain quiet [Interjections.]

I leave it at that because in my opinion the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday gave a detailed explanation regarding this matter. It is very clear, however, that the official Opposition will continue to harp on the same string because there is nothing else they can do to attract the limelight. They pretend to be sensitive when the interests of South Africa are being discussed. However, there is nothing in their past history to indicate that they are in fact concerned about what happens in South Africa.

It is certainly very easy to continually be destructive. One can destroy the most wonderful work of art or the most wonderful building simply by putting a hammer in somebody’s hand and telling him to smash it to pieces and to demolish it. That does not require any skill; all that is needed is a simple instrument and, like a vandal, to want to destroy. That is the impression I gain of the official Opposition. They make no positive contribution; they only want to be negative by being destructive and destroying.

I want to deal briefly with the constitutional plans of the hon. member for Rondebosch. This debate is important to South Africa and its people because it is taking place at a time when not only South Africa is facing problems but when problems and turmoil are prevalent throughout the world. The world is seeking stability. It behoves us therefore to exchange views and also to look to the rest of the world for possible examples of how to solve our own problems. In this connection we can look to the UN, the OAU, the West, Europe, the Middle East, the Far East, Central and South America and even North America. The voters of this country and their representatives in this House are the appointed people to consider our own problems seriously and calmly and to take as little notice as possible of the suggestions and advice of people with whom South Africa has become an obsession. We shall have to solve our problems ourselves.

In this connection I want to refer to what happened recently to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Great Britain because I think it is necessary that I mention it in this House. He made a speech at a meeting of the Antiapartheid movement and said, inter alia, the following—

The first sentence in which he says “… varying degrees how force of arms can impose change” merits further attention.

Are you quoting Calaghan or Owen?

I think it is the speech that Dr. Owen made before the Anti-apartheid movement on 23 January. I got a copy of the speech from my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is interesting to note that it was not published in our newspapers. But other remarks by Dr. Owen to which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has taken exception have been published. I think these words by Dr. Owen are absolutely scandalous. I ask the official Opposition and all members of Parliament to register their disapproval of the way in which a responsible Minister of Great Britain encourages bloodshed. There is not the slightest doubt that this type of person contributes to the difficulties experienced by us in Africa, in our country, in Rhodesia and in South West Africa. I think it is necessary for hon. members on both sides of the House to express their disapproval. They still have an opportunity in this debate to express their disapproval of this kind of action.

Has the Department of Foreign Affairs registered a protest?

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be here tomorrow and the hon. member can put that question to him then. It was reported in the Press that he did react to this remark by Dr. Owen. This is the first time, however, that I have noticed this particular sentence. I am informed that it was withheld from the South African Press—it was not published—and I think this is a very serious state of affairs.

South Africa can be severely criticized in the outside world. I have told hon. members that they are seeking solutions outside. Let us for once, however, look objectively at South Africa with all her shortcomings. Where in Africa is there a free Press, a free economy, a democracy, even in the sense in which we have in South Africa, and freedom of religion and worship? I may add that we have a legal system of which we can all be proud and which is held in high esteem throughout the world. Where does one find that in Africa? In how many countries in the world does one find that?

Looking back over 30 years of NP government, one realizes that mistakes have been made and mistakes will still be made because we are human. But we do not bewail and cry over our mistakes; we forge ahead and try to improve. That is what we are doing. Had the Government not been in power during the past 30 years, what would have happened to South West Africa? What would have been the position in Rhodesia and some of our neighbouring states? The position is very clear. I want to go so far as to ask where the West would have been in respect of strategic minerals and how certain they would have been that their oil route round the Cape was safe. It was South Africa that brought stability. In spite of problems we can boast about the fact that we have contributed greatly towards progress and development in Africa and we shall contribute even more in the future. All this has been done by a Government that has a policy which is abhorrent to the Opposition, a policy which, according to the hon. member for Rondebosch, will create problems for us during the coming year because we must take note of what is happening in Rhodesia. Surely the circumstances prevailing in Rhodesia and in South West Africa are different from those in South Africa? The circumstances prevailing here are totally different. What thanks do we get for what we have achieved? One must not forget this. That is basic to that party and the liberal Press supporting it. Whom do they want to blame for everything that is wrong, and not only to blame for everything that is wrong but also to blame for what they believe is wrong, for the distorted reporting and exaggerations? They want to put the blame for it on the shoulders of the White tribe, the Afrikaner and also the English-speaking people who co-operate with him. That is basically what stimulates them to launch their bitter and vindictive attacks.

That is a filthy untruth!

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

I withdraw the word “filthy”, Sir, but it is an untruth.

I am not surprised at the hon. member using the word “filthy”. He always knows what he is talking about. [Interjections.]

Order!

We have a proud record. It is true that we have problems, but those hon. members associate with people who do not have the interests of South Africa, especially those of White South Africa—perhaps I should not make that exception but say all the nations of South Africa—at heart.

