Mr Chairman, the electoral college which elects the State President every five years consists of 50 Whites, 25 Coloureds and 13 Indians—therefore a White majority of 12. On Friday I asked the State President whether the hon member for Innesdal was correct in alleging that Black South African citizens should acquire representation in this electoral college just like Coloureds and Indians at present. If that is true, the State President is taking a radical, reckless step. Only 13 Blacks in that electoral college could elect a Black State President. The Constitution invests the State President with great powers so it is only logical that in a unitary state everyone—Whites as well as the Black majority—will attempt seizing this power. One of the South African realities is the enormous numerical superiority of Blacks. A Black State President, Mr Chairman? History will bear evidence to the consequences in South Africa.

On the other hand, a powerful White State President is a guarantee for White survival so I wish to know of the State President how a White State President may be nominated in a fair and just way by one South African nation consisting of almost 18 million Blacks and 8 million Whites, Coloureds and Indians. The State President has chosen a dangerous way. He used to be a vigorous supporter of influx control measures. On Friday he said, however:

Mr Chairman, at the same time the State President said: “However, I lost against reality.”

He is a loser.

He has lost against reality! He said he was not capable of protecting the Western Cape against Black penetration. He has thrown in the towel. [Interjections.] I now put it to the State President that Black numerical superiority is also a reality and we want to allege that the State President is in the process of losing against this reality as well. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, the State President is in the process of losing against this reality as well. We therefore request him to hold an election. He should hold an election so that we may put a government in power in South Africa which is not afraid of South African realities; a government which does not throw in the towel and which does not succumb to the realities of the day. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I shall respond to only one point raised by the hon member for Kuruman and that is his allegation that the State President had thrown in the towel. [Interjections.] I think the hon member could well say instead that the CP had already thrown in the towel in 1982 when those members fled from this Government in which they could have participated in solving the problems of this country. They had already decided at the time that they would rather throw in the towel and flee from the problems. In so doing they left them to the people who had the initiative and courage to tackle the country’s problems.

I should now like to turn to the hon member for Sasolburg and his party and exchange a few ideas with him. In previous speeches he opposed the abolition of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act; he gave voice to solemn jeremiads over the scrapping of that legislation. In 1985 his party also made a great fuss because those pieces of legislation had been scrapped. I wish to discuss these aspects briefly with the hon member for Sasolburg and the rest of the HNP.

I should first like to tell the hon member that the HNP candidates who stood in Losberg in 1981 are both back in the NP of their own free will! [Interjections.] These two gentlemen were both organisers of the Mine-workers’ Union. If one converses with them and asks them why they returned to the NP, they say they took the step chiefly for two reasons: Firstly, because the HNP does not recognise English as a second official language in the country. They say that during the 1981 election numbers of English-speaking people assisted the HNP in various ways such as doing street work and also assisting at the tables. Today these English-speaking helpers of the HNP are overlooked by the HNP in the country. The second reason—it is probably the more important—is that…

That is absolute nonsense!

If the hon member says it is nonsense that the English helped him, I wish to assure him it was in fact the case.

The second reason these people put forward for their return to the NP—I repeat they returned of their own free will without anyone’s having approached them to return to the NP—is that the NP Government is the only one which meant something to the worker and the poor man in South Africa in the past and will mean something in future. [Interjections.] It is true that the PFP is a rich man’s party and I do not even want to go into this. The CP, on the other hand, is a party consisting of a number of disgruntled people who feel society owes them something and, because it does not give them the reward they think they ought to receive, they revolt against the authority of society. [Interjections.] That is certainly the situation in which the hon member for Kuruman finds himself. [Interjections.]

Order! My information indicates that the hon member for Sasolburg will be called upon to speak immediately after the hon member for Losberg. He will then have adequate opportunity to put his case. The hon member for Losberg may proceed.

Then the hon member for Sasolburg had better listen carefully.

The hon member for Kuruman is one of the very people who are so disgruntled that he feels this Parliament owes him something and, because he did not receive what he felt he was entitled to, he broke away from the NP.

I wish to draw the hon member for Sasolburg’s attention to a few points regarding the two Acts I mentioned in particular. Firstly, the hon leader of the CP wrote in the book Afrikaner-Liberalisme:

The hon leader of the CP is correct in writing this. People opposed to the Government on the abolition of these two Acts are therefore not decent people by implication.

I should also like to remind the hon member for Sasolburg that in the 1979 by-election in Randfontein it was the very HNP candidate—the present hon member for Randfontein came in at the time—who was accused shortly after the election of having two children by Swazi women and that one of the fathers was looking for him to lay a charge against him. [Interjections.]

I also wish to refer to the HNP poster which runs: “Bly Blank my volk, stem HNP.” I want to tell the House that White women in South Africa object strenuously to the content of that poster. How does a people lose its identity? It does this only if the women of that people cohabit with men of a different people and children are born. Here the Whites and non-Whites are involved— especially in the Republic of South Africa. The HNP implies that White women would cohabit with those of colour and the White people in South Africa would perish in this way. White women in my constituency felt deeply insulted by this HNP pronouncement; they said they took strong exception to it.

I also wish to get to the CP and its stablemate, the AWB. I am ashamed to admit that Mr Eugene Terre ’Blanche and his followers are my fellow Afrikaners but on the other hand I pity AWB members. If hon members in this Committee promise not to laugh at me, I shall read them the AWB song. [Interjections.]

Baa baa black sheep.

It is very close to what the hon member for Brits said. [Interjections.]

Order! The fact that the hon member is referring to a song does not mean we may all join in now. The hon member for Losberg may proceed.

These people’s song sounds like this:

And that is the end! [Interjections.] I asked hon members so nicely not to laugh at me if I quoted this song. [Interjections.]

That is all they can memorise.

The question now is: Who and what is this Mr Eugѐne Terre-’Blanche? He matriculated in the same year and in the same town as I. Coincidentally he matriculated at the same school as the hon the Minister of Law and Order, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs as well as some of our dignitaries but this does not make them weaker leaders. So I suppose every school has its rejects.

The black sheep!

Whatever the case, Mr Eugène Terre’ Blanche had already submitted openly at that stage that he was the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler.

He is a Mohammed!

In yesterday’s Rapport he said he was not a Hitler but he had already said it at that stage.

During the Easter recess some of his schoolfellows told me he had already made himself a chair in his matriculation year on which he would sit robed in a toga. He meditated like that and no one was permitted to address him. It cannot be denied that he was an excellent actor at school; today he is still that same actor. I myself first had to do with him in November 1979.

That was Ferdie!

Now I call upon the hon leader of the CP to witness that Mr Eugène Terre’ Blanche and his henchmen disrupted an NP meeting to such an extent for one and a quarter hours that we had to call in the police to remove them in order to be able to proceed. After the meeting the leader of the CP said he could not believe either that in these modern times we could still have Afrikaners who behaved so badly. [Interjections.] Today, however, Mr Eugène Terre’ Blanche is addressing the CP caucus and I wish to allege it is the case because the hon leader of the CP feels he is not strong enough and under the circumstances wishes to draw a strong man to his side to blackmail and frighten his hon colleagues in the caucus. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, if the hon member for Losberg had been in the Cathedral hall last Thursday when I addressed the Institute of Citizenship on basic HNP standpoints, he would not have spoken such nonsense here as he did this afternoon. Consequently I shall not reply to him any further.

I should like to refer to the very important speech the State President made in this Committee on Friday. He referred to apartheid measures of the past and said mistakes had been made. He alluded to measures as follies and also said certain measures had been taken too far, etc. The one case he quoted was the Post Office. The State President and I together with all the other Nationalists fought for apartheid and the Post Office was one of the first spheres in which it was carried out. The principle underlying it is the same as that underlying all apartheid measures the State President and I fought for jointly over the years.

What is more, he announced it with so much fire and conviction. Can we not recall it? Among our young people in particular there was no doubt in those years that P W Botha stood in principle for apartheid, separate development and racial segregation as the way in which all South Africa’s great problems should be solved. He was a great man even then. He was older than we were and together with his wife I fought NP elections here in the Cape—for Post Office apartheid and for group areas apartheid. He did not tell me I was engaged in folly and, what is worse, he did not tell his wife this. She and I carried the NP burden here in Cape Town Gardens.

Order! I appeal to the hon member for Sasolburg not to involve Mrs Botha in the debate.

Mr Chairman, I shall respect your request.

The principle remains the same. Now the State President refers in his speech to a new definition of apartheid which was used by the hon member for Helderkruin among others, namely:

That is the definition he used. The State President did not give the origin of the definition. Nevertheless, in all his and my years in political life, no prominent Nationalist— whether he was a leader, philosopher or thinker—defined apartheid in this way. This is the definition of the enemy! This is the definition of liberalists and communists! Now the State President, the great champion of the NP of old, conveys the definition given to our policy by the enemy to us!

Today I want to ask the State President whether Dr Malan, Mr Stjidom, Dr Verwoerd, Dr Dӧnges, Mr Eric Louw, Adv Blackie Swart, Prof Tomlinson, Prof Cronjé, Mr Sauer or Mr Erasmus, all these great champions …

What about Vorster?

… of apartheid, as the Afrikaners and the Nationalists defined it—yes, include Mr Vorster if hon members wish—were racists. Of course they were not! The State President cannot expect it of me now to forget the good lessons he taught me. I am fighting against him today on the basis of the standpoints he profounded and taught us and on the basis of which we believed him. Is it possible that he was lying to us in those years or that his intentions were not sincere or that he was misleading us? We could not deduce it from his attitude, however. We passionately believed him and Dr Malan and Dr Verwoerd which is why we stand by it—not only as a policy for yesterday, tomorrow or the day after—as the one way in which South Africa’s great problems may be solved. [Interjections.]

Only now and then the old P W Botha show through. Last year in Port Elizabeth the State President stood steadfastly by group areas; he then said he would almost die for this. He said if there were one non-negotiable matter it was group areas and he received thunderous applause from the NP. Its members are not going to applaud him now as they did last year because now he says: “Group areas are not a sacred cow. ” [Interjections.] Oh no, wait! As far as he is concerned, group areas and all these apartheid laws and apartheid measures are not sacred cows. [Interjections.]

Consequently we hold it against the State President that he uses the technique of saying that an Act, such as the case of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, will be improved and modified. He then refers it to the President’s Council and before we know where we are, we as hon members and South Africa in general, the Act is scrapped. This technique comes down to a form of dishonesty; it is a form of dishonesty toward the public and that is why the State President’s credibility— I regret having to say this to him—is rock bottom among genuine Afrikaner Nationalists in comparison with what it was in the years 1948, 1951 and 1959. [Interjections.]

The State President has just said he is going to abolish influx control measures. Who is applauding him? Is it the Port Elizabeth Nationalists? Oh no, the Progs are applauding him because they know, just as the communists, the liberalists and South Africa’s enemies know, that this abolition will make it easier for terrorists to move around South Africa now, to hurl bombs and plant mines. The State President should take note that he is responsible for the escalation of racial riots, bloodshed and violence in South Africa because this step of his has made it easier in a dramatic way for communists and the ANC to achieve their goal.

In closing I wish to ask the State President briefly to tell this Committee today whether it is his standpoint and that of his party that South Africa stands by a White State President. Is that numbered among the holy cows? Is that a matter they will stand by or is it also a case to be referred for investigation?

The State President repudiated the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his utterance on this but, if one examines his words closely, one sees he did not object to the content of what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said. He repudiated him only for the interpretation of the standpoint and the attendant speculation. I have those words with me here and, if one rereads them, it becomes clear that the objection was not against the interpretation of the intrinsic meaning of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ standpoint. Today that hon Minister still recognises that standpoint personally but the State President does not have the courage to expel him from his party because he knows this would offend a large section of it. That is why he has left him in that position and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is within the NP recognising a standpoint the State President implied he had rejected.

He should tell us this afternoon whether he did not act like this deliberately and that he could actually fault only the speculation on and the interpretation of the matter because he knows it will not be long before he circumvents this stumbling block and opens the way to a Black State President.

Mr Chairman, I shall try to reply in the shortest possible time to the various questions asked and points raised by hon members. In passing I just want to say that the hon member for Sasolburg of course has a guilty conscience. He cannot conceal his venomousness towards myself and the other person he mentioned here—quite unjustifiably—namely my wife.

I have no venomousness …

Order!

We never treated him in any other way but the right way. I think that is why he has a guilty conscience. I understand it, however; that is how he has behaved all along. I understand it. He need not concern himself about it any further, because that is simply the way he is made. Look at what the hon member said.

You cannot…

Order! I am appealing to the hon member for Sasolburg now. He did not make full use of the ten minutes for his speech, and he must now contain himself.

Let me just point out to hon members the methods the hon member uses. He said that I had allegedly said that group areas were not a sacred cow. When did I say that? Surely the hon member for Sasolburg is talking through his neck. What I did in fact say was that no Act was a sacred cow.

That includes group areas!

I said in the Committee that I stood for the principle of own residential areas in which people could maintain their own way of life and their own schools and churches. Did the hon member not hear that? He did not, because his ears have by now been blocked to such and extent by the company in which he finds himself that he no longer listens to what a person says. I shall leave the hon member at that now, because he is really not the kind of politician with whom I wish to be associated. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Losberg dealt very effectively with the hon member for Kuruman, except that I just want to say that the hon member for Kuruman may rest assured that the present position of State President will be occupied for five years. Only this Parliament can change the electoral college which makes that appointment. That is my reply to him.

It is not a full reply.

Whether it is a full reply or not makes no difference to me—that is my reply. [Interjections.]

For understandable reasons the hon member for Waterberg was not here on Friday, but he raised a few matters on which I should like to reply. In the first place he referred, with a witticism, to the economic crisis under this Government, and referred inter alia to the number of insolvencies and liquidations. This is a refrain from a tune which is being sung all over the country; a tune about how the economy of South Africa has collapsed under this Government. Some of the hon members on the opposite side of the House are also guilty of this. I think that I should place a few facts on record now, once and for all, facts which we should at least, in all honesty, take into consideration. After all, there are those who wish to link the economic problems of South Africa during the past few years exclusively to either the conduct of this Government or to political factors and to the policy arising from those factors as far as this Government is concerned.

