Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition saw fit to defend himself by way of a Press statement after the dramatic and, for him, probably traumatic debate yesterday afternoon, against the accusations levelled against him by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I must say that having read his explanation I am yet more alarmed than before. After having an opportunity to reflect and plan, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition still failed to deal with the facts of the matter and the accusations.

What facts? They are not facts, they are only lies.

Mr. Speaker, let us analyse the relevant facts, not in an emotional way, but coolly and clinically.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Bryanston said that the hon. the Minister was not referring to facts but to lies. Could the hon. member tell the House to whose lies the hon. the Minister is referring and is the hon. member for Bryanston entitled to maintain that a member of this House told lies?

Order! I must tell the hon. member for Bryanston that I fear that that is the only construction one can place on his words.

I was not referring to the hon. the Minister or to anything he said. The hon. the Minister referred to relevant facts, to which I replied that they were not facts but lies. I did not say that the hon. the Minister told lies.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I am not concerned about that because the facts to which I referred may be lies. However, they are being put forward as facts.

Looking at the facts, I want to begin by referring to yesterday’s Hansard report of the speech by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He said the following—

To that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition replied “No”. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs then said—

However, the Press statement by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentions nothing of this. It does not deal with this direct contradiction. This can only mean one thing and that is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition told an untruth in regard to this aspect or that Mr. Don McHenry did not tell the truth. I now wish to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Did he try to arrange an interview with Dr. Waldheim through Mr. McHenry, “yes” or “no”?

No.

Therefore, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition states that both our official representative at the UN and Mr. McHenry told lies about this matter. [Interjections.]

Secondly, there is the question whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition phoned Mr. McHenry in connection with South West Africa—“yes” or “no”. There is clarity in mis regard now. Under pressure the hon. the Leader of the Opposition admitted it. [Interjections.] However, did he admit it before he was under pressure? As long ago as 10 March 1979 this matter was at issue in the Press. Therefore, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was prepared for it yesterday, because he surely expected the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to refer to this matter. However, according to a report in Die Burger of 10 March 1979, what did he have to say? I quote—

He then denied it and before the pressure became too intense yesterday he again denied it I quote from Hansard. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said—

Later in his speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition again denied it when the hon. the Prime Minister asked, by way of an interjection, while he, viz. the Leader of the Opposition, was engaged in a personal explanation—

Only later did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition reply in the affirmative. [Interjections.] That, then, is the second fact The hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to avoid admitting the fact that he had made a call to Mr. McHenry. This is clear from what I have just quoted to hon. members. [Interjections.] Now we know that his initial denials of this constituted an untruth.

In the third place the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now trying to hide behind his own interpretation of the facts. His interpretation is that his initial denials were not aimed at the question whether he made the telephone call but on the allegation that he had supposedly revealed confidential information to Mr. McHenry. He states that he did not do so. In my opinion this explanation on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a smokescreen.

Your whole speech is a smokescreen.

Let us take another look at Hansard. I have already quoted to the House the extract showing that when the hon. the Minister stated that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had made a telephone call to Mr. McHenry the following morning, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated that that was untrue. That denial was made before the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had said anything about the nature of his objection with regard to the telephone call. The denial by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, by way of an interjection, was solely in respect of the statement that he had made the telephone call. At that stage the subject of the telephone call or what he had said, was not at issue. Further evidence of the fact that the telephone call was suspect and was not intended to be disclosed, is to be found in the fact that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs was not told about it.

That is an untruth.

I shall prove it. Yesterday in this House I asked why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had not informed the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the call. Going through the Hansard of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I found that he had said the following—

On the Monday they visited him. On the Tuesday the call was made, and on the Wednesday they visited him again. The Minister goes on to say—

On Monday, 26 February, and on Wednesday, 28 February, an hon. Minister furnished confidential information to the official Opposition. In the meantime, on Tuesday, 27 February, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke to Mr. Don McHenry, an entirely different party in this vital discussion about what is happening in South West Africa. On Wednesday, 28 February, again during confidential discussions, he did not even mention this to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs… [Interjections.] Why did he not do so? We should like to know from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether he knew of this telephone call. If so, then he, too, failed to mention it. [Interjections.] One would have thought that the Leader of the official Opposition, like the hon. the Minister, would have conveyed his discussion with Mr. McHenry to the hon. the Minister on a confidential basis and would inform him fully for the sake of the interests of South Africa.

That is exactly what was done and you know it.

The allegation that this discussion was so totally innocent does not hold water. Let us take another look at the telegram received by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I quote the telegram from his Hansard—

That is, Mr. McHenry—

Surely this is obvious and crystal clear. Mr. McHenry was referring to statements supposedly made by our Minister of Foreign Affairs, which were brought to his attention by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Reference was made to the hon. the Minister and his references, and not to a member of the Western contact group, to Dr. Waldheim’s statement or to any of these other matters which they now wish to put forward.

Where do you read that?

Mr. McHenry’s problem was that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition discussed with him the statements and references to certain matters made by South Africa’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. I therefore believe that the credibility and trustworthiness of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been destroyed by what we have heard here. [Interjections.] The question is now: What is the PFP going to do about it? I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he has ever needed to phone Mr. McHenry about South West Africa Are he and the hon. member for Sandton satisfied that after a telephone conversation had been conducted with a person like Mr. McHenry, this fact was suppressed entirely during the confidential discussion in the course of which the Minister of Foreign Affairs provided confidential information on matters relating to South West Africa?

Your supposition is entirely wrong.

I am not speaking to the hon. member for Bryanston. We know what replies we can expect from him. We know that in this matter he thinks and feels exactly as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does. We know too that his trustworthiness and his credibility are on precisely the same level as that of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.]

You and your rabble (“gespuis”) can go to the devil.

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must withdraw the word “rabble”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

I am addressing myself to members of the PFP whose credibility and trustworthiness is on a different level. [Interjections.] We are charged with ineffectual conduct with regard to the former Department of Information and with having dragged in this matter across the floor of the House in order to divert attention from the Information affair.

Of course that is their only reason.

I accept the challenge. I want to draw a comparison. When it was ascertained that there were problems in the department of a prominent leader of the NP, that there had been maladministration, that he had not fully informed this House and that he had not taken the Cabinet fully into his confidence, the hon. the Prime Minister asked him to reconsider his position and vacate his post Are the members of the PFP going to display the same courage as the hon. the Prime Minister did and expose one of their people who was involved in a “cover-up” in regard to a telephone call and told an untruth?

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

I do not wish to reply to questions now. Are they going to subject the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the same test and are they going to apply the same high standards which they demanded of us and which we applied with regard to Information, in regard to their leader as well?

Mr. Speaker, I intend associating myself with other speakers, but before I do that I think it would be appropriate for me to add my thanks to that conveyed by so many people to the hon. the Minister of Finance, not only for the budget he introduced, but also for the way in which he has steered the South African economy through very troubled waters during the past extremely difficult years. During this time, and especially during recent months, he has been the target of the most vicious and venomous attacks imaginable against a person of his stature and calibre. That viciousness and those attacks came mainly from the official Opposition and the Press that supports them.

I think if ever there has been a succession of Ministers of a particular portfolio who have distinguished themselves, it was the Ministers of Finance of South Africa In this regard I even include Jan Hofmeyr. N. C. Havenga, T. E. Dӧnges, N. Diederichs and the present hon. Minister of Finance gave South Africa a reputation in the financial world which many larger and richer countries envy us. The present hon. the Minister of Finance is on a par with those I have mentioned, if he does not, in fact, tower above them. It is against this hon. gentleman that the PFP has launched an attack over the past few months which reflects on his integrity, reliability and honesty.

What does Connie Mulder say?

What does your boss, McHenry, say?

And it was launched against a man who has to negotiate on South Africa’s finances with the International Monetary Fund and in various international council chambers at a time when it is difficult for everyone. I think so little of the interjection of that hon. high priest…

Order! The hon. member must address another hon. member as “hon. member”.

Well then, the hon. member for Pinelands. In their attacks on the hon. the Minister of Finance the members of the PFP have not succeeded, in the first place, in getting at him as they would have liked to. However, they might have succeeded in hurting South Africa in the eyes of the financial world, in injuring South Africa. That is what they actually want to do. Their onslaught is no longer on the NP or the Government. The point at issue here is not RX million or RY million. The point at issue is to do irreparable damage to the dispensation in South Africa. That is the point at issue.

Why is their venom, however, aimed primarily at the hon. the Minister of Finance? All other things being equal, it is because he is an English-speaking person of consequence who has taken his place in the National Party Government benches. [Interjections.] I regard this hon. Minister as an Afrikaans English-speaking person here, one of the many of his kind we have in South Africa. The other day I spoke to one of my voters who, I think, voted for the PFP in the last election. He sat in the gallery benches upstairs and made a remark to me about the official Opposition. I told him that the problem was that one no longer had the Tory type of English-speaking South African in the official Opposition. They cannot tolerate the hon. the Minister of Finance because he represents the class of person in South Africa which they would not like to see on the side of the National Party Government.

The hon. the Minister who spoke just before me dealt very effectively with the McHenry case and the part played in it by the Leader of the Opposition. I see the hon. gentleman is not present at the moment. [Interjections.] However, this was not the first time that we were witnesses to questionable actions on the part of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. In 1976 he was the leader of the Progressive Reform Party.

There he comes now!

At the time South Africa was engaged in the war in Angola. He, the hon. member for Rondebosch, the hon. member for Durban Point, the hon. Deputy Minister of Defence, I and others were then in the north of South West Africa as well as in Angola as guests of the Minister of Defence. As I have said, the hon. Leader of the Opposition was there, too. It was a confidential visit and none of the rest of us thought that we would be able to talk about it in public upon our return. But when we arrived here he and the hon. member for Rondebosch, for the sake of petty political gain, tried to steal the limelight by issuing a Press release stating that they had visited the border. I am now talking to the hon. Leader of the Opposition and I should like him to listen. I believe that we arrived here on the Sunday evening and I want to put it to him that he flew to Gaborone on the Monday. I want to ask him what he said in 1976 in Gaborone after we had returned here. I see that he is ignoring me. He is welcome to do so. We are just placing all these things on record.

Now I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Apparently he figured quite prominently in the McHenry case. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said in his explanation that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout accompanied him to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He was also present when his hon. Leader had talks with a senior diplomat of the Five. Now I am asking the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether he knew about the telephone conversation his leader had with McHenry.

I shall reply to that.

Was he present when that telephone conversation took place?

Go and listen to your tape-recording.

The hon. member need only say “yes” or “no”. [Interjections.] Let him say it now. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that it is not only the hon. Leader of the Opposition but a wider circle which is involved with the liaison with foreign powers, abroad as well as at home, on highly secret matters concerning South Africa in these difficult times. I do not believe that I am wrong when I compare them to the Cubans in Africa.

They are the Swapos.

What the Cubans are to Russia, they are to another world power.

With the revelation we had, we also heard that money is paid to speakers who participate in symposiums on South Africa in other countries and especially in the USA. The hon. member for Houghton is, in fact, more often in the USA than in South Africa. She goes there regularly. I think she has approximately 97 groups in the USA with which she liaises. It is the custom in America that members of the American Congress as well as Senators get paid when they appear before audiences or on television.

What will you be worth on that market?

I am not available on that market. However, the hon. member for Houghton is a regular commodity on that market. I want to know from her how much money she gets for each appearance on television or before student audiences in America. I want to know from her whether she receives money for that. There are some people who receive a few thousand dollars for one appearance. Am I right or wrong? I should like to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she receives money for her public appearances on television and before audiences when she visits America from time to time. I put it to her that she gets paid for her speeches and the lectures she delivers. I now want to ask her what she does with that money. Does she declare it to the Reserve Bank? What becomes of all the money? If one looks at exchange control one should surely look at certain people as well. What I am asking her, I should like to ask the hon. member for Pinelands as well. What does he do with the money the Americans pay him for his appearances?

You tell us what happened to all the stolen money. [Interjections.]

The Government stole it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Bryanston entitled to say that the Government stole money?

Mr. Speaker, the former Department of Information…

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on that?

No, the hon. member must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Waterkloof entitled to insinuate that the hon. member for Pinelands and I are contravening exchange control regulations? [Interjections.]

I insinuated nothing, Mr. Speaker. I asked the hon. member whether she…

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: You have not yet given a ruling on the allegation of the hon. member for Bryanston that the Government stole money. [Interjections.]

Order! I am under the impression that the hon. member for Bryanston has withdrawn it.

Mr. Speaker, I have withdrawn it.

Then why do you not walk out? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Waterkloof should be very careful not to make insinuations that the hon. members are deliberately contravening the regulations and are guilty of irregularities with regard to money matters.

Mr. Speaker, I shall look at my Hansard. However, I asked the hon. member for Houghton whether she receives money for her appearances, what she does with it and whether she declares it to the authorities in terms of the law.

Do you ever steal money?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

What is the hon. member for Pinelands with his priestly garb insinuating? [Interjections.]

Yesterday the hon. Leader of the Opposition told this House that the hon. member for Yeoville had drawn up a 90-page memorandum, but the hon. member for Yeoville was conspicuous by his absence during this important debate. He was not present to see his hon. Leader in the greatest mess he has ever been in. Just now he was here for a few minutes, but now he is absent again. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that they presented this 90 page memorandum to the Erasmus Commission. In that memorandum they apparently seek to prescribe to the Erasmus Commission how to do its work and which witnesses to call, etc. I want to say that it is extreme impudence and conceit the official Opposition is displaying by telling a commission of that nature, a commission whose report they do not want to accept, how to do its work.

Why, as they were asked repeatedly, did they not give evidence under oath before that commission? Now the hon. member for Yeoville is absent once again. However, I should like to ask him since when he has known about the financing of The Citizen. I should like to ask him whether he knew in 1977, perhaps before the election, about the financing of The Citizen. I trust that he will reply to these questions of mine at a later stage. I also want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville another question: Last year, when he was a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, did he know about the financing of The Citizen? Did his party know about it? I want to tell his party that some of them knew about it and that is why they shy away from allowing any representative of their party to give evidence before the Erasmus Commission.

That is ridiculous.

That hon. member and his party are ridiculous in everything they do; that is why they are in the position they are in and present the appearance they do.

On Sunday the hon. member for Yeoville made certain insinuations against the former Auditor-General. It was reported on page 2 of the Sunday Times that the hon. member for Yeoville said—

The hon. member for Yeoville is a member of this Parliament and I believe that as a member of this Parliament he has a greater duty as an agent of this Parliament to make public the things he believes should be made public. Now we have the situation that the hon. member for Yeoville, a member of the Select Committee, remained silent on the committee while he apparently had inside information. He remained silent throughout the whole of 1978 until it was made public by someone else. Now I put the question: If he and his party had such pure motives vis-à-vis South Africa as they would have us believe, why, if he already knew it in 1977, did he not make it public at that stage? I also ask the Press why they, if they knew this, did not make it public? Why did the hon. member not mention it last year? Why did they wait until there was a politically opportune moment for them to make the matter public?

Why do you not ask your own people?

Which people?

Not once did the PFP use The Citizen situation in a way which was in the interests of South Africa, but only for one reason, and that was to see whether they could get any political carrion for them to scavenge. I also want to say to them that the other reason why they cling to the straw of The Citizen like a drowning man is because they can in that way very conveniently hide their own inability to create an alternative policy for South Africa as far as the relation ships between the various population groups are concerned. By clinging to the Information scandal as such the official Opposition is diverting the attention of the public from their own weakness and in trying to delay the hon. the Prime Minister’s efforts to revitalize administration and control in South Africa and to effect constitutional changes in this country. At first they probably thought that they were going to make a little political capital out of it. Later they thought that they could get at the Government and individual Ministers. Still later they hoped to bring the NP Government to a fall. I have not yet met anyone in the street, Afrikaans speaking or English speaking, who transferred his political allegiance from the NP to the official Opposition as a result of this Information affair. I do not know of a single vote the official Opposition is going to gain as a result of this whole business. There are people who are worried, who are confused, but definitely not to the benefit of the official Opposition.

I believe—and I want to put it in this way to the hon. the Prime Minister—that we should now get away from the Information affair. The public is sick and tired of it. An English-speaking newspaper reader told me that when he reads his newspaper and comes to a page where the Information affair is reported, he merely pages past it. He no longer reads about the Information affair. The public wants to get away from the Information affair. The economists, the industrialists, the financiers are all saying to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government, “Get on with the job”. Therefore I believe that if there is any decency left in hon. members of the official Opposition after this debate, they will keep quiet about the Information affair.

Wishful thinking!

They have sucked from it what they could. We can, therefore, proceed with our task. I want to ask the hon. official Opposition—and I think that they will have to take a very clear stand on this matter in this debate—whether they recognize the principle in Western governments that secret funds should be available to the Government. Do they recognize that principle? Do they recognize the principle of secret funds? Now there is deathly silence. Do they recognize the principle? [Interjections.]

If we consider what the Government has done it is very difficult.

Do hon. members of the official Opposition recognize the principle that secret funds should be available to a modern state to conduct certain matters in the interests of the State? [Interjections.] In Britain that system has been in existence for centuries. All the Western European countries and Imperial Russia had that system. In all those countries provision was made in some way or other for the appropriation and spending of secret funds. Hon. members of the PFP referred to the amount of R65 million. Surely it is not R65 million which is, as they say, “down the drain”, which…

It is much more.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg says it is much more. I challenge him now to say how much.

Considerably more! [Interjections.]

What does the hon. member for Wynberg know? It is this type of rumour that they tell to everyone, that they spread abroad. It is this type of story that they spread in the USA and that they spread everywhere they go. [Interjections.] I now challenge the hon. member to tell us how much. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Wynberg said it is far more than R65 million. However, he cannot tell us how much it is. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members can say what they want to say in their speeches.