Let us consider what they do when they draw up a new constitution and report on it. I think the report I have here is authentic. It says here: To all formations—Progressive Federal Party. The document is dated 24 October 1978. It was sent out by their leader, Mr. Colin Eglin, to all the “formations of the Progressive Federal Party”. Before stating their case, they give five reasons why outside opinion should be taken into consideration. I want to give those reasons. Before voicing an opinion the commission says that certain things have happened which have of necessity to be considered. That has to be done before they can make any progress with the new constitution. They mention, inter alia—

Then, in connection with South West Africa—

Then they go further—

This is the first time they have openly admitted that. It has always been said that we are looking for a communist behind every bush but here we have it in black and white that also they say that there has been an intensification of Russian and Cuban interest. Then they go on to say—

And they say further—

In other words, prior to one’s drawing up a constitution one has first to consider what the outside world will say, what its reaction will be. Only then does one come forward with a constitution which is supposed to solve South Africa’s problems.

Over a long period of 30 years, from 1948 until today, numerous attempts have been made to formulate alternative policies. As far as I have been able to ascertain, this is in any event the first occasion on which an Opposition Party has tried to make a thorough study of the matter. During that time we have had nine general elections and on each occasion they came forward with an alternative. There are many points one can discuss but some of them are really ridiculous. The hon. member for Rondebosch has taken a hypothesis and accepted it as true, as correct. Then he tells us that it is meaningful because he has accepted it as such in his own mind. Perhaps it is wrong for me simply to criticize it. Perhaps it is desirable to read the criticism of somebody who is very close to that party. I want to quote what Mr. Joel Mervis wrote in the Sunday Times of 7 January 1979 under the heading “Plain man’s guide to the PFP plan”. Let us take a look at that. We can discuss it for hours but there are to my mind a few outstanding and very interesting points. He wrote this article in order to draw attention to the plan. He writes—

I want to ask the hon. member how one will convince the public and how one will convince oneself that the so-called “checks and balances” will be there. I have looked for them. Surely that is fiction? There is no assurance to the Whites. If time permits I shall return to this.

Have the Whites in South West Africa any assurance?

He writes further—

Note the words in brackets, Sir. What assurance is that? Surely that is an absolute contradiction, an absurdity of the highest degree? They say the Whites can be given an assurance provided that assurance is not opposed by the majority of Blacks. What does that mean? Surely that does not mean a thing? After all, that hon. member knows it.

It is consensus. If you know what consensus means you will understand that.

He said: “The chance of peaceful constitutional change was remote.” Mr. Joel Mervis went on to write—

It is not I who says this. It is Joel Mervis, the person who destroyed the former United Party and who now has to explain their new policy to the people opposite and introduce it to the public.

Read on.

Surely it is an absurdity? I repeat—

Read on. “But since the alternative …”

Very well. He goes on to say—

Sir, here we have a car without wheels. It cannot go but it has to go. It is like the old story about the fellow who said: “There’s got to be a tree.” He was asked: “If a lion charges you and your gun jams, what will you do?” His reply was: “Then I will climb a tree.” He was then asked what he would do if there were no tree, to which he replied: “There’s got to be a tree!” That is the type of story that is being told here and it is Joel Mervis who is telling it, not I. Worst of all—I hope time permits me to refer to it just briefly—is the question of the national convention. I must tell the hon. member that although I have underlined a good many points here I am sorry that we shall be unable to discuss all this nonsense here. There is simply no time for it. In connection with the convention they say—

I say: Well, I like that! It will be the NP.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the humour in the latter part of the hon. the Minister’s speech when he referred to Joel Mervis’s article in the Sunday Times. It is, however, certainly not my intention to discuss the official Opposition, but rather to return to the main aspects of this debate. After listening to the last two or three speakers, the pattern of this debate has become very clear to me. On the one hand there is the Government with one hon. Minister, or hon. member, after the other appealing to the Opposition to stop the attack on the Government over this issue as it is harming South Africa. They say we should get back to discussing the real problems of South Africa. They ask for time to clear this mess up. On the other hand there is the Opposition who refuses that request, saying that the Government should clean the matter up now and that they want to see the facts here and now. They want to get it over with once and for all by having the blood-letting right now, after which, they say, they can get back to looking after the main interests of South Africa.

While this is going on, we see the Government members also trying to project a new image of clean hands. It was the same tactic as was employed by the hon. the Prime Minister—I am very pleased to see that he has come in as I should like to address a few remarks to him—yesterday in his speech to this House when he said: “Give me time; I will clean up the position here in South Africa.” I believe this is a tactic the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister have to use, because it is very clear that if they were to tell the people of South Africa here and now the real facts of the situation, it would be a total disaster to the image, or what is left of it, of the NP.

I listened carefully to what the hon. member for Musgrave had to say about the institution of Parliament Before I come to the main thrust of my speech, I should just like to say that the furore which has been caused by the Information scandal, concerns the very basis of South Africa’s most treasured possession, and that is our democratic political system. If the executive arm of the Government is not prepared to tell South Africa the truth through the accepted parliamentary channels at its disposal—and this debate and previous debates in this House have clearly indicated that that is the case—if Parliament is incapable of extracting the truth for all the people of South Africa to hear because of the NP’s vast majority and the immense power it wields as a result, as has also been indicated by the debates in this House, and, thirdly, if our judiciary is hamstrung in carrying out the normal processes of law and justice, as is the case with Gen. Van den Bergh and as is the case, I believe, with this document which has been circulated by the HNP, it means that our political system in South Africa has become impotent and that South Africa—and I use my words advisedly—is in danger of losing its political freedom to see that right prevails and that justice is done and seen to be done.