What are the facts, however? An analysis of the facts indicates that South Africa has during the past few years experienced a confluence of negative economic developments which were unparailelled in this country’s economic history. Firstly South Africa, which still has to rely for a large portion of its oil requirements on imports, had to assimilate the shocks of two oil crises within the space of one decade. The hon the leader of the Conservative Party is aware of that, because he was in the Cabinet. He therefore knows how hard those oil crises hit South Africa. Inter alia it had a material effect on South Africa’s buying power abroad. Development capital which could have been utilised for other purposes consequently had to be used to finance the oil account. In fact over this period South Africa—and now I want the hon member to listen carefully— from 1973 to 1984, according to estimates made by the Economic Advisory Service— and for very good reasons—paid approximately R22 billion more for its oil imports than would have been the case if the price of oil had shown a more normal trend. A total of R22 000 million more was paid than the amount would have been if a normal process had occurred. That amounts to a total of approximately R1 800 million per annum more than would have been the case under normal circumstances.

That oil crisis hit South Africa hard in various areas, as I shall indicate in a moment. Although this declined in the country’s buying power was at times halted by gold price increases, the gold price, in the second place, also declined sharply after it had reached a peak of approximately $613 in 1980. In February 1985 the average gold price was only $299 per ounce. In this way we were struck a second blow.

In the third place, the oil crisis also affected South Africa’s most important trading partners and plunged them into recessions. This had an extremely detrimental effect on our exports. In addition to this, certain structural changes occurred in the major industrial countries. As a result of those structural changes which they brought about as a result of the oil crisis, exports to those countries of export products such as iron ore and coal were also detrimentally affected. The volume of exports consequently dropped by 11,5% between 1979 and 1983.

Fourthly, the agricultural sector was crippled until very recently by one of the most oppressive droughts experienced since 1933. Agriculture’s contribution to the gross domestic product consequently declined sharply by more than 33% between 1981 and 1983. Although the situation subsequently improved somewhat, agriculture’s contribution to the gross domestic product last year was still approximately 13% lower than in 1981. Surely these are important factors which would have handicapped any government in the economic sphere. Apart from the direct effect which these factors had on economic growth, they also had a detrimental effect on growth in other sectors of the economy such as those of the suppliers of agricultural raw materials and agricultural equipment.

The conditions in agriculture also compelled the Government to render assistance to farmers on a large scale. The Government, in fact, spent R631 million on drought aid during the period 1982-83 to 1985-86, which consisted of stockfeed subsidies of R265 million, while R358 million was spent on interest subsidies on standover debt and a further R7,5 million was spent on water quota subsidies. Apart from this a further R381 million was spent in respect of interest and other subsidies that were made available by the respective control boards. From 1982-83 to 1985-86, therefore, a total amount of R1 013 million was made available in the form of direct drought assistance.

Surely these are astronomical amounts which were paid as a result of the oil crisis inter alia to enable hon members, who are so critical of this Government, to hold their political meetings. The oil crisis had an effect on our exports to those countries which were also affected by the crisis, and additionally our exports were further affected by the unparallelled drought which struck at agriculture. Naturally these developments also had a direct effect on the current account of the balance of payments.

In the case of agriculture the drought led inter alia to the positive balance of agricultural exports over agricultural imports declining from R850 million in 1980 to R395 million in 1983. The current account of the balance of payments consequently offered little margin for the promotion of economic growth. As a result of this confluence of circumstances South Africa in fact found itself in the unusual position that the current account of the balance of payments, with the exception of 1983, showed major deficits over the period 1981 to 1984 while negative economic growth rates were realised in 1982 and 1983.

Naturally this confluence of circumstances also had a detrimental effect on the investment climate in South Africa, and in conjunction with that on the inflow of foreign capital. In addition a shift away from direct investments and loan capital, and also away from long-and short-term capital occurred.

This pressure to which the current as well as the capital account has been subjected, was mainly responsible for the sharp depreciation of the rand during the past few years. This in turn contributed to the inflation rate failing to continue its downward trend.

With this, however, I am not trying to say that political factors did not play any part in the problems South Africa experienced in the economic sphere. That is by no means the case; on the contrary, South Africa has many enemies to whom internal stability and progress in the solution of the country’s problems in a peaceful way is a great embarrassment. There are people who do not want this to happen. Consequently considerable pressure was exerted on foreign banks and other international financial institutions to suspend and withdraw their investments in and loans to South Africa. In South Africa this undoubtedly had an effect on the exchange rate.

South Africa was also hit hard in the sphere of trade boycotts. These compelled us inter alia—I want to bring this to the attention of the hon member—to invest R1 459 million in the stockpiling of oil, and also to accelerate the local fuel manufacturing programme. The completion costs of Sasol II and III amounted to a further R5 756 million.

The Government was called upon to spend these astronomical amounts in the interests of South Africa. This was done not only in an effort to ensure our stability, but also to prevent our enemies from forcing us to our knees through boycotts and other measures.

Many factors therefore contributed to South Africa’s economic problems, and it is extremely naïve to wish to attribute them to political developments alone. Without the steps which the Government took to bring about the essential adjustments in the economy, the economic conditions would probably have been far worse than they are today.

Depending on the agricultural situation, the economic growth rate will nevertheless have a hard time reaching the 3% mark this year. I just wanted to rectify these matters because I hope that the hon the leader of the CP and others who so readily exploit the economic position for their own interests will in all honesty take these facts into account.

The hon member for Waterberg and other hon members of his party as well—I think he was alone in this respect, but other hon members will probably repeat it after him— referred to what President Reagan had to say about me. Now it seems to me as though the hon members are obsessed with the conception that the USA is allegedly prescribing to South Africa and that the South African Government is obsequiously saying “yes” to everything that is being said or proposed by the USA. I think this is an unfair and an extremely dangerous charge, and I also think it is an irresponsible charge. If it were true, how does the hon member for Waterberg explain the continual and incessant campaign which is being waged in the American congress and elsewhere in the world against South Africa? How does he explain that? If we keep on obsequiously saying “yes”, how does he explain that they are constantly taking steps against us and recently took steps against us again? President Reagan eventually had to take steps himself in an effort to avert worse steps being taken. Surely the hon member cannot be unaware of all the boycott campaigns which are being planned against South Africa all over the world. The hon member is not so stupid. Some of these campaigns have already been launched.

This Government does not allow itself to be dictated to—of course not. We fight against every effort on the part of the outside world to meddle illegitimately in our internal matters. I hope that the hon member will live long enough to be able to read, one day, the documents on negotiations that have been conducted under my personal leadership with Western governments for the protection of this country.

My hon colleagues and I have repeatedly stated here in Parliament and in the country at large that the reform which is being and is going to be effected in South Africa, has been initiated because we ourselves believe in fairness and justness. To us that is the decisive reason. We do not agree in all respects with the American government’s view of what a democratic dispensation in South Africa should look like, and we have made this clear to them by word of mouth and in writing.

I am of the opinion, however, that it is of great importance to South Africa that the Reagan administration should—I am suggesting this to the hon member for his consideration—do the following: Firstly, that the Reagan administration should reject violence for the sake of attaining political objectives. Secondly, it is in South Africa’s interests that the Reagan administration is concerned about the ANC’s advocacy of violence. Thirdly, it is in South Africa’s interests that the Reagan Government is concerned about the support the ANC is receiving from the Soviet Union. Fourthly, it is in the interests of South Africa that President Reagan’s Government is an advocate of reconciliation in South Africa and of a constitutional dispensation in which everyone has political rights, and minority groups are protected. Moreover it is of the utmost importance to South Africa that the Reagan Government has declared war on international terrorism. It is also in South Africa’s interests that President Reagan supports the standpoint that an agreement on Cuban withdrawal from Angola should be reached before Security Council Resolution 435 in respect of South West Africa is implemented. What is more, it is also in South Africa’s interests for Pres Reagan to be opposed to legislation imposing further sanctions and economically punitive measures on South Africa, in spite of increasing pressure in the American Senate and the American House of Representatives about this standpoint of his. For that reason I am appealing to the hon member—and to hon members who, like him, want to play the same tune that he is playing—to reflect on South Africa’s position in the world, on the extent of the campaign being waged against us and on the goodwill of other governments towards us before they make hurtful remarks here in the House that could damage our interests even further.

If the hon member believes that no one takes any notice of him, it is all very well for him to say what he wants to, but if he believes that people take notice of what the leaders of political parties say in this House, I want to suggest that he be careful when he makes hurtful remarks about the leaders of certain countries which still stand in the way of those forces of violence that want to overwhelm South Africa.

The hon member and his party would not buy our farmers’ products if we could not export. He and his party would not purchase our minerals or our manufactured goods if a total boycott against us were to succeed. This government is fighting against that. That party would be powerless if this country’s importation of a wide variety of goods was cut short. The hon member ought to know better than some of the people sitting there making a noise behind him because he served in the Cabinet and knows what it is all about.

I also want to tell him that he must not weaken us in our struggle against those who wish to harm our country. I hope the hon member will give this a second thought.

†Mr Chairman, the hon member for Yeoville also suggested that we should have informal discussions with other population groups and their leaders without using an agenda. I would like to draw his attention to the fact that ongoing discussions of this nature are continually taking place. I have taken part in such discussions personally over the years, but especially last year. I went out of my way to have informal discussions with many leaders and representatives of other population groups, and I have also continued doing so this year. The hon member is quite right that we should do it. He should, however, realise that we are actually doing so. I do not know whether the hon member expects me to concentrate on that aspect only, but I have a lot of other work to do as well. I shall return to the speech of the hon member for Yeoville at a later stage.

*I agree with the hon member Dr Vilonel that whilst the 1948 Government is reviled as having been the cause of every negative thing in this country, very little credit indeed is given for what post-1948 Governments have done for positive development in this country. I emphasised that last week. It was in accordance with the standpoint adopted by the late Dr Malan that we should not make a caricature of the own development of other population groups, but should specifically contribute towards developing them as much as possible at both the socio-economic and political levels.

†I agree with the hon member for Klip River that some of the PFP’s extra-parliamentary activities are not conducive to the process of effective negotiation. That hon member had some trouble with the Chair and I hope he now appreciates what an ordinary member of Parliament sometimes must endure in this respect! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Paarl rightly pointed to the necessity for a change in attitude amongst all members of our population. I also agree with the hon member that that should happen.

I looked at some statistics the other day and it struck me that if one examines official statistics, one finds that 77% of the South African population are professed Christians. That in itself is an enormous force that this country can draw upon, and we must simply extend the principle of being prepared to grant others what we demand for ourselves and to extend a helping hand to those who have lagged behind owing to circumstances over which they have perhaps not always had any control. Hence the fact that I agree with the hon member.

The hon member for Fauresmith mentioned various possible structures for further constitutional reform, particularly in connection with the urban areas. He rightly put his finger on the problem that is at our very doorstep, ie finalising steps specifically aimed at dealing with the urban inhabitants outside the national States and outside the independent States. That is one of the matters that we shall also have to be giving our attention to in the National Council which is to be established. I have already held discussions with various leaders on matters of this nature.

Allow me to say that systems of administration for urban communities outside the national States will have to make provision for a large measure of autonomy and devolution of power to them. That is why I am glad that the hon member and other hon members are thinking positively along these lines. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bryanston rightly said that South Africa’s enemies should take note of the fact that a report such as the Van der Walt report had been released by the Government and had been tabled with a view to having it debated. The Government has thereby emphasized the fact that South Africa is a democratic country which is attempting to extend the democratic process, that being the reason why it is doing justice to such a report and not trying to cover it up.

The hon member for Barberton accused the Government of only reacting under pressure and not governing. I think I replied to that, in part, when I dealt with the hon member for Waterberg’s standpoint. I just want to tell the hon member that he knows that it is a malicious allegation without any foundation, and this is something the hon member for Barberton should not make himself guilty of. He is one of the hon members in that party who has up to now, always consistently, confined his efforts to the work expected of a member of Parliament in this House.

Aspects such as the present constitutional dispensation, changes in the sphere of labour, the urbanisation strategy and the population development programme, to mention but a few, were initiated by the Government on its own initiative, and in many cases this was done when the hon member for Barberton was still sitting on this side of the House. If he simply acknowledged that we would understand each other much better.

In a serious speech the hon member for Standerton referred to the built-in problems inherent in the composition of our population, saying that those who jointly discussed that, should also be prepared to take responsibility. Nor must we merely sing hallelujah songs round camp-fires; we must accept our responsibilities. He rightly told of how people in the past sang hallelujah songs but were not to be seen when the fighting started.

In the lovely language of his part of the world, the hon member for Gordonia raised the valid point that in order to provide cheap housing for as many people as possible, one should do away with the high standards of conventional housing and that norms in this connection should be standardised.

The hon member Prof Olivier addressed quite a few matters that I have already dealt with in the course of my reply. In as much as I have not dealt with certain points that he raised—particularly in regard to the constitutional matters he touched upon—let me suggest that he raise these issues again when constitutional matters come up for discussion; there will still be a great deal of time to discuss that.

The hon member for Gesina rightly pointed to the reprehensible conduct of some members of the CP resulting in the creation of a caricature of the Afrikaner. I am in complete agreement with him.

The hon member for Langlaagte referred to correspondence of the hon the Minister of Finance concerning the standstill agreement on foreign debt. I took the trouble of getting an answer about this, because the hon member for Langlaagte has one thing in his favour, and that is the fact that he was born in George. He comes from a very decent family, and for their sake I shall take the trouble to reply to him. [Interjections.]

I have been informed that it is standard practice in international loan transactions for foreign public and private sector loans to contain a provision stating that in cases of litigation the law of the country granting the loan shall apply and that the foreign courts will give a ruling. It is also standard practice to relinquish immunity against seizure, except in the case of diplomatic property. The reason for this approach is that it would be unfair if such an agreement were made subject to the laws of the borrower’s own country, in which case its government would have the power to amend such laws as and when it suited them. In today’s world those lending money would be running untoward risks without such conditions. In fact these standard items, applicable internationally, have long been a part of loan contracts involving the lending of money in Such Africa and are therefore nothing new. Their inclusion therefore has nothing to do with South Africa’s previous or present creditworthiness or the esteem with which it is regarded by international financial institutions.

