Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members on this side of the House wish to express our thanks and appreciation today towards the Government, the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions and the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for what they have done for the child during the past number of years. We thank the Government for the many opportunities created for the child during the past 30 years, whether by way of the provision of funds, of schools, or of health services, etc.

The UN has decided that 1979 should be known as the Year of the Child. I want to laud them for that resolution. Whether the intentions of the UN as regards this resolution will be effectively implemented throughout the world, is another matter. What is important, is the disposition of people in the UN to place the welfare of the child in the foreground. I am concerned about the attitude the world displays towards the child.

In the United Kingdom, a Children’s Act was only passed 100 years after slavery had been abolished, and 60 years after an Animal Protection Act had been passed there.

The first child to be removed from its parents, was removed in terms of the Animal Protection Act because “she is a member of the animal kingdom”. There was not a Children’s Act in terms of which the child could be removed and she therefore had to be removed in terms of the Animal Protection Act.

I may be asked why I am using examples such as these in support of my statement. In my view, the attitude of the world community has not changed much since. My considered opinion is that the attitude of the world towards the child has not changed as much as might be desired. It is true that many laws have been passed in Western countries for the protection of the child, but the spirit of involvement in the problem of the child is still lacking in the civilized world.

In support of my viewpoint concerning this attitude towards the child, I should like to quote to hon. members certain cases of cruelty by White parents to White children in South Africa. Since 1974 the following cases of ill-treatment of children have occurred, and I am quoting headlines from South African newspapers: “Couple ill-treated their baby”; “Baby’s arm and leg fractured, father imprisoned”; “Baby injured, two in court”; “Naked child chased with stick”; “Child had to beg for water”; and “Three-year old child hit with pick handle.”

Mr. Speaker, do you remember these incidents, and can you still see them taking place in your mind’s eye? People have already forgotten about this and the murderers are still free. That is as far as I want to go with newspaper headings.

I now want to read hon. members an extract from a newspaper report—

I go on to quote from another report—

I quote further from yet another newspaper report—

Sir, I saw that. It was not merely a matter of injuries, but there were actually holes in the body and the head of the child. I want to quote from the final newspaper report—

I have quoted these various gruesome examples of cruelty to children here, and I ask myself why children are ill-treated in this brutal fashion. I suggest that the primary reason for this state of affairs is the attitude towards the child. Society is obsessed with the idea that a particular child belongs only to a particular family and is an asset only to that family. A child’s parent or stepparent or guardian has rights over such a child, often without the sense of responsibility that a parent should have. Society recognizes those rights. There is a sort of indifference towards the children of other couples and towards children in general. The second reason is our belief that a woman is instinctively adequately equipped for her task of motherhood. In my view, this conception is wrong. Emphasis should be placed on the training of a girl, so that ultimately she will be able to be motherly towards her child.

To me, the concept “motherliness” means the tender handling of the baby by the mother, the caressing of the child and the feeding, especially the breast feeding of the child. This means that a mother hugs her child and treats him with love throughout the day. As against this there is the concept of “mothering”. A baby that plays with a doll, washes its hands and lays it down, but seldom hugs it. To me, the concept of “mothering” merely means the physical methods of training, the clothing of the child, the care of its health, etc. For this, there is both pre-natal and post-natal instruction available to the mother, but there is no real instruction in respect of motherliness. It is said that our daughters are being taught how to do pottery, needlework and flower arrangement, but that they are not learning how to be mothers. Motherliness simply has to be acquired along the way and learned and applied in married life with all its problems, to a child that is often born too early in the mother’s lifetime.

Why do people ill-treat children like that? What is the view on this? The view of psychologists is that these people have emotional personality problems and many other aberrations. However, my love for a child makes me so subjective that I should prefer rather not to take up a standpoint on this matter. Whatever the reasons for cruelty to children might be, the time has come to establish a register of cases of cruelty to children. Such a register should contain a record of any assault on children, by whomsoever committed. The register should also contain details of cases of parents deserting their children, and any offences committed against children should also be recorded in this register. This register should also contain detailed particulars such as fingerprints and full names and addresses. There should not merely be a reference to Mrs. X, Mrs. C or Mrs. H so that the women concerned can be protected if they move to other places with their husbands and simply continue inflicting the same sort of harm on their remaining children. All relevant information in regard to the assaults should be recorded. If, by means of this register, proper track is kept of any offences against children, there will be sources of reference for psychologists, social workers and other persons, so that assaults will not be seen in isolation. It will then be possible to undertake detailed studies. Such a report will be submitted to Parliament every year, and the problem and its magnitude will receive the necessary attention of Parliament. There are statistics today on how many children have died from unnatural causes. Fingerprints have been taken of children who have died as a result of torture, but there are no details of the various cases I have mentioned.

If we want to view a particular problem in its entirety, if we want to study the problem parents and the problem child, we have to ensure that wherever the parents move, they should report to the nearest social welfare office so that the family can continue to receive attention. In the first place, they will then be aware that an eye is being kept on them. I should like to request that this register or report be submitted to Parliament every year so that the child and its problems will receive the attention they deserve and so that we can improve the attitude towards children and identify further problems.

In order to show how complex the situation is, I want to give an example to show how a child is sometimes held responsible for the misdeeds of its parents. In my example I want to use two boys, John and Gerald. They attend the same school. John’s parents are well-to-do, live in a well-to-do area, regularly pay his school funds, and assist him with his homework. He is praised at school. Gerald’s parents are alcoholics and live in a poor industrial area. The school funds are never paid. He does not possess a school uniform and cannot participate in any sport for which a monetary contribution is required. John is called to the front of the class and his work, which has often been done by his mother or which she has often helped him do, is displayed. He is praised; his personality is strengthened. Gerald is called to the front of the class to show the pupils what one should not be like. He is held up as a poor example. One cannot use such an example if there is no soul in the body. He is called to the front to be punished. He is punished for the misdeeds of his parents. Already in grade I he has to shoulder the responsibility for the weaknesses of his parents.

The question arises: What is the psychological effect of this backward position on the child? The child who enjoys fewer privileges, is therefore held responsible for misdeeds to which he is not a party. Although a child of seven is not accountable for his actions in the eyes of the law, he has to endure the punishment at that early age for events over which he has no control.

Now the child begins playing truant. He stays away from school more and more and seeks little friends who have the same problems and are on the same problem level as himself. Authors hold the view that unjust treatment of children who do not find themselves on the same level as other children, is the major reason for truancy. As we know, statistics show that truants later become criminals.

Did you never play truant?

Authors who study subcultures have contended that children who play truant display criminal tendencies later on and that they grow up to be criminals. Many authors have maintained this. There are authors in America who hold the view that in fact schools sometimes contribute to the criminality of the child.

People prefer that one should go down on one’s knees when discussing a child, that one should conceal what happens to a child. I am prepared to stand upright when the facts in relation to a child have to be revealed. There are people who want to make political capital out of the lives of children. There are people who want to steer one away from the subject when one talks about it. There are people who deliberately ill-treat children.

I was a teacher in a city and I have experience of these things happening. Children were brought to my home and left in my care while the parents had gone on holiday. It is inconceivable that this can happen. When the child comes home at night, the door is locked and the father and mother have gone off without leaving a message on that door and without saying goodbye to the child or telling him that they will be back in 14 days. What does one do in such a case? The father and mother remain the parents and guardians of that child because they have given expression to an animal instinct. They ought no longer to be regarded as the parents of that child. If they no longer want to accept responsibility for the child, it should be taken away from them until such time as they do accept responsibility for it. However, they should never be allowed to neglect that child. Only 2,4% of all the children in our childrens’ homes are orphans. Some people always think of a child as something one feeds as one does a dog. If its stomach is full, these people are satisfied. They do not regard a child as someone with a soul, a spirit and a body that has to grow. Such a child has no future, because they are not interested in it. They are always afraid of what other people might think or say. That is the reason why throughout the entire world—and not only in South Africa—there is such improper treatment of children. We do not want to accept the fact that day in and day out, children are being physically and mentally ill-treated by people with more money than sense. This is the case throughout the world.

The valuable work being done in our institutions today, is of a very high standard. However, a parent can destroy this good work when he comes and removes the child from the institution at the age of 16 and makes him a draught-animal and worker so that he can be the provider for his drunkard father or mother. We should change the relevant legislation. We should see to it that the guardian who never wants to accept responsibility and who has only a biological connection with the child and nothing else, is deprived of his rights. Orphanages often receive requests that a child should be removed from school to be of assistance to its mother. I have in the past investigated such a case and found that the mother was a person with bad habits, someone who had the same background as her own child. This phenomenon is becoming more and more widespread and every day people become entangled in such a situation.

People do not stand up to state their conviction. People wear blinkers when they consider the child. They do not want to bear the responsibility. If an animal lies there whining, they will pick it up, but if a man passes a a child lying groaning in pain on the floor next to him, he will walk past. It may be his child. Perhaps he is the father. There is a possibility that he has a connection. There is no involvement with the child. I ask today that there should be involvement on our part in the actual harm that is still being inflicted on children. The child should be regarded as a whole, as our legacy for a better future.

Mr. Speaker, I must confess immediately that I am a little confused after listening to the speech of the hon. member. The motion as it stands has to do with appreciation to the Government for opportunities and in particular an acknowledgment of the role that mothers play in the education and the provision for the full development of the child. I would have thought that we would get sort of amplification of that motion rather than almost entirely the pointing out—which needs to be done—of child abuse which takes place in society today. However, let me say that we are indebted to the hon. member for Langlaagte for reminding us in South Africa and in the world to especially remember children in this the Year of the Child, 1979. It is right that we in this House also—not only in this debate, but also in future debates— should bear that in mind. I also know that the hon. the Minister under whose portfolio this falls, the hon. member for Umbilo, myself and others are grateful that the hon. member for Langlaagte has also now joined those of us who for a number of years have been trying to draw to the attention of this House and of the general public the abuse which takes place against the helpless child. The hon. member has reminded us of the question: Who speaks for the child? Very often the child is unable to speak for himself. In a recent address given in Johannesburg Prof. Tobias had this to say—

Certainly the hon. member has made that point very strongly today. At first sight, in a normal society, the motion appearing on the Order Paper—not the speech so much but the motion appearing on the Order Paper—is innocuous and deserving of unqualified support. But South Africa is not a normal society, and I shall return to this aspect a little later in my speech.

When we are concentrating on the opportunities afforded by any Government in any country, opportunities for children— which is the heart of the motion—we have to ask the question: What indeed are the paramount needs of children in order that they may grow and develop into adulthood? Obviously, adequate food and shelter are paramount. This is obvious and goes without saying, however, with the qualification that unfortunately in many parts of the world, which includes our own country in many aspects, there are children who are denied even basic food and shelter. One therefore cannot take even this simply for granted.

If one looks beyond this, however, I believe that the opportunities which must be afforded children in South Africa by the Government include the gift of a sense of self worth and self respect, because no matter how much mistreatment may come his or her way and no matter how deprived that child may be economically and even though sometimes the food may be inadequate or not what he or she would like and even if the house is very humble, if that child is given the priceless gift of self worth and self respect, then I believe the child is half way on the way towards becoming a responsible adult.

In a recent essay competition in the Year of the Child a number of children in the USA and other parts of the world were asked to write an essay on their own view of themselves and their creation. I want to quote only the concluding lines of one such essay written by a very small child—

I believe that is absolutely right. It is the beginning of self worth, of self respect, if there can be inculcated in the child the truth that it is unique, that it belongs to God because it was made by God and for Him. This gives the child an opportunity second to none.

If the child knows that it is a unique creation with a sense of destiny and purpose, possessed with human dignity, then I believe that that child will hold its head high, no matter what the circumstances may be. Secondly I believe that the child must be given the opportunity to have a feeling of being accepted, of having a place; knowing that it is not rejected, but has a place in society, a place in its family, a place in the scheme of things. The child must have a feeling of being wanted.

A feeling of belonging.

Yes, I agree with that. A child should have a feeling of belonging.

If those feelings are denied to it, then the child itself feels that it is living in a hostile environment and its reaction and response will be equally hostile. If the child feels that there is acceptance, that there is a place where it belongs, as the hon. the Minister says, then its response is: Because I belong to the society and because I am accepted here, I can make my contribution.

In the third place I believe that in the opportunities which the Government and other Governments in the world must afford children, the child must have the right to be equipped to deal with a rapidly changing environment and to have access to the skills which it requires to play a role in the development of its own society.

Therefore, with those three points in mind, I should like to sum up by saying that the opportunities given and afforded to children must give them a sense both of privilege and responsibility: Privilege that they live, that they have access, that they have self worth, that they have a sense of human dignity and a feeling of acceptance and belonging and the skills to play their part in the development of society. The child should realize that it is a privilege to live and to be and it must accept the responsibility to make it possible for others to live and to be. Having now spoken to the one major leg of this motion, I want to return to what I said right at the beginning. Under normal circumstances one would want to give unqualified support to this motion. However, we do not live in normal times and in a normal society. Therefore emphasis must be placed on the disparity in the opportunities offered to children of different groups in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Oh no, are you going to bring politics into this motion now?

Mr. Speaker, I expected some response of that kind from members opposite. However, my responsibility is not merely to the hon. member for Langlaagte. My responsibility is to all the children living in South Africa in particular. There is no question that in many parts of the world these disparities occur.

You are a racist!

There is, however, no way …

You are a racist!

Order! The hon. member for Kuruman must withdraw that word.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that the hon. member for Kuruman should treat so lightly this important point which is being made. If only he would listen, he would realize that there are disparities in the opportunities afforded to different groups of children in South Africa. [Interjections.] This is a fact of life. It is acknowledged even on the Government side of the House now.

In other words, one must commend on the one hand the Government’s work in education, in housing, in hospitalization, in laws which are on our Statute Book and which protect the child and give further opportunities. That I do. However, on the other hand, I still say that the disparities which exist are a contradiction to the praise which must be given to the Government. It is particularly important to remember this. It is a point also made by Prof. Tobias, when he reminds us that children under the age of 14 years living in South Africa comprise 45% of the South African Coloured population, and 44% of the Black community, whereas amongst Whites and Indians the percentage matches the 20% to 30% prevalent in Western countries. In other words, under 45% of the Coloured and the Black population—if I must use those terms—in South Africa are under 14 years old. This means that the Government, and we in this House, have an enormous responsibility, not only to the children referred to by the hon. member for Langlaagte, but to all children, so that the very children that he is most concerned about will survive.

When I talk about these disparities, I think for example of the general mood of prejudice which prevails in South Africa, a colour prejudice. When I first came to this House the hon. the Minister of Defence, now also the hon. the Prime Minister, accused me and said in so many words that he was after my blood. That was in 1974. [Interjections.] One of the reasons he gave was that—as he said—I had stated on a public platform—and that it had also been reported in the Press—that to be born Black was to be born with the kiss of death. [Interjections.]

Yes, it is outrageous that you could have said that.

To this day it is outrageous that you could have said such a thing.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members who were awake at the time will recall … [Interjections.] … that I spoke and reminded hon. members in this House that I actually did not use those words. [Interjections.] I explained that, talking with a group of young Black university students, they said to me: “In our view, to be born Black is to be born with the kiss of death.” [Interjections.] This is why it is so difficult to get any point across to hon. members on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Does he blame this Government for the disparities he refers to?

Yes, without a doubt. I am sorry the hon. member did not get the point. I will try to develop that point.

You are really an unholy priest.

That is another typical kind of comment which is common from that side of the House. It may well be true, but what is at least true is that not once to my knowledge have I sought to make unholy that which is holy, namely the child. Anyone who has a grain of understanding of what education is about, will know that it is not only what is true and factual that matters. Perception is so important. It is the child’s perception of his own condition which shapes his decisions and life. If it is his perception that he is not wanted and that he does not belong and is second class, it will determine his attitude in society. That is exactly what we have to guard against in South Africa. If hon. members did not like the first example, let me give another and up to date example.

Yesterday a young women sat in my office in Parliament. This teenager had just applied for a book of life and it had been returned to her. She was in deep distress. Why? According to the document which has been handed to her, she has been classified as Coloured even though she had lived her whole life of 18½ years thinking she was White. My immediate response to her was that she should not be ashamed to be who she was. However, she then said to me in her own words: “But you do not understand. In South Africa there is a stigma about being Coloured.” That is her perception of the society in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must try to confine himself to the motion.

I am talking about opportunities and disparities of opportunities. But I will abide by your rulings. The disparities include education, housing, job opportunities and the denial, in many instances, of family life. Opportunities are unequal. The ultimate goal for the overwhelming majority of children in South Africa is not that they should be full citizens of South Africa. There is a world of difference between a “useful citizen”—the words of the motion—and full citizenship.

Coming to the role of mothers, it is unfortunate that the hon. member has left out the role of fathers in his motion. I do not know why. The role of mothers is, of course, important, but one of the developments in the society of today is that both mother and father must and should accept responsibility for their children. However, when we think of the self-sacrifice that mothers have made and are making on behalf of children, we must also bear in mind—we would be running away from the truth if we did not do this— that one of the greatest calls on self-sacrifice on mothers in South Africa, is that so many mothers have to perform the role of father and mother because of migrant labour. That is the fact of life, and it is no use running away from it. It is a denial of family life. That is why it is necessary to have a mother and a father in one family doing their work.

I remember mothers coming to my home, mothers I have never seen before, who said to me that they were not going to leave my house until I have helped them to find their children who had been arrested and four o’clock in the morning. I can remember mothers whose children were arrested, jailed, some of them beaten and banned, driven from the country and some deprived. What must we say then about the role of the mother? Do we have to ignore this? Do we just have to overlook this or must we face this honestly and when we salute motherhood, speak about the total situation in South Africa and not only one aspect?

Finally, I want to say that a child is in large measure shaped by environment and the policy of the Government has in many instances led to estrangement, and a hallmark of this is suspicion, distrust, misunderstanding and disrespect, all leading to conflict. That is why we begin to hear new voices urging us to find ways and means for all children in the South Africa of the future to meet together. We are so isolated, so suspicious of each other, so fearful of each other and do not know each other. The Government should afford the opportunity for all the children of South Africa to find each other and to build the future.

In summary I want to say that it is a tragedy that we have a system which does not enable all young people in South Africa to realize their full potential. Events in recent years have demonstrated that this can and does drive some young people to militancy. This is our scandal; this is our sorrow, and if we do not change, also the destruction of an orderly, peaceful society.