The first image the hon. the Prime Minister tried to project was conveyed in his words that matters should be left in his hands and that he would clear up the situation. The second image he tried to create and project, was one of being South Africa’s new “Mr. Verlig”, the new “verligte” Prime Minister, who was promising South Africa a new deal. I should like to summarize that new deal. Firstly, the new deal entailed the consolidation of the homelands and a review of the 1936 Land Act. He followed it up by saying that we were going to have a new Constitution and that the Coloureds and the Indians of South Africa were going to get a new political deal. He then asked for an anti-Communist constellation of Southern African States and ended by appealing to the people of South Africa for a united South Africa for them to stand together as a bulwark against our enemies and the Communist onslaught.

I should like to use the time at my disposal to examine these promises and to see them for what I believe they are. The suggestion that a more meaningful consolidation of the homelands will resolve the homelands problem and the Black problem of South Africa is in my opinion just a red herring, unless, of course, it is the intention of the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government to depart from their traditional apartheid policy of granting so-called independence to the homelands and making all the Black people of South Africa citizens of those homelands. The various nations or groups of people which make up South Africa are, I believe, totally inter-dependent. Our mutual survival depends entirely upon a tightly knit group of people, Black, White and Brown, working together on our farms, in our factories and in our homes, playing together on our sportsfields, prospering together in our efforts, in our enterprises and in our businesses, spending our money together in our shops and, most important of all, sitting down around a table and solving our political problems together. This can only be done in a federal confederal political arrangement as is proposed by the NRP, an arrangement free from all the discriminatory policies which are basic to the philosophy of the apartheid policy of the Government.

Then there were the new constitutional proposals involving the Indians and the Coloureds. So far we do not know whom to believe. Do we believe the hon. the Prime Minister’s interpretation or do we believe the interpretation of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and of Education and Training? Let me ask some questions. Is there going to be real power sharing in this new deal? Are the Coloureds and the Indians going to be part of the decision-making processes of the Cabinet Council or are they not? We should like to know the answers to these questions. Is the discrimination which is causing indignities to the Coloured and Indian people and bitterness within their hearts going to be removed or is it not? These are the questions to which the people of South Africa want answers from the hon. the Prime Minister. The thing that disappointed me most was that he did not even mention the urban Blacks at all, or what their future prospects were in the so-called White South Africa.

I should now like to pass on to the constellation of anti-communist Southern African States. How can this be achieved without burying apartheid? I ask this question sincerely. Such an anti-communist alliance can only succeed when there is a visible shift away from the apartheid philosophy. It must be a fundamental shift such as that proposed by the NRP. Without this the statements of intention from the Government, when compared with the reality of their actions as a Government, in my opinion reveal a programme of duplicity and a lot of double talk, and it will not wash, especially over the years.

I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what he and his Government are really afraid of. I believe there is only one answer, and that is that he is afraid of those ultra conservative reactionary figures, many of whom are in the HNP or are at present supporters of the NP. This is what I believe he is afraid of. This is the real problem of South Africa’s political life today. The internecine strife within the NP is bedevilling South Africa at the present time. I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what he is going to do about the publication containing file article headed “Vorster en Botha moet uit” accompanied by a photograph of the State President. This has been distributed throughout the country by the HNP. Surely this is a blatant attack on the dignity of the State President? There is a complete distortion of Parliamentary privilege at the present time. Here we have, with due respect to you, Sir, a situation where members of Parliament may not raise the subject of the State President, yet we have this group going around South Africa distributing this type of publication. What is happening in South Africa at the present time?

All these things raise the question of the hon. the Prime Minister’s call for national unity. I should like to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that I agree entirely with him; there is an urgent need today for unity of purpose amongst all the people of South Africa, not just amongst the Whites, but the Browns, the Blacks and the Whites. The hon. the Prime Minister himself said yesterday that the strongest weapon in the defence of South Africa, and those things we treasure, is a united South African people. This is true. The sooner more South Africans, especially supporters of the NP, realize this, the better for South Africa, and the sooner we will rid our nation of this thing that is bedevilling it, which is eating at our very soul. This is one of the prime objectives of the NRP, and I firmly believe that this is the only party which fully understands the philosophy of pluralism, and which also understands the power of this philosophy to unite all South Africans in a common cause of building a great and harmonious and prosperous future for South Africa. Look at our membership rolls. If one only looks at the list of our party office-bearers, it is clearly shown that there is an almost equal mix between the English and Afrikaans speaking South Africans. Our whole philosophy cries out for unity, unity between English and Afrikaans speaking South Africans, unity between White, Black and Brown in order to ensure that South Africa as a whole, as the hon. the Prime Minister stated yesterday, should not be divided.