Nor is the journal from which the hon member quoted one of the best sources from which one could quote in South Africa. He should try to resist such negative impulses. Perhaps he should tell that newspaper to appoint someone better equipped with facts before he starts talking such nonsense.

Both the hon member for Waterkloof and the hon member for Yeoville referred to the successful results of the Carlton and Good Hope conferences and asked whether the time had not come to hold further discussions of this nature with leaders in the private sector. Let me say firstly that there is the Economic Advisory Council with which we are constantly holding discussions. I think that the Economic Advisory Council, in its present form, is a very good council on which leading figures in the economic and industrial sphere in South Africa are serving. However, I also indicated on Friday, in the hon member’s absence, that I was quite prepared to convene another conference at a later stage, perhaps closer to the end of the year. Therefore that is on our programme.

The hon members for Yeoville, Primrose and Waterkloof, as well as the hon member Mr Schutte, touched on various aspects relating to the economy, including determination of priorities by the State, privatisation, deregulation, the economic situation of the country—which I dealt with to some extent a moment ago—export promotion and productivity.

The hon member for Yeoville asked certain questions about the activities of my National Priorities Committee. It is some time since the committee laid down long-term guidelines with regard to the growth in public expenditure in general and budgetary expenditure in particular. In the formulation of these guidelines, due account was taken of, on the one hand, the country’s needs in respect of economic and security goals, and the necessity of socio-economic reforms. On the other hand, however, due account was taken of the country’s financial resources, and a high priority was given to promotion of prosperity by way of economic growth and the creation of employment by the private sector. I think that the hon member will agree with me that although the State has an obligation to create infrastructure as far as possible, it is the duty and task of the private sector to ensure job creation. Not only does this require stringent restrictions on the growth in State expenditure, but also, wherever practicable, a curtailment of the State’s responsibilities by way of privatisation and deregulation.

Accordingly these matters, too, receive the on-going attention of the committee. Indeed, arising out of discussions conducted in this context, Dr Wim de Villiers has been appointed as the Government’s special adviser on privatisation and deregulation.

However the private sector has also been involved in a more direct fashion in the activities of the committee. In accordance with an undertaking I gave at an earlier stage, the Chairman of the Economic Advisory Council, Dr Human, has been co-opted as a member of this committee. The chairman of the Economic Advisory Council has a seat on the Priorities Committee.

During a meeting of the committee on 5 November 1985 a set of provisional longterm guidelines on expenditure was also accepted on a functional basis. Guidelines on expenditure have been sent to Government departments and they have been afforded the opportunity to submit representations. There was a committee of Ministers, under the Chairmanship of the hon the Minister of Finance, that heard the representations. During a meeting of the Priorities Committee on 26 March 1986 the provisional guidelines on expenditure were further adjusted after these discussions.

It has been expressly conveyed to Government departments that the aim is that guidelines on expenditure must be finalised with a view to planning for the 1987-88 budget cycle. By approximately the end of April of each year the committee will consider long-term expenditure guidelines for final ratification by the Cabinet.

The scarcity of development capital also compels the committee to consider capital programmes of parastatal institutions, to ensure thereby that this resource is utilised to the optimum extent.

The decisions taken by Cabinet on the basis of the committee’s recommendations are embodied in the annual budget tabled in Parliament, like the most recent Budget. They also find expression in the programmes announced from time to time, such as the special job creation programme we announced some time ago, the programme of upgrading of urban areas to which I referred earlier and the ten-year plan in regard to education announced by the hon the Minister of National Education.

Hon members of this House are of course also free to state their points of view on expenditure priorities in this House or in the committees on which they serve. The Government will, as has indeed always been the case, consider all such proposals on merit. This of course also applies to the other Chambers of Parliament.

In reaction to the remarks by the hon member for Yeoville and other spokesmen on both sides of the House concerning the state of the economy, I should once again like to focus attention on the following points. Taking into account the debt commitments of the Republic of South Africa it was the Government’s aim in the recent Budget to utilise, as far as practicable the scope for economic growth afforded by the balance of payments, inter alia with a view to alleviating the unemployment problem. In so far as the latter may be ascribed to cyclic causes, the Government has also launched special job creation programmes from as far back as the end of 1983. In the previous financial year an amount of R600 million was made available for this purpose, an amount which was supplemented by a further R195 million in the recent Budget. Moreover, an effort has also been made to utilise to the full the opportunities for export created by the exchange rate, by making an amount of R7,5 million available, at the request of the Economic Advisory Council, for the purpose of export promotion. This is in addition to what we are already doing.

As regards customs-free areas, too, intensive attention is already being given to this matter by the relevant Ministers on the basis of an investigation by the Central Economic Advisory Service. This may perhaps be further discussed on a later occasion.

These are a few examples of what is already being done to promote economic growth and job creation. In this regard the Government is also co-operating closely with the private sector, inter alia via the State President’s Economic Advisory Council, which is giving attention to this matter. As evidenced by the Carlton and Good Hope Conferences, the Government also believes in consulting, across as broad a spectrum as possible, with the private sector and with other groups in the community with regard to matters of economic policy. With this in mind consideration has already been given to the possibilities of holding the conference to which I have just referred, later this year. On such an occasion a fruitful debate could be conducted on the issue of the appropriate economic strategy in the short, medium and long-term.

Finally, I wish to express the confidence that the scope created in the process of determination of priorities will be utilised to the full by the private sector. In this regard I should like to appeal to the country’s large financial institutions to place greater emphasis on investment decisions creating new job opportunities, instead of concentrating too much on take-overs of existing enterprises and on the development of central business areas. The same argument also applies with regard to excessive investments in luxury accommodation for people in the higher income groups. For its part the Government will attempt, inter alia by way of deregulation, to create circumstances whereby to make investments in accommodation and other projects more attractive to persons in the lower income groups.

Mr Chairman, would the State President be prepared either to make public, or to submit to the Standing Committee on Finance, the decisions of the Priorities Committee with regard to the long-term guidelines laid down, so that the real prospects and those aspects concerning which the planning is really being done, may be known?

Mr Chairman, I am prepared to broach this matter at the next meeting of the Priorities Committee, and in so far as we deem it to be in the public interest, we can at that juncture undertake to submit it to such a committee for its information. However, I wish to point out that the Government also has at its disposal certain information which, as the hon member will understand, cannot always be made public.

Mr Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half-hour.

The Bureau for Information is a new Vote. [Interjections.]

Order! Before the hon member proceeds, the Committee must come to order. The hon member may proceed.

An amount of R28 849 000 is being appropriated for a department or a bureau that will employ 598 members of staff, 304 of whom are already in place in 12 offices around the country from Cape Town to Pietersburg and Nelspruit. This is a great deal of money and a large staff complement. We are naturally concerned about the direction of the bureau and we hope that the hon the Deputy Minister will tell us how he is going to spend all this money.

In the original estimates we were advised that the aim of the bureau was “to foster a positive attitude towards the Republic of South Africa.” That is an aim we could support as no one would want anything other than a positive attitude towards South Africa. The almost R29 million is to be allocated to five main programmes. Administration will absorb R5 million, internal liaison services will cost almost R16 million, media liaison is to be provided with almost R1 million, media production has been allocated R5,4 million and special services will amount to R1,5 million.

Our main concern has been the underlying reason for this splurge of taxpayers’ money. The original aim of the bureau was to foster a positive attitude towards the RSA, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, the amended schedules indicate that the new aim is to promote effective communication between the Government and the population of the RSA. That is a different story altogether.

The original aim of the internal liaison services programme was to:

That was bad enough but it has now been amended to read:

That might be more honest in describing what has now clearly been recognised for what it is—a division of the National Party information service. Forget about enlightening the population about national achievements or problems, or any attempt to foster a positive attitude among all population groups. Simply give them straight Nat propaganda at the taxpayers’ expense.

In the original estimates the aim of the media liaison programme was to “promote the image of the RSA.” The amended aim is “to promote effective communication between the Government and the media.” The original aim of the media production programme was to “promote the RSA’s general image locally and overseas.” The amended aim it to “promote and co-ordinate effective communication at national level between the population of the RSA and the various Government departments.”

Even the Standing Committee on Finance was concerned about the aims of this bureau. On Thursday 27 March we had an item in the minutes: “The committee noted with dissatisfaction that certain of the aims of the Bureau for Information as set out in the printed estimates are not correct.” I hope that when the hon the Minister addresses the House he will enlighten us as to why the aims of the bureau were amended.

What the Nats fail to understand is the fundamental difference between the Government and the State. To promote the State at taxpayers’ expense is correct and acceptable; to promote the Government or the NP is wrong and politically corrupt.

The Deputy Director-General of the Bureau attempted to explain away this impossible problem to the Standing Committee on Finance, but he failed. This is in no way a reflection on Mr Steward who is an able and dedicated servant of the State. He even wrote an equally ineffective letter to the Cape Times which was published on 24 March. In it he attempted to explain what the role of the bureau would be. He said it was “to ensure that proposals of the State are clearly communicated to the people of South Africa.” There we go again confusing the State with the political party currently in power!

What he tried to explain …

What the bureau has to understand is that it is morally indefensible to spend taxpayers’ money on promoting the NP. To promote the State, foster a positive image towards the RSA or promote the image of the RSA is acceptable and worthy of support.

There are two points regarding communication which I wish to raise briefly with the hon the Deputy Minister. Two weeks ago I spoke to him in the Lobby about the activities of his bureau, and I telephoned him the next morning at his suggestion to arrange an interview. Up to now I have not had the courtesy of a call to explain that he is busy, involved in pressing matters or whatever. The point is if the hon the Deputy Minister finds it difficult to communicate with a colleague in Parliament, he is certainly going to waste our R29 million in promoting the NP.

The second point is his pathetic television performance last Thursday night. [Interjections.]

It was excellent!

He is no longer a Deputy Minister in the Department of Foreign Affairs. The arrogance of evading or not answering questions put to him might go down well in his former department, but if he is to communicate effectively he will have to learn to be more open and forthcoming with those with whom he comes into contact. [Interjections.]

Please give me an example.

There were many examples. I am sure that with his contacts in the SABC and after all his years of association with that organisation, he must have a large number of friends there who would be willing to give him a few tips. [Interjections.] He might also contact some of his colleagues in the NP “inligtingsdiens.” The hon members for Benoni, Helderkruin and Newcastle should be able to give him advise on how to manage an effective NP information service.

I do not say that lightly. In answer to a question, the hon the Deputy Minister advised me recently that 45 700 English and 18 500 Afrikaans copies of the booklet A New Beginning were printed by Perskor at a cost of R16 828 without having been put out to tender. He also advised that copies had been made available to the bureau’s regional offices for selective distribution. I would now like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister how many copies were made available to the NP. Should I rather ask the hon member for Helderkruin who, according to the latest edition of Die Nasionalis, is responsible for Skietgoedl

I have here a copy of the booklet which has been distributed in Johannesburg by the NP and has been rubber-stamped as coming from “The National Party of Transvaal.”

That is bad news!

If the State President’s speech at the opening of Parliament was, as explained in Mr Steward’s letter to the Cape Times, an exposition of State policy, why are copies which have been printed at great expense with taxpayers’ money being distributed as NP “skietgoed”?

These booklets cost 26c each to print, and that does not take into account the cost of distribution and railage which has not yet been determined. I want to know how many copies were given to the NP and when the NP is going to reimburse the State.

To spend State money on promoting one particular political party is a corrupt practice and I am sure the hon the Deputy Minister has no desire to slide into a Mulder-Rhoodie type of operation. I hope he will adequately explain what his intention was in allowing this booklet to be distributed as a NP pamphlet, as I am sure he would not like to be accused of abusing his position. [Interjections.] He has promised that there will be none of the secret projects or undercover operations that were the practice of the former Department of Information. I hope he will assure the House that activities of this disgraceful nature will not be repeated.

I also wish to raise the question of the accreditation of foreign journalists with the hon the Deputy Minister. When I say foreign journalists, I also mean those journalists who might be South African citizens, but who work for foreign newspapers and magazines. He advised me in a recent reply to a question that the bureau had taken over from the Department of Foreign Affairs the function of the accreditation of journalists working for foreign news organisations. I should like him to explain to the House the system of co-operation between his department and the Department of Home Affairs which is responsible for the flow of work-seekers in and out of South Africa. Although he said in reply to the question that the bureau had not denied any applications for accreditation from foreign journalists, there is a feeling among those who work for foreign newspapers and magazines that attempts have been made to put obstacles in their way. I should like the hon the Deputy Minister to address his mind to this problem and, if possible, to make a statement when he replies to this debate. It is a very serious matter and it is causing a great deal of concern among the almost 150 foreign journalists presently working in South Africa. They are concerned about their security and about their future.

Talking about journalists, I just want to say if he is going to distribute copies of the State President’s speeches, one would hope that it would be done efficiently. I understand that copies of the State President’s Gaddafi-speech last Thursday were distributed far and wide, but what happened to the speech on Friday when the State President announced that the pass laws were to be scrapped? On the one occasion the Government gets it right, the bureau fluffs it, because I am told that not a single copy of the State President’s speech of Friday was distributed to journalists.

Another matter I wish to raise with the hon the Deputy Minister is the question of the almost R54 000 he spent on two trips abroad last year.

How much?

R54 000. He went to New York for five days and to Munich for six days, I think.

Did he buy the Empire State Building?

He went to New York with a senior official to participate on invitation in a debate and in a symposium. All I want to say is, surely, if he is invited by these people, they should meet the bill. When he is invited by people, they should meet the bill, because perusing the schedules, there is absolutely no way in which travel to foreign symposia and debates can be construed as promoting effective communication between the Government and the people of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I have offered some criticism, and I think it is appropriate that I offer some advice. The first suggestion that I want to make is that at all times the hon the Deputy Minister must tell the truth. Part of the problem in South Africa at the present time is that very few people believe the Government. For years and years the NP has felt it could postpone abolishing apartheid by bamboozling its critics. For ages people have been led to believe that major changes have been on the way when the real intention of the Government has been to maintain the status quo of White privilege and domination. A major credibility gap exists, therefore, and if the bureau is to achieve anything at all it must at all times be seen to be telling the truth.

