Mr. Speaker, as far as the business for next week is concerned, I just want to point out that we shall follow the Order Paper, as printed for today, as closely as possible. On Friday, 16 February, private members’ motions will be discussed. I also wish to inform the House that it has been agreed that two private members’ motions—one by a Government member and one by a member of the Opposition—are to be debated on Tuesday, 20 February.

Mr. Speaker, it is surprising that the official Opposition, which moved a motion of no confidence in the Government in this debate, confined itself primarily to the circumstances and allegations surrounding the Information matter. I do not want to elaborate any further on the matter in this debate, except to make a few observations on the position of Dr. Rhoodie, not so much because the Opposition dealt with this specific matter effectively—they cannot deal with anything effectively—but because quite a number of questions are being asked outside the House about aspects of this matter. Consequently I think that it is nevertheless of importance just to elucidate the question of Dr. Rhoodie’s departure for and stay abroad, because the Opposition is engaged in suspicion mongering and is implying that the Government is allegedly afraid to have Dr. Rhoodie brought back, is allegedly afraid to institute legal proceedings against him or is allegedly afraid of what he might be able to say because what he may say will then ostensibly be able to jeopardize the Government. They link this suspicion mongering to the decision taken by the Attorney-General in regard to Gen. Van den Bergh and also to the circumstances under which our former colleague, Dr. Connie Mulder, left the Cabinet, relinquished his Transvaal leadership and also resigned as member of Parliament. It seems to me there are newspapers and people in the country that think that the South African Government has jurisdiction beyond its borders. The hon. the Minister of the Interior has already explained that he came to hear about the purport of certain findings in the report before the report of the commission was available and printed and that he then—as from 1 December— withdrew Dr. Rhoodie’s passport. It is true that Dr. Rhoodie was already overseas at that stage, but with the specific consent of the Erasmus Commission after he had given evidence—not the consent of the Government, but that of the Erasmus Commission. The second point is that, after consultation with and at the request of the Department of the Interior, we immediately informed all our missions abroad of the withdrawal of Dr. Rhoodie’s passport. We subsequently followed this up with telegraphic instructions to all our foreign offices. I just want to read out to the House how the instructions read, viz.—

1. (a) Dat dr. Rhoodie moontlik die betrokke land waar die betrokke Suid-Afrikaanse kantoor is, mag binnekom;
2. (b) dat hy ’n Suid-Afrikaanse burger is;
3. (c) dat sy Suid-Afrikaanse paspoort sedert 1 Desember 1978 ingetrek is en dus nie meer geldig is nie;
4. (d) dat daar besluit is om sy paspoort in te trek omrede ’n aanbeveling van ’n kommissie van ondersoek na beweerde onreëlmatighede in die voormalige Departement van Inligting, welke aanbeveling lui dat onder andere dr. Rhoodie sekere onreëlmatighede met Staatsgeld gepleeg het, welke onreëlmatighede na die Prokureur-generaal verwys moet word vir ondersoek en evaluering met die oog op moontlike strafregtelike stappe;
5. (e) dat dit in hierdie omstandighede waardeer sal word indien die owerhede ter plaatse …

That is to say, wherever the office is: in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium or wherever—

This is the most we were able to do in the period immediately following the Erasmus Commission report.

Surely we cannot throw overboard our entire judicial procedure because of an over eagerness to have a man punished. Surely no one in the country expects that the normal legal procedures and norms should not also be applicable to Dr. Rhoodie. Surely he, too, as a citizen of South Africa, is entitled to the application of the legal norms which any other citizen claims for himself in South Africa. The simple fact is that the Erasmus Commission did not convict Dr. Rhoodie. The commission is not a criminal court Before one can ask for Dr. Rhoodie’s extradition from another country—he is now sitting in another country where our policy have no jurisdiction, where our norms and our procedures are simply not applicable—a full-scale police investigation has to be instituted into all the matters which the Erasmus Commission touched on. Surely the hon. the Minister of Justice explained that aspect openly, frankly and clearly. He indicated what the standpoint of the police in this connection is. It was not only a fair and reasonable standpoint, but the only standpoint which could be adopted. But what is happening here is that there is an attitude that people should be convicted and punished without their having appeared before a court and without their having been able to exhaust or make use of all the rights which every accused person has.

Trial by the Opposition.

It is not such an easy matter to ask the Government of another country to extradite Dr. Rhoodie. Extradition between States takes place in accordance with a specific procedure. If one asks for the extradition of a person, one must at least know, first of all, where he is, i.e. one must know his address, and one must know in what country he finds himself. Then one must approach the Government of that country and one must at least have formulated something approaching a charge sheet of the contraventions which the person is alleged to have committed. In addition those contraventions must in general also be contraventions in the country in which the person finds himself. Moreover, that person still has access to the courts of that country. He can, in addition, defend himself against an extradition request in the courts of the country concerned. But that is therefore the one way in which we might have been able to get him back. And it is not all that simple.

Another way is for him to return voluntarily. A third way is that the country in which he finds himself decides that he is there without valid travel documents and requests him to leave the country. In that case he may enter a neighbouring country or the country concerned or we may furnish him with an emergency travel document issued by the South African Government for a one-way journey to South Africa, as we instructed our embassies. But then one must know where the person is and that country must cooperate.

These are the facts of the whole situation. You will yourself have read and seen, Sir, how much dust has been kicked up over the aspects which I have now stated here, and how they are being used to sow confusion and doubt in the minds of our people. It is alleged to be another cover-up, another refusal to prosecute, another case of our refusing to allow the law to take its normal course. But it is precisely because we do want to allow the law to take its course that we are experiencing this situation, and for no other reason.

If one pauses for a moment and asks oneself what actually happened in this debate, one can arrive at only one conclusion and that is that the Opposition is making use of the Erasmus Commission report to launch attacks on the Government and create mistrust among the public. They are consequently using the recommendations, findings and arguments of the Erasmus Commission to state their case, but then they come along and pollute the commission. They are polluting the source from which they are drinking and which they are using to launch their attacks, and are casting suspicion on it. That is the one aggregate result of this debate.

Once again, what are the facts? This Government appointed a judicial commission and the commission brought out a first report under great pressure and in a short period of time. For the purpose the commission worked with almost superhuman haste. The hon. the Prime Minister took an uncommon step and caused a special session of Parliament to be convened to discuss that first report. In addition he accepted the recommendation that the commission should hear further evidence and bring out a second report.

These are the basic facts underlying this entire Information matter. One need only ask one question: Is this the action of a Government that wants to cover up, or is it the action of a Government that wants to uncover irregularities? The Opposition is now complaining about all kinds of incidental minor matters: The making public of evidence and the departure of Dr. Rhoodie, etc. They say they are concerned about internal irregularities concerning the handling of State funds, the taxpayer’s money, but they are not interested in the steps which the Government took to safeguard and control the public’s money. They are not interested in that at all. They are only interested in a disclosure of that part of the matter which could cause vexation and perhaps irreparable damage as far as South Africa’s international and national interests and South Africa’s relations with other States are concerned. That is what they are interested in, and nothing else. It is a witch hunt, one could almost say a hot pursuit operation, to hurt South Africa and prejudice its relations. It cannot be said that this side of the House is happy and cheerful about what happened in the former Department of Information. On the contrary, it is a sad and painful event and in certain respects a mess, but the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government is clearing it up as rapidly as is humanly possible. Instead of expressing their gratitude for having such a Government, strengthening our hands and encouraging us to continue with the clearing up process, and asking questions on how we are safeguarding State funds and on how we have terminated unproductive projects, they harp continuously on aspects which they know can only hurt the country. Either they have to accept what the commission and the hon. the Prime Minister said here, or they must have secret information at their disposal that certain Cabinet Ministers are involved in those irregularities or that there are further irregularities which the commission did not expose or does not want to investigate. If they have such information, they are under an obligation to go directly to the commission and give it that information so that the commission can evaluate it. However, they are being clever, but unfortunately not so clever that it is transparent. They are afraid that the entire Cabinet might after all be clean. They are afraid of adopting the honourable course. They do not want to adopt the straightforward course of disclosing their meagre evidence and gossip to the commission because they are afraid that the commission will bring out a report which may turn out to be detrimental to them because they concerned themselves with gossip. In this regard the hon. members are therefore holding back and are kicking up a dust storm with the newspapers and at public meetings in an effort to cast a further shadow over the integrity of the Government. However, this whole matter will presently pass away, will soon pass away.

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

No. There is too little time today to reply to questions. [Interjections.] This matter will pass away because the Government acted honourably and does not flinch from the reports of a judicial commission. But in order to provide better perspective, may I refer to the following? A great deal was said here about R64 million which was ostensibly wasted. That is not true at all. I shall concede that there was a wastage, but not of that magnitude.

†Yesterday, while I was sitting here, the hon. member for Houghton stood up and in an arrogant way had the audacity to attack the hon. Minister of Justice, saying that he ought to apologize to the House for words he used to describe a certain photograph in The Express. I think she accused the hon. Minister of having described the photograph as a “fake”. Who is being technical now? The hon. Minister of Health dealt with the matter fully. He gave the facts to the House. Whether it is to be described as a fake or not a fake, that picture is a lie. It is a lie that Black people are being chained to bedsteads in this country in hospitals or in mental institutions. I can tell the hon. member that that impression is an absolute lie. She must apologize for having had the audacity and the arrogance to get up in this House and to endeavour to defend the action of that paper. Furthermore, the PFP have the arrogance to debate losses of State funds, but here they are defending a picture which must cause this country tremendous damage. Eventually our taxpayers suffer incalculable losses as a result of that picture. The Information Service of South Africa must now spend I do not know how much to try to counteract the disastrous effect of a single photograph of this nature.