I therefore move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me in this particular debate today to be able to follow the hon. member for Pinelands. Referring to the child, he said: “It is a priceless gift: the sense of self-worth and self-respect.” This truth applies to every person, even though he lives and develops in the simplest of circumstances. It applies to the small Black child, to his parents’ home and the tribal life where the greatest simplicity prevails. But that is not the challenge facing us. The major problem is to help the child—White, Brown or Black—so to improve the quality of his life that he does not remain static with these values, but, notwithstanding the circumstances with which he has to contend daily, is able to evolve and fend for himself and develop into a responsible citizen within the context of the peoples of this country. That is the challenge and one must be sincere and honest and ask the Government—which the hon. member for Pinelands criticized severely at the end of his speech—if it is contributing its share to the development of the child across the whole spectrum of nations in South Africa.

I should like to refer to one aspect in particular. In the provision of Black education within White areas, we find an increased tempo in the provision of schoolrooms and physical facilities—because these raise the quality of the training—to the extent that from 1977 to the end of 1978, four schoolrooms were erected for every working day of the week. If we base that on school days, it means that five schoolrooms were erected every school day. That is a remarkable achievement. When we consider the diversity of services provided to children of diverse qualities, abilities, handicaps, and so on, I should like to refer the hon. member for Pinelands to the annual report of the Department of Plural Relations and Development. This is available to us. On page 8 we see all that has been made available for these people, and let us say it frankly, people who are neutrally handicapped and suffer from a whole series of handicaps. Let us look at what is available to them, and I am not speaking only of those in the White area, but also those in the Black areas. When we consider what is available for them, we see that the Government, with the means at its disposal, is making a sincere effort to provide for the needs of these people. I shall not even mention all the other organizations. Other speakers will probably refer to them later. I can refer that hon. member to the sphere of the church, which he knows very well. What are those organizations not doing? What are the Whites not doing to help blind children? My wife was herself a judge for the Maandagshoek blind childrens’ choirs. The choristers were small Black children who were blind. What are we not doing to hold out a hand to those people? I want to say therefore that this hon. member sounded a false note here today when he made the accusation that our people are not doing their share. Having made these few remarks, I shall let that matter rest because I should now like to come to the theme of my speech.

I should like to associate myself with this motion, in particular the portion dealing with the special role played by the wife and mother in the training of the child, and of course the youth, of our nation. By way of introduction I should like to project three images for hon. members in the House, but I do not do so with bitterness. To project these images, I shall have to go back into history, because we have to take history along with us from day to day. After all, that is where the roots of our existence are to be found.

On one occasion Sakkie Eloff, the architect, and Anton van Vouw, the great sculptor, were instructed to create an image from the Anglo-Boer war, which would serve as a memorial to womankind. They went to Emily Hobhouse and asked her if she could give them a description from which they could create this image. She thereupon said the following, and I quote her words—

I quote from the description of the scene by Emily Hobhouse—

And now the image—

We forget the bitterness and the struggle of that time. And it was the great English author, Rudyard Kipling, who wrote the following words on the passing of Gen. Joubert—

That is one great example of a mother who made her sacrifice.

Now I want to project another image. The scene is Park Station in Johannesburg where we stood in September 1974 when the Nelspruit train pulled in with the refugees from Mozambique. Maria Coucicao, a woman 76 years old, a refugee from Mozambique, was sitting on a cheap cardboard suitcase. She had left behind her loved ones buried under the red earth of Africa. There sat the mother, stunned, amongst the milling feet of the multitudes in a strange country. She was weeping, but yet another fragment of Africa was free! Another fragment, another piece of land, was free! We can say: But after all this is Africa, that unruly child that exiles its presidents, murders its monarchs, forces emperors off their thrones, embraces and shelters terrorists, but has no respect for its grandmothers. That is the image of yet another mother.

Then there is one final image I want to project. The date is 2 November 1977. On that day I stood with a mother next to the grave of her son in Balfour, Transvaal. The woman was the widow, Anna Kruger. Red earth was falling into that grave too. Her son had died on the border. She was a widowed mother and worked as a matron in a hostel. Her only charge had died, but in dying he had provided for her, because he left her a policy of R60 000. She wept because red earth was falling on the coffin of a child, a child of the fatherland; but through the tears she became for me, just as Golda Meir became for Israel, the collective symbol of all the mothers in the country, the sounding board of an unbreakable spirit and of the will of those of us living here today, to create a better future for our people, the nations in this country. There was no bitterness in that mother. There was no bitterness in her tears. She was in fact uttering a song of praise for the sovereignty and independence and striving of a nation which will pay any price to achieve self-expression in a country with opportunities for all its peoples.

Let us look for a moment at the substance and person of this human being, the woman, of whom Totius wrote—

To these human beings, women, has been given the great gift by the Great Artist, that she and she alone possesses the ability to transmit biological life from generation to generation. For us as males, this is a strange world which we do not enter. She brings forth the generations who stand on each other’s shoulders and carry civilization forward. Within her is the motive force to provide for the procreation of a people, that procreation which starts on a microscopic scale and grows to adulthood. Because she has been allocated that gift and alone possesses that power, she has other qualities, and her love— that which we call love—is wider than the boundaries of time and space, her love is richer and deeper than understanding and reason, her love is the sun and the man and the family are heavenly bodies circling her sphere.

That is why she is able to look ahead through the tears, that is why she can see beyond the chasm and step over the grave; that is why she can come to us, to us as Parliament, to us as the Government and to the Cabinet and say: Here are my sons and here are my daughters; they are available for service to the country. Like young eagles they must rise in the air above our nation. They must become farmers who can face adversity. They must become engineers who build dams, build bridges and build another Sasol. They must become doctors who do not flee the country. They must become the leaders of the peoples with whom they live. They must stand in the front line of our Defence Force and if they die, they must die. That is why we have the right to demand these qualities of her. We have the right to demand idealism and a life of endeavour of her children. We have the right to demand a venturesome spirit of her children. We have the right to demand of her that her children should have the quality of perseverance. We have the right to demand that they should have integrity and we have the right—and as hon. members will know, this is one of our greatest values—to ask that her children should have faith in this country.

The mother’s home is the anchor of a sound nucleus in our communities, a nucleus from which we grow. She holds the fort against the influence of the mass media which force themselves into her home. She must hold her course, and that is why we as the House of Assembly today thank the mother as the central figure in our family life.

Permit me, Mr. Speaker, to mention certain ladies by name. We would like to say thank you to the young women of the Women’s Army College at George. Those women inspire all our young meh who go to the border. We thank those young girls for giving up their time to be trained as an officer corps. We also thank the women’s police force for the outstanding work they are doing for us.

My speech would be incomplete if I did not express my thanks for the role and task performed by the honoured wife of our State President, Mrs. Tini Vorster. She personifies the greatness and the beauty of our nation and our people. I say “Thank you” to Mrs. Alethea Jansen, a Brown woman who as leader of her nation took up the leadership when it was so necessary to help her people. We thank her for the great sacrifice she has made. In the first instance she is the mother of a family and in the second instance she has unquestionably acted as the leader of her people who will lead them to full maturity.

We thank Mrs. Johanna Raath of the S.A. Vrouefederasie for the charitable services and neighbourly love she has shown for the many old age homes—we had a debate on this just a few days ago—nursery schools and orphanages which fall under her care.

We thank Mrs. Elizabeth Albrecht for launching the Southern Cross Fund through which she undertook to collect funds for the benefit of our men on the border.

We thank Mrs. Ria Becker, the national president of the Women’s Agricultural Union, and her people for the tremendous work they have done in their field.

We thank Mrs. Virginia Sebé of Ciskei. She is the first Black lady of that society and a cultured person who has to act at Government level and receive people of the highest rank, but who in her humility says that she chooses to be a nurse and housewife for her family.

They are all great people. This House expresses its thanks to every mother who makes her contribution, no matter how humble, from her modest home. Thank you for our sons and daughters and for the faith and perseverance. May we create a future in which our youth together with the youth of other nations in this country will join in a great symphony under the baton of the Great Conductor.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Standerton dealt almost exclusively with the part played by the women and mothers of South Africa. I am sure all of us in this House wholeheartedly endorse what he has said in regard to the courage and fortitude of the mothers and women of South Africa. One can obviously have no quarrel with that point of view.

The hon. member for Pinelands, who spoke before the hon. member for Standerton, dealt with another aspect in respect of the position of members of other race groups. One can sympathize with the point of view he has expressed, because obviously in dealing with a motion such as this, we must deal with all the children of South Africa. However, we in these benches have a slightly different approach. We should rather like to approach this subject by looking at the position of the privileged child and the underprivileged child. We believe there exists a tremendous disparity between them. There is still a tremendous field to be covered in regard to the provision of adequate care and the improvement of the quality of life for the underprivileged child to make him a useful citizen of this country. I wish to deal with this subject more or less along those lines.

I believe the hon. member for Langlaagte should be congratulated for introducing a motion of this nature in 1979, the International Year of the Child. We can see the reasoning because this debate is an opportunity to bring about in this country an awareness of the position of the child in South Africa. After all, the child is one of the most valuable assets we can have as it ensures the future of our country, our wealth, the quality of life in the future. The safety and development of the children of today is indeed of vital importance.

Earlier this year I asked the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions a question concerning the part the Government might play in the international Year of the Child. He replied that the Government did not officially recognize the international Year of the Child, but that it had been decided that a preliminary meeting would be held with the S.A. National Council for Child and Family Welfare together with other interested organizations with a view to planning the international Year of the Child. I hope that when the hon. the Minister replies—as I understand he will do during the course of this debate—he will give some indication as to what positive role his department will play in this particular regard. As this is the United Nations’ idea we realize the difficulties because of South Africa’s unfortunate suspension from the rights and privileges of Unicet, a body of that organization. However, it is important that we should on this occasion also ensure that we review the situation as far as the care of the child in South Africa is concerned. The decision to have 1979 as the international Year of the Child commemorates the declaration of the rights of the child. I think it would be appropriate to place on record that declaration of the rights of the child, as I believe that if we take this as a guideline and as a yardstick, we can improve our situation in South Africa. The declaration states—

If we view 1979 with the declaration of the rights of the child in view, we can achieve much to improve the position in South Africa for our future citizens, for our future adults in this country. We know that various steps have been taken in the past. The hon. member for Langlaagte referred to some of these in regard to the history and development of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. We know that this department was established in 1937, and I would like to pay tribute to the positive contribution and aspects of the functioning of that department. Today we are basically dealing with social welfare matters concerning the care of the child, and I believe that it is appropriate that Parliament as an institution should place on record its gratitude to the officials of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for what they have already achieved. We know that various pieces of legislation have been passed from time to time to try to improve the position. If one goes back in history to the first Children’s Act, the child protection legislation, one could go back some 40 years. However, in 1960 we had the Children’s Act, which was a major revision of the 1937 Act and by means of which certain steps were taken to improve the position. After a period of nearly 20 years I think the time has come for the Government to take steps to bring about a further revision of the Children’s Act so as to cater for changing circumstances that have occurred over the past 20 years.

The hon. the Minister indicated earlier this year, in reply to a question, that no legislation was contemplated this year. I hope that some legislation will be forthcoming next year in an endeavour to revise the Children’s Act so as to bring about a more realistic situation in dealing with the number of problems concerning the child. The hon. member for Langlaagte mentioned child abuse. Indeed, he devoted a good portion of his time to that question. I hope that perhaps he, with his awareness of this very unfortunate development which has taken place in recent times, could come forward in his community, in his area or in his province, and do something in this regard. Welfare organizations have endeavoured for some time to highlight this problem. In Durban where we have a child abuse unit, steps were taken to try to bring about an improvement in the situation. In this respect I believe it is necessary that the Government should ensure that registers are kept in regard to child abuse—as they are kept in other countries— which will assist in the identification of multiple abuse in the same family, in the development of intervention and treatment programmes, and in the provision of a base for further definition of the phenomenon and an education programme aimed at the public about the nature and extent of the problem.

The social treatment and consultation services provided by welfare organizations must be encouraged by the department to ensure the development of this work which can bring about a prevention to some extent of the phenomenon which has developed in more recent times. There should be further investigation and ways and means should be found to assist the welfare organizations which have units known as “the non-accidental injury to children units”, but normally they are referred to as “child-abuse units”.

Welfare organizations come across problems resulting from economic stress and the breaking up of family life. We know that the very essence of bringing up a child in security, is to have a secure family life and a secure family unit. The large increase in failure of marriages and divorces is a tragedy for South Africa, and in nearly all cases the greatest sufferers are children, of course. During a period of economic stress and strain we see the breaking up of numerous families with the result that welfare organizations and agencies have to carry an enormous case load. This has happened particularly over the past few years.

We have seen how mothers, often with very young children, have had to go to work. This phenomenon affects the whole question of child care centres, and one is grateful to note from the estimates that money is made available to such centres. In all the major cities there is nevertheless a tremendous shortage of care centres for all race groups. Various organizations have taken steps, but funds are limited. Suitable staff has to be found for these care centres and a high standard must be achieved and maintained in such centres. These centres play an important role in helping the development of a child whose mother, through economic circumstances, has to seek employment. These centres must be of such a high standard that the mother can leave her child there with the knowledge and confidence that her child will be well cared for. It is true that the mother plays a very important part in the education of a child, but by force of circumstances there are many mothers who are unable to do so. We therefore have to find ways and means aimed at the improvement of the situation in so far as child care centres are concerned.

This leads me to the next aspect. Surely it is advisable to place more emphasis on child care centres to prevent the situation that, when a child’s behaviour or home circumstances deteriorate to a certain extent, such a child has to be dealt with as a child in need of care in terms of the provisions of the Children's Act. Child care centres constitute a system which is worthy of support because such a system ensures that children can be kept with their families. Social workers tell us that a child will always prefer being with its mother to being placed in some institution. An institution should only be considered as a last resort.

The Children’s Act has over the years been considered the children’s charter, but it should be revised and adjusted particularly in so far as it deals with adoption. If we wish to see children maintained and brought up in the family unit, then those for whom such family unfortunately no longer exists, or is of too low a standard, must be adopted. It is therefore very important to have a close look at the provisions of the Act dealing with adoption. Although the 1960 Act did make it slightly easier for a person to adopt a child who is deserted and has been in an institution for more than two years—the parents’ consent is dispensed with in certain circumstances—it has been surprising to see that the number of registered adoptions in terms of the Children’s Act have not increased to any great extent, but showed a decline in 1978. In 1978 there were 2 769 adoptions as against nearly 3 000 in 1976. These figures show that the procedures for adoption should be streamlined to meet our changing circumstances. Then, if adoption is not possible, another possibility is of course that of foster-care. The reason why I refer to this is because I consider it important that children should be kept out of children’s institutions and children’s homes if at all possible. In spite of the magnificent work done by such homes and institutions there is no doubt that the family unit is of far greater importance. For children to receive a greater degree of love and affection, certainly adoption or foster-care is a more suitable answer than for them to be placed in children’s homes or institutions. It is true though that foster-care is a question which requires careful consideration.

For some reason or other members of the South African public do not seem to come forward to offer themselves as foster-parents. Perhaps the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions can play some role in encouraging people, during this International Year of the Child, especially by giving more publicity to the subject of foster-care. In this way it can be ensured that when foster-parents take a child into their care that child will be cared for in terms of existing legislation and will not be summarily removed from their care, something which often causes tremendous heartache to both foster-parents and foster-children.

It is interesting to note that there are at the present moment some 24 372 children in the care of foster-parents in South Africa. Of that number some 14 458 children are of the Coloured community. It is also interesting to note that, among the Coloured community, sufficient numbers of people offer themselves as foster-parents. Nevertheless, we know that the demand among that community is still very great.

One other matter I should wish to refer to in this regard is the question of children’s homes. The figures reveal to us that there are nearly 10 000 children of all race groups in children’s homes throughout South Africa. We also know that the organizations administering children’s homes do everything possible to try to create a homely atmosphere. However, I believe that committing a child to a children’s home or institution should always be regarded as a last resort. It is far better to try to solve the problem by finding a home for children where they can live in the care of foster-parents, or even better still, as adopted children. As I indicated earlier, the children’s care centres really require a great deal of attention.

Talking about underprivileged children, about children who are not afforded the same opportunities as privileged children, also brings to mind another group of children in South Africa, children who also require assistance, children who also have to live under disadvantageous circumstances. I am referring now to illegitimate children in South Africa. The only figures available in this regard are those for the White, Coloured and Indian groups. For the Black population group there are no figures at all. It is an alarming state of affairs to note that these figures now exceed 40 000 a year. Therefore, the position of the illegitimate child requires special attention. This brings me to the question of the many disadvantages under which the illegitimate child has to live. Legislation in other parts of the world, including New Zealand, reveals that certain rights of illegitimate children are taken into account. Among those rights, one of the most important ones is the right of an illegitimate child to adopt the name of one of his parents. I believe that the whole question of the illegitimate child should receive great consideration by the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister, who was formerly a Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, is a man whom we welcome to this portfolio. We know he is a compassionate person. Indeed, we in these benches congratulate him on his appointment. We are looking forward to positive results coming from the hon. the Minister’s occupancy of this portfolio. Here, of course, the question of the illegitimate child, as well as the question of changes required in the existing legislation, are matters that also concern the hon. the Minister of Justice. I do not wish to pursue this matter any further. I only want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions will perhaps negotiate and discuss this problem with the hon. the Minister of Justice. Then, at a later stage, legislation may be introduced in order to bring about a situation in which the illegitimate child will have a fairer deal in South Africa, and will also be able to be afforded the opportunities which other more privileged children are able to enjoy.

We believe that this debate is a vitally important one at this stage in the history of South Africa, and indeed, at this stage in world history. We believe that the child is our most precious asset. Every effort must therefore be made to see that every child, irrespective of race, origin, sex, colour or religion, should be given the opportunity to fulfil its maximum potential. If every young child is given the opportunity to fulfil its maximum potential, we shall know that the future of this country is on a sound path and assured.

Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in associating myself with what was said by the hon. members for Langlaagte and Standerton in the House this morning. Briefly, what it amounts to is that this motion reflects the tremendous importance of the role played by the State in the education of the child to full citizenship. At the same time there is also the irreplaceable role which the wife and mother plays in the training and full development of the personality of the child. I should also like to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon. member for Umbilo.