I ask hon. members opposite whether they disagree with this. This is the reason why I believe the NRP has the greatest potential for national unity of all the parties represented in this House. I firmly believe that it is this spirit which enabled the Whites and the Coloureds and the Indian political leaders in Natal to sit around a conference table for months on end, in a spirit of mutual respect, discussing and consulting one with the other the future local government dispensation and structure in Natal. The problems were discussed. The difficulties, the fears were discussed, but also the opportunities. This spirit of the NRP eventually caused these political leaders to put their pens to paper to sign this document of intent. It is something that this Government has not been able to achieve. [Interjections.] Given the opportunity the NRP could achieve similar successes of national unity with Brown, Black and White on a national level.

This is the spirit of my party. This is what I want this hon. House to understand. This is what I want the people of South Africa to understand. The NRP has a spirit which can solve South Africa’s problems. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister, during the debate last year, raised the subject of the Afrikaner cultural organizations, such as the FAK and the Broederbond. I should like to remind the hon. the Prime Minister, as I have already done, that my party and I are people who believe in pluralistic principles. That is to say, our constitutional dispensation which, first of all, entrenches the right to group identity by granting groups their own political power bases, will, secondly, guarantee freedom from domination of one group by another by giving to each of these political power bases the control over their own intimate affairs. An essential part of this thinking is the absolute necessity for each group to retain its self-respect. No group should be discriminated against Each group should have pride in its ethnicity and pride in its culture. They should also be able to retain and expand their cultural heritage, their language, through their own cultural organizations. The FAK, the Broederbond and other Afrikaner cultural organizations—as cultural organizations per se—present me personally with no problems at all. I do not have any hang-ups about the Broederbond. I can fully understand the role that they have played in furthering the Afrikaner culture. I can understand how the Broederbond has assisted in building the Afrikaner pride in Afrikaner people. As I have said, this is necessary for group or national self-respect, something which is so essential for the creation of mutual respect between heterogeneous peoples within a plural society. These concepts apply just as much to other groups, for instance the Zulus, as they do to the Afrikaners. Therefore, Inkatha has exactly the same potential, in time, to do for the Zulus what the Broederbond has done for the Afrikaners. I ask hon. members on the other side to consider this point.

A serious problem can arise, however. That is when these cultural organizations start to take on a major political role, which gives them the power—whether it is Inkatha, as we see in Natal, or the Broederbond, in some instances—to dominate other groups. Certainly, in a Verwoerdian concept of total apartheid there would be no problem, because theoretically total separation, as is the policy of the NP, would isolate each group in its own compact little compartment Thus the cultural groups in that particular society, the political parties, and the group itself, will all be synonymous. Therefore, there will be no problem. Surely, however, the NP, and also the Broederbond, must now realize that this is impossible. It is impossible even between English and Afrikaner, and it is certainly impossible within a State which is going to consist of Coloureds and Indians and Whites. Therefore, party political involvement in cultural groups such as the Broederbond or Inkatha can create disharmony in a plural society. If the Broederbond, for example, becomes synonymous with the NP—and a lot of its members say it is—and with the White politics in South Africa … [Interjections.]

I ask hon. members just to bear with me. If the Broederbond becomes synonymous with the National Party, it must expect to be prepared to become involved in political controversy. They cannot run away from it. [Interjections.] I would certainly prefer to see members of the Afrikaner cultural organizations feel free, as South Africans, to join the political party of their choice without fear of discrimination and without fear of being ostracized by their own people. This, I believe, would add something new to South African society. If a Broederbonder like Prof. Boshoff chooses to join my party, why should I not welcome him? [Interjections.] I should like to leave the members of the Broederbond to consider these things.

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion of no confidence moved by the official Opposition in the Government, as well as their demand that the Government should resign. Of course, this demand has not been made for the first time in this motion. This is only the refrain of what we heard during the special short session of the House on 7 and 8 December last year. The fact that this demand was made even then, as a sort of dress rehearsal for this week’s performance, enabled the official Opposition to persuade the public, since the beginning of December until today, to move away from the Government because of the behaviour of the official Opposition. It also gave the official Opposition the opportunity to muster the public, as it were, to give its full support to this motion of no confidence. It also gave the official Opposition an opportunity to prove to the public that it possessed the ability to form an alternative government. A golden opportunity indeed, an opportunity which could have ended in a great moment if the official Opposition had not consisted of a Helen Suzman, a Japie Basson, a Brian Bamford and a Dr. Alex Boraine.

Order! The hon. member should please not refer to hon. members by their names.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I am describing certain characters. You will agree with me that I cannot do so adequately if I have to use the names of their constituencies. However, I abide by your decision.

If it had not been for this factor, it would have been a golden opportunity for them. However, let us see now how the official Opposition has acted to win the confidence of the public since the report of the Erasmus Commission was discussed in this House in December. What have they done to excite the imagination of the public outside and to persuade them that they can form an alternative government? Now I want to warn them to hold on to their seats. When I say this, it is not just an empty cliché. As long ago as 14 November 1973, Die Volksblad published an editorial under the heading: “VP hol weg vir eie skaduwee.” Of course, it is ancient history now that the UP ran until it dropped down dead. I just want to quote a few lines from this editorial—

I suggest that they had better hold on to their seats if they do not want to join in the running again; this time away from their own remarks, away from their own suspicious behaviour and away from their own pathetic image which they have created for themselves. However, the difference lies in the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville is not running along with the others this time. His patriotism and loyalty to South Africa are forcing him to break away and to run alone. This is the reason why he was openly insulted at the Cape congress of the PFP in Grahamstown on 7 August 1978. The fact is that he is opposed to communism and terrorism and puts South Africa’s interests first in this respect. When they heard this, his own party leader and some of his parliamentary colleagues remained as silent as the grave, thereby confirming the fact that they do not disapprove of this kind of criticism of their colleague, because, Sir, those people cannot and do not want to distinguish between anti-National standpoints and anti-South African behaviour.

