Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, just before we adjourned last night I told the Opposition that in discussing a budget we expected more from them than a mere “Yes, it is good, but it is insufficient”, or “No, it is not so good” and then the scoring of a few political points, as if all it required was a simple arithmetic process to eliminate all the shortcomings which they supposedly find in the budget. We are seeking from them a specific philosophy on the basis of which they approach economic and financial matters in South Africa. Indeed, I think they owe it to this House and to the electorate of South Africa that their reactions to a budget should also be predictable and not merely comprised of faultfinding and a list of grievances such as that which the hon. member for Yeoville submitted to us. They ought to be predictable on the basis of the criteria of their own financial policy. In fact it was pathetic to watch them scurrying around trying to score a few points against this budget.

The hon. member for Mooi River went so far as to call it a “cosmetic” budget. I think he used a little vanishing cream to cover up all the fine and positive things written about this budget. I want to warn the hon. member that he is out of touch with a very important newspaper in Natal. I want to quote briefly to hon. members from the editorial of The Natal Mercury of 29 March. It is a glowing tribute to the hon. the Minister of Finance, that we all endorse—

The newspaper goes on to refer to—

Then follows the very important thing—

I should like to quote the final two paragraphs from the editorial—

In passing, the hon. member for Yeoville also objected to—and, of course, also sowed suspicion concerning—the value of referring to strength and force in our economy. Nevertheless this newspaper states—

It is of the utmost importance to see in this recognition of a specific philosophy, a moving away from the idea of a welfare State and the placing of money in the hands of the consumer so that he too can contribute his share to the economic recovery which is at hand and which is in fact already in progress. Indeed, for the sake of the scoring of political points the PFP is out of touch with leading economists in South Africa.

Where are we to find details of their economic and financial philosophy? I have consulted their policy document, their brand new policy document concerning their constitutional dispensation, their national convention, etc. It was really tragic to see how little they had to say about financial policy. All it contains concerning financial and economic policy are three minor points in their charter of human rights and they only concern economic rights of the individual. In passing, that charter of human rights was referred back to their constitutional committee after their congress last year for rewording. We are therefore in the dark as far as the true financial and economic policy of the official Opposition is concerned.

Moreover, when we look at their constitutional policy and the principle of proportionality it contains, we on this side of the House see a danger sign as regards the idea of proportionality as far as the economy is concerned. This is built into the consociational democracy which serves as a model for the development of the PFP’s constitutional plans. That proportionality is something which South Africa and its entrepreneurs, particularly the Whites, must consider very carefully. I shall have a little more to say about this at a later stage. Reading through their plan, it is of the utmost importance to note how vague they are with regard to so many other definitions of certain mechanisms in their constitutional plan. I think it the biggest political tangle any politician could ever have to deal with. However, it is of interest to note that the right of veto does not apply with regard to financial measures. It is quite a clever trick not to make the minority veto apply in that regard either. If they were to do so, they would never get a budget passed which would not comply with proportionality in every facet of expenditure with regard to the various population groups.

However, I have also considered their criticism of this budget and have tried to draw inferences regarding their financial philosophy. I think it is clear to all of us that if we were to let them have their way, we should have an unprecedented Government spending spree, going far beyond the limits of what any person, any body or any State which prides itself on being a supporter of the system of free enterprise, would set for itself. In their criticism of this budget there is also a suggestion of extremely stringent control of income in particular and of the level of wealth of the entrepreneuring class. That is where there proportionality of wealth comes into the picture.

What did they say in the course of their criticism? I think we should take a look at this. Seldom has there been such a cry of “give more”, particularly in the list of 18 points which the hon. member for Yeoville compiled. In the first place, they are asking for still more tax relief for divorced persons and married women, and in addition the hon. member for Yeoville once again mentioned the general sales tax and sales duty. Will there ever come a day in this House when we get a proper philosophy regarding tax from the other side of the House. The hon. member is still disputing the principle of a broader tax basis and the fact that we are bringing about a shift from direct to indirect tax. When is he going to see the sense of this and stop objecting to it? Does he still dispute the fact that sales duty is also a basic instrument with which to regulate the demand for certain luxury goods, and should not necessarily be done away with in its entirety?

When we come to working married women I want to ask where the principle on which his criticism is based, comes from. Is it not a sound tax principle to base taxation on the ability to pay and that therefore a family should be taxed on its joint income? Why should one family of which the man earns R20 000 per annum be taxed with a certain amount and another family, in which the man and the woman together earn R20 000, be taxed by far less? Surely provision is already made in the tax scales for compensation to be paid to a woman who works, for certain basic expenditure she has to incur to be able to work.

What is the philosophy of the official Opposition as regards these basic tax principles, or can we expect still more meaningless criticism from them in the future when we debate these matters?

They request that additional subsidies be granted in regard to foodstuffs and the unemployed. They even want an additional subsidy for the unemployed which goes further than the compensation already paid by the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I want to agree with the hon. member for Yeoville as regards his statement concerning subsidized interest on pension bonds. Basically this is a very meritorious case, but then he must also tell us where the money is to be found to subsidize the interest, in times when the interest rate in the general economic sphere is dropping lower than the level which would give the pensioner a reasonable return. They also ask that still more be allocated for export promotion, whereas the State is in fact doing this.

What is the philosophy of the hon. member for Yeoville in this regard? Where does he draw the line and what is the influence of his proportionalism as regards the issues of pensions, food, unemployment and so on? It is an injustice that in the midst of the criticism by the Opposition and the suggestion that it would only have required an accounting exercise to rectify these matters in the budget, the Government is constantly being depicted as the culprit that, by a deliberate decision, withholds these additional privileges in the form of subsidies from the needy and also withholds further relief in regard to the problems of the pensioners. The Government is constantly being depicted as the villain. Is it too much to expect of them just to tell us, on the basis of their philosophy, not only what we must spend money on, but also where we are to find the money to be spent?

They ask that still higher qualities of life be provided for lower-income groups. This of course refers more specifically to the people of colour in South Africa. What is the hon. member’s philosophy in this regard? Up to what point must we provide the higher qualities of life? We have already paid an enormous price by permitting, and indeed encouraging, salary increases which are in essence far beyond the average level of productivity. The hon. member for Constantia waxes very eloquent about the low levels of productivity we have in South Africa. Will he concede that we have already stretched the issue of compensation far beyond levels of productivity, to breaking point? How far must the Government go? How far will the Opposition go on the basis of their philosophy as regards concessions in this regard?

The Opposition asks that the Government grant yet higher pensions. Are hon. members of the Opposition aware that there are more than 200 000 White pensioners in South Africa and that this figure increases by 1,5% per annum? If these pensioners were to receive a significant increase far above the rate of inflation every year, and this is the case in any event, are hon. members of the Opposition aware what it would cost the taxpayer? Why do they not tell us where in this budget, which lay before us like a piece of material, we should cut off a piece so as to give still more to the pensioners? If there is one thing which the Government would desperately like to have done, it would have been to give the pensioners more, but after all, it is clearly only possible to do that to a certain extent and no more. Surely we are a country with a free economy where entrepreneuring freedom prevails in which all are dependent on their own means as far as possible.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke by asking whether the time has not come for us as Whites to learn from the other population groups in South Africa and also provide far more and better care for our parents when they reach old age. How often have I not found in my constituency that a parent reaches the stage at which he wants to give everything to his children so that they can live better, but eventually the parent ends up poverty-stricken and hungry and is dependent on the State because he has given away all his assets. I think that in these times parents must also look to their children for assistance and the children must accept the responsibility, rather than that an old person should ipso facto become the responsibility of the State. I think we should move away from this. However, how far is the Opposition prepared to go on the basis of their philosophy? Do they want a full welfare state? If that is so, they must tell us. Then we shall know what to expect from them in the future.

They ask that still more employment opportunities be created and that there should be more growth. On the basis of what philosophy must this be done?

Is this budget not a typical example of classic economic recovery? Does it not constitute phase III of outstanding financial planning over a period of three years? Phase I consisted of damping measures; phase II, moderate growth with discipline; phase III, growth from strength, although still with a high degree of discipline. It is a textbook example. What is the Opposition’s philosophy with regard to economic recovery? Do they want a sudden jump from this disciplined growth to a growth rate of 10% or more within a question of one year? What then of inflation, if we are suddenly to start growing very rapidly? What about the effect on our balance of payments if they say that we are growing far too slowly?

This budget has already for some time been supported by a masterly co-ordination and combination of fiscal and monetary measures and the occasional boost when required. A whole lot of things are not simply done at once to be swallowed by the economy all at once. The logic of this budget is indisputable. There is unutilized capacity and the necessary demand has to be created so that it may be filled. In this way one reduces the marginal production cost and this has an inhibiting effect on inflation, while the production capacity is increased. The demand must be increased and capacity utilized to the full. Subsequently, investment must be compelled and only then will employment opportunities be created. The logic of this is indisputable and has yet to be refuted by the Opposition. What is the philosophy of hon. members on that side of the House and what logic are they striving for?

Apart from this growth which will follow when the amount of R762 million is placed in the hands of the consumer, there is a very important aspect which the Opposition has thus far overlooked entirely. It is that this budget is a classic example of a budget geared for growth, because the hon. the Minister is budgeting for a deficit. The deficit for which he is budgeting this year is approximately R800 million more than the deficit for which he budgeted last year before financing, and represents 2% of the GDP. In other words, an additional R800 million is going to be pumped into the economy by the State via various channels. If it cannot be financed by foreign loans it will be financed by a moderate increase in the money supply. This is the demand provided by the State and moreover, it is placing that vast sum in the hands of the consumer. We are waiting for the Opposition also to find fault with the basic logic of the 2% growth in the GDP which will result from this deficit budget.

Therefore there is now a gradual increase in the momentum of our economic growth. However, if the momentum begins to fall, another boost will be provided by, for example, raising the credit ceilings or reducing the liquid asset requirements of banks, which, as it happens, will lead in turn to an increase in the loan earning capacity of banks.

What is the basic philosophy of the Opposition in this regard? I want to make the blatant accusation that there is no logical philosophy behind the criticism we have heard from that side of the House. What we have heard is a conglomeration of political opportunism with which to attempt to convince the voters that a Utopia would be awaiting them if those hon. members were to take over the reins of government in this country. But what financial chaos would prevail if we were some day to encounter such a misfortune!

Worst of all is that principle of proportionality which they advocate. The various population groups in South Africa have been spending money on education and welfare, etc., for a very long time, and on the basis of this historical development, a per capita disparity in the expenditure on education and other services among the various population groups has arisen. These gaps will be narrowed in time in terms of Government policy even though the Opposition disparages it as insignificant when, as in this budget, there is a percentage difference in favour of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in the expenditure on various services. When we talk about the proportionality of their policy, we must ask them to stand up in this House and tell us how they would solve that problem of disparity all at once if they were in a position to introduce this budget.

†The constitutional plan of the PFP contains an inherent raw deal for the more affluent, and therefore mostly the White man in South Africa because of the proportionality concept it contains. The hon. member for Yeoville had the impertinence to accuse the Government of ill-timing as far as suggestions pertaining to fringe benefit tax and capital gains tax were concerned. He criticized us by saying that the remarks made by the hon. the Minister would inhibit the entrepreneurs from carrying on with their creative work. If I were an entrepreneur and a supporter of his party and I read two specific passages from a speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville, I would consider very carefully whether that party is in fact the friend of the entrepreneur as it professes to be. I quote from the hon. member’s Hansard of yesterday—

Have you a fault to find with that?

The hon. member went on to say—

I want to repeat what the hon. member said. He said—

How can this policy ever be executed and these stated objectives achieved without the most stringent controls over the economy? This is what that hon. member should get up in this House and reply to. It is obviously the difference between the rich and the poor which worries him, and the question now arises, how will he give effect to his policy if ever that party should come into power? Does it mean that the PFP will arrest the income of the entrepreneurs in order to allow the lower income groups to catch up with them? Is that what it means, because that is what it says? If that is what worries him, let him get up and tell us exactly what he means when he talks in these new terms, about the redistribution of wealth. I have a suspicion that the principle which is involved here, is the principle of the proportionality of wealth based on numbers. Hon. members of the Opposition have often said that this side of the House accuses them falsely of advocating a policy of the redistribution of current wealth, since what they actually refer to is the redistribution of future wealth. What the hon. member for Yeoville is now advocating, is nothing less than the arresting of the growth in the wealth of the White population so as to allow proportionality in wealth to come above in South Africa. We should therefore like the hon. member for Yeoville to put our minds at rest as far as the future of the entrepreneur and the more affluent is concerned. What we require of that party, is a clear cut policy as to how they would govern this country financially and economically if ever they should come into power, because that is what is to be taken to the electorate. That, I am sure will destroy the euphoria they try to create with the criticism which they level at us from that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege for me as a new member to represent the Nigel constituency in this House. It is something to boast of to represent a constituency such as Nigel, a constituency which has become known throughout the world owing to the fact that it was the constituency of the recently retired Prime Minister and now our highly respected State President. From April 1953 to September 1978 Advocate Vorster was my predecessor in this constituency.

He made his mark indelibly within the constituency and in South Africa. He rendered great services to South Africa in the outside world as well. With a heavy heart the whole constituency as well as my family and I took leave of a highly appreciated member of Parliament who served us in this House for more than 25 years. Twenty-five years sounds like a long time, but it passes very quickly if there is love, harmony and loyalty in a Constituency. It is not easy for anyone to succeed a person in a constituency which has been the constituency of a Prime Minister for 12 years. In the past this has been the case and it will also be so in the future.

No one could take it amiss of me if I were to tell this House today what I also told my regional committee: I feel very small to have to stand here in his place as member of Parliament today. On behalf of my constituency I wish to convey my sincere thanks to a highly respected predecessor as well as to Mrs. Vorster for the hard work and loyal service they have given us in the constituency for very many years. We shall always remember it. In spite of his high office and the many demands made on him, particularly over the past 12 years, he never lost sight of his constituency’s interests.

In every person’s life there are things which stick in your mind, but sometimes there are also things you would rather forget. But one of the exceptional things which happened in my life, something which I shall never forget, was that it was my privilege for many years to be able to stand with him in the same constituency, a constituency which, as I have already said, was represented by him for a period of 25 years and more.

Then there are Heidelberg and Rensburg, also part of my constituency now, which up to the death of Dr. H. F. Verwoerd was also represented by a Prime Minister who left his ineradicable mark on South Africa. Heidelberg and Rensburg are probably the only two towns in South Africa to be represented by two Prime Ministers in this House for eight consecutive years.

On behalf of my constituency, may I also avail myself of this opportunity of conveying my congratulations to the hon. P. W. Botha, our recently elected Prime Minister, and to wish him everything of the best for the great task he has been set. We pray that he will be granted strength and grace in abundance because in these times a leader needs a great deal of grace.

We live in a very beautiful country, but also in a country with many unique problems. Do we always realize our responsibility to this beautiful country in which we are living? One sometimes wonders. We do have problems, and many problems at that, but problems are there to be solved. Problems present challenges, and history has taught one that when a country has problems or the world has problems, they often give rise to discoveries which normally would never have taken place.