The second suggestion is that instead of promoting the NP programme of so-called reform, the bureau could profitably spend its time preparing the population of this country for the post-apartheid era. There are many problems in South Africa. One of the major tragedies is the artificial divisions which have been created by the policy of racial discrimination. We are a country of rich diversity and everything should be done to ensure that we are not going to tear at each other’s throats. After 38 years of NP rule the great majority of people, both Black and White, have adopted positions and attitudes which are simply unacceptable in a vibrant multiracial society. Those attitudes and positions have to change. A major educative role is therefore necessary and I hope the hon the Deputy Minister will devote a large proportion of his time to that task.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Johannesburg North and I have come up against each other before. That was a few years ago on the occasion of a by-election in the constituency of Johannesburg West. After that he had to go and find a niche for himself in Johannesburg North.

I think the hon Leader of the Official Opposition could really have made a better choice as far as this particular subject is concerned when it was his turn to speak.

The hon member for Johannesburg North took the opportunity to repeat a whole lot of questions which he in any case had already asked the hon the Deputy Minister during question time. He in any case has received replies to them before. Why when he was speaking did he not rather deal with the question of whether or not we need an information service in this country. He should evaluate it positively and constructively and tell us what he would suggest the function of such a bureau for information should be, that is if he agrees that there should be something like that. So why is he not being constructive? So why does he not tell us what standpoint he or his party adopts on what the function of a bureau for information should be? He instead raises a whole lot of petty issues in the statements he makes. He says it is NP propaganda, but he does not give one example to prove that it is in fact that. He does not provide any evidence to back up his statement that what is written in the pamphlet he is now waving around, is definitely not what the State President said during the opening of Parliament. [Interjections.]

What is the function of the Bureau for Information? Is it not precisely to inform people in this country of what is said in the official chambers of the country? Is it not precisely its function to convey the Government’s message to the people of the country?

You did not listen!

The hon member provided no evidence for what her was saying, and did not come up with one constructive recommendation of what should be done. [Interjections.] The hon member said it would have been acceptable if it were the purpose of the Bureau for Information to promote the image of the country abroad, but he does not take his argument any further than that.

I want to draw his attention to one point. He once again raised the question of the publication that was printed without tenders being given out. He had already received a reply to that question. He had put the same question during question time and received the reply that the Government Printer had that publication printed by a private printer in accordance with Exemption GPC 77. This reply had been given to him before. Surely it is stupid to put the question here again and to waste the Committee’s time in this way. I do not want to spend any more time on that hon member’s speech.

This is the first time that we are discussing the Bureau for Information’s business in this Committee and I think it is necessary to evaluate the functions and the job of this bureau.

I firstly want to congratulate the Deputy Director-General on his appointment as chief accounting officer. We wish him and his staff everything of the best with the great responsibility that has been placed on their shoulders. The hon the Deputy Minister has been congratulated on previous occasions, but if there is anyone who at this stage could be regarded as having a very important responsibility, it is the Deputy Minister with his job in the national economy as a whole. And so we once again want to congratulate him sincerely and wish him everything of the best in carrying this responsibility.

I now want to evaluate the aim of the Bureau for Information. This is how the aim of the bureau is described: “To promote effective communication between the Government and the population of the RSA”. But what strikes one is when one considers this aim? One first of all perceives the State’s desire to communicate. In the second place, the State wants to do this openly. It does not want to do it in a covert fashion, but openly, so that everyone can see how it communicates and what it is trying to convey. I think this is fantastic, because for the first time the State takes the responsibility upon itself to purposefully inform people in this country. I am not talking of activity abroad. In my opinion this should have happened a long time ago.

Why is it necessary? Let us consider this question. In the first place the State has the responsibility of conveying its policy, because it affects the population. The Government’s decisions affect the population and so it is necessary for the Government to convey them. Let us use the example the hon member for Johannesburg North referred to. On 31 January the State President said the Government stood for power-sharing. If he had not openly conveyed this to the population at large, he could equally be accused of having done things in secret and of no one having known about his standpoint in this regard. It would in any case have been a typical reaction of the CP.

Secondly: It is also the responsibility of the State to stamp out ignorance. This can only be done by means of effective communication. One of the greatest evils of our time is the lack of communication between the people of our country, and this leads to ignorance which in turn leads to prejudice and condemnation. It leads to hate which in turn eventually leads to violence. And so it is important that the bureau not only conveys information, but that it will also be its point of departure, as the hon the Deputy Minister has stated, to listen to the various South African communities and individuals. When all is said and done, communication is a two-way process. I think it is a feather in the cap for the bureau that it should operate from that point of departure; that it is also prepared to listen, to take in and to communicate in turn. [Interjections.]

In the third place I think it is important to take note of the fact that we are trapped in a spiral of violence which could lead to a revolution in this country. It is a fact, and it is therefore the responsibility of the State to counteract and to prevent this revolutionary climate. The perceptual terrain is precisely one of the terrains on which it has to counteract this potential for revolution. One can define it in different ways, but it is important that the potential for revolution should also be counteracted in the field of information and communication in the most widely defined sense. This is why it is important that the bureau discharge its responsibility to communicate correct information.

In view of the present revolutionary climate, a straightforward question may surely be asked: How much intimidation, how much incitement and how many supposed grievances—I am not talking of really valid grievances—are not based on perceptions, or rather on faulty perceptions, resulting from the fact that no information or facts are available?

Let me mention an example to clarify the point I am making. I remember how I held a discussion with three young Blacks in Pretoria last year. After a while I noticed that the men were hesitant and were taken by surprise in the situation. Then one of them asked me: “Why do you not drive a Mercedes Benz, and where is your chauffeur?” This was simply because of the fact that I arrived there in a Volkswagen Gholf. The perception that each of us who serves in this House is equipped with a Mercedes and a chauffeur is therefore a general perception. It merely emerged from that simple conversation. What does this mean? It is ignorance that leads to a faulty impression that we are generally in a privileged position.

What applies to Blacks in this regard, applies equally to Whites. Perceptions are created such as those with which hon members of the CP occupied themselves last week. The hon member for Lichtenburg created the perception that everything that the Government does is only being done in favour of the Blacks.

Today perceptions are more important than facts, and that is why it is important that the State, through the Bureau for Information, should do everything to convey the facts so that a correct impression of what is happening may be formed. Therefore the planning of the information message, communications research and co-ordination are of real importance within the national economy.

My last point about why there should be a bureau, is that the State has a responsibility to promote relations, to promote a feeling of patriotism for the country and to counteract defeatism. That is why the outrageous messages from both sides—from a Winnie Mandela, who used arson as a threat, and from a Eugene Terre’ Blanche who says the Blacks should be chased into the sea, should be counteracted through an effective factual message by the State through one of its agencies, the Bureau for Information. In my view it is also important that in this regard the State, with specific reference to this booklet published as a result of the State President’s speech last Thursday, should immediately be able to react to events, to announcements and statements. It does not contribute anything to communicate a message or reaction if it is done too late. It must be the latest news, or a recent reaction to events.

Against this background I should like to say that the bureau has a tremendous job, and that we wish them everything of the best. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with the hon member for Johannesburg West in congratulating the hon the Deputy Minister who is entrusted with this post. We want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that he will not always be receiving wholehearted co-operation in this job he has taken upon himself as the head of information for the NP to do this work at State expense. We nonethelss wish him success in his work, and particularly in the area of his work where he will have to try to promote a very poor case abroad.

We also want to convey our congratulations to Mr Steward, the head of this State department, who is a very capable official. I have seen him in action in the standing committee, and we want to wish him everything of the best in his work, particularly in regard to the effort he will be making to explain South Africa’s policy abroad, because the CP thinks South Africa’s case should be promoted abroad in a positive light.

The hon member for Johannesburg said that the most important job of this department was communication. The State wants to communicate; it would like to inform people of the situation. We are also in favour of communication, but we should like the people of South Africa to be able to talk with this Parliament and with our Government. We do not want the people merely to be informed from above, we should also like the people of South Africa to also be able to communicate.

To make this possible, we need a general election. [Interjections.] Right throughout the discussion of the State President’s Vote we argued that a general election should be called. The people of South Africa, the Whites, must be allowed to say whether they are satisfied with this Government which has chosen the course of power-sharing and political integration. [Interjections.] When we had to vote on the State President’s Vote this afternoon, the members of the PFP, the NRP and the new NP all sat in a solid mass on the other side, whilst only 16 people voted against the acceptance of the Vote because the Government has now taken the course of integration with Black people too. The number of members who were sitting on this side as opposed to the other side of the Committee, however, does not reflect the feeling of the people of South Africa at large. [Interjections.] We therefore ask the State President to hold an election, so that the people of South Africa can also tell this Government how they feel about the policy that is being sold to them.

Who is the people of South Africa? [Interjections.]

The Whites of South Africa. The hon the Deputy Minister is now asking me who the people of South Africa are. Before the referendum the hon member for Hercules said Blacks would never be involved in this dispensation. This is the reason why the PFP voted no in the referendum. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said that if Blacks were involved in this dispensation, South Africa would be destroyed. Now the State President states that he and his party are pledged to power-sharing. We now ask that communication from the people should be made possible.

The hon member for Johannesburg West said there is great ignorance in South Africa. Is it not precisely because the Government does not give straightforward replies to questions put to it? [Interjections.] The debate on the State President’s vote has just been completed, but he did not reply to any direct question put to him. He evaded the questions that were put to him. [Interjections.] When we asked him if he agreed with the hon member for Innesdal that Blacks should be members of the electoral college which the State President has to appoint, he said that the State President would be White for the next five years, and this Parliament would have to change the electoral college.

The State President wrote a full-page letter in the newspapers, actually it was drawn up by the hon the Deputy Minister of Information, which was published throughout the Republic of South Africa. In it he said:

The State President goes on to say:

But when we asked him today if Blacks should sit on the electoral college, we were not given a reply.

Let me now tell the hon the Deputy Minister of Information that we are dissatisfied that about approximately R300 000 of the tax payers’ money has been spent on this advertisement, but from the CP s point of view it is money that has been spent to its advantage. This letter has been of great value to the CP. [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon the Deputy Minister that he should please see to it that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning also writes such a letter. He should appear on TV every day, because every time he appears on television, dozens of people move over to the CP. [Interjections.]

Then you should not complain about it, should you?

I am not complaining about it; I am just saying that the hon the Minister should please do this. [Interjections.] He should appear on television every day.

This letter has done the CP a lot of good because the hon the Deputy Minister had it published bearing the State President’s signature, because when the State President also wrote a letter in 1981 he wrote amongst other things:

Below that he wrote:

But the letter he has now appended his signature to states:

This is the first step in the direction of permanent power-sharing. This letter proved usefule to the CP. The hon the Deputy Minister must write more of them.

Let me also say that the hon the Deputy Minister has a very difficult job, because we put direct questions to the State President in this debate. One member of the CP after another stood up to ask the State President if Blacks would be members of the electoral college to elect a State President, because only 13 Blacks would have to serve on it for a Black State President to be elected. [Interjections.] We could not be get a reply from the State President. We now hope that the hon the Deputy Minister could possibly issue a piece of information to give us the answers to these questions, seeing as he has to inform South Africa.

He should say what the policy of his party is.

He is clever enough.

I recall that the hon the Deputy Minister himself said that the emancipation of peoples is the best formula for peace in South Africa.

Yes, he was sitting here when he said this.

The hon the Minister is now committed to promoting the alternative, which he said would promote conflict, confrontation and bloodshed.

How is information disseminated by the National Party and its media? I have a very fine example of it. It was broadcast on television, and I read the complete text:

That was written by Kobus Bester in Durban. [Interjections.]

That is typical of the NP. That is typical of the Government and its media.

We did not write that.

I know the NP did not write it, but that is what is written here. It is written by the media which the hon the Deputy Minister has available to him to inform South Africa. Before the referendum the Government said the ANC, like the CP, wants a no vote, while the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said the Government is prepared to negotiate with the ANC if they renounced violence. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman really had a problem today to make a contribution in respect of the Bureau for Information as such. He began by congratulating the hon the Deputy Minister on his appointment as head of the NP, which, of course, is incorrect, and I shall return to that presently. Then he went on to thank the National Party and the Bureau for Information for the …

Naturally, you did not listen to what I said at all!

He thanked the National Party, Mr Chairman, for the good work done by way of the pamphlet presented to the House by the hon member himself. He said, as it were, “Go ahead; this is good work”. Nowhere along the way could the hon member prove that the bureau had distributed erroneous information which had been received from the Government. He said nothing in that respect, Mr Chairman. The last point he made in connection with Mr Kobus Bester and the SABC had nothing at all to do with the Bureau for Information. He had a bit of a struggle, therefore. We are used to his struggling, however.

Now you can go on struggling!

Never mind, Mr Chairman, we are quite used to the plodding of the Conservative Party by this time. [Interjections.]

I want to return to another aspect. This is in connection with a matter to which the hon member for Johannesburg North referred. Apparently they have a problem. Possibly the hon member for Kuruman also has a problem in differentiating between the information campaign of the Government on the one hand and the information campaign of a party-political organisation on the other.

You probably find that a very difficult problem, do you not?

I realise it is very difficult, Sir. Now if the hon member for Kuruman will shut his mouth and open his ears for just a while, he may be a little wiser as far as this matter is concerned after my contribution.

Very well, let us hear!

Mr Chairman … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, the function of the Bureau for Information, as indicated by the hon member for Johannesburg West, is to promotes defective communication between the Government and the population of the Republic. Its concern, therefore, is communication between Government and the population of the Republic.

Let us look just for a moment at the concepts of Government and State. I do not want to present long definitions here. I think it will be sufficient if I merely refer to them briefly by saying that if the State is seen as a political community, the Government is that body of people and institutions which applies all enforceable objectives in the community. From this definition it is clear that the policy and the decisions of the Government have a definite effect on the daily lives of all South Africa’s inhabitants. People who are affected by these decisions, particularly during a period of important national debate and reform, definitely have the right to know exactly what the Government’s decisions comprise. The bureau’s information task, therefore, is to convey the policy of the Government to all South Africans, precisely because it affects their daily lives.