We can go on to examine the type of irresponsible statements made by members on the other side with reference to the Information debacle, statements which have harmed the country. In Die Volksblad of 14 December 1978 we find the following—

Surely these allegations are blatant lies. They are treacherous towards South Africa, because it is this type of propaganda which is given prominence abroad …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to use the term “blatant lie”?

I am saying that the allegations are blatant lies. They were made outside this House and are blatant lies.

Could the hon. member repeat what he said?

I said that the allegations made outside this House were blatant lies and I added that they were treacherous towards South Africa. [Interjections.] I just want to complete my sentence. This is the type of propaganda which is given prominence abroad, at the expense of South Africa. [Interjections.]

If the hon. member is now ascribing his words to hon. members of this House, he must withdraw them.

I shall withdraw them, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

The hon. member may refer to such allegations, but he may not link them with the names of hon. members in this House.

I have specifically referred to these allegations.

If the hon. member for Musgrave wants to equate the Government with the Kremlin, and does not regard this as political deceit, the hon. member has no knowledge whatsoever of communism and it is a dishonour and a disgrace to him as a senior member of that party. The hon. member can now decide for himself where he stands: before political deceit or before dishonour and disgrace.

If we want to accuse one another of being communist agents or pioneers of communism in Southern Africa, I need only read to that hon. member one speech after another made by the hon. member for Houghton.

The hon. member must moderate his language. He is also making insinuations which I cannot allow.

I should then like to refer him to Hansard of 21 June 1977, cols. 10961-10967, concerning the extra-Parliamentary activities of the hon. member for Pinelands, as represented by the hon. the Minister of Justice.

Here we go again.

The hon. member for Musgrave was not yet a member of this House at that stage. Therefore he does not know the hon. member for Pinelands. It never ceases to amaze me that someone like the hon. member for Pinelands, in spite of his record, still occupies such a prominent position in that party. There must be a very good reason indeed for this. [Interjections.] Perhaps the hon. member for Musgrave, who professes in this House to be an authority on communism, should tell us the meaning of the conduct of the hon. member for Pinelands, as outlined to us in this House by the hon. the Minister of Justice. In contrast to the way that the Government is protecting our country from the communists, who lie entrenched around us …

Why do you not oppose me in Pinelands instead of running away? I am waiting for you!

The hon. member for Pinelands is making his own speech over there; he might give me a chance.

I am going to speak presently.

If our fatherland were to fall into the hands of the enemy or, for that matter, even into the hands of the official Opposition, the Christian philosophy of life would die with us in this part of the world. The many communities of Jesus Christ which are nourished by our soil will be destroyed with us. I say that in contrast to the way in which the Government is protecting and safeguarding our fatherland against the communists, the hon. member for Houghton receives awards from those people who plan the destruction of her fatherland.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to say that if this country were to fall into the hands of the official Opposition, it would cause the destruction of Christian civilization and no religious communities would be left?

Even if it is wrong, that is my standpoint. I challenge the hon. member …

Order! As regards the hon. member’s point of order: The hon. member for Parys could be more careful in his choice of words, but I cannot rule him out of order at this stage. The hon. member may proceed.

I apologize, Sir. I challenge the hon. member for Musgrave to call upon the public to judge between the Government and the official Opposition as regards their affection for the communists and other enemies of South Africa.

I should like to refer to another matter, where something was said outside this House which in my opinion amounts to a shocking distortion of what actually took place in this House. I consider it to be an indication of the kind of twisted judgment and peculiar mentality which we find among some hon. members on that side of the House. Die Volksblad of 14 December 1978 reported as follows—

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member is associating the hon. member for Groote Schuur with the word “distort”, even though it was used outside the House.

Order! The hon. member for Orange Grove must allow the hon. member to complete that sentence.

Mr. Speaker, I continue with my quotation—

According to that hon. member—

Order! Is the hon. member alleging that the hon. member for Johannesburg North did say this?

Mr. Speaker, I am quoting from the newspaper.

The hon. member must withdraw the words “shocking distortion”.

I withdraw them, Sir. However, it is not only a shocking injustice to the hon. the Prime Minister, but a reflection on the Chair as well. After all, Sir, you would never have allowed such a personal attack on an hon. member, even if it came from the hon. the Prime Minister. I believe that the hon. member for Johannesburg North owes you an apology and I think he should rise now and tender that apology, because you would certainly not have allowed such a thing in this House. The fact that you did not allow such a thing, Sir, will now confirm my statement that the hon. member for Johannesburg North gave an unreliable interpretation of what you did hear and allow in this House. In other words, it is a distortion outside this House of what took place inside the House. How can the public trust people who draw such inferences about important matters in this country?