We are also, inter alia, an agricultural country, but certainly not one with such favourable climatic conditions as those in many other countries of the world. But look at the amount of food we produce! Therefore great credit is due to our farmers if it is borne in mind that we produce almost as much food here in South Africa as is being produced in the rest of Africa. This speaks volumes for the farmers in South Africa. But this can only happen because the will, the courage as well as the skills are there. As a result of Country-wide droughts, South Africa has a very great problem this year, but we know that the skill of our farmers, with the assistance which they will perhaps receive from the Government, will pull them through, perhaps better and more strongly equipped than they have been in the past with the know-how to cope with droughts.

Besides all our other excellent qualities we are also an industrial colossus in Africa today. If one considers what has been achieved over the past 40 years there is only one word to describe it and that is “staggering”! There was time when there was a stigma attached to articles manufactured in South Africa. Fortunately that stigma is disappearing, and the sooner it disappears, the better.

However, a dangerous trend is beginning to raise its head throughout the world, and it constitutes a great threat. It is also beginning to take root here in South Africa. I am speaking about the gradual and systematic decline of the small and medium-sized industries. More and more small industries are becoming a thing of the past. This is distressing and fills one with trepidation. It is not in the interests of this country that the small entrepreneur should disappear. It is even less in the interests of his family and/or partners who live and work with him, and consequently have a substantial and real interest in the matter, that his interests should disappear.

Work for yourself, and you usually work much harder, because you have a personal stake in it. Surely it is true that if one works for oneself, and therefore has financial interests in a matter, one usually works much harder. However, there are also exceptions in this regard, and we are very grateful for them. Today there are many people who, although they are employed by others or by the State, do excellent work, because they are loyal to one cause: The cause of South Africa. I take off my hat to these people.

It is in the interests of any country that there be as many landowners, shareholders and interest-holders as possible. The large industries have done a great deal for South Africa and it is probably the greatest desire of all of us in South Africa that they play an even greater part in future.

However, there is also a special place for the small and medium-sized industries in our economic structure. But we should guard against an excessive take-over of small industries by large ones. It is most certainly not in the interests of South Africa that monopolistic conditions should be encouraged. I wonder whether we sometimes realize that there are particularly few opportunities today that enable the small entrepreneur to obtain assistance. The small entrepreneur does not have the same benefits that large industries have of going to the share-market oor of so easily applying successfully to an investor for aid if financial problems arise for example. Such a large industry has no problem in obtaining money at a commercial bank either, because it normally has the required security.

To come back to the problems which a small industrialist has to face, I should like to enumerate a few of these briefly. The first of these problems is financing. Since the small industrialist is sometimes regarded as a risk by commercial banks, the interest rates he has to pay are usually higher. The Industrial Development Corporation is usually too large and strange to him; I shall come back to this later. Market research is also not done as thoroughly by small industrialists, because they do not have the necessary facilities. In addition it is also the case that an adequate purchase of products, in order to obtain the maximum discount, is usually not possible. Machinery which is not fully utilized, is sometimes bought at great expense. In many cases that machinery is underutilized by five to ten per cent. Another problem is that the employees of small industrialists are not offered adequate security. These are but a few of the problems encountered by these small industrialists.

I want to make an urgent request: Is it not possible to expand the small industries section of the IDC considerably? The IDC does excellent work and one sometimes wonders whether they receive adequate recognition for that which they have already achieved in South Africa. What many of our smaller industries do not know is that the IDC considers all requests for financing, irrespective of the amount in question, if the applicant can demonstrate indisputably that his proposals are based on sound commercial principles and that his enterprise is a viable one. In this regard the IDC renders so much assistance and does so much good work that time does not allow me to go into it. As I have already said, I want to address a very earnest request to this noble and proven corporation, i.e. that it should greatly strengthen the assistance it offers the small industries; not just a little, but a lot. I wonder whether it would not be possible to send details to all town clerks throughout South Africa on what can, in fact, be done for small industries. It is usually the city council which is the first to become aware that some small industry or other is in trouble. We have a free enterprise system in South Africa and the extent to which this system has encouraged development in South Africa is well known. This system must be retained, and in order to be able to do this, love and dedication to it should be nurtured. The small entrepreneur loves his business enterprise as much as the farmer loves his soil. I am not exaggerating when I say that small industries are going through hard times, just as is the case with the small farmer who does not possess an economic unit. On occasion someone said: “Look at the jockey; if he is good, give him a horse,” in other words if he is ready, the chances are good that he will be successful, but he will be undeniably successful if he obtains the necessary assistance and encouragement. There is great scope for small industries in our country, because they can manufacture commodities for our large industries which would otherwise have had to be imported. It is in the interests of South Africa that as many people as possible should be employed. What is of even greater importance, is that people should have a direct interest in a specific industry. Give a person work and create an interest for him and things usually go well for him at home. In this way we can build a happy and prosperous South Africa together.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of this House I should like to congratulate the new hon. member for Nigel on his neat and interesting maiden speech. He spoke mainly about the important problems of the small industrialist in South Africa in a period of economic development. We look forward to his contributions in future now that he has made his maiden speech and is free to move out into the wider political sphere. I should like to wish him everything of the best for the future on behalf of the House and also express the hope that during his term of office in the House he will always respect and maintain the good traditions of this House.

Allow me to react briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Florida as well. He put a whole series of questions on the economic policy of the official Opposition. After he had put his questions, he quoted the hon. member for Yeoville in reply to his questions. He said that should we take over or should our policy be implemented, there would be an unprecedented campaign of State expenditure. I should like to make another prediction and that is that if the policy of this party is implemented in South Africa, there would be unprecedented economic growth in South Africa because it would be based on trust, stability and the full utilization of the talents of all the inhabitants of South Africa. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Speaker, I shall leave that matter there because I want to move fairly rapidly onto the fifth leg of the motion moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. At a time like this, Parliament should of course be considering economic policies as a means of closing the wealth gap. It should be considering programmes for getting rid of race discrimination. It should be thinking of policies to bring about greater unity. It should be working out plans for peaceful co-existence and matters that will affect our survival in South Africa. However, once again the House is, regrettably—and I use that word with all the conviction at my command—caught up in the messy, destructive and debilitating aftermath of the Information scandal. [Interjections.]

Let us review the situation. It is now six months since on 26 September the old Cabinet, 16 members of which are also members of the new Cabinet, heard about the Information scandal. It has been six months since the former Prime Minister retired to make place for the present Prime Minister.

If the previous Government must accept responsibility for the scandal itself, this Government, because of bungling and the indecisive way it has handled the Information affair during the last six months, must accept responsibility for the way this affair has dragged on. I know that hon. members on that side of the House say “Dit is die Pers; dit is die Opposisie”. [Interjections.] Were Retief van Rooyen, Louis Luyt, Mostert, Erasmus, Van den Bergh, Rhoodie or Connie Mulder in the Opposition? [Interjections.] This affair is distracting our attention from the tremendous problems confronting our country today.

If one examines the last six months, it is obvious that this Government has no comprehensive strategy for dealing with this matter, especially so because the Information scandal has become part of the political struggle within the National Party. If I look at the National Party as it is today as a result of this Information scandal, I can only think of the parallel of the runaway reactor in Harrisburg where the core is getting hotter and hotter and will probably sink through the floor. [Interjections.] There is a Connie Mulder bubble of hydrogen at the top of this tower and the engineers are frantically trying to reduce the bubble before it explodes while hon. members on that side of the House are all getting ready to take cover. This is the situation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to specifics. The Government has, during the last six months, only appeared to move when it has been forced to do so by further disclosures over which it has had no control or as a result of public pressure. What this Government still does not realize, is that the Information scandal will require complete exposure and deep surgery. This Government must realize that South Africa has no confidence in the way they are handling this affair.

I can give a few illustrations of last-minute, almost desperate action by the Government. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs was in contact, through Mr. Gross, with Dr. Eschel Rhoodie way back on the 10 December 1978. However, nothing was heard about this in this House during the no-confidence debate. It was only after journalists had tracked down Dr. Rhoodie in Quito that it became known that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had written a letter on 12 December 1978 to Dr. Rhoodie, c/o Mr. Gross. That letter flatly contradicted the statements made by the hon. the Minister of Justice. It gave the reasons why official secrets and matters of national security would not become public in a trial. That was the very reason the hon. the Minister of Justice has used for not bringing Gen. Van den Bergh to trial.

During this long debate, the hon. the Minister of Finance has been silent on the second document he had signed on 12 May 1978. Nowhere has he recorded the second document, until Dr. Rhoodie flashed it on the screen during a BBC interview. Suddenly there was an explanation in South Africa of the second document which had been signed on 12 May 1978.

One thinks of the hon. the Prime Minister’s stubborn refusal to see that all the evidence is released. On 16 March he said that he had arranged for such evidence to be released to support the findings of the commission. But that is totally inadequate.

The Government failed to disclose that on 26 September 1978 the previous Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster did tell the Cabinet. That was revealed only when Dr. Connie Mulder came to Cape Town a week ago, when this became the subject of a Press statement. But during six months of debate and discussions no hon. member on that side of the House said that Mr. Vorster had formally told the Cabinet on 26 September 1978. If this is so, I would like to know how it is that the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development proposed Dr. Connie Mulder to become the hon. Prime Minister two days later. [Interjections.] Why did the Ministers in the Cabinet not tell all their colleagues so that all the hon. members who were going to elect the Prime Minister could know the true facts when they went to vote? Should the Government of the day not have informed hon. members of this House when they were going to sit a few days later as an electoral college to choose a new State President for the Republic of South Africa? We can carry on and refer to the hon. the Prime Minister not getting rid of Dr. Connie Mulder. He held a Press conference on 3 November 1978 and said that he was still not aware of the Information situation and was not prepared to deal with rumours.

On 16 March the situation once again got out of hand and the hon. the Prime Minister announced a new mandate for the Erasmus Commission. This new mandate was to be completed by 31 March 1979. The result of that mandate is the document which was issued to hon. members yesterday.

I want to deal now with certain important aspects of this document. Let us be quite clear, however, that by imposing a 15-day time limit within which the commission should come to its conclusion, saddled the commission with an absolutely impossible task, because to carry out the mandate carefully and thoroughly—as I believe the commission would have liked to do—it would have had to examine all the previous evidence and to recall all those witnesses who, at that time, had not been asked the specific question about Cabinet knowledge. [Interjections.] It would have had to call new witnesses, including a number of Cabinet Ministers. It would have had to weigh up this new evidence and it would have had to write, translate and print its report all in the space of 15 days—17 days, if one takes into account that the mandate was actually given to the commission two days before the hon. the Prime Minister made the announcement here in the House. [Interjections.] The commission has had no option, no alternative, but that its findings should be interim and that its manner of operation and its scope were limited in extent and superficial in depth with regard to its probing of this problem.

We in the official Opposition, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the hon. member for Yeoville and I, called on the chairman of the commission some 10 days ago and we had a long discussion with him on the procedures that should be adopted with regard to documented presentations on behalf of the party. Subsequently, the hon. member for Yeoville and Prof. Nic Olivier, on behalf of the PFP, called on the commissioner and presented this documentation to him. It was an extensive piece of documentation, running into 90 pages of manuscript and in addition various annexures. It outlined what in our opinion was the kind of witnesses we felt should be called, the factors that we believed should be taken into account, and the procedures that we would recommend to ensure that there would be public confidence in the ultimate findings of the commission. [Interjections.] However, the reality is that the commission did not consider that memorandum. [Interjections.] Because I do not want any misunderstanding on this, I want to quote from our final letter to Mr. Justice Erasmus—

If one examines the report which we have now received, one finds that it is an interim report and that it is limited. One can see that it is an interim report when one glances over some of the details. [Interjections.] I refer to par. 4, on page 2 of the report, where it says—

It would not hesitate to come to a new finding. On page 16, in paragraph 56, of the interim report we find the following specific findings in respect of the hon. the Minister of Finance—

It is a clear indication that thus far the commission has not completed its mandate. It does not argue that all the evidence has been considered or that all the evidence has been produced. [Interjections.] We have submitted a lengthy memorandum that will be considered in due course. I have no doubt of that.

Does it refer to this issue?

Of course it refers to this issue. The investigation was limited in its scope. If one looks at the projects that were considered one will find the issue of The Citizen on page 8; R10 million for The Washington Star on page 17 the sale of Dr. Rhoodie’s furniture on page 18; and the subsidization of the Grand Prix on page 19. The fact that they investigated not just irregularities, but also projects, implies that the projects themselves can be considered to be irregularities. This is, after all, what the first report found in respect of The Citizen. But what about all the other projects? Here these four projects, including the sale of furniture, were the only projects considered. What of all the other projects which were irregular? What of the projects overseas which were irregular? What about the projects inside South Africa where public funds were secretly used to bolster the NP?

The Pretorius Committee in reporting to the hon. the Prime Minister on 30 November 1978 said that there were 138 projects, 125 had been investigated and 57 “terminated for various reasons, such as having become redundant or totally unacceptable”. What about other newspapers, journals operating here in South Africa, e.g. To The Point, Campus Independent and the French newspapers to which the hon. member for Constantia has referred? What about allegations of secret funds to take over newspapers in South West Africa, and who knew about this? What about who had knowledge of front organizations operating inside South Africa, which front organizations have been boosting NP policy and where the public has been deceived as to their status and authenticity? What about the whole Morgan Grampian exercise? Why has that not been brought in as part of the exercise to determine the scope of knowledge in respect of this matter?

The next issue I want to raise is in respect of witnesses called. Save on the issue of R10 million for The Washington Star, it appears that no new witnesses were called for the purpose of this specific inquiry. What about the recall of those scores of people who, it is admitted or alleged, had some knowledge of The Citizen, or at least of some of the other projects over the last few years? What about others who, because of the positions that they hold, could have had knowledge that could have been helpful to the commission? We have indicated the kind of people we think should have been called in, e.g. other members of the Cabinet, especially those who have been mentioned in respect of various projects. Senior officials, e.g. the retired official Waldeck, Mr. Browne, Mr. Pretorius and Mr. Brand Fourie as well as the Public Service Commission have all become relevant to this inquiry. People outside of the Government, e.g. Alberts, Wessels, Jussons, Luyt, McGoff and Van Rooyen, are all people who have been actively involved in secret projects, and yet they were not called in. Then there is Perskor, with whom the deals were done, but the officials operating Perskor were not called in.

Are you now attacking the commission?

I am pointing out the very limited investigation the commission could carry out in the time limit they operated under. What about Mr. Reynders, who in terms of this report said that he reported to Mr. Vorster and others on The Citizen? Who were the “others” he referred to? It is stated in paragraph 71 of the interim report that he brought it to the notice of Mr. Vorster and “others”. Who are the “others” referred to in this report? Gen. Van den Bergh has made known his willingness and his desire to come and give further testimony. But apart from all of these gentlemen I have mentioned, there is one man who clearly is pivotal in this inquiry and pivotal as far as the NP is concerned, and that is the former Minister of Information, Dr. Connie Mulder, who publically repudiated what the former Prime Minister has said.