*That indicates to hon. members the lack of equilibrium and perspective which prevails here. A newspaper is able to disseminate an infamous lie abroad by means of a photograph. She knows just as well as I do that what the photograph depicts is not the practice in South Africa. Nevertheless she defends it by implication and then she even has the temerity to attack the hon. the Minister of Justice on the matter. She condones it, knowing what harm this photograph can do to South Africa. South Africa is not so barbaric. This is not typical of our institutions. Why did she not rise to her feet and reprimand the newspaper responsible for that photograph? Why did the Opposition not help us to rectify immediately this distorted image being presented to the world? No! They persist in their yapping here, they rant and rave about money from Information, money which is under the spotlight and subject to a proper judicial investigation. Their actions in regard to this one photograph destroy the entire basis of their argument in favour of their motion of no confidence.

†I now wish to address myself to the hon. member for Simonstown. I do not think his performance here on Wednesday—I am sorry I was not here, but I did tell him that it would be very difficult for me to be here—was one of his most outstanding and constructive contributions in the House. I do not know why this is so, because there is no election coming in the near future. It was therefore not necessary for him to take the stance he did. The gravamen of his argument and of his amendment is that we do not ensure that there is no interference in our domestic policies and, furthermore, that we disregard the military necessities of our present circumstances. I think that is the substance of that part of his speech dealing with foreign affairs. Surely my hon. friend must know that at no stage has any South African Government used article 2, paragraph 7, of the United Nations Charter in respect of South West Africa—that provision in the Charter proscribing interference in the domestic affairs of States. At no stage throughout the premiership of Gen. Smuts, Dr. Malan, Mr. Strydom, Dr. Verwoerd, Mr. Vorster and Mr. P. W. Botha has the South African Government ever used this charter provision to prevent a discussion about South West Africa in the United Nations, for the simple reason that South West Africa was never part of the sovereign jurisdictional area of either the Union of South Africa or of the Republic of South Africa. So that a part of the hon. member’s argument falls away. Similarly Rhodesia, which the hon. member used to a large extent to substantiate his argument, is not part of South Africa. I do not mind if the hon. member wants to criticize our negotiations, our actions vis-à-vis these two problem areas. That is a different matter. But he cannot use his argument of non-interference in a motion for the reasons I have indicated.

Quite apart from that, however, while I am on the subject of South West Africa, does the hon. member not want us to talk, to negotiate or to try to come to a solution in a peaceful manner, in a manner which might bring about international recognition for South West Africa and possibly also for Rhodesia— should we be able to assist in that direction— so that these two States can become independent with international acceptability thus removing sanctions or the threat of sanctions, at least in respect of these two areas, thus lessening the tensions in the whole of Southern Africa and giving the peoples of the whole region a better chance to evolve, to develop, and to progress towards political, economic and social stability? Surely, I must accept that the hon. member does not suggest for a moment that we should not talk with Governments, that we should not discuss with Governments, that we should not always endeavour to obtain a peaceful solution as long as there is hope for achieving such a solution. The Prime Minister and I—the whole Government—have made it clear that we seek international recognition, but not at the expense of stability. Now, once that is one’s point of departure, one’s premise of departure, then, surely, safety and security are covered. Then the interests of the peoples in the countries, in the region, as far as safety and security are concerned are fully ensured. I assume that is not what the hon. member had in mind. I hope he did not have that in mind.

Where do we stand in respect of South West Africa? I may as well inform the House on this. After two years of negotiations we are now on the verge of starting a process of implementation, a process which, if successfully concluded, can indeed result in South West Africa becoming independent at least with the recognition of moderate States in the world, including certain African States.

That is why we have lent over backwards, but never at the expense of security. That is why the hon. the Prime Minister stated—and it is accepted—that there would be no reduction in the numbers of South African troops unless and until there was a secure and visible peace. Once we have that peace, surely it is then for the people there to proceed with their political process and to establish once and for all who enjoys majority support in that country. That is the situation to which South Africa is committed. We are very close to it. In our opinion we have removed all obstacles as far as implementation of the process is concerned. We are now urging the Secretary-General of the UN to issue a cease-fire proposal. We will accept it. We will accept the first UN contingents. We want them to be there before 26 February. We want D-day to be 26 February. We want the seven months’ period to begin. We want an election during the last week of September. We want the people of South West Africa to become free and independent on the basis of democratic elections. The South African Government has done everything it can towards this end. There are one or two minor problems, for example regarding composition, but we do not consider those insurmountable. That is where we stand now. Whether in practice the whole process will succeed, I cannot tell. It does not depend on us alone.

*In conclusion I want to point out that South Africa still has much strength and capacity at its disposal. South Africa has great potential, perhaps more now than ever before. Mention is frequently made here of how deplorable circumstances allegedly are here, of what we should and should not do. We are constantly being attacked by the Opposition on the colour issue. I referred to this photograph and to the disgraceful impression which it creates.

If we have to conduct a dialogue with our American friends, I just wish to address a few words to them today. I am not doing so from the point of view of reproach. The fact of the matter is, however, that in that great and powerful country, with all its means, 20% of the 11% of Black Americans who comprise the total labour force are unemployed. A total of 15% of the White youths, the teenagers, in America are unemployed, and 37% of the Black youths. When we look at revenue, the following picture is presented. The poverty datum line, the breadline in the USA is an income of approximately 6 000 dollars per annum. Fewer than 8% of the White families are living below the poverty datum line as against more than 27% of the Black families, i.e. three to four times as many as the Whites. The income of 28 million Americans is lower than the proposed minimum wage and the median income of White families is $16 000 as against the $8 000 of the Black families. In the field of health we find that the death rate among Black children is twice as high as that of the Whites in the USA while the life expectancy of Whites is almost 10 years longer than that of the Black people.

Let us now examine segregation. A total of 60% of all Black Americans live in decrepit urban centres, frequently under the most deplorable circumstances, while 80% of all American families live in segregated residential areas. I am quoting from the 1978 report of the Carnegie Corporation of New York—

[Interjections.]

Order!

All I want to indicate with this is that when we are dealing with colour issues and when it comes to colour we should all learn to be humble and less sanctimonious and that we should rather encourage one another and acknowledge that these are indeed difficult and explosive matters. We should preferably give one another credit where progress is being made and not always want to rummage among the garbage in the garbage cans. That is what I am trying to emphasize. Even America is still arguing about it, is still struggling and wrestling with a delicate problem.

The dilemma of the Opposition is—Information or no Information, stories or no stories, gossip or no gossip—that they have made a little progress with their consociational concept, but their dilemma remains, which is that most people on earth are group orientated. Most people cannot internationalize themselves in their thinking, outlook and systems of value. Most people function, live, sweat, marry, enjoy themselves and ultimately die within a group context. That is the dilemma, and it is going to remain the dilemma of the Opposition. Naturally this side of the House does not deny that it also has dilemmas. We have a dilemma in regard to the urban Black people, for example, and a dilemma in introducing our constitutional proposals for the Coloureds and Asiatics in such a way that no suspicion can be cast on those proposals. Those are our dilemmas.

However, I say to the Opposition that they will never escape that profound dilemma, because they will never be able to persuade the majority of Zulu, Xhosa, Tswana, Venda, Swazi and Sotho people that their hereditary rights, outlook on life, their systems, dimensional thinking, their value systems or their way of caring for their elderly people and children should be changed. Cannot they realize this. [Interjections.] They cannot change these things, and that is why expression should rather be given to a sincere and honest political system in which it will eventually be possible for every group to obtain sovereignty or autonomy.

That is precisely what we are doing.

Here a new Premier has come forward with a vision, with a new vision for Southern Africa. We are prepared to consider a more proper division of power and land where sovereignty can be exercised.

As far as the Coloureds and Asiatics are concerned we are prepared, since we cannot create independent States for them, to examine the dilemma honestly and try to effect a political dispensation of co-responsibility, in such a way that the humiliation and suppression of people can be completely eliminated.

That is the course this party is following, and nothing further that the Opposition can say, or has already said about Information, nothing further that they wish to do with consociation and association and federation, will make any change whatsoever to this basic ethnic movement in Southern Africa. It will eventually include a constellation of States, Black and White, that trust one another, strengthen one another, co-operate with one another and in that way will reduce the exaggerated White colour prejudice to such an extent that a great cohesion will arise in Southern Africa with good hope for the future for us all.

Mr. Speaker, my time is very limited, but during the course of my speech I shall deal with some of the matters raised by the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs. Of course Dr. Rhoodie must have a fair trial, and nobody can quarrel with that, because that is his right and what he is entitled to. I should like to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to the fact that he obviously has not read the report of the Erasmus Commission very carefully. I do not blame him, because he has had many important matters to attend to, both inside and outside his party. I must, however, draw his attention to the fact that he has made a mistake. He said that in the report of the Erasmus Commission there had been no finding of guilt, but if the hon. Minister would look at pages 86, 87 and 88 he would see that there were certain findings of guilt. I should like to give him one such example which appears on page 87 of the report, and I quote—

So surely, in the express words of the commission, that this is a finding of guilt and surely the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs will concede that it is a most serious state of affairs if one destroys one’s departmental records.

It was not in the criminal sense.

The hon. Minister said that there was no finding of guilt, and I am trying to prove to him that there were certain findings of guilt. The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs tried to belittle the contribution made by the hon. member for Simonstown …

Wipe it out.

The hon. Minister wiped himself out at the same time. The hon. member for Simonstown presented the facts, and the hon. Minister did not reply to the facts.

The hon. Minister made another mistake. He said that in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Simonstown, he had mentioned Rhodesia and South West Africa. He is wrong, because the hon. member for Simonstown’s amendment does not mention South West Africa and Rhodesia …

I said he mentioned it in his argument during his speech.