The hon. member cannot say that any other hon. member has distorted something, whether speaking inside or outside this House. It reflects on the honour of the member in this House, of which he is a member. Whether the hon. member for Parys thinks it is true or untrue has nothing to do with the matter. In fact, I have already said so.

I withdraw the word “distort”, Sir. If this is the way in which the hon. member for Johannesburg North, as a former judge, delivered his verdict and convicted people, I am seriously concerned about the fate of those people when he was still a judge. [Interjections.] It must not be said now that I am reflecting on the dignity of the Bench. I am only assessing the hon. member’s statement in the light of what happened in this House and how it was interpreted by him. I am also assessing it in the light of the way in which the official Opposition has assessed the findings of Mr. Justice Erasmus in his report How have they done this? They have done this by insisting that the former Minister of Information, after having been condemned in the commission’s report, should take his seat in this House. However, the resignations are demanded of those who have been exculpated by the commission’s report, namely the State President, the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard of such foolishness? I never have. [Interjections.]

The official Opposition has asked for a Select Committee to examine the replies given in this House by the former Minister of Information, replies with regard to the use of public money for the financing of The Citizen. What we need in my opinion, of course, is a Select Committee to examine the dark motives of the official Opposition. They do have dark motives. [Interjections.] They have made accusations against hon. members on the Government side. They have attacked us in this House because the former Minister of Information has taken his place here to put his case himself and to reply personally to the questions of the Opposition. They have even accused us by saying that the former Minister had no friend on this side of the House. I can only point out that the hon. the Prime Minister reacted to this brilliantly and convincingly in his reply on 8 December 1978. This drew a wild tirade from the hon. members for Rondebosch and Groote Schuur in particular. However, they were not concerned about the honour of the former Minister of Information. They wanted to belittle and to humiliate him. Was the hon. member for Groote Schuur not the very one who requested that a Select Committee be appointed to investigate the replies given to this House by the former Minister of Information? He certainly did not intend this as an act of friendship, but as an act of humiliation and disparagement.

Then they sanctimoniously profess here that their motives are honest also with regard to a certain gentleman who was relieved of his office as commissioner of the Mostert Commission. [Interjections.] This caused them to vent their spleen here because, they said, the dignity of the Bench had been gravely impaired. This is absolute nonsense and they know it. However, this is the kind of political expediency with which the official Opposition wants to sow suspicion in the outside world about the impartiality and political independence of the Bench. [Interjections.]

If the hon. member for Lydenburg, as chairman of the Plural Affairs Commission were to be relieved of his office—for whatever reason—would that affect the dignity of this House? Of course not. What difference in dignity is there between an hon. member of this House as a commissioner and a member of the Bench as a commissioner? Either the House of Assembly as an institution for that purpose of the Bench as an institution for that purpose.

This is the level to which the official Opposition has reduced the debate on the Information debacle. On top of that, they are under the impression that it has won them the confidence of the public. However, the official Opposition is stupid and naïve. They have never learnt that if one hurts South Africa, if one slanders its name, sullies its image and turns it into a threatened country— as the official Opposition is in fact doing in their statements and their behaviour [Interjections.] —one is also turning its people, irrespective of race or colour, into an endangered species. However, people know this. People realize it. Therefore they will never entrust the government of the country to a party with these principles.

The security of South Africa and of its people cannot be entrusted to the official Opposition. People know this, and even if the Government were to resign, as those people demand …

Order! I have already requested hon. members to use the correct forms of address. The hon. member cannot keep on referring to “those people”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it, and for “those people” I substitute “the official Opposition”.

However, let us see where the NRP finds itself in South African politics these days. [Interjections.] Now I must say at once that I find it difficult to ascertain where they stand. In Die Volksblad of 14 December 1978 I read the following—

This reminds me of many things in the early seventies, when the English Press was so busy laying the foundations for the effective destruction of the old UP. At that time, the Sunday Times in particular issued many instructions to the UP. The old UP carried out those instructions and effectively destroyed itself. Now it is not clear to me which of those instructions are still lodged in the subconscious of the hon. member for Mooi River. That he is again carrying them out, however, is clear to me, and I can tell him even now—in fact, I can give him a written guarantee, signed by two witnesses—that by doing this, he will destroy his party again, just as he helped destroy the old UP. [Interjections.] I know it will be painful to the hon. member, but nevertheless I want to remind him of some of these instructions given by the Sunday Times. I quote from the Sunday Times of 2 July 1972—

This is the UP—

I just wonder what name the hon. member for Mooi River wants to give this new movement. It is not going to be a political party any more, but a movement. Will it be the New Federal Movement, or will it be the New Progressive Movement? What will its name be? [Interjections.]

The Women’s Federation!

Or is it perhaps the Women’s Federation, as someone has asked? Is the hon. member so keen to change the name of his party again, merely to satisfy his subconscious?

You are talking rubbish! You do not believe it yourself!

I find another instruction in the Sunday Times of 2 July 1972—

Principles or policy were not to form the foundation on which to gain support for the UP. No, hatred and hostility and resentment against the NP were to form that foundation in order to present them with a broad base.

Shame!

Order! The hon. member for Mooi River is overdoing it.