He gave certain facts and figures and said that he was available. He directly contradicted the hon. the Minister of Finance. He gave certain explicit information about when these things took place, and yet the commission, for its own reasons, did not or could not call Dr. Connie Mulder. When one has a public controversy of the magnitude of the controversy between Dr. Connie Mulder, the former Prime Minister and the present hon. Minister of Finance, surely that particular issue should be probed by the commission. So we believe that Dr. Connie Mulder should have been brought before the commission and that the commission should have satisfied itself not on what happened two months ago when giving evidence, but what evidence he has today, evidence which is material to the question of whether or not any Cabinet Ministers knew about this matter.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. Leader of the Opposition entitled to attack the bona fides of a commission appointed by the State President, particularly after that commission has submitted a report? I want to submit to you that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is presenting these arguments to indicate that the report of the commission cannot be accepted as a bona fide document in view of the fact that they have not called for certain evidence to be led.

Order! I cannot call the hon. Leader of the Opposition to order on the grounds that he is attributing mala fides to the commission. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I have gone out of my way to indicate that the time factor has mitigated against an in-depth inquiry being conducted by that or any other commission. What about all the other Cabinet members, particularly the then Deputy Minister of Information, now the hon. the Minister of Public Works? For three years he was the Deputy Minister of the Minister of Information. I would have thought that in those circumstances he would have been called in to meet the commission. [Interjections.] After all, specific allegations were made that he had been shown copies of The Citizen.

Should the commission take notice of your gossipmongering which you engage in every day? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. Leader of the Opposition may proceed.

Sir, I am trying to deal as objectively as I can with what was a very sensitive mandate. This mandate was not aimed at any particular Cabinet Minister. It was very specific, viz. whether any member of the present Cabinet had any knowledge of The Citizen or of any irregularity. Quite clearly, therefore, it would have been prudent and not unreasonable to suggest that those Cabinet Ministers who were directly related with the work of Information are the kind of people who should be asked to give evidence. But the commission did not see itself able to do this. It called in the hon. the Prime Minister in connection with certain issues.

No, they did not call me in. I went there out of my own free will. I had the courage which you did not have. [Interjections.] You will never have the courage. [Interjections.]

If any of us had had the knowledge about what goes on inside the Cabinet or the Government, we could also have done so, but we could not, because we do not have that knowledge. The hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Ministers of Finance and of Foreign Affairs… [Interjections.]

You did not have the courage to give evidence under oath. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I just wonder whether in this debate it would be possible for the hon. the Prime Minister not to address other hon. members in the second person form “you”.

You did not have the courage to give evidence under oath.

Order!

I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will behave in the correct way. Mr. Speaker, it was a limited investigation and yet, at the end of this, having discussed the matter with four Cabinet Ministers, the commission says—

That is correct. If the evidence that one gleans is very limited and narrow it is probably going to lead to a result of that kind.

Why did you not broaden the scope of it by giving evidence?

We do not believe that the investigation was thorough enough or sufficiently deep to enable the commission to come to a definitive and final conclusion. In that sense the commission agrees with us. It says in the evidence before us that it is prepared to reconsider the position prior to the end of its term of office on 30 May.

The important point about this matter is that we have now to look to the future. The important point about it is that if the public is going to have confidence in the final findings of the commission—and the final findings are the critical ones—then the commission should continue with its investigations. They should let us know the names of the witnesses who have given evidence. They should talk about the nature and the scope of the memoranda which have been received and about all the factors which have influenced their decision. We on this side of the House hope that in due course a full record of the evidence is going to be made available to the public. Until that final report is published and until it can be evaluated, as to the nature and depth of that report, we in these benches will reserve our judgment on the findings of the interim report.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition whether he has any information which he thinks would have made a difference to the report if he had given it? [Interjections.]

The commission has had the benefit or otherwise of a memorandum… [Interjections.]

Answer my question.

… a memorandum 90 pages long to which I was co-author and for which I accept, together with other hon. members, full responsibility. I am certainly not going to go into the details of that memorandum.

May we have a copy?

No. You are not a commissioner. [Interjections.]

Why do you not lay it on the Table? It is a cover-up! [Interjections.]

Order!

What is important is that the report, such as it is, although it was investigating the question of the knowledge of Cabinet Ministers or otherwise, has established certain factors beyond all doubt. The first is that the then Prime Minister, the then Minister of Information, the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Finance were all involved in one way or another in a method of budgeting and of transferring funds which the commission itself “regarded as an irregularity from a technical, constitutional and an audit point of view”, and that those four people kept that information which was known to them away from Parliament during all of those years. This has been established beyond all doubt, and I do not believe there can be a denial from any hon. member on the other side of the House.

Secondly, it shows beyond all doubt that the then Minister of Information and the then Prime Minister knew about The Citizen and other irregularities before November 1977 and that they withheld that information both from Parliament and the people of South Africa. That is established in the commission’s report. It reinforces the findings and, in fact, develops the findings of the earlier report. Because of the stature of the people involved in that Cabinet—because it did affect the hon. the Prime Minister and senior members of that Cabinet—we believe that all those persons who are members of the present Cabinet and who were members of that previous Cabinet under Mr. Vorster, have to accept responsibility for what took place. If a leader of the Government does certain things, then I believe all the members of the Cabinet have got to accept responsibility for what he does.

They must all resign!

What emerged very clearly are three things. Firstly, there is the key role which was played by the previous Prime Minister in this whole affair. It is evident that he was the strong man. He was the man who rode rough-shod over the hon. the Minister of Defence. He was the man who told the hon. the Minister of Finance what to include in his budget. He decided what should or should not be revealed to his Cabinet He was the man who controlled that Cabinet and the other people in the Cabinet merely had to dance to his tune. Yes, that is evidence of the power and the stature of that man in that Cabinet.

Secondly, the report shows the ineffectiveness of the present Minister of Finance in discharging his formal responsibilities as Minister of Finance. One only has to read through the report to find that his protestations were brushed to one side and his inquiries to Dr. Rhoodie—after all, an official of the State—simply ignored. He was told by the Prime Minister, by Connie Mulder or by Eschel Rhoodie what to do and though he protested—guess what—he nevertheless did it! I do not have the time to quote—other hon. members will have the time—paragraph after paragraph illustrating the inefficiency of the hon. the Minister’s control of the country’s financial affairs.

Finally, there is the amazing inefficiency in the control and expenditure by the Government itself. The Minister of Finance and the Treasury included sums in the budget without even knowing what they were for. Not only under the old dispensation, but even under the new dispensation in terms of the Secret Services Account Act, the hon. the Minister admitted that he did not know what the R14,8 million included in the budget was for. There is also the incident of the transfer of R10 million from the funds of the hon. the Minister of Defence to the Union Bank of Switzerland for the purpose of buying The Washington Star. [Interjections.] Imagine the hon. the Minister walking across the House to Adm. Biermann in the bay and asking him whether he would transfer R10 million!

But that is not true.

But it is in the report.

No. Just stick to the truth!

In the House the Minister of Defence went to Adm. Biermann, who went to Gen. Pienaar, who then went to Mr. Browne, and thereupon R10 million was made available.

10 million dollars.

The commission then goes on, almost proudly, and ends up by stating, and I quote (page 18, para. 62)—

He was not interested in R10 million! [Interjections.]

That is not what I said.

As a result of a Minister going across the floor of the House and speaking to officials R10 million goes by the board. [Interjections The report states that the hon. the Prime Minister was not interested. [Interjections.] What I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister is whether, in respect of that R10 million, he signed an audit certificate as required under the Defence Special Account Act, to say that that money had been properly expended in terms of that Act.

I only signed after the department concerned provided us with a certificate.

I want to know whether the hon. the Prime Minister signed it.

After I received a certificate, yes.

The hon. the Minister of Defence has a formal statutory responsibility. It is no use hiding behind other departments.

After I received a certificate, yes.

Did he know what it was for? Did the certificate that he signed state that he vouched that that was for moneys correctly allocated and spent?

What a disgrace!

I mention this to indicate that there was no real effective control.

Let me now deal with the question of the Grand Prix. It is said in the report that Minister Koornhof approached Mr. Luyt for the financing of the Grand Prix. When it was subsequently discovered that the Grand Prix was financed by The Citizen, the Minister said—a year later—that he was astounded about the fact But the whole of South Africa, 110 000 people at Kayalami, knew that the Grand Prix was financed by The Citizen. It was even called The Citizen Grand Prix. So why was the hon. the Minister astounded, a year later, at the fact that The Citizen had sponsored it when it was, in fact, called The Citizen Grand Prix?

One must also look at the correspondence dealing with project Senekal. There are letters in which Mr. Pretorius, and others, tried desperately to get some information. They were blocked by Dr. Rhoodie, citing Dr. Connie Mulder. That is the situation. Others on these benches will deal with the various incidents surrounding the R14,8 million, the various letters that were signed and signatures that were cancelled. Those particular letters are not covered by the old dispensation. Those letters and signatures are in terms of the new Secret Services Accounts Act. We are going to take the hon. the Minister of Finance to task, because all the indications are that, in spite of the assurances that he gave to this House, that under this new Act secret funds would come under direct control of the Treasury and the hon. the Minister of Finance, we are no better off than we were before. He is still signing certificates, while he does not know for what purposes the money is being used.

As far as he is concerned, there could be another Citizen, and he would not know about it. He would not know, for instance, if the R7 million overdraft which the Erasmus Commission says was on the books of The Citizen in February of this year, was paid out of funds which he had authorized. All the indications are that that overdraft of R7 million was wiped out either from the funds under control of the hon. the Minister under provisions of the Secret Services Accounts Act, or from funds under the control of the Bureau of State Security on 1 August. We are going to continue to probe, and we want the hon. the Minister to tell us exactly what happened over that period. We should like to know, because according to the hon. the Minister’s own evidence he cancelled his signature in a letter to Dr. Connie Mulder on 4 May. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why did this happen on 4 May? This was at the height of the row over Dr. Eschel Rhoodie and the release of information. Why did he go to his office and why did he ask his typist to come in on Ascension Day? Why did he come to his office on Ascension Day? 4 May was a public holiday. [Interjections.] I find it fascinating that the hon. the Minister, whilst all this was breaking around the Department of Information, cancels his signature and says so in a letter he sent to Dr. Connie Mulder on 4 May, which was Ascension Day. On that Friday Parliament did not meet, and Dr. Connie Mulder was out of town for that weekend in any case. We want an explanation from the hon. the Minister as to what steps he took to ensure that public money, State money that was under his control, was not used to finance The Citizen project in any way.

This situation has to be brought to an end in some way. It is not going to go away by hurried decisions and recommendations. It is not going to go away until this whole matter is referred to a Select Committee of this House, so that Government and Opposition can examine the situation. It is not going to go away until all those responsible for this situation have been identified and until they have resigned from public office. There will not be confidence in the executive control over expenditure unless the control of secret funds is placed in the hands of the Cabinet as a whole, because then all of them have to accept responsibility. All the funds should be audited, without any restriction, by the Auditor-General. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, when I heard that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would be participating in the debate this afternoon, I came in quickly for I did not want to miss his speech. We are engaged in a very interesting debate on one of the most interesting and most important budgets introduced in the House since the war. I was very curious to know what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the man with the most power on that side of the House, would have to say about this important budget of the hon. the Minister of Finance. But I waited in vain and did not hear a single word about a budget which, in an imaginative manner, takes courageous steps to relieve the burden of inflation on the man in the street. This is a budget which, to my mind, contains steps to stimulate the economy of the country. Every critic of the Government and all the newspapers outside agree that our real growth rate will increase by at least 60% in the new year. Nevertheless we heard no word about this from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Instead he made a half-hour speech about the position of the former Department of Information. I want the House to take cognizance of this, for when one realizes that this is what the participation of the hon. Leader of the Opposition boils down to this afternoon, one also realizes what they are engaged in. They have a policy which is not acceptable to the people. They have no alternative to the standpoints of the Government. As far as the administration of the country is concerned, they cannot do better, as the budget again demonstrates. Now they are desperately searching for something with which they can keep on distracting the attention of the people from the real success of the Government.

What success?

Those are old tactics. When one fails in every respect, one tries to distract the attention from one’s own failures by making a sham attack on another front. That is all they are doing in this case.

As you are doing now.

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition as a brave and honourable man and a man who can prescribe to someone else what morality expects of him. Therefore I assume that he will do the correct thing today. I want to put a question to him. He has once again called this side of the House to account. He availed himself of the opportunity to cast suspicion on the Erasmus Commission. He availed himself of the opportunity to imply that the Erasmus Commission did not have enough time to do its work. But then he himself told us how he was going to waste the commission’s time even further by wanting to prescribe to them how they should do their work, instead of, as four Ministers have done, having the courage of his convictions and using the opportunity to show that he knows what he is talking about and is not only making use of gossip, by telling the commission as the hon. the Prime Minister did: “Here I am. Place me under oath. I have important evidence which I wish to submit to you.” No, Sir, he prefers to prescribe to the commission how it should do its work and, in so doing, avoids the opportunity which he has been afforded of giving evidence under oath to the people of South Africa that he knows what he is talking about.

He was not a member of the Cabinet.

Do you know who offered to give evidence?

He told us himself that he wants to prescribe to the commission how it should do its work. He spoke of what the commission has to do and whom it has to call. He should not have told it whom it had to call. He should have said: “Here I am.” That is what he should have done, if he were a man.

He did not want to have to lie under oath.

That is true. He is an honourable man and therefore he did not want to do so.

I want to put a question to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Leader of the Opposition finds himself before a very interesting challenge and also a very courageous offer on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister. At the beginning of the session he said: Produce proof that a member of the present Cabinet knew of The Citizen; and/or—I am not sure whether it was “and” or “or”, but that does not matter—produce proof that any member of the present Cabinet knew of the irregularities in the Department of Information and I shall call an election. The hon. Leader of the Opposition goes around outside and talks of the great progress they will make in an election.

Ha!

Why did they not accept this challenge? Why did they not produce facts to prove that a member of the Government knew about The Citizen or the irregularities, so that an election could be held and they could make the wonderful, ostensible progress which they brag they will be able to make at the ballot-box? But what have they done? What did the speech by the hon. Leader of the Opposition today consist of? It consisted of all the old innuendoes and insinuations which we have heard from them in recent months without them quoting one single fact to substantiate it. I wish to repeat: When will any responsible member of the official Opposition like the hon. Leader of the Opposition—I am not referring to the hon. member for Yeoville now—go to the Erasmus Commission and take an oath to speak the truth under the discipline of that oath and prove that a member of the Cabinet knew of The Citizen or of the irregularities?

We were not there.

Hon. members of the Opposition all rely on hearsay, without any proof or facts, for the sole purpose of arousing suspicion among the people and boosting the morale of their friends abroad, without there being any justification for that in South Africa. I do not want the hon. Leader of the Opposition to believe me, but I could call a prominent hon. member of the Opposition as a witness. I am referring to Senator Crook of the NRP, who raised the matter in the Other Place in February 1979. He demanded that a Select Committee be appointed to institute an investigation because, as he put it, the hon. the Minister of Finance was telling a gross untruth when he said that he had not been aware of the irregularities prior to September 1978. It would take a little time to quote what the hon. Senator said, but this is extremely important, for I think all hon. members of the House should know what the Opposition is engaged in.