If a principle of secret funds exists, the hon. official Opposition should now reach the stage where, with the responsibility which they ought to have as the official Opposition of South Africa, they begin to remain silent on secret projects which they know about, projects which have been undertaken legally and which have been demonstrated in a legal way, but which, as they know, could do South Africa a great deal of harm if they are made known. I believe that they are now obliged, and owe it to this House to inform the hon. the Minister of Finance and the Government as such very clearly of their standpoint in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member for Waterberg expects me to reply to his trivialities. I could just mention two examples of these. He said that the PFP does not have an alternative policy. In reality we are the only party in this House that has worked out a comprehensive constitutional plan. [Interjections.] He says that we should keep quiet about the Information scandal. However, it is the Government which is tabling one blue book after another. And then the hon. member wants us to keep quiet about it. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications tried to prove that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was trying to evade the issue of the McHenry call. I was in the House when the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs asked whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had made a call to McHenry on a specific morning. I heard the reply. In the uproar in the House it was of course not possible for Hansard to record it. [Interjections.] But the reply was: “No, it was the following afternoon.” [Interjections.] I heard it myself. However, it is unimportant, because weeks ago the Press in the North published the story that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had telephoned Mr. McHenry. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not deny it but issued a statement on the matter. [Interjections.] Consequently these were mere debating points which this Minister was trying to score. I should like to return to the crux of the matter. [Interjections.]

It would have been fairer of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to have levelled his charge at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition before the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had availed himself of his turn to speak in this debate. It is in the interests of Parliament that the charge which was made here should be cleared up properly. Consequently it is a pity that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not in the position to reply to the charge against him at once and in full in this House. [Interjections.] Before I examine the charge of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs now, I should just like to sketch the facts of the events, as far as they are known to me.

Monday, 26 February, was the day on which Dr. Waldheim was to have published his report in New York on a settlement in respect of South West Africa. On the afternoon of 26 February we asked the Government here in this House whether they would make a copy of that report available to us as soon as it was published in New York. The hon. the Prime Minister indicated to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he would do so. At 17h30 on the afternoon of 26 February the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs met the leaders of the various Opposition parties as well as their spokesman on foreign affairs in his office at his request. The hon. the Minister then handed us a copy of the report and explained to us frankly and in detail the background to what had happened, both here with the negotiations as well as in New York with the compiling of the report. He also told us what deviations the Government had seen in the report, and what objections the Government had to them. We appreciated the frankness of the hon. the Minister. In fact, before the hon. the Minister spoke yesterday, and consequently before I knew what he would say, I sat in this House and made notes for my speech this afternoon. I find, inter alia, that I jotted down the following: “Since the present hon. Prime Minister took over, Parliament is being taken into consideration far better as a Parliament on the question of South West Africa, for example; and the immediate result has already been a far better understanding of what the Government is trying to achieve in a matter which is of vital importance to all of us in South Africa. This is how Parliament should work.” I am mentioning this because I wanted to express appreciation for the approach of the hon. the Prime Minister and of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to this matter.

After the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had briefed us there in this office on the afternoon of 26 February we were upset and unhappy about the attitude of the five Western countries. We were openly critical. In my opinion it is necessary at this stage to distinguish between two matters. In the first place it must be borne in mind that the Waldheim Report, which the hon. the Minister presented to us that afternoon, was by that time already a public document and had already been released in New York for everyone to read. There was nothing confidential about it. The background information with which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs furnished us, was obviously confidential. Back in our office we studied the report carefully, compared it with the Western proposals, with the schedule at the back of the Western proposals as well as with other documents dealing with South West Africa. I repeat that we were not satisfied with the turn in events and the uncertainty which had arisen over the question of the monitoring of Swapo bases outside South West Africa and the establishment of Swapo camps or bases within South West Africa

Why did you not raise it in debates?

We expressed our dissatisfaction here in this House. We then decided to hold an open discussion with the German ambassador, Mr. Eick—I would not have mentioned his name if he had not been referred to yesterday—on the position of the West. This discussion took place the next morning. Mr. Eick occupies a leading position in regard to the settlement negotiations with South West Africa Our talks with ambassador Eick were based entirely on the published report. I was present throughout, and there was no breach of confidence as far as any confidential information with which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had furnished us was concerned. Mr. Eick simply explained to us what the standpoints of the West were and what problems they had to contend with. He also explained to us what their interpretation of the Waldheim report was, and I wish to leave the entire matter at that.

May I ask a question?

Unfortunately I do not have enough time. But what I can say is that we made the ambassador very thoroughly aware of our concern as well as of our criticism of the report. Later that afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had a telephone conversation with Mr. McHenry.

Why?

I was not present then, and I do not want to testify on anything at which I was not present I cannot say with any degree of accuracy what that conversation was all about. Only the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can do that, and he will do so when the opportunity presents itself. All that I can report is that he informed me that he had spoken to Mr. McHenry, and had asked him for a clarification of the standpoint of the West. But even that did not solve the problems which we had with regard to the standpoint of the West In my presence there was never any question about the word of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs not being accepted or that anyone was checking up on him. All the conversations I can testify to concerned the Waldheim report and the deviations in regard to the agreement with the West We then thought it wise to hold another discussion with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs the next morning. On that occasion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned to the hon. the Minister in my presence that we had had a discussion “with an envoy of the West” and that he had also “been in touch with New York”. Yesterday the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs charged the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with having committed a breach of confidence. I want to concede at once that if it is true that there was a breach of confidence and if it can be proved that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was guilty of such a breach of confidence, it must undoubtedly affect his position. Yesterday, however, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs was not clear on this matter. I am certain that he cannot and will not consider it to be a breach of confidence that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or any other person discussed the standpoint of the West with one of the Western ambassadors in South Africa on the basis of a public document Surely that would be absurd. [Interjections.] Why are hon. members so excited now? I listened without interjecting to all the questions from the opposite side of the House. Western leaders come to South Africa and talk to representatives of all the political parties, and the same applies to South West Africa. We in our turn talk to them when we consider it necessary in order to be kept informed. It is general practice that the foreign affairs group of all the political parties maintain contact with all the countries which are represented in South Africa, and it happens very frequently that Western representatives and foreign visitors address the foreign affairs group of the various parties on the standpoints of their respective countries. Consequently there can be no charge of a breach of confidence having been committed in respect of our conversation with ambassador Eick. It was not clear to me from the hon. the Minister’s speech whether he considered the mere fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke to Mr. McHenry as a breach of confidence. I shall be surprised if that is the case.

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs made the unusual statement that Mr. McHenry is an “enemy” of South Africa. In this connection I want to ask him whether that means that for that reason one is not allowed to talk to him? If that is the case, the question must also be asked who is then the most guilty party, the Leader of the Opposition and others who talk to Mr. McHenry, or the Government and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the parties in South West Africa that talk to and negotiate with him? Surely one is then negotiating with enemies of South Africa. I can arrive at only one conclusion, and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs can tell me whether I understand the position correctly. The reason is not that a specific party spoke to Western leaders, because it would be nonsensical if that could not happen. Then Parliament may as well be closed down. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs whether the charge which he is levelling at the Leader of the Opposition is that the Leader of the Opposition, in his conversation with Mr. McHenry, disclosed information of a confidential nature. Is that the crux of the matter? Am I correct when I say that that is the charge?

That is correct.

If it is so that confidential information was used in a conversation with people, the hon. the Minister did not produce any convincing proof yesterday. That is my honest opinion. Then it becomes the duty of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, it is expected of him, to present such proof to this House immediately. The hon. the Minister referred to the telegram which he received from our charge d’affaires in New York, Mr. Eksteen, on 28 February. What he quoted from that telegram was vague, and it is strange that almost six weeks have elapsed since the hon. Minister became aware of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition spoke to Mr. McHenry. During this period the hon. the Prime Minister made a long statement in the House on the Government’s reply to Dr. Waldheim on 6 March. On 8 March the Leader of the Opposition, during the debate on the Part Appropriation made a detailed policy statement on South West Africa on behalf of the PFP in this House. Inter alia, he said the following about the standpoint of the PFP. (Hansard 1979, col. 2043)—

Our entire attitude was one of criticism of the Western attitude. I am quoting this because this was the spirit in which we spoke to Western representatives. On 8 March, that same day, I myself discussed the South West African matter, and my whole theme was that we should stand by the people of South West Africa and, in any case, that Swapo did not have a leg to stand on, that it was not necessary to wage war, that freedom and independence were being offered to them on a plate and that if they did not accept it, they should not come and complain if we turned them away. I am mentioning this to indicate what the spirit of this party was in the handling of its affairs and in the talks which it had with Western leaders. My actual point is that the hon. the Prime Minister spoke here again on South West Africa again on 8 March. Why, therefore, was the kind of charge which was levelled yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs not levelled during that entire period of six weeks? [Interjections.]

Order!

No, in all the debates which we held on South West Africa, there was never any such charge. Yesterday, however, it suddenly became important to come forward with the charge that there had been a breach of confidence. [Interjections.] Do those hon. members therefore reproach us if it is clear to everyone that it was merely a lightning conductor to get away from the criticism being levelled at the Government on the Information scandal? [Interjections.]

I want to emphasize that as far as my knowledge of the matter which the hon. the Minister raised here extends, the conversations on South West Africa with the Western leaders concerned the Waldheim report and not any confidential information which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs gave to the leaders and to the spokesmen on foreign affairs of the party. It is the right and the duty of every political party to ensure that it remains well-informed about matters pertaining to the South West African issue, and we shall continue to exercise that right and that duty in the interests of South Africa.

It is now the duty of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, if he has any significant evidence that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition misused confidential information given to him, to give that evidence to the House so that it can be dealt with. [Interjections.] Until he does so, however, his attempt must be regarded as an attempt to divert criticism from the Government. [Interjections.] In fact it was the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself who lashed out at “ rumour-mongering” about the Information scandal.

Yours will not go away!

He charged the Opposition with engaging in rumour-mongering. There are rumours. Rumours are rife in the country but who did they come from? Has anyone been able to lay his finger on a rumour from this side?

Yes.

How many times have they not been challenged! Let the next speaker rise to his feet and state to what they are referring.

Harry gossipped to the newspaper on Sunday!

The problem is, and the Nationalists realize it today—that the Information scandal is not based on rumours. It is not being artificially fanned by the Opposition or the Press. The Opposition is not responsible for the dispute between Dr. Rhoodie and the Government. We are not responsible for the dispute between Gen. Van den Bergh and his supporters and the Government. We are not responsible for the vendetta between Dr. Mulder and the former Prime Minister, something which is causing so much tension and division on the opposite side. All we did was to warn that all attempts at a cover-up would fail and that in the end the full extent of the mischief would be revealed, as it is in fact being revealed. Because the public realizes that the Information issue…

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

No, I only have three minutes left. [Interjections.] The public realizes that the issue goes much deeper. It goes to the roots of good and clean government in South Africa; it goes to the roots of trustworthy political leadership at the head as well as our highest traditions and practices in Parliament. Nowhere does this realization emerge more clearly than in statements made by Government supporters and commentators themselves. Every day they say what it is that is troubling them. To give one example I want to quote from a statement by Dr. Wimpie de Klerk of Die Transvaler—

That is the problem. The problem is not who knew what and when. It may be important, but the actual issue goes much deeper. As Dr. De Klerk put it—

Hon. members speak of something that will not go away. In this connection I want to say that there is no doubt that like “Old Man River”, the Information scandal “will keep rolling along”—and it does not lie with us—until the Government takes steps against everyone who was responsible for the scandal. Actually it concerns only two people, the one has gone for a loop, namely Dr. Mulder, and the other is sitting in Groote Schuur.

Order! The hon. member cannot venture into that sphere.

Sir, I may refer to a former Prime Minister. It has nothing to do with the State President as such. I am speaking about the then Prime Minister who sat in this Parliament.

Order!

Who is sitting in Groote Schuur?

Yes, he is sitting in Groote Schuur, and he is guilty. He is responsible for the whole thing.

Order! The hon. member is not obeying the Chair. The person who lives in Groote Schuur is the State President.

But he was then Prime Minister.

Order! The hon. member must stay away from that subject.

Sir, I will and I must discuss that matter because he was the Prime Minister at the time. I am saying nothing about the State President. You cannot prevent me from discussing the then Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order…

I am referring to Mr. Vorster.

Order! The hon. the Minister wishes to raise a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the hon. member is disregarding and evading your ruling.

Order! The hon. member must obey the Chair and must not argue with the Chair.

My time is up in any case…

Order! I must reprimand the hon. the member. He argued with the Chair and consequently he must resume his seat. I just want to tell hon. members that, as far as the former hon. Prime Minister is concerned, I shall only allow evidence and matters which have not previously been raised. I shall no longer allow any further references to matters that have already been raised. If something new is raised, it will be allowed, but then it should be strictly applicable to the former Government and to the head of the former Government. It must have nothing to do with the State President.

Mr. Speaker, I have known the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for a good number of years and I must confess that, while he was speaking today, I had a great deal of sympathy for him in that he had the impossible task of attempting to whitewash what his leader has done, something which in our opinion can only be considered a disgraceful action. The hon. member must tell us whether he expects us on this side to accept his bona fides regarding the explanation he has given us here. If he does expect that, why does he not in his turn accept the bona fides of the hon. the Minister of Finance when he explains his position in regard to the Information affair? This is typical of what one gets from the Opposition. I must point out, too, that despite all the words the hon. member uttered here, he still has not told us why his leader found it necessary to telephone Mr. McHenry in the USA. He could get all the information he required from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs who took him into his confidence. Why then does he still telephone Mr. McHenry? The answer to that we have not heard yet and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has not told us either. We are hoping, however, that during the Third Reading of this Bill the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will pluck up the courage to give us some explanation of that.

Mr. Speaker, there is a mythical tale of a dragon that was slain after which his teeth, having been extracted, were sown. From those teeth there grew a crop of wreckers whose purpose was to wreak vengeance on the slayer of the dragon. I am sure, Sir, you will agree with me that the exhibition we have seen in Parliament from the official Opposition and its leader is a close parallel to that fable. In the past two sessions of this Parliament and again in this session they have appeared as wreckers of the ship of State of South Africa. Like piranhas that smell blood in the water, they snipe at anybody and at everything. Being bankrupt of any policy or constructive approach to the affairs of our country, the Information debacle is political manna to them. Since the earliest discussions last year, it has been clear that they would stop at nothing to bring this Government, and everything it stands for, to a fall.

Now they even question the findings of a judicial commission, and by innuendo they try to infer, as has been done by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, that it is a grand cover-up. So low are their political standards that through all these debates they have tried to pull the former Prime Minister into their political mud-bath. Why? Because in the person of the former Prime Minister all national groups in South Africa were united as a people as never before in our history. To destroy the solidarity of our nation of English and Afrikaans speakers, of White and non-White, they have attempted by insidious means to demean his person. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that they will not succeed in this. Millions of rand have been spent over the past years, money which has been voted by this House with the support of the hon. members of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, with the aid of the Opposition in the past five or six years, millions of rand, apart from that spent on secret operations, have been spent on the dissemination of information to present South Africa and its policies to the world.

[Inaudible.]

A great deal of this money was expended to combat adverse propaganda against South Africa, which the official Opposition… [Interjections.] I wish to give the House and the country proof of what South Africa faces abroad through the action of traitors within its own borders when we talk about the problems in connection with Information matters and the millions we have had to spend to combat this type of propaganda which, as I have alleged, stems mostly from within our own midst. Before doing so, however, it is necessary for me to illustrate the abhorrence of our people towards a man who denies his own country and blasphemes against it before millions of people. At the same time I also want to illustrate that our people, particularly our youth, have not lost faith neither in the policies nor the leaders of this party. A few nights ago I was invited by a friend to accompany him to a closed meeting which was to be addressed by Gen. Van den Bergh. I accepted the invitation.

*There were approximately 500 people present at this closed meeting and most of them were young people, for example academics, lawyers and businessmen, and they came to listen in order to keep abreast of matters concerning the interests of the country. I listened with those approximately 500 people to a speech by Gen. Van den Bergh which lasted more than an hour. Many wild allegations were made. He launched attacks on the Press, inter alia, the Afrikaans Press, during which Beeld was described as the best Afrikaans communist newspaper in the country. His whole speech created the impression that Eschel Rhoodie remains a sort of hero and that the Government has wronged him. After Gen. Van den Bergh had made his speech, the chairman gave the audience the opportunity to put questions. I shall not tell the House everything Gen. Van den Bergh said on that occasion, but he said a great deal. Many questions were put to him, and one of the last questions put to him was whether he had ever said or whether it had ever been published that he was of the opinion that a monument should be erected to Eschel Rhoodie. He admitted that he had said so. The questioner then put another question. He asked the general whether he was still of that opinion after Eschel Rhoodie’s television appearance which was broadcast by the SABC, and whether his attitude is still the same as it was then, viz. that a monument should be erected to what the questioner had described as a “traitor”. When he described Eschel Rhoodie as a traitor, there was tremendous applause from that audience, an audience of almost 500 people. To me personally this was encouraging. I am telling the House what happened there, in order to illustrate how the general public feel when their White nationhood is called into question, even by a born South African.

†The tragedy is, of course, that Eschel Rhoodie was ever placed in the position he held in our administration.