Has the hon. member forgotten that the UP in the Transvaal thereupon elected Mr. Harry Schwarz, who was then an MPC, as their provincial leader, and that he was instrumental in the final destruction of the UP in the Transvaal? Is the hon. member so keen to have his party destroyed again? Surely he knows that the hon. member for Yeoville is sitting over there in the House, grinning. He is not smiling. He is grinning. [Interjections.] The overtures made to the PFP by the hon. member for Mooi River also remind me of other overtures which I read about in the Sunday Times of 20 August 1972. These arose from a speech made by the hon. member for Houghton, a speech which was reported as follows. I quote—

Is the hon. member so keen to have his party insulted again by the hon. member for Houghton? She is not smiling at him either. She is grinning at him. [Interjections.]

When will these people ever learn anything from their experience and the humiliation in the past? I have never encountered clearer proof of a motion of no confidence moved by someone in his own party than when the hon. member for Mooi River announced his outspoken desire to make overtures to and to found a new movement with the PFP. It proves the impotence and the uselessness of his party as a part of the Opposition. This is the state of those people who have moved a motion of no confidence in the Government. This is the standard by which they judge themselves—and it simply goes to prove that they have an aversion to themselves. For that reason I reject this motion with contempt.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say only one thing about the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and that is that it is very clear that he does not like anyone at all. He has spent the whole of his speech telling us about all the people whom he does not like. One thing is clear and that is that he does not even like himself, and for that I cannot blame him.

I have both good and bad news for hon. members on that side of the House. The good news is that I shall say very little about the former Department of Information. The bad news is that I am going to talk about something which I think is very much more to the point and very worse than even their sad record in respect of the Department of Information.

Firstly I want to say something regarding the general reaction to the Information scandal. The thing that often disturbed and worried me was that not one member, either of the Cabinet or of that party in the caucus, ever, it seems to me, gave any consideration at all to doing the honourable thing and resign. [Interjections.] Worse than that is that today we have witnessed the spectacle of Cabinet members, and other members, standing up and telling us how proud they are to be part of that party. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister opposite me have told us: “Dit is ’n lekker pad waarlangs ons loop,” a nice road to take. Did the hon. Minister think that too only a few months ago when he nominated Connie Mulder for the highest office of the land?

The guilty ones have been ousted. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether or not he knew anything about the matter when he nominated that man.

I did not know.

Did the hon. the Minister of Justice not know? In the light of all we have heard in this debate, I want to ask whether nobody knew about it.

I only want to make one point in this regard. When all this speculation was taking place in newspapers and when the country was rife with rumour, did not one single Cabinet Minister think about asking their erstwhile colleague what was going on and whether what was going on, was true? Nobody asked! I cannot believe it.

Who says he was not asked? [Interjections.]

That is very interesting. If he was asked and he gave an assurance that all was well and his senior colleagues made no attempt to discover whether or not that was true, I say they ought to resign for dereliction of duty.

I want to refer very specifically to the remarks made by the hon. the Minister of Finance here this afternoon. I believe that never in the history of South Africa could what the hon. the Minister has said here today, ever have been said. He signed schedules in respect of R14 million. [Interjections.] Let us not argue about the amount. Let us say it was an amount of considerable magnitude.

It was R14,8 million.

Let us not argue about it. That is not my point. I want to quote the exact words of the hon. the Minister. He said: “I signed it because I did not really understand it because it was in some kind of code.” [Interjections.] He could not understand it and did not know what was going on and therefore he signed it!

Do not take my words out of context.

Did the hon. the Minister sign it or not?

Read the thing as I put it to you.

There you have it. It beats me that a senior Cabinet Minister, a Minister of Finance, should tell us that the schedule was in some form of code and that he therefore signed it [Interjections.] All right, I shall do so. I quote (Hansard, 8 February)—

That is exactly what the hon. the Minister said. So the hon. the Minister signed it without knowing what it entailed.

R14,8 million.

That is a great deal of money. Has South Africa ever had a Minister of Finance who did such a thing?

I want to make only one other point in this regard, because I promised that side of the House that I would not spend a great deal of time on the Information matter.

Why do you not read further?

It is all there. I do not want to bore the House by reading it. Hon. members have heard it once before.

I want to say something about the hon. the Prime Minister. Every Prime Minister brings to his office different gifts, abilities, personality traits and characteristics. One thing is quite clear from this debate and that is that the present Prime Minister has a rare ability, namely to speak for two hours without answering any questions whatsoever. In this debate we found again that question after question was ducked and avoided—and this is the place where we ought to be debating these issues. We have already been reminded that this is the highest institution in South Africa. This is where one has to give an account of oneself as Prime Minister or as Cabinet Minister. This is a debate of no-confidence in the Government and the lack of a response or answers indicates and lends truth to the lack of confidence we have in the Government.

When one looks at the overall scheme, the overall plan, one can only describe it as sinister. For example, one can take the Government’s plan to control the media. One can take a look at television, the radio, the Afrikaans Press, the purchase of The Citizen, the money involved in To the Point—and we are still waiting to hear some reply from someone sometime about whether or not public money is involved in that magazine— the threats to the English Press, the banning of The World and the Weekend World and the purchase or attempted purchase of overseas publications such as the Washington Star. Where did that money come from? Did the hon. the Prime Minister or other Cabinet Ministers know about that? Were they involved with the infamous, strange, mysterious Mr. McGoff?