I read the English Hansard, for the Senator spoke English and I do not wish to make a mistake. The Senator said (Senate Hansard, 20 February, col. 71)—

At least he had the courage to make an attempt to accept the challenge by the hon. the Prime Minister. But Senator Crook spoke and spoke and spoke. [Interjections.] I cannot read it all. However, at a later stage he says (col. 78)—

Mr. Speaker, in terms of Standing Order 131, may I ask whether the hon. the Minister is allowed to quote from a speech made in the Other Place during the same session? [Interjections.]

Order! From which Senate Hansard was the hon. the Minister quoting?

I was quoting from the Senate Hansard of 22 February 1979.

1979?

Yes, Sir, 1979.

The rule distinctly says that “No hon. member shall allude to any debate of the same session in the Senate, except to a speech made by a Minister.” The reasoning behind the rule is that the hon. Senators are not present in this House to defend themselves or to give a correction. An hon. Minister is stating Government policy in any case. Therefore I am afraid that I cannot allow the hon. the Minister to continue reading from the hon. Senator Crook’s speech.

Thank you, Sir.

*At one stage the hon. the Minister asked the hon. Senator whether he would be prepared to give evidence before the Erasmus Commission. The reply was that he could not do so because it would be hearsay evidence. [Interjections.]

That is how it appears in the Senate Hansard.

This is what we are concerned with here. [Interjections.] I have the evidence in my hand. I have already referred to it, but I shall not do so again. However, I believe it is only fair that you, Mr. Speaker, will allow me to say in which column it can be found.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: You have already ruled that no reference can be made to it at all. Yet the hon. the Minister now wants to…

The hon. the Minister stopped short of quoting.

Mr. Speaker, I stopped without quoting. In deference to your ruling, I shall not even quote the number of the column. That hon. member is behaving true to form. The point, however, is that there is evidence. I may not say where it is, but there is evidence… [Interjections.] What is more, there is evidence both inside and outside this House that the official Opposition relies upon hearsay, upon gossip, upon vindictive gossip, in order to continue with a campaign of innuendoes and insinuations to create distrust among the people of the Government and of the very institutions of Government in South Africa. [Interjections.]

*They do it because they do not… [Interjections.]

Was the case of The Citizen also just an insinuation? [Interjections.]

Order!

They do it because they do not want to confront the Government on issues of policy or disputes concerning policy or standpoints.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister why it is that the hon. the Minister of Finance did not ask for a Select Committee to be appointed in order to clear his name? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fair question and I think it deserves a fair and serious reply. The answer is that he did not do it because a judicial commission was in session investigating exactly that point. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Finance was challenged… [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I am now breaking the rules, but what do I have to do? I have to answer this question. [Interjections.] However, the simple answer is that there was a judicial commission and that the Senator in question was challenged to appear before that commission. His answer was: “I dare not appear there because I can only give hearsay evidence.” That is the answer. [Interjections.] He obviously wanted a Select Committee so that he could go and “skinder” there instead of telling the truth under oath. [Interjections.]

I now want to return to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, someone who, as I have said, always acts as though he has a prerogative in morality, as though he is the only man who can lay down the standards of conduct for everybody else in South Africa, the only man who has norms and criteria for moral conduct that are acceptable to people in South Africa He acts as though he is the only man in South Africa who can do that. However, I want to repeat that he and his party and his allies, his newfound allies on the Natal South Coast, are going around the country spreading insinuation after insinuation and innuendo after innuendo in order to discredit South Africa and our institutions.

You are the proof that senility comes with old age.

If he limited that to South Africa, if he confined himself to South Africa, I could have forgiven him. After all, politics is not a game of ping-pong, and we expect certain hard blows to be struck although there are certain rules of fair-play which the hon. member does not observe.

*However, look what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done now. He granted an interview to an American magazine called Newsweek which has an international circulation running into millions.

Ten million.

I do not know whether that is correct or not, but in any case it runs into millions. The interview appeared in the edition of 26 March 1979.

And it is not a Senate Hansard either!

The journalist who conducted the interview, Peter Younghusband, wrote an introduction to the report based on the contents of the interview. Mr. Younghusband wrote as follows—

†These are, as I will show, the conclusions that are inevitable from the nonsense the hon. member spoke during this interview. I want to read some of the questions and the answers—

With great delight the hon. member said in a portion of his answer—

I want to tell the hon. member that that is of course totally and utterly untrue. It is a falsehood.

It is absolutely true, and you know it.

If the Government was immobilized and rendered impotent by the nonsense they spoke about the so-called Information scandal, would the hon. the Minister of Finance have found it possible to introduce the budget which he introduced last week on behalf of a so-called immobilized, helpless, confounded Government? The budget is of such a nature that even the hon. Leader of the Opposition had to avoid and evade discussion of it and instead resorted to speaking the nonsense which he spoke here this afternoon.

*Younghusband then asked the hon. member—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition replied as follows—

I want to read the following question which Mr. Younghusband put to the hon. member and his reply and then comment on it—

Hon. members must not laugh at the reply, but weep instead. The hon. member said—

[Interjections.]

Do you know whether the PFP is putting up a candidate in South Coast? [Interjections.]

The hon. member is asking something I also wish to ask. I wish to ask why an Opposition which is so full of confidence, cannot even put up a candidate in Oudtshoorn, Swellendam, Randfontein, Johannesburg West or in Beaufort West. In South Coast where, during the last parliamentary election, the majority was 540 and during the provincial election the majority was 324, they now have to enter into a pact according to which one party has to step back for the other. [Interjections.] I do not blame them, for in so doing, they are doing me the favour of proving what I believe, and that is that in spite of all their big talk, their bragging, their rumour-mongering and their insinuations, they still do not have the confidence to achieve a swing of 270 votes in a constituency which was one of the safest UP constituencies in South Africa before the last election. [Interjections.] This is the importance which can be attached to the talk we hear from that side of the House.

I now wish to refer to this wonderful interview which the hon. Leader of the Opposition would never have granted to a South African newspaper. I do not know whether he imagines that we do not read Newsweek. Younghusband asked him—

The one who says that, is lying.

Listen to his reply to that—

†However, he does not have the courage to go to the commission to add his little iota of evidence to the mass of evidence that already exists—

Listen to this—

That is right.

Is that right? I take it that he has been correctly reported. I really hoped that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would say that this paper made a mistake. The debate on this matter has already lasted six months and not a single tittle of evidence has been led by anyone which can be considered as proof that the allegation repeated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in a foreign country, is in fact true. Not a tittle of evidence has been led. What we have heard from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition here today are merely innuendoes and circumstantial evidence which is a far-fetched lot of nonsense.

I want to talk quite seriously to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I have known him for almost 30 years. He demands very high standards of other people. I want to remind him of the standards we on this side of the House set ourselves. When an hon. Minister tells an untruth to this House, the Prime Minister calls on him to resign, he resigns like a man. Whatever criticism we can make about him, he acted like a man. He told an untruth in this House and because of that resigned. Therefore, if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition told an untruth like this—not in the House, but in a foreign country—thereby belittling South Africa and casting aspersions upon the dignity, truthfulness and trustworthiness of South Africa, would he too have the courage to follow Dr. Mulder’s example and resign his seat? [Interjections.] He must not turn his back upon me now. I believe he has his own canons of good conduct. He may still argue with me now about the truth of what he said there, and he may say, as he has said this afternoon, that the Erasmus Commission has not yet finalized its findings. But when the Erasmus Commission confirms what I know already, and that is that he told an untruth when he made that statement, an untruth that he repeated in this House, will he then have the courage to resign and give us an opportunity of contesting the Sea Point seat? What better test can there be to decide what right the PFP have to tell such untruths—I almost said “lies”, but I am not allowed to say it—to the world as the untruth the hon. the Leader of the Opposition told during this interview with Newsweek?

*One becomes a little annoyed when one has to read and hear these things. However, I also have sympathy for the PFP. As I have already said, the budget is so uncontroversial that they do not see their way clear to levelling any real criticism at it. Therefore they now come with this smokescreen, with this continuous cackling about the former Department of Information in order to distract the attention of the people from the achievements of this Government. However, this is not the only problem they have. They have a much bigger problem.

One newspaper in 30 years…

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must not abuse the privilege members have of making interjections.

Hon. members will remember that last session hon. members on this side of the House repeatedly challenged hon. members of the PFP to discuss aspects of their constitutional plan for the future South Africa, in this House. But on each occasion the challenge was evaded, and there was no denial of the fact that they could not reply to it because their plans were not even clear to themselves yet. During the recess they held a conference and drew up constitutional plans which they then proclaimed loudly throughout the whole country. But I predict that in the same way in which they are trying to evade a full discussion of the budget, they will also evade a full discussion of their own proposals. I now wish to make a friendly gesture to them. I want to tell them what the greatest weakness, the greatest foolishness and the greatest rashness in their constitutional plan is, so that they can think about it and give us a reply so that, when the time perhaps comes, we can really discuss it. They have a provision in their proposed constitution that any minority group which has 15% of the votes, can veto the actions of the State authority in Parliament. I have taken the trouble to examine as many constitutions as I could, and there is no constitution in the world which does not prescribe machinery to avoid and solve such a conflict, should it arise between representative bodies or between groups. Some constitutions are very harsh, but they all have this. The American constitution is so harsh that in order to amend their constitution they must have a two-thirds majority of both Houses, i.e. of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and three-quarters of the 50 States in order to agree to this. In the constitution of the PFP I cannot find out what they are going to do if there is a headstrong, obstreperous minority group with 15% of the votes who frustrates the Government, what their answer is and how they are going to solve this. Until such time as they can reply to that question, we cannot even consider the possibility of giving serious consideration to their proposals. I hope we shall find an opportunity, during the present session of Parliament for them to reply to us on that question. But I know, and they also know, that we shall conduct a debate on this, that we shall conclude it as quickly as possible, and then the rumours and the insults will start up again, without basis, without foundation, without cause, without reason, without justification, just to save the PFP from its own inability and its own inefficiency. This is the scene which is being enacted in the South African political arena today.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs has as usual made a pretty entertaining speech, and I want to react to several of the things he has said here this afternoon. I do not wish to quarrel with him about his attack on the official Opposition. That is their affair. But he did mention the Senate debate in which the hon. Senator Crook impugned the honour of the hon. the Minister of Finance. He not only said in that debate that he impugned his honour, but also that he intended to impugn his honour. The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs has said that that was not taken any further and a Select Committee was not appointed, because there was already a judicial commission of inquiry on the go, viz. the Erasmus Commission. However, I would point out to that hon. Minister…

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member refer to debates which took place in the Other Place during this session?

Order! Was the hon. member alluding to a debate in the Other Place?

Yes, I was alluding to the debate in the Other Place, as mentioned by the hon. the Minister.

Once the hon. member has finished with that specific point in his reply, he must stop alluding to debates in the Other Place.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. What I wish to state in this regard is that a Select Committee was called for by members in the Other Place. The request was turned down and the hon. the Minister said that it was turned down because there was a commission on the go, i.e. the Erasmus Commission. The report of the commission has subsequently been tabled, but the report had not even been called for when that debate took place. This report, dealing specifically with the responsibility of Cabinet Ministers, was only called for in March whilst that debate took place in February. In the normal course of events Mr. Speaker, as you well know, in the event of an hon. member’s honour being impugned in a debate in either of the Houses of Parliament, the normal procedure is for judgment to be made by this Parliament.

Order! I do not think the hon. member should pursue that matter further because this House does not know what actually transpired in the Other Place.

I defer to your judgment, Sir, and I shall abide by your ruling. The next point I want to come to refers to something mentioned by the hon. the Minister of Community Development. He said, in response to the official Opposition, that they had not mentioned any of the successes of the Government He omitted, however, to tell us what those successes were. I have been trying to think what those successes might be. Is all the unrest we have had in recent years one of this Government’s successes? Is the fact that we have to spend enormous amounts of money on the defence of our country perhaps one of the successes of the Government? Perhaps one of the successes is the homeland concept. Perhaps one of the successes is the creation of independent homelands, with one independent homeland breaking off diplomatic relations with South Africa just after it had been created!

That is a great success!

What about the Department of Information’s campaign in the outside world? What a great success that has been!

A howling success!

The hon. the Minister, I am afraid, has got hold of the wrong end of the stick on many occasions. He has said that we have questioned the fact of this report having cleared hon. Ministers of knowledge of the financing of The Citizen, but we get our information solely from the reports of the Erasmus Commission itself. That commission has made clear evidence available to this House to the effect that Dr. Mulder, Dr. Rhoodie and Gen. Van den Bergh testified that the hon. the Minister of Finance knew about The Citizen prior to September 1978. That is not information we have from any source other than the Erasmus Commission’s report.

The last point I should like to react to in connection with what that hon. Minister said is his reference to the pact he says we have concerning South Coast. I can assure this House that we have no pact whatsoever with the PFP, not even in South Coast

We should like them to stand.

That party decided off its own bat not to stand in South Coast, and I must admit that I found their reason quite a peculiar one. They said they had more support than last time and would therefore not stand. I must admit that that does not quite make sense to me. [Interjections.]

It is not my intention to spend all my time debating the report of the Erasmus Commission as the hon. the leader of the official Opposition did, but I believe that it is necessary for hon. members in these benches to react, in some shape or form, to this report that has been tabled. This is the first occasion that an hon. member in these benches has had an opportunity, in this House, to react to this report. I shall try to be as brief as possible, but I believe that there are certain questions that we must raise and certain statements that we must make about this report. The first thing we want to say is that this finding is not a finding of “not guilty”, but a finding of “not proven”.

That is most original.

Yes, I think it is. I think it is the first time that it has been said in the House. The value of this report relates, in fact, to the evidence which is disclosed in the report. Before one deals with that evidence, however, one must question why the Erasmus Commission only called the witnesses they did call. Why did they not call the very people who have said that the hon. the Minister of Finance knew? Why did they not call Dr. Mulder? He was, after all, available in this country? Why did they not call Gen. Van den Bergh? He was also available. I will confess that they might have had some difficulty in calling Dr. Eschel Rhoodie. Another person whom they should have called, is the former Auditor-General, Mr. Barrie, because the former Prime Minister has said that in the report handed to him by Mr. Barrie, The Citizen was mentioned. That was the report of August 1977. Why then was Mr. Barrie not called as a witness in order to find out whether he had also given copies of that report to other of the hon. Ministers, and especially the hon. Minister of Finance? I would have thought that that would have been one of the first things that would have been done.

What did I say yesterday about that?

The hon. the Minister raised a point of order which turned out to be a point of personal explanation.

Why do you not accept my word?

I have suggested that we should ask Mr. Barrie to whom he sent copies of that report.

But I told you that I did not have it.

The hon. the Minister said that he did not receive a copy, I agree, but I do not think that is the point at issue. We are talking about a commission, consisting of judges, who in order to arrive at a decision need to obtain all the available evidence. I believe that that is what should have happened.