The hon. Minister said “in his amendment”. He can check his Hansard.

Have you read his speech?

I read the amendment. I forgive the hon. Minister, however, because he is used to the United Nations where anything goes, and I think that is why he has learnt some bad habits over there. The facts that will prove whether the hon. member for Simonstown or the hon. Minister is right, is something that will, to my mind, reveal itself in a very short space of time, as a matter of fact, in the next 12 months. I hope the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs is right in what he is doing, because we are relying on many of the closed-door negotiations he is busy with. One can understand that these are delicate negotiations and that we cannot obtain the full details of these negotiations. So we hope he is doing the right thing for South Africa at all times, and we wish him well in that regard.

Do you want to shut the door now?

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. the Prime Minister when he held his speech on the steps of the Assembly building in December 1978 after he had been elected leader by the NP caucus. The hon. Prime Minister addressed the people of South Africa from the heart. The speech and attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister put heart into everyone who had South Africa’s interests at heart, and South Africans were proud of him. I have been representing the public for 14 years now. However the hon. Prime Minister has been serving the public for more than twice as long, and in very important posts. It stands to reason, therefore, that I approach him in all politeness. I should like to assure him that it is very important to us that he should succeed in the enormous task that rests upon him. The way in which the hon. Prime Minister acquits himself of his task, is of major importance to everyone in South Africa and also for the future of this beautiful country. The hon. Prime Minister has been elevated from politician to statesman in a world in which many countries are moving from one crisis to the next At present we have special problems with regard to Rhodesia, South West Africa, Angola and Mozambique and moreover we are having a hard time of it at the UN. In addition we have to contend with Western countries playing a double role. The task of a Prime Minister is normally demanding, but in view of our particular circumstances that task is even more difficult.

†The decision by the Attorney-General of the Transvaal not to prosecute Gen. Van den Bergh is, to put it mildly, a decision which does not have public approval. As a matter of fact there is the strongest disapproval of that decision. The hon. the Prime Minister has no responsibility for that decision, but I believe he should have a discussion in depth with the hon. Minister of Justice in order to have that decision reconsidered, and I emphasize the word “reconsidered”. All I am asking for is that they should request the Attorney-General to apply his mind to the situation once again. I am not asking him to reverse his decision; I am merely asking him to ask the Attorney-General to apply his mind to that decision once again. That decision created a precedent which reflects very adversely on the administration and creates the impression that the axe of the Information scandal will only come down on certain people’s heads. The hon. the Prime Minister has committed himself to cutting this matter open to the bone, and I believe he really wants to do that and to have a clean and honest administration. The hon. the Prime Minister would enhance the very high office he holds if he took a strong stand on the issue, and I shall make certain suggestions later which I hope he will find acceptable.

South Africa faces the same problem that faces any country, i.e. that people close to the top of the administration can hold the country to ransom by revealing the most classified information. Whether one prosecutes a top man or not, in either event what safeguard has one that he will not make disclosures either inside or outside the country. I want to make it clear that by disclosures or dangers I refer specifically to the country and not to a political party. The problem is that even if a case is held in camera there is nothing to prevent one of the persons present from leaving the country and writing a book, or writing articles for a newspaper or any other publication, revealing information which is detrimental to, and would affect the national security of, the country.

I believe that additional provisions should be made in our laws for the hearing of a case like that of Gen. Van den Bergh without interfering with our national security. This can be done if the law is amended so that a special hearing could be held in camera with only the accused and three judges of the Appellate Division present. This need not do away with normal in camera proceedings. If three judges of the Appellate Division are present with the accused, one of the judges can present the case for the prosecution, one of the judges can act in the capacity of defending the accused and the third judge can sit on the Bench. There is nobody in this House who can cast doubt on a court of that nature comprising three judges of the Appellate Division. This is the only solution for trying cases where people like Gen. Van den Bergh are involved. Otherwise the State finds itself in the invidious position where people in top positions can be above the law.

In all fairness, Gen. Van den Bergh should be given an opportunity to state his case, and this judicial forum will give him the opportunity to do so. The presiding judge would make his decision public and may or may not in his discretion, if national security is affected, decide whether or not to give reasons for his findings. This would obviate the position of a government being powerless to prosecute. I suggest that an amendment to the law be passed urgently, with retrospective effect if necessary. I have a further suggestion to make which will show the urgency of introducing this legislation.

In Hansard No. 14 of 1978, from col. 6789 onwards, I made a special appeal that the Attorney-General should be made completely independent by an Act of Parliament which provides that his appointment in terms of the Act be made by the State President. I said at the time that I was not saying the Attorneys-General were not at present independent, but we should like to see them have the same independence as, for example, the Auditor-General. At the same time, their decisions, like the decisions of the Auditor-General, would not be subject to political controversy. The Attorneys-General will then not be responsible to the Department of Justice, but will be directly responsible to Parliament. The Attorneys-General can then only be removed from office under very stringent conditions, in the same way as the Auditor-General can only be removed under very difficult circumstances, as prescribed by the Exchequer and Audit Act. I feel that this law involving the Attorneys-General should urgently be passed, and the complaint against Gen. Van den Bergh, and other persons who may be affected, should also be reviewed again by the Attorney-General. If the hon. the Prime Minister had accepted these two suggestions and allowed the matters to follow their course, he would have ensured that his demands for a clean administration were complied with to the full in this regard and that the national security was safeguarded. If these laws are passed then the matter lies purely between the complainant and the Attorney-General, and if the complainant is then not satisfied he can institute a private prosecution. As the law now stands, if the Attorney-General refuses to prosecute, the complainant can pass the buck to the political arena by not pressing for a private prosecution and thus leaving intervention to the discretion of the hon. the Minister of Justice. The Van den Bergh problem could repeat itself in regard to other people connected with the Information scandal, or for that matter in other situations. It is therefore absolutely vital for us to have the machinery to ensure that the hon. the Prime Minister, and also future Prime Ministers of South Africa, can govern South Africa without being caught up in situations like the present one. Should these suggestions not be implemented, I have no doubt that the Information debacle will not be laid to rest, much as we would like it to be. For complete exposure of the affair, the legal machinery must be applied to meet the needs of our times.

There is another matter I should like to raise. If Dr. Rhoodie is charged, the Government must show that it is determined to make every effort to bring Dr. Rhoodie back to South Africa, extraditing him if necessary. The first time he did come back voluntarily, and obviously one should try to get him back voluntarily. If this is not possible one should, of course, extradite him. If the Government cannot get him back voluntarily, the Government should offer a very attractive reward to any person who is able to assist in finding him and helping with his extradition. The reward would have to be carefully worded to be fool-proof and will have to be substantial enough to act as an incentive. This assurance would go a long way towards dispelling rumours that some people would be very happy if Dr. Rhoodie never returned. The Government must show that it is anxious for him to return, as it is obvious that his co-operation could be of enormous assistance in the investigations. For obvious reasons, once he returns, his advisers would advise him to co-operate, and as I have said in his favour, he did co-operate with the commission in the sense of testifying before it for hours in the first place.

There are certain steps that have been taken by the hon. the Prime Minister, steps that have found considerable favour with us. Firstly there are the Cabinet changes, for example with the important portfolios controlling Blacks going to the hon. member for Primrose and the hon. member for Witbank. Their appointments to those portfolios are indicative of the hon. the Prime Minister’s stance in those matters. The hon. the Prime Minister’s meetings with the homeland leaders have, from many reports, reflected great willingness and preparedness, on his part, to come to grips with the real issues involved and not to side-step them. This is also reflected, to some extent, in the Prime Minister’s attitude to consolidation and the working out of a blue-print for the urban Blacks. There also seems to be a far more flexible approach, in the new constitution, to accommodate the Indian and Coloured leaders.

From the above it is obvious that the hon. the Prime Minister wants to do his utmost to improve the quality of life of all South Africans. For that reason it is most important for no stone to be left unturned in cutting the Information scandal open to the bone, and this should be done as a matter of urgency.

The time allocated to me has expired, Mr. Speaker, but allow me to say that the hon. member for Simonstown’s amendment is worthy of support by all of us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Walmer made certain suggestions concerning ways and means of bringing about the prosecution of Gen. Van den Bergh, and I think the Government should seriously consider the practicality of those suggestions because I cannot accept the fact that we live in a country where any person can be placed above the law. No matter how people try to explain the affair, the Attorney-General’s inability to bring about a prosecution is a condemnation of the state of affairs existing in South Africa under this Government. [Interjections.]

*We are now nearing the end of this debate, and now, towards the end, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs laments the fact that the Information affair formed such a major part of the discussion. But the Information affair is surely of the utmost public importance to us in South Africa at the moment. The hon. the Prime Minister has already made three efforts to clear up and explain this matter. In the first place it is very clear to us that South Africa will never receive satisfactory answers in this regard. Secondly, it is clear to us that with the exception of perhaps two hon. members and Ministers on that side they do not really repent what happened. Thirdly, it is clear to us that the hon. the Prime Minister regards himself as some sort of a hero in respect of this whole episode. The fact that untruths about the way in which financing was carried out, have been told for years in this House, does not bother him much, according to what we have been listening to here. He himself said that he was technically wrong, but that otherwise he acted in the correct manner. As far as untruths are concerned, we know that there is also talk of mitigating circumstances. That apparently stuck in his gizzard.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member state that the hon. the Prime Minister has been telling untruths for years?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I have been talking about the manner of financing. The hon. member must just read what the report of the Erasmus Commission says. The hon. the Prime Minister must also realize that in the case of President Nixon, for example, untruths were also told and that he was eventually relieved of his office. Perhaps there were mitigating circumstances in his case too, and that also stuck in his gizzard.