And who appointed him? Your Government

I now want to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition a very important question. My own opinion of Eschel Rhoodie, after listening to that television broadcast, was that he was a “landsverraaier”, a traitor to his people. I want to know from the hon. Leader of the Opposition whether he shared the same feeling when he looked at that television broadcast. Now he is quiet. Mr. Speaker, that is what we have to deal with in South Africa. The feeling of the hon. Leader of the Opposition is not strong enough for him to answer with a definite yes or no. However, he will align himself now with the great enemy, the enemy he uses to further his own ends in this Information debacle. He now aligns himself with that enemy simply to attack the Government. When it comes to answering the question of what his opinion is of Eschel Rhoodie and his “optrede na buite”, he sits quietly there without saying a word. [Interjections.] Arising out of what I have related about the meeting I attended, I want to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition a couple of other questions. I want him to tell us whether he at any time discussed his visits to African countries with Eschel Rhoodie. You see, Mr. Speaker, all we get again is that silly, nervous little grin. [Interjections.] I also want to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition whether he or any of his associates is in possession of a set of tape recordings prepared by Eschel Rhoodie. If he is not in possession of a set of tape recordings, I want him to tell us whether he has a transcript of such a set of tapes. There we have the silly little grin again. [Interjections.] If he cannot answer that, I will put another question to him. In his speech yesterday the hon. Leader of the Opposition stated that he and his party had submitted a 90-page memorandum to the Erasmus Commission. If he submitted a 90-page memorandum to the Erasmus Commission it must be a memorandum based on one of two aspects. In the first instance, if he had had no contact with the defunct Department of Information or with anybody involved in the Information debacle, his memorandum must be purely based on hearsay evidence. Secondly, if it is not based on hearsay evidence, it must be based on evidence extracted and submitted by him to the Erasmus Commission, evidence given to him by persons known or unknown to the commission. I want to know from the hon. Leader of the Opposition why he does not tell us what the case was that he submitted in his memorandum to the Erasmus Commission. [Interjections.]

Then I want to ask him an additional question. The hon. Leader of the Opposition must be careful now. Who was his pilot in Zaïre? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I am referring to this with a specific purpose. I have referred to this because I would like hon. members of this House to judge for themselves today whether an article written by an hon. member of this House, an article which has been widely published overseas this year, while the hon. Leader of the Opposition was attacking the Government on the Information scandal—and let me add that that article has been published in an internationally circulated magazine—does not fall into the same category in which I have placed Eschel Rhoodie. I want to ask the House to judge whether this article, of which I intend giving some of the contents, does not fall into the same category in which I have placed Eschel Rhoodie. I am not going to tax Hansard by quoting lengthy extracts, but I am going to tell the House what the article contains. It blasphemes and sketches the White Government of our country as people without feeling for the Blacks and as oppressors of their political aspirations. It sketches the picture of a police-dominated State. Let me quote—

This article tells the story of a homeland leader who refused to opt for independence. It tells the whole wide world outside how, because he refused to opt for independence, “this country of White oppressors, the White Government, closed the doors to him”. It also tells how networks of agents were established to operate in Black urban townships and how persuasion became murder. That is written by an hon. member of this House. [Interjections.] It tells how this homeland leader…

Mr. Speaker… [Interjections.]

… was taken from the place of custody and hanged by the neck until he was dead. This hon. member writes of intimidation and murder by Blacks of Whites. He also writes of a world applying sanctions against South Africa. He writes of Blacks being the captives of Whites in South Africa Finally, he concludes this article, published in an internationally circulated magazine under his own name as a member of the South African Parliament, with a reference to “insensitive Whites who would like to shoot the lot of them”, in other words the Blacks. In the concluding paragraph the hero, who is White, says with reference to the Blacks—

[Interjections.] All of this was written and published by an hon. member of this House. What is worse is that in a Press interview after publication of this article, an interview conducted in South Africa, he said to the Press and to South Africa: “That does not mean it could not happen. With pressure on South Africa…” [Interjections.]

You are lying!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; May the hon. member use the words “you are lying” in this House?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words. Let me say it is untrue.

The hon. member must withdraw the words unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words unconditionally. Sir, may I raise a point of explanation… [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member confirmed this in an interview he gave to the Press in South Africa when he said—

[Interjections.] What description would hon. members give of a man who writes and publishes this type of propaganda against his country? Are hon. members then surprised that the hon. member for Sandton from his seat makes interjections across the floor of this House? In his own conscience he should be ashamed of himself, and he should be expelled by his party and also from this House. Then the hon. member still has the audacity to append his signature to a petition for the impeachment of our President.

You are a cheap hack!

Mr. Speaker, it is beyond my comprehension that the Leader of the Opposition can sit there and make the type of speech…

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may the hon. member refer to another hon. member as a “cheap hack”?

That is a compliment.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

One is filled with indignation and disgust when one has to read this type of thing whilst attacks are being made by those people on the former Department of Information. Is there not any truth in the statement that the majority of the adverse propaganda we have to face overseas emanates from that party and the newspapers that support them? I hope that South Africa will judge on this. I have the article here. It is called The Orderly, written by Dave Dalling and published in the publication Punch which is circulated to readers throughout the Western world. This is what he writes about his country, this is what he tells the world about his own people, and this is the impression and type of propaganda he tries to make. In terms of the rules of the House I am not entitled to call the hon. member a traitor to his people, but I shall leave with hon. members the parallel between Eschel Rhoodie and him.

You were paid 30 silver pieces! [Interjections.]

I had something else to add, but my time is running out. I shall now leave the matter with the hon. member for Sandton and his party. We shall wait to see if any other member of his party can defend what I have quoted from this article today. Let us hear if any one of them will get up to defend him. Let the hon. member for Sandton get up and justify any single word written in this article. Let him get up and say it is justifiable propaganda against his country. [Interjections.]

You have not even read the article.

I think that every single honest member of this House…

What do they pay you for such an article, Dalling?

Thirty silver pieces.

There was another issue that I wanted to raise here, but my time has run out and I shall therefore leave it for another occasion.

Mr. Speaker, may I address the House on a point of personal explanation?

Order! No.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has ended his speech, and he made statements impugning my character. I therefore ask you to allow me to say something on a point of personal explanation. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, there are members in the House saying “landsverraaier” at this moment, and you are not calling them to order.

Order! The hon. member for Sandton should have risen to make his point of personal explanation while the hon. member for Von Brandis was speaking.

I tried to, Sir, but…

Order! He had already resumed his seat.

With respect, Sir, I rose on a point of personal explanation, but the hon. member refused to yield.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: That is precisely what happened. The hon. member for Sandton rose to his feet and asked whether he could rise on a point of personal explanation. The hon. member who was speaking, said he was not prepared to afford the hon. member an opportunity to do so during his speech and then my hon. colleague had to resume his seat. That is precisely what happened.

Order! I am taking into account the fact that this debate will continue until Friday and that the hon. member for Sandton has not yet participated in the debate, and that he will therefore still have an opportunity to react to this specific matter. Therefore I cannot afford him an opportunity to rise on a point of personal explanation now.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you briefly on this? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may address me briefly.

Mr. Speaker, I have not been allocated a turn to speak in this debate. I therefore wish to rise on a point of personal explanation now. Mr. Speaker, I believe in these circumstances it is your duty to protect the rights of an individual member and I ask that right now.

Order! The rule is very clear in this regard. The rule is that any hon. member may rise on a point of personal explanation when what he has said in debate is, to his mind, quoted wrongly. This is, however, not one of those instances. This is a matter of debate and not one which I consider to fall under the rule of personal explanation.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Sandton should hide his head in the sand after this disgraceful article of his which we heard about in the House today. I think the hon. member should rather remain silent. The less he says about the matter the better for him.

This afternoon we had the amusing situation in this House that the hon. Leader of the Opposition, who for months has posed as the sacrosanct prosecutor, was sitting in the dock. The political reporter of Die Burger described this very aptly this morning when he put it as follows—

Seldom in the history of this Parliament has a Leader of the Opposition received such a beating as the hon. Leader of the Opposition received here yesterday and today. I am not a prophet, but I want to predict that this is not yet the end of the story. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is still going to receive many blows on this matter in future. After we have finished with him here in this House, the general public will still deal with him. They will deal with him at the polls in the coming by-elections. He can make denials till he is blue in the face, but the one indisputable fact remains, and that is that he is in league with the enemies of South Africa. In this case he liaised with a man who, because of his statements and his actions, most certainly cannot be regarded as a friend of South Africa. Mr. Don McHenry is a man who obviously cannot be exonerated of plotting against South Africa. I notice that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not in this House and, therefore, I hope that other hon. members of his party will inform him of a question which I want to put to him. I want to ask him: What is he plotting together with Mr. McHenry? When the occasion presents itself, will the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tell this House what he is discussing with Mr. McHenry? What was so urgent in this matter that he had to go and ’phone Mr. McHenry? Does he often converse with Mr. McHenry, and what do they discuss when they converse with each other? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition alone can clear the air if, on this matter, he puts his cards on the table. In recent months he has rubbed many things concerning the Information matter into us. Now he has to take his own medicine. A “cover-up” will not help the hon. Leader of the Opposition. A “cover-up” of this matter will only lead to an Eglingate. This incident has now brought to light very clearly that the Opposition Leader is conniving with enemies of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is that hon. member allowed to say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has dealings with the enemies of South Africa? [Interjections.] Is he allowed to say “he is conniving with the enemies of South Africa”?

Order! It has been ruled that that expression is unparliamentary and the hon. member must therefore withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. But then I want to say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition conducts improper discussions with the enemies of South Africa.

So does the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, then!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition acknowledged that he had telephoned Mr. McHenry. However, it is a reflection on him that he initially denied in an interjection here, in front of all of us, that he had not telephoned Mr. McHenry whereas after he subsequently, in an explanation to this hon. House, acknowledged that he had done so, probably after he had seen what evidence the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had to submit. When he saw that he was being driven into a comer, he scampered back. That is why the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition disappeared from this House. He went to consult his advisers and hurried to issue a denial to the news media, a denial that he had submitted confidential information to Mr. McHenry.

I do not want to go into the facts of the matter any further. It has already been properly dealt with by others and will be taken even further. However, in the eyes of the nation, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will not be able to escape the fact that he has been talking to the enemies of South Africa.

So does the Prime Minister!

This is not the first time that this hon. Leader and other members of his party have done things which caused loyal South Africans to raise their eyebrows. This question can rightly be put: Can one trust an Opposition Leader who does such things? Can one afford to have a man whom one cannot trust, in the position of Leader of the Opposition? The hon. Leader of the Opposition’s position is an important one because he is the man who is supposed to take over the reins of Government of this country if there were a change of government in this country. But may the good Lord protect us from that ever happening!

We appreciate the performance of the hon. Leader of the NRP. The hon. Leader expressed his shock at the actions of the Opposition Leader and said that he and his party dissociate themselves from them, unless the allegations can be proved wrong. The small official Opposition is on its own in this matter. In the past the PFP have often let the people of South Africa wonder what their extra-parliamentary and foreign connections were. They are forever abroad, speaking to world leaders.

Who pays for that?

They are globe trotters. Who pays for that, we do not know. We can only wonder. I want to challenge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and anyone else in this party to tell us here today what they tell foreign leaders when they are abroad as so often happens. They keep this secret very well.

It is no secret. We are prepared to tell you at any time.

When he gets his chance to speak the hon. member may as well tell us then what they tell foreign leaders. However, I hope that they will be honest then.

Of course…

It will be particularly interesting to hear what the hon. member for Houghton tells all her leftist friends in the outside world. We know that she is very loquacious and that she is very often honest. I should just like to quote from The Argus of 5 July 1977. According to a report in that newspaper she stated—

Correct.

She says that that is correct. We are pleased that she is honest in this matter.

I say it again.

Here she is calling in the assistance of a foreign, external power to exert pressure on us to change our policy in this country.

Are they our enemy?

Sir, is it the policy or strategy of that party to act in this way?

Is it your policy to call the USA an enemy of South Africa? That is really smart!

You are a danger to this country.

Mr. Speaker, we want to ask the official Opposition what they tell the Black leaders of Africa when, as so often happens, they pay visits to African countries. We hear that some of the Black leaders laugh at them behind their backs. One can only be grateful for that. We also want to ask them what they tell the non-White leaders of South Africa. They very often have meetings with those people and we know that things sometimes hatch out as a result. What do they tell the non-White leaders of South Africa?

We have already invited people from your party to be present, there, but they refused. You are afraid of hearing the truth.

Mr. Speaker, if that hon. member would only keep quiet, he would hear the truth. According to all indications the PFP is playing a part in the outside world as well as behind locked doors in South Africa, which cannot bear the light of day. The question often occurs to one and is often put in South Africa as well: Are the PFP really South African-orientated?

Never!

Surely it is no secret that the heart of that party is not in this Parliament. They want to act outside of Parliament to force the Government in a certain direction. They are already waging the battle outside of Parliament. Perhaps they already have an external wing as Swapo does. I want to ask the loquacious hon. member for Bryanston to stand up and to tell us whether they already have an external wing.

No. Next question!

The hon. member for Houghton let the cat out of the bag as far back as 1973 when she stated in an interview with the Sunday Express—

Where does this come from? I maintain that the extra-parliamentary wings of the PFP have joined forces and decided not to leave this Government alone on the Information matter, irrespective of what reports are tabled in this House. I maintain that an extra-parliamentary plot has been devised against this Government, a plot which has only one aim and that is to slander this Government to death and to continue doing so till the Government has been brought to a fall.

Do you have any evidence to substantiate this?

For months that hon. member was unable to testify. Now he has the temerity to ask whether we have any evidence. It is no longer of any avail for honourable leaders to deny allegations hurled at them. Even statements under oath are not accepted by certain leftist groups and certain leftist newspapers. A good example of this is the way in which certain leftist newspapers have dealt with the most recent Erasmus Commission report. From the way they have dealt with it it is very clear that the report does not suit them at all.

Dr. Rhoodie is committing the greatest injustice against South Africa in the outside world, but he is not reprimanded by the Opposition for that He is encouraged by newspapers in South Africa and is almost being presented as a hero of the people.

You appointed him.

Order! I do not want to say that the hon. member for Bryanston is abusing the privilege of making interjections, but he is not making proper use of that privilege either. He is not the only hon. member in this House and he should contain himself to a far greater extent in this regard.

That hon. member has been hurt; that is why he is howling so. The Erasmus Commission report which we received yesterday, set the Opposition a great test. Now we shall see how great or how small the Opposition really is. For months they had the opportunity of ranting and raving to their heart’s content on the shame and disgrace of the NP Government They squeezed every drop of political advantage from it. However, they must now realize that we have all had enough of it. The people are sick and tired of the Information scandal. A week ago I addressed a meeting where I was told from all sides that we should now put a stop to the Information matter. What do we do? We act. A report is issued, but it is not accepted by those hon. members. They do not want to accept it, because they know that when the dust has settled on the Information matter, they are doomed as a politically bankrupt party. [Interjections.] The Erasmus Commission was given special terms of reference to examine the involvement of the present Cabinet and the commission completely exonerated the members of the Cabinet.

It has not been proved.

The commission found that the hands of the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet are clean. Now the test comes for the Opposition. Now we shall see whether the hon. Leader of the Opposition has the interests of South Africa at heart or whether he is simply in pursuit of petty political gain. We shall now see whether he will afford the hon. the Prime Minister the opportunity of carrying out the spectacular things which he announced.

On his assumption of office the hon. the Prime Minister instilled new momentum and new dynamism into the course of affairs in South Africa with a fresh and positive approach. After all, we saw it here; we experienced it. Mr. Botha brought a new vision for South Africa of great things that he wants to do for our country, but he is constantly being handicapped by an Opposition who wants to keep us in the mud because they like being in the mud.

In the economic sphere South Africa is on the threshold of growth and prosperity. There is new foreign interest in the business potential of our country. Our businessmen are speaking of the golden years that await us. However, the Opposition is stuck in the Information morass and they want to keep us there with them. As it has again appeared from this debate, the Opposition does not want to give the Government the opportunity to continue with the great task of South Africa. They want to keep on scavenging off the political tidbit that Information has given them. We can understand why the Opposition did not want to accept the challenge of the hon. the Prime Minister, viz. to have their gossip, because that is all they have, tested before the Erasmus Commission. For weeks they carefully avoided that issue. Not one of them dared appear before the Erasmus Commission. However, after this most recent report it is clear to us why they did not do so. Their gossip would have exploded in their faces before that commission. The Erasmus Commission did in fact deflate them. Hon. members can see how quiet they are; they know this is the truth. We now ask the Opposition to desist from their whispering and gossipmongering campaign which is harmful to this country. A political party, and moreover an official Opposition, cannot live on gossip and whispering campaigns alone. I want to tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition that he should summon his caucus tomorrow and begin with something constructive for a change, and if he is incapable of that, he should leave and make way for someone else who has more imagination. The hon. Leader of the Opposition and his followers should sit down around a drawing board again and draft a policy which is viable and which can work, a policy which can provide a solution for South Africa’s problems. What the hon. Leader of the Opposition needs is a policy which impresses the voters. They can make progress with that, but they cannot progress with negative slander alone. The official Opposition cannot continue to live like vultures off the bare-picked bones of the former Department of Information. I hope the hon. Leader of the Opposition is listening to me. If the Opposition thinks that they can bring the Government to a fall with Information, then they are under a very great illusion.

The voters know that what happened with Information was an isolated case. The voters know that the Government is rectifying with a strong hand what went wrong and that in future the Government will ensure clean, orderly and good administration, as it has been doing for 31 years. The voters know that the nucleus of this Government, the heart of the National Party, is just as pure and just as healthy as it was 30 years ago. The voters of South Africa will never relinquish the National Party because they know what they have in the National Party. The voters of South Africa know that the National Party is the only party in the political structure of South Africa which can lead us through the crises intact and can safeguard our future here. The voters of South Africa will never trust that party. Why not? The voters will never trust them because the people of the PFP are not South Africans at heart because they liaise with extra-parliamentary and with foreign arms, because they befriend the enemies of South Africa. [Interjections.] Hon. members of the PFP should realize that the NP will continue to govern this country. Their little party will have been dust and ashes for a long time already, when the NP will still be ruling this country, and doing so in the spirit of a clean and pure public administration. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this morning someone asked me whether I was perhaps feeling between the tyre and the tube. Well, that is just about the way I feel. [Interjections.] I really do not know whether I should laugh or cry. We in the NRP may laugh, because we are a clean party. [Interjections.]

We are the only party in the country which is clean.