The party policy, on the other hand, is a matter of debate, and it does not affect people’s daily lives at all. In addition, a party-political information service’s target group is restricted to its electorate in general, and to members of the party in particular. Only once a party’s policy has been debated and possibly included in the policy of a government, does it have an influence on people’s lives. This is the stage in which the Government has a task and a responsibility to inform the total population effectively on those aspects which affect their lives. It is the responsibility of those who carry out the information task—the Government’s Bureau for Information—to bring this into prominence. Perhaps the best example is to point out the following aspects. The hon member for Johannesburg West has already referred to one of these. It concerns a speech made by the State President on the occasion of the opening of Parliament, which was then used by way of pamphlets and other notices to inform the population in general.

I want to point out a further example. When the annual Budget speech is made by the hon the Minister of Finance, surely it is not the National Party’s Budget, but that of the Government. If I may advance a single aspect in this connection, which may have been a cause of the misunderstandings prevailing in the ranks of the opposition parties at present—or then at least of the misapprehension they have—it is that when commentary is called for, particularly in the case of a budget speech, the commentary of the chief spokesmen of the respective opposition parties is normally called for. The commentary of the National Party’s chief spokesman is normally not called for, however, that is how everyone in this country knows today that the hon member for Yeoville is the PFP’s chief spokesman on Finance and the hon member for Sunnyside is the CP’s chief spokesman on Finance. No one really knows, however, that the hon member for Smithfield is the National Party’s chief spokesman on Finance. Perhaps this is an aspect which will have to be emphasised more strongly in future. Naturally this also applies in respect of other departments’ chief spokesmen in the respective parties here in the House, and the fact that the chief spokesmen of the governing party are not necessarily usually involved.

A further aspect that can be kept in mind by hon members in the opposition when they raise objections is that the NP Government is not the only government that performs an information function. This function is also common practice in governments in the rest of the world. The statement of the hon members of the opposition parties that the Bureau for Information is used to propound NP propaganda is therefore unfounded and quite unjustified.

I want to refer briefly to another aspect, viz communication. As I have mentioned, the purpose of the bureau is to communicate with the population of the RSA. One of the bureau’s objectives is that of two-way communication, in which the Government’s standpoints will be conveyed, and the standpoint of other communities will be given a hearing. I do not think anyone would doubt the importance of communication. In fact, Paul writes the following in his First Letter to the Corinthians:

Communication may seem a simple process, but at the same time it is one of the most complex activities we can attempt. Lewis Carroll, the writer of Alice in Wonderland, once wrote:

[Interjections.] Communication, particularly two-way communication, is so much more important in our South African system, in which the First and the Third World meet one another, particularly during this period of a national debate about constitutional reform, which effects all population groups and in which clear understanding must be gained by all inhabitants. With the present role of communication and the part it will play in future, the Government—and specifically the Bureau for Information—truly has a great and responsible task.

In the first place, the bureau, in its communication strategy, forms one of the most important bastions against the revolutionary powers that want to scuttle the reform process. What may be even more important, is that it is also the bureau’s task—once again as part of its communication strategy—to create good attitudes and human relations. It therefore involves the development of an inner state of mind which is part of a process of education and evolution. To stimulate the process of education and evolution and place it on a more organised basis, relations committees have been established as instruments of communication. The purpose of these relations committees is that population groups will concentrate on developing goodwill and promoting communication among themselves.

I am aware that the relations committees are mainly the responsibility of the regional offices of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. I am also aware that the bureau, as a communication adviser of the State, inevitably co-operates very closely on a regional level with all other State Departments. Since the objectives of the relations committees coincide so substantially with the objectives of the Bureau for Information, viz the positive communication of good relations, and since relations committees are pre-eminently suited to two-way communication, the question arises as to whether the Government should consider the possibility of integrating the mentioned committees with the Bureau for Information.

I want to argue that we should do everything in our power to promote the positive communication of good relations meaningfully and effectively in all spheres of life. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to tell the hon member for Newcastle that we can indeed debate that fine dividing line between State and Government but that as long as we have five political parties in this House, we are going to get five distinctly different opinions on exactly where that line is drawn.

We on these benches wish the hon the Deputy Minister well with this rather daunting task that lies ahead of him. Certainly, to Mr David Steward and those who serve with him, we extend our best wishes for the days that lie ahead.

It is unfortunate that this Bureau for Information had a rather difficult birth. This birth is highlighted by the fact that there is a change in definition of its aims as printed in the Budget and there are no fewer than four changes in the definition of its programmes. As a matter of fact the title of one of the programmes has been changed completely. I think the hon the Deputy Minister is now occupying probably one of the hottest seats in Parliament because he is never going to be able to please everybody. That will be utterly impossible. The other thing that makes his position rather awkward is the fact that South Africa is still very sensitive about information. That is a legacy from the past that has left us all with a nervous twitch. It is hard to believe that this legacy is almost ten years old—it is something like seven or eight years old.

I think it is fair to say that extreme caution should be exercised with every step that is taken towards the establishment of this Bureau for Information. I think it is also fair to say that it is early days yet and the bureau is still very much in its infancy. I think also we are going to find that many people and many organisations are going to be highly critical of the bureau and I think they are going to be destructively critical almost from the first day. I am sure the hon the Deputy Minister has found that out already.

I think also that it is incumbent upon us— and we feel this in these benches—that, while we sound a note of warning and a note of extreme caution, we want to try to be constructive. To that end we would make the following suggestions.

Firstly, this entire operation must be an open house operation. This must be an operation that must be seen to be something where the doors are open at all times for two-way traffic—information in and information out. Secondly, it is of paramount importance that it must have no secrets, and by secrets I do not only mean information, but I also mean that it must have no secret funds—it must have nothing that is kept secret from the people of South Africa. Thirdly—and this is the most important thing of all—it has to have credibility because without credibility it has absolutely no future whatsoever. I think one of the most important ways towards achieving credibility would be the involvement of the private sector in the workings of this bureau. I think the hon the Deputy Minister would do well to consider involving the private sector somehow as an information provider, or to involve them in decision-making, but to involve the private sector in the workings of the bureau.

If South Africa is to embark on an image-building exercise I think that we can best achieve our aims if we build up on an image of fact. We must not resort to hysterical propoganda. History is littered with countries that have done just that with their information services. I think we can achieve the finest image of all if we at all times are seen to show both sides of the coin. I have made those two comments: We have to build this image on fact and we have to show both sides of the coin. This image-building, based on those two facets, should be done both within and outside of the Republic.

Let us pause and look at the South African overseas, the businessman who goes overseas. He has a problem. The minute he gets to the United States, the United Kingdom, West Germany or wherever, he sees the image of South Africa as reflected by the media in those countries. At this he even starts to doubt and to wonder whether that is happening in his country. This is where I believe we should see both sides of the coin. Our public must be able to see more of the speeches of the likes of Winnie Mandela. Our public must be allowed to see and read more of what is actually happening. News must be released and information must be given to our public on both the good and the bad.

Contact with overseas media and their local representatives is of course of paramount importance, and I am pleased to see that this is one of the functions of this new bureau. I believe there is no shadow of doubt that overseas newsmen have been left in a vacuum in South Africa for too long. It is a vacuum in the sense that they have found themselves in a situation where rather than report on news, they almost try to create news. I think the hon the Deputy Minister knows what I am talking about. We have had idle hands creating mischief in this country. We have heard of certain visual news media that have done exactly this, namely the creation rather than the reporting of news.

Finally, in the limited time at my disposal, I would like to say that I think that now this bureau has taken on the visitors’ programme—it has taken over that function from the Department of Foreign Affairs—I would recommend that these visitors are allowed to meet the complete spectrum of opinion and thought in our country. I think that sometimes visitors are not allowed to see as many people as they ought or perhaps not the complete spectrum as they should.

Communication is a science all of its own, and I am not talking of the type communication we might have by telephone with the hon the Minister of Communications. I speak of communication seen as being the ability of those in the corridors of power to communicate with the masses that put them there. It is not for nothing that President Reagan is known as the “great communicator”. President Franklin Delano Rossevelt started it with his “fireside chats”. He introduced the human touch and he reached out to the people.

I am pleased that the State President is with us this afternoon because I believe that one of the things that we should have in this country is a reaching-out to the people from the heads of State of this country. Note that I said “the heads of State”—those in charge of State. The State President would do well to consider “fireside chats” along the line of President Roosevelt. The State President could also follow the approach of Ronald Reagan as a communicator. The State President does not lack in this ability, and I think the bureau would do well to urge him to do just this.

I think the bureau can do good work and in that sense I wish it well. I want to say to it, however, that heaven help it if a year from today we do find that it has become a political tool. South Africa will not forgive it.

Mr Chairman, it is always pleasant to speak after the hon member for Umhlanga. He made a few good suggestions here, but unfortunately there is one with which I cannot agree. I do not believe one can permit this bureau to distribute the information that comes from the radical left and right opposition groups in this country. I am not even going to apologise for not agreeing with that at all.

I also want to address the Official Opposition and the CP and what they said. I want to put the following question to the chief spokesman of the PFP: If the PFP were to come into power, would they not like to propagate far and wide the convention they want to have? After all, they cannot rely on Die Afrikaner or Die Patriot to distribute their standpoints among the Afrikaners.

What about Die Burger?

Nor can they really rely on the rest of the Afrikaans media to do so for them. They will therefore have to use a department such as this one for these purposes. [Interjections.] They will have to put their standpoint elsewhere, otherwise they will not reach the population.

I also want to put a question to the CP. If by chance they were to come into power, would the hon member for Waterberg ever consider allowing the Cape Times to spell out his partition policy? The country will then be able to hear and see for the first time what partition is, in any case. Can he rely on the English media, which do not support him at this stage, to distribute that propaganda among the population for him? Even the mere thought of that is nonsense. That is why a bureau such as this one is imperative. Without it, the message they want to convey to the people will simply not get there.

The hon member for Kuruman said we should communicate with the people by means of an election. I want to ask the hon members of the CP whether one does not communicate with the population of the country, particularly with the Whites to whom the hon member for Kuruman referred, when one has a referendum. Do they not agree that that is also a means of communication? There is dead silence in the CP benches because they have still not been able to digest the answer the people gave them in the last referendum. The people told them very emphatically that they accepted the power-sharing plans of the NP and that these were to be developed. [Interjections.] Because that was accepted, the Government is spelling out putting those things into practice.

Did that also include power-sharing with the Blacks?

The hon member is waking up now, but he has forfeited his chance of asking a question, because I want to say nothing further about the hon members of the CP.

I am listening to your speech. I am behaving myself.

I see the State President’s Vote in the tricameral parliamentary system of the RSA as one of the most modern models of a system of government in the democratic world of today. The State President’s excellent organising ability has contributed to the establishment of the bureau. One would like to thank him for having had that far-sightedness.

Just as Parliament decided, as I have just said, that power can be shared, it is now uniting power in this country. For the first time in our history Coloureds, Indians and Whites are uniting behind the State President. Because they are united in the Cabinet, we have to convey the Cabinet’s standpoints to the people who elected those representatives. That is why a body such as the Bureau for Information is imperative in the South African society.

It is going to be more difficult for the Government to communicate its standpoints on the road of reform in future, because in the next few months many dramatic things will be announced, as the State President said in the discussion of this Vote. The bureau must be able to convey that information to the people correctly, hot off the press, lucidly and immediately, not as it has often been conveyed by the media during the past year.

Are you talking about the NP media?

This is what makes it important for this bureau to be close to the State President. By means of the bureau, the Cabinet should be able to get its information through sufficiently quickly during the reform phase the country is experiencing.

Because the State President, as I have just said, represents the most moderate political grouping of the population, it is imperative that the left-wing and right-wing radical standpoints be neutralised. The hon member for Rissik has just given another example of that. [Interjections.]

We who cherish high ideals and a more just dispensation for this country accept that the bureau will receive constant criticism from the left-wing and right-wing ranks. That is why we should like to tell the State President we share his vision of a future community which we have to create here. We want that image to be conveyed clearly to the population at large—Whites, Blacks, Coloured and Indians.

I also want to submit certain proposals to the hon the Deputy Minister for consideration. If one thing in the lives of our people has divided us through the decades, it is the fact that the governments of our country have never had an effective channel of communication with the public. The right of the opposition to criticise the government exists in all democratic countries, but few of these countries have this kind of body which can communicate so beautifully with the population. In my opinion, the bureau should liaise with the local as well as with the foreign media. For many years we have seen how our country’s image was systematically being disparaged. The image particularly of the Whites in this country was distorted systematically and we were presented as racists. The Afrikaner suffered in particular. That is why I want to tell the hon member for Greytown—he must take cognisance, he is a fellow-Afrikaner—our image has been disparaged by the media and must be rectified.

We want this Bureau of Information to do its work in such a way that one will see it is precisely the Afrikaner who created this tri cameral Parliament in which the power, unlike the way in which the hon member for Rissik put it—he said it was “divided”—is in reality united here, and that in future, we are going to unite even more firmly behind the State President. I think the hon the Deputy Minister must give serious attention to this.

Between the lines I can tell the foreign countries that of the approximately 16 or 18 radical right-wing people sitting here, only 3 were elected to this House. The others have not yet come to this House after an election. This is the kind of information that should be conveyed to the world at large. The outside world should know the hon member for Sasolburg is the only member of this whole Parliament—Parliament consists of three Chambers and has almost 250 members— who thinks as he does. The world should know that. The world should know that the White man in this country is not represented by those people. [Interjections.] I hope the bureau will be able to convey that information too.

Before I waste too much of my time on them, I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister I think it is imperative that he make use of the electronic communication media. In manufacturing visual material about this country, he should not distribute it only by means of newspapers as he made the State President’s letter known to the country, but he should also look at the possibilities of audio and video cassettes. This electronic apparatus should be available at airports, in aircraft, in harbours and at any tourist society or travel agency. We should make it available particularly to those people who often travel abroad or have friends there. The service clubs in this country should be able to get hold of it and to distribute it, since they perform a tremendous task. One of the hon members also referred to the industrialists who so often travel abroad—those people should get it too. There are so many other people among the public who would help this fine department which was established to convey South Africa’s image to the outside world.