There is also nothing in this report which clears up the fact that two former leaders of the NP have made conflicting statements. One of them has to be wrong, one of them must have told an untruth.

But surely the report of the Commission puts the matter straight.

There is nothing in this report which clears up that aspect. The evidence in the report…

Order! Is the hon. member not referring to a Press conference when he says that two leaders made conflicting statements?

That is correct, Sir.

That is not in the report.

No, it is not in the report, Sir, but I was saying that the report does not clear up the fact that those two conflicting statements were made. That was my statement. In my view that is a weakness of the report.

The evidence that is given in this report does bring certain things to light. First of all, the part which the former Prime Minister played in the former Department of Information becomes clearer as a result of various letters attached as an appendix to the report. The former Prime Minister is mentioned on numerous occasions in these letters, and I believe that it makes the part which he played in this respect far clearer. The second point of the evidence which I think needs high-lighting is the $10 million—I believe the hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to it as R10 million—which was sent to America apparently on the instructions of the hon. the Minister of Defence, the present hon. Prime Minister. One must ask the present hon. Prime Minister who ordered or requested him to ask Admiral Biermann to transfer this money. He must have received his information from somewhere, and I do not think he would of his own accord and out of the blue asked Admiral Biermann to send $10 million to America. One must therefore ask the hon. the Prime Minister who gave him his instructions in regard to this matter?

Secondly, these funds were transferred direct from the Special Defence Account to Switzerland. They were not transferred to the Department of Information as such in this country. One would, however, have thought that that would have been the more normal procedure. Nevertheless, they were transferred direct to Switzerland, and the hon. the Minister this afternoon denied that he had said that he was not interested. On page 17 of the Erasmus Commission’s Interim Report one reads (para. 60)—

There we have the testimony of the hon. the Prime Minister that he was not interested in what happened to the $10 million. I think that that is a very interesting statement.

Then, to cap it all, we are told by the commission that this $10 million did not form part of project Senekal or Senegal or whatever it was—there have been so many variations of this name printed that I am not sure which the correct one is. In any event, it is stated clearly in the Erasmus Commission Report that this $10 million did not form part of project Senekal. Yet, on 7 December the hon. the Prime Minister said in the House (Hansard, col. 15)—

However, this money did not form part of project Senegal and one must therefore ask oneself how much more money was spent on the Department of Information. Does this amount of $10 million form part of the R64 million which the Department of Information received from secret funds? It is not at all clear from this report that this is the case and if it is not the case, if the amount of $10 million was not included in the R64 million, one has to ask oneself: What next?

The penultimate point I wish to deal with regarding this report relates to the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development—I am glad to see that he is present. This matter refers to the Grand Prix, mentioned on page 19. In 1976 the Grand Prix was sponsored by The Citizen, by Louis Luyt. On page 19 one reads with reference to the hon. the Minister that (para. 69)—

Mr. Speaker, why should it astound him? What is astounding about the fact that if he asked Louis Luyt to give money for the Grand Prix, Mr. Luyt should do it through The Citizen? What astounded the hon. the Minister? This again raises a question I believe the hon. the Minister must answer, viz.: Why should he have been astounded? There are no good reasons given in the report.

With reference to the report I wish to come finally to the hon. the Minister of Finance. The report contains a most interesting Annexure A, namely the letter the hon. the Minister signed through which R14,8 million was transferred to the Department of Information. A mere cursory glance at the letter will demonstrate that there were not projects to the value of R14,8 million listed there. One has but to glance through it to realize that the total cannot possibly amount to R14,8 million. Yet the hon. the Minister signed the letter. What is more, he signed every page of it, indicating that he looked at every page. Surely, Sir, if he had exercised any brainpower, at all he would have realized that the amount of R14,8 million was not in fact covered. He said to the Erasmus Commission that he signed that letter under pressure, but the former Minister of the Department of Information maintains that at that stage the hon. the Minister of Finance knew about The Citizen. It is also maintained that there was an arrangement whereby this money was specifically left out in the knowledge, which both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Information possessed, that it was money meant for The Citizen. We have a number of statements by the hon. the Minister which do not appear to coincide.

Mr. Speaker, I was about to quote from a Senate Hansard speech, but I am not going to be able to do that. Instead I shall have to quote from a Hansard speech made in this House, viz. from Hansard of 8 February 1979. The hon. the Minister of Finance says (col. 321)—

The letter is in the report of the Erasmus Commission and it is signed by the hon. the Minister.

You yourself have just said that it is less than R14 million. Why do you not read properly. [Interjections.]

The warrant was for R14,8 million. Mr. Speaker, it becomes more and more apparent that the hon. the Minister himself has not read this report which deals, to a large extent, with him. On the very first page of that letter, it is stated (p. 22A)—

There it is in black and white! So let us now have that R14,8 million story. The other thing that the hon. the Minister said during the same debate (col. 322) is—

This is what the hon. the Minister of Finance said. I want to ask hon. members of this House: If they had an accountant, who signed away money belonging to their company and then said he did not know what he had signed, what would they have done? If the proverbial little old lady comes into her bank manager’s office and says she is terribly sorry but she did not know what she had signed, one would merely shake one’s head and say: I am terribly sorry, little old lady, but your signature is on the document and by that you have to stand.

I find the little footnote to that letter really pathetic. The hon. the Minister had got a copy back and not the original letter, and at the end of that letter he writes (p. 28)—

I find it pathetic in the extreme. One must wonder whether the finances of this great country are, in fact, in the right hands. [Interjections.]

I wish to get to the budget itself. What are the criteria for a good budget? Firstly there is the State’s responsibility for social welfare and, in particular, for pensions to the aged. In this regard, this budget is lacking because the pensions to the aged only go up 10,2% which is not as great as the increase in the inflation rate. Consequently the aged are even worse off. The means test has not been altered either, and that goes back to 1972.

Secondly, it is the State’s responsibility to see to it that the population has sufficient food at a price at which they can afford it. Yet the hon. the Minister of Finance is, to my knowledge, collecting more money from foodstuffs than he is, in fact, putting back because he has recently imposed a 4% sales tax on foodstuffs. My view is that if one were to take the money collected on the sale of foodstuffs, one would find that that totals more than the approximately R70 million which is now being used to subsidize foodstuffs in this coming year.

The next important criterion for a budget is whether the State has increased its expenditure. In this instance one can only answer with a very emphatic “yes”. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance—and I would like him to listen to this—has, in fact, given misleading figures in this budget because he has tried to compare carrots with onions. He has compared the estimates of expenditure for the coming year with the actual expenditure for the previous year, including the additional appropriation, and said that we have an increase of 11,9%. However, if one wants to arrive at a true comparison, what one should do is compare the Estimates for this year with the Estimates for last year, not including the Additional Appropriation. Furthermore, if one does that, one finds that they are spending R11 034 million this year, compared with R9 621 million last year, or an increase of R1 413 million which is an increase of 14,69%. Now, this is the reality with which we have to deal in this House, the reality that the State expenditure is being increased, by comparison with the Estimates of last year, by 14,69%. He then goes on to say that if one takes out R442 million, being service conditions and interest on loans, the increase is a mere 7,5%. This is obviously totally meaningless. The direct comparative figure is 14,69%.

The next question one asks oneself is how the State is going to spend this money. I believe it has been amply demonstrated that this money is going to be spent on a rapacious octopus which is slowly devouring its very source of sustenance. Some 40% of economically active Whites are employed by the State or by State-controlled bodies. Let us look at some of the comparative figures for other countries in the world. What is the situation in South Africa? We have 40 Votes for departments in these Estimates in front of us, for a population of approximately 20 million, not including the Transkei and Bophuthatswana. Yet, in Canada, with a population of 23 million, there are only 26 Government departments. The United Kingdom, with a population of 55 million, has only 24 Government departments. West Germany, with a population of 63 million, has only 22 Government departments, and Japan, with a population of 1 075 million, has only 13 Government departments. However, this particular Government has 40 Votes and approximately 40 departments on which money is spent.

If one takes this a little bit further and compares this with the situation in 1948, when this Government took over, one sees that, at that stage, we had only 28 major departments of State. Today there are 40 odd departments of State. The Public Service Commission has repeatedly attempted to cut this down, but every time the Government vetos it. Why? Because it is a very good source of votes, that is why. The man who controls the purse strings controls the votes. I believe that is the theory by which the Government works. In business the importance of a project is determined by profitability. One keeps employment at a minimum and gets sales to a maximum. Yet, in the Civil Service, and regrettably so, the same criteria do not apply. The criterion then becomes the number of employees, and the size of the programme determines the relative importance of the actual Vote. In 1971 a report was made to the then Cabinet by Mr. Theo Gerdener, who was then a Minister of the NP Government. The aim of that report was to reduce the number of Whites in the public service by 25%, to abolish senior posts to the extent of 10%, and to cut down the number of Government departments to 30. They estimated, in 1971, that they would save R80 million on this. Yet this project was shelved, and it was shelved totally. The Government turned it down. I would ask the hon. the Prime Minister to perhaps dig in the files and get that report out, because it might help him with his administration of this giant bureaucratic machine which operates under his command. I believe he should get that report out and make a very, very careful study of it.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately my time is running short. [Interjections.] I had hoped to deal with all of the many other parts of Government that exist, and in this regard I refer to advisory boards, statutory boards, statutory committees and the thousands of people who are involved in them. Unfortunately, as I said, I cannot go into it in detail. Suffice it for me to say, just to start with, that I believe we should get rid of every single Administration Board we have in South Africa today.

The next point I want to cover is the position of the people in the homelands, particularly the people in the independent homelands. Here I want to make a plea on behalf of the people who live in Transkei. I am sure the Government realizes that Transkei has been independent since October 1976. Yet there is still over R100 million’s worth of property to be bought out from this foreign country, which became a foreign country through no desire of the White population of that country. They are stuck there with an investment which in the case of some companies goes back more than a century, and the Government is not buying them out. We are told that there will be an increase of 63% in expenditure on consolidation of the homelands, but if this is compared with the figure for 1975, it is only an increase of 17% over that figure. In terms of real purchasing power, it is actually less than in 1975. One must look at the situation of these people who are stuck there. They have businesses there, but what has happened to them? They can no longer employ the staff needed to run those businesses efficiently and properly. Yet they have to keep going, because if they close down a trading station and do not have anybody looking after it, what is going to happen is that the local population will probably strip portions of that building to build their own houses, and for that one cannot blame them. When the time comes that the department says they are going to buy out these people in Transkei and they are taken to the property concerned, it is found that there is no property left. So, these people will in fact get absolutely nothing. This is one of the tragedies in this country today and I think the Government, and the hon. the Minister of Finance in particular, should be aware that more money must be provided for the consolidation of the homelands. The people in the homelands have been placed in an absolutely untenable position.

The sort of thing that can happen is that such a business which is operating there, and has been operating there for many years, starts to get boycotted because the local population form the opinion that the owner of that particular business does not want to sell it, that he is not prepared to let it pass on to a Black person and, therefore, the local population start getting unpleasant towards the owner because they are under the impression that it is his fault that he has not been bought out. As the days go by, the situation is getting worse and worse. The R63 million that the hon. the Minister has budgeted for consolidation this year will not cover the amount required for Transkei alone, let alone Bophuthatswana and the homelands that have not gained their independence. On the basis of the current rate of spending, what can one tell these people in Transkei? Must one tell them that they are not going to be bought out for another five or ten years? Can hon. members picture the position these people are placed in? Through the very policies of the Government we on this side of the House dislike so much, they are placed in the situation that, as loyal South Africans who have fought for South Africa, who have always lived in South Africa, who have always been part of South Africa and have never had any wish not to be part of South Africa, at the waving of a wand by the Government they suddenly find themselves living in a foreign country.

You are talking nonsense.

I am not. This is the situation that pertains. What does the hon. member know about it? Let him try to live in Transkei right now. Transkei has broken off diplomatic relations with South Africa and on behalf of all the people in South Africa who have land or businesses to be bought out I appeal to the Government to make more money available for the consolidation of the homelands.

Mr. Speaker, I must thank the hon. member for East London North for getting out of the Information rut at last. Now we can start conducting a healthy debate again. I have great sympathy with his plea that we should dispose of the matters relating to the pre-independence of a country in our midst as soon as possible after independence if we can. My department and I have great sympathy with that standpoint, because we have received representations from the Governments of Transkei and Bophuthatswana asking us to implement as soon as possible the agreements we concluded with them before they became independent and our obligations under these agreements. I agree with him, but the trouble is that the hon. the Minister of Finance has only a certain amount of funds available to him. [Interjections.] No, just wait a moment. I do not want hon. members’ emotions to run away with them. I am not a clever man as far as the handling of money is concerned, but I want to invite hon. members to approach seven, eight or nine economists or financial experts in this country and to ask each of them to draft a budget for this country in these difficult times and against the background of what we have experienced. None of them, not even all of them together, would be able to draft such a fine budget as the one which the hon. the Minister of Finance has introduced. Hon. members know that. The tragedy is that while they are sitting there joking among themselves, they all know in their hearts—and this is their dilemma—that this is an outstanding budget. Nor is it any use talking about the Information scandal any more. I am glad to see that, and that is why I must thank the hon. member for East London North. I see that the affair has reached its saturation point for hon. members of the NRP. Unfortunately, that point has not yet been reached on the part of the PFP, and the reason for that is that their policy is so much weaker. They must therefore cling to the Information scandal for all they are worth. In fact, I want to predict that when all Dr. Rhoodie’s stories have come to light—almost all of them have already come to light—he will probably be asked to invent further stories. Hon. members will find that he will invent further stories, probably with the encouragement of the official Opposition, because they will have to continue their scandal-mongering because they do not have a policy to debate. In the times in which we live, we are holding extremely momentous talks about South West Africa, talks which may influence the entire course of history in Southern Africa. Important events are taking place in Rhodesia today. An election is taking place there this month, while increasing onslaughts are being made on them from outside.

Here in the Republic of South Africa there are important matters which must receive attention, as we all know. There are the constitutional proposals with regard to the Whites, Coloureds and Asians. When we consider the oil crisis in the world, the rise in the oil prices, the collapse of Iran, the causes of these things and the ripple effect they may have on other parts of the world, and when one considers the whole great struggle between the underdeveloped world and the developed world and the greater urgency with which the underdeveloped world is going to insist on sharing in the technology, industry, prosperity and advantages of the more developed world, and when one further considers the potential struggle between China and Russia and the increasingly difficult position of America, which cannot decide what role it is to play in the world, one realizes that one is perhaps standing on the threshold of a new historic era or epoch in the world. The question then occurs to South Africans what role South Africa will have to play in this changing world in which so many elements are struggling for power.