We are not faced with the dilemmas which the other parties have. But we have to cry. When one looks at this morning’s papers and one sees how our country is being hurt, it is enough to cry about. Just have a look at the front page of this morning’s Burger: “Bom bars oor Eglin”.

The Maties won! [Interjections.]

Never mind, next year the Tukkies will win. [Interjections.] This is the headline we read on the front page of Die Burger: “Bom bars oor Eglin. Vertroue geskend, sê Pik Botha.” In the ensuing report we read, inter alia—

That is the position in which we now find ourselves. We have to witness an incident such as this in this House. There were hon. members who alleged yesterday—and you, Mr. Speaker, called them to order—that there was a traitor in our midst. We harm our country in making such an allegation. That same statement was made exactly two years ago when Dr. Dawie de Villiers said in Pretoria: “Let us think again about this patchwork map of our country.” On that occasion he was also called a traitor merely because he said we had to think again. [Interjections.] He said that at an NP congress in the Transvaal. [Interjections.] He did make that statement.

We are dealing here with political parties which do not know whether they are Arthur or Martha. [Interjections.]

†We are dealing here with either a tragedy or a comic opera. I cannot figure out quite what it is. Yesterday we dealt with the Information debacle. Today it turned into a spectacle. Yesterday we saw the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs delivering the most eloquent speech ever in this House. However, we have to consider what he said. I believe I have to make a declaration about what my leader had to say in connection with that. I must certainly associate myself with the sentiments expressed by my hon. leader. Unfortunately the hon. member for Durban Point cannot be here today. I want to quote, however, what he had to say in this connection—

And that I can confirm—

We had an interesting speech by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout this afternoon.

Do you accept what he says?

However, what he did not do was to ask for a Select Committee to…

Why do you not ask for it?

He did not ask for a Select Committee to be appointed. He should have done that, because if the hon. leader of the NRP had been impugned like that, the first thing I would have done would have been to establish the facts. The hon. member for Groote Schuur, as a whip, should have known that.

How can a conversation outside Parliament be the subject for an investigation by a Select Committee?

His honour was impugned. There were people who referred to him as a “verraaier”. Certainly, that requires investigation and a very thorough investigation too.

Order! Did the hon. member say that somebody had said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a “verraaier”?

Yes, Sir, somebody did say that yesterday.

Who was the hon. member who said it?

There were many hon. members who said it, but I accept that it was withdrawn.

Hon. members are not allowed to use those words at all.

Very well, Sir.

Now you move for a Select Committee to be appointed?

Mr. Speaker, my honour was certainly not impugned. I certainly would have if my honour had been impugned. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition accepts the status quo, he accepts it that his honour is impugned.

He has denied the allegation.

Yes, he merely denied it On the other side we have the hon. the Minister of Finance whose honour was also impugned and he did not ask for a Select Committee to investigate that either.

I told them to give evidence before the Commission, but they refused.

The evidence is before the Commission. [Interjections.] Here we have two political parties very senior members of which have had their honour impugned intentionally by those on the other side of the House and they have not taken it further.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to say that my honour was impugned while, when this issue was debated in the Other Place, my position was completely upheld there on this issue?

Order! That is not a point of order, but a point of personal explanation.

Mr. Speaker, I intend it as a point of order, with great respect.

It is not a point of order; it is a point of personal explanation. Will the hon. member allow the hon. the Minister to make such a point [Interjections.] In that case the hon. the Minister will get his opportunity after the hon. member has completed his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say to the hon. members of the PFP and the NP that the state of affairs we now find on both sides of the House will certainly not go away. I do not, however, think that this “weerligafleier”, as it was referred to this afternoon, is going to take away from the guilt of the leaders of the NP, the previous leaders… [Interjections.]

Which leaders?

The leaders of the NP. [Interjections.]

†As the hon. leader of the NRP has done before me, I call today for a new Government of reconciliation. I think we need this. We need to bring back confidence and honesty in our Government. We need men who are proud to be South Africans, as we are, who will not condone any form of corruption or deceit; who are not prepared to look at South Africa through blinkered eyes, but want to look at South Africa through brand new eyes. We believe that there are such people here and we ask them to come forward. [Interjections.] I believe that there are hon. members in this House who are thinking this way and I think that we must request them to come forward and discuss this matter with us. We need a brand new dispensation. I want to ask this Government to restore confidence.

Let me change the subject now. The point which I want to make is that we need to get to the stage where we can have confidence in our country and our Government. We need to create racial harmony again. This Government needs to clear up the Information scandal. I am afraid to say that it has not gone away, and it needs to be cleared up. Only the Government can solve it. This confidence and racial harmony is absolutely essential in this era.

We will get that confidence in the by-elections.

We shall find out at South Coast. In regard to racial harmony, I want to say categorically that I am pleased to see a ray of light. I have to say this, because there is a brand new line of thinking amongst NP members and some of their leaders. Unfortunately they are a very minor group, but very positive signs are emerging. I can feel it, and I am pleased about it.

Name them.

I shall name one of them. I had the pleasure of listening to him only two days ago. The hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development made a speech in front of a very select group of Americans who were here in South Africa. I was touched by what he had to say, and I think he made a very fine speech. I want to plead with him today to make that same speech over television. He said that there was a brand new line of thinking in South Africa, and he continued to wax eloquently about it, but he did it sincerely and spoke from his heart. There were a couple of Progs present as well. I can assure hon. members that what that hon. Minister said there made me feel much better afterwards. I think he should say those same things right here in this House.

And in the caucus.

I want to ask the Government to stop governing from “cry by crisis”.

The next issue I want to raise is that the Government should get rid of the Information dilemma. I do not wish to speak about it, but it is very easy to get rid of it.

*I cannot agree with the hon. the Minister of Community Development when he says that the State was not paralysed by it, because to my mind the State was partially paralysed by it. The State has problems, but I do not want to debate them now. I want the affair to be cleared up, because we are sick and tired of the Information debacle.

Name a few of those problems.

It is no use blaming the Press or the Progs for that, because that will not make this affair go away. The only solution is to open it and clean it up. Hon. members should keep in mind that it was the NP leadership who caused this mess. I want hon. members please to listen to my plea to them this time. I want the hon. the Prime Minister to take the words I address to him in this spirit as well.

Will it be a meaningful plea?

Yes, it will definitely be a meaningful plea. All of us would like to make progress. I have thought very deeply about this, because it affects me as well. People look at us as politicians today and say, “All of you are scoundrels.” That includes us in this party. That is the attitude of the people outside, and that is what hon. members do not want to understand. The people outside tell us that the politicians are a bunch of crooks. We reject that.

I want to suggest that the hon. the Prime Minister take certain drastic steps. If I were in his shoes today, I would do the following. In the first place I would realize that my Minister of Finance and I are under a huge cloud. I would accept that, whether I was guilty of that or not, because the people outside this House feel that there are still guilty people. I do not want to contend that they are guilty, but the people outside feel that. I want the whole thing to be cleared up. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister has a problem, and that he finds himself in a very difficult position. If I were in his place, I would place my country above all else, even above my own position and my own party.

Where do you place your party?

I place my country first and my party second after my family. The only way to create confidence is to open up the issue by way of a Select Committee. Then discuss the issues in that specific Select Committee. [Interjections.] There are people in this House who can in fact be trusted…

You name them.

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister not trust me?

Tell us about the Progs.

There are still many people who have to give evidence. There are many of them who still have to give evidence before all the evidence is heard. There are 12 people who knew about The Citizen project before 1977.

Who are they?

Shall I mention their names?

Yes.

Eschel Rhoodie, Connie Mulder, Gen. Van den Bergh, John Vorster, Louis Luyt, Van Zyl Alberts, Deneys Rhoodie, Les de Villiers, advocate Van Rooyen, Reynders, Barrie and Jussen are all people who knew.

And Harry Schwarz!

Yes, maybe he, too!

While the final report of the Erasmus Commission was being drafted, I would have asked my Minister of Finance, if I were the Prime Minister, to vacate his position temporarily, and I as Prime Minister would also have vacated my position temporarily.

You will never become Prime Minister.

I said I would have done that if I had been Prime Minister, and I will give hon. members the reason why I would have vacated my post. I would have done it until everything had been cleared up and the final report had been brought out. Why? So that the public could see that I was honest and did not influence the drafters of the report. The only reason why I would have done that would have been to convince the public that I was not involved. I think it is the duty of the hon. the Prime Minister to root out this thing completely. Such a step and nothing less will restore confidence. It should be remembered that Gen. Van den Bergh said that the Erasmus Commission was a farce.

Do you believe him?

There are thousands of people who believe that

What do you say about this?

I want the final report.

Mr. Speaker, what about Connie Mulder and Rhoodie? What do they say? Why can they not give evidence before the commission once again?

† Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to agriculture, which I dearly love. In this regard I hope I can get across to hon. members on the other side of the House. This is a shocking budget.

*Yesterday we heard the hon. member for Bethal saying thank you for crumbs.

†This budget, however, has missed the boat. It does nothing to stave off the impending disaster the farmer is facing. It does absolutely nothing to stop the erosion of the whole financial base of agriculture. It does nothing to stop the capital base from crumbling and slowly but surely being destroyed. I am using dramatic words, but that is what is actually happening. The budget does help those who have already been half destroyed by giving them loans. Those people have no reserves and can never get back on their feet. Farmers need reserves. This is the point that I would like to stress. This budget tries to assist farmers with crop insurance when the crops fail. But it does not help the farmer who is farming well and who has a decent and successful year. It does nothing to strengthen the farmer’s financial position. I must warn hon. members that we have had the seven fat years. They are, however, gone, and we are experiencing the seven lean years right now. With those lean years upon us and with the farmers now having no financial backing behind them, there is going to be widespread disaster. I do not think that “disaster” is too strong a word. Without any reserves and the massive debts that the farmers have now, they are in trouble. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance understands this. In fact, I believe that he is a “boerehater”. [Interjections.] The Government has become immune to the farmers’ problems. They really do not care any more.

*The farmers are mere voting robots. The Government know that they will vote for the NP but the day is coming…

†The Government is riding rough-shod over the farmers.

“Opsaal boere!”

“Opsaal boere!” The English are coming! The rallying cry will still come true.

†The NP agricultural group is absolutely voiceless in this budget. They do not come forward and fight for the farmers. They shut up. They do not say a word. I should like to quote what the hon. leader of the group had to say. First he said: “Hurray for Horwood!” Then the report states—

What I should now like to ask the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is whether this budget “gives extraordinary support to South Africa’s 80 000 farmers”. My answer to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is “No” and “No” again! [Interjections.] What is more, he knows it! We have, time and time again, tried to fight for the farmers’ cause because we know how they are feeling. Remember that I am a member of this House representing an urban constituency and not a farming constituency, but I realize what is looming up in the next few years.

*But hon. members on that side are so scared. They are too darned scared to stand up and fight for the farmers.

And the Minister of Finance does not even listen.

And the Minister of Finance does not even care to listen. [Interjections.]

Order! Please give the hon. member a chance to finish his speech.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Railways debate was a very interesting debate. I warned the hon. member for Heilbron that I was going to get to him sooner or later, and now that time has come. Hon. members will remember that I was fighting for the farmer in that debate and I was thumping the hon. the Minister of Transport. I had a hard time with the hon. the Minister of Transport, but did I get any assistance? The hon. member for Heilbron is the chairman of the Milk Board. When I attacked the hon. the Minister for not having milk served on the S.A. Airways, did I get one bit of help from that hon. member, the chairman of the Milk Board? No, I did not get one bit of help! Whilst he was speaking, telling us about the wonderful things the NP was doing for the farmers, I interjected as follows (Wednesday, 14 March 1979, col. 2446)—

His immediate reply was—

Remember that we have had increases of 406% in the last few years, yet that hon. gentleman says, on behalf of the farmers, that he is more than satisfied with the rates.

*No, it is the NP that is ruining (“opneuk”) our farmers!

Order! The hon. member must please withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry. It was just an ordinary slip of the tongue, in idiomatic Afrikaans!

†The NP came in on the back of the farmer.

Have you finished with me now?

Yes, I have finished with the hon. member. However, I have not finished with the NP.

†As I have said, the NP came in on the back of the farmer and yet is now turning its back on the farmer! We in this party are prepared to see what is happening. We understand what is happening. [Interjections.] Some of those hon. members do, yes.

*There are some of those hon. members who understand what is happening, but it just cannot get through to that hon. member over there!

†I now want to come to the attitude adopted by the S.A. Railways. Let us face it, oom Ben Schoeman realized that the farmer needed assistance. He kept farmers on the land with reasonable rates. What, however, happened in the space of four or five years? The rates whipped up to the tune of 406%, and that in only a few years! It crippled farmers in the outlying districts and made some of them go bankrupt. As a result many left the land which now has led to the crisis the Defence Force is faced with. Is this how the NP treats its people? I admit that the hon. the Minister of Transport has a problem. He, too, needs to balance his budget. However, he should go to the hon. the Minister of Finance and request some help to allow him to reduce rail tariffs. He must not simply over a few years shunt the prices up to such an extent, thereby crippling the farmers. In respect of fertilizers it goes up every year. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs discusses the position with Louis Luyt and then pushed up the prices. He does not bother to go back to find out how the farmers are doing. [Interjections.]

You do not know what you are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, my bench is covered in newspapers, but here I have The Citizen. The headline reads, “Horwood gives generously”. Give? Let us analyse this. What does he give in reality? He only stopped taking from us. He did not give. It is our money. He did not give us money. Then they write that he gives generously. “Hurray for Horwood”, they say. Hurray for what?

You do pay tax, after all.

We farmers really have a hard time.

†This high-powered fertilizer institute approaches the hon. the Minister each year saying they are entitled to a 15% return on their investment. What about the farmer? He will get 2% if he is lucky.

*But Louis Luyt and others can get 15%. I am not pleased with that.

†We must ask why it is necessary to charge 4% GST on farm implements and to add a surcharge of 7½% on the farmers’ purchases. R20 million is going down the drain that way. It is taken away just to be given back to the housewives in the form of a subsidy on bread. It should not have been taken away in the first place. Furthermore, why is it necessary for the hon. the Minister to increase the surcharge of 10% on farm diesel vehicles? I think it is a shame that this is necessary. I do not know whether it was done in collaboration with the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. Yesterday we listened to a very interesting speech by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. He made a very brave speech. I am sorry he is not present at the moment. He came round to our way of thinking as expressed on many occasions by the hon. member for Mooi River. He agrees with the point of view that subsidies on bread and mealie-meal are not subsidies for the benefit of the farmer but for the benefit of the housewife. We must not classify such subsidies as subsidies for the farmers.

*Then the newspapers say, “Kyk wat kry die boere: R20 miljoen!” That is not what they are getting.

Your newspapers say so, too.

No, it is the Afrikaans newspapers that say so. The English-language newspapers do not say anything about the farmers.

†The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke agrees that assistance to the farmers is necessary. He says, as we do, that we need to assist the farmer at the level of the cost of imputs; that is to say, not at the top but right at the bottom. There are many ways in which that can be done. For instance, Escom can be assisted and the Railways can be assisted. Fertilizer can be subsidized or the margin certain parties get from the hon. the Minister can be reduced.

What would you like to see for maize this year?

About R90.

Forget it! It is going to be much more.

Sir, farmers do not wish to be subsidized, but, certainly, farm imputs should not be taxed. There should be no duty levied on these cost inputs. [Time expired.]

Order! I have agreed to allowing the hon. the Minister of Finance a turn to speak in order to give a personal explanation. As Mr. Speaker ruled previously, a personal explanation should deal with misrepresentations, incorrect quotations or misunderstandings. Since not one of these reasons is relevant, and since the hon. the Minister of Finance will have another turn to speak, I shall not allow him to raise a point of personal explanation now.

Mr. Speaker, I do not go along with the suggestion by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that everybody outside this House is saying that all politicians are crooks. However, what I should like to say to him is that the first half of his speech did very little to help dispel that impression, if it exists at all. He kept on with the old saw we have heard already. It will go on until everybody in this House, and I am sure everybody outside this House as well, are sick to death of it, and that is that the Information affair will go on until we have opened up everything. Well, that is the point of the Erasmus Commission and the other investigations that are going on, and so far they have already opened a great deal. But that has not been to the satisfaction of the Opposition parties. When these demands for the opening up of everything are made, it is apparent to me, and I think to everybody else in this House, that both Opposition parties are no longer making the necessary distinction between legitimate secret operations and the abuse thereof. In this light, since the Opposition parties can apparently only understand one word and that is “cover-up”, I am now going to spell it out for them. Yes, there is a cover-up, but of those legitimate secret operations which are the practice of every Government in the world, and that cover-up will remain. However, I do not want to deal further with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. My remaining remarks are in the main going to be directed to the official Opposition, but it goes without saying that if the shoe fits the other parties, they may put it on.

When the hon. Leader of the Opposition was making his speech yesterday—and he had the temerity to liken this party to the Harrisburg hydrogen bubble—one thought immediately crossed my mind and that was: “Just you wait, Henry Higgins, just you wait. Your bubble is going to be pricked.” Well, we did not have very long to wait before that bubble was indeed thoroughly pricked. Within the space of 1½ hours three hon. Ministers stood up and made a well substantiated case why the hon. Leader of the Opposition was in honour bound to resign.

In the debate on the first report of the Erasmus Commission during the short session last year, I made a certain remark after the hon. member for Yeoville had offered the official Opposition’s assistance in the clearing up of certain matters. I quote (Hansard, 8 December 1978, col. 410)—

Whom are you quoting?

I am quoting myself. I then went on and in the course of my speech asked the question whether that official Opposition was a true political party in the South African sense or whether it was a lackey of the American State Department. I think that my question has now been adequately answered by the McHenry scandal and by the half-hearted defence of the scandalous behaviour of the hon. Leader of the Opposition by the hon. member for Park-town and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is unfortunately not in the House at the moment. This half-hearted defence will not wash. Those hon. members asked: “Is the hon. Leader of the Opposition not entitled to speak to diplomats?” But of course, he is entitled to speak to diplomats.