While I listened to what the hon. member for Pinelands had to say, I must however stress that very pertinent note should be taken of certain statements made in the House this morning. I agree in the main with the fine things which the hon. member said this morning. But I cannot agree with him when he says “the South African society is not a normal society”. In my humble view, we live in a heterogenous society, consisting of differing communities. These communities in turn consist of differing structures. If we were to split them up, we would see that there are also family structures. One of the most wonderful qualities of this heterogenous society in which we live is to my mind the fact that each community is unique, wonderful and divine.

I believe that everybody in this country should respect and appreciate one another. But I cannot agree with the hon. member for Pinelands when he says that we are an abnormal society. He refers specifically to the race differences which exist and which are supposedly exploited by the Government in the sense that not enough is done for the other communities. He also made a quotation from one of his previous speeches when he was talking to a number of young students. I believe if his heart was in the right place, he could have meant a lot to them. I do wonder, though, what ideas he left behind with those people.

I should like to make a friendly request of the hon. member this morning—not as an excolleague, because I do not think we are equally holy in a specific sphere—to stop turning Black people into White people. In doing this he is making misfits of these people. The hon. member is using White yardsticks to assess the Black society. He overlooks the fantastic natural qualities which God has given to every member of a society —here I include myself because I am also part of this great heterogenous community in South Africa.

I want to tell the hon. member that I know of thousands of proud people of other colour groups who refuse to be forced into the straitjacket of the PFP’s levelling and eqalitarian liberalism. I hope later to find a text with which to bring this home to him more effectively. I do not want to waste my time on him any further, however, except to tell the hon. member that he is totally out of touch, and is unable to assess properly the soul and essence of all the other communities in this wonderful country with its wonderful people.

I think it is necessary, when considering the motion before the House to ask what is important and which specific matters must be given attention. Numerous aspects of great importance have been mentioned. One aspect of the utmost importance which should be given special attention, is that when talking of the child and the woman, we are dealing with people who are involved in a particularly problematical situation. One can talk of the problematical situation of the modern woman as mother and that of the child in the modern society in which we all live. I want to state categorically that the child or the woman who lived in the middle ages, or 150 years ago, or who was born and lived before the Second World War, is fundamentally different from the people who were born and grew up and developed after the Second World War. I should like to motivate this statement by giving two examples from the specific field of experience of the woman and the child. When in relation to the woman one looks at the changed life, the climacteric, one sees that in the middle ages, women had undergone this phase by the age of 40 years. By 1830 the age at which this change of life phase occurred, had risen to 45 years, and at present it occurs at the age of 50 years.

Modern man is undergoing changes under our very eyes without our noticing them. Regarding the child, I want to say the same thing and also give an illustration. An acute, real problem with which each young person has to wrestle today is the problem of masturbation. This problem was not discussed in textbooks 150 years ago, but it is the problem of the day for each young person. There are very good reasons for this. Previously, social maturity and physical maturity went hand in hand. Today the contrary is true: Physical maturity precedes psychic and emotional maturity. As an example I might mention that about 150 years ago, or maybe somewhat later, the future President Kruger was fully capable at 16 years of entering into marriage with a 14- year-old girl. They could accept the responsibilities of marriage. They could take on the responsibility of parenthood and everything that went with it. One could not conceive of today’s 16-year-old and 14-year-old adolescents becoming parents and accepting the responsibilities of these modern times with its modern problems and circumstances, taking them on and making a success of it.

The fact of the matter is that ten years of procreation are lost in the modern society in which we live, because of delayed marriages, because young people cannot afford to marry, because of long periods of study and numerous other aspects. Time does not allow me to go into this aspect further.

Certain socio-pathological problems flow from this situation and here I want to refer in particular to the child. These are problems which were also referred to by the hon. member for Langlaagte and other hon. members. I am speaking of problems such as extra-marital relationships, homophiles, lesbianism, sadism, unwanted pregnancy and all manner of similar problems. To understand today’s child within or outside his family context, we must accept that the Second World War was the mental and physical watershed for the Western world. Textbooks written before the Second World War should be relegated to the archives because we are living in a different time in different circumstances.

In conclusion I should just like to mention one matter about which I feel very strongly, and I am very pleased that the hon. member for Langlaagte referred to this. It has also been mentioned by other hon. members, though. I refer to the problem of the numerous children who grow up in orphanages or in the care of foster parents. Their own parents are not concerned about those children and there is absolutely no contact between them any more. As against this there are numerous married couples without children who would very much like to adopt those children. However, sections 72 and 73 of the Childrens’ Act makes this almost impossible. I shall come to the House at a later stage with a much more broadly motivated motion which will ask that consideration be given to this Act and the sections to which I have referred in particular, with a view to making it much easier to have children adopted by married couples who really want them. I want to state the problem very briefly. The problem with these two sections is that after a court order, a period of two years must elapse before children may be regarded as abandoned, and that period must be shortened, so that abandoned children can be adopted sooner and taken in by families again. After all, that is what this motion is all about. This brings us again to the problem child. The adoption of a child is arranged subject to the existing classifications and methods and principles of selection. The brother and sister relationships of the abandoned children must also be considered, so that brothers and sisters are separated from one another as seldom as possible when they go to orphanages or foster parents. The adaptability of the abandoned children must also be considered and there should be an experimental period to decide how the new parents and the child are adjusting to one another. I regard this as a very important problem which we will have to consider in future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I enjoyed the speech of the hon. member for Standerton very much. I believe he put a lot of thought into his speech and expressed a view with which many of us can agree. There is one point, however, on which I would cross swords with him—and I shall do so only very briefly—and that was the point he raised concerning the hon. member for Pinelands having introduced a false note into the debate. [Interjections.]

He did.

It was a “bitterbektoespraak”.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to use the word “bitterbek” about another hon. member?

Order! The hon. member did not use the word in connection with another hon. member.

But who made the speech?

With reference to the speech I shall, allow the hon. member’s remark. I know it is a doubtful issue, but I shall allow it.

Let me tell that hon. member that unless we in South Africa care and prepare for all children there is, in fact, no future for any children in South Africa.

Quite right! That is the point.

That is the point the hon. member for Pinelands was trying to make.

Let me now move from the very nice speech of that hon. member to the speech of the hon. member for Brits who, at the very beginning, said that he was upset about the fact that the hon. member for Pinelands felt that South Africa was not a normal society. He tried to state the contrary. I wish to ask him just a few questions. In what country of the world other than South Africa do children of different colours not even meet each other until they are 16 years of age or more?

In many.

Not at this point in time. In what other country of the world are children of that age and of different colours strangers when they meet, although they live in the same country? We must accept that there are vast discrepancies in the facilities available to the different race groups. We must accept that one section of the community, by law, enjoys family life while another section of the community, by law, very often cannot enjoy family life. We must accept that one section of the community has over the years become a well-endowed section while another section of the community is, while improving, still in the line of poverty. The divide the hon. member spoke about is a divide not on merit, but on race and colour and that is why the hon. member has averred that this is not a normal society. I think there is merit in that argument.

I should like firstly to dwell for a moment on the strict wording of the motion. If this were a relatively homogeneous country, uniformly endowed, and if all enjoyed the benefits described in the motion and in the eulogies of the hon. members for Langlaagte and Standerton, I would have very little fault to find with the motion. The children of the electorate and of our very large immigrant population enjoy a reasonably high standard of education, which is available even to the not so rich at all levels.

You say “reasonably high”?

After school and after university the professions, the Public Service, the trades, the opportunities of the industrial world and the opportunities of the commercial world are open to these people, The vast majority have enjoyed the benefits of family life, family upbringing, the guidance and encouragement of the mother’s hand. As regard the White South African I agree there is much for which we should be grateful.

But, of course, Sir, the Republic does not have a homogeneous population; Nor even does it have a uniformly endowed community. It is a country of vast contrasts, of incredible disparities, of racial inequalities, of differences. The motion, as it stands, bears true relevance to perhaps 18% of the population of the Republic. In testing this motion, however, one must to be fair look at the other side of South Africa’s race barrier.

In total honesty I want to say that even on this terrain the picture is not static, nor totally gloomy. Universities have been established and are turning out graduates in many comers of our country while only 10 years ago such universities did not even exist. For Coloured and Indian children compulsory education is virtually a fact and for Black children the goals, in so far as compulsory education is concerned, have been set and are being worked towards. If we look into the opportunities for young people, we see that job reservation is slowly losing its anachronistic relevance. More training and more job opportunities are being offered in both the public and private sectors. More and more South African and even foreign-owned companies are adopting enlightened codes of conduct in employment practices and are opening up areas of opportunity for young people on merit alone.

So, Mr. Speaker, having stated the situation as fairly as I can, the aspect I wish to discuss is the complacency with which this massive task of education and the creation of opportunities is being tackled, a complacency which I believe exists. I want to emphasize my point with a few statistics. I shall try not to bore hon. members.

The South African population today is approximately 27 million, of whom 4,5 million are Whites. Of those 4,5 million Whites, 1,5 million—33%—are under the age of 14. In order to be brief, I shall now only deal with the figures relating to Blacks. At present there are 19 million Blacks in South Africa. Of those, 8,5 million—about 44%— are under the age of 14. This ratio of young people—Black and White—within our community, is as high as in many countries of the Third World and certainly much higher than in all the Western countries to which we may refer.

There are one or two other sets of figures which must be taken into account when formulating an opinion and a plan of action. Do hon. members know that in the coming years we will have a minimum average growth rate of 2,6% per annum, which means that before the end of this century our population will practically double? Within 21 years from now, the total population of South Africa will be 50 million, of whom 6 million will be White; 5 million, Coloured; 1 million, Indians; and 37 million being members of the Black community of South Africa. I want to say that if the young people of today, and those who will be born within the next three or four years, are to be accommodated in jobs as they enter the labour market, South Africa will have to find or create an average of some 1 500 jobs per day for the next 25 years.

I want to refer to one last figure. In every country the labour force is broken down into roughly three categories: managerial, skilled and unskilled categories. Up to now the Whites have dominated the managerial and skilled sectors. Within 10 years from now, when many hon. members hopefully will still be part of our political life, by 1989, the demands created by our economy in South Africa will be such that the Whites, many of whom are children today, will be in a small minority in all of those three sections, i.e. the managerial, skilled and unskilled sections.

In recent months I have used these statistics, while speaking to foreign visitors I have met and to businessmen, to emphasize the need for investment in South Africa to promote economic growth and to provide the finance with which to bring about the structure and the educational facilities which will cope with these enormous demands. I have used these statistics to argue that investment will promote change and peaceful development while sanctions and boycotts will promote violence and retrogression.

However, today I wish to use the same statistics in a different context, because I believe that they bear even more relevance and convey a more urgent message to the South African legislature and the White people of this country. In that smaller and more hostile world of perhaps a few years from now, with Whites constituting 12% of a population of 50 million people and perhaps providing only one-third of the managerial and skilled services which the country will need, the children of today, if they are to survive and prosper tomorrow, will be subject to at least two preconditions. One is that they come to terms with our own Black people within South Africa, and the second that we must be allowed to live in peace and friendship with our neighbours in Africa and in the Western world. In this regard the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands is of relevance, because that sort of goodwill—both internal goodwill and external goodwill—we cannot hope to create while the Government continues to spend approximately Ry50 per capita per annum on White education and R60 per capita per annum on Black education.

The sort of goodwill this country needs cannot survive while poverty continues to claim 90 deaths in every 1 000 Black births. The sort of partnership that South Africa is going to need in the years that lie ahead cannot come into being while hundreds of thousands of Black children grow up knowing their parents only vaguely as temporary and/ or irregular visitors. In the field of opportunities neither a White civilization nor a prosperous mixed civilization could survive in this tip of Africa side by side if there is job reservation and the industrial and mining colour bar. There are many more examples which I could quote and many other aspects, but I believe that my case is made.

To survive in South Africa we need economic growth, we need educational growth, but above all we need goodwill. To attain goodwill we must share the fruits of our country as well as the opportunities. This cannot take place by distributing largesse, by opening doors at our leisure. For Whites to survive apartheid must perish. For South Africa to survive the disparities, the inequalities, in education and opportunity must disappear.

Finally, if a free enterprise and Western system is to survive, we must be prepared to negotiate now and to share the fruits of that system.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sandton must please pardon me for not replying to his speech, because I should very much like to deal with the hon. member for Pinelands. He has spoken about the so-called “disparities” prevailing in South Africa.

So-called?

He has also insinuated that this might give rise to militancy on the part of the youth. When I asked him whether he was placing the blame for these “disparities” on the shoulders of the Government, he said “yes”. This is a false statement from an irresponsible person. I now put the question to him: Were these “disparities” in existence when the Government came to power in 1948? Of course! He also said in his speech: “These disparities exist in other parts of the world.” Is the NP in power there, too? Does the NP govern Greenland? I want to tell that hon. member that I hold it against him that in this motion today he has made a political football of the child and by doing so has tarnished the International Year of the Child. [Interjections.] The fact is that so-called “disparities” do exist in this country; but the question is: What has the Government done about it?

The contribution I am making to this motion concerns the opportunities the Government has created and is still creating for the child in order to make him a useful citizen. The attitude of the Government towards the child was, in my view, expressed in a sincere and colourful way by our State President when he said in a television programme: “A grandchild is God’s gift to an old man.” The child is indeed a gift from God to man and is man’s most valuable asset. That is the attitude of the Government towards the child.

What opportunities has the Government created for the child since 1948? In the first place, the Government has provided its sincerity by creating a healthy youth. Laws have been passed, and there is a network of services not only for presence and care at the birth of a child, but also for the lazer years of its life. Some of the best children’s hospitals in the world are in South Africa. As far as these so-called “disparities” are concerned, I now want to show the hon. member for Pinelands, who is not listening, what the Government has done in the field of health. Here in the Cape, in 1948, 282 out of every 1 000 Black babies died before the age of one year. Today, the mortality rate is only 72 out of every 1 000. Is this not something the Government has done which deserves praise?

It is still a disparity.

Let us compare these figures with those elsewhere in Africa. Those hon. members do not like it when one talks about Africa, but I nevertheless want to put the question: How many hospital beds are available to the Black people of South Africa in comparison with those available to Black people in the rest of Africa? In Tanzania, the ratio is 1 120 people per bed, in Nigeria there are 2 230 people for every bed and in South Africa this ratio is 233 people for one bed. Is that hon. member not grateful for that?

I now want to refer to education. As far as education is concerned, the Government has made an enormous effort to educate the youth of all races and peoples in this country. The child is in the midst of a knowledge explosion and he is in search of principles, values and norms to adhere to. The Republic of South Africa is the only country in the world that has a positive Christian educational policy on its Statute Book, i.e., Christian National Education. The object of this piece of legislation is not indoctrination or domination, but rather the fostering of a common love for the fatherland, a purposeful loyalty and patriotism among all the peoples of “South Africa first”

I ask myself: What has the Government specifically done by way of opportunities for the White child during the 30 years it has been ruling the country? I can state with deep gratitude and in all humility today that within reasonable limits, every facility exists for the effective training of the White child in virtually every field in South Africa.

There is compulsory school attendance for White, Brown and Asian, and it is a priority of the Government also to introduce compulsory education for the Black child. This is a priority which is receiving constant attention.

In this connection, I should like to supply some statistics for the information of the hon. member for Pinelands: There are at present 400 000 Black pupils attending 10 000 schools in the White areas in South Africa. There are 222 000 Indians attending approximately 300 schools. There are also close to 700 000 Coloured children attending approximately 2 000 schools. When we consider the situation in regard to universities, we find that the Government has created opportunities for approximately 13 000 Black students studying in South Africa at present. There are also 9 000 Indian students and 7 000 Coloured students in South Africa today. In the field of education, I want to quote an example by asking the following question: What percentage of the total population is attending school? Do hon. members realize that in Tanzania the figure is not even 7%, while in Nigeria it is exactly 7%? In South Africa’s Black states, the percentage is 23,7%.

I want to break a lance for the University of South Africa. At present it is the largest university of its kind in the world, and this year 55 000 students are studying through this university. I refer specifically to this university, because it also offers training opportunities to the youth outside South Africa. The Government is therefore not only extending its helping hand to the youth within South Africa to assist them with opportunities, but is also extending its hand to the youth outside this country. At this stage; 2 000 students from outside South Africa are studying through Unisa. There is, for example, the case of a student from behind the Iron Curtain who has obtained a degree in Russian at Unisa. By creating these opportunities for students outside South Africa the Government has, in my view, proved more than merely its good faith towards the children of South Africa.

When the child wants to enter into professional life, the Government assists him through its various departments, inter alia, the Department of Labour. During 1978 alone, 16 000 youths were tested by officers of the Department of Labour. In this connection, special attention has been devoted to our national servicemen in particular and 47 visits were paid to military bases at the border, where approximately 6 000 national servicemen were tested. Vocational guidance is also being provided for returning national servicemen and it is a great honour for me to be able to state that there is not a single national serviceman today who has not been placed in employment As far as this matter is concerned, facilities exist for all population groups, including the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians.

Apart from the specific examples of opportunities I have mentioned, like health, education, etcm, there are also the indirect aids. They are also available to the members of all population groups in this country. There is no “disparity”. In this connection, I have in mind for example museums, zoos, cultural organizations, youth movements, the archives, radio and television. These aids are available to all population groups to offer further opportunities to the youth of our country. The crux of the matter, in my view, is that statistics furnish conclusive proof of the Government’s good faith towards the child of South Africa. If we have erred—the hon. member for Pinelands must now listen— then criticize us on our mistakes, but let us stand together in regard to our idealism for the future.

South Africa has been blessed with excellent human material, with natural resources, with the strong will of its children to survive, and with a sympathetic Governmental During its period in office the Government has directly and indirectly created a fertile breeding ground so that the youth of South Africa are today, in almost every field of endeavour, the undisputed masters and leaders in Africa. That is why this motion has been moved today. For these reasons we therefore express our thanks and appreciation to the Government.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important motion that is being discussed today. In the first place I should like to thank the hon. member for Langlaagte for moving this motion. This motion subjects to close scrutiny a matter which is of vital concern to all of us, not only from the point of view of the individual, but also from that of the family, of the community, of the child, and ultimately of the whole world. One realize that not all aspects of the child’s needs, its nourishment, health and other aspects which have already been referred to here, of receive sufficient attention in the course of the discussion today. Therefore, in our reply we shall therefore have to concentrate of those matters in which the State is involved, those matters in which specific reference is made to the State.