It can be alleged, for example, that technically Dr. Connie Mulder was not lying when he said that it was not Information money which was being used for The Citizen, because technically it was actually special money obtained from the Defence Fund. While talking of Dr. Connie Mulder, I just want to add that there are still many questions that must be put and that history will have to clear up the matter. I just want to quote a few questions which were put after the previous debate by a person like Prof. Hennie Coetzee. They were published in Woord en Daad. I believe I should ask these questions once again at the end of this debate. I quote—

I want to ask those questions too, for I believe that those questions will eventually have to be answered. The fact remains, however, that what happened, was done by an NP Minister in order to promote the cause of the NP in South Africa.

†In history one is taught to evaluate historical facts in the light of the forces of cause, events and consequences. A lot has been said about the Information scandal itself and also about the consequences. Let us, however, just briefly look at one fundamental cause of the scandal. I shall be quite frank. That cause is the policy as such of the NP. It was the task of Dr. Mulder, his staff and his department to try to sell the Government’s policy internationally. The root cause of the problem is that they soon discovered that the NP’s policy was an unsaleable commodity. Hence all the cloak-and-dagger methods that were adopted. The point is that a decent, logical and fair policy would not have required the so-called unorthodox methods. Whether hon. members opposite like it or not, this shame has been brought upon South Africa and it has been partly caused by the policies of the NP. When one considers some of the consequences internationally, this shame is really compounded.

Do you justify … [Interjections.]

I am surprised that the hon. the Minister of Finance said at a meeting in Durban in November that there was no corruption in the Government, while in fact there was corruption. How can he say in front of more than 400 people that there was no corruption when he knew for a fact that the opposite was true because we had had the commission? [Interjections.]

No, there is no corruption.

When it comes to corruption, South Africa, especially seen within the African context, has had a very clean record.

I say this Government is not corrupt.

Consequently, international businessmen could easily justify their dealings with us. I say this despite the fact that neither they nor their countries accepted the actual policies of apartheid.

After this debacle a new image has emerged. The old image has been tarnished and we must therefore not be surprised if in certain quarters South Africa is now being projected as yet another typical African State, with all that is associated with it. This is the state of affairs which has to be rectified. The present Government cannot do it. In the first place the name of the NP is irrevocably tied to a policy of apartheid and whether one calls this policy one of separate development or multi-nationalism, is irrelevant. That policy will be continued to be seen as a policy of deprivation of rights, whether they are political or human rights. Now it will also be associated with corruption. Under these circumstances the enemies of South Africa must have a field day in their onslaught against us.

Hon. members opposite always have a great deal to say about patriotism. I believe that now is the time for patriotic deeds. The very first patriotic deed will indeed be the formation of a Government of reconciliation, as was mentioned in the speech made by my hon. leader and in the amendment he moved in this debate.

*A few days ago the new young hon. Minister of Public Works delivered a speech to which I listened attentively. He spoke about moving away from discrimination in particular, but every example of progress which he pointed out, showed how the Government, under domestic pressure from its political opponents, and under pressure from outside, was itself breaking down its own policy and political philosophy. They move away from discrimination when they break themselves down. One need only call to mind separate entrances at post offices. During the debate on the Post Office budget in August 1974 I requested the abolition of separate amenities at post offices, and the then Minister of Posts and Telecommunications said that it would never happen while a National Party Government was in office. [Interjections.] Exactly two years later, in August 1976, they abolished it, with the concomitant banner headlines.

We can also call to mind the changes which have taken place in the field of sport. They had to break down their own policy. When Blacks and Coloureds started making progress on the labour market, they once again had to dismantle their own policy. Do hon. members not realize that while they are continuously trying to save themselves and the country from their own monstrous creation, South Africa will never make real progress?

†The time has come that hon. members must realize that we will not always have a second, third or fourth chance in South Africa to rectify our past mistakes and to take the necessary steps to compensate for the damage the Government’s policy has caused. Presently the Government is engaged in the all important task of effecting new constitutional development with regard to the Coloureds and the Indians. There are certain signs that at long last they are taking steps in the right direction towards a process of the sharing of power and joint decision making. From what we know, these steps are still very inadequate, but at least a start has been made. Every single member on that side of the House knows that the common denominator amongst the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians is the sharing of a common geographical area, hence the need for consultation and a constitutional structure catering for all three population groups. When I say “every single member” I include even the hon. Deputy Minister of Plural Relations. If it were possible to bring about separation and separate countries for Coloureds and Indians, he would not have accepted the policy of the sharing of power. However, every single hon. member opposite knows that the same common denominator exists in so far as the relationship between these three groups is concerned and the non-homeland Black. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations still agrees with the previous hon. Minister that ultimately there will be no Black South African. Why ignore the existence of the non-homeland Blacks? It is at the peril of all of us that this fact is ignored by the Government. Hon. members should always remember that the time to come to a proper constitutional agreement is now, before a situation arises where there are recognized terrorist armies and recognized terrorist leaders on the borders. Can hon. members not learn a single lesson from the history of Africa and from what is happening around us? My hon. leader spoke about consultation and negotiation and a Government of reconciliation. It is clear that unless we earnestly try to achieve real constitutional settlement, through consultation and negotiation, with other communities in our plural society, reconciliation will not materialize. We should always realize that through consultation, through negotiation and through the collective development of a new constitution, we as the White people of this country have nothing to lose, but have a safe future to gain. It is in this regard that we are wasting time at the present moment by the stubborness of not including the urban or non-homeland Black in the new dispensation at this stage.

Within two months the hon. the Minister of Finance—I am glad he is still with us here— will introduce his main budget I believe that even at this late stage he should be reminded that every person in South Africa, whether old or young, poor or rich, is looking forward with great anticipation to budget day. They have the right to expect relief. The man in the street has just completed a decade during which the inflation rate for most of the time ran into double figures. Even now, although I believe the inflation rate has dropped below 10%, the public still has to deal with a new system of taxation, the GST—and I am not attacking that as such—but, good as it may be—and in this connection I agree with Dr. Hupkes in his statement over the radio the other day—in reality it still means that for the man in the street the inflation rate is still above 10%.

This will continue to be the case at least until the middle of the year. After that, who knows? The increase in the price of petrol might spark off another cycle of price rises. The public is also aware of the gold bonanza which has fallen into the lap of our country at this present stage. Therefore, after many lean years, they are intolerant and they will not be fobbed off with the mere crumbs from the overflowing table of a rich Minister of Finance. The hon. the Minister must also be aware that all hand-outs will be measured against the R32 million Citizen promotion money which the public gave to the Government. To give an example, the hon. the Prime Minister made a great song and dance about the R3½ million which will bring about parity for 400 Blacks and will improve the position for another 1 300. This is just one-tenth of The Citizen’s promotion money. Without having squandered that parity could have been brought about, not just for 400 Blacks, but for 4 000 Blacks. It would also not only have narrowed the gap for 1 300, but for 13 000.

Oh really, man!

An hon. member says: Oh, really, man! Those hon. members could not care less. After all, what is R32 million to them? After all, they now have an English-language newspaper! Why do they not also let the Opposition have R32 million so that they could spend that on the promotion of an Afrikaans-language newspaper in South Africa? [Interjections.] This is not the only alarming situation. For nearly a decade pensioners and people living on fixed incomes have gone through a period where they have experienced the erosion of the value of their money. I also want to say to the hon. the Minister of Transport that he too should realize that many retired Railway workers last year became the victims of a cruel trick when they were led to believe that they were going to receive a far greater percentage increase in their pensions. I do not want to go into the reasons why this never materialized. The fact of the matter is that they expected it but never received it. The hon. the Prime Minister himself said that last year the Government had been temporarily paralysed. It is about time that the Government frees the country from that state of paralysis and begins to pay attention to the many outstanding issues affecting the daily lives of millions of South Africans, ordinary South Africans of all races. We should always remember too that the public is sick and tired of inefficiency and wastage on the part of the Government.

Unfortunately the hon. the Prime Minister is not in the House now. However, I should like to deal with a specific statement made by him, a statement concerning the Department of Education and Training and a draft Bill on Black education. I quote from the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech (Hansard, 7 February 1979)—

As it is stated here it would appear as though ATASA has requested a separate teachers’ council.

That is what he said.

Yes, that is what the hon. the Prime Minister said. There seems to be no doubt about that. However, I do know whether ATASA has submitted a 43-page draft document to the hon. the Minister of Education and Training on the subject of the draft Bill. I also know that that document contains many counter-proposals. However, it would be totally incorrect to suggest that ATASA requested a separate council, as is stated quite clearly in the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech. In fact, after the annual congress in January this year in Durban, the president of ATASA, Mr. Peteni, issued a statement on important resolutions adopted. That was on 20 January this year. I would like to quote that resolution to hon. members—

I think that in the interests of good relations in South Africa either the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Minister of Education and Training should clarify the situation as soon as possible. I may just mention that I have already received telephone calls from people from certain parts of the country expressing concern about this. As Mr. Peteni said in his statement after the Durban congress, and I quote again—

He means the African teachers—

Under those circumstances it is very important, even imperative, that the hon. the Prime Minister should refrain from making a statement which could embarrass those people who are in the process of negotiations.

I wish to conclude by referring to the great danger of applying double standards with regard to the central issue, viz. the dismissal of Dr. Mulder. Cabinet Ministers made it patently clear on the issue of collective responsibility that Dr. Mulder was sacked and eventually forced to leave Parliament and to quit public life altogether because he failed to inform his colleagues in the Cabinet.

It is now Friday afternoon and we have been hearing that since Monday.