What is bothering you then?

Of course, everybody is entitled to speak to diplomats. It all depends on what one says to diplomats, what the circumstances are and who the diplomats are in a given set of circumstances. I do not have to go into the merits of the case anymore. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications proved quite clearly that the telephone call which has been referred to was made, and they gave a clear indication of what the contents of the conversation were, and from that it arises quite clearly that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did in fact divulge confidential information to Mr. McHenry.

That is absolute rubbish, and you know it.

If he did not, why did he then try to cover up his tracks? Why did he first try to deny in the Press that he had made the telephone call and then, yesterday, paling, sink deeper and deeper into his bench and, shaking his head, indicating: “I did not do it?” Even his sickly, nervous grin did not help to dispel that. However, when one divulges confidential information like this, I think one of the circumstances to be considered is also who the person concerned is.

Every right-thinking South African will agree with me, if they have followed the whole negotiation surrounding South West Africa and have looked at the performance of Mr. Donald McHenry as leader of the contact group, that Mr. McHenry has quite clearly indicated where his sympathies lie, namely with Swapo, a Marxist terrorist organization that is furthering a war for global Soviet hegemony against the whole of Southern Africa. That is where Mr. McHenry’s sympathies lie.

The hon. member for Lilliput is talking nonsense.

The implications of this must be realized. South Africa is fighting a war against Swapo and there is hardly a family in South Africa who at one time or another does not have a father, a son, a brother or a cousin fighting this war against Swapo. And it is to this apologist for Swapo that the hon. the. Leader of the Opposition discloses confidential information, information given to him by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Shocking!

That is the implication. The outcome of this terror war with Swapo and the outcome of the talks with the contact group of the Five, etc., is vital not only to the 875 000 people living in South West Africa, but to all of us because potentially it affects everyone of us in this country, Black, White and Brown, and the lives and safety of every South African soldier on that border. South Africans outside of this House must consider whether they ever again dare support a party which by this kind of action endangers the lives of their loved ones on the border.

The question now arises: How many other times has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition purveyed the South African Government’s confidences to the representatives of foreign Governments, and, in particular, to representatives hostile to our efforts to achieve peace?

That is a scandalous allegation. [Interjections.]

Does the hon. member deny that Mr. McHenry is hostile?

Why do you not say that outside the House? [Interjections.]

My question is a relevant question because in my previous occupation I interviewed many leaders and Opposition spokesmen of other countries while they were on visits to this country. Where the Governments of those countries made hostile remarks against this country and I tried to get those Opposition leaders or spokesmen to make a critical remark about their Government, the invariable answer I received was that they would not like to comment on that particular issue because it would not be proper for them to make that kind of political statement in a foreign country. That is a time-honoured ethic in the civilized world, and I would like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether in his travels abroad he honoured that ethic. It is also a time-honoured ethic that even when Opposition representatives travel abroad, they do it through the good offices of the diplomatic mission of the country from which they hail. That is the normal procedure. Does this hon. Leader of the Opposition do that? No, he does not. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already had to take issue with him over this sort of behaviour. What is more, the hon. Leader of the Opposition prides himself on the fact that he and members of his party have access to countries to which members of the Government, the Government that represents the people of South Africa, that represents the will of the electorate, do not have access. Now, would not any decent person say: “I will not come to your country if my Prime Minister cannot come there?” Will not any decent person say: “I will not come to your country if you will not admit my Foreign Minister?” That is how a South African is supposed to behave, but does the hon. Leader of the Opposition behave in that manner? No, he does not Moreover, he takes pride in the fact that he does not behave like that. What is more, he makes comparisons that are disadvantageous to South Africa in relation to Black African countries.

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs challenged him last year to show in what way our Black, Coloured and Indian populations were worse off than those of other African countries. He promptly goes to Senegal, in September 1977, and Weekend Argus of 17 September 1977 quotes him as—

In taking up this challenge he makes, among others, these remarks—

Then he goes on to say about Senegal and the Senegalese—

Mr. Speaker, is there anybody in this country who does not have the right to a fair trial before an independent judiciary?

Hendrik Van den Bergh!

What kind of an impression does the hon. Leader of the Opposition give about this country? What kind of impression does he give to Senegal about South Africa? What kind of impression does President Senghor get of the hon. Leader of the Opposition and of this country? He goes on to say—

Is there anybody in South Africa, Black, White or Brown, who is not free to form a political party? Are elections not held here regularly amongst all the population groups? However, that is the impression that the hon. Leader of the Opposition creates. We have heard time and time again in this House how hon. members of the PFP say that there is no dialogue between the Government and the Black population, or even the Coloured or Indian population. There is no dialogue, they say. It is no good negotiating only with people who are easy to negotiate with. We must negotiate with representative leaders. I think that the Black peoples of South Africa must also take note of what hon. members of the official Opposition say about their leaders. They say that they are easy pushovers and that they are not representative but that they are puppets. This message is also carried out to the outside world. I am glad to see that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is ashamed to hear what he does to this country and therefore leaves the House. Every time he goes to Senegal, he obviously tells the Senegalese the same story that he tells in this House, viz. that there is no negotiation. What happened was that the Senegalese were quite prepared to negotiate with South Africa and were going to send people on a visit to South Africa, but then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went to Dakar and shortly afterwards President Senghor announced that he was breaking off dialogue with South Africa until such time as there was dialogue between Whites and Blacks in South Africa. Where does he hear that? He hears it from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and it is a blatant untruth because there is dialogue in South Africa between Blacks and Whites.

Can you prove that despicable statement?

Order! Did the hon. member use the word “despicable”?

Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member whether he can prove that despicable statement. [Interjections.]

Did the hon. member ask? Would the hon. member kindly repeat his words.

Mr. Speaker, I asked whether the hon. member could prove that despicable allegation. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Benoni may proceed.

It is not despicable and there is plenty of proof for it. We can take up the matter of proof on the basis laid down by the PFP. Let us see who must prove what. Let us see whether in fact we must prove that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition broke confidences with the United States or whether he has to prove that he did not. During the special Information debate in December 1978, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made scurrilous aspersions against 16 Cabinet Ministers in the House. He said that they had known about irregularities at a specified date. He said that they knew about The Citizen. However, the Erasmus Commission has proved that he was wrong.

They are incompetent.

The hon. member does not like the truth, but I am sure that I am more competent than she is. The hon. the Prime Minister then issued a challenge to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to prove his allegations and scurrilous aspersions. He said that they should go to the Erasmus Commission and prove these allegations and that, if the proof was forthcoming, he would resign and call a general election. On 10 December, the hon. member for Yeoville in The Argus described this challenge as nonsense. What were his grounds? Why did he describe the challenge as nonsense? He said—

My answer to hon. members of the official Opposition is that, since we did not take part in selling or purveying confidential information to the representatives of foreign powers, we do not have the direct evidence that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has and therefore the onus is on him to prove that he did not…

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must stop interjecting.

… disadvantage this country for the benefit of another country. The onus is now on him to prove that. How he does it is his business. The Erasmus Commission exonerated these 16 hon. Cabinet Ministers, and, as I have already said, how the hon. Leader of the Opposition disproves what can only be seen as—I cannot describe what it can only be seen as, because it would be unparliamentary—is his own business. If he cannot disprove it, then he is under an obligation also to resign. No matter how he does disprove it, I think that there is sufficient prima facie evidence in this House to ask for the appointment of a parliamentary Select Committee to investigate two aspects, i.e. the untruth about the denial and, then, the admission that he made the telephone call, and the un-South African activities of the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in congratulating the hon. member for Benoni on the fine speech that he made here this afternoon.

Before I go any further, I should like to make use of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance on another brilliant budget. We in South Africa have short memories, but if one thinks back a few short years to the time when the shots in Soweto were ringing across this country and the country was in an extremely poor position and confidence was at a minimum, hon. members will recall that at that time this hon. Minister was busy building with quiet confidence, a great sense of purpose and a steady nerve. We have seen the product of that faith and confidence in the House today. It is said that a miracle is the darling child of faith. I think that in the past few days we have once again seen a brilliant performance by the hon. the Minister. I do realize that the hon. the Minister finds himself in some difficulty, because it is so that today’s excellence becomes tomorrow’s norm. I should like him to know that not only all the financial commentators in South Africa, but also all of us on this side of the House are extremely indebted to him for what he has put before this House and are extremely proud of it.

Before I deal with the other side of the coin, I should like to deal briefly with what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South had to say. When he said “Ons is ’n skoon party”, I could not help thinking of the idea that the NRP washes whiter. I think that that is what he was really saying. The hon. member went on to say how good he felt—it must have been the only occasion on which he could feel good—when the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations presented him with a vision of South Africa’s future in a speech he made. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is a decent fellow, and I should with great respect like to say to him that, if that is how he felt after having been exposed to NP opinion for 30 minutes, he should imagine how he would feel if he joined us on this side of the House and worked towards constructive goals for the country with us.

I am afraid to say, however, that hon. members of the PFP made one negative contribution after the other. It is typical of them, but because it is typical and we have become used to it, does not mean that we should fail to comment upon it. As always, the drums were beating as this session loomed. The drums were beating via the Press that supports them who were publishing the kind of article that I am now going to refer to. An article appeared in The Cape Times of Monday 7 August 1978 reporting on what was said at an occasion at Grahamstown by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. The article appeared under the following heading: “Eglin commits PFP to clear policy by next session.” Then followed all the adjectives which have become so familiar to us—

I think hon. members on this side of the House have dealt with that image very well. In regard to their policy, however, I must say that we have heard nothing, or very little, about what their policy is or what it stands for either in economic terms or in philosophical terms. The article continued as follows—

Their policy was shot down in advance by their own people and they have failed to put any policy in the House since the session began. The hon. Leader of the Opposition went further and was loudly applauded when he said that the message that he had was that if the party was to make mistakes it should be “on the side of boldness and not on the side of timidity”. I do not think anybody can argue convincingly that their mouthings of their policy has been bold. On the contrary. It has been rather brash. Not only has it been brash, but I believe their policy is becoming reckless, because it is well-known that the hon. member for Parktown is one of the most—if not the most responsible—member in the PFP, and he was quoted in Die Burger of 28 March as saying—

He made this reckless remark in Bloemfontein, and such a reckless remark coming from a responsible member of the PFP makes the mind and the imagination boggle.

The only member on the other side of the House who has tried to argue the financial policy from a philosophic base, has been the hon. member for Mooi River. He did it well, although I do not agree with everything he said. But at least he gave a properly motivated and properly constructed argument All drums were beating as the official Opposition told us what they were going to talk about this session, and in respect of financial policy we find that young Andrew Boraine, a member of the SRC at the University of Cape Town, speaking at a congress of the PFP, is quoted in The Cape Times of 20 November 1978 as saying—

He went on to say—

We have, however, not heard anything of this. We have had no economic arguments from the official Opposition. All the opportunities have been there. We have had shotgun speeches, many of which were mediocre, echoing through Hansard throughout decades in the history of Parliament. Mr. Christo Wiese, another millionaire delegate to the congress said: “It seems there are some people who are not so committed to the policy.” The policy to which he was referring is the free enterprise system, a system that is typified in this budget We have had speeches which have been capitalistically orientated and we have had speeches which have been socialistically orientated, but we have had no common fundamental denominator by which the official Opposition interprets its economic policy. They sublimate their intentions by referring the whole matter to a committee. I would very much like to hear from the hon. Leader of the Opposition what the findings of that committee were, and the correct time for him to tell us would be during a financial debate. If the PFP have a policy at all, it is a policy of hit and run. They hit at us in this House and then they run overseas for international support. That hit-and-run policy typifies all their actions in this House.

I feel very sorry for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who as a senior Parliamentarian had the thankless job of having to defend the Leader of the Opposition here today. In reply to an interjection from this side of the House, he asked: “Watter skinder stories? Julie moet nie skinder nie.” The hon. Leader of the Opposition when speaking on his point of personal explanation yesterday said in a plaintive voice, and I quote from his unrevised Hansard—

This is what the hon. Leader of the Opposition says when his party has been “skindering” about this side of the House and about the whole Public Service of South Africa on hearsay for the past 12 months.

Any misguided individual who makes any wild statement aimed against this Government can be sure that bold Colin will have a snappy, off-the-cuff Press release for him the next day. When we had the Ludorf affair, a matter involving hearsay, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition responded immediately, the very next day, with a display of heart-rending morality, melodrama and anguish about something that later proved to be absolute nonsense. He has cried “wolf!” so often that South Africa is no longer listening to him. What is worse is that that hon. member has tarnished the respect built up by the leaders in the Opposition benches over generations, people like Sir De Villiers Graaff, Jan Smuts, Strauss, Hertzog and many others. The collective honour and respect, which consecutive Leaders of the Opposition have built up over generations, that Leader of the Opposition has squandered in a phrenetic splurge of nonsense and innuendo. In one short year he has squandered all the respect that was carefully earned, year after year, by so many responsible people. He is like Caligula who squandered the wealth of Tiberius, the wealth of 40 years, in one short year.

I was thinking of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday when I was considering what I was going to say in this House. I happened to see something in a Charlie Brown cartoon strip. Charlie Brown says to Linus—

Linus replies—

To this Charlie Brown replies—

I thought how very typical of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition! He hates the reply of the Erasmus Commission because it clears all the Ministers on this side of the House. It might be news to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but South Africans love this country. Of course it makes people unhappy when things go wrong, but what makes them even more unhappy is when people like those on that side of the House rub South Africa’s face in the dirt, when they wash South Africa’s dirty linen in full view of the international public. That is what South Africans hate because it is despicable.

One can often judge people by the company they keep. So I think it is true to say that The Cape Times accurately reflects the PFP’s views and that the PFP accurately reflects The Cape Times’ views. Let us look at the sort of thing The Cape Times is saying relevant to the McHenry affair, the Eglin scandal! In a leading article—and he was referring to South West Africa—Mr. Gerald Shaw said the following on 3 March 1979—

He goes on to talk about South Africa and begins to attack the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs by saying—

He is referring to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs—

Shaw does not accept that there were serious deviations at all. He goes on to say—

In other words, this man is supporting the views of those who were arguing and debating in South Africa at the time. He goes on to say—

He then asked—

In other words, he wanted to know what was wrong with Swapo becoming the Government of South West Africa. He said that we were enjoying perfectly good relations with Mozambique and therefore he could not understand what South Africa was complaining about. He said that we should get out and hand over to Untag as soon as possible and regardless of the consequences. He attacked the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and said that the Namibian issue presented the opportunity to project the tough, indomitable image which is so highly valued by the NP beyond the Vaal. He therefore suggested that we on this side of the House and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs would use our internal political advantage to play with the future of the people of South West Africa. I think such a suggestion is scandalous. It typifies the sort of thing with which that Opposition keeps itself busy.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done the Opposition a worse injustice than that which I have mentioned previously. It is a convention of this House that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and through him the public supporting the Opposition, is involved in decision-making by being informed of matters which are of national importance and touch the life of the nation. What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition do? He abused the trust that was placed in him and by abusing that trust when he telephoned Mr. McHenry…

You are talking nonsense.

Well, the hon. member should read Hansard.

When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition abused that trust, he robbed the public of South Africa of the opportunity of being consulted. There are Opposition supporters whose sons and daughters are serving South Africa on the borders but those supporters will no longer have the comfort of knowing that the Opposition will be informed of the potential problems which may arise and which may be life and death issues. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has in fact taken from Opposition supporters in South Africa the right to be consulted and that is something terrible. It looks as though we are no longer dealing with the Western Five, but with the Western Six, since it seems to me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has become the sixth element in the negotiations. It seems too that Harry talks to Helen, Helen to Van Zyl, Van Zyl to Horace, Horace to Colin and Colin to Don.

The hon. members of the Opposition internationalize everything ugly in our society. Let us take Crossroads as an example. I am more concerned about the squatters of Crossroads than anybody. [Interjections.] We on this side of the House sympathize with those people and we shall try to solve that tragedy as best we can. However, I had the example, and it happened time and time again, when a visitor from abroad visited me after he had been through the hands of members of the PFP. Where had he been? He was taken straight from the airport to Crossroads. The hon. members on the other side do not show these visitors the achievements of South Africa or the things of which we can be proud; they show them everything ugly and bad in order to distort their perspective as much as possible. They do this in order to internationalize all South Africa’s problems. It is no accident that the World Council of Churches now has a permanent representative at Crossroads; that is the direct result of the activities of that party. [Interjections.] In the name of being a vigorous and effective Opposition, that party has been running from dustbin to dustbin kicking it over and scratching in the much to see what it can find. They are, however, not only soiling South Africa; they are soiling themselves too.

They failed to concentrate on the new horizons which are opening up for South Africa. They failed to concentrate upon the fact that a new perception has slipped into the soul of South Africans. They failed to see the new dream and the new response of South Africa to the great challenges of our time. They failed to see that South Africa is unlocking a new definition of Southern Africa. They fail to see that through new constitutional means we have unlocked new freedoms for the Black communities of Southern Africa and that through our new constitutional proposals we are bringing the Coloureds and the Indians together into a new and broader nation. They fail to see that we have created a more rational conception in respect of the geographical areas of the homelands. The NP has again put the South African people before a new challenge. This country was given new dimensions by the cry of “South Africa first” that went up in the ’twenties. From these benches a new cry is going out to Southern Africa now, and that is “Southern Africa first”, a cry that is based upon the old cry of “South Africa first”. A new regional autonomy can be created, using the building block of the “South Africa first” ideal, to uplift the people of this subcontinent.