However, in this budget debate we are hearing only gossip about the Information scandal, hair-splitting and bickering about why R10 million was spent here and six cents there, etc. The Erasmus Commission investigated all these matters. The basic fact is—and no one can deny it—that this Government ordered that investigation. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition wants to say that it was caused by other factors, I want to tell him what really happened. That Sunday before the Premier was elected, I was talking to the present Prime Minister, and he told me that he was going to clean up the whole thing, to expose it and have it investigated by a judge. What does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say about that? That was his intention before he became Prime Minister, and he has carried it out, although it has been painful and damaging to us. We admit that. It has been damaging to us at home and abroad. But what does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition keep doing? He keeps creating the impression here in South Africa that this Government has been weakened, that it is discouraged, that a shadow has fallen over its existence. Then this is conveyed to newspapers abroad, and eventually it influences Governments abroad which believe that our Government is on the point of falling. Sir, this Government cannot fall. It cannot fall, for the simple reason that although our people may be dejected and sorrowful and have gone through the painful shock of these disclosures which we have also gone through—those hon. members do not have a monopoly on morality—there is no other alternative, and not only is there no alternative for this country, but people will eventually trust us for one reason, and that is that we have opened up, that we have taken the blows and that we now want to move forward to make a success of Southern Africa, to enable it to defend itself, to give it the opportunity to escape the threat which is facing Black, White, Brown and Asian. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not interested in that, however. I now predict that he will keep up this gossip ad nauseam, and before long he will probably meet Dr. Rhoodie as well. Dr. Rhoodie threatened me in his letter of 10 December 1978. Dr. Rhoodie threatened me by saying that if I was not prepared to meet him in Europe, he would meet a member of the official Opposition. Who gave him that idea? I should very much like to know where he got this idea from. Now I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Was he overseas in January?

You know I was overseas.

Very well. Just reply, although one cannot always trust the hon. member’s replies. Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition request Mr. McHenry of America, and not the official South African office, to arrange an appointment for him with Dr. Waldheim?

No.

Then you must phone your friend Mr. McHenry, because he complained to our official representative and said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should not phone him to arrange such appointments. [Interjections.] Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition remember that he came to see me in my office on 26 February at my invitation, along with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the hon. member for Durban Point, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and the hon. member for Simonstown?

Yes.

Thank you. Can you remember that I gave you extremely confidential information about what the Government had achieved concerning Mr. Ahtisaari’s conduct, concerning letters which were sent from New York without Dr. Waldheim’s knowledge? Can you remember that I informed you and read out passages from secret telegrams from my offices overseas? That I took you into my confidence and told you what the reasons were why the South African Government would now have to be more careful and would probably not be able to go on with the implementation of the UN’s settlement plan? Does the hon. member remember that? It was on 26 February, in the presence of those other hon. members I have mentioned.

That night, a statement by Dr. Waldheim was made public.

I even gave the hon. member a copy before he left my office. Then the hon. member phoned Mr. McHenry the next morning.

No, that is not true. [Interjections.]

On the morning of the 27th (New York time), the hon. member phoned Mr. McHenry and said that he could not understand what the Minister of Foreign Affairs of South Africa was referring to, and did he perhaps know? [Interjections.] You conveyed that that confidential information to Mr. McHenry. [Interjections.] If I had to choose between the word of my representative and that of other people, I would choose my representative’s word. I shall now read from an official telegram which our representative sent off on 27 February and I received on 28 February. Hon. members must not think that we have been tapping any telephone conversations. This is the way it happened. My representative in New York said—

This is Mr. McHenry reporting to my representative. Mr. McHenry says—unless Mr. McHenry is absolutely unreliable—

This then became the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because the way in which he referred to South West Africa in this House on 28 February was almost exactly Mr. McHenry’s way. [Interjections.] They are hand in glove. [Interjections.] He must not try to run away now. It is not going to help him. [Interjections.]

Order!

This matter is a very serious one. I officially convey secret information to the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition. However, he does not believe me. He goes behind my back and phones Mr. McHenry of America to find out whether what I said was true. [Interjections.] Then he comes back to the House of Assembly and bases his speech on what Mr. McHenry told him and rejects what I told him. [Interjections.] That is the level to which we have sunk in South Africa. This is the kind of thing to which the Leader of the Opposition lends himself. [Interjections.] Then he has the temerity to get up in this House and use words such as “morality” and “ethics”! If I were he, I would crawl into a hole in the ground and stay there. [Interjections.] He should never come out again. This thing is not as simple as he thinks. [Interjections.]

Order!

He knows very well what one of my representatives told him. He told him that he should please arrange his appointments through our representatives instead of running to strangers. He must not try to hide it. Those people are not his friends in the long run. I can tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today: Those same people in America will not support his policy…

He is a traitor!

Order! That remark is not admissible…

I cannot help it, Sir.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

It is despicable!

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

With respect, I just want to emphasize that on that Monday, the 26th, the hon. the Prime Minister spoke in this House about South West Africa. After he had spoken, he sent me a note asking me to give all the Opposition leaders copies of his statement at once. He also requested me to inform them properly. We did so, at the request of the hon. the Prime Minister. The response to this well-intended gesture was the refusal of the Leader of the Opposition to accept the integrity or the word of the Prime Minister that his Cabinet had not been aware of the financing of The Citizen from State funds. I met with the same fate. He took confidential information which I had reported to him and he conveyed it to strangers so as to make my negotiating situation more difficult! [Interjections.] Here I have his speech of Wednesday, 28 February 1979, when he spoke about South West Africa. I quote (col. 1478)—

This is Mr. McHenry’s language, because Mr. McHenry said that all these things we were concerned with were matters of detail. He said: “It is not principle, it is detail.” The two are infecting each other. I now ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a further question. With what other foreign embassies has he also been in contact? What other foreign embassies are also feeding him with information to use against us in this House?

And what embassies is he feeding with information?

Yes, and what embassies is he feeding with information? He cannot escape from this situation. He got up here and flung accusations at this side of the House. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister is making a speech now. Let us listen to him.

That man has overstepped the mark, and I want him to admit it and to give us the facts, here in this House. I can no longer trust him, and I believe he ought to reconsider his position…

Mr. Speaker, may I address the House on a point of personal explanation… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to raise a point of personal explanation. He can only do so if the hon. the Minister is willing to resume his seat now; if not, he must do it at the end of the hon. the Minister’s speech.

He can do it now, but he must be brief.

Order! Yes, it must be brief.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has made certain allegations against me, allegations which are based on hearsay. I now want to put the record quite straight. On a certain Monday afternoon at 14h15 the hon. the Prime Minister made a statement on South West Africa in which he dealt with a number of matters, saying, inter alia, that there was the question of the bases and also the question of the monitoring of those bases. These factors presented problems, and when “one reads between the lines”, these were matters about which South Africa had grave concern. He publicly used the phrase “reading between the lines” on the afternoon of Monday, I think the 26th. I immediately sent a personal note to the hon. the Prime Minister asking him whether it was possible to get a copy of the statement that was due to be issued by Dr. Waldheim later that evening. The hon. the Prime Minister nodded, and later that afternoon the secretary of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs asked me whether I would come to his office, and I invited the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to join me.

At that meeting he gave us certain information, including a draft of the statement, with certain alterations on it, that was to be issued in due course from New York. Prior to leaving that office, we asked him whether the statement had been issued or not. He called in his secretary, who said that the statement had by then been issued in New York. In other words, the statement that he had given us, had already been issued in New York at that time. The hon. the Prime Minister had said in public that there were problems—reading between the lines—and that they did not know what to do about the reading between the lines that was taking place. I requested the information, and the hon. the Minister gave it to us. The following day the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and I had an informal discussion with the senior ambassador of the Western contact group here… [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must listen to the explanation without interjecting.

By that time Dr. Waldheim’s statement was front-page news. When we were asked the question, we referred to the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement of the day before. It appeared to us, however, that that gentleman had been in touch with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and others, in Pretoria, on the previous Saturday.

Did you phone McHenry?

No, Sir, I am telling the House how the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs…

Did you phone McHenry?

I am trying to tell the House that it became quite clear to us that many of the points which the hon. the Minister had made to us in his office, were known to some in the contact group in South Africa… [Interjections.] I do not want to mention which one of the five it was, but I shall tell the hon. the Minister to which one of the five… [Interjections.] Subsequent to that, I phoned Mr. McHenry… [Interjections.]

Order!

After I had discussions with the contact group here, I phoned him because of the information he gave me…

You do not believe your own Minister. [Interjections.]

This gentleman said: “Why do you not check with the other side?” I did check, and I referred him to the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement…

Why did you deny it? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I kindly afforded the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity of stating his case, but now he is in such a tight comer that he has to make a speech, while my time is running out.

Mr. Speaker, I merely want to say…

Order! In all fairness, I think that in terms of the parliamentary practice in relation to points of personal explanation, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has had more than ample time to offer his explanation. I am afraid that I cannot allow the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to infringe upon the hon. the Minister’s time any longer.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition may struggle as much as he likes. This time he is caught. The fact is that after I had made confidential disclosures to him, he phoned Mr. McHenry to check up on me and on my word. [Interjections.] No, I have not yet finished with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. That Wednesday morning—that was after he had phoned McHenry and before he made his speech here—he and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout came to see me again. Once again I conveyed confidential facts to him. Facts I cannot even give to this House I gave to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Shortly afterwards, when he had made his speech in this House, I received the telegram from New York. I could not understand why he had made such a speech on that day, but when I received the telegram from our representative in New York, everything became clear. I respectfully suggest that there is no previous example in our constitutional history of such an abominable, blatant, arrogant breach of confidence against a member of the Government as that of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition against me. [Interjections.] I suggest to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the only honourable course that is open to him is to resign. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to use such language in this House?

Yes.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the point of order I am trying to raise is the following: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to use this kind of language towards any hon. member and especially towards the hon. the Leader of the Opposition…

If it presents any problems, I shall withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. I want to go on.

Order! I do not consider it to be out of order. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I demand that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition take the only honourable course that is open to him: He must resign.

You are talking nonsense.

If he does not do this, he is sunk as far as South African politics are concerned. When a Minister gives confidential information to an hon. member, he cannot traffic with the enemy.

You are making up a story.

One cannot go over to them and feed them with information and use this House for engaging in the politics of enemies of South Africa.

That is nonsense!

That right he does not have. Most certainly he does not have the right ever again to say a word about morality. He can never do that again.

Against the background I have outlined, I want to say that South Africa is moving either towards increasing problems or towards a new era of fresh opportunities. It will depend on us whether it will be problems or fresh opportunities. Finally, I want to say that there is one thing which the world cannot take away from us. That is our ability to solve our own problems. Neither the UN nor the Security Council can take that away from us. In fact, we are not afraid of them. They can strike at us with sanctions, with oil sanctions, if they must—and I say this with responsibility—but if we let down the Black, Coloured and White leaders in South West Africa/Namibia and Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, the whole of Southern Africa is going to disintegrate. Now more than ever before it is our task and historic opportunity to embark upon a new Great Trek with vision and to create a Southern Africa based on a proper division of power and land, based on mutual trust in one another, Black and White. When we have solved the White cum Coloured cum Asian problem—and I predict that it will soon be solved—I believe that a start will be made in consultation with one another in finding a viable solution to the problems of the whole of Southern Africa which the Coloured, Asian and Black leaders will also accept. It is well-intended and sincerely meant and they will accept our sincerity. The official Opposition may not accept it, but they will have to, because they also want their children to survive. On our part, we shall be reasonable and fair.

When this has been created south of the Kunene and the Zambezi, where 40 million people live and where a great deal of the world’s diamonds, gold, platinum, chrome and coal is found, and when we begin to help one another and have created proper international secretariates in the various spheres of life and people see that they need one another and that they are allies, the official Opposition will regret having wasted the time of the House and the country with their scandal-mongering.

Mr. Speaker, not for a long time in my political career and in this House have I witnessed a spectacle which testified to so much political irresponsibility and unscrupulousness. That is the direction in which the PFP is moving. They no longer care two hoots what becomes of South Africa, just as long as they can break this Government. They use any unscrupulous method. The public will take cognizance of this.

Quite a few by-elections are to take place in this country shortly. Yesterday the nominations for one of the first by-elections in the Transvaal were to have been made after a vacancy has arisen for a Provincial Council member in the Bethal constituency. However, the NP candidate was not opposed in this constituency, he was elected unopposed. [Interjections.] I want to say to the PFP that this trend will continue in other by-elections which are to take place, even in those by-elections in which they want to participate.

It is interesting to note how desperately the PFP is clinging to the Information scandal. They truly have nothing else to live on in South African politics. Everything which was humanly possible has been done to clear up this Information scandal, but even the interim report which was tabled yesterday has not been able to satisfy the official Opposition. They—the hon. member for East London North is one of them—even go so far as to question the effectiveness of the report and to cast suspicion upon our judges. Nothing prevented the commission from stating that the time and the evidence available to it were insufficient for it to reach a conclusion. The commission had every right to do so if it did not possess sufficient evidence. Nevertheless the commission made its findings and the Cabinet members in question were exonerated with regard to the whole Citizen affair.

Owing to a lack of arguments in this debate, hon. members of the official Opposition and even the hon. member for East London North could not say much about this budget. He found it quite a struggle to produce some constructive criticisms of the budget. However, I shall come back to that later.

I should like to examine another aspect. At the beginning of my speech I made the statement that hon. members of the official Opposition were engaging in unscrupulous politics in South Africa. One of the interesting manoeuvres they are carrying out is to profess to be the so-called saviours of the dispossessed Black people in South Africa. However, it is interesting to know that this political maneouvre has already fallen flat and is no longer working. I have investigated statements by Black political leaders, including militant political leaders in South Africa, on what they think of the so-called White liberals in South Africa. I have found out what Bishop Desmond Tutu, the secretary to the South African Council of Churches, said in an interview with the S.A. Institute of Race Relations. He stated that he even rejected the constitutional proposals of the PFP. This is not surprising, because we are hearing very little these days from the hon. member for Houghton, the main protector of these Black militants. The bishop stated that there were only two alternatives in South Africa. The one was that political power be shared, and the other that we change over to an absolute majority Government. Interestingly enough, he placed the PFP in exactly the same category as the NP, i.e. that of White domination. He said that the status quo was being maintained and that there was no difference. I want to quote what the bishop said in this interview—

Even he has lost confidence in the PFP. He goes on. Incidentally, the heading of the report on this interview is: “Whitey, leave us alone.” When he speaks of “Whitey”, he is really speaking of these White liberals. He states—

Now the bishop is talking to the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pinelands. He states—

Mr. Speaker… [Interjections.] Even the PFP’s political manoeuvres and their efforts to use Black political leaders in South Africa are falling flat However, I want to refer to something else as well. Recently we had a very interesting visit from a reporter, Sally Quin. She interviewed the editor of the Post, Mr. Percy Qoboza, a former detainee. In the interview he told her that he was an embittered man. One of the reasons why he was embittered was that he was beginning to realize that the so-called White liberals were not really honest. According to him they were exploiting the Black man in South African politics. Mr. Qoboza stated candidly that those people were not honest. Then he went on to refer, inter alia, to the Afrikaner. Of course I assume that in speaking of the Afrikaner, he is probably also associating the NP with the Afrikaner, because it so happens that the NP consists mainly of Afrikaners. Mr. Qoboza also stated the following—

After the reporter, Sally Quin, had also interviewed the hon. member for Houghton, she wrote the following—

Then she goes on to say—

They therefore acknowledge that they are becoming smaller and weaker. Even the PFP’s political strategy of wanting to use the Black man in South Africa is failing, and for that reason they are clinging like a lot of children to the Information scandal, but that is also systematically beginning to fall flat. There are also Black liberals such as Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, who is under the impression that he is the first great Black leader in South Africa and who is trying to form all sorts of alliances with various political bodies in South Africa including the PFP. The real issue is the development of good relationships among the various population groups in South Africa, to the benefit of all. This cannot be attained if population groups are placed in White and in Black categories. It involves a national development conflict in South Africa.