Yes, and the Government will keep on hearing it. We all remember the refrain: “I did not know. I did not know.” I am talking about double standards. And so Dr. Mulder withdrew from public life in South Africa altogether. But we must beware of double standards. We must remember at that time there was another Cabinet member who also knew about the matter but who never told his colleagues either. However, he still holds office today. I am talking about the person who presided over the Cabinet at the time.

Mr. Speaker, besides the onslaught of the Opposition on the Government in connection with the Information matter since the beginning of this debate, there is another important aspect to which I wish to draw your attention at the commencement of my speech. I am referring to the performance of the hon. the Prime Minister here. This debate afforded the hon. the Prime Minister his first opportunity, as the new Prime Minister of South Africa, to inform the House of his view of the future and to try to take the House with him. At this opportunity I wish to express the sincere congratulations of this side of the House to the Prime Minister for the way in which he acquitted himself of this task.

Hear, hear!

It is the general feeling of the hon. members here, and I am sure that it is also the general feeling in the country, that his performance and speech instilled general confidence in South Africa. It has instilled the confidence that he has taken over the reins with a singleness of purpose, that he knows in which direction he wants to move and that he intends to take the initiative and to retain it on the road ahead. We on this side of the House have confidence in him as Prime Minister and wish to congratulate him sincerely on his speech.

Having said that, I wish to say immediately that there is also a cloud hanging over this House and I wish to deal with the matter immediately. The honour and integrity of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now at stake here. His honour and integrity as the Leader of the Opposition and as member of this House are seriously in issue.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister entitled to make the statement he has just made?

The hon. the Minister may proceed. I shall listen to establish in what context the hon. the Minister made his statement.

Sir, I am saying that the honour and the integrity of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as leader of a party and as member of this House are seriously in issue and I now wish to motivate my statement.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: That is precisely the context to which I objected. The hon. the Minister is reflecting on the integrity of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as a member of this House. I submit to you that he is not entitled to do that.

Order! Is the hon. the Minister questioning the honour of the hon. member for Sea Point or is he making an accusation against him?

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that it is in issue and I intend to motivate my statement.

Order! I do not think the hon. the Minister may say that. It is an indirect accusation.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a further point of order. Throughout the entire debate it was the point of view of the official Opposition that the honour of the Government was in issue and demanded that as a result of their doubting our honour, the Government should resign. With respect, Sir, if it is permissible that those hon. members may proclaim that standpoint here, the hon. the Minister at least has the right to motivate his point of view. If after that you feel that it is not permissible, you must so decide.

It is not a very easy point for me to decide on. “Government” is a wide term. It is not a single Minister that has been accused. However, I concede to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs that he may well have a point. Nevertheless I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Labour whether he cannot express his idea in other words.

Mr. Speaker, as it pleases you.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville is entitled to raise a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, the point of order that was raised was whether in fact …

Stand up straight before you speak!

I am trying to address the Chair. Will the hon. the Prime Minister please give me the opportunity of doing so?

Stand up straight.

I am standing up. The hon. the Prime Minister should stop chewing … [Interjections.] At least I do not eat while I am addressing the Chair. The issue is whether in fact it is proper for one hon. member to put the honour of another member in issue. Our parliamentary procedure is that it is not permissible. If you therefore rule that that cannot be done, Sir, the hon. the Minister must withdraw those words.

Order! From the nature of the case I cannot and do not wish to apply double standards. That is my problem at the moment, and I request the hon. the Minister to assist me in this regard. I doubt that he may question the honour of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Minister should rather withdraw the words and use other terminology.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the honour and integrity of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is being questioned.

Mr. Speaker, on a point…

Order! The hon. the member for Yeoville must resume his seat. I am listening to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to withdraw the words, but shall, after I have spoken my mind, return to that matter again. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated in his speech (Hansard, 5 February 1979, col. 31)—

The Leader of the Opposition then proceeded to place me personally and every other member of the Cabinet sitting here, including the hon. the Prime Minister, under suspicion by stating—

He, therefore, includes everybody beginning with the hon. the Prime Minister—

It is nothing but a direct reflection on my personal honour and on my integrity as member of the Government and it applies to each of the Cabinet members sitting here. The hon. the Prime Minister created an opportunity for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to react to an offer he made them. The hon. the Prime Minister in turn made an offer to the Opposition and stated (Hansard, 7 February 1979)—

The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can now pass judgment himself—I am not going to do it—on his honour and his integrity. He is now obliged to tell the House when he replies today whether he has accepted the invitation.

That is a ridiculous invitation.

Sir, I am saying that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is under an obligation to tell us whether he has accepted the invitation during the present debate. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not do so, I put it to you with respect, Sir, that he owes it to the House to apologize to the House and the Government. If he accepts the invitation and the commission finds that he was incorrect, I put it to him that he is obliged to resign, if he is an honourable man. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not do this, I say, with leave of the hon. the Prime Minister, that the Cabinet and this side of the House will ignore him and treat him with the contempt he deserves. [Interjections.] I, and every other hon. member on the Government side, was placed under suspicion by that hon. member. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition considers himself to be an honourable man, I wish to say the following to him on behalf of the hon. the Prime Minister and in conjunction with the hon. the Minister of External Affairs: He must reply to this House before the bells ring tonight. [Interjections.]

He will not succeed in doing so with a grin.

It came to my attention that a report appeared in the Rand Daily Mail this morning which was written by Helen Zille, the newspaper’s political correspondent. The report appeared under the title “Horwood’s amazing confession”, and reads as follows—

And I want hon. members to note the word “admission”—

The hon. the Minister made it very clear to this House what the position is. In fact, it was the third time that he explained in Parliament—twice in this House and once in the Senate—exactly what happened.

It was a different story every time.

The hon. the Minister of Finance spoke of money which had already been appropriated. The appropriation of money was, therefore, not in dispute in any way and not relevant in any way. He merely explained how a law of Parliament created a new procedure for appropriation. That is what happened. There was very explicitly no confession, no confession or concession, the word “confession” was deliberately intended to create a misconception of what the hon. the Minister of Finance said. There was no admission either. There was an explanation, but no admission. But now, after this matter has been explained three times and after the commission has examined all the evidence and has had everyone before it, including the Minister concerned, and after that testified as commission in its report that it had found nothing wrong and that it cleared the Minister’s name of all blame, this newspaper comes forward with this allegation, also at the instigation of those hon. members, because they raised the same issue here. The newspaper published this report, a report in which two deliberate lies appeared. Lie No. 1 …

Take it to the Press Council.

… pertains to the word “confession”. [Interjections.] It was not a confession. It was an explanation. Lie No. 2 pertains to the fact that R14 million was not spent on a project, but that the total appropriation to the department was R14 million. That statement is, therefore, also incorrect I cannot threaten the Press in this House. Nor do I wish to do so, but there is something that I do wish to say. If the newspaper concerned, for its part, wants the support of the honourable people of this House, of the Government and general public, it is its duty to rectify the matter tomorrow morning—no later than that—and to offer an apology to the hon. the Minister of Finance. [Interjections.] Those hon. members on the opposite side must not be so rowdy. This debate is now drawing to a close and it was a painful situation to reply to these distortions and the wilfulness … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may not use the word “distortions.”

Mr. Speaker, but this was indeed a distortion.

Order! The hon. the Minister was referring to the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of time I shall withdraw the word “distortions” because I wish to continue with my speech. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: That is not an unqualified withdrawal and I ask you to rule that it is not an unqualified withdrawal.

Order! Will the hon. the Minister please withdraw the word without qualification?

Yes. [Interjections.] Those hon. members have very carefully been trying to hide those things which they have been engaged in doing for a very long time now because—as has also been indicated from this side of the House—they have seized on the Information affair in order to focus attention on it. However, what has the Opposition, and all the persons and bodies connected with it, been doing during the past 12 months? I shall tell you what. They were creating a psychosis in this country and pushing it to a certain point, and that point is the so-called convention of which we have heard very little. Before I go any further I nevertheless wish to say in all fairness and courtesy that the hon. member for Rondebosch was so kind as to give me a copy of his report. Thank you very much. I now wish to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. His party’s policy was published in the periodical Deurbraak. I wish to ask him whether his policy at this moment, while I am standing here speaking, is still exactly the same.

I have not read it yet [Interjections.]

The hon. member says that he has not read it yet Unless he says that it is no longer his policy, I wish to accept that it is still his policy now. Over the past few years they have tried to lead South Africa and persons outside South Africa to a certain goal. Let me tell you what that goal is. It is to create a situation which must lead to a convention as the culminating point Let me say at once that this convention is an evil idea which they have devised. Its aim is to create in this country an integrated society, a unitary society, and that unitary society must, by its character, wipe out any form or suggestion of anything like nationhood.

That is absolute nonsense.

That is why they speak consistently of groups and ethnicities and why they are also prepared to belittle this side of the House and what we stand for, as being ethnicity. That is their object. The hope which they cherish is that it will succeed. The point I wish to make is that they pay no heed to one great truth of the history of mankind, viz. that from prehistoric times till today the history of mankind has been written in terms of the life, the aspirations and the conflicts of nations. In modern times the conflicts are being described in terms of nations with all their emotions. That is what the conflicts of today consist of on the continent of Africa and elsewhere as well. But they wish to move away from this concept, because it does not suit them. What they do not see is that the elements among the people which they wish to assemble together at the convention, will include the deep emotion of nationhood. No matter what they do, they cannot escape that fact.

What about South West Africa?

Against this background I wish to make two statements. The first is that no-one in the Government, and in the National Party, will participate in such a convention. We shall reject it. We want nothing to do with it. That is the first point So if they proceed with that idea they will have to implement that idea on their own. In the second place, I wish to say that they need not try to equate South West Africa with the Republic of South Africa. South Africa is a country which became sovereign years ago, which has already created its system of order and is not only now trying to find a course in modern-day circumstances. We therefore differ from each other.