Mr. Speaker, my time is limited to a quarter of an hour. I would not even have taken part in this debate, but the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central kindly offered me his time to enable me to take part. However it is particularly appropriate that I take part in view of what happened yesterday in the House. I myself, together with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, the hon. leader of the NRP and his colleague the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, were briefed by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs on 26 February 1979. I was asked by the hon. the Minister’s private secretary to go to his office late in the afternoon, after the hon. the Prime Minister had made a statement in this House in which he referred to the very delicate stage the negotiations about South West Africa had reached. I think it is fair for me to say that when we arrived at his offices, we could see that the hon. the Minister was clearly and visibly upset by what had occurred, more particularly by the new interpretations the Western powers were placing on their agreement with South Africa, especially in respect of the creation of Swapo bases in South West Africa and the refusal by the West to agree to the necessity to monitor Swapo bases in neighbouring States. The hon. the Minister stressed the fact that he was speaking to us confidentially. He wanted us to be fully informed so that we could understand why the hon. the Prime Minister had shortly before made the speech he did make here in the House. My impression was that the hon. the Minister’s motivation in calling us together for that briefing was that there was an absolute need for unity in the face of danger that was mounting up against South Africa. I frankly appreciated his frankness and I agreed with his approach of trying to find unity under those circumstances. I must say that I was surprised that the hon. the Minister had decided to brief us together, especially as I had referred in this House to what I had called a “special relationship” between the Leader of the official Opposition, the Western diplomats and their leaders. The hon. the Minister obviously knew how I felt on this particular point. Indeed, his private secretary went out of his way to say to me that while we would be briefed together, the hon. the Minister would be prepared to have private consultations with me afterwards if I so wished, especially if I felt unhappy about expressing my own views in the presence of others. Nevertheless, in spite of those feelings, I attended this meeting because of the gravity of the situation and because it was quite obvious to me that the hon. the Minister was trying to get a united South African approach and a consensus to strengthen his hand in his negotiations with the West. This was indeed confirmed by the hon. the Minister’s introductory remarks to us.

I remember the years when I sat in the caucus of the United Party under Sir De Villiers Graaff and I remember how he, as the then Leader of the Opposition, was briefed by the former Prime Minister of South Africa on matters affecting both external and internal security. I can well remember how Sir De Villiers referred to those private and confidential discussions with great discretion when he reported to his caucus. Indeed, the words he so often used were: “I obviously cannot reveal what was discussed between us, but I am asking you to trust me and to trust my judgment.”

I always admired the former Leader of the Opposition for his complete honesty and dependability and I was proud that the Leader of the Opposition was a man who could be trusted by the Prime Minister of South Africa, especially when we were dealing with matters of vital concern to all of our people. Sir De Villiers was a foe to every foe of South Africa. We knew him as a man who fought South Africa’s case overseas with the leaders of those countries and we knew him as a man who argued South Africa’s case with, and put an alternative to the Government’s case to the Western ambassadors and the representatives of other foreign powers here in the Republic. Above all, we in that party in those days knew him as a loyal South African and a patriot who would never abuse the confidentiality of what was discussed with him, even for the sake of any temporary political advantage.

A long tradition of consultation indeed came to be established between the Government and the Opposition on matters which were regarded as being too serious for the party-political fray. Mr. Vorster knew Sir De Villiers would never benefit South Africa’s external enemies. Today we have an entirely different situation in South Africa. We in the SAP have said that in times of crisis, such as the present, we shall go out of our way to try to find common ground with the Government in matters involving both our internal and external security, while fulfilling, as we see it, the normal function of an Opposition party, which is to be a firm critic of the Government’s policies and its maladministration. I think it is correct to say that by and large the leaders of the NRP are in agreement with us in seeking to defend South Africa against our enemies and being absolutely opposed to finding any common ground with the enemies of the Republic. We have substantial differences with the members of the NRP, but we do not think that they would abuse in any way trust which was placed in them in matters regarding South Africa’s security. The official Opposition, however, is a horse of an entirely different colour to its predecessor. As I said before, they could easily be mistaken as the spokesmen of the Western powers in South Africa—so closely do their views on South Africa’s international position identify with those of the West, so closely does their criticism of the Government correspond with the criticism of our country by the Western leaders and so closely does their solution of Black majority rule coincide with the solution offered to us by the Western powers. This may be entirely coincidental, but never before the advent of the PFP as the official Opposition in South Africa has there been such a close relationship between the official Opposition in South Africa and the Western powers.

I am not in the slightest bit surprised at what was disclosed in the House yesterday. It would be no surprise to me if the Leader of the Opposition asked McHenry to arrange a meeting with Dr. Waldheim. It is no surprise to me that immediately after a private and confidential briefing by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs the Leader of the Opposition should telephone Mr. McHenry, his political friend, in Washington, obviously to check on what he had been told by his political foe in South Africa, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is no surprise to me at all that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues should seek interviews with Western diplomats here in South Africa, because, after all, they have the same objectives and they have much in common, the most important being to change the political face of South Africa unrecognizably.

Do you prefer isolation?

What was disclosed yesterday was, in my opinion, absolutely disgusting and utterly shocking, if not worse. Explanations given by the Leader of the Opposition in the Press are wholly unacceptable to the people of South Africa. [Interjections.] One thing is clear, and that is that the Leader of the Opposition must stand up in this House and ask for the appointment of a Select Committee. It is as clear as a pikestaff that his honour has been impugned by members of this House. Insinuations have been made about him and any self-respecting Leader of the Opposition would get up and ask for the appointment of a Select Committee in the same way that his predecessor did on an occasion to which I am now going to refer. I am absolutely amazed that the Leader of the Opposition has not already acted. It has been done before. Some of the hon. members of this House who have longer memories than I, will recall that shortly before we became a republic, Sir De Villiers Graaff went overseas and had many discussions with Commonwealth leaders. Dr. Carel de Wet, then a member of this House, alleged in Parliament that Sir De Villiers had tried to persuade the Commonwealth leaders to expel South Africa from the Commonwealth if it became a republic.

The Chief Whip of the then official Opposition, Mr. Higgerty, asked for the appointment of a Select Committee, but the then Prime Minister, Dr. H. F. Verwoerd, knew that the allegations that had been made about the Leader of the Opposition were incorrect, for the very good reason that Sir De Villiers Graaff had, immediately upon his return, reported to Dr. Verwoerd and told him of his discussions with the leaders of foreign countries. As a result, there was an intervention by Dr. Verwoerd and Dr. Carel de Wet had to apologize to Sir De Villiers Graaff. Thus, the demand by the official Opposition for the appointment of a Select Committee fell away.

Now, one of the gentlemen who will recall this incident even better than I, is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He must remember that incident clearly. He knows how serious it would have been if a Select Committee had been appointed and if that Select Committee had found that Sir De Villiers Graaff had indeed spoken to the Commonwealth leaders in the way Dr. Carel de Wet had alleged he had done. That is why the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said today—because he appreciated the seriousness of the situation—that the allegations against the hon. Leader of the Opposition, if they were substantiated, would place the hon. Leader of the Opposition in an untenable position. That, of course, is precisely the position in which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout would like to see the hon. Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.] We also remember that in the course of his speech he very carefully distanced himself from the possibility of being involved in the conversation between the hon. Leader of the Opposition and Mr. McHenry. Hon. members will remember his saying: “I was not there; I do not know what happened.” My time is limited and I am delighted that my throat has held out as long as it has. However, I want to put it to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that there is only one morally defensible thing he can do. That is to ask for the appointment of a Select Committee. I challenge him today to do so.

Or else resign. [Interjections.]

I challenge him to do this, because it is a morally correct thing to do. Apart from that, however, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is no ordinary person in this House. He holds the highest political post in South African Opposition circles. For that reason there is an added and additional responsibility on him to act as a Leader of the Opposition should. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should very much like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Simons-town on the very effective, concise and businesslike way in which he has just dealt with the hon. Leader of the official Opposition. He dealt in full with the deplorable conduct of the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition as revealed to us by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We are grateful to the hon. member for Simonstown for this speech of his.

As we might of course have expected, the budget debate has thus far been dominated to a very large extent by the Information affair. In fact it is difficult to contribute anything new and original with regard to the Information affair at this stage. Indeed, we have found that the Opposition parties, as they have been doing in recent months, have been repeating the same old story here regularly and monotonously, together with a thousand and one questions about the whole matter. We could have predicted in advance that the PFP and the NRP would not accept the findings of the Erasmus Commission. This was of course what happened, although I want to add at once that the NRP was considerably less vociferous in this debate with regard to the Information scandal than it had been previously, particularly after the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs dealt so devastatingly with the hon. Leader of the official Opposition. It is also true that the Opposition parties, and the English-language Press in particular, have no desire whatsoever for the Information affair to be cleared up. The English-language Press and the Opposition parties have for months been battening and flourishing on the gossip stories surrounding the former Department of Information. The sensation dishes up by the Press which they themselves fabricate, however untrue, have boosted the circulation of the newspapers tremendously, to a height never before achieved in the history of our country.

There is no desire whatsoever on the part of the Opposition parties for the Information scandal to be cleared up. When the events surrounding the former Department of Information became known, South Africa was indeed amazed and shocked; it was indeed a bomb-shell. Everyone was embarrassed and sorry about what had been done to the good name of South Africa The first reaction of everyone with an interest in the matter was that the matter should be investigated and cleared up and that, as the Opposition parties repeatedly said, it should be ripped wide open. It was in the interests of the country that the events in question be fully investigated. The Government is in agreement with this view and has already taken a series of steps to have this matter investigated and cleared up in the interests of South Africa.

It is really unnecessary for me to repeat at this stage the series of steps already taken by the Government to have the matter investigated and cleared up. The convening of the special session in December 1978, the appointment of the Erasmus Commission and other steps, all attest to the Government’s sincerity in giving attention to this delicate matter.

Initially we and the public were under the impression that the Opposition parties would have welcomed an investigation and that it was in the interests of the country that the matter be investigated. However, the truth soon became apparent. The English-language Press made other plans. They very soon realized that this was an opportunity to gain political advantage for the Opposition parties. The English-language Press then initiated what is already known as, and what will in future be known as the most scandalous slander campaign ever conducted in South Africa. Unfortunately the English-language Press has taken the rest of the Press in tow. The English-language Press started a “trial by newspaper.” In the process, which has been in progress for months now, nothing and no one is spared, least of all the good name of South Africa. They saw in the Information campaign a tremendous opportunity to continue with their campaign of hate against the leaders of the NP. When one considers and analyses the conduct of the English-language Press with regard to this whole Information affair calmly, soberly and with the necessary perspective, one finds that from start to finish it has been an unpleasant and scandalous campaign to denigrate the good name of a few leaders in the NP. The hate campaign of the English-language Press knows no bounds, and nothing and no one is spared. I put it to the House today that no judicial commission, no parliamentary committee, no by-election and no general election will bring an end to this campaign of hate waged against the NP by the English-language Press. As long as the English-language Press is there, South Africa will be plagued and afflicted by this disease. The height of scandalous conduct in blackening South Africa’s good name came, in my opinion, from The Cape Times when, in an editorial on 9 March of this year, it made this self-condemnatory admission—this was when the newspaper began with its notorious “Rhoodie serial”—

That is the spirit and the attitude with which the English Press has abused the entire Information affair. They do not do so in order to protect South Africa’s good name, nor to put the security of South Africa and its people first. No. What we are dealing with here is a campaign of hate which is being waged in order to destroy individual members of the Cabinet, to discredit the leaders of the NP and destroy their good name, integrity and character by way of character assassination, gossip campaigns, half-truths and suspicion-sowing. In my opinion this is the principal aim of the English-language Press. This is largely the aim of the English-language Press and its lackeys in regard to this Information scandal. The English-language Press has no real wish to serve South Africa’s interests. In the process the Opposition parties have tagged along for the sake of the political advantage they might derive from the matter. I have already said that in my opinion, the very height of scandalous conduct and exploitation of the Information debacle was achieved when The Cape Times made that self-condemnatory statement. In my opinion South Africa has experienced the absolute nadir as regards unpatriotic attitudes over the past few weeks in the compiling of a petition against the State President, but unfortunately I am unable to discuss this now.

Order! The hon. member may not even refer to it.

Unfortunately I am unable to discuss that nadir further. I do just want to say that the voters of South Africa…

Order! The hon. member must not take the subject any further because if he discusses it, other hon. members will also want to discuss it and I cannot permit that.

I abide by your ruling, Sir. To tell the truth, the English-language Press has made a Frankenstein monster of the Information scandal. I want to make the statement today that this Frankenstein monster is going to attack and destroy its own creators. The Information scandal has been so abused by the Opposition parties for their own gain that in the coming by-elections it is going to boomerang violently against those parties. We welcome the by-elections not only in Swellendam, Beaufort West, Randfontein and Johannesburg West, but those on the South Coast in Natal as well. The by-election there will bring an end to the political bravado of the PFP and the NRP. It reminds me of the story of the frog that wanted to blow itself up to a size of an ox. After the by-election on the South Coast we shall want to know from our colleagues in Natal: How hard did the Vause Raw frog in Natal explode? In my opinion the coming by-elections will put an end to the bravado of the two Opposition parties. They are relying on the Information scandal to further their cause. They are not relying on their own policy. The Opposition parties know that the South African voter sees far beyond the Information scandal. The South African voter considers the safeguarding of his survival in this country. The White voter in South Africa considers guarantees for his security, of which the hon. member for Mooi River also made mention in the course of his speech in this debate. That is where the Opposition parties’ problems begin, and that will be their downfall.

I want to dwell for a moment on the NRP. I have a great deal of understanding for their position and I can understand why the NRP is so insistent in using the Information story against the hon. the Minister of Finance, because in the past the hon. the Minister has caused both the NRP and the PFP a great deal of harm in Natal. The NRP would not make a bad official Opposition and I wish them all of the best in their struggle against the PFP, but then they will have to do more about their policy. South Africa knows far too little about the policy of the NRP. They are constantly engaged in an egg dance with regard to their policy. If the NP does anything constructive then the NRP claims credit fog it. They say that the NP is taking over the old United Party policy. When the NP gets the NRP into a corner they all of a sudden begin to maintain that those are old United Party stories and they say that they are a brand-new party. No, Sir, the NRP will definitely have to do something more about their policy. They do not have much respect or esteem for their own policy because what happened recently when Senator Swanepoel had to go and hold a meeting at Beaufort West? I want hon. members to hear how the NRP advertised their meeting. The advertisement read: “Kom hoor wie en wat se ding is die NRP se oogmerke en beginsels.” [Interjections.] No one will think anything of such a policy. Now we hear there is talk that the NRP and the PFP may be getting together again. [Interjections.] I do not know whether that is the truth or whether it is merely a story. There is an old Latin saying which reads fama nihil est celerius which means “Nothing is swifter than rumour”. Now the NRP has a responsibility to ensure that this story does not spread further because if it is the truth and there are plans for them to get together again, I want to give the assurance that we are going to have a lot of “sports” in the future.

I just said that the South African voter sees far beyond the Information debacle to the policy of the Opposition parties. Whereas I have said that there is a certain lack of clarity as regards the policy of the NRP. I want to say at once that there is no doubt whatsoever in the minds of the South African voters about the policy of the PFP. The PFP is now also attempting to ride on the back of the Information debacle, and consequently they are discussing their policy as little as possible in the course of this debate.

However, that will not help the PFP because that party’s slip has been showing for a long time. The South African voter knows about the total capitulation as regards White rights on the part of the PFP. They deny it. Of course they deny it However, the South African voter does not allow the wool to be pulled over his eyes by the PFP, which can indeed be branded as nothing but the most anti-White party that has ever operated in South Africa. They have in their ranks people who do not give twopence for the continued survival and the interests of the White man in this country. Consequently they are prepared to take the risk of sitting at a table with the Nelson Mandelas. That, too, is why they are prepared to take the risk that what they think can be achieved by consensus today, can be the Russian AK machine gun in the hands of Nelson Mandela and his sort tomorrow. That is why they are so naïve as to be unable to understand that with their consensus policy and the paper guarantees it entails, they would have the Gatsha Buthelezis as partners today and the Mugabes and Samora Machels as principals tomorrow.

Let us say to each other in this House in all earnest, that the Information debacle will show the PFP to be a party on its way out in the eyes of the South African voter.

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

No, Sir, unfortunately my time is too limited. I just want to say that the Information debacle will never make of the NRP anything other than what it is—a party on the road to nowhere.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will understand if I do not spend any of my few minutes on the hon. member for Marico since he made a lot of wild statements about the English-language Press, about this party and about the NRP, while I have more important things to deal with. I want to say, first of all, that the tactics of the Government in this debate have been absolutely transparent. They are in total disarray. [Interjections.] The Information scandal has destroyed their credibility throughout South Africa, and all decent South Africans are disgusted with them, and they know it! [Interjections.] I can just imagine, because I have a fairly vivid imagination, the caucus meetings that have been taking place in the ranks of the NP, with everybody in a huddle trying to work out how best they can get out of the mess they have allowed themselves to get into. [Interjections.] Suddenly the dawn came and they realized—the most obvious of all things—that attack is the best method of defence. So they planned their tactics for this debate. [Interjections.] The word went out that at all costs a diversion had to be created. They were told to find something, anything, no matter how absurd, against any member of the Opposition, from the Leader of the official Opposition down, and then, if I may use the current phrase, go for the jugular! Those were obviously the tactics that were worked out by the Government for this debate. [Interjections.] First we had the attack on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and the interesting thing is that this attack took place six weeks after the incident of which they accused him, six solid weeks! There were many previous opportunities for doing this because earlier on we had South West Africa discussed in this House and we also had the Part Appropriation Bill discussed.

Why can we not choose our own time?

It was so serious that they waited six weeks!

Why did the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs not…

He was away.

Then I must assume that when the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is away, he has no deputy who can act for him. [Interjections.] The whole country can just fall to pieces in his absence! The subject, which has now become such a major issue in this debate, was left untouched for six solid weeks!

You are just moaning now.