However, I want to come back to the budget which is before this House. Seldom, I think, has such a fine, efficient and effective budget been submitted to this House. It is worth R500 million to the man in the street. Some economists have calculated that the budget will increase the buying power of the middle and lower income groups by R30 per month. If loan levies are added, this amount rises to R762 million. The overall impression that the general public has of this budget is that South Africa is doing very well indeed in the economic sphere. They have the opportunity of sharing in the prosperity because it increases their own spending power. Among the general public, the budget has created a general spirit of progressiveness and optimism, which is necessary for progress. The economy of South Africa now contains all the elements for growth. I think that the aim of a growth rate of 4% which was set by the hon. Minister should easily be attained during next year. The budget has generated a spirit of optimism among the general public. More capital is becoming available; there is a sound balance of payments; there are more labour resources available; there are surplus production capacities; and we have resources such as mining, etc., at our disposal. Therefore we shall easily attain the aim of a 4% growth rate.

The greatest negative effect on the growth rate, however, comes from the political prophets of doom on the other side. They are now whispering among themselves about the scandal which the hon. Leader of the Opposition has just caused, and they are not interested in this budget at all. [Interjections.] The budget is of lesser importance to them. They are concerned about their little political life in South Africa which is hanging by a thread. If the official Opposition wants to help itself, it should ask its leader to resign. [Interjections.]

I want to make a few remarks about the effect of the budget on agriculture. It is unfortunately true that agriculture is one of the sectors which may make a negative contribution to our economic growth during next year. We are pleased that the budget has made provision for assistance to be rendered in accordance with the recommendations of the Jacobs Committee, inter alia, additional amount of more than R11,3 million has been made available to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure for the consolidation of debts.

Although we are grateful for the increase of R11,3 million in the appropriated amount, I want to say candidly that if one considers the fact that the total burden of debt of the farmers in South Africa could exceed R3 000 million this year, it is clear that this amount of R11,3 million can really only be used to assist a specific category of farmer. The hon. the Minister must pardon me now, because I want to say very frankly—when we speak about agriculture, we are frank with one another—that in actual fact the amount of R11,3 million which is being made available for this purpose will be used not only for an economic reason—and we are concerned about the small farmer—but also to a very large extent for a social reason to keep the farmer on his farm so that he is able to care for his wife and children. In the total economic structure of agriculture, however, an amount of R11,3 million means very little. Nevertheless we are grateful for it.

I now want to deal with the 3,5% interest rate subsidizing of debts incurred at agricultural co-operatives. I think this is a very valuable assistance which is being rendered in this regard. In actual fact this means that the co-operatives are going to be used as financing channels in this process. If ever South Africa had reason to be thankful for a co-operative movement in this country, it has one today, for now that agriculture finds itself in financial straits, not only because of droughts, but also because of a lot of other factors which I cannot refer to now owing to a lack of time, funds are being guaranteed by the Government and made available to the Land Bank so that agricultural co-operatives can provide production capital to the farmer.

However, this can only be done because the co-operatives themselves are creditworthy. This creditworthiness they have built up over many years, however the total assets of the co-operatives in South Africa today amount to approximately R2 300 million at present. Over the years the co-operatives have been enabled to build up these assets tax free. If the co-operatives had not been exempted from taxation, their financial position and assets today would not have been so sound that they could be used as financing channels for putting agriculture into production again. We should be grateful for that. After the publication of the Steenkamp report a hue and cry was raised by private companies in South Africa because the co-operatives had been exempted from tax. I want to say that they should be grateful today, as we are, that the co-operatives were placed in the position where they were able to build up their assets tax free.

While I am speaking about agricultural cooperatives, I want to thank the hon. the Ministers of Agriculture and Finance most sincerely for the fact that the long-awaited package agreement in terms of which the activities of agricultural co-operatives may be expanded has become a reality after the statement last night. I want to tell them that this will assist us greatly, not only with regard to our business activities, but also with regard to the essential services which we have to provide to farmers in these difficult times. We are quite prepared to enter the fields at market-related interest rates in competition with other companies in the private sector while at the same time paying our share of the tax. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the fact that this restriction on these farmers’ organizations have been lifted. He may rest assured that they will do their duty towards the farmers.

Another very important tax concession was made which I think will have the greatest effect on agriculture in the long term. There is one word in agriculture which is a key word and that is “stability”. This is probably a key word in any business enterprise. However, this word is of greater value in agriculture with its particular economic structure, because we are dealing with climatic conditions over which no one has any control. For that reason “stability” is a very important word. In response to the Jacobs Committee the hon. the Minister made the concession that the State would make R5 million available, over a term of five years, to pay a portion of the premium costs for comprehensive crop insurance. The scope of this comprehensive crop insurance is still very limited in South Africa; in other words, it will have to gain momentum in the long run, and once it has gained momentum through the assistance and the aid of the Government, then, we believe, the stage can be reached where even this comprehensive crop insurance system can eventually stand on its own two feet. The important aspect concerning this matter is that the risk factor in agriculture is to a large extent eliminated by not only insuring the crop, but actually insuring the farmer’s input and expenses so that he will have capital to be able to make an input into agriculture again the following year.

I think that the Jacobs Committee has made valuable recommendations to us, which have consequently been accepted by the hon. the Minister without change. We are also particularly happy to hear from the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke that the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. Minister of Agriculture have now decided that it should be a standing committee. The crisis situation in which agriculture finds itself at the moment is not a situation from which it will emerge within a year or two; it will take time to recover, and the hon. the Minister will have to keep an eye on the situation to examine the position. There is one request that I want to make to the hon. the Minister. Notwithstanding the good work done by the Jacobs Committee, there is one shortcoming. In my opinion there should also be a member of the Department of Economic Affairs on that committee, and in this regard I have to plead guilty, because I have not yet discussed the matter with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. The prices to the consumer are involved. Not only the farmers are going to be in trouble; the consumer is going to experience great problems. It has already been said in this debate that the consumer will have to pay much more for food. If we examine the figures for private spending, we see that 33% of private spending was on food, alcoholic beverages and tobacco. If the amount of R1 100 million for alcoholic beverages is deducted, approximately R2 000 million of the total spending remains. This is 20% of the expenditure of the man in the street In other words, he pays 20 cents in every rand for food. I think the food industry in South Africa is becoming a powerful industry. I have read in the Business Times about the tremendous expansion in this field. The chain store Pick ’n Pay intends to spend R100 million on further expansion over a period of two years. The profit before tax of this chain store increased by more than 40%. Checkers has an expansion programme for a further 14 shops which it wants to build at a cost of R50 million. It is interesting to note that the same report reads—

This indicates that although there is growth in the food industry, the most primary sector in food is the producer, who is the foundation of the food industry in South Africa, and who is experiencing economic difficulties. We shall therefore have to do everything possible to assist him, otherwise—and I conclude with this—we shall be running the risk of allowing agriculture in South Africa to move closer to a subsistence economy, i.e. to move away from an investment industry to a subsistence economy. Hon. members will recall that the Du Plessis Commission report indicated that 80% of the country’s agricultural products are being produced by only 20% of the farmers. But it is those people who are now leaving agriculture, and if they do, agriculture will deteriorate into a subsistence economy. We shall then become a country which imports food.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bethal saw fit to quote extensively from an article by the Rev. Bishop Tutu which appeared in the Sunday Times a few weeks ago. However, when he has caught up with his reading to the extent of having arrived at the following week’s paper, he will see our comments on that article in that paper. Consequently I need not occupy the time of this House by quoting them here now. [Interjections.]

This has been an afternoon for the big guns to boom in this House, and the first gun that boomed, was our old friend, the hon. the Minister of Community Development. Having worked himself into a “frenzy of eloquence”, as some newspaper reporter said a few weeks ago, he reached his climax by telling us that the moral standards on that side of the House were so high that if a Minister were to tell a lie to this House, that Minister would resign. It is breathtaking to listen to something like that! If it had come to pass that when that Minister did tell the lie the then Prime Minister rose in the House to say that it was a lie and that that Minister must resign, and if the Minister had in fact resigned, we would have been able to listen to that kind of statement. [Interjections.] But what happened? Some months passed—was it five, six or seven months, or how long was it?—before Mr. Justice Mostert revealed certain facts which were followed by other developments. Then, for the first time, we had the situation that that hon. Minister to whom this hon. Minister referred, was evidently compelled by the Prime Minister to resign. These are the moral standards we are supposed to admire! [Interjections.] No, the hon. the Minister will have to do better than that if he wants to serve as the lightning-conductor for the attacks launched at that side of the House. He will certainly have to do much better than that!

Then we had the other big gun, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We politely requested his presence here, his commitments permitting. Of course, one understands if he is unable to be present, but we asked him to try to be present here. His performance was a fine example of a lightning-conductor being used in this debate in an attempt to neutralize the attack by the Opposition. [Interjections.] He began by deploring the fact that the Information scandal was still dragging on, but what have we been witnessing here during the past week or 10 days? That hon. Minister was asked pointedly: What about the magazine To the Point? Everyone knows that there is speculation everywhere about To the Point, that it is widely believed that To the Point is backed by the Government. However, what did the hon. the Minister do? He did not reply “yes” or “no”. He evaded the question. He said that he did not find it expedient to reply to a question of that nature. So how does he want the scandal to disappear if he refuses to reply to questions which have a direct bearing on his portfolio. The hon. the Minister then made his attempt to denigrate the hon. Leader of the Opposition by using any weapon he could lay his hands on. But there is however, one simple question, I shall put to the colleagues of the hon. the Minister in his absence. Do they believe that it is wrong for a member of the Opposition to talk to a diplomat and that this should be prohibited? [Interjections.] Will they make such a statement? [Interjections.] If they do not want to do so, I should like to know what is wrong with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition talking to the German ambassador and, if he may talk to the German ambassador… May he do that? May I accept that he may do so? [Interjections.] If the hon. Leader of the Opposition is allowed to talk to the German ambassador, why may he not talk to Mr. McHenry as well? [Interjections.] There would be grounds for criticism if it could be proved that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did this at an inconvenient or wrong time. The hon. Leader of the Opposition, however, was able to explain here in detail that that was the very thing he did not do, that he first went to the hon. the Minister to obtain confirmation that Dr. Waldheim’s statement had been made public, before he acted in any way. [Interjections.]

He denied it.

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is one of the best performers in this House, and he gave a performance this afternoon which was second to none. He burned calories here as none of us is able to do. He produced hot air as none of us is able to do, but there was not a single hard fact in the whole of his attack upon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to be diverted any longer by these admittedly very expert and histrionically impressive lightning conductors. [Interjections.] I now propose to come back to the last leg of the amendment of the Opposition to the Appropriation Bill, an amendment which deals with the Government’s bungling of the Information scandal which is undermining confidence. There is no evidence of any improvement in this regard. In passing let me say that I would have raised this issue whether or not an interim report had been released by the commission this week. The report adds a certain piquancy to the occasion, because the picture changes somewhat as a result of this report, but we would have been saying these things whether that report had been released or not. The picture that does emerge clearly from this week’s report, a picture which was vaguely discernible in the previous one, is that for all those years there was a cabal, consisting of the former Prime Minister, the former Minister of Information, and the former Secretary for Information. These three gentlemen, together, were taking decisions and they were forcing these decisions upon the rest of the Government. To prove this, I shall refer to certain quotations from the report of the commission in a moment. They were simply riding roughshod over their colleagues in the Cabinet—this is the picture which the report presents us with—and they were, of course, particularly terrorizing the hon. the Minister of Finance and his department. It is clear from several statements the hon. the Minister has made that from early 1975 until late 1978 he went on plaintively trying to find out what he was giving all that money for. However, nobody was ever ready to tell him, and all he could do was meekly to continue giving more and more money whenever it was demanded from him, while he never knew what it was for. During the short debate in December the hon. the Minister told us (Hansard, col. 108)—

Then follows the hon. the Minister’s account, which all hon. members have heard, of how the then Minister of Finance, his predecessor, explained to him what the arrangements were in regard to the Department of Information. The hon. the Minister of Finance went on to say (Hansard, col. 109)—

That is the hon. the Minister of Finance—

The hon. the Minister went on to say with considerable force that he protested against this arrangement as well as other arrangements and that he succeeded in reducing the amount to below R15 million on one occasion and below R20 million on another occasion, etc. He went on to say the following (Hansard, col. 109)—

The hon. the Minister tells us all these things. A little later on that same day I addressed the House and said very much the same sort of thing I have just said. I was saying that the hon. the Minister had continued trying to find out what the money was for, but was not told. At that stage the Minister of Finance rose on a point of personal explanation. I hope he does not hold it against me, but I was not prepared to give way to him, and he therefore made his point of personal explanation at the end of my speech. He said the following (Hansard, col. 137)—

That was the time when he was trying to get the information out of the Government. That information is now available. In this report we find the letters which were not published in the first report and they make it quite clear that during 1976 and 1977 the hon. the Minister’s department was begging the Department of Information to tell them what they were doing with the money the Minister made available. However, the hon. the Minister must have been unhappy from the day of that first interview with Dr. Diederichs. He said so himself—I refer hon. members to Hansard, 7 December, col. 108. What happened was that the hon. the Minister—and it is to his credit up to a point—was suspicious from the very beginning and that, although he asked and asked, he was simply told to shut up and sit down. What therefore emerges from this report is that, as I have said, the cabal of these three gentlemen was simply knocking the rest of the Cabinet around and was getting its own way.

Strong men!

It is clear that the hon. the Minister of Finance was not better informed on the matters in respect of which he wanted information, as Dr. Rhoodie and the then Prime Minister struck fear into his heart. A letter is included in the interim report which puts this beyond any doubt. In his letter to the Secretary to the Treasury, Dr. Rhoodie used the following words—

The hon. the Minister of Finance had to accept meekly that he was outside the “gemagtigde kring”. That authorized circle consisted of the then Prime Minister and the people around him. I find myself back to where I was on 7 December. It was stated time and again this afternoon that the Government was doing everything possible to clear up the matter. Nevertheless, I find myself exactly where I was at that time as far as the hon. the Minister of Finance is concerned. He says he did not know. In that case I ask him pointedly: Why did he, as the Minister responsible for providing the money, put up with the disdainful rejection of all his inquiries year after year? Why did he endure it and why did he continue to do so?

He was a weakling.