What a difference!

I now wish to refer to a congress which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition held this year. The background to it is a whole lot of congresses, symposiums, work groups and summer schools to which they conveyed people from all over the world and by means of which they, as well as their newspapers, have tried to take the people of South Africa in tow by stirring them up and inciting them with a view to such a convention as culminating point. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said at his Cape congress that by the time the present session of Parliament begins, he would have reached clarity on all these matters. Now I wish to ask him a question or two. The first question I want to put to him, is whether he personally wishes to attend that convention.

He did not hear.

I wish to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he himself will attend the convention.

I shall reply to that.

I wish to know it from him now. He is not prepared to reply. I ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she wishes to attend the convention. [Interjections.] They have a guilty conscience. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Houghton dare not say yes. Will they attend the convention?

*

Of course I am going.

The hon. member for Houghton now says: “Of course I am going.”

If I am chosen.

Yes, if you are chosen.

*I now wish to tell the House that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—he must tell us if he thinks otherwise—will not attend that convention if the hon. member for Houghton does not join him. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, may I have your protection?

Order!

The hon. member for Houghton will, therefore, attend the convention. We do not trust that convention which the Opposition will attend. We do not trust its composition, to begin with, because the hon. member for Houghton made a statement which was reported in various newspapers and in which she stated—

Now listen carefully—

I suggest that she will attend the convention in that spirit.

You silly man! [Interjections.] I was referring to expediency.

I now wish to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members on that side of the House whether all who will be invited to that convention, will sit there as equals.

Yes.

He states that they will be equals. I wish to ask, too, whether those who will be invited, will all be chosen by him alone.

No.

They will, therefore, not be chosen by him alone. He and the hon. member for Houghton will, therefore, not choose the people alone. [Interjections.]

Order!

In this little pamphlet which was published, it is very emphatically stated that all groups which will attend that convention, will have the right to choose their own natural leaders, and to bring them along. I should like to ask a question in that regard. If these invited groups over which the PFP exercises no control, groups who sit there as equals, should decide that Mandela is their natural leader, and that they wish to have him there, will he be allowed to attend the conference? [Interjections.] He does, therefore, attend the conference. If the demand is made that Qoboza and Joe Slovo attend the convention, will they be allowed to go? If that convention chooses Mandela as chairman, will the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accept that? [Interjections.] He will accept that, too.

Moreover, I wish to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I have read on occasion that he said that he regarded Motlana as a sine qua non for the representation of Soweto. Does he still think so?

He does not think at all.

I am asking the hon. member whether he still thinks so. His exact words are that he regards Dr. Nthato Motlana as the key person in Soweto. Is that correct?

That is correct. The chairman of the Broederbond agrees.

Now I read that Dr. Motlana has stated as his conviction on occasion at a symposium of that party that the idea of special guarantees for minority groups is unacceptable. [Interjections.] The conclusion I draw, is that in my opinion it has no value. They will have assembled there people from all over South Africa, people who come together there with the same attitude as the hon. member for Houghton, who implicitly stated: She is not going there to pay any heed whatsoever to the interests of the Whites.

That is not what she said.

They will probably be under the chairmanship of a Motlana. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Labour has been used for the second time to be a lightning conductor to try to deflect some of the blows which we have rained against the Government. On the last occasion I believe he did creditably well. On this occasion, however, his was one of the poorest speeches on the other side of the House. Here is an hon. Minister who does not even know the history of Southern Africa, a Minister who does not even know what his own Government is doing. He does not realize that in Rhodesia Mr. Vorster found it necessary to persuade Mr. Smith to allow somebody like the Rev. Sithole out of gaol— a convicted terrorist—to come and negotiate because that was the only way he thought he could bring peace. That happened in that country at the instance of our previous Prime Minister.

Let us take South West Africa. I know that Mr. A. H. du Plessis has now been thrown out of the Constituent Assembly, but it is the voice of Mr. A. H. du Plessis we are hearing in here today. It is the voice of Aktur. It is the voice of people who are not prepared to sit down and to negotiate with Black people in this country. We know that up until 1974 the Government said that South West Africa was going to be run their way. They said that they were going to try to incorporate elements of the administrative structure into the Republic of South Africa. That was a plan designed by Whites, until suddenly the previous Prime Minister appreciated the fact that if one wanted a peaceful resolution of problems in South West Africa, one would have to negotiate. What happened? A constitutional conference, a “beraad”, a Turnhalle—not identical to the one we proposed, but similar in its structure—was brought into being to try to resolve the conflict between Black and White. I know that there are many hon. members on that side of the House who did not agree with the Turnhalle. They did not believe it was the right move. Whatever the criticisms of detail which the hon. the Minister or hon. members opposite might have, I want to predict that, far sooner than this hon. Prime Minister and the Government care to realize, if we do not want to become involved in bloody violence in South Africa we are going to have to sit down and negotiate with the other races. That is what we have to realize. It is no use, as Mr. Smith said “Never in a thousand years”, nor what Mr. A. H. du Plessis said, i.e. “We will never negotiate”. We are going to have to negotiate if we want to save South Africa from ruin. That is what we are going to do. We are going to have to negotiate, not just with the hand-picked people with whom it is easy to negotiate. We are going to have to negotiate with those people who are truly representative of the various power structures in South Africa.

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

No, I have no time for the hon. member at this stage. Therefore we have to have a conference which is truly representative of the various political groupings in South Africa. This is what we are going to have to do. Already, to an extent, I see this starting to develop among the Coloureds, the Whites and the Asians, although it is only a very tentative move. But I believe that they are still going to be swept along by the tide of history, and sooner than the Minister realizes there will be a convention in South Africa. [Interjections.] Let us get this quite clear. When we talk of a national convention, we talk of a convention convened by the Government of the day. Now, as the Government of the day convenes it, the Government of the day still retains sovereign power. [Interjections.]

Order!

That convention is a “beraad”. It is a constituent assembly without formal legal authority, but it is a place in which the representatives of the people of South Africa can find one another and can find a way of living in peace in this part of the world. Let the hon. the Minister understand that quite clearly. First of all the convention is convened by the Government of the day. It does not affect the sovereignty or the stature of the Government of the day, but has to be a body representative of all the various elements which form the South African society.

Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he has committed himself to regarding as binding the plan produced at that convention and to its implementation by his Government?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister must realize that at national conventions or at Turnhalles decisions are not taken on majority votes. If one looks at the constitution, at the composition of the Turnhalle …

That was not what I asked. I want to know whether you are going to do what they say. [Interjections.]

One reaches consensus at a national convention. We have made it quite clear … [Interjections.] We have made it quite clear that we would not … [Interjections.]

Order!

We made it quite clear that we would not negotiate away two specific principles. One is that there should be no discrimination in South Africa and the other, that there should be no domination by one group over another. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was this: If, after all his efforts, he cannot obtain concensus, what option will remain open to him? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister has not read this PFP policy document at all. It says what happens if the convention breaks down. [Interjections.] In my speech the other day I made it quite clear that if the convention broke down, it would be a serious situation for South Africa, because then we would move in the direction of conflict. However, it would be the responsibility of the Government … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister put a question to me and I expect from him the courtesy to listen to my reply. [Interjections.] When a convention breaks down it means that one has reached a stage in which the essential and important power elements cannot agree on fundamental matters. It is a serious situation, but in such circumstances the Government of the day would have to continue governing in terms of its principles while trying to restart negotiations so that, at some future stage, a new convention, a new “beraad”, can take place in order to reach agreement. [Interjections.]

Order!

However, while the Government of the day does not surrender to a convention, the Government of the day must take note of the advice of the consensus which has been reach at a convention which it has convened in order to try to resolve the conflict in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I want to leave that aspect of the hon. the Minister’s speech. We have listened now for five days to this debate, and quite frankly I believe that the Government has failed to give satisfactory answers to all four of the indictments contained in the motion which I placed on the Order Paper and which I moved on Monday. In regard to all four of them the Government has failed. I will deal with certain of them very briefly.

The economic aspect was not debated in depth—understandably so—neither from this side or from the opposite side. When one listened to the very brief speech by the hon. the Minister of Finance and to that of the hon. the Prime Minister one formed the impression that they believed that everything in the economic garden was rosy. [Interjections.]

Order!

That was my impression when the hon. the Prime Minister pointed out that R250 million in loans was an important pointer today to foreign confidence. It was also pointed out that the balance of payments had improved. These aspects are correct. However, this is not the entire picture of the economy of South Africa. This is not the total picture. [Interjections.] There are other factors that have to be taken into account, factors such as the drop in gross domestic fixed investment in South Africa of 6% over the last year. [Interjections.]

While we are speaking, this report says that the building industry is at a crisis point and points to the drop in work that is taking place. Surely the correct test is one based on what was said by Dr. Simon Brand in a speech on 2 February 1979. He said that what South Africa needs as a matter of priority was to create 250 000 jobs a year and have a growth rate of between 5% and 6%. The fact is that our growth rate has oscillated during the past three years 1,5% and 2,5% and not 5% to 6%. The job situation is deteriorating, and if one looks at the latest bulletin of statistics you will find that in all the key sectors there has been a shrinking of economic activity. In mining …

May I put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition?

Order!

No, not at this stage. In mining over the last five years there has been a decline in employment opportunities. In the manufacturing sector there has also been a decline in opportunities. In construction there has also been a decline instead of an increase. The only sector where we can find an increase in employment opportunities, the only growth factor in South Africa appears to be in the area of control boards …

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire whether the hon. Leader of the Opposition is entitled to use his second opportunity to argue about a case … [Interjections.] …

Order!