In the first place I nevertheless want to refer briefly to those matters which hon. members raised here in their contributions. I particular liked, and had special appreciation for, the plea made by the hon. member for Langlaagte, a plea for attention for the child, for more feeling, yes even for more sentiment with regard to the child and its cause. To tell the truth, I liked it very much when he became rather emotional towards the end of his speech. But these are matters which we ought sometimes to become more emotional about, rather than those things which we become too emotional about in this House at other times. Therefore, I thank the hon. member for his perspective. Particularly when he pointed out that the first time that justice was really done to a child’s interests in a court case, they had to rely on a piece of animal protection legislation, he put the matter into perspective. One asks oneself where we stand today. I also listened to the hon. member’s suggestions in connection with a child abuse register. This is an important matter. I shall come back to all these matters later. I listened to quite a number of other pleas, and I want to refer to a few of them briefly.

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands said many things with which I agree. A child’s sense of belonging, his sense of worth, his sense of self-respect are very important aspects. All these aspects should be considered, should be pondered. I, therefore, fully endorse that part of his speech in which he dealt with these matters. However, I cannot accept the implication that the Government is indifferent to certain sections of our population, namely the non-White people of South Africa.

There is a disparity.

That is true. There might be a disparity. I grant the hon. member that. However, the Children’s Act as such applies to all children irrespective of race or colour. The law makes no difference at all. My department however, is only concerned with White children and White youths. They are the only ones for which I have to account. Therefore, the hon. member must forgive me if I cannot respond to, what I would call, the political part of his speech. Nevertheless, I feel that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions as such is the mother department of all other departments that have come about over the years. We cannot dissociate ourselves from the destiny and problems of the children of other population groups in South Africa. Later in my speech I may refer to what the Government is attempting to do, to Government policy, to the legal position and to what we envisage for the future. Hon. members can be assured that this is a policy that will work right through.

*The hon. member for Standerton, with the fine image he portrayed, really put one in a completely different frame of mind, one of pride for the mothers and women of our country. With his speech he demonstrated— and I found it splendid—that this side of the House does not consider only the young people of one racial group. In his praise for the mothers and women of this country— whether Black, Brown or White—the hon. member drew no distinction. He pointed out to us their worth, their willingness to serve and in particular the dedication of these women to their country and loved ones. I want to thank the hon. member most sincerely for doing so, particularly when he mentioned names. After it all it does not help to come along with generalizations in one’s speech and not to mention the names of people who give shape to that which one attributes to him and for which one is indebted to him.

There are also other hon. members who raised particularly interesting matters in the debate.

†The hon. member for Umbilo raised quite a few points, and I can perhaps enumerate a few of these. I will come back to some of these points later during my speech. He spoke about the provision of adequate core. He specifically mentioned the underprivileged child and his position vis-à-vis the privileged child. The hon. member also spoke about the Children’s Act, and I will come back to that. As far as we are concerned, we feel that definite amendments will have to be made to that Act Maybe the Act should be completely overhauled. The hon. member also mentioned child abuse registers—like the hon. member for Langlaagte—and adoption and foster care. Later in my speech, I will come back to all these points which the hon. member has raised.

*The hon. member for Brits discussed the problematical role of the woman and child in modern society. I think this really gave us a perspective on how the individual in the times in which we are living is just not physically and mentally capable of always adjusting himself on his own, and how demands are being made on the mother and the child in particular and how an almost inhuman pressure is being exerted on them. The difference between the knowledge and demands of former times and modern times are aspects which we sometimes lose sight of when we make demands on the woman, mother and child. I shall come back to these things in due course.

†The hon. member for Sandton unfortunately perpetuated arguments which I think is really irrelevant in a debate of this kind.

They are very relevant to South Africans.

They are not relevant in a debate of this kind. They may be relevant in other debates, but not to a debate of this kind. I want different attitudes to prevail in this debate. I do not want it to be polluted by political arguments for which we have enough time in other debates.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Jeppe for having done good research and for furnishing striking comparative figures which indicate the exceptional task which the Government has partially taken upon itself to assist the educational institutions of our country for the sake of our young people.

†The hon. member for Pinelands referred to disparities and asked for my comments. I acknowledge that there are disparities. The hon. member for Pinelands must, however, also acknowledge that the Government is engaged in a superhuman effort to improve the position of the less-privileged part of our population. Even the hon. member for Sandton testified to that fact. There are no disparities as far as the law is concerned. The Children’s Act is the same for all three of our population groups. The Government is doing its utmost to eliminate disparities that can be construed as discriminatory, and has with this progressed over the past few years to an extent that may not be possible in many other countries.

*Mr. Speaker, I said this was an important motion and I also thanked the speakers for having brought facets of it to the attention of the Government at this time. One seldom finds the time to concentrate on daily necessities because they often spend—I almost want to say “waste”—their time on trifles.

This motion has two legs: In the first place that opportunities be created for the child to develop into a useful citizen and, in the second place, that tribute be paid to the woman and mother and that she be praised for the special part she plays in the future of the child. It is appropriate that, apart from what has already been said, something be said about the task of the State in this regard. I want to associate myself with the praise accorded the woman and the child, but at the same time I cannot as new incumbent of this post, neglect to ask questions and to express reservations. Perhaps a better practical element could be introduced into some of the things envisaged. The State is deeply involved in the interests of the child. It cannot be otherwise. There will be approximately 12 million children of all race groups in this country next year. Of that total provision will be made on the Vote of my department for only approximately 1,6 million children. Then the Government is also involved in regard to approximately 55 000 children for whom R41,5 million has been made available. That is as far as the function and the task of my department extends. With regard to education, there are approximately nine hundred thousand children attending school of whom more than 95% are in Government and private schools. From these figures hon. members can see the State is deeply involved in regard to the child.

No one will deny that the child occupies a very important place in society. In all modern legal systems—I am not talking about obsolete legal systems—there is special legislation to protect the interests of the child. The children are our future, and if they are not cared for, we have no future prospects. As far back as 1907 there was the Special Protection Act of the Cape Colony. Today in South Africa we have the Children’s Act, and I want to spend some time on the Children’s Act, because this Act regulates the weal and woe of our children and young people up to the age of 18 years.

The principal aims of the Children’s Act are in the first place the protection of our children so that they are not in need of care and in the second place, to protect and care for those who are in need of care. The third aim is to bring to book and punish those responsible for their neglect. The fourth aim is to apply the rules of adoption. The Children’s Act is concerned in particular with human relations. It is important to remember that Mainly, however, the Act is there to protect the child, and we need only consider the Children’s Act if we want to review the Government’s policy on the child. In this respect we do not have to be racialistic or group conscious in any way, since all the Children’s Acts were established on the same basis. Cultural differences, differences in human development and local problems among groups are irrelevant As far as the Act is concerned, there is only one policy. The unspoken object of the Children’s Act is to allow the child develop in a sound way so that he can take his place as a “useful citizen”, as is stated in the motion. However, the letter of the law is one thing, but its implementation is another, and sometimes it is in the implementation of a law that we experience problems. I shall come back to that later.

However, we must not think that the Children’s Act is the only legislation which deals with the problems and looks after the interests of the child. There is, for example, education legislation, divorce and marriage legislation—which often looks at the problems of the parents, however, and seldom at those of the child—alimony legislation and legislation on habit-forming substances. All this legislation deals with the relations between the parent and the child and can have far-reaching consequences for our children and their future. Here, in a narrow sense, the State is perhaps relieved of its duties in this situation.

However, as the hon. member for Umbilo remarked, the ideal is to educate the child within his parental home and to allow him to grow to maturity. That is what is important and ought therefore to be the principal ideal. However, ideals and realities are not always reconcilable and hon. members all know that this is true. We have the evidence in the fact that there are 6 000 children living in foster homes and 6 000 in children’s homes. This is a total of 12 000 children in need of care. There is also the figure of 10 000 divorces. That is far in excess of 30 000 people whose lives are closely affected by divorces, and we are only a small population in this country. As someone said, it appears that the axe is already biting into the trunk of the family tree. We must not gamble away our future in this way.

Many hon. members also mentioned the figure of 300 cases of child abuse which is mentioned in the report. These are children who are injured, children who are treated with indifference. I shall come to that in a minute. There is reason for concern. A State cannot be relieved of its duties in this situation. I just received a lengthy report on the child battering syndrome. I have glanced at it quickly, but have not yet been able to study it well. However, action will be taken as a result of the recommendations in this report. We shall take action in this regard, because this is a phenomenon which crops up constantly and to an increasing extent in the times in which we are living. As a result of frustrations, and an inability to cope with their own situations, people sometimes hit out at those nearest to them, and that is often the unprotected child.

The existing Children’s Act was drawn up with many fine ideals and I think it was drawn up very effectively. The idea of the Children’s Act is to prevent suffering and to help and safeguard the child. The Children’s Act contributes to our being able to spend R33 million each year on approximately 40 000 children in order to maintain their family ties. The hon. members emphasized the importance of family ties well. One must not remove a child from its family circle if one is at all able to avoid that.

I want to point out other valuable work that is being done by the Government. Over the past eight years an amount of R355 000 was spent in order to assist 51 children who were completely in need of care to obtain university degrees and diplomas. These are children who would never otherwise have attained that high level of education. Today they have B.A. LL.B., M.B. Ch.B. and other degrees. I know that hon. members would be impressed if I were to mention all of them. What is important is that those children had the ability to obtain those degrees and diplomas and that they did so with the aid of the bursaries given to them. That in itself indicates that the State and the community have a duty to assist all the human material at their disposal, to realize its full potential.

An outstanding feature of the Children’s Act is that it grants the State social control over the lives of thousands of children. This is well intentioned, but in respect of one aspect, i.e. the removal of children from their parents, there are reservations. It remains an open question, for me too, whether the compulsory removal of children from their parental home, however poor the circumstances there, is a good thing. Perhaps we should replace it with alternative methods to achieve better results. Incidentally I can say that in 95,4% of the cases of children who went to children’s homes, the incompetence of their parents was the cause. One asks oneself whether the effects of judicial action in this regard have been properly considered. Is the removal of children from their parental home not sometimes merely an instant solution to get rid of the problem? Do we consider the matter thoroughly? The Children’s Act is not meant to provide instant solutions.

Much water has flowed under the bridge since 1960, however, and I agree with hon. members who raised the matter that there is a growing feeling that the Children’s Act should be revised and that all matters affecting the family, should be dealt with by a family court. This is the system that is being applied in other parts of the world and it works well. This is a suggestion that occurred to me and I think that it is important that we pay attention to this system. I think that the need exists for family matters to be adjudicated in more intimate circumstances where all aspects which helped to bring about the unsatisfactory conditions can be considered without becoming public property. I think that we are all in agreement in this respect.

The issues affecting families and children per se must be integrated. They must be systematically and consistently dealt with in another way. A family court has many advantages. I do not want to go into all of them. I just want to say that there is a lot to say for our having to consider that possibility for the treatment of a child who has gone off the rails.

Another matter which has also been a cause of concern to me is the procedure we follow when we decide the fate of a child. The real struggle here is the maintenance of family life. This is important. We want to win the hearts of the children and we want to develop them to the utmost, but our struggle also concerns the maintenance of the family as the nucleus which ultimately forms the basis of a sound community life. The children are our fine gold. We must not allow them to be riddled with guilt feelings. If there is a mistake, it should not in the first place be sought in the child. We must not hang in need of care as a label around his neck, for it has connotations.

What happens when a court finds a child in need of care? In the first place the child is labelled. There are connotations which may be attached to it. What are the legal consequences? His parents are deprived of their rights, but after that they are also deprived of their duties. The child is taken away from them. The institution or the foster-parents take over these rights over the child and may discipline him and may further do with him whatever is considered to be necessary. In many cases the parent actually gets off scot-free. Should we not, by changing the Children’s Act, cause the emphasis to be shifted so that the parent is regarded as the person who has in the first place accepted the responsibility for the child? If he is incapable of caring for the child, he must, therefore, be afforded the opportunity of rehabilitating himself until such time as the family ties can be reinstated.

The question arises whether a children’s court should not, during an investigation, focus on the question whether the parents are capable of caring for the child. In many cases the child is the black sheep and a label is hung around his neck, while he is not to blame for the things that happened. I think that to a certain extent we are on the wrong track in this regard. I think that we should change our procedures a little in this respect, but this will probably first require a little reflection. We must bring about a change of emphasis in this regard.

I think that what we will accomplish here is that we will know what is at issue. Without losing sight of the interests of the parents completely, the interests of the child are the primary consideration. Consequently the child will not be labelled because the blame will be placed on the shoulders of those who are morally responsible. I think this is very important. Today the child sees an investigation of this kind as something aimed merely at punishing him. He is the subject of the investigation and he has to pay the price. He has no control over the stigma of “institution child” and “child in need of care” attaching to him. These measures in the Children’s Act are meant to be protective measures, but they are not. They leave us in the lurch. The parental duty to the child occupies a subordinate place. Generally the court neither says a word about it nor puts it in perspective. I think it is high time that we should bring home to the parent without beating about the bush that the entire investigation centres around the question of whether he is competent to carry out his parental powers with regard to his child, until such time as he follows the correct path again. This must not bring about an estrangement between the parent and the child. We must ultimately build up the social bulwarks again in order to strengthen family ties. The society must never forget the part of education as one of the preventative services, because it will always remain important.

I should like to say that the Children’s Act is receiving attention at present. We are considering all these aspects and shall consult over a wide area. We envisage publishing a draft Bill of which people can take cognizance and on which they can comment. In this Bill we shall incorporate the necessary shifts of emphasis and accelerations of pace. The aim of this is to effect a better dispensation for our children in this country.

Will it happen this year?

It will be introduced next year, since it takes a long time to draft such legislation.

In the few minutes at my disposal I want to deal with the second leg of this proposal, about which not much was said today. This concerns the praise and appreciation which may be meted out to the woman and mother for the part she plays in the education of the child. The resilience of a country does not lie primarily in its military and economic strength, but in its human material. This human material is established in the inner circle of a family. The centre point around which that family revolves, is the mother. She forms that family, the bulwark of a nation’s moral fortitude and armour. According to the doomsayers of the past 20 years family ties were in danger of crumbling. Dr. Gustav Johansen of Sweden said ten years ago that marriage ties in their present form would disappear. In a report by the Department of Culture of the Netherlands the following remark was made—

Ten years have elapsed. It is not that bad yet. We still have our family life. We have fewer children, but we still have our family life.

However, what I want to emphasize here, is that no family, no nation or no marriage can exist without a father or a mother. The father and mother are the indispensable component in the structure of a nation. Today we pay tribute to the woman and mother. The family is the cradle of a nation. It is the place where the father, the mother and children come together. They forge their bonds of love there and they are bound to one another there. They present a united front against onslaughts from outside. They are honed and shaped there. They remain the cornerstones of civilization and of family life. The father figure and the mother figure are essential for the sound development of the offspring of any parental union. In spite of all the permissive arguments which we have heard over the years, it still remains the binding factor that forms the nucleus of our national or communal existence.

And yet today we are paying tribute only to the woman and mother in particular, and why is this? Do hon. members know why? Who can dispute that the mother, in spite of all the demands made on her by modern living, has remained the pivot around which the family revolves and that motherhood has always made very heavy demands over the centuries? In the milieu in which we are living, this present age which the hon. member for Brits depicted so splendidly, the demands made on her have not abated and she has not become a working woman in the economy, in the labour milieu, at the expense of her motherhood. Indeed, instead of leaving a gap, she has accepted both these obligations. This enhanced her task and she accepted it, but is this always appreciated? For that reason we express our appreciation today to the woman and the mother. She is involved in our economic life. She is now doing work which for generations was never considered to be work a woman could do. She is involved in our economic maelstrom and in our very complicated technology on which we make so many demands and she sometimes finds herself in circumstances which have little or nothing to do with her place as woman and mother. In 1970 there were already more than a half million women in the labour market in South Africa. And their numbers will not decrease. They will sooner increase. What is more: Today she must also play the double role of woman and of a person with economic know-how. What are we doing to assist her? Is it reasonable and fair that although she already fulfils these two roles, she is also expected to fulfil all those other roles without our preparing her for it or our assisting her in this respect? The natural effect of these demands on a woman will later result in her having to make a choice.

We cannot afford her having to make a choice because our economic structure requires this. It must definitely be realized that the working woman, and therefore to a certain extent also the working mother, has become indispensable. She cannot be withdrawn. What are the alternatives? We have alternatives. We have creches, institutions which protect her children, but I think this is far too little. If she enters the labour market, it counts against her to a certain extent. The extra income she earns, often serves to penalize her. I do not want to become involved in an argument, but this is true. What is to become of her school-going child while she plays her part elsewhere? I want to ask those employers who have working mothers in their employ to be a little less indifferent towards the duties of these mothers. They should assist these mothers in the form of creches and other facilities. This must be done, since there is not much evidence to show that the working mothers of our nation are being properly appreciated for what they are doing. We must encourage them in this regard.

Finally, I just want to express my thanks for our being able to have a motion such as this before the House today and that we, in times such as these, have not forgotten the mother and the child.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendment lapsed.

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

All hon. members know that the motion in its present form has been on the Order Paper for several weeks. Therefore it has no essential bearing on any recent events or reports. The motion reflects the standpoint we have consistently adopted, i.e. that the maximum disclosure of evidence is in the public interest, provided that the national security is safeguarded.

There has been newspaper speculation during the past few days that this matter is now on the point of exploding. This afternoon’s debate was expected to be controversial in a special sense, according to a newspaper report. So be it. If there are hon. members who want to explode, they probably will. But there is no such intention on our part. We certainly are not seeking confrontation or attempting to score debating points in this House. We just want to make another sincere attempt to put an end as soon as possible to the lingering misery of the continuing Information dispute. I shall submit that the fullest disclosure, subject to the conditions I shall state, is necessary in the public interest, in the national interest and also in the interest of individual members of this House.

Before proceeding with that, I just want to draw attention to the wording of the motion, especially the reference to Standing Order No. 206. As hon. members know, this Standing Order provides that when we have asked for this evidence to be tabled, it should remain confidential and in the possession of hon. members of this House—to begin with, in any case, and until the House has taken further decisions. The intention is that hon. members should first have the opportunity of examining the evidence before it is made public, which we want to happen, of course. I shall say more about that shortly.