Is the Government going to use one of its usual excuses and say that it did not know, or is there another reason—one we have now come to believe in—and that is that the Government is incompetent? It cannot have it both ways. [Interjections.] It cannot have known about this perfidious Leader of the Opposition and have allowed that situation to last for six solid weeks without having attacked him. I expose this as a blatant piece of political hypocrisy! [Interjections.] It was nothing more and it is nothing less! [Interjections.]

It will not go away!

Nor, let me assure the hon. the Minister, will the Information scandal go away. I want to know, in a matter of national security…

That is a bad argument.

It is an excellent argument!

It is a bad argument, a very bad argument!

Well, that hon. Minister can stand up later on and tell my why it is a bad argument. I say that if this is a matter of national security, they are certainly levelling accusations in a veiled and garbled sort of way. The hon. the Minister has not, however, said in any definitive way what it is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is supposed to have disclosed to Mr. McHenry, the leader of the contact group in America. If it is, in actual fact, a matter of national security, they had no business leaving this matter untouched for all this time. The answer, of course, is that no such thing really happened. [Interjections.] It was not a disclosure. [Interjections.] Yes, I believe that it was no disclosure of confidential material. [Interjections.] I believe that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was acting as a responsible leader. [Interjections.] He was doing what all responsible Leaders of the Opposition do in every country in the world. He was keeping himself informed on the entire question facing the country at the time, the question of how to resolve the impasse that had developed on the Namibia issue. Let me add that he was acting as a responsible person when he did that.

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

No. Sit down and shut up! [Interjections.]

Order!

He was acting as a responsible member of the Opposition, and this is not the first time he has done so. He has displayed his integrity from the year dot …

You are going to be whipped for this!

… when he joined up as a young man, leaving his studies to go and fight for South Africa whilst hon. members opposite were busy cutting power lines… [Interjections.]… and while the hon. the Prime Minister was leading gangs of destructive breakers-up of meetings all round the country and insulting men wearing the South African uniform in time of war. [Interjections.] So let him not come here and dare impugn the integrity of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I might say that long before this incompetent, bungling Government made its abortive effort at detente with Black Africa, my hon. Leader and hon. members of this party were travelling around the Black States of Africa… [Interjections.] Yes, indeed: We were travelling around meeting the heads of the Black African States and were being admitted to those countries because our credentials were good. No hon. member on that side of the House would, with his passport, be able to even get into the countries we were admitted to and welcomed in. Our credentials were good and as a result of that we could do a jolly good job for South Africa, correcting exaggerated statements wherever we heard them. We were doing the best thing we could do for this country and that was to tell the outside world and Black Africa in particular that there are hundreds of thousands of White South Africans who thoroughly despise and disapprove of the policy of apartheid. [Interjections.] That is the best that White South Africans can do. We did not have “to be dragged, kicking, into Africa”. We went willingly and did a very good job indeed.

The attempt to besmirch the good name of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has turned out to be a damp squib. The next thing that happened was that the hon. member for Waterkloof came with his miserable insinuation that the hon. member for Pinelands and I had been breaking currency regulations. He insinuated that. [Interjections.] Why did he ask: “Did these hon. members disclose what they earned?” It was a clear insinuation.

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

No, sit down and please shut up. If I ask the hon. member, “Have you committed a burglary of late?” what would the obvious insinuation be? [Interjections.] If the hon. member makes those insinuations outside the House, he will land himself in one of the biggest libel cases ever in South Africa. The hon. member for Von Brandis…

Order! Hon. members are making too many interjections. They must now give the hon. member for Houghton a chance to make her speech.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] Sir, I would not dream of ignoring that hon. member. He came along and made a ridiculous attack on the hon. member for Sandton because the hon. member for Sandton had written a fictional story for Punch. He quoted it as if it were a factual article on South Africa. What a ridiculous assertion to make in this House.

Then there was the speech by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North. I am sure that he must be a tremendously well-travelled gentleman. He had another go at me, of course, and in the process he did a really great service to South Africa by referring to the leader of the contact group of the Western nations involved in the Namibian dispute as being the enemy of South Africa. That was a really diplomatic plus and I wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister approves of language like that being used in this House against the very people the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has to deal with over the Namibian question. I think he should be ashamed of himself. If anybody has done harm to South Africa, it is the hon. member for Bloemfontein North. I must say that the tactics which are employed are utterly transparent and I do not propose to waste any more of my valuable time on that. I have already had to waste too much of my time on all this nonsense and do not intend to return to it. The hon. the Minister of Public Works is sitting there grinning like a Cheshire cat, but he has not yet explained to us why he knew nothing about what was going on in the Department of Information while he was the Deputy Minister of Information.

That is a million dollar question. [Interjections.]

Nothing did he know, but he is telling us to go and give evidence to the commission. What do we know about what went on in the Department of Information? If there is anyone who should know what went on in the Department of Information it is the Deputy Minister of Information. What has he been doing all these years? He has been drawing his salary as the Deputy Minister and he knows absolutely nothing! Then he still sits there grinning at me in that stupid fashion. While all of us have been devoting ourselves to the Information scandal—and of course this has got to be done over and over again until the whole thing has been revealed in its ugly detail—I must say that the Black population of South Africa could not care less about what is happening as far as Information is concerned. It is true that among the more sophisticated Blacks there is no doubt a wry smile of amusement at the thought that the man who predicted that there would not be a single Black citizen in South Africa by the end of this century, is now stripped of power and kicked out of office. I have no doubt about that. Post, the Black newspaper, obviously could not resist, when Gen. Van den Bergh lost his passport, printing in huge headlines “The general loses his pass”. Well, who can blame them? There was a man wielding enormous power with a huge network of informers which resulted in the loss of freedom for hundreds of Black people because of his machinations. He has also been stripped of his power. But apart from this, I want to tell the House that the Black people do not care. The things that worry them are the ever-present anxieties about the rising cost of living, the tremendous fear of unemployment, the difficulty of getting to and from work—for those who have work—in safety, about education for their children and about how to control the children who have been so radicalized by the Soweto unrest.

These are the things which affect the Black population in South Africa None of these things worries the White population. The Black population are especially worried—and I hope the hon. the Minister of Police will listen to this—about escaping the attentions of the police during pass raids. This is another very serious thing that is happening, and I hope the hon. the Minister is taking note of the warnings which were issued by Bishop Tutu about the possibility of another blood-bath if these things go on. These are the anxieties suffered by the Black people of South Africa. The White people, I might say, do not care about these things. The only anxiety they have is the rising cost of living.

Do you not know that the Administration Boards also have their own police force?

Yes, and I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development—he is not here, but, believe me, I shall tell him—that he, too, must call off the police belonging to the Administration Boards who do the night raids, who raid people’s houses in the middle of the night. These pass raids must be called off, because the hon. the Minister of Finance’s incentive budget—and all should know this—will not mean a row of beans, and we shall not get a cent of investment capital into this country, if there is any more unrest in South Africa. It will go like the swallows that leave this country when the winter comes. [Interjections.] We cannot afford any unrest in South Africa, and that means that the Government must not only give incentives to development and growth in order to absorb the people coming onto the labour market, but it must desist from provocative action which may, and undoubtedly will, lead to more unrest in this country. They must stop evictions out of group areas, and the hon. the Minister of Community Development must see to that. The Government must stop the mass removal of Black people. This is only done because of the Government’s obsession with tidying South Africa into little Black and White compartments. They must desist from these things. They must leave Crossroads alone. Otherwise, if we have any more unrest in South Africa the hon. the Minister can offer all the carrots to investors; and they will not take a single nibble—no further investments will be made. Last year I warned the House about the campaign for disinvestment from South Africa in the United States. That campaign has been partially successful. Some of the banks and universities have already disinvested in those companies which have investments in South Africa. This will spread like wild fire if there is any further unrest in South Africa I cannot emphasize too strongly that we not only need incentives for development in South Africa; we need a complete cessation of all the major causes of unrest in South Africa.

For when do you plan these unrests?

I hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance will consult with his colleagues the hon. the Minister of Police, the hon. the Minister of Community Development and the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development for these are the three departments that are most concerned in these particular fields. I just wish to conclude by saying—before my time has expired—that what we desperately need in South Africa is a year or more of recuperation from the devastating effect of the last wave of unrest. We cannot afford anymore trouble in South Africa. Hon. members must bear that in mind and they must not ignore, as they ignored in June 1976, the warnings about the trouble that was to come in Soweto through the language medium. They must not ignore the warnings which they are getting now about impending unrest in Soweto and elsewhere. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, after the dinner hour I hope to come back to what the hon. member for Houghton had to say regarding Black and White relations. She referred to riots and also issued the warning that further riots were brewing. She also issued some warnings regarding arrests, etc. I think it is really necessary for us in this House to examine very pertinently what the hon. member has tried to allege this evening, viz. that the Government by implication, if not directly, was responsible for the riots which took place in 1976 and that the Government by implication will again be held responsible for the unrest which is dormant in South Africa at the moment.

I want to put it to the hon. member for Houghton that that is the most irresponsible thing an hon. member could say in this House, particularly in the difficult times in which we live. It is an irresponsible thing to say that the Government should take note of possible unrest and to add to that the implication, as the hon. member in fact did, that the Government, through a variety of actions, will be held responsible for that possible unrest. The hon. member should ask herself seriously whether she wants to be an agent for revolution or whether she wants to serve South Africa’s interests together with us, and in a peaceful and calm South Africa.

She is an agent for revolution.

I also want to ask the hon. member to get some clarity for herself and hon. members of the PFP as to whether they are interested—and this is a very real question—in serving the stability of South Africa by stating the interests of the Whites in South Africa in such a way that every White in South Africa will know that he can have confidence in his political leaders and that he can also have confidence in the Opposition, however doubtful it may be. That is what we need.

South Africa is in a serious situation in many respects. In certain respects South Africa is in a crisis situation. What profit is there for an hon. member in this House to whip up feelings among the races and to generate bad blood among the various races? That is not in anybody’s interests. The hon. member for Houghton also said that we were trying to run away from the Information scandal by making accusations against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. That is of course not the case at all. She also alleged that the Government’s credibility among the voters had been totally destroyed. I want to say categorically to the hon. member that all hon. members on this side of the House are wholeheartedly determined to get away from the Information mess. South Africa cannot afford to spend weeks and months—if the hon. Opposition has its way, even years—floundering in this mess.

People outside know the Government of this country. The voters of South Africa are really not so unenlightened. They are not so stupid. They are not so stupid as to think that the credibility of each hon. member sitting here is to be doubted. The voters of South Africa know that there was a mess. The fact of the matter is that the Minister politically responsible for that department is no longer here. What I am saying now I also want to say directly to certain people outside. I also say it to some of my people outside, and I say it with all the responsibility at my command. If we in South Africa were ever to accept a system in which a Cabinet Minister who was politically responsible for things that went wrong could return to politics, we would be doing a disservice to good government in South Africa. There are many examples of this in the history of the NP. As far as we are concerned though, what is past is past. It has passed for all time. It has passed irrevocably. We accept that But we shall really not tolerate hon. members on that side of the House casting suspicion on every one of us. We shall not allow our respectability, credibility, honesty and integrity continually to be questioned, defamed and dragged through the mud. We shall not allow that. The hon. member for Houghton need not think therefore that we have tried to deflect the searchlight. But she can accept the fact that we are sick and tired of their stories and that we do not intend to keep ourselves for ever occupied in our arguments, public speeches and speeches in this House with that sort of nonsense. There are positive things to be done in the interests of South Africa and we must give attention to them.

There is a young generation of politicians in this House and on that side of the House as well. Together with the older generation of politicians, those who are presently our leaders, we want to look positively at the future and the problems of South Africa and we do not want to occupy ourselves with denigration. The hon. member for Houghton says that the hon. the Minister of Public Works was probably the most uninformed Deputy Minister of Information in connection with the case. We are not arguing with her about that. We are very pleased that he was so uninformed that he did not know about those things. It only goes to show how false their charge is which implies that everybody knew about it. It also proves the fact that sometimes it is in the interests of a Deputy Minister of Information to be completed uninformed. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Houghton asks us why we are so worried about the telephonic contact the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had with Mr. McHenry, the leader of the Western contact group. The hon. member is quite wrong to interpret the statement of the hon. member for Marico as being that we say that man is an enemy of South Africa. The hon. member must realize from what we say about certain Western diplomats, countries and leaders that the White Government of South Africa, which has an inalienable and indestructible right to be here, notes with great concern the antagonism of certain people and certain bodies to the White man as such. The hon. member must view our remarks in that context. We have reason to feel this way, and I say this with great respect. If I had the time I would quote some of the things that Ambassador Andrew Young has said. They are so anti-White and so emotionally coloured and so emotionally anti-White in their intent that we really cannot sit still and not raise an eyebrow when hon. members on that side of the House contact him from time to time in these circumstances.

The hon. member for Houghton need not think we are so ignorant We know the whole of American history from the time of the Civil War. We are aware of the civil rights movements, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with which Ambassador Young together with Dr. Martin Luther King was connected. We also know of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, the Congress on Racial Equality, the National Urban League and the Student non-Violent Cor-ordinating Committee. We know that some of those people and their spiritual offspring, as, for instance, Stokely Carmichael who occupies a leading position in the Student non-Violent Co-ordinating Committee, also have connections with this situation in South Africa. We know that the hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members on that side of the House have contact and connections with some of those people.

I do not want to accuse them of undermining South Africa. The hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members of the PFP speak for instance together with activists Black Power. The expression and concept of Black Power originated in 1966 and was used by Stokely Carmichael in “The March on Mississippi” when he used the words “Black Power” there. That is where these concepts originated. We can see the correlation between the emotions in America, which flow from that civil rights’ struggle and the emotions of certain people presently serving in leading positions in South Africa. I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that we can see the correlation between those emotions and things which hon. members of the PFP say, and we do not like it.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when business was interrupted earlier, I was crossing swords with the hon. member for Houghton. I had told her that we do not regard ambassadors as our enemies but that we are very concerned about opinions which some of these people express about the Whites in South Africa. As a further illustration of what I told the hon. member before dinner, I should like to read to the House what the American ambassador at the UN had to say during a memorial service held by the Anti-Apartheid Committee of the UN on the first anniversary of the death of the activist leader, Steve Biko. Mr. Andrew Young said, inter alia, that Steve Biko would live on more strongly after his death than would have been the case had he lived.

He said further—

Now I want to ask—this is also for consideration by those hon. members—if foreign ambassadors make this sort of remark against this stable Government, do the Whites, the governing section of South Africa who lead the various nations and communities along their own road, something to which I shall refer later, not have the right to ask if these people are our friends? How can a friend say that sort of thing?

Why do you talk to them?

For the information of the hon. member for Orange Grove I just want to say that we talk to people because we believe in discussion and communication. We shall continue to communicate and we shall continue to hold discussions but we ask in all reasonableness that people should not wish us away or, worse still, that in collaboration with Opposition elements here in the House should organize to try to drive us from our own country. We shall not stand for that.

Did you accept a study loan from them?

The hon. member for Bryanston would do well to listen for a while because perhaps we shall tell him something he really ought to know. I have tried to go through the Hansards of this year’s main debates to find the underlying political trend in speeches made by hon. members on that side of the House. Apart from confining themselves mainly to the Information question, I also noticed something else in general which to me personally, and I think the whole of South Africa as well, indicates something more positive. Regarding the speech of the hon. member for Houghton to which I want to refer now, I gain the impression of a dilemma, of a great division within that party. Before I discuss the division in spirit in that party, I just want to say that I can appreciate that they are now trying to adopt a more moderate tone in their speeches here because last year in August certain findings of an investigation by a certain Prof. Lawrence Schlemmer were made known. Prof. Schlemmer is a well-known Prog, but he is a scientist whose findings, in my opinion, one might well take note of. I find it interesting to see what he had to say. In the report he first referred to the NP and had a few adverse things to say about us. Regarding the PFP he said—

If a scientist who is a Prog shows here that their patriotism is questioned in the ranks of their voters, then we have not been so wrong after all over the years in questioning their motives, their modus operandi and their patriotism.

He was not speaking about patriotism; he was speaking about the image.

He is speaking about the image and he says the image is suffering because of the feeling of the voters that they are not sufficiently patriotic. In the light of this I say: “Hear, hear!” to a Prog because he is right.

At their congresses last year in the Transvaal and Natal and wherever they came together, a difference in thinking was apparent. Various elements of the PFP spelt out in the clearest terms in their speeches that a different pattern of thought existed in one group which one can describe as radical, and that in another group which one could regard as the sensible group, there was a moderate attitude. [Interjections.] My colleague next to me asks in all reasonableness where the hon. member for Johannesburg North fits into this division. I do not want to give him an explicit label because as a former judge he should rather make this decision himself on the road ahead and in my view this could take some time. [Interjections.]

Hon. members will remember the great disputes between those people in regard to quite a few matters. Inter alia, there were the pronouncements of the hon. member for Yeoville on the question of the franchise. Hon. members also know that there is a group of young Turks within the PFP who are very radical and who say that everybody, including the Black people, should have the franchise on a common voters’ roll. It is interesting to see how the hon. members for Sandton and Yeoville expressed themselves against this publicly at the time of their party congresses. And while they disagreed on something so basic and simple at their congresses, there are people like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who wants to tell the world that every problem in South Africa is the result of the apartheid policy of the NP. However, within his own party in the year 1978 there is still a tussle between the radical and the moderate wings to try to come to a decision on these elementary matters. Within that party there are people who, if I had the time, I could point out as being part of that group which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout regards as people who harm South Africa’s image; that is, people who are in favour of seeing that the rights of the Whites are protected to some extent. They do not all want to afford them a great deal of protection only a little.