Just a minute, I have not finished … a case for his motion which he did not do when he had the opportunity during the debate? We cannot reply to it at this stage.

Order!

I want to support the hon. the Minister of Finance. Not one of the hon. members opposite advanced any argument whatsoever in support of that particular part of their motion and I also allege that the purpose of a reply is to answer fundamental arguments advanced by this side of the House.

Order! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may proceed. In his introductory motion he made a general charge, and with the necessary substantiation and with reference to this charge a debate took place to prove this or that He is now adducing further proof.

Sir, I want you to know that I am grateful to be able to continue. The Prime Minister as well as the Minister of Finance painted one side of the picture and therefore I think that it is appropriate that we look at the other side of the picture and see to what extent Government policies are responsible for the fact that we have not had the required growth rate in our economy and that we are not nearing the target of creating ¼ million job rates a year.

The second leg of the motion dealt with the failure of the Government to eliminate race discrimination in a meaningful and fundamental way. Here there are indications from hon. Ministers, and in particular from the hon. the Prime Minister, of certain moves away from discrimination. He mentioned the upgrading of certain posts in the Civil Service at a cost of R3½ million and indicated that this would mean that 400 people would be brought under salary parity with 1 300 moving closer. We have nothing against that All we want to say to the Government is that they are not taking this seriously; they are not moving fast enough and they are not doing the things that are absolutely essential in terms of the time-scale facing us in South Africa. As a matter of fact, if they carry on at the rate in which they are improving the position at the moment, we might, at the turn of this century, get back to the situation which we obtained in 1948.

That is progress!

That they would call progress. An indication of how the Government misses the point was given in the speech by the new hon. Minister of Public Works. He quoted from various surveys compiled on the basis of Black opinion in the urban areas and pointed out that the main complaint didn’t seem to be apartheid, but in reality services, e.g. housing, transportation, economic security, recreational facilities and other amenities. These were the things at the top of the list of priorities of the Blacks. Only lower down was the question of enforced separation. Sir, this is the very point which we are making.

Discrimination is not just enforced separation; it also means the denial of equal educational facilities, of family and personal security, of equality before the law, of equal economic opportunities and of effective political rights. This is what discrimination in South Africa is all about. It does not merely concern taking down notice-boards, although they should be taken down. It also concerns getting rid of a structural inequality that exists in our economic, social and political society in South Africa.

The third leg of the motion deals with the constitutional framework. We charge the Government with not having created a constitutional framework which can ensure just government in South Africa and security and stability for all our people. Here there were, once again, from the hon. the Prime Minister hints of a move in the direction of consolidation, but he could give us nothing concrete or positive. He did not even say that he was going to amend the 1936 settlement. He said that he would extend the membership of the Plural Affairs Commission by two, and if they came with recommendations, he would consider them at that stage. On what principle is this consolidation going to take place? Is it going to be based on an equal sharing of the resources of South Africa? Is it going to mean negotiation between Black and White in order to see how the cake should be cut or is it once again going to be the Government only which will decide how land, wealth and property is going to be distributed in South Africa? What was interesting, however, were the speeches made by the new hon. Minister of Plural Relations and Development and his two Deputy Ministers.

*The hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development sounded quite an interesting note. He kept referring to the development of an inclusive, common South African loyalty and said that if White and Black co-operated, we could built a wonderful South Africa. He did not refer to apartheid in South Africa, but he did speak of a “piebald” South Africa. That was his view of the future, i.e. White and Black working together in the development of one South Africa. So his approach was an inclusive one of White, Brown and Black together in one South Africa. However, the two hon. Deputy Ministers struck just the opposite note. In their view, the idea of consensus within the framework of one State was impossible. In adopting this attitude, they rejected the basic idea underlying the hon. the Prime Minister’s new joint Cabinet council for Coloureds, Indians and Whites in South Africa. There was no idea to be detected in their thinking of a common South African loyalty or of an attempt to work together in building a wonderful new South Africa. They proceeded from the premise that division would take place in future and that there would not be one South Africa built up by White, Brown and Black. Their vision of the future is one of a fragmented South Africa and not one in which White, Brown and Black build together.

†The hon. the Prime Minister failed on one important point. He failed …

Reply to my question …

He failed to tell us whether he stands by the attitude of his predecessor, i.e. that one day there would be no more Black citizens in South Africa, or whether in fact he is prepared to include Black people as permanent citizens in this country. This is a fundamental question, and unless the Government answers it, until it answers it, it cannot design or fashion a new constitution for the future of South Africa. That is the cardinal question which they have to answer.

If the Government has failed in dealing with those three legs of the motion which I moved on Monday, then their failure is complete and utter in trying to repel our attacks with regard to the question of their complicity in the Information scandal and in the cover-up. They failed completely, and I believe that not only the House, but also the public of South Africa, having followed the debate through the various media, is going to find that it has had less satisfaction from the Government by way of information and explanations than they had before the commencement of this debate. The Government has added no new information to what we already know.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Have you not ruled that the Opposition is not entitled to accuse us of having conducted a cover-up? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is again accusing us of it.

Order! I have ruled that although the word “cover-up” has very often been used, both in the special session last year and in this debate in a general, impersonal and political sense, I shall have to consider the import of the word when it is used in a personal sense. What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition intend to convey?

Mr. Speaker, this is the very phrase used in my motion and which has been accepted. The words “the Government’s responsibility for the Information scandal and the patent attempts by the Government to cover-up aspects of that scandal” appear in my motion on the Order Paper. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: If you see it in the context in which the accusation is made, the Government consists of individuals … [Interjections.] I am entitled to raise a point of order. The Government is being accused of conceding certain things.

Order! I want to assure the hon. the Minister that I shall give a very strict interpretation to the word in the context of my ruling. At the moment I believe the hon. the Leader of the Opposition may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that what has happened in this House over the past five days will not allay the doubts and the fears that the public have that the Government is involved in a cover-up, as I have stated in my motion. This is the view of the public outside. I do not think we should run away from this view.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition prepared, in the context in which he is now speaking, to reply to my challenge to him?

Does the hon. the Minister not realize that it is the Government that is in the dock? [Interjections.] The PFP has not been responsible for corruption on a broad scale and misappropriation of millions of rands of public money. We were not in charge of R64 million. We have not appointed the various commissions. It is that hon. Minister and he should therefore not come here with a lightning conductor.

Are you going to testify before the commission?

It is not for us to testify; it is up to the hon. the Minister to release the evidence to this House and to the public of South Africa. [Interjections.]

You are too spineless to give evidence before the Erasmus Commission. You are a spineless creature.

You are a coward.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Prime Minister allowed to refer to another hon. member as a “spineless creature”?

Order! It has never been allowed in the past. The hon. the Prime Minister must therefore withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to help you. Your task is difficult enough. I shall withdraw the words “spineless creature”, but I say that the hon. member is too scared to give evidence before the commission.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. the Prime Minister say the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is “scared”?

Order! The word “scared” has been allowed in the past.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs refer to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as a “coward”?

Sir, I said it and in order to help you, I shall withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to point out to hon. members that there is a tradition in our Parliament for the hon. the Prime Minister as well as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to be heard with courtesy and consideration. I should very much like to uphold the tradition and therefore I ask hon. members to listen to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in that spirit from now on. I also request him not to use any expressions which could give the slightest offence or which could even be interpreted as a reflection on hon. Ministers. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may proceed.

I believe the Government is shielding behind the various commissions’ officials which it has appointed. It is not the Erasmus Commission’s final responsibility, but that of the Government to satisfy the public about what took place as far as the Information scandal is concerned. When it comes to the prosecution of Gen. Van den Bergh …

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition?

No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister will have to wait a little while.

All right, I shall wait a little while.

It is not the Attorney-General, Mr. Nöthling, who is the final arbiter on whether Gen. Van den Bergh is going to be charged or not. It is the hon. the Minister of Justice and this Government.

We put a number of questions to hon. members on the other side of the House. The first one dealt with Dr. Eschel Rhoodie. Here today the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained, as we understood him, that Dr. Eschel Rhoodie’s departure was the fault of the Erasmus Commission. It is not, however, the Erasmus Commission which is to blame. The Erasmus Commission may have opinions about this, but it is, in fact, the Government of the day that controls passports and decides whether to institute prosecutions or not. The Government of the day knew of the evidence of the Mostert Commission, evidence given under oath, which stated that there had been a misappropriation of millions of rand. That the Government knew. The Government also had the evidence of Mr. Van Rooyen, evidence which they took so seriously that it became one of the reason why Dr. Connie Mulder was ousted from the Cabinet. So they had that evidence, and they took it so seriously that Dr. Connie Mulder was asked to leave the Cabinet. That was what he was asked to do, but nevertheless Dr. Eschel Rhoodie went. It is the responsibility of the Government. The Government let Dr. Eschel Rhoodie out when there was sufficient evidence in its hands to keep him in South Africa pending prosecution. Hon. Ministers have still not indicated to us whether they have been in touch with Dr. Eschel Rhoodie. We have been told of letters they have written to various embassies, but have they actually been in touch with Dr. Eschel Rhoodie? Certain people say they can get in touch with him. I want to know whether they have actually been in touch with him.

A question was put by the hon. member for Yeoville. He asked: “What about the R4,5 million which it is alleged went into the publication of the pro-Government journal To the Point? What has happened to the R4½ million?” The matter was raised in this House by the hon. member and has also been raised by the Press.

Are you going to give evidence before the commission? [Interjections.]

Answer our question.

We shall examine the evidence of that commission. [Interjections.]

Order!

Are you going to testify before the commission?