The bureau must also help the media to get its house in order. I think one of the finest opportunities the bureau has, is that of addressing the local media. When a journalist presents a distorted view of this country, he should be called in and immediately given the correct rendition of what he should have written about, or should have written, as the hon member for Johannesburg West in fact said. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, we on these benches would like to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister on his arrival in this bureau. We wish to echo the words of a journalist in South Africa who described him as being “Rambo-like” in the jungles of Mozambique, but when he reaches here he will understand that information and the transmission of information is a subtle exercise, not to be transmitted with aggression or viciousness or even a sense of vengeance.

I should like to turn to the hon member for Boksburg to put two matters to him arising from what he said. He indicated that the hon member for Sasolburg is the only MP among 308 MP’s to hold that view. I believe it is important that the world does know that, and that South Africa does know that. However, what is also important is that South Africa and the rest of the world know that the majority of 308 MP’s are opposed to apartheid, are against the Population Registration Act and are against the Group Areas Act. Does the world know that, and is the Bureau for Information telling the world that? It is very important to do so.

The hon member for Boksburg also asked whether the PFP will not continue to use this process when we come to power. I want to make one thing absolutely clear. It has taken the Nationalists 38 years to reach this point where they realised that they needed a Bureau for Information to put out the Government’s policy. They are not propagating State policy, but the Government’s policy. I think it is a very bad argument to say that if the CP cannot get their arguments for partition published in the Cape Times they will want a Bureau for Information. That means that the NP cannot get their arguments published in Die Vaderland, Rapport, Beeld or Die Burger. [Interjections.]

I should like to turn now to the actual Vote itself and ask the hon the Deputy Minister a few questions. I should like to start with Programme 4 in particular, namely media production, the aim of which is described as follows:

I take it that this includes the production of the nine newspapers that his department publishes. I have studies these newspapers. They are very interesting. They cover the following classifications of peoples, if one may call it that: Sotho, Xhosa, Zulu, Swazi, the metropolitan Blacks from Soweto, the metropolitan Blacks from Pretoria, the metropolitan Blacks from the Eastern Cape, so-called Coloureds and Indians.

I have a particular problem concerning these newspapers. Are we not looking at the tip of a Citizen iceberg? If there is logic in having newspapers such as these distributed among the various population groups of South Africa, where is the White newspaper?

The Citizenl

I have studied these newspapers. There is for example this one, called Die Karet. It is concerned with Coloured affairs. It carries a lot of the views of members of the House of Representatives and of the Labour Party. Then there is The Phoenix carrying the views expressed in the House of Delegates and of the National Peoples Party. Where, however, are the views of the NP propagated? Are we merely to assume that all of these newspapers propagate the White view because they carry the views of the Government? There is a sense of no logic in the whole argument we have been hearing all this afternoon. R3,1 million is spent on this, but I believe it is wasted on these newspapers. The hon member for Yeoville has talked about wastage in Government, and I want to echo those views. Here is one area in which we could save money.

Secondly, I want to deal with Programme 2, which deals with the 11 regional offices of this department, costing R14,4 million. The aim of this programme is described as follows:

I want to say again that liaison is a two-way exercise. It does not only involve communication between the Government and the people but also between the people and the Government. If that is the case we must know who is communicating at the Nelspruit office of that hon the Minister’s bureau, carrying the views of those people through to the Government. Is the Bureau for Information transmitting the views of only recognised authorities? Is it transmitting interpretive views? What liaison is going on? I understand that these offices, costing R14,4 million, were taken over from the Department of Foreign Affairs last year. I wonder at their real value, and whether they should not in fact be integrated with the offices of the Department of Home Affairs. We are looking at a two-way function and saving money at this level.

Thirdly, I should like to turn to Programme 5. According to the original draft of the estimates for the Bureau for Information, Programme 5 was called “Special Services”. According to the new draft it is called “Planning”. The original programme description read as follows: “… rendering special communications services”. What does the word “special” mean? The new programme description is: “… provision of a communications research and advice service”. All of this falls under the orbit of a chief director appointed from the South African Defence Force and will cost R1,5 million. Is it a planning department, are they carrying out services, or are their functions going to be carried out by this department?

I would like to echo what the hon member for Johannesburg North said. There are serious doubts among hon members in these benches that a communications exercise between the Nationalist Party, which is interpreted as being the Government, and the population is, or should be, carried out at the cost of South African taxpayers.

This advert which featured so prominently included the following words:

Will those Black leaders have a voice in the Bureau for Information and what is said by that body? I ask this because that is what is assumed. It is assumed that there is in fact a place for them and that they have a right to communicate with South Africa and the world.

Firstly, Mr Chairman, I should like to refer to the hon member for Johannesburg North. The hon member has indicated that he ’phoned my office to make an appointment and that I did not reply to him. I am sorry if he is under that impression. I received a note from my private secretary which read as follows:

That is the note from my private secretary and I should like to extend an invitation to the hon member to come and have some tea with me. [Interjections.]

The question was asked as to why the aims of the bureau were amended. Firstly, let me say that I think the hon member for Umhlanga is quite right in saying that we are experiencing a few birth pains. It is quite natural.

In the first formulation of the aim of the bureau, it was specifically stated that the aim was to promote the image of the State of South Africa. That can only be done overseas. The Bureau for Information only has a duty inside South Africa and operates only within South Africa. It has no information duty overseas. That is the duty of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

*In this regard I also want to refer to the hon member for Kuruman, who specifically referred to South Africa’s image abroad. I should like to tell him that it is not at all the purpose of the bureau to operate abroad. The bureau only operates locally.

†A number of hon members have made mention of the advertising campaign that we launched earlier this year. They tried to suggest that the bureau was promoting the aims of the NP. Firstly, let me say that not only will it be the bureau’s function to promote communication between the central Government and the South African population, but it will also specifically attempt to play a role in the communication between the three Houses and the population. In other words, I have already held discussions with Minister Hendrickse and his Ministers’ Council and I am going to hold discussions with Mr Rajbansi. I have already raised the matter with him. We have made it quite clear that we would like to play a role in promoting communication between those Government bodies represented by the three Houses, and the population of South Africa. Surely hon members will agree with me that the NP is not represented in either of the other two Houses.

The hon member for Johannesburg North also referred to the publication A new Beginning, and he complained that this publication was apparently distributed by certain members of the NP. I am not aware of that, but what I would like to say is that last Friday, the bureau also published a part of the State President’s speech of Thursday last. It was that part of the speech relating to the ANC, the PAC, the SA Communist Party, the PLO and Libya. This is what the booklet looks like. It is entitled Partners in Terror and I should like to offer the hon member for Johannesburg North some copies of this booklet. If he would like to have them for distribution among his voters, he is welcome to obtain some copies from the Bureau for Information. We would like to make them available to him and to hon members of the other political parties, if they would like to have them. [Interjections.]

I do not think that this is NP propaganda; neither was the speech delivered on 31 January 1986 NP propaganda. Statements were made by the Head of State, and the bureau has a duty to convey them to the public.

While we are discussing the subject, I must say that I was really intrigued by a part of the criticism coming from the hon member for Johannesburg North. He criticised us for, as he put it, not properly advertising the State President’s speech on influx control. However, what I cannot understand is that if he criticised us for not having published that part of the speech, why he criticised us for having advertised the State President’s Opening Address on 31 January in which the State President clearly said:

Now, if we are being criticised for not having published what the State President said on influx control on Friday, why did the PFP criticise us for having advertised what the State President said on the same subject on 31 January? It does not make sense!

Have you distributed the speech he delivered on Friday?

On this particular issue I should like to inform the House that the Bureau for Information will start with an information campaign later this week about the whole question of influx control. It will deal with issues such as the new identity documents and …

Have you distributed the speech to the Press?

I will appreciate it if the hon member would just wait with his questions for a moment.

We will start a planned information campaign on these subjects and, in the process, the Sun advertisement will also appear in the Press. I am sure that the hon member for Johannesburg North will also be satisfied with the results. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister, in the light of the fact that he is going to provide information concerning identity documents and influx control, if the Government is continuing with the plans to propagate it although legislation in this connection has not been approved by Parliament? [Interjections.]

The Government has announced that the laws would no longer be applied as from Wednesday. It is the effect of this that will be propagated. In the meantime there is an urbanisation strategy which has to be implemented, which is in the interest of all the people of South Africa. The bureau will be playing an important part in this connection.

†Some of the hon members—I think the hon member for Johannesburg North and also the hon member for Pinelands—referred to the question of secret projects. I should like to say that the Bureau for Information will neither carry out any secret projects nor administer any secret funds.

With reference to the newspapers published by various regional offices, the hon member asked whether this was not tip of an iceberg similar to the matter concerning The Citizen. I should like to say to the hon member that what happened and what went wrong in the case of the Department of Information and The Citizen was that The Citizen had apparently been financed by means of secret funds. It was a secret project. I believe that that was wrong. With regard to the newspapers to which the hon member referred, I should like to say that they have been published for many years. It is done openly and openly accounted for. Everyone can read what is published there. There are no secrets of any kind whatsoever. [Interjections.]

I was asked to make a statement on accreditation. It is the policy of the Bureau for Information to accredit every foreign journalist who has received a visa and a work permit from the Department of Home Affairs. Once he has received those he gets his accreditation. If he is a South African, working for foreign media, he gets accreditation in a similar fashion. Our whole approach is that by and large all people should be accredited so that we can have contact with them in order to develop a working relationship between ourselves and them.

The hon member for Johannesburg North suggested that we must always tell the truth. I agree with him. It is very important that this bureau has credibility, that it must be believed. That is very important. The hon member then makes a very important statement in saying that the bureau should prepare the country for the post-apartheid era. That is, of course, a very important statement. It means that the bureau should try to influence the political thinking of the population of South Africa, and it is a suggestion which we will surely give our attention to.

*I should like to thank the hon member for Johannesburg West for his speech and the congratulations he conveyed to me and the head of the bureau, Mr Stewart. He gave a good explanation of the fact that the State has a responsibility to make its policy known. He came up with a very positive approach and I should like to thank him for his points of departure.

The hon member also made the important point that we had a role to play in promoting patriotism and counteracting defeatism. I think it is a very important role which the Government in general, and the bureau in particular, have to play. I am also certain that the hon member for Johannesburg North would agree with me on this.

I also want to thank the hon member for Kuruman for the congratulations conveyed by him. I know I am not his favourite Deputy Minister, but nonetheless, I thank him very much for the congratulations.

Your policy is not my favourite.

I have replied to what the hon member had to say about foreign countries. But I am very sorry that the hon member used the debate on this Vote as well to really vent his spleen against the State President. I really do not think it was necessary. We could otherwise have had a more constructive discussion.

With reference to the people of South Africa, I wonder how the hon member would feel if the Bureau for Information were to use the expression “the people of South Africa”. This is not really quite how he put it, but we all know that the word “people” embodies a cultural element [Interjections.] We are members of the Afrikaner people, because we speak Afrikaans and because we have a history uniting us as a people. When the hon member speaks of the people of South Africa, is he then only speaking of the Afrikaner?

I am speaking of the Whites of South Africa.

The hon member talks of the Whites of South Africa, but this means that he fails to appreciate the existence of the Afrikaner as a separate people, because he only speaks of the Whites as a people in a wider sense, and that includes numerous other languages and ethnic groups merely because they are White. This is completely incorrect. I think the hon member should sort out his terminology. [Interjections.]

I should like to thank the hon member for Newcastle for what he had to say in this regard. I think his exposition of the role of different spokesmen is very important. I also think it is important—I see a need for it— that the NP as a party should also sometimes by means of its spokesmen react to what the Government is doing.

The hon member made a few points in connection with the relations committees and suggested that consideration be given to include incorporating the relations committees into the bureau. There is close co-operation with the relations committees. At this stage we have other important work to do, and I do not think we should now consider taking on too much.

†Mr Chairman, I should also like to thank the hon member for Umhlanga for his kind words to me. The hon member mentioned that the bureau had had a difficult birth. That is quite correct. He added that this birth had been much more difficult as a result of the legacy of the past. That is of course also quite correct.

I do believe, however, it is important that we should bear in mind why the old Department of Information found itself in difficulties. If I remember correctly, Sir, there was really no criticism of what the old Department of Information had done openly. The only criticism and all the accompanying difficulties were really caused by the fact that the Department of Information had conducted secret projects and administered secred funds. If it had not been for that, Sir, we would never have had the Information scandal and everything that resulted from it. We will be very careful to ensure that we do not walk into that same kind of trap.

Furthermore, the hon member referred to the private sector and suggested that the private sector should become involved. I do believe, Mr Chairman, that this is a very good suggestion. I think it is a very good idea that the private sector should become involved in an advisory capacity. I am prepared too to meet with representatives of the private sector and to listen to them from time to time. As a matter of fact, I am already doing that on a regular basis. It could, however, be an important step forward if we instituted such a relationship with the private sector, and I will convey this suggestion to the State President, since he is the one to whom I have to report. It is quite likely that he will give it favourable consideration.

The hon member for Umhlanga also suggested that the whole spectrum of political opinion should be conveyed, and the hon member for Boksburg made it quite clear that we should not convey the ideas of the radicals.

*Mr Chairman, I think that a difference exists here between putting the case of the other side and propagating it in whatever manner. Between these two standpoints, I think, there is an obvious middle course which we could follow.

The hon member for Boksburg made a few practical suggestions concerning the distribution of video cassettes and other audiovisual material. I think this proposal has considerable possibilities. I think it is necessary that we enter the growing video trade with a view to the function of the State in providing information, and I shall also be referring this proposal to the bureau for further investigation. Then at a later stage we could report on it.

Mr Chairman, by now I have partially replied to what the hon member for Pinetown said. It does not look as if there is anything further that I have to say in that regard.

Mr Chairman, could I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister? I believe he has not adequately answered my query in connection with this booklet which has been used as a National Party pamphlet. Will he kindly examine my Hansard and write to me in due course explaining the attitude of the bureau to that?

Mr Chairman, I am prepared to accede to that request. I should also like to tell the hon member that I believe the facts are quite clear. This publication is a statement by the Head of State. Everybody in this country should be informed, and in the process we are quite prepared to make available …

But this publication is stamped as coming from the National Party of the Transvaal.