The question is asked why the public are so antagonistic to the PFP. I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that in spite of this Information story they are for ever trotting out, they will not be able to destroy this image of a lack of patriotism and un-South Africa actions and statements on their part. What must a White person in South Africa think of certain statements of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? Many of my colleagues have told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he must resign but I want to remind him of the words of Bismarck. Bismarck did not know the hon. the Leader of the Opposition but Bismarck uttered a great truth which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can take to heart. He must pick up his bags and go; that way he will be doing the PFP a favour. Bismarck said a terrible end was far better than an endless terror. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said last year in a speech—

I shall return just now to the concept “before it is too late” and the allusion to violence. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say—

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said just as theatrically during 1977 “apartheid is communism’s greatest weapon”. [Interjections.] That is a reprehensible, filthy, untrue statement.

It is the truth.

The hon. member for Houghton exerts pressure left and right, from top to bottom, to change South Africa’s system. She must ask herself to precisely what lengths she is prepared to go to exert this pressure. Last year I told the hon. member for Pinelands that if there is a bedding-down with the woman of anarchy, children of peace will not be brought forth into the world. In this connection I can say in the presence of the hon. member for Houghton that if there is a bedding-down with the man of anarchy, children of peace cannot be brought into the world. The hon. member for Houghton welcomes American pressure on South Africa. Should one be surprised then that there is so much pressure on us from the outside world, encouraged and incited by these people? American Congressmen come here and our people travel abroad as well. I have had the privilege of travelling extensively through America. Can hon. members imagine the sort of arguments one hears against one’s country, one’s Government and oneself as a White man? One is struck dumb at the thought that people who think rationally can say such things! They do not always have first-hand knowledge overseas, but they have friends here who should have first-hand knowledge and who should be telling them these things. But their friends do not help them. Their friends only help them to say still more against South Africa in international forums. [Interjections.] From 22 August to 26 August 1972 the UN arranged a conference against the South African apartheid policy in collaboration with the OAU, the ANC and the PAC in Lagos. The Secretary-General opened that conference and I found it interesting to see the words used by the Secretary-General. I have told them this before but I shall repeat it because they must ask themselves where it comes from and why. Is it a coincidence? Is there a liaison among all these forces?

Because of the statements and actions of the NP Government.

The hon. member for Bryanston would also do well to listen! I quote—

Just listen to the language—

And now comes the interesting thing because those hon. members think they are so original. Listen to this—

They are not even original!

No, there he is wrong. We said it before they did. We said that in 1962. [Interjections.]

Now I come to the hon. member for Parktown who says I am wrong. I find it so interesting that we are libelled and defamed because of South Africa’s apartheid image. The hon. member for Houghton did it again this evening but, because she is not here, I cannot reply to all her nonsense. I address myself therefore to the hon. member for Parktown. In 1953 he was in this House in an Opposition party. He made a speech then in the debate on the Reservation of Separate Amenities Bill. Let us take a look at some of the things he said there. With reference to the old traditional policy, and in support of their party’s standpoint, he said the following (col. 2095)—

That is what that hon. member said. Why does he not tell those hon. members on that side what his attitude was in the Molteno minority report? Why does he not say that built into his historical and political view of life is an element of racism, discrimination and apartheid? What would happen if he were to say that openly to the world and to his colleagues, as his colleagues could have said to one another when the year before last they argued about mixed schools, a subject they have still not decided on? Why does he not say that to the hon. member for Houghton, the hon. member for Musgrave, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout? Why does he not tell those radical people in the PFP that right up to today the PFP itself has been part of the history of segregation or apartheid—call it what you will—and that that still applies? They are still part of it They accuse us of discrimination and of following an unjust and unfair policy. I have something very interesting here. In November 1978 one of the great minds, a Mr. Godsell, labour relations consultant for Anglo-American, made a speech at a seminar arranged by the Urban Foundation. Just listen to what he had to say, and this was in connection with our policy, we, who are the discriminators and the oppressors—

The point I want to make is that those people should not hold us up to the world as oppressive racists. The NP is a party that has built the concept of “change and adaptation” into all its political thinking to the extent that we can meet the future with confidence without that change resulting in chaos. If the NP had not changed in the political sphere, the economic sphere and the social sphere, we would have become stagnant and we would long since have faced conflict and confrontation in a variety of spheres. When we speak of change, we speak of it within a defined practical framework which we have always had as our political outlook but which they now try to claim for themselves. We change our thinking pattern in South Africa in regard to different things to accommodate our idealism, our confidence in the future and our self-respect as Whites which we shall not forgo. We shall not allow ourselves to be pressurized; we shall not allow ourselves to be hounded; we shall allow no one in the world and no one in South Africa, no matter which Black power people it might be, to force us, the NP, to adopt a course other than our chosen one.

We in South Africa find ourselves in an extremely difficult situation. Those people must first decide for themselves where their patriotism lies because it is no good accusing us and in the process building up more and more tension in South Africa. They must first take a look at themselves. The hon. member for Houghton spoke of apartheid and said: “Thousands of White people in South Africa despise the policy of apartheid,” but the mass of White people, including some of their voters, say: “Thank Heavens the NP is governing and, because it is governing, is prepared to develop and extend peaceful coexistence for our people according to its policy of separation.” Their voters do not want the ideas fostered by a few of their radical people. One can go to Natal—I say this with much affection—because I have heard more conservative attitudes expressed by English-speaking people there than I have heard hardly anywhere in the Transvaal. Among those people the PFP can find no rapport, neither today nor tomorrow. They will never find a rapport with those voters. The voters are grateful to us for what we are trying to do.

I say in all earnestness that at this stage in South Africa we are living in a country with an undeniable revolutionary potential. I say this to the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Houghton. We live here with a revolution in respect of awakening aspirations. There are millions of Black children at school, millions of Black children who are progressing. There are aspirations at the primary requirement level—for food, clothing and so on. But there are also aspirations on the secondary requirement level: Power and esteem. We know this. We are faced with what the sociologists call a revolution of rising aspirations. The more people have, the more they want at all levels of life. That is a reality.

Here in South Africa we have a revolution of race emotions, a revolution which exists throughout the world and which could have a particularly negative significance for the White man here unless we keep our heads and act responsibly. There is the emotion which tells Black people that the White people regard them as being inherently inferior. It also says to the Black people: You are an inferior being, an oppressed being. As far as the NP is concerned that emotion is false because our policy implies the equality of difference. We regard the Black people, the Brown people and the Indians as equal people in a Southern Africa in which we have to live together, but not in an integrated society in which we shall generate more and more tensions. That is the fact of the matter.

We are faced with an enormously complex revolutionary potential. May I just say that the hon. member for Houghton spoke of the possibility of unrest. The hon. member for Pinelands objects if we say that he is an apostle of Black Power. I have said this to him before. I want to ask them again what on earth does the hon. member for Houghton say and do when she alleges that something is going to happen here in South Africa, when she tells the hon. the Minister of Justice in that connection that he must stop arrests and evictions, when she raises emotional aspects here like citizenship—unfortunately, I cannot discuss this now as I do not have the time—when she adopts the negative, meaningless attitude that the Black people want education for their children—of course they want it and we want to give it to them—and when she says they live in fear of unemployment? Our people also have that fear. Regarding Soweto, I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the unrest in July 1976… [Time expired.]

Order! I have established that the hon. member for Innesdal used the words “filthy untruth”. He must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about the hon. the Minister of Finance, and take the opportunity to thank him and his departmental heads, who for many weeks worked very late into the night on this excellent budget. This budget is so excellent that the official Opposition can say nothing about it. I want to congratulate him and tell him that I am grateful to him. I have always believed in his integrity—and I shall continue to believe in it in the future. As far as hon. members on this side of the House and I are concerned, he is above suspicion. I want to thank the hon. the Prime Minister for the challenge he issued to the official Opposition by undertaking to call an election if they can prove that members of the present Cabinet had knowledge of what took place in the Department of Information in the past. In his absence I want to tell him that I have never doubted his integrity. I know that when the hon. the Prime Minister says he will do something, he will do it. I want to thank him for making this promise and for taking active steps to rip this matter wide open. Tonight we are going to rip this matter even further open. We, the official Opposition and in the Press in particular have discussed the Information scandal, at length, but I wish to say that one person was responsible for that tragedy. The people who worked for that department, are honourable people who are today working throughout the world and serving South Africa honourably. I will not allow those people to be crucified for the misbehaviour of one or two people in that department. I want to praise the officials of that department and I want to wish them well for the future. I hope they will continue to achieve great things for South Africa. I wish to add—I hope I will be allowed to say this—that I accept every word of the Press statement by the former Prime Minister.

Order! I cannot allow a discussion of that subject, because I should otherwise have to allow it throughout the debate.

Very well, Mr. Speaker. I shall abide by your ruling.

I now wish to tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition that he has been driven from Dan to Beersheba during this debate, and if he has enough breath and if his physique permits, I want to chase him back from Beersheba to Dan. We owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs for having raised this matter during this debate yesterday. One can do anything in the world, but if one is implicated in an offence and one becomes a State witness, that is the most treacherous thing in the world one can do. When one becomes a State witness to save one’s own bacon, one is committing treason not only against the law, but also against that person against whom one is going to give evidence.

A second deed one cannot forgive, is when a person takes one into his confidence in the presence of other people and informs one of certain confidential matters and then one goes and blabs it to the enemies of South Africa. This is something one cannot forgive such a person. Therefore I ask the official Opposition: Where is their dignity? Every day the official Opposition tells us that we are committing offences. Their Press also says this. I am asking: Where is their dignity? This is one matter the electorate of South Africa will not forget. This afternoon I was wondering, if the official Opposition should go to the Stock Exchange, where their shares would stand. In fact, I think that before they came onto the market they would be off it again. There is no growth for them in this country. Their numbers will always be limited.

In addition to that I wish to tell the leader of the NRP that he also attended that meeting and that he acted in an honourable manner. An hon. member sitting next to me says I cannot praise him. Well, once there were three old women who were always gossiping, but one of them always had a good word to say. One day they decided they would discuss the devil. They really ran the devil down. Then they asked Tant Sarie: And what do you say about the devil? She replied: He is very bad, but you cannot call him lazy. Although I am not quick to praise the hon. leader of the NRP, I nevertheless wish to tell him that he acted in an honourable manner, like a citizen of South Africa. I wish to say the same to the leader of the SAP. But how can someone with a record like that of the hon. Leader of the Opposition still remain in this House? If I had been a member of the official Opposition—and that will probably never happen—I would not have participated in this debate. I would be ashamed before the people sitting in the gallery. Where is the honour of that general who must lead me if I cannot even trust him with the secrets of my country? At the moment South Africa finds herself in the midst of great world problems. The world is closing in on us. We are engaged in a struggle for survival, but South Africa will win this struggle for survival.

I should now like to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whether he was present when the hon. Leader of the Opposition made his telephone call to Mr. McHenry.

I replied to that during my speech this afternoon.

What was the reaction of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout when his leader committed that outrage? [Interjections.] The hon. members of the official Opposition shrug their shoulders. Why? It is because they are ensnared in the net they prepared for others. They raced in pursuit, but they fell into the pit they intended for us.

The hon. Opposition has not yet accepted the first report of the Erasmus Commission. They have reservations about it. Surely this is so. They are sitting there as silent as the grave. I am glad that they are sitting there so quietly. They did not accept the first report because, so they say, time was too short and the report was not complete. But the actual reason why they did not accept the report was that they did not find in it what they would have liked to find. The second report of the Erasmus Commission, this report relating to the integrity and the honesty of members of the present Cabinet, they do not accept either. They are dissatisfied about this too. Why? I predict that they will not be satisfied with the third report either. They will not be satisfied with that either because they will not find in it what they would like to find. They will not find in it the carrion they are pursuing so eagerly.

Hon. members of the PFP also tried to sow suspicion. They tried to sow suspicion about the, as they put it, millions of rands which disappeared in the Department of Information, which were spent and cannot be accounted for. There is one thing which is still going to amaze hon. members of the Opposition. That picture which they are trying to put to the electorate, that picture of R64 million which simply disappeared…

Plus the R10 million.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell that hon. former judge that he too is going to stand amazed. He too will eventually be amazed. I am quite sure that that amount which the public is today being asked to believe has disappeared, is still going to leave the official Opposition speechless. That I believe.

We have been speechless for a long time. [Interjections.]

No, let us be honest. Those hon. members spoke of elections. Maybe I have sinned, but when the hon. the Prime Minister issued his well-known challenge to the official Opposition, I wondered what would happen should there really be an election. The hon. Opposition reminds me of the little dog that chased the bus every morning. Every morning he ran up and down the street chasing every bus which passed. One day old Andries was standing at the corner and said to his wife: “My dear, you will see a smash when that little dog catches that bus one day. I wonder what it will do to it.” I wonder what the PFP would do to this country were there to be such a terrible accident and they came into power. [Interjections.]

We would set things straight!

No, that is impossible. As I have already said at the outset, if I were to put the PFP up to auction, I would not even receive one bid. I would receive no bids; on the contrary, I should have to buy them back, and for a mere song, of course. [Interjections.]

I see the hon. member for Houghton is not here tonight. I listened to her speech as well.

She is coming a little later.

She was brought here to save I do not know whom. I wish to tell her in her absence that she failed utterly in her rescue attempt. She was unable to save anybody. The speech she made is, however, a different story. She or any hon. member of her party must please tell us what she meant by that speech.

Ask Boraine.

What does she mean by it? In her absence I wish to ask her… [Interjections.] Ah, there she comes now. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I wish to know from the hon. member for Houghton what uprising she is planning. [Interjections.] No, the hon. member must not laugh. In the speech she made, she spoke of an uprising. I want to ask her for the date on which that uprising is to start, so that I can prepare myself for it.

7 November 1917.

Oh? [Interjections.] The hon. member took it very much amiss today when reference was made to speeches and lectures she gives abroad. I want to ask her in all fairness tonight—and the two of us know each other fairly well… [Interjections.]… what she would have earned tonight if she had made a similar speech or given a similar lecture in America?

Two-and-sixpence.

I want to know what she would have received, no matter whether she made the speech before an audience of right or left-wingers.

Only you! [Interjections.]

It seems to me she does not wish to reply. Silence is sometimes a very good reply. In this case I think it is a good reply. I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members of the official Opposition that these speeches they make, can only harm South Africa. The hon. member for Sandton is not in the House at the moment. [Interjections.] He is so punchdrunk after the speech by the hon. member for Von Brandis that he is not present. The hon. member for Von Brandis quoted from the magazine Punch today, from a despicable article which appeared in it written by the hon. member for Sandton. How can those hon. members dare to accuse the Government of corruption and misdeeds if they are guilty of such misdeeds against South Africa? [Interjections.] How dare they plunge a dagger into South Africa’s back time and again while we are engaged in a struggle for survival? With all respect, I say that hon. members of the PFP should really be ashamed to be in this House tonight. They should be called to order. The fact that they differ from us politically, is their democratic right. However, we should differ from one another like citizens of South Africa. Never since 1910 has it happened in the history of South Africa that we have had to deal with such despicable tactics. [Interjections.]

They are stormtroopers.

The hon. member refers to the stormtroopers. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Johannesburg North was a stormtrooper, and I think that is the only good thing he has ever done in his life. [Interjections.] But what I do not know is whom he pursued and whom he stormed. However, it was a period in his life during which he did something positive. [Interjections.]

I have always been proud to be a citizen of this beautiful country, South Africa. I have always tried to respect the opinion of every person as far as I could. I also respect the opinion of the Black man, the Brown man and the Indian. However, there are limits to everything. We must pursue the hon. Leader of the Opposition and his followers from Dan to Beersheba. If there is a Dead Sea, we are going to chase them into that as well. [Interjections.] An Opposition that wishes to crucify South Africa in such a manner every day, deserves it.

Close down Parliament!

We shall not close Parliament down. Parliament is a good and fine institution. However, there are limits within which one has to operate.

Once again I wish to tell the hon. Minister of Finance that he need not worry. As an English-speaking South African and a good member of the Nationalist party with the talents with which God has endowed him, he need not be ashamed. This country will stand by him. [Interjections.] In the same way I wish to tell each hon. Minister of the Cabinet that we believe in their integrity. We know that through hard work they do only the best for this country despite difficult circumstances. I wish to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that I wish him well.

[Inaudible.]

Leave Connie Mulder alone! [Interjections.] I do not approve of what he did, but Connie Mulder was not a political bird of passage. He did not fly from one party to another, but he was a man who did what he thought was right for South Africa. Unfortunately he was caught out in the circumstances. [Interjections.] That hon. member can say what he likes, but I can stand up for that man. We are sorry about what has happened, but I wish to state very clearly tonight that Connie Mulder—they can do to him what they like—will not stab South Africa in the back as the official Opposition does. I also wish to put it to the Press tonight that this matter does not relate to the whole former Department of Information, but only to a few people in that department. The Information Service of South Africa has, to my mind, an important task to fulfil in the future. This service is the soul of the Cabinet and must be extended to recruit friends for South Africa abroad, for hon. members on that side of the House are daily trying to recruit enemies for South Africa there.

Mr. Speaker, it was pleasant to listen to the way in which the hon. member for Stilfontein sent the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition from pillar to post. I do not think it will harm him one bit to venture briefly onto the terrain of the hon. member for Yeoville; that may perhaps bear some fruit.

However, I do not wish to continue maligning the PFP because they are already so bad that I cannot malign them any further. I want to avail myself of the opportunity to refer to the constitutional committee’s recommendations and to the policy decisions taken by the official Opposition at their congresses. I think the hon. member for Johannesburg North is a very worried man this evening. Hon. members will recall that when the PFP was formed the cornerstones of the coalition were 14 basic principles of which he was the architect. Shortly afterwards, in September 1977, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition reduced those 14 principles to seven. During the no-confidence debate the hon. member for Rondebosch referred to two “so-called” principles on which the policy of the PFP rests today. According to him those two “so-called” principles are not negotiable. He said, inter alia, the following (Hansard, weekly edition No. 1, col. 329)—

I do not think they will have any principles left towards the end of this session and they will have to start formulating another policy from