I want to begin my argument by referring to the public interest in this matter. More than once we have heard the hon. the Prime Minister say in this House, with a tone of almost pathetic longing in his voice: “It will go away.” The hon. the Prime Minister hopes that the matter will blow over and that people will soon tire of it. In reality, however, it has never gone away. In a certain sense it is true that people are beginning to tire of it. This applies to us as well, and for that reason we want to put an end to this whole matter, in the only possible way. If any hon. member of this House requires proof of the public attitude and of the intensity of public interest, he has only to look at the Press, including and especially the Afrikaans Press, and he has only to listen to the radio and television …

It is being kept alive artificially.

The hon. member says it is artificial, and I leave it to him to say by implication that every news medium in the country—the Press of both languages and the SABC—is artificial. I do not think it is so. Hardly a day passes without prominence being given to the Information affair, and usually it features on the front pages. Even in the Citizen, the illegitimate child born of this affair, reports on this subject appear every day. Why? As I know the Press industry, I believe it is because the highly sensitive and intelligent people who manage the newspapers know very well what their readers want, and they do their best to give their leaders what they want. Their readers take a deep and lasting interest in this matter. That is why the reports are being published as they are. The public, irrespective of party affiliations, is deeply concerned about these events. Irrespective of how and where they are going to vote during the next elections, members of the public are seeking information and answers. These people have the right to know.

I shall just refer in passing to the question of Press freedom. It is said that the most important reason for Press freedom is to ensure free comment on important matters. That is true, of course. However, experts in this field also submit that the reason for Press freedom is the fact that the public has the right to be informed on national affairs. In this case it is true that it is the interest of the public which is forcing the Press and the media to report in the way they are doing. The public does have the right to know. It is the public’s money that has been misused, that has been squandered or worse. They have the right to know, and not one of us, no hon. member of this House, not even the hon. the Prime Minister, has the right to tell them that they are not allowed to know.

There is, and I have already mentioned it, an acceptable limitation on the right of the public to know. This is that when the true national interest and national security are at stake, it may be necessary to withhold facts, even if one hopes that it will only be temporarily. Then, however, one must be absolutely sure that what is being withheld will be information that could endanger the true national interest and national security, and not merely matters which could embarrass the governing party or any other group of people.

In support of this statement of mine that this is a highly essential distinction, I want to quote from an editorial which appeared in Rapport on 18 February this year. Its heading is “Verleentheid”, and it reads as follows—

This editorial, coming from where it does, puts my case better than I could ever do myself. This raises the question of the need for Opposition participation in the process of investigation.

In advocating this, we are not motivated by a belief that we have any special virtues as human beings or that we lay claim to any special virtues. Not at all. [Interjections.] The mere fact that we are Opposition members means that there is an important role we can play in these circumstances.

We are all rather sensitive about what is happening in our country. Let us try to approach this dilemma effectively. In any country in the world, the danger exists in circumstances such as these that members of the Government—being human—will tend to confuse their party interests with the national interest. By virtue of their otherwise unfortunate position, Opposition members, on the contrary, are exempt from this temptation. They are not in a position where it is possible. The very fact that Opposition members compete with Government members in any Parliament means that they can play a special and important role.

Its value is nowhere better illustrated than with regard to the withholding of information on Information. After all, Rapport says in its editorial of 18 February 1979 that if a Government decides to withhold certain information—no matter how bona fide that decision may be—the suspicion may arise that it is doing so to save itself from embarrassment rather than in the national interest. As against that, if a neutral body were to do it, it would be better. However, if Opposition members also agree to withhold information from the public, the public may be absolutely confident that the national interest must be involved. Whatever the Opposition may do, it will certainly not help Government members to withhold things because they may embarrass the Government. It is in confirmation of this point that I have read that editorial from Rapport.

Throughout the whole Information debacle we have pleaded for the appointment of a Select Committee of this House. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition advocated it even during the short session and since then he has repeated his plea on more than one occasion. If we could have advocated the appointment of such a Select Committee in terms of the customs of this House, we would have included that in today’s motion as well. In the light of the present state of affairs, I want to make it clear that as soon as the evidence of the Erasmus Commission is tabled, we shall request the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to do two things: Firstly, the Select Committee should examine the evidence to ascertain what parts of it, if any, should be withheld in the national interest. The publication of the remaining evidence would then be arranged. Secondly, the Select Committee should examine the conduct of members of the House of Assembly, present as well as past, to determine where the political responsibility lies for any malpractices and irregularities which may have taken place according to the evidence.

Order! That is not relevant now.

Mr. Speaker, I am just mentioning it in passing. It is by no means our contention that a Select Committee is necessary to revise the work of the commission. There are clear differences between the functions of the two bodies, however. The terms of reference of the commission are concerned with irregularities and malpractices and not, as you rightly said, Mr. Speaker, with hon. members in this House in that capacity. Such a function would be a function of this House itself, and that is why a Select Committee is necessary. We shall continue to advocate it on appropriate occasions, should it still appear to be necessary.

†That deals with the first of the three headings, the public interest I now want to come to the national interest of the country. I agree that it is possible to exaggerate the bad effect which the Information scandal is likely to be having on our position in the world. For example, I know of no harm that has come to our trade and economic relationships with the world as a result of this scandal. However, this whole affair is having a detracting and paralysing effect on the administration inside the country. That it is harming our image in the outside world, must be accepted as clear. It is again obvious that nothing short of the maximum possible exposure of the facts, as well as the clearing up of the whole mystery, is going to stop this harm to the national interest.

I now come to the third part of what I want to say, which concerns the individual reputations of hon. members of this House. No doubt members of the Government will say that for me to talk about the protection of their interests is none of my business. They may even consider it to be presumptious of me. In one sense that is true but in another sense all of us, and indeed the country as a whole, is involved with what has been happening in the country and the things that have been said, the rumours that have been spread and the beliefs that are going around.

Order! In what way is the reputation of individual members connected with the laying of the evidence on the Table of the House?

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I am about to explain precisely the answer to the question you have just put to me. Would you allow me to do this or must I address you separately on this?

I will listen to the explanation of the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, the proposals I am putting forward offer the best method by far to get rid of any suspicions that may exist that some or any hon. members of this House did know about or were involved in any of the reprehensible things that did take place. These facts are, as far as we know, in the evidence because the commissioners reported upon that evidence and they dealt with the matters of responsibility and with the question of who were credible witnesses and who were not credible witnesses. In spite of the release of that report …

Order! Do the findings in the report concern hon. members of this House?

Yes, Sir.

Order! The hon. member must be careful.

Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me to mention an example, the hon. the Minister of Finance, for one, is concerned.

Order! I think that this argument is not relevant to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I address you on this matter?

Yes.

We have before us a report which was laid upon the Table. That report is based upon evidence. In the report it is stated that conflicting evidence was given. The commissioners chose a certain interpretation and have reported accordingly to this House and to the nation. Nonetheless, a public debate which by common consent is damaging to the interests of everybody has been carried on about the interpretation of that evidence. I am putting it to you, Sir, that it is highly desirable that that evidence be available for all who wish to judge it to see. That is the whole burden of my motion. I have indeed only a minor interest in the points I have put forward so far. It ‘is necessary that there be the fullest possible exposure so that these matters can be finally cleared up by people being able to see the evidence as they can do in a court of law. That is the argument I am putting forth.

Order! I just want to point out to the House that the hon. member now wants evidence to be submitted to the House, and one of the reasons which he advances for this is to clear the reputations of hon. members of the House. There is no finding in the report which casts any reflection on any of the members of the House. Therefore it is my submission that that argument in support of his request to have the evidence published is not a valid one. Moreover, none of us knows what is said in the evidence.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the statement you have just made is precisely the reason why I am speaking as I am. The commissioners found, in the case which I have already used, with your permission, as an example, that the hon. the Minister of Finance had behaved perfectly well throughout. There were, however, other witnesses before the commission who said something else, which was rejected by the commission. If that rejection by the commissioners had been accepted by the public and the Press in a wide sense, there would be no more to say about it. But it has not, and therein lies the nub of my argument that it is necessary for the evidence of the Erasmus Commission, as distinct from merely the report, to be in the hands of the public.

Order! I would have preferred the hon. member to quote to me from the report where other witnesses differ from the findings.

Mr. Speaker, if I may quote from memory, you will find that in the report it is stated that Dr. Mulder, Dr. Rhoodie, General Van den Bergh and, I think, one other gave evidence to the effect that members of the Government knew of The Citizen episode and other secret matters earlier than members of the Government have assured us they did hear of them. That evidence was tested … [Interjections.]

Order!

Thank you, Sir. That evidence was tested by the commissioners and rejected. That is true, but nonetheless the rumours persist. I am simply suggesting that the revelation of that evidence, in the same way that evidence in a court of law is released, can do no harm and may very probably do a great deal of good.

Order! Other hon. members who later on wish to pursue that line must quote from the report, because my recollection differs from that of the hon. member for Parktown. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has just passed me the relevant passage which I shall, by your leave, quote to the House (par. 11.399)—

So it goes on. This demonstrates that there is a conflict in the evidence, and that has been the argument I have been putting forward. I do not wish to take it any further now, but I do wish to say that what is doing harm—not only to individuals and to the Government, but on a very wide scale—is that the credibility of the Government is being placed in doubt. This doubt should be removed and the matter should be cleared up. I do not accuse any Cabinet Minister of complicity in this scandal. I do not have to for the purposes of my argument and I am not doing so. I do, however, say that any hon. Minister or hon. member who has not been involved in this at all and who fails to support this motion is, in my view, being idiotic because he is throwing away the chance to make it absolutely clear that he is in the clear, to help the nation and to allay the public’s anxiety.

I am aware that it has been suggested that the very matter I am talking about now can be investigated by the Erasmus Commission itself. The Commission can, of course, do so. In fact, the Commission can do its very best, but the commission sits in camera and does not publish its evidence, and it is no disrespect to the commission to say that people want to see for themselves.

This affair, like the Watergate affair, has gone through three phases. First there was the question of irregularities or the misappropriation of funds, and for that the commission has shown itself to be well suited as an investigating body, and on that matter it has reported clearly, showing that these things did take place. The second phase involves people beginning to ask whether the machinery of government has been abused. Here again the situation is clear. The provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Exchequer and Audit Act were circumvented and money was passed from one Vote to another. The third and final phase is that the credibility of the Government begins to be called into question, and that is a highly undesirable thing. In this motion, and in the proposals I have outlined in my speech, I have sought to provide the best way for the Government to follow if it wishes to re-establish that credibility in the shortest possible time, and I have offered—though the offer has not been very graciously received— the co-operation of the Opposition playing its proper part, as a Parliamentary Opposition, in achieving those ends. I therefore say that in their own interests, and in everyone else’s interests, I hope the members of the Government are going to accept these proposals.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once that the hon. member for Parktown made many statements to which I can subscribe. I also want to congratulate him at once on having dealt so calmly with a highly emotional subject. I also hope that the example he has set in this particular connection will be followed by all hon. members.

I want to relate my remarks to a few general statements. Firstly, I believe that this Parliament is the guardian of the general interests of the country and that no political party, no member of the House and no institution in the country is above the interests of the country. Nothing may ever happen or be allowed to happen which may interfere with the performance of Parliament’s function as guardian of the national interest and as the instrument for serving the highest interests of the country. The second statement I should like to make is that the responsibility of Parliament to serve the interests of the country cannot be separated or distinguished from the responsibility of individual members of the House. Nor can it be separated or distinguished from the responsibility of political parties represented in this House. For this reason I want to make the third general statement, and that is that the extent to which Parliament succeeds in carrying out this responsibility largely depends on the individual responsibility of hon. members of the House. In my opinion, in the fourth place, this imposes a tremendous responsibility on all hon. members of the House, because it is not only the Government which is being subjected to critical analysis and examination, but this House itself. When we consider it in that light, it is our duty on an occasion such as this one to debate the subject raised by the motion of the hon. member for Parktown with the greatest care and attention. Fifthly, I want to say that as far as this specific subject is concerned, it is important for me to state that apart from the general responsibility of this House to serve the broad national interest, occasions arise from time to time when this institution is subjected to a special test. An example of this is a time of crisis such as a war. I say that the circumstances relating to the former Department of Information and the events connected with it most probably constitute one of those occasions which enable the House to serve its exalted purpose and its members to make their contributions. It is in this spirit that I suggest that the way in which we debate the motion of the hon. member for Parktown, the way in which we debate the subject which gave rise to his motion, will determine whether we are carrying out our responsibility as members of this House as we should.

When we view the motion moved by the hon. member for Parktown against this background, we see that it has various facets, and I should like to deal with some of the more important ones. These facets are connected, firstly, with the motive which inspired the hon. member to come to this House; secondly, with the arguments which the hon. member advanced to the House in motivating his motion; and, thirdly, with the result which can be achieved with what he is asking for. I think the hon. member will concede that these particular facets are the essential elements to be considered in discussing his motion. It is important that we should further note that the hon. member’s motion contains two other elements. He proposes that the evidence should be made available to this House in accordance with Standing Order No. 206 of this House. This implies, in the first place, that there may be evidence which must be considered confidential. I see that the hon. member is nodding his head. Secondly, it means that there may be circumstances in which the national interest, which Parliament has to serve, requires that information should not be published. I want to repeat that: In essence, the hon. member’s motion contains the implication that it may be in the national interest for information not to be published. I want to ask the hon. member whether he agrees with that.

Yes, I said so.

So he agrees.

This brings us to the third question, and that is who is best qualified to decide what information is of such a nature that its disclosure could harm the country. The second question which arises is how that information can be kept confidential after it has been tabled in this House. This goes to the heart of the motion. I want to submit with great respect that it is not within the means of this House to discipline the members of the House to preserve the secrecy of information which has been marked confidential. I also want to allege that this House does not have the power to prevent information which has been tabled in the House as confidential from being published in another way. The hon. member now has to argue with me about what would best serve the interests of the country. Would it be in the national interest to allow the disclosure of information which could militate against the national interest, as he himself argues? On the basis of this, I want to go further and say that in order to decide whether the evidence should be made available in its entirety or in part, we should first look at the method according to which and the circumstances under which the Erasmus Commission came into being. The overall impression which the hon. member created in his argument was that it is and has been the attitude of this Government that the public is denied the right to information and that there can be no disclosure of the evidence, either in its entirety or in part.

Let us just consider very critically for a moment the reason for the appointment of the Erasmus Commission and the question of whether its appointment has a bearing on the inference drawn by the hon. member that it is the approach of the Government that the evidence should be kept a secret. It is interesting to note that the Prime Minister made the very important statement on the steps of the Senate in September last year—in the context of subsequent events it is more important now, perhaps, than we could have foreseen at the time—that he pledged himself before the people of the country to a clean administration. A country’s interests cannot possibly be served without clean administration. I submit that in retrospect, this statement by the hon. the Prime Minister becomes quite prophetic, especially in the light which has shone on many things in the country since then, not only because he promised clean administration, but also because he had to keep his promise sooner than he had thought. This is of value in the light of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Parktown, because he argues quite rightly—and I want to support it—that party interest, even the interests of individual members of the House, cannot be greater than the general interest. For this reason, it is essential that when hon. members of this House, on whatever side of the House they may sit, have been guilty of conduct which is in conflict with these principles, this must be disclosed. I suggest, and I have never heard this from the other side of the House—I do not want to cross swords with the hon. members about it now—that the fact that they are able to propose that evidence before the commission should be made public is due to the very existence of the commission, and the commission owes its existence to the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister’s promise of clean administration required him to choose the most effective instrument for achieving his object under given circumstances. Now I ask the hon. member for Parktown and his colleagues in all reasonableness: Do we not owe it to one another to say that in South Africa, in contrast with the analogy he tried to find in Watergate, the Government has taken steps to identify and to expose the irregularities, the abuses and the misappropriation of funds? I should like to go further in this particular connection. Any Prime Minister who is a leader of a party which has been governing a country for 30 years must surely know that because of the magnitude of the country’s administration, it is always possible that there may be malpractices. Therefore his statement has a special meaning. It requires people of uncompromised standpoints, of honesty and integrity, to do this. I do not think it is a disgrace to inherit a scandal, but it is a disgrace to cover up a scandal. I think the time has come for us to take cognizance of this. When the Information debacle or scandal—call it what you will—broke upon this country, the Government chose the most effective method of (a) safeguarding the interests of the State and of the country, and (b) identifying the people involved in the irregularities. This method was the appointment of the Erasmus Commission.

I ask: Was there a more effective method in terms of this country’s laws for proceeding with the process of identification and exposing it to the full light of day, in spite of the embarrassment it has created and is still creating for the Government and in spite of the fact that it has embarrassed members of the Government? I ask again: If the hon. member’s motive is as pure as he says this afternoon, would he not best serve the country’s interests by praising the Government for its conduct under these circumstances? Or does he think he is doing it better by insinuating that we have hitherto been engaged in covering up evidence? I want to ask the hon. member as well as those hon. members who will speak after him: Am I to conclude from the motion of the hon. member in respect of the disclosure of the evidence of the commission that they (a) accept that the commission was the most effective instrument which could have been chosen? The hon. member for Yeoville shakes his head. I should like to hear the hon. member’s views on the subject.

Why should he not?

He should react to that I want to ask the hon. member: What was the hon. the Prime Minister confronted with? I shall tell him. In my opinion, and in all fairness, it was a partially examined, unchecked, unevaluated embryo of a police file, which a particular commissioner put before the nation for his own reasons and in his own way—which I do not want to discuss now. This file and this investigation were to weak to be submitted to a court and too complicated to be submitted to a committee of this House before they had been further investigated. In my opinion, there was only one honourable course to follow if we were to escape the accusation—which lies at the heart of this hon. member’s motivation—of a cover-up, and this was to subject it to a close scrutiny and the objective judgment of people who in our society and in our system, have become known for their honour and their integrity—by virtue of their office and by virtue of their person. The question now arises: Have all hon. members of the House done their best at all times to recognize and confirm the integrity and the honour of the commission whose evidence they now want to be published?

Ask Gen. Van den Bergh.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur can choose his own company, and if Gen. Van den Bergh forms part of his company, the choice is his.