The commission also paid particular attention to the position of the hon. the Prime Minister who was the Minister of Defence at the time. In paragraph 74 of the report one reads—

The hon. member for Yeoville said on a suitable occasion in this House that the hon. the Prime Minister had the reputation—and I make bold to say that it is a reputation which pleases him to some extent—of being a strong man, a powerful man, and of being a man who did not allow himself to be pushed around. Things must have been going very badly indeed in the Cabinet at that time if even he, with all his strength, was forced to yield to the triumvirate of Mr. Vorster, Dr. Mulder and Dr. Rhoodie.

I said that I should make further reference to the report with regard to the triumvirate. In paragraphs 52 and 53, one reads—

A little further down one reads—

That is the triumvirate, the “cabal” as I called it, of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Information and the Secretary of his department. The letters of 13 December 1976 and 21 January 1977 again reflects the way in which the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of his department tried to make a stand and then again had to yield to the instruction they had received from the almighty Secretary for Information. It continued in that way. It was forced upon everyone in the Government, but particularly on the poor humble Minister of Finance who never knew, because he could never muster the courage to insist on his having to know.

He could have stopped it all in 1975.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred this afternoon to collective Cabinet responsibility in this regard. I want to ask the hon. Ministers who are present—there are not many of them—whether they consider themselves bound to co-responsibility with the present Prime Minister in what he does. I would think they do. They are reluctant to agree, but I think they regard themselves as co-responsible with the hon. Prime Minister in the running of this country. If that is not so, I think that they should tell the hon. the Prime Minister and not me. If they do not regard themselves as loyal to him and co-responsible with him they had better tell him. If they are prepared to share responsibility, they must realize that they all have to share responsibility with the previous Prime Minister for the way he was running the country, as revealed by the report that we have had this week.

There is another point of interest in the most recent interim report. So far I have been talking about the question of responsibility and not at all about the question of knowledge. However, there is one interesting situation regarding knowledge and that is the by now boring question that has still not finally been resolved, and that question is: When did the former Prime Minister know? The report states (p. 20, para 71) that: “Mr. Reynders has already during November 1977, in the course of his official inquiry into the affairs of the said Department, brought it to the notice of Mr. Vorster and others.” In passing we have already asked this afternoon who the others were. Again this is one of the questions, like the question about To the Point, to which there is never a reply. That is why the Information scandal lives on and on, but that is not my present point.

My present point is that the commission found that Mr. Reynders brought it to the notice of Mr. Vorster in November 1977. In his recent statement Mr. Vorster himself said that it was brought to his notice by Mr. Barrie in August 1977. We now have a new intruder into this situation in the person of the hon. Senator Steyl, who said in The Citizen of 3 April 1979—

[Interjections.] Which statement is right and what are we to believe? Where do we get our definite answers from? It is not only that we want facts and answers, but also that the date on which the former Prime Minister knew about The Citizen affects profoundly the degree of fraud that was perpetrated upon the country in the general election of 1977. [Interjections.] His own statement that he knew from August 1977, of course, makes it more fraudulent than either of the other dates would.

There is also the affair of the $10 million that went to Switzerland. During the short session on 8 December 1978, the hon. member for Durban North was addressing the House. He said (col. 420)—

I think words have meaning and “outright lie” certainly has a definite meaning. An outright lie does not mean an inaccuracy and it does not mean an inexactitude. It means something which is devoid of any truth at all. What do we find, however, in the interim report of the Erasmus Commission which was tabled this week? I quote (p. 16, para. 57): “Gen. Pienaar, the then Comptroller, SADF, testified that during September 1974 at the Second Session of Parliament he sat next to Admiral H. H. Biermann, the then Chief of the Defence Force, in the officials’ bay of the Parliament Building. Mr. P. W. Botha entered and spoke to Admiral Biermann. The latter then learnt over towards him and said that he had to go to the Secretary for Finance, Mr. G. Browne, to arrange for certain funds to be transferred and he authorized it.”

It’s a downright lie, is it?

How can this be a downright lie? There are one or two minuscular discrepancies between the two stories, but it is as close to exactly the same story as I have ever heard. If I understood the hon. the Prime Minister correctly this afternoon, he shouted “Stick to the truth” when the hon. the leader of the Opposition referred to the story. He again cast doubt on his veracity.

Mr. Speaker, what are we to believe? Are we to believe that everything possible is being done to clear up this mess when we face this kind of thing in the House? There are other important outstanding questions, but hon. members will indicate their relief when I say that my time is nearly up. However, before I conclude I want to ask one more major question. What about the liability of R13 million or R16 million to which The Citizen was supposed to have been exposed at the time that the former Prime Minister first knew that it belonged to the Government? I am now referring to the relevant passage in the earlier report of the Erasmus Commission where we were told the reason why the former Prime Minister did not close down The Citizen at once, did not clean it up at once, was, inter alia, that there was a debt of R13 million which The Citizen owed to Perskor and which it might have had to pay.

Now, The Citizen went on merrily for another 10 or 11 months, losing the thick end of R0,5 million a month under the administration of the former Prime Minister. Only then was it sold to Perskor for R2,7 million, an amount of R2,3 million of which represented a debt, and R400 000 of which was stated by Mr. Jooste to be the net asset value of The Citizen at that time. Now, where, into what rabbit’s hat, did the R13 million—or as was elsewhere referred to by the Pretorius Committee as R16 million—disappear? Where did that debt disappear? If The Citizen still owed Perskor between R13 million and R16 million there was no need for Perskor to pay anything for the newspaper at all. Therefore, that amount represented a debt and was not real money. If it did not owe Perskor that amount in the first instance, then it was an even greater crime against South Africa that The Citizen was kept going for those 10 months.

This is the sort of information we need, and before hon. members opposite work themselves into a sweat of indignation about the fact that this scandal does not go away, let them answer that sort of question and a great many more questions too, and let them release a great deal more information. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown has just demonstrated once again in his speech the technique he and his party are applying in the handling of the events surrounding the former Department of Information. I wish to single out one example to illustrate what I mean. The hon. member has once again made an attack on the hon. the Minister of Finance. In his careful fashion— he is much more careful than certain other colleagues of his in that party—he did not attack the findings of the Erasmus Commission, because in its interim report, that commission, has finally proved this hon. Minister to be totally innocent in the eyes of the nation, of the things of which those hon. members have been accusing him in the violent spirit of persecution that appears to have taken possession of them. I congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on the finding. The hon. member for Parktown—cleverly enough, of course—does not attack the findings of the Erasmus Commission. He said immediately that if that was how it was, he had better accept it. However, he then added that in any event, the hon. the Minister of Finance was a very irresponsible Minister because he had not done anything about the situation.

I said that on 7 December last year.

Then the hon. member for Parktown quotes from one solitary letter from Dr. Rhoodie. However, he does not quote from all the other letters that form part of the report, letters that tell a totally different story. The correspondence that forms an annexure to this report tells a story of a Minister whose departmental head—and surely he writes on behalf of the Minister—was constantly objecting to the fact that they were not being properly informed and that they did not know enough. [Interjections.] What is more, the hon. the Minister of Finance surely did not leave matters at that. The hon. member for Parktown surely knows that in 1978 the hon. the Minister introduced legislation in this regard. The history of this correspondence proves that the hon. the Minister of Finance had felt unhappy about the situation and that he had continually insisted that the detailed information should be supplied to him. When he could not succeed, he ultimately dealt with the matter by way of legislation that was passed by this House.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister of Finance has been made an object of revilement and suspicion-mongering in the worst degree. Now hon. members of the PFP are confronted with a report in which the evidence of different people is weighed up, a report in which it is stated that the hon. the Minister of Finance, as indeed all other hon. Ministers and the hon. the Prime Minister, had not been aware of this project or of any irregularities. Now we find however that once again those hon. members do not accept that.

They will never accept it.

Now, my argument is this: We are supposed to cooperate with such people. We have to cooperate with hon. members of the official Opposition who are not prepared to accept the authority and the verdict of a judicial commission but who, for the sake of political gain, continue to undermine the authority of this commission. Then the hon. member for Parktown charges us with having only attacked the hon. Leader of the Opposition this afternoon and with using our attack on him as a lightning conductor. He accuses us of wanting to denigrate the hon. Leader of the Opposition. We do not want to denigrate the hon. Leader of the Opposition. For months now, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has been the chief accuser of the Government in this Information matter. He and his party are the very people who argue that a judicial commission is not good enough. Later in my speech, I shall prove that this is indeed their standpoint.

Consequently, because this is so, the motives of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, his integrity… [Interjections.]

Where is he? Where is Eglin?

Perhaps he has gone to phone McHenry again.

Consequently the motives, the integrity and the loyalty to South Africa of the hon. Leader of the Opposition are very much at issue. After all, he is the chief accuser of the Government, and he fulfils this role in a vehement way and on a terrific scale, contrary to all traditions. Abroad, he is the man—and I shall return to that—who casts aspersions on the integrity of the Government of South Africa and of the South African judiciary.

Therefore we say to the hon. member for Parktown that it is not our desire to denigrate his leader for the sake of political gain, but that our standpoint is that the time has come for his leader’s mask to be ripped off and for the people of South Africa to see who and what are the people who are accusing us as though we have no integrity. We will continue to rip off masks, not with the object of denigrating people but to show how dirty are the hands of the accusers of the Government of South Africa.

The hon. member said in defence of his leader that nothing had been proved in regard to what was said in the course of the conversation. If memory serves, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs in his quotation in the telex, received a report of the conversation that had taken place.

I said nothing wrong had been proved.

Does the hon. member now want to pretend that his hon. leader phoned Mr. McHenry about the situation in Israel or the situation in Vietnam or to inquire about the weather in New York? After a confidential interview with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon. Leader of the Opposition walks out and evidently runs straight to a member of the Western contact group. After that, he picks up the telephone and phones Mr. McHenry, as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has proved. The next day, the hon. member makes a speech with regard to South West Africa in the tone and in accordance with the philosophy of Mr. McHenry. [Interjections.]

Now the hon. member is saying that nothing has been proved. But do they ask for proof when they accuse us in the outside world? I wish to quote once again from the document from which the hon. the Minister of Community Development quoted, to see whether they demand irrefutable proof when they accuse us. The hon. Leader of the Opposition was asked—

The hon. Leader of the Opposition replied as follows—

The hon. member did not say that nothing had been proved against the Government and that they should therefore stop denigrating South Africa. No, Sir, the hon. member said note should be taken of what Rhoodie said—the very same Rhoodie of whom the Erasmus Commission states in paragraph 33 that his evidence was shaky and based on hearsay. About this very same Rhoodie, the Erasmus Commission states in paragraph 49 that on the other hand, they cannot condemn Senator Horwood on the scanty and uncertain evidence of Dr. Rhoodie. The latter is described as “a fugitive before the law in foreign countries, because he knows what the commission’s findings have been in respect of him”.

This is the man whom the hon. Leader of the Opposition calls as a witness against South Africa; this is the man, according to him, whose words are true. Then they tell us that nothing has yet been proved against the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Their entire campaign is based on hearsay, and the more evidence streams in that their campaign is wrong and that the very opposite of what is alleged is true, the more vociferous they are.

I am asking them whether they are prepared to accept this report concerning the non-involvement of the Cabinet with The Citizen and with any irregularities. If they were to have an interview with Mr. Young-husband tomorrow, would they say that a judicial commission had been appointed and that this commission had exonerated the Cabinet and that they were standing by the verdict of that judicial commission? Of course not This afternoon, the hon. Leader of the Opposition started breaking down the authority of that commission.

As I was sitting listening to the speech by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and observing the reactions of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, two facts became evident to me. The first was that the hon. Leader of the Opposition had initially insistently denied that he had phoned McHenry. [Interjections.] Everyone on this side of the House can corroborate what I am saying. We saw him shake his head. When he heard how the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs was unfolding his case and what evidence the hon. the Minister had at his disposal, he rose on a point of personal explanation and admitted that he had phoned McHenry. That places the credibility of the hon. Leader of the Opposition seriously in question, because within a matter of 20 minutes he furnished two different replies to the simple question as to whether or not he had phoned McHenry. At first he said that he had not phoned him, and later he said that he had indeed phoned him.

A second fact became evident, and that was that according to the explanation by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, he had spoken to an ambassador or a member of the Western contact group and had thereafter phoned McHenry. If it was so innocent and if it was a call with good intentions, and if in fact he had the interests of South Africa at heart, I want to ask him whether, knowing full well that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had just informed him of the situation in confidence—I assume that in the conversation with the member of the Western contact group and with McHenry he drew certain conclusions—did he then do the same as the hon. the Minister had done with regard to him? Did he go and tell the hon. the Minister that he had spoken to a member of the Western contact group and to McHenry and that they should have a discussion, as when the hon. the Minister had summoned him to talk about the interests of South Africa? No, he kept silent about it He should be unmasked in this House. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House can draw only one inference: The heart of the hon. Leader of the Opposition is not in any solution to the problems of South Africa unless such solution is accompanied by the downfall of the NP. He and his party are so intent on destroying this Government that they are prepared to do anything as long as it can harm the NP. I am going to try and prove that. The first proof is what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs told us this afternoon and which I prefer to call the “Eglin/McHenry scandal”. [Interjections.] That is the first proof of the recklessness with which that party is prepared to seek the downfall of the NP. The second proof lies in the interview with the magazine Newsweek of 26 March. In reply to a question the hon. Leader of the Opposition stated—

Shame!

What is he saying to the outside world by that, knowing how widely it will be published?

That is entirely true.

He besmirches his own Government. [Interjections.]

He slanders the Government of South Africa and the judiciary of South Africa, because what else is he saying but that the Government will undertake a “cover-up” in respect of the facts? Surely that is what he alleges. Surely it is a blatant statement that the Government will invoke the Official Secrets Act to cover up what has happened with regard to information. I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition: on what grounds does he allege this?

Where is he? [Interjections.]

This matter is sub judice. No decision has yet been taken with regard to the evidence. We stated that in the previous debate and we are saying it again today. On what grounds does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition allege that the Government of South Africa will invoke the Official Secrets Act to suppress the evidence? It was an act of disloyalty to South Africa to say so in that interview. Not only is that tantamount to insulting and slandering the Government; it is also tantamount to insulting and slandering our judiciary.

One cannot defame a Government in law. You should know that.

Are your Butterworths up to date?

One cannot defame a Government in that way. [Interjections.]

The judiciary of South Africa is also being slandered, because in that reply the hon. the Leader of the Opposition states, as indeed he also stated in his speech this afternoon, that regardless of what the finding of the Erasmus Commission might be—he does not know yet what will be in the report of the Erasmus Commission; neither did he know what would be in the interim report; and none of us knows what is going to be in the final report—unless all the evidence was disclosed, there would be no clear proof. By his statement the hon. Leader of the Opposition is saying in advance that he rejects the report of the Erasmus Commission, regardless of what they might say and no matter how they motivate their statement. It cannot be sufficient.

Find out what the Vaderland says.

If that hon. member wishes to refer me to a newspaper to form my own convictions, then I can refer him to what his newspapers say about many matters with which they are out of touch. I can also refer him to the Post Office budget which has just been dealt with. In the course of that debate, the hon. member for Hillbrow said he was shocked at the harsh increases; and what did his own newspaper say? His own newspaper said it was a very good budget.