If the National Party of the Transvaal obtained a copy and subsequently sent it to the hon member … I am not sure what happened in this particular case. I have already said so. I will, however, go into the matter. If that document was obtained by an official of the National Party in the Transvaal—obtained from the bureau that is—and then sent to someone else, I could not object to that. I would also not have any objection if the hon member were to obtain the same document from me, stamped it with the stamp of the PFP of the Transvaal and sent it to his voters. [Interjections.] I say this because this document is not a National Party statement. It is a statement by the Head of State.

*Mr Chairman, I just want to make a brief reference to certain aspects concerning our relations with the Press in general. We realise and accept that at all times a kind of conflict exists in relations between the Press and the Government. But this need not be a hostile relationship. It is necessary to have good co-operation with the Press internally and abroad. We are prepared to co-operate completely with the Press on the condition that it is a free and responsible Press, and that the Press keeps to a specific code of ethics—a code of ethics which sometimes exists in writing, but sometimes merely based on traditions unique to the Press. South Africa is an open community, and therefore the South African Government allows foreign journalists to report abroad on events in this country. Foreign journalists are given visas and work permits to work in South Africa. They then report to countries abroad.

In my considered opinion and that of the Government, foreign journalists should not become participants in the political processes in South Africa. Neither should they participate in unrest situations. Also, they should not consciously be a part of propaganda vendettas which are waged against South Africa from abroad.

To be here is not a right that foreign journalists can lay claim to. Rather, they are here as a result of the grace of the Government. Besides, they are here on the condition that they report fairly on the facts of and development in South Africa. Even if critical reports are written on the facts, those journalists are welcome to stay in South Africa. However, when a foreign journalist starts participating in a propaganda campaign against South Africa, a campaign based on half truths, it is not in the interests of South Africa to allow those journalists here, and it is necessary to reconsider their rights of residence.

The Bureau for Information is not the decision-making body on this. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is the person who decides. The bureau may advise the hon the Minister, but after that the hon the Minister himself decides if the person involved may or may not stay on here.

It is very important that foreign journalists accept that they will have to adhere to the code of ethics which applies to journalists internationally. It is a pity that some journalists, together with their editorial boards abroad, sometimes participate in the propaganda campaign against South Africa and therefore against the South African Government.

Here a new aspect of a problem has come to our attention. Recently one of the well-known Press agencies issued a report far and wide which was completely untrue. I phoned the chief of the bureau in Johannesburg and told him that that report was incorrect and that I would like to hear what he had to say about it. In reply he told me later on that the report that they had sent from Johannesburg, was correct. When he read the report to me, it certainly looked as if it had been reported correctly from Johannesburg. Before the report was published far and wide however, it was rewritten in New York and sent out from there.

Naturally I contacted the president of the particular Press association and registered our strongest objection against this. The facts after all are very clear. In this particular case the facts were even documented and were therefore very clear. The reporter in Johannesburg reported correctly, but abroad the article was rewritten to South Africa’s disadvantage. I told that Press agency that if they did not even pay attention abroad to the reports which come from their own offices in South Africa, they did not need their office in South Africa. They may then just as well write the report abroad, without their having representation here.

In this connection I refer to an article which appeared in Newsweek of 14 April 1986. The fact that I am referring to this means that these articles against us are not published on a regular basis. The magazine is published on an absolutely regular basis. The report to which I will be referring, however, is part of the problem. The report was written by a Nancy Cooper—she is apparently in New York—“with Richard Manning in Johannesburg”, as it is indicated in the magazine. Richard Manning is the correspondent in Johannesburg. As far as I know and as far as I have summed him up, he is someone who is prepared to report objectively on the situation in South Africa. The correspondent in Johannesburg, however, does not have control over what eventually appears in the newspaper or magazine. As a consequence offences are committed against South Africa. More than that, propaganda campaigns are started off in this way. The report reads:

There is of course not a “White regime” in this country in the first place. We know it is reasonable to say the Blacks do not have representation in the Central Government of South Africa, but it is incorrect to say it is only a White Government. “Regime” is the word they very much like to use. It is also said:

They were referring to funerals. To say that funerals are the Blacks “only really forum for political expression” is inaccurate. In the first place the State President has invited Blacks to come and discuss the future of the country with him.

That is not political expression!

In the second place, there is a system of local management in South Africa in which Blacks can and do participate. Members of organisations towards whom Newsweek is apparently sympathetically inclined, have intimidated and murdered many of those people. Besides that we also have national states governments which have been democratically elected and so there are many outlets for “Black political expression” and it has been put quite incorrectly in this report. The report continues:

This is the most serious allegation of all—

Here the story is being disseminated that there were 10 000 people who were not allowed to hold a funeral anymore and that the police without any provocation shot four of the mourners at the funeral. This is the story that has been spread far and wide.

In this regard I want to put it very clearly that these kind of reports are untrue. The one paragraph to which I referred, is incorrect; it is untrue and we do not deserve it. South Africa and its people do not deserve it. With the best will in the world, I cannot really see why we should tolerate it if we do not deserve it. The foreign press should take very careful note of the relevant situation. It is our policy to co-operate as closely as possible with the foreign press, but this kind of thing we cannot tolerate.

I know why this kind of thing is written in Newsweek. I was in America during October last year. On that occasion Newsweek’s representatives, their “senior editorial board” or whatever they call it, asked to come and see me to protest against the deportation of Ray Wilkinson of Newsweek from South Africa and I decided to in fact talk to them. One of them came to object because Ray Wilkinson was kicked out and he said:

†We cannot possibly stomach this: The senior Newsweek man telling me that Newsweek reporters should be allowed to report freely from South Africa on facts and developments “as they see it, bearing in mind public opinion in America”!

*Who is this big bear, “public opinion in America”, which on a regular basis must be fed with only certain kinds of food to be kept alive? [Interjections.] Newsweek, and the world press, must take note of the fact that we want to co-operate with them and that we shall co-operate with them on a regular basis, but we think this, kind of attitude of Newsweek is unprofessional and in conflict with the best journalistic tradition in the world. It is a dishonest approach, and to us it is an unacceptable approach. Having said this, let me emphasise that we are ready to improve our relationship with the foreign press and with this in mind, we have appointed senior people who at the moment have, and can maintain a good relationship with the foreign press. I want to emphasise too that they will also find that this government will welcome them in South Africa, on the condition that we all realise that South Africa has problems. They may report on these problems, but they should treat us reasonably, fairly and honestly and apply the international code of sound journalism to their work in South Africa. Then their position in South Africa will never jeopardised.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister if the principles which he has laid down for his job in his department, would also apply to the other parties in this House if they come into power.

If the hon member thinks I am envisaging that that party would ever come into power, I must say that I certainly do not envisage it. This Government has a specific policy. It has been elected in accordance with a particular mandate and it is going to carry out that mandate. I am not in a position to say what the attitude of other governments after this is going to be.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Sir, I have put a question, the hon the Deputy Minister has replied to it and I should now like to put another question.

Order! If the hon member wants to put a question on information, I shall give him time to do so.

Do not make a speech!

It is not going to be a speech. [Interjections.] I just want to know if the principles of the job which the hon the Deputy Minister has set for himself, will also apply to other Governments.

The principles which we have laid down for ourselves apply to this Government and I cannot make statements on behalf of other parties such as the CP.

The Labour Party!

That hon member is now referring to the Labour Party. The Bureau itself does not have a policy standpoint; we communicate the Government’s policy to the population of South Africa. We are prepared to communicate that Government’s policy to the population of South Africa.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, this Bill before the House is supported by all interested parties especially the South African Agricultural Union. The Bill is also supported by all the parties in this House, and we thank them for that.

The hon member for Albany—it appears that he is not present at the moment—said in his speech that the Bill could hardly be too stringent. I fully agree with him. He supported the Bill and then he went on to discuss the locust problem. He referred to the use of what he called “old stocks” of banned pesticides. We do not use banned pesticides if at all possible. At the beginning of the latest outbreak we started off without BHC but the outbreak was so severe that we had no choice but to resort to those old stocks.

The hon member also asked for a review of the locust control policy. I can tell the hon member that we are now preparing for new outbreaks during the spring. We are making provision for new pesticides which are not banned. We are using the experience that we have gained during the outbreak to overcome our logistical problems.

*The fact is that everybody, particularly the farmers, has a responsibility in respect of locust outbreaks. The legislation makes provision for very heavy fines if the presence of locusts is not reported. Therefore, we want to appeal to farmers to report such outbreaks in future, particularly in spring, when we shall probably experience heavy outbreaks again.

The hon member for Middelburg apologised for not being present this afternoon. He made a very fine contribution. He knows what he is talking about when it comes to pest control and plant improvement. He pointed out that this legislation, together with that on plant improvement, was very important for agriculture in South Africa. He also referred to the problems and dangers involved in smuggling plant material. I agree with him 100% that we should be very careful when bringing new plant material into the country.

The hon member for Barberton supported the Bill. He said that if he had to take the decision about the use of BHC himself, he would have taken the same decision. We thank him for that.

The hon member for Wellington spoke about the illegal importation of plant material. We know that in other countries enormous problems were created by the smuggling in of plant material. When we became aware of the fact that this was also happening here, we went so far as to appoint a presidential commission of inquiry. We hope to receive its report shortly; we shall consider its recommendation.

I want to emphasise that people who think they are promoting their industry when they smuggle plant material are playing with fire. The hon members for Middelburg and Paarl referred to the immense damage we could cause our agriculture by bringing plant material infested with viruses and so forth into the country without control being exercised.

†As I expected, the hon member for Mooi River supported the Bill. He is always in favour of legislation that is in the interests of agriculture, and we thank him for his support.

*The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke, too, referred to the locusts. I agree with him that we should thank the farmers and officials. They have done a wonderful job controlling the locusts. There are farmers who have made sacrifices.

As a result of the hon member’s representations we have decided, after serious consideration, to improve the compensation paid to farmers and part-time officials who assist with locust control. We have given these people increases of up to 50%. This is a day-and-night job which demands great sacrifice, and I think these people deserve that compensation.

The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke has also appealed to us to liaise with the neighbouring states. He did not refer to this during the debate, but he approached me personally about this matter. As far as pest control is concerned we are in continual contact with our neighbouring states. It is unfortunately true that some of them do not have the necessary infrastructure to deal with pest control, but we are prepared to undertake this on behalf of the neighbouring states on a contract basis by means of agreement. We are constantly in contact with them.

I just want to raise one final point. Farmers and the public often tend to regard pests and plagues as the responsibility of the Government, but with this latest locust plague we realised once again that if every farmer does not do his duty on his farm, the State cannot always, even with the best will in the world, control the plague. Therefore, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to appeal to our farmers to be prepared and even to purchase their own pumps for pest control. Here in the West Cape we keep spray-pumps handy to control downy mildew or other pests. Such a pest does not appear every year, but when it does appear one must be prepared to control it. This applies to many other farmers as well. I think those farmers in the incubation areas should be prepared, too. It would help us a great deal if they, too, purchased their own pumps and did not rely so heavily on the State.

I thank hon members for their support for this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

In terms of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, community development is an own affair and the administration of the Community Development Act 1966, save for the provisions dealing mainly with the constitution of the Community Development Board, the appointment of committees of the Board and the Community Development Fund, has therefore been assigned for the Ministers of the own affairs administrations responsible for community development. During the 1985 session of Parliament, the Development and Housing Act was passed. This Act provides for the establishment of a Development and Housing Board and Development and Housing Fund.

†It is also stipulated that at the commencement of the Act the Community Development Act of 1966 will no longer …

*Mr Chairman, I am not sure whether I am making a speech or whether the hon Chief Whip is doing so.

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

It is also stipulated that at the commencement of the Act the Community Development Act of 1966 will no longer be applicable in areas designated for use by the White population group. This means that unless the 1966 Act is suitably amended, the assets, rights, liabilities and obligations of the Community Development Board in areas where the Development and Housing Act applies, cannot be transferred to the Development and Housing Board. The latter Act came into operation on 1 January 1986. Hon members will notice that the relevant clause has been formulated in general terms. This is to obviate the further amendment of the Community Development Act as and when similar controlling bodies for the other own affairs administrations are established. Until such bodies are established the Community Development Board will continue to function for these particular administrations.

Mr Chairman, the Bill before us stems directly from the Development and Housing Act of 1985, which was the first own affairs Act passed by the House of Assembly in terms of the new Constitution. In that debate we opposed the Bill, and the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North moved a reasoned amendment in terms of which this House declined to pass the Bill, inter alia, because of the following reasons (Hansard, 1985, col 8039):

1. (1) By fragmenting the administration and direction of housing on strictly racial lines it will lead to a worsening of the supply of housing and to an increase in the cost of housing for the ordinary citizen;
2. (2) It fails to provide for a system of determining and controlling national housing priorities.

These two priorities are also germane to the arguments that I submit on behalf of the Official Opposition here today in opposing the measure before us.

Both a Development and Housing Board and a Development and Housing Fund have been established. Insofar as the board itself is concerned, it was contemplated that it would consist of some six members and that it would take the place of the National Housing Commission which had a maximum of 14 members and the Community Development Board with a maximum of 12 members.

The 1985 Act necessitated amendments to the Community Development Act, which is relevant to what we are discussing now, so as to vest the Development and Housing Board with the assets, rights, liabilities and obligations of the Community Development Board, and, in addition with certain moneys in the fund, for use in areas declared for White population groups. Let me repeat those words, because they are also pertinent to the argument: “… for use in areas declared for the White population group.”

The same transfer and vesting is to take place in the other two Houses—the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates—in order that similar bodies can be established when these other two Houses pass similar legislation.

We oppose this for several reasons, the first reason being that to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the other two Houses have not yet passed the Development and Housing Act of 1985 to which I have just referred. That Act was passed on 19 June last year by this House, and this is a general affairs Bill which must obviously be passed by all three Houses. I feel that some difficulty may be experienced in passing this legislation in that the cart will in fact be before the horse as far as the other two Houses are concerned. In other words, as far as they are concerned I submit that it appears that the submission of this Bill is premature.

One of the reasons why it was turned down at the other two meetings of the standing committee—one meeting was held in Pretoria and the other in Cape Town at the commencement of the session—was because of the difficulty which the House of Delegates in particular had in agreeing to this because of the use of the words “for us in areas declared for the White population group” in the Bill. In other words, it means that this legislation is founded upon the Group Areas Act and is, to all intents and purposes, repugnant to us in the Official Opposition, as it is to the majority of people in South Africa today. What we will be doing if we pass this Bill, will in fact be to entrench the group areas principle within the structure of government and administration in South Africa.