I should like to give the hon. the Prime Minister a chance to ask a question.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a very direct question, because I regard this matter in a very serious light. I want to know whether he intended the following words to cast a reflection on each of the 16 Ministers referred to here (Hansard, 5 February, col. 31)—

I ask him whether he is reflecting on any one of these Ministers.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. the Prime Minister means by “reflecting” on them. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister. If there was a Cabinet Minister, in this or the previous Government…

Will you reply to my question?

… who was aware of the fact that public money was being spent and did not tell the other Cabinet Ministers would he say that that person acted dishonourably?

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. Leader of the Opposition?

No, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

May I put a question?

It is not a question of reflecting, anywhere in this debate … [Interjections.]

Order! Does the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs wish to ask a question?

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he accepts the word of these Ministers that they did not possess that information?

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared, in the absence of the evidence which was given before the commission, to accept assurances of this kind. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member says that he is not prepared to accept the word of the 16 Ministers individually, and I therefore ask you to call him to order.

Order! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not allowed to use the sentence he has used. I think that it does cast a reflection. He must withdraw it.

They are a lot of incompetents.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, if the rule says that if a member says this across the floor of the House, it has to be accepted in terms of the parliamentary conventions, I want to say …

I have asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the sentence concerned because I believe it to imply a reflection.

I am not sure, Sir, of the exact sentence, but I am quite happy to withdraw it in terms of your ruling.

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order! Does the hon. the Minister want to raise a new point of order?

Mr. Speaker, with all respect to you: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has accused me personally of having known about funds in connection with The Citizen. Now I ask him …

Order! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has withdrawn that.

Let us be quite clear about this.

Order! Let us now please conduct the last few minutes of the debate in an orderly manner.

The hon. members opposite apparently have the desire to convert this into a question of personal integrity. We have spoken all along about Cabinet responsibility. Everyone of those Ministers is responsible.

But you were talking about knowledge.

There is no knowledge in the Cabinet.

I was talking about the fact that they should have had knowledge of this in the Cabinet. Two members in particular should have had knowledge of this, viz. the hon. the Prime Minister, then the Minister of Defence, and the hon. the Minister of Finance …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: My submission to you is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now circumventing your ruling.

Order! I have no objection to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has just said. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may proceed.

In other words, he may now insult me.

Order! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not cast any reflection now.

Well, if he says that he does not believe me, I do not believe him either.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may proceed.

I do not believe him either.

Let me deal with a number of points on which they have not satisfied us and which I want to raise again. What about the R4,5 million which it is alleged has been paid out of State funds to To the Point? We have had no answer whatsoever on that from hon. members on the other side of the House. What about the loan of R16 million which Dr. Eschel Rhoodie raised, apparently without the approval of the Treasury? Who gave the guarantee? Where is that money now? It is recorded that it was raised in spite of the fact that there was R17 million on the budget for that year. Yet, nowhere from the report and not at all from the hon. the Prime Minister have we learnt who raised the money, who the guarantor was, how it was returned to South Africa if it has in fact been returned to South Africa. Hon. members opposite, and in particular the hon. the Minister of Justice—I regret that he is not here now—failed hopelessly to satisfy us and the public of South Africa that he has acted properly in not prosecuting Gen. Van den Bergh. It is not the final responsibility of the Attorney-General. It is the responsibility of that hon. Minister. I want to put a question to him: Did he consult with the Prime Minister before he took his decision?

No.

He did not consult him. Is it a Cabinet decision?

I gave you a reply.

No, sir, you did not.

Why do you not quote my reply?

Did he consult or not? Did he consult with his Cabinet colleagues?

Why do you not put my reply to you before the House?

Other people have been accused of not consulting their Cabinet colleagues on a matter as important as this.

What is so important?

Hon. members ask me what is so important. This is one of the crisp issues before the public of South Africa today. Individuals have been placed above the law in South Africa. I want to know whether the Cabinet supports the Minister. Mr. Speaker, we do not get answers to these questions. The hon. the Prime Minister did not deal with the question of Gen. Van den Bergh. Nor did he deal with the question of Boss, now the new Department of National Security.

I wrote you a letter about that, you know.

Mr. Speaker, it is really very difficult if the hon. the Prime Minister does not have the courtesy to address the Chair.

You did the same to me. Now you must take your medicine.

Order!

The hon. the Prime Minister and his Government have not dealt with the public’s fear in regard to what happened in Boss. The public wants to know what steps the hon. the Prime Minister is taking to see that the new department does not develop into the monster the old department developed into under Gen. Van den Bergh.

The hon. the Prime Minister has also not dealt with the words suggested to have been deleted, eliminated and edited out of the report. There is no suggestion that the Government did it, but it is now on record in the public Press that certain words are alleged to have been used. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister has a responsibility to check whether those words were used or not Those words are so serious in the context of the fear which people have in South Africa today, that I believe the hon. the Prime Minister should check with the commission and then tell the House whether those words were used.

I think you should go and give evidence.

I am asking for the evidence, just as the public of South Africa is asking for the evidence.

I think you are too scared to do so. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister relied on a broadside against the Sunday Express. He attacked them for an article dealing with his caucus. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether it is correct that that article was referred to his Press secretary before it was printed.

It was denied.

We shall wait and see about that. However, the point is that the hon. the Prime Minister has not confirmed or denied that the words relating to murder have been uttered in the course of the evidence or not. It is absolutely critical in view of the findings of the commission concerning Gen. Van den Bergh. It is also critical because of what has happened in the precincts of Parliament today. While we have been sitting here today, Press men accredited to Parliament have in considerable numbers been interrogated by the police in respect of any information they might have in respect of the Smit murders.

Order! This is a matter which is receiving the attention of the Speaker at the moment. Meanwhile it may not be raised here.

Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling. There will be an occasion when it can be raised in a different way. In view of the evidence and the findings of the commission about the Secretary for the BSS, Gen. Van den Bergh, I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister whether in future he will stand personal guarantee for the behaviour of the Secretary of the Department of National Security. The public is entitled to know whether he is going to control this man and whether he will see to it that this man behaves in a way in which the hon. the Prime Minister would want him to behave and not in the way in which Gen. Van den Bergh behaved. Will he give the public of South Africa that personal assurance?

I shall give you no assurance if you do not give me the assurance I want. Apart from that I take no notice of you.

I am afraid that as a result of the interruptions and the points of order, my time is just about expired. [Interjections.]

I now come to the hon. the Minister of Justice. His reason for not prosecuting was that the disclosure of evidence in public might be damaging to South Africa. However, what he did not tell this House and the public is that section 153 of the Criminal Procedure Act makes specific provision for cases affecting the security of the State to be held in camera and that section 154 makes specific provision for these cases not to be reported should the court so decide. Therefore there is every opportunity for the trial to take place. The reason given by the hon. Minister is certainly not a practical reason in the light of these two provisions. I believe the public is entitled to ask, if public disclosure of evidence concerning Van den Bergh means that Van den Bergh is not going to be put on trail, what will happen if the view is that the public disclosure of evidence as a result of Dr. Rhoodie being put on trial is also going to prejudice the national interest?

I put the next point, viz. that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance have not satisfied this side of the House, and I do not believe that they have satisfied the public of South Africa, that they as members of the Cabinet of the previous administration were not a party to a system of deception of Parliament as far as funds were concerned and to the evasion of the auditing of those funds. That is the gravamen of our charge.

Put it to the commission.

I shall deal with the hon. the Minister of Finance in time. There would have been no Information scandal in South Africa if there had not been a corruption of the system of parliamentary control over funds. That was the start of it. That is the essence of it All the other matters are extraneous.

Corruption by whom?

The corruption of a system …

By whom?

By the Government.

The corruption of the system, as found by the report, that the four people responsible were Dr. Connie Mulder, the previous Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Defence.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition alleges that there was “a corruption of the system of control by Parliament”, but he ignores the fact that Mr. Justice Erasmus pointed out that certain funds had not been audited as a result of acts and resolutions of this Parliament By arguing in this way, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is therefore reflecting on Parliament itself.

Order! I shall leave the point of order in abeyance for the moment. In my opinion, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition used unparliamentary language in saying that there was a corruption of the system and that of the four people responsible, two are sitting in this House. In that sense I believe it reflects on two hon. members of this House. The hon. member must therefore withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, in the sense of the ruling which you have just given

Withdraw!

Order!

In the sense of your ruling I withdraw those words. I want to say that I believe that the words used in the Erasmus Commission, that there were four people who were responsible for operating this particular system …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not withdrawn those words.

I am talking about the Erasmus Commission. [Interjections.]

Order! I am listening to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I understood that the one thing the Government had done was to accept the findings of the Erasmus Commission. I thought that that was what they had done. And yet at the heart of the matter was the system of taking money, not telling Parliament for what it was to be used and channelling it from one department to the other. That is the heart of the whole matter and that is what has been found by the Erasmus Commission. We say that had that not taken place South Africa would not have had to endure the scandal which it is enduring today.

Do you say that I was part of the corruption?

Order! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has withdrawn those words.

Mr. Speaker, I have been very careful in the use of my words.

You are too scared.

Order!

You are too scared. You do not have the courage.

Faces are going to be red one day. The judge has already said that new evidence is going to change matters and that some of the people may be seen in a totally different light.

When did he say that?

Judge Erasmus has said it in this report.

Will you read the words?

The report reads—

I am now compelled to conclude. This debate, after five days, leaves us in a position where we have a Government that has not satisfied either this House or the public of South Africa as far as its involvement in the Information scandal is concerned. Our problem is—and I said it when I opened the debate—that I believe that we should in South Africa be looking at the serious problems of race relations and of national security. This is what we should be looking at. But until the Government allows the whole truth to be told, South Africa is going to be the loser. [Interjections.]

Don’t you show your face in my office again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.