In the normal course of events, the allegations to be investigated by that commission, allegations of corruption in the widest sense of the word, would have been referred to the police for investigation. But precisely in order to forestall the accusation that officials are being expected to investigate their superior, we decided to appoint a judicial commission. I want to go further by saying that I believe that this House should express an opinion on certain important aspects relating to the motion of the hon. member and that we should take a stand concerning the unhindered continuation of the commission’s activities. If we are to serve the exalted purposes which this hon. member is pleading for, he and the members of his party—all of us, in fact—must take a stand with regard to those parties which are hindering the completion of the commission’s work. Then there would be some merit in the hon. member’s standpoint that the evidence should be published. Is it not true that in spite of being hindered in its activities, the commission conducted an in-depth inquiry and went to the heart of the irregularity even in its first report? The fact is that because of the commission’s report, there are people who are no longer sitting in the Government. I now ask hon. members: Does their wish to have the evidence imply that they accept the quality of the commission’s work? Does their wish to have the evidence published imply that they accept the quality of the work of the commission as reflected in the report of 6 December last year? If that is not what it implies, what is the use of publishing the evidence? And if that is in fact the implication, why do they not say so? Because of the great magnitude of its task, this commission has very reasonably requested more time. Why? To find replies to the unsolved questions which hon. members and the people outside are asking, including, most probably, the questions, or the problem, of co-responsibility or other responsibility of the Cabinet with regard to the irregularities. If this is correct, surely it is obvious that hon. members should agree with me when I argue that this commission must be given the opportunity—and I repeat this—of completing its task without let or hindrance.

Now I come to the second element in the motion of the hon. member for Parktown. This is the concept of publication. The publication proposal is also connected with the decision of the commission to hear its evidence in camera. I ask the hon. member whether he agrees with me that it is connected with that.

I am not sure whether I am quite following you. I think you had better go on. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, if the evidence had not been heard in camera, surely it would have been heard in public.

It is a very simple question.

Yes, it is very simple. Perhaps the hon. member understands now. However, I want to put it to the hon. member for Parktown that reproaches have been made about the fact that the commission is conducting its inquiry in camera. This is done without understanding the essense of the function and the constitution of the commission. In the first place, the commission was a cross between an investigator, like the police in normal criminal cases, and an arbitrator, like a court of law. It is very clear that in the normal course of the legal process, the police themselves as the investigators, as well as their investigation file, are protected and enjoy a privilege which prevents disclosure. That is why the commission worked in that particular way and with that particular responsibility. Is it wrong that this principle in our administration of justice should apply, i.e. the principle of the protection of witnesses from interference and intimidation?

However, I want to take it further. There is another facet about which this House should express an opinion. This is the question of whether we agree with all the limitations and all the impediments imposed upon this commission in the performance of its task. It seems to me that when a jurist or a lawyer is at work, when he is considering a case, we cannot allow his decision to be influenced by a clamour in the market-place. It must not happen because of an emotional exploitation by—according to the hon. member for Parktown—the “sensitive” people in the newspaper industry, people who support him and who know what people want and therefore write what they want.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: There is a case before the Cape Supreme Court at the moment about the question of whether the publication of certain information is in fact hindering the activities of the Erasmus Commission. No ruling has been given in this case and I wonder whether it is not sub judice at this moment [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members may address me on the matter if they wish. I am under the impression that the part of the case which is sub judice is only concerned with one specific report As I understand it, the hon. the Minister is dealing with the whole principle of Press reporting on the whole matter which is being investigated by the Erasmus Commission. I think he is not allowed to talk about this specific application which is before the court. However, I do not think this affects the wider aspects of the matter he is dealing with.

Mr. Speaker, may I just add something? As I understand the matter, the case which is before the Supreme Court also concerns the question of whether the commission completed its mandate upon the submission of its first report, and whether it is still able to act as a commission and should still be regarded as a commission after the completion of that report. That is what the case before the Supreme Court is concerned with.

I think the hon. member has advanced a valid argument. The hon. the Minister should take it into account.

Mr. Speaker, I shall gladly take that into consideration, although the hon. member’s objection is completely irrelevant. I am arguing about something else. I am arguing about this reprehensible and discordant symphony we have had to listen to for weeks and months now, the clamouring for another investigation parallel to the proper one. That has nothing to do with the application which is before the Supreme Court at the moment.

The hon. the Minister may proceed. However, I just want to ask him not to lead us into another Press debate in this House this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I shall try to avoid this subject as far as possible, except where it may harm the lofty aim which the hon. member is advocating. Let us look at the “sensitive” disclosure which the hon. member is referring to, the sensitivity of the people he is talking about Every day they publicize as the truth the stories of a discredited witness who gave evidence before the commission.

They just report it.

I have not heard from the hon. member, who is a sensitive advocate for these Press people, that he condemns it. If the hon. member wants us to go along with his motives and his arguments, he and his people on that side of the House must rise and take a stand for decency and justice. They must take a stand against the conviction of innocent people in the market-place on the basis of the stories of discredited witnesses.

That is exactly what we are asking.

Finally, I want to say that I regard it as important that the Erasmus Commission should continue its work and that it should not be obstructed in any way. I think it is important that the Committee should submit the evidence in support of its findings, subject to the proviso that the national security must not be affected. It is important that this House should take a stand regarding the creation of mechanisms which can deal with accusations, actions, abuses or alleged misdeeds of people who occupy public positions, within the State structure as well. I think it is important for all hon. members in this House to take a stand on the subject. If hon. members on that side of the House want their bona fides to be accepted in respect of the broad objectives they want to achieve, they must take a stand on this. If they want us to believe that they are not seeking to promote party-political interests and do not see in this an opportunity to serve themselves, even at the cost of harming the country, they must take a stand on this matter this afternoon.

I want to thank hon. members for the responsible way in which the debate has been conducted and heard up to now.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Minister started his speech, I wondered whether he had seen my notes! He started with exactly the same idea with which I wanted to start my speech … [Interjections.] … and that is the responsibility of this House and of hon. members with regard to this matter. My speech deals with virtually all the points he raised subsequently.

I should like to refer to a few of the other points, however, to a few of the questions posed by the hon. the Minister. It is a pity that the hon. the Prime Minister did not reply immediately so that we might have known what the attitude of the Government was going to be in respect of this matter and what action it was going to take. After a good start, we had nothing more from the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs than a defence of Government action. What the country is looking for is an indication of and an announcement on what the Government intends doing so as to put an end to the present impossible situation. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs asked who was best qualified to decide on what information was to be made public and to evaluate evidence. I concede that in the case of criminal responsibility, crimes and illegal acts, a court or a judicial commission on which people with the necessary training serve, is the most suitable body to give a ruling in this regard. In this motion we are not concerned with a question of criminal responsibility, but with a question of political responsibility. I shall deal with that specifically in the course of my speech.

The hon. the Minister asked us to thank the Government since the interest in this matter had its origin in the appointment of the Erasmus Commission. Of course, that is not true; it is totally untrue. The interest had its origin in the dismissal of the Mostert Commission after Mr. Justice Mostert had revealed certain facts. That is the origin of the public interest.

I did not say that.

I wrote it down here: “The interest in the situation developed as a result of the appointment and the report of the Erasmus Commission.” I submit that the interest had its origin in the Mostert Commission.

Another point raised by him was the fact that officials should not investigate their superiors. Is this not precisely what the Government did? It appointed officials to the Van den Bergh Committee, to the Kemp Committee and to the Pretorius Committee to investigate their superiors … [Interjections.] … or to investigate matters for which Ministers had been responsible.

That is not true.

There were three departmental committees to evaluate the secret projects. There was the Reynders Committee, which had to investigate irregularities. Whose irregularities were they? They were irregularities for which a Minister had been originally responsible. I am afraid the hon. the Minister contributed little towards clearing up the present situation.

†The motion before the House seeks to bring to this House the responsibility which belongs to Parliament. It seeks to bring to Parliament evidence which will enable Parliament to determine the rights or wrongs of political responsibility. It provides a procedure for which all of us have repeatedly asked, which is that the evidence be made available to members of this House. I would have preferred to have had a Select Committee and I would have moved an amendment accordingly if the mover of the motion had not mentioned that this is part of his thinking, because I believe the first step would be an investigation by a Select Committee which would make an evaluation and report to Parliament.

Is it not incredible that the hon. the Minister of Justice can make secret disclosures to representatives of the Law Societies while the members of Parliament not even the members of the Government, the members on that side of the House, are not trusted with the information.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to follow Press reports slavishly and to accuse me … [Interjections.] I say it is not so.

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point may proceed; the hon. the Minister has only given an explanation.

Mr. Speaker, I accept the hon. the Minister’s word. If he says that the leaders of the law societies have lied, that he did not disclose any information to them and that they changed their minds without any

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I did not say that the leaders of the law societies lied. The leaders of the law societies themselves have denied the report. I never said that anybody lied. [Interjections.]

Order! I am dealing with a point of order! The hon. the Minister rose on a point of order asking for a further explanation, an explanation which he gave. On that point, I therefore ask the hon. member to accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister of Justice has raised two points of order which he well knew were not points of order …

Order!

… and he has abused…

Order! Is the hon. member reflecting on the Chair?

Mr. Speaker …

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat.

Sir, you asked me a question.

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat. The hon. member for Durban Point may proceed.

Mr. Speaker…

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order Do I understand that you will not allow the hon. member for Yeoville to raise further points of order?

No, that is not my intention.

Mr. Speaker, I accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation. The members obviously changed their minds for other reasons. My point is that we in this House do not have access to information which I believe is vital to enable us to make responsible decisions. In my opinion the situation is now completely out of hand, so much so that it has become farcical. It is, however, vital and urgent that an end be put to this situation of continuous allegations and denials, a situation in which people discredited by the Erasmus Commission’s report are now being believed by the general public more readily than Ministers of this Government. I think it is the responsibility of Parliament to stop that situation continuing, in the interests of the Government and in the interests of the system.

What we therefore expect from the Government in this debate is an announcement that steps will be taken to put an end to a situation that I believe is damaging the country more than anyone can possibly imagine. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs referred to “belemmering in die pad van die kommissie”. I, however, believe that this Government had done more to prejudice the credibility of the Erasmus Commission than anything else by failing to protect it against the attacks on it, by failing to prosecute Gen. Van den Bergh and by allowing criticism, questionings and allegations and taking no action against those who have insulted the commission and called its actions in question. Its own report raised some question-marks, one of which has been dealt with. The other related to the former Prime Minister and evidence received by the commission being rejected.

The courts have always enjoyed the fullest confidence of the people of South Africa, and I believe that is still the position. However, the Government has the responsibility to maintain the inviolability of the courts and their standing in the eyes of the people. Unless something is done, and done immediately, it will not be possible for anyone to have the matter cleared up at an early stage. Even an election would not help. Unless the facts become known to and are accepted by the people, even an election and a new mandate would solve nothing, just as the 1977 election solved nothing. In 1977 the Government got a mandate because the people were not aware of the facts. The same position would pertain now. Unless the facts are available, even an election would not clear up the situation. What has got to be done and is vital is that the truth must be seen and accepted by the people in South Africa. Only then will credibility be restored in the system—not in the Government, because that does not matter. What should be in the dock at the moment is a political administration, but we find the Government placing the system itself in the dock—on trial. If that system is found guilty, what do we put in its place? It is not only the system of parliamentary government itself that is on trial but we, Parliament, who are on trial to restore confidence in the system of parliamentary government.

I only have time left clearly to place on record the objectives of this party, the NRP, and I do so in answer to the hon. the Minister’s question of what the motives behind this motion are. The objectives of this party are, firstly, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth seen and believed by the people; secondly, to protect the security interests of South Africa; thirdly, to prevent a cover-up and to end suspicion mongering and rumour-mongering; fourthly, to clear the innocent who are being smeared by the backwash of the present situation and at the same time to punish the guilty …

Whoever they may be.

When I say “the guilty”, I mean those guilty of either criminal or political misdemeanours. Our next objective is to restore confidence in the institution of parliamentary government itself and to restore confidence in the law and in the fact that no one is above the law. On the last objective I have said we do not differ. That is why 50 000 people signed the petition calling for the prosecution of Gen. Van den Bergh, including he himself. They have done so out of their respect for the judicial system.

Order! That is not relevant at the moment.

I shall leave it at that, Sir. The hon. the Prime Minister accepted the findings of the Erasmus Commission—quite correctly, I believe—in regard to personal gain, corruption and integrity; so does the NRP. That is, however, not at issue. What is at issue is political responsibility. That commission comprises a judge, a law adviser and an attorney-general who by their profession, their training and their instincts are not politicians and who have no political experience, background or knowledge. They are people beyond politics. It is Parliament which must determine political responsibility. The hon. the Prime Minister has blindly staked his Government on the political findings of a commission untrained in politics.

What political findings did they make?

Neither the hon. the Prime Minister nor anyone in his Cabinet, least of all the rest of the members of the Government, have read the evidence that has come before the Erasmus Commission. They have blindly accepted findings on criminal liability and applied them to political responsibility. The hon. the Prime Minister admits himself that neither he nor any of his colleagues have read one word of the evidence. Surely, his responsibility as the political head of South Africa is to evaluate that evidence from a political point of view. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister has failed by not carrying out that duty.

My time has expired, Mr. Speaker, as a result of interruptions and I shall have to leave the matter there.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that I remained seated and did not reply because I wanted to hear what he had to say. Now I am sorry I did so. The hon. member for Parktown claimed that I had said almost with a touch of longing and wistfulness: “It will go away.” The hon. member misunderstood me. I did not mean with “It will go away” that I was asking people “to let it go away”. I said what I want to repeat today, and that is that “it will go away” because we, the Government, will see to it that everything that is wrong will be rectified. That is why I said: “It will go away.” I committed myself in public to a clean administration and acknowledged the supreme authority of Parliament by convening it at the first opportunity that presented itself in order to inform the country through Parliament. I took the steps of not only appointing a judicial commission but also of appointing a fact-finding committee consisting of senior officials who had to ensure that the interests of the State were protected—and not to make decisions about their superiors, as the hon. member tried to imply. Therefore I did not use the words “It will go away” for that reason at all, but for completely different reasons. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that the Erasmus Commission is the only commission which received specific terms of reference in regard to these irregularities. The commission to which he referred, a commission which disclosed certain evidence, did not have such terms of reference. That was the argument which the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs advanced just now. Apparently the hon. member did not listen to what the hon. the Minister said.

When I read the motion for the first time I agreed in substance with the principle advocated in this motion, viz. that as much as possible of the evidence of this commission should be made public, with this proviso that information which is dangerous to the State and which can harm the country should not be made public. I have no fault to find with that. I then examined this motion a little further in the light of the relevant Standing Order and I now want to make a few observations in this regard. The first is that this rule deals with circumstances which are completely different to these circumstances. I know of no case, other than the Schlebusch Commission, in which a commission’s report was submitted in this way. Surely it was for completely different circumstances that this rule was made. In addition I want to argue that that rule is obsolete and that what is implied by that rule is no longer the practice today. If a document is tabled, it is public knowledge. Now the hon. member wishes to make use of an obsolete rule in the Standing Orders, a rule which was made in days gone by, to deal with a matter of this nature. In the second place, if the House were to order that such a document should not be made public if it is marked confidential, no hon. member may make its contents known, for if he should do so he would be guilty of breach of privilege. But surely there is nothing in this Standing Order which provides that an hon. member may not lose his documents or which can prevent any person from accidentally gaining access to his documents. What measure of protection is there in this rule to ensure that no other person has access to those documents? If the hon. member tells me that it is Mr. Speaker and the staff of Parliament who will maintain supervision over these matters, then he now wishes to shift a responsibility which rests on the Government and the State President on to Mr. Speaker and the staff of Parliament.

In the case of the Schlebusch Commission the documents were tabled. What happened then? In 1972 it was determined by resolution of the House of Assembly that only members of the Select Committee would be afforded an opportunity of having access to those documents. They were not available to the entire House. In this connection matters may be broached which are of the utmost importance to the security of the State as a whole. If we would only use our common sense we would see how absurd people are becoming in an attempt to defend themselves outside and that they do not care what they say.

As far as this point is concerned, I want to conclude by saying that as regards evidence in connection with matters affecting the security of the State there is no doubt that it is, similarly, going to be extremely difficult for Mr. Speaker to guarantee secrecy in such matters at all times. If a leak should occur that leak would be laid at the door of the highest authority in this House. Is that what we should expose Mr. Speaker to? If it is the intention now to make the evidence of the commission available only to certain Government and Opposition members, what assurance do we have that, if it is not possible for an agreement to be reached between the Opposition members—that handful—and the Government on such disclosure, we shall not find ourselves confronted by a situation in which Mr. Speaker and this House are placed in an impossible position? The hon. member for Parktown is blinking his eyes; I do not know whether he is following what I am saying.

I am doing my best.

Surely there could be a serious difference of opinion on what affects the security of the State, and how does the hon. member wish to resolve that? He may suggest that we conduct a public debate on the matter or that we consult the several parties. Sir, there are so many problems inherent in this Standing Order, because it is obsolete and because it is not intended for circumstances of this kind, that the hon. member should first go back and reflect on it before he insists that we make use of such machinery. There is no guarantee of secrecy, nor is there anything inherent in the Standing Order which guarantees State security. Nor is there anything inherent in the Standing Order which is able to protect delicate international affairs. Evidence need not be a danger to the State, but may still contribute to marring relations between States, and that is what the Government must guard against.

What about a Select Committee?

Wait a minute, just give me a chance. I did not interrupt the hon. member. We cannot deprive the State President and the Government of the responsibility—the State President acting on the advice of his Ministers—of deciding on the making available of evidence. I do not want to run away from that.

I contacted the Erasmus Commission and asked them what we may expect in future as far as the procedure is concerned. In our opinion Parliament is entitled to that. With the approval of the chairman and members of the commission I can make certain announcements. As regards the first report— the report we have already discussed—the commission will, because it now has time in which to do so, collate more evidence and make it available in support of its findings. Consequently we shall be receiving more printed evidence in connection with the first report. In the second place its final report will be accompanied by comprehensive evidence in support of its findings. Consequently, as we should all like, evidence from the first report and that of the main report, the subsequent report, will be made public as comprehensively as possible, with two exceptions, i.e. the security of the State and that which affect the interests of the State.

The hon. member for Durban Point said something about the commission which was quite uncalled for and which I take amiss of him. The members of the commission might not be politicians, but they are certainly not stupid. The commissioners are people who occupy key posts in the service of the State.

But when it comes to political responsibility it is not their task to …

Before I appointed the commission, that member asked for a judicial commission in regard to the other matter. The hon. member should not chop and change so much. The commission will not publish evidence pertaining to the security of the State, nor will it publish evidence which is a threat to the State. I want to state that very explicitly. In the meantime we must afford the commission an opportunity to prepare its final report. After the commission has completed its task, the time will be appropriate to evaluate what the commission has given us and what not.