As I have promised, I now want to return to another subject, a subject which is one of the major legs of the motion before the House. I now want to refer to the remarks made by the hon. the Minister of Public Works and to the remarks made by the hon. the Prime Minister regarding the NP’s record in connection with race discrimination. As I understood him, the hon. the Minister told the House earlier this week that the NP had a splendid record when it came to doing away with race discrimination. They do have a record, but it is not splendid, it is sick. It is a sick record and it is an ugly record. It is a record which has brought untold misery to hundreds and thousands of people in South Africa over many years, and continues to do so.

Tell us about the Blacks in Pinelands.

I want first to talk about an issue which that hon. Minister knows a lot about, viz. race classification. That hon. Minister was once the Deputy Minister of the Interior. I have talked to him about a number of cases involving race classification and he personally was very sympathetic about a number of them, but he kept on telling me—am I right?—that this was the law and that the Secretary for the Interior, according to the law, was the person who made the final decision. But what is at the heart of race classification? It is the division of families; it is putting people into boxes; it is telling people they are a particular colour; and in this country, because of the Government and its policy, it is a mark of inferiority. For over 30 years the Government has been telling the Black people of South Africa that they are second-class. [Interjections.] The laws demonstrate that I bring as my evidence the laws of this land, law after law, and race classification is at the very heart of it I suggested that the record was sick and that it was ugly. When one reads the newspapers—and that side of the House is always terribly quick to say what damage and harm this does all over the world to the people and therefore to South Africa as a whole—and one sees a picture of a door that has been kicked in because the police are investigating because a man with a dark complexion happened to be in the same room, the same flat or the same apartment as a White woman, that is sick; and that is part of the legislation and part of the policy of this Government.

Have you ever been in the Police Force?

That is what it is all about. I have great sympathy for the Police Force. They have to implement the laws which that side of the House has put on the Statute Book and which that side of the House insists must stay there. Is that the proud record of the Government in terms of race discrimination? When one thinks of the hundreds and thousands of people who have been to gaol because of pass laws brought about by the Government, implemented by the servants of the State, can one wonder why hundreds and thousands of Blacks have no fear of gaol? They have been there and know what it is like. They know what it is to be persecuted day in and day out.

Rabble-rousing!

One thinks of the Groups Areas Act. Right here in the heart of Cape Town there is a monument to that splendid record. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to have a look at District Six and see what happened there when they did not want to allow Coloured people to stay in the heart of Cape Town, but moved them out. Then they boast about the wonderful places which are miles out of the town. Why do they not allow them to come back again? Oh no! That is the Government’s splendid record! Allow me to raise the simple matter of the Immorality Act, an Act that no one can really defend. That hon. Minister cannot defend it. He knows that and he has had the honesty and the guts to say that outside this House and I wish to goodness he would have the guts to say it in this House. There are a lot of others, all around here, who know very well and who have stated outside of this House that they cannot defend it.

Then there is the Mixed Marriages Act, and so one could go on and on. I will only believe that that hon. Minister and the Government is truly responsible and truly wants to see change when they actually change the laws on the Statute Book, laws which hound people, laws which compartmentalize people, laws which take away the dignity of people every day of their lives. One does not have the time—this is the tragedy—to enumerate everything, and then we hear the wail and the plea from that side of the House: “Come away from Information; stop telling us about all this terrible corruption and scandal. There is work to be done.” For years we have been saying to you: Get rid of race discrimination because that is the cause of all the anxiety, the heartache, the anger, the hatred and the potential war in this country. Get rid of it.

Are you preaching now?

What is wrong with preaching anyway? That hon. Deputy Minister should know better. He says that one must not even get away from petty apartheid.

Yes.

He says it again, in direct contradiction to his own party, in direct contradiction to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

What is petty apartheid? [Interjections.]

You know absolutely nothing.

The harsh fact is unpalatable; it is that South African Blacks are governed, cribbed, cabined and confined from the moment they open their eyes in the morning until the moment they go to bed at night, and even then they do not know what is going to happen to them.

It is the petty policy of the petty NP.

They have no municipalities through which they can get what we can get, they have no provincial councils, they have no access to and no representation in national government in order to be able to make representations.

I want to make a very sobering point now and I say it on the basis of what was told to me by an avowed Nationalist magistrate whose name, for obvious reasons, I cannot use in this House.

Gossip?

No. He told me during a private conversation that, when he sees some of the cases which come before him day in and day out, he becomes ashamed. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? It is because there are many hundreds and thousands of Blacks in South Africa who could be living in an eastern European country. By that I mean that they can be stopped as they walk along the street—and they often are—they can be stopped in the trains and on the buses, they can have their private homes invaded and their whole life is a spectacle of that kind of persecution. The only reason why that side of the House will deny it is that they do not know it And when any of us move into these areas, when we talk, work and worship with them, we are accused of being apostles of Black Power. It is not Black Power. The greatest tragedy of the Information scandal is that it has diverted attention from the greater scandal, viz. the discrimination which is rife in our land and which must be got rid of if we are going to have peace.