It is difficult to understand how such a Bill can come before this House, particularly in an era of so-called reform in South Africa. We should be breaking down the Group Areas Act instead of perpetuating and entrenching it in our system. Only the other day the State President said in debate in this House—perhaps it did not have a direct bearing on the Group Areas Act as referred to by my hon friend on the benches on my left—that no law was a so-called sacred cow. If no law is a sacred cow, surely it must be contemplated that there could and would be amendments to the Group Areas Act. The central business districts, for example, have been opened to all races. If the Government does not go the whole hog insofar as group areas are concerned, surely it is conceivable that, at least as a first step, they may well contemplate the possibility of there being grey areas, be it Hillbrow, Fordsburg, Mayfair or elsewhere. If that is the case, and there are going to be grey areas where people of different races will live together, how on earth will one unscramble the administration in regard to the provision of community housing and community development, land development, township development, housing development, housing projects, etc? How will that be done in a mixed area? Are we going to have three different Houses trying to control housing in one particular area?

[Inaudible.]

It becomes laughable, with great respect. [Interjections.]

The National Housing Commission will have to be broken up in order to deal with the separation of the group areas. What happens to the expertise insofar as those hon members of the board are concerned? I think particularly of the professional members—there are doctors, lawyers, engineers and architects. Are they going to be affected? What will happen to the overall policy that has to be determined? We are talking about the acquisition of land and the building of homes. It is a matter of great priority to South Africa.

The hon the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Works announced only a little while ago—it was on the SABC today, and we commend him for it—a national survey to take place in South Africa on housing. This is obviously going to cover a survey of housing for all population groups. On the one hand we are doing the survey for everybody, and now we are being asked to come to Parliament today to pass a Bill to separate housing insofar as the Whites are concerned, and that the other two Houses should do it insofar as their two population groups are concerned. [Interjections.]

The Bill provides for the transfer of assets as well. When we look at the Bill before us we see that it consists of only one clause, but is provides that in the vent of a body being established—and obviously it will be established—for a particular population group, then, by notice in the Gazette, the Minister may transfer the assets, rights, liabilities and obligations of the board to the control of the bodies for the three communities.

When therefore we talk about the transfer of the assets, what are we talking about? We are talking about assets as follows. The hon the Minister must please correct me if my figures are out of date or wrong as far as the House of Representatives is concerned, but these are the figures that I recorded in the standing committee at the time they were submitted by officials of the department. The House of Representatives has assets of R1,549 billion, the House of Delegates, R582 million, the House of Assembly, R732 million, and Black constitutional bodies, R764 million. We have already lost the assets of Black constitutional bodies as they now fall under the control of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. This is definitely a fault in the administration.

As far as the Community Development Fund is concerned, according to the information submitted to us at that stage, the amounts of money involved are about R300 million for the House of Delegates, R323 million for the House of Assembly and R730 million for the House of Representatives. [Interjections.]

As I have already said, the provision of housing is certainly important, and I should like to refer now to paragraph 2.2 on page 10 of the Department’s annual report which was tabled the other day by the hon the Minister of Public Works. Under the heading “The South African Housing Advisory Council” we find the following:

This body has to investigate numerous matters. The matters are listed in the report and so I will not repeat them here, except to say that they include land, townships, methods of housing, and cost of housing. [Interjections.] The report goes on to tell us that:

Further on it reads:

Here, then, we have a national body that is going to undertake the necessary research. I may mention that, in addition to that, the recommendations of the Venter Commission were accepted, and I understand that a working committee under the chairmanship of Mr De Waal is investigating the viability of establishing a housing development corporation. [Interjections.] Now, how do we get our priorities right?

Order! The noise level in the House is becoming unacceptable. The hon member for Hillbrow may proceed.

Here we are establishing national bodies. In addition to that the chapter on surveys deals with surveys being undertaken and with research. I read from page 12, paragraph 2.7:

So here we have all these national bodies harnessed, correctly so, in order to assit the whole development of the most important part of life in South Africa eg that of housing, and to do it on a national basis. Now we are breaking down and fragmenting all the efforts of these people because of the different pigmentation of skin of different people and because people live in different areas because of the Group Areas Act. With great respect this does not make sense. I submit therefore that we cannot go along with the Bill that is before us for this reason. In addition to that I would like to ask what happens to the work and recommendations of these bodies.

The third main reason why we oppose this Bill is because it means the establishment of not one Development and Housing Board but three; of not one Development and Housing Fund but three; of not one bureaucracy but three; of not one administration but three; of not one staff establishment but three; of not one workload but three; and of not one act of expenses but three; in other words everything has been triplicated in order to bring about the change that is being asked for in this Bill that is before us …

Three Ministers too, I suppose.

… instead of having the present single Community Development Board and the National Housing Commission with all its years of experience and its expertise. The National Housing Commission has been doing a very fine job in addressing the priorities and also in providing, on a national basis, whatever has been required.

The House of Delegates opposed this Bill, as I mentioned earlier, in the standing committee for two main reasons, the first being the group areas and the second the fact that they were really upset because the original Development and Housing Act (House of Assembly), 1985 had not been presented to the other two Houses before this Bill was discussed and because this Bill flows from that Act.

It may well be argued that the House of Representatives could have felt that they should be given the money which they would then allocate through their own Minister of Housing. They could then go back to their constituents and show them the housing that they themselves had provided for. With great respect, they will be sacrificing by that argument the whole question of the abolition of apartheid by accepting and entrenching the Group Areas Act and apartheid for the sake of the carrot held out to them. In the long run—when one examines the overall finances available to the country—one will find that they will benefit far more if they leave matters as they are and do not proceed with the fragmentation that this Bill will bring about if we pass measure.

It seems that since the members of Solidarity have now come to terms with the National Peoples Party they have been persuaded to change their attitude. As a consequence the Bill went through the standing committee.

Why do you debate what they say? Why don’t you use your own arguments?

No, no. I am telling the House what they said. I am giving the House all the arguments and the hon the Minister must please listen to what I am saying. I am asking a very interesting point right now so he must please follow my argument carefully.

I am making that point because I am coming to the question of the division. All that has changed is their attitude—nothing else in the Bill has changed. They were persuaded to change their attitude but the Bill did not change.

I want to assure the House that our attitude has not changed at all. What we have done is to expose the fallacy of housing as an own affair. I have outlined the consequences of this. Would it not have been simpler to give the Coloureds and Indians direct representation on the National Housing Commission and on the Community Development Board?

Lastly, when the Group Areas Act is amended or repealed someone will have to unscramble all this and it will prove to be a very costly exercise. For those reasons we on this side of the House oppose the Bill.

Mr Chairman, it looks as though we shall simply have to learn to live with an Official Opposition which tries to make the simplest consequential legislation an excuse to attack the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act as well as other legislation such as the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.]

The argument of the hon member for Hillbrow could perhaps have carried some weight in one of the other two Houses, but as far as the House of Assembly is concerned, this is an ordinary consequential piece of legislation. As the hon member indicated, the Development and Housing Act was passed by the House of Assembly last year. The result is that the Principal Act, the Community Development Act, has inter alia to be repealed in part. This step is necessary to eliminate a degree of embarrassment. Assets, rights and liabilities of the Community Development Board cannot be transferred, and the Development and Housing Board can act only in an advisory capacity until such time as the legislation has been passed.

The hon member for Hillbrow is correct concerning the argument of hon members of the other two Houses, viz that it is a pity their own affairs legislation has not yet been disposed of. One can therefore say that as far as they are concerned, it is a case of putting the cart before the horse. It does not affect this House, however. It is a matter which has to be debated in the other two Houses, and which the hon member for Hillbrow can really leave to those representatives to deal with there. He was not elected by their voters.

While we are speaking about being elected, it is very interesting that great democrats the hon members of the PFP are when it suits them. The hon member for Hillbrow told us again here this afternoon that the vast majority of people in this country are opposed to the Group Areas Act, but the vast majority of people in this country did not vote for that party and that hon member. The White voters of this country elected that hon member. For nearly a year now they have had the fullest opportunity to enroll Black and other members in their party. Are they showing us? If they want us to speak about the vast majority of people in this country, they must show us their new members. They cannot, however, and for a year now they have ostensibly been a multiracial party, an open party. After a year, one can still not see that they are a multiracial party—one cannot see it anywhere. [Interjections.]

Once one has said that, the hon member for Hillbrow must also remember that he cannot be selective in his democratic support. He cannot speak about the majority of people who are opposed to the Group Areas Act, and then forget that the majority of his own voters—an overwhelming majority— supported this Constitution in a referendum, and that inter alia the Constitution contains the concept of own affairs, as far as housing is concerned. There is no point therefore, in the Official Opposition’s being selective in their democratic approach. That is what they have tried to do here.

We on this side of the House see this legislation for what it is. It is ordinary, consequential legislation to an Act which was passed by the House of Assembly last year. We should like to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, although we support this Bill, we always use a magnifying glass to look at legislation of this kind that comes before the House of Assembly, for the reason that it concerns own affairs—in this case as set out in item 5, Schedule 1 of the Constitution Act.

The preamble to the Bill reads as follows:

We in the Conservative Party will keep the Government to the title of this amending Bill. The own affairs section of the Constitution is very important to us, although it is subject to a general Act. The legislation involved is directly related to the exposition of own affairs in Schedule 1 section 5 of the Constitution Act, as I have said.

I also quote from a further clause of the amending Bill as follows:

We quite agree with that. If the provisions of the legislation are strictly adhered to, we shall support this amending Bill. There must be no lack of clarity in this connection, however: We shall watch the position very closely in future.

Mr Chairman, as far as housing is concerned, I think it needs to be said that the current requirements must at all times outweigh the politics of the issue. I know that two previous speakers have mentioned that we should not talk about what hon members of the other Houses have said, but at one of the meetings of the standing committee a certain gentleman who is an hon member of one of the other Houses said something that made an impact on me. I wrote it down in the margin of the Bill, and I want to quote his words. He said the following:

Those are that gentleman’s words verbatim. I believe that he conveyed something that we should all take note of. I accept what the hon member for Hillbrow said here this afternoon. I agree that we have a problem concerning the Group Areas Act. I accept that someone could use that oft used cliché and say that this Bill constitutes the “perpetuation” of apartheid and of the Group Areas Act. However, let us weigh that against the needs of all races at this time for housing. I am referring to the needs of Whites, Coloureds, Indians—everybody. There is a dire shortage of and a need for low cost housing.

What are we seeking to achieve by way of this measure? Basically, we are seeking to liquidate an asset in order that the liquidity may be used to engender the building of more housing. That, basically, is what it is all about.

We could play politics with this measure. We certainly could, because I think there are very many people who are against the Group Areas Act. That is fine. Moreover, I can sympathise with those people who say: “How can we vote for a measure that perpetuates this?” However, I have one question to ask and that is: Apart from any political or ideological arguments, does the passage of this Bill facilitate and expedite the provision of certain funds for housing? Every time I ask that question, and no matter whomsoever I ask that question of, the answer comes back in the affirmative: “Yes, it does provide for more housing stock.” For that reason if for no other, I believe that we in this House would be doing our people outside a grave disservice if we were to vote against this measure. I think it should be supported and I think we should just forget the political arguments. We are going to get to that Group Areas Act as surely as night follows day. Let us deal with it when that time comes. At this moment in time, let us pass this Bill and let us get on the road to building more houses.

Mr Chairman, I can do no more than agree with the hon member for Umhlanga that the Group Areas Act is a piece of legislation which we shall deal with at the proper time and the proper place. The hon member for Hillbrow took it upon himself, however, to drag the Group Areas Act into this and then to oppose this Bill using that as his point of departure. As the hon member for Umlazi indicated, the only purpose of this legislation is to distribute the assets of the Community Development Board in the Community Development Fund among the three administrations of the three Houses of Parliament, so that the provisions of the Constitution of the country can be complied with.

To illustrate the value of this, I want to say I was privileged to know Mr Hans Coverdale as a very good friend. He died a few years ago, but in his day was a member of the Coloured Representative Council. More than once Oom Hans expressed the heart-felt wish that people should be able to decide on their own housing requirements, since the Whites had decided when the Coloureds needed housing, where the houses were to be erected, and then built the houses with the White’s money. The Whites, who decided that the houses would look like, then also decided which Coloureds would live in which houses. [Interjections.] That was Oom Hans’s great longing through the years, because housing is our Coloureds’ greatest need. They merely wanted the right to decide on their own housing requirements. If the money was made available, they themselves wanted to decide where they would build the houses, what the houses would look like, and whom they would be allocated to.

It is a pleasure for me today—I hope the House of Representatives gives expression to the provisions in this legislation soon—to see that now, in 1986, the wishes of a good friend of mine are being complied with, and therefore I am very grateful to be able to support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, as has already been said, we support this legislation and we consider it to be a good measure. Of course, the importance of housing can never be underrated. As the hon member for Hercules and my hon friend behind me said, it is essential that people should know exactly what they want. I really think the PFP should stop wanting to take over so much in the other Houses. It is not proper. Hon members of the PFP are denying those people the privilege of taking decisions for themselves. I think these hon members would perhaps like to guide them, but those people do not want guidance. They want houses, and they want to exercise their own rights. This legislation offers everyone the opportunity to provide for his own housing needs.

At this stage we cannot discuss the amount voted annually for each house. It is true that the Whites have greater assets than the Coloureds and the Indians, and the Whites are by far the biggest of these three population groups. For this reason, as has already been mentioned in this House, we support this legislation and we believe that it will have a positive effect on housing in general.

Mr Chairman, has the hon member considered the extra expense that will be involved in dissecting the whole work of the Community Development Board, of the fund itself and of the transfer of funds that will take place? Has he given consideration to this aspect?

Yes, I have, Mr Chairman. Everybody who is participating in the tricameral Parliament must realise that there are extra costs, and we are not responsible for this. We are only responsible for the housing of the people whom we represent. [Interjections.]

In accordance with Standing Order No. 19, the House adjourned at 18h00.