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

The hon. member must not waste my time; he knows my time is limited. The hon. member may ask his question when my Vote is being discussed. My time is limited now, and the hon. member knows it.

I shall give you some of my time.

In this connection there is one outstanding question, one which is being asked repeatedly by opponents of the Government. It concerns the integrity of the Government as it sits here— 18 Ministers, including myself. The question is constantly being asked whether the report of the commission will not bring clarity in this connection, and they want to see the report of the commission in order to clarify the position. I helped them in this connection by recommending to the State President that he give the commission the special instruction—he has already done so—to inquire into and report not later than 31 March 1979 on the question of whether any member of the present Cabinet, before the facts were made public as a result of investigations on the part of the State, had any knowledge of the subsidization of or the rendering of other financial assistance to The Citizen by, or of any other irregularities in, the former Department of Information “and to deal in your final report with any evidence, in connection with said question, given before you after 31 March 1979”. The question which is being held over our heads is now in the hands of the commission to reply to. I shall also recommend to the Cabinet that the evidence of the commission pertaining to this matter, i.e. the integrity of the Cabinet, should be quoted in full.

Will cross-examination be allowed? [Interjections.]

We come now to 31 May, when the final report of the Erasmus Commission must be made known. The commission has given me the assurance that it is going to try to have its report ready before 31 May. What about the position after 31 May with regard to matters in this connection, or matters which may arise from this, or other matters? We have considered this matter very thoroughly. I think Parliament is entitled to keep a watchful eye on the national administration. I also think Parliament is entitled to pronounce judgment on corruption and maladministration. This is a standpoint I adopt as a matter of principle. Other Parliaments and other countries have also taken steps in a similar context. In this way, for example, the post of “Parliamentary Commissioner” was created in Britain. Similar posts were created in New Zealand, Sweden, Finland and elsewhere, posts whose incumbents more specifically fulfilled the function of an ombudsman. In the USA, since the Watergate scandal, there has been a “special prosecutor”. He takes action in regard to irregularities. The Government has had an opportunity to consider the matter, and we have decided to introduce legislation during the present session for the creation of the post of an Advocate-General as a counterpart to the Auditor-General. The Advocate-General will only investigate allegations made to him by way of an affidavit by a member of Parliament, a member of the provincial council or a journalist, or by an Attorney-General, such allegations to be those pertaining to alleged State malpractices and State corruption. The Advocate-General will be able to hold sessions in camera. He will have an independent staff, and he will submit his report to Parliament, which may then be dealt with by a Select Committee. This post will be filled on 1 June. With that, I think, we are taking a further step on the road to a clean administration.

Before I make a few further observations I should first like to move the following amendment—

1. (a) is of the opinion that the Erasmus Commission should be allowed to complete and to report upon its work before 31 May 1979 unhindered;
2. (b) is grateful to note that the Commission intends to quote evidence in substantiation of its report, except where the security of the State is implicated;
3. (c) supports the Government in its intention to appoint an Advocate-General with effect from 1 June 1979 to investigate and to report to Parliament upon such allegations of corruption and serious malpractices by the State or officers of the State as are supported by affidavits”.

Since I refer in my amendment to the security of the State, I just want to add that I have already added to that “the interests of the State” in my speech.

It is true that a long period of time has elapsed since this commission was appointed. Precisely because I was afraid that we would have the situation that the commission would be hampered by propaganda, I made provision for the commission to report to the Government as soon as possible. That is why we convened Parliament for a special session. We realized that the commission would not be able to clear up and finalize the matter in the short time at its disposal. That is why the commission received a second set of terms of reference, i.e. to continue the investigation, and that is why this third set of terms of reference concerning the integrity of the Cabinet was given to the commission. The machinery of the State is slow, but thorough. The Auditor-General and the Erasmus Commission are playing their respective roles. The Pretorius Committee, which was referred to so contemptuously, did valuable work and investigated matters which could be referred to the Erasmus Commission. What is more, the Pretorius Committee has already safeguarded many interests of the State. I shall submit a further report of the Pretorius Committee at a convenient opportunity. Hon. members on that side of the House should not be so over-hasty, for he who acts in haste repents at leisure.

Today I once again wish to express my greatest appreciation to the Erasmus Commission and the Pretorius Committee for the fact that they are, despite the most trying provocation and propaganda against them, quietly doing a thorough piece of work for their country.

The people into whose hands matters such as these must find their way in the first place are surely the police, after matters have been referred to them on the recommendation of the commission. It is so stated in that report of the commission. I do not wish to dwell on that now, but merely wish to say that I was informed in the course of the week that great progress had already been made with the investigation of the police in connection with certain organizations and that the Attorney-General of the Transvaal had granted approval for the issuing of a warrant citing Dr. Rhoodie in connection with a charge of fraud and an alternative charge of theft. That case is now proceeding. I am not going to elaborate on that any further. The police have done their duty.

Apparently hon. members on that side of the House now want to take the administration of the country out of the hands of the Government. The trouble is that the hon. member for Parktown does not want to bide his time so that the State can do its work. He should rather wait while the State administration takes its course. Then he will probably realize that the State has built-in machinery which is better than the machinery which he proposes. If there is possibly any idea that this Government is running amuck as far as this matter is concerned, I wish to eliminate that figment of the hon. member’s imagination immediately. We are committed to a clean administration and also to orderly government. One of the features of orderly government is that one does not wreck one’s State machinery before it comes into operation. In that regard surely the official Opposition also has a responsibility. Surely it is not solely the responsibility of the Government. Surely the official Opposition— that wishes to act so nobly!—also has a responsibility to this judicial commission and to the S.A. Police. Surely they also have a responsibility to the machinery of the State, which must continue to manage the national administration regardless of which party is governing the country. Why does the hon. member not bide his time? Rashness has never profited anyone.

I want to conclude. Our country is faced with tremendous challenges and tremendous tasks. It is not only the Erasmus Commission and what it is investigating that the Government has to deal with. The Government also has to deal with international questions. We have to deal with economic problems. We have to deal with population problems. We are living in a country which is growing and which is waiting for work that has to be done. Cannot we now ask people to stop placing obstacles in our way?

I can understand that people have been hurt in this process. I can understand people looking for all kinds of escape routes by performing political stunts and drawing a veil of secrecy around their actions. This Government is committed to clean national administration and is also committed to other tasks which it has to fulfil in South Africa, and we want to get on with our work.

You are paralysed!

No, Sir, we are not paralysed. We are not divided into three fragments, as are hon. members on the opposite side of this House. [Interjections.] The country can trust this Government. The country will trust us, and the country will eventually find that the people who shout the loudest on the opposite side of the House have the poorest intentions in their efforts to hinder the task of this Government.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister raised a few very fascinating issues during the course of his speech. It is perhaps important to deal right at the beginning with the matter with which he concluded, and that is that the hon. the Prime Minister claimed, correctly, that the Government is faced with major problems, that it has to deal with the international problems facing South Africa and that this Information affair is an obstacle that lies in the path of a solution of these problems and activities of the Government. What the hon. the Prime Minister does not realize is that the biggest obstacle that is in his path, in the path of the Government in dealing with these other important issues of South Africa, is the failure on the part of the Government adequately to deal with the Information scandal. If the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with it adequately, openly dealt with it, disclosed it, put an end to it and got rid of it, then the hon. the Prime Minister could have got on with the job. But, as it is, he has created the biggest obstacles for himself in the execution of his duties.

The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the question of whether the people of South Africa trusted the Government. I am not worried whether the people of South Africa trust the Government. What worries us on these benches is that the activities connected with the Information scandal have caused costrust in the institution of government in South Africa, and this is more important than we trust in an individual who happens to hold office from time to time.

The amendment which the hon. the Prime Minister has moved deals with three particular issues. I want to deal straight away with the question of the disclosure of evidence, the issue dealt with in the motion moved by the hon. member for Parktown. I save before me the amendment to the motion, which states, inter alia—

Dat die Raad met dank kennis neem dat die Kommissie voomemens is om ter stawing van sy verslag getuienis aan te naal, behalwe waar die Staat se veiligheid in gedrang kom.

The hon. the Prime Minister owes the country an explanation of what is meant by the term er stawing van”, which means “in support or I have never heard, in the whole judicial history of South Africa, of a court being entitled to say that it is not disclosing all the evidence but is only selecting certain portions which support its findings and which it will then make public. So, if a court cannot do that, why should this commission be able to do so? By suggesting that the commission should be allowed to select evidence, the hon. the Prime Minister is making things worse than they are now and is creating a far bigger problem. [Interjections.]

Order!

The issue is very clearly—and we can take it from the commission as such—that while three people have given evidence in support of one particular matter, and one person has given evidence that went against it, the commission rejected the evidence of the three people and accepted the evidence of the one person. How, in the interests of fairness and justice, can it possibly be suggested that one can solve the problem by saying that the commission is going to have the right to select evidence “ter stawing van” (“in support of’) its findings? The hon. the Prime Minister, let me say, has done a disservice to the whole concept by now saying that he is going to permit a process of selection of evidence.

I know the hon. the Prime Minister is busy, but I think he should listen to the criticism of the proposals he has put before the House and not walk out when, perhaps, he does not like what is happening. [Interjections.]

Order!

I cannot, and I do not believe that any reasonable person is going to, accept the concept of the selection of evidence. Let me give an example, a very real and meaningful example. A finding was made by this commission, a finding presumably based on evidence, on a matter concerning the hon. the Prime Minister. I refer to the question of the Defence Special Account. We have also, however, had another commission of inquiry which reported on matters relating to the security of the State. That commission heard evidence from one of the people who also testified before the Erasmus Commission. I am referring to Mr. G. W. Browne, the then Secretary for Finance. He gave evidence on what should happen in regard to the transfer of moneys from one Vote to another et me quote from the commission’s report (R.P. 17/1970, p. 9)-

The witness testified further that if the amount of R50 million could be expended for the Bureau …

He was referring to the Bureau for State Security—

That witness is the same Secretary for Finance who was there when money was transferred from the Defence Special Account. I quote further—

The evidence goes on, and I quote further what that witness, the then Secretary for Finance, said (p. 10)—

That is what he said in evidence—

I do not know whether that evidence was before the Erasmus Commission or not, but to my mind that evidence is in direct contradiction to the facts that have been put forward as a result of this commission. Now we are faced with the situation that we are only going to be told the evidence which supports the findings. Evidence selected by the people who made the findings is what is going to be made public. Let us be realistic: All this commission is, is a body of people who have expressed a point of view that is not binding on anybody. It is a recommendation; it is their view of the facts. It is no more than that. If we are to form a judgment, we must have the evidence available and we must form our own judgment based upon the evidence as it is presented to us.

The hon. the Prime Minister went to great lengths to explain what he thought the difficulties were in regard to making the evidence available. However, he omitted entirely any reference to the concept we have put forward, the adoption of which we cannot move at this stage. I refer to the concept that the whole of that evidence should be examined by a Select Committee and that that Select Committee should decide on what evidence should be published and what evidence should not be published. That would give the public the safeguard that the Opposition would be sitting on the Select Committee. It is not just an issue for the Executive itself to make the selection. Now we have the commission going to make the selection instead of the Executive and I submit with respect that that is equally bad in the circumstances and offers no safeguard to the public at all. Therefore, it is not surprising that we cannot accept that as an answer to our proposal. We cannot accept it in any you because it does not offer the safeguards to which the hon. member for Parktown refer red, which the public require and which we a Parliament are entitled to receive.

Let me next deal with the second proposal, a new proposal for the House, put by the hon. the Prime Minister today. I refer to his proposal to appoint, as he said, an Advocate-General comparable to the Auditor-General to act as a kind of ombudsman in the circumstances. If he were to be a true ombudsman in the classical sense of the word, one could say that there would be considerable merit in such a suggestion. To have somebody act as a watchdog for the public as such is, I think, normally a desirable thing. We have not, however, seen the legislation; we have not seen how this is to function in practice; we have not seen whether this will in fact act as a restraining influence on Parliament itself in its right to debate and contend matters here. We cannot say how this will be dealt with. We cannot say what the restraining effect will be on the Press, for example, because we have already been told: “You must make your allegations under oath.” These should come, as I recollect it, from a member of Parliament, certain other individuals, members of the provincial councils and the Press, and they must be made and under oath. There may well be matters of hearsay brought to the attention of members of the House and of the Press and it may be important that those matters be investigated. Such matters could also be submitted to an ombudsman in the classical sense. In the ordinary sense, a true ombudsman is not obliged to act only on information given under oath.

The other question the hon. the Prime Minister did not deal with is the question of how the position of Advocate-General differs from that of an Attorney-General. As he said, if a complaint is made to the police, it must be investigated. In fact, any claim of corruption—he referred to that—or matter of that sort does not require an Advocate-General. One can lodge one’s complaint with the police. What is more, one does not have to lodge a complaint under oath. One can go to the police and say that this and that happened. The Attorney-General has exactly the same powers at the present moment as the Advocate-General has in terms of the hon. the Prime Minister’s suggestion, unless of course there is something further about which we have not yet been told and which is going to be contained in the legislation. I think we need to be told a little more before we form a final judgment on the position of such an Advocate-General. We need to be told what the implications are as regards the rights of members of the House, members of the provincial councils and the Press, as regards the right of free debate and of freedom of speech as we presently enjoy it in the House. I think the hon. the Prime Minister owed it to us at least to tell us a little more about this matter, instead of merely referring to it at this particular juncture in this particular manner. It certainly offers no solution to the whole problem which exists.

The hon. the Prime Minister has made one other announcement. He referred to the question of political responsibility; in other words, the question whether any member of the Cabinet had knowledge of any of the irregularities at a time other than the date to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred. I think that is a matter which, with respect, can be investigated by this House, because the issue concerns an investigation into members of the Cabinet, members of this House. The responsibility relating to the question whether there has been any knowledge of the irregularities, is a responsibility the hon. Ministers concerned owe this House. The classical way in which that investigation should be undertaken is to have it investigated by a Select Committee of Parliament.

I can quote a long list of examples of Select Committees that were appointed by this House to deal with this type of allegation. We can go right back to the case concerning Dr. Malan during the war, to the hon. member for Simonstown’s allegations concerning Mr. A. H. du Plessis and to a whole series of others. The classical, parliamentary way in which to have this investigated, is to appoint a Select Committee of Parliament. It is not for a commission consisting of people who are not members of Parliament to deal with this issue. This is a classical parliamentary issue concerning which an account must be drawn up and responsibility must be determined for submission to this House. That is what institutions of Parliament are about. That is, in fact, the whole tradition of Parliament. A member of the Cabinet is not accountable to a commission. Judges, Attorneys-General and law advisers are appointed by the State, but this House actually has the Cabinet in its midst and the Cabinet is responsible to this House and must therefore give an account to this House.

Therefore, with great respect to the hon. the Prime Minister, exactly as we suggested right at the beginning that this was a matter to be investigated by Parliamentarians, we have consistently asked for it to be investigated by Parliamentarians and still hold the view that Parliamentarians should investigate it. That is why we have taken the view that the evidence should be tabled in the House and put before us. We have offered the safeguard that matters of national security should not become public, but then a Select Committee of Parliament must examine the evidence and make a finding.

The hon. the Prime Minister and every other speaker who has spoken in this debate, has correctly spoken about the fact that one must safeguard matters of national security. We all agree with that, but I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister a very simple question. He has seen, for example, the allegation Gen. Van den Bergh has made, an allegation I regard as being of a very serious nature. It has been reported as follows—

He also quoted some other examples. Then we have the new actor in this play, Mr. Van Zyl, saying, as the heading has it: “Rhoodie beskik oor plofstof.” Matters pertaining to bribery, etc., were mentioned in this report. As I have indicated, I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question on this.

Are you his spokesman in Parliament?

No, I am not. The hon. the Prime Minister must just answer this question in a minute: Is this kind of insinuation with its veiled suggestion that South Africa has been involved in all sorts of terrible things that can do the most terrible harm, not more damaging to South Africa’s interests than showing to the world that such things do not exist? That is the test. What has happened as a result of this whole attitude on the part of the Government, is that the world is being inundated with stories by which South Africa’s position is being jeopardized, insinuations, smears, rumours—whatever one would like to call them. By not making the evidence available to a Select Committee of Parliament so that there will be the safeguard for the public that the Opposition will serve on that committee, all that is happening is that the Government is making it worse for South Africa from the point of view of the security position. That is the danger of this kind of tactic which has been adopted and that is why it is so important that in these circumstances the evidence as a whole should be disclosed.

The hon. the Prime Minister has attacked Standing Order No. 206. He said that it is inappropriate and archaic and that it is meant for different circumstances. Standing Order No. 206 deals very clearly with the tabling of all documents in this House and it offers the safeguard that, where security matters are involved, such a report can be tabled as confidential. I think it is to the credit of this side of the House that we did not move a motion that it should all be tabled but said that in the first place it should be marked confidential so that a screening process could take place. The hon. the Prime Minister asked how one could be sure that it would be secure. He stated that it could be lost or that people could leave it lying around. I never dreamt and nobody has ever dreamt that every member of Parliament was going to get a full copy of thousands of pages of evidence to drag around with him. There are documents tabled that are then made available for inspection. There is a procedure for that. If one assumes for one moment that there will then be a security risk, one is casting a reflection on every single member of this House. That, with great respect, is uncalled for from the hon. the Prime Minister in these circumstances.

Order! No such reflection was cast.

Well, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister …

Order! I have already ruled that no such reflection was cast.

Well, I took it as such.

Order! No, I listened very carefully and no such reflection was cast.

I accept your ruling, Sir, but Hansard will reflect the exact words the hon. the Prime Minister used.

Then the hon. the Prime Minister said it was a responsibility of the Government, it was a responsibility of the State President. The responsibility for the Government of South Africa rests with Parliament. He is responsible to Parliament. This is the supreme body in South Africa and it is for this body to decide what measures should be taken. To suggest even remotely, that we should not participate in the decision as to what is a security risk and what is not, is something I cannot accept from the hon. the Prime Minister and I do not believe other hon. members will be able to accept it either.

The question which, correctly, has been posed is the question of what do we hope to achieve with this motion. The answers are very simple. Firstly, we believe that one actually has to bring the Information scandal to an end. If this Information scandal drags on, the responsibility for its dragging on will be the Government’s. It will be the responsibility of the Government that it is hampering the activities of the institutions of government to deal with the major problems that the country has to face. We believe that the Information scandal should be brought to an end at the earliest opportunity. Secondly, we believe that we are entitled to see whether the findings of the commission are correct or whether they are not correct. We are entitled to sit in judgment on the evidence in exactly the same way that one can sit in judgment on a court of law by examining the evidence. In a court of law one has an appeal to an appeal court, and in this case the public can appeal to Parliament which is the highest body in the land and which must therefore sit in judgment. Thirdly, we wish to show without any doubt where the political responsibility lies in respect of this matter. There are probabilities in regard to this issue. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and others have complained that the Press are presenting a one-sided picture. Am I right? The Press is only presenting the words—this according to the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs—of a person who has been discredited. Whose fault is it that the other side is not being presented? They are withholding the evidence they themselves have given. They are withholding what the answer are to the allegations of people like Dr. Rhoodie and Gen. Van den Bergh. Therefore we are entitled to say that if the Press puts only one side of the picture, the reason why the other side is not put, is the fault of the Government, and of no one else. As far as we are concerned, in addition to political responsibility, wrongdoers have to be punished. Whoever has done wrong must be punished, whether in the courts of law or whether by political action that has to take place in this particular House.

The next point is that we have to be sure that all States money and all State assets are being recovered. We shall be failing in our duty as Parliamentarians if we do not see to it that every asset and every cent of State money are recovered. Perhaps the most important aspect of all is the fact that, based upon what happened and seeing how all these things were possible, we should see to it that safe-guards are enacted in South Africa, safeguards that will ensure that this will never be allowed to happen again. That again is a responsibility of Parliament, and without knowing how it was all perpetrated, we cannot decide what all the measures should be to constitute these safeguards. One must therefore with some regret say to the hon. the Prime Minister that what he has offered today does not even go halfway, and we must therefore persist with the proposal that we have put before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have been allocated only a few minutes to speak in this debate, and consequently it will not be possible for me to deal in much detail with what the hon. member for Yeoville has said. During the past few months we have made our views known in regard to corruption and we have made our views known on the necessity for prosecution of those suspected of it. I do not think it is necessary for us to repeat them.

However, I think it is necessary for us carefully to consider what the hon. member for Yeoville actually said. The hon. member for Yeoville is known as a man who very often blusters his way through situations. I have so often found that while he was speaking apparently with the appearance of authority, and while his words also had the appearance of substance, very often on more careful consideration, and on reading him the next day in Hansard, they are found to be devoid of much substance.

I think the hon. the Prime Minister was correct this afternoon in stating that there was a background to this debate. The background to this debate is simply that we are engaged in a war with terrorists on our borders and that terrorists have infiltrated the Republic. The result of this is that we are being subjected to intense pressures in the diplomatic, economic and psychological field by the Western powers. Besides this, the country faces a real danger of sanctions by the United Nations. Internally, in South Africa, there is a very real and a very urgent need to find internal solutions. Under these circumstances we think the Government must be seen to act effectively without the incubus of the Information scandal around its neck. We believe, and we have stated so publicly for some time, that South Africa cannot afford to be paralysed into some sort of Watergate psychosis. What is required, is strong and decisive leadership and the restoration of public confidence in Governmental authority.

The hon. the Prime Minister has today made an announcement which we believe is worthy of support. Thus we shall support the hon. the Prime Minister’s amendment. In doing so we wish to say that in so far as the first paragraph of his amendment is concerned, we are in full agreement with him that the Erasmus Commission should be allowed to continue its work unhindered. The second paragraph is also, prima facie, acceptable to us in that it states that the commission will table evidence in support of its report. We feel, prima facie, that this means that as much evidence as is necessary, without affecting national security, will be published. That is how we interpret the second paragraph. We further, prima facie, welcome the appointment announced in the third paragraph of the amendment, i.e. that a post of Advocate-General is to be established. We have already made a suggestion along similar lines in this House, and we hope that the Advocate-General will become an official of Parliament in the same way as the Auditor-General.

The official Opposition’s motion itself requires the evidence in support of the report of the Erasmus Commission to be tabled for the confidential information of Members of Parliament. We object to this motion for two reasons. First of all the motion does not exclude evidence which affects our national security, and we believe this to be a fatal defect in the motion. We maintain that the commission itself should, in its discretion, exclude those portions of the evidence given to it which might jeopardize the security of the State.

Are you suggesting that Members of Parliament could not be trusted to keep it secure?

If the hon. member puts that interpretation on what I have said, and if the truth hurts, then he should swallow it.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

No matter what political figure …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think the hon. member’s reply reflects on the honour of members of the House, and I should like to know if he is allowed to do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the commission should exclude from the evidence it is going to table, those portions which jeopardize our security, and I say that no matter what political figures, both present and past may be damaged by the commission’s …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I raised a point of order based on the fact that the hon. member said that it could not be tabled in the House according to the provisions of Standing Order No. 206, which determines that the evidence be available only to Members of Parliament. He was thus reflecting on the integrity of hon. members of the House by suggesting that the evidence will not be secure.

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that. What I said was that if the cap fits anybody, he must wear it. I said this in reaction to the hon. member’s interjection.

You also said the truth hurts.

Whatever my actual words were, I intended it to mean that if the cap fits hon. members, they should wear it. Sir, I was saying that the evidence that should be excluded from being tabled should be evidence affecting our national security. I was also saying that no matter what political figures, whether present or past, might be damaged by the commission excising such evidence that it believes affects our national security, then that is the price that politicians have to pay for serving the people. In our estimation the security of the State is of paramount importance.

Our second reason for rejecting the motion is that we maintain that all the evidence which the commission sees fit to publish, should be made public, and not be made available only to Members of Parliament. We maintain the public is entitled to know on what basis the commission based its findings, and that the commission is entitled to have its work judged by the people.

When the Erasmus Commission stated in December, after further consideration, that it had decided not to make the evidence public, I felt that there must have been good reasons for that decision. The publication of the report, the debate in the House and the continual Press speculation and revelations have undoubtedly hampered the work being done by the commission.

I want to make it absolutely clear that the defunct Department of Information did very good work, in our opinion. It might have made wrong decisions, and in certain respects it might have been incompetently run, looking at it in retrospect, but much of the work that it did, was very necessary as part of the Republic’s battle to survive. It is therefore an absolute tragedy that everything that has been done by the defunct Department of Information, whether it was good or bad, is now being disclosed to the embarrassment of our friends overseas and to the detriment of our safety in the Republic. All countries have to engage in secret activities in order to safeguard their vital interests. People overseas are asking openly today: “Are you South Africans crazy? Are you wishing to destroy yourselves?”

*The reason for the appointment of the commission was to create order and to put an end to confusion regarding this matter. Today, everyone in the Republic wants to act as judge, and in the light of the conduct of newspapers, the work of the commission is hindered and its findings become almost irrelevant. We are not a banana Republic, but an independent, strong nation and people with a proud record of integrity, steady government and good administration on virtually all levels. It is foolish to react to every allegation as too many people in responsible positions are doing at the moment.

I am glad that the Government has announced today that the reports of the Erasmus Commission and the evidence on which they are based will be made public after the commission has completed its work. All that will be excluded will be the parts of the evidence which, in the opinion of the commission, has a bearing on State security in the wider sense of the word. The nations of South Africa—that includes everyone in South Africa—have every right to demand what the Government has announced today. The SAP will give its wholehearted support to this action and announcement of the Government, for only in this way will order be restored and confusion removed.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the motion of the hon. member for Parktown. The hon. the Minister for Economic Affairs discussed the hampering of the work of the Erasmus Commission. He referred to Press reports. We are all politicians who stand on the public platform and attacks are often launched on other people. This is published in the newspapers. But the remedy is there. If a politician were to attack me on a platform and make a false statement—it often happens— and it was published in the Press, I have the right to reply to it. That is why I cannot empathize with the hon. the Minister’s feelings of nervousness regarding reporting of political matters in newspapers.

I am so pleased that you do not empathize with me.

The Government is entitled to know where it stands with the Opposition. On the other hand, the Opposition is just as entitled to know where it stands with the Government. The hon. the Prime Minister tried to help us today in two important respects. The first was his announcement regarding the appointment of an Advocate-General. The hon. the Prime Minister will realize that it would be presumptious of us to comment before we have seen the Bill.

The hon. member for Yeoville had some comments to make.

My attitude is that before anybody expresses an opinion either for or against a matter such as this, we should be in a position to see if the Bill achieves what it sets out to do.

The second point concerning which the hon. the Prime Minister tried to help the Opposition refers to the inquiry he has now ordered in regard to the position of members of the Cabinet. I shall come back to this later, however.

The motion before the House is very straightforward. It urges that the evidence laid before the Erasmus Commission should be made available to Parliament in a manner which, in my view, will ensure that any security information will be safeguarded should we so desire.

During the most dangerous and difficult years which the United Kingdom lived through during the Second World War, the years 1940 to 1943, Sir Winston Churchill called the British Commons together for secret sessions on five occasions. These took place behind closed doors. I want to discuss the confidence he placed in his members of Parliament. The elected representatives of the people were fully informed by him behind closed doors about Britain’s situation and his plans to deal with this situation. He did this knowing full well that wider publication of his information to Parliament could cost the lives of thousands of Britons and could endanger Britain itself. Churchill realized that there were times when it was essential for a leader to rise above party political differences and unite Parliament behind him if he wanted to carry out his task successfully.

If one compares Britain’s situation in the early war years with our present position, the exaggerated secrecy about the Information debacle, even in regard to Parliament, is nothing less than ridiculous. In fact, numerous officials—some of them not even in high posts—participated in activities which are now so secret that hon. members of the House are not allowed to hear about them.

I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that the problems which have arisen as a result of the Information debacle are not going to be solved by the Erasmus Commission. They will not be solved by the Press, nor by the assurances of certain politicians here and there. If it is not solved here, in and by Parliament, the mistrust and suspicions which exist will continue, and there will be nothing the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government can do about it. The last thing which would help would be a measure muzzling the Press. Nobody would dare to silence Parliament and the courts and as long as Parliament and the courts can talk, the Press too will talk.

The hon. the Prime Minister will have to unite Parliament behind him if he wants to overcome the problems surrounding the Information debacle. The hon. the Prime Minister can do it.

We mistrust you.

We mistrust those hon. members too. Look at the mess that side has landed the country in. [Interjections.] But we cannot work on that basis. When it comes to mistrust, the scales are solidly loaded in our favour.

The point I want to make is that the hon. the Prime Minister—this is the request we make today in this House—must unite Parliament behind him. He can do so, because we all want a clean administration. We all want the Government of the country to comply with democratic and moral norms. The hon. the Prime Minister can get Parliament behind him on these points if he wants to. Then we shall have to understand one another, however, and that is what the hon. member for Parktown seeks to achieve through his motion this afternoon.

What he wants to achieve through this motion derives from the fact that there are two main problems arising out of the Information debacle. The first problem relates to the indications of irregularities in connection with the expenditure of the country’s money. As far as that is concerned, we are quite satisfied that no matter how long it may take, we can allow the Erasmus Commission and justice to run their normal course. If there is anybody, be he an official or not, who is guilty of the misappropriation of government funds, I am satisfied that machinery does exist which can bring that man to trial. We are not concerned that people who have been guilty of misuse of state funds will not be prosecuted. We appreciate that this will take time, because police investigations do take time. Our concern lies with the greater problem which results from the Information debacle. That is what this motion refers to in particular. It relates to the political problem which arises out of it.

The fact is that faith and confidence in political leadership in South Africa have been shaken, and will not soon be restored. It must be realized that something terrible has happened in politics in South Africa. What has happened need not be repeated, except to summarize and say that we have had a situation where the Government, contrary to the Treasury and Audit Act, and so in an irregular manner, has secretly transferred funds from one department to another. In this way the Government built up a gigantic secret fund from state funds, much of which it has misused to obtain political advantage for itself internally. We still do not know exactly how much it was, but we do know of R32 million in connection with The Citizen. There might be other projects of a party political nature about which we have apparently still had no evidence. We have had a Government which left enormous sums of state money at the disposal of officials, without exercising proper control over them. Worse of all, we had a Government one of whose leading members told a bare-faced lie here, and the man who stood at the head of the Cabinet, and therefore had the ultimate responsibility, condoned it.

Order! The hon. member must speak to the motion and the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I am doing so.

The hon. member must confine himself to the availability of evidence as requested in the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you why we need the evidence. We want the hon. the Prime Minister to know why the motion has been introduced and why we need the evidence. The reason is that certain things have happened in party politics which we have the right to investigate. The first duty …

You are singing the same old tune!

Our first duty as parliamentarians is to see that the things which have taken place do not take place again. That is the first thing we must do. We must also see that confidence in the credibility of government is restored. The hon. the Prime Minister will concede that for that to happen, certain steps must be taken. We believe that the first step necessary is that Parliament should have the evidence so that Parliament itself is convinced and reassured that there is nobody left in the executive of the country who has been a party to the political transgressions to which I have referred, and must accordingly be held responsible for them. That is the intention of our motion before the House.

There is another important reason why we must have the evidence, and that is that Parliament must be reassured that there are no other secret projects like The Citizen, projects of a party political nature, which might still be in operation. How are we to know this? How do we know there are not perhaps more such secret projects? It may well be in the evidence, but we are not getting that evidence. That is the very purpose of the questions which we put to hon. Ministers.

A second necessary step the Government will have to take if it wishes to restore confidence is to create machinery to reassure Parliament that never again in future will state funds, under the cloak of secret projects, be used for party political purposes.

The issue of the hon. the Prime Minister’s word and his personal attitude have been at issue. I do not want to refer back to the experience we had with Dr. Connie Mulder, because that was an unpleasant experience, but I do not think we should allow that incident to place all the others under a cloud as well. We are prepared to accept this as a separate incident. I therefore want to say frankly to the hon. the Prime Minister that I am quite prepared to accept any categorical statement which he might make or has made in regard to himself and his knowledge of the matter. In this connection I refer particularly to the question of The Citizen and the hon. the Prime Minister’s undertaking regarding clean administration. The same also applies to other members of the Cabinet. I think all of us realize today that nobody in a responsible position would lightly tell an untruth knowing that there is the danger he might be found out later and that in so doing he would destroy himself. I want to add that of the 18 members who served in the previous Cabinet, 16 are still in this House. One of the other two has retired from public life and the remaining one is still on the Executive. A few members of the Cabinet have made personal statements, and so far as they are relevant to the point under discussion, I am prepared to accept these statements. We have said this before.

During the no confidence debate this year the hon. the Prime Minister gave an important undertaking. I am pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister took action this afternoon in an effort to implement that undertaking. On 7 February this year, referring to the Erasmus Commission, he said (Hansard, 1979, col. 218)—

The hon. the Prime Minister followed this up with his offer to resign if this could be proved. That was a request to the commission, and as I understand it, the hon. the Prime Minister announced here today that he had formalized this and that the Erasmus Commission would now look into this matter. I personally believe, just as the hon. member for Yeoville does, that the Erasmus Commission is not the best body for this sort of investigation. The most important task of the Erasmus Commission has been spelt out. The most important task of the commission is to inquire into irregularities in the administration of the former Department of Information and not to assign political responsibility for what happened. It would have been better had the hon. the Prime Minister delegated the work which he has now referred to the Erasmus Commission, to a Select Committee of Parliament, as the hon. member for Parktown has proposed. The question of political responsibility, in the nature of the matter, rests with Parliament and not with a commission with a task such as that of the Erasmus Commission. In view of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has in fact instructed the Erasmus Commission to carry out that task, we must accept that all the members of the Cabinet are now under an obligation to give evidence

Can we accept that you will go and give evidence before the commission about your gossip stories?

What gossip stories? I am quite prepared, if the hon. the Prime Minister or any hon. member sitting here …

Go and give your evidence.

I shall do so, but what gossip stories is the hon. the Prime Minister referring to? There has been talk here of gossip stories. I want to make an offer to the hon. the Prime Minister. He is making the charge here …

Go and give evidence if you think we are guilty.

How should we know if a member of the Cabinet secretly knew …

The Leader of the official Opposition says he does not accept my word.

No, Sir, wait a minute. That matter has been dealt with. The hon. the Prime Minister referred to me in connection with gossip stories, and I want to ask him or any other member …

That matter has still not been settled.

… what gossip stories are referred to. If any hon. member can refer me to gossip stories which we on this side of the House have been spreading I shall appear with pleasure—in fact I should regard it as my duty—before the Erasmus Commission. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon. member should now link his arguments to the motion and the amendment. The hon. member is straying too far from the point.

Sir, if an hon. member makes an interjection, I am surely entitled to reply to it. The issue here is the interjection about gossip stories. I ask that hon. members bring these so-called gossip stories to us and show them to us. The Government’s own friends are attacking it. The so-called gossip stories do not come from this side of the House; They come from the friends to whom the Government entrusted secrets. In fact, they are going to be a charge against the Government Look at the people they entrusted secrets to! This is going to be one of the major charges against the Government.

I want to close by congratulating the hon. member for Parktown on the fact that his motion has already resulted in practical steps being taken by the Government I want to congratulate him on that…

We even trusted you!

I also trusted the hon. the Prime Minister, but at this point I shall not talk about the number of times he has shaken my confidence. Let us bury that now because it is old politics. I congratulate the hon. member for Parktown, and it is a great pleasure for me to support his motion.

Mr. Speaker, it is customary for the person who introduced a motion to take the opportunity at the end of the debate of thanking hon. members who have participated in the debate, and I do so with pleasure. Senior members of all parties spoke this afternoon. I think we had a serious discussion, as we should have. We have not achieved unanimity, but I suppose that would have been too much to hope for. However, we have made some progress, and I think we understood each other better than on other occasions in the past when we discussed the same matter. When one observes the spirit in which this debate has taken place, and one compares it with the spirit in which the debate took place in December 1978, it seems that the House of Assembly has made progress as far as this matter is concerned. Many matters were raised during this debate, matters to which one would have liked to reply, but time will not allow me to say much.

I am glad, however, to have a moment available to refer to something which was said by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs in connection with the allegations which were published in the Press at that time. If I understood the hon. the Minister correctly, he attacked the Press for having quoted the allegations of discredited persons as though they were the truth. With all due respect, I do not think that is fair. All the Press is doing is to quote what these people are saying.

I did not say that.

I am glad the hon. the Minister did not say it. The Press must be able to report on what is said by public figures. If those public figures say things which are untrue, libellous or improper, the Press enables its readers to evaluate those allegations.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion and amendment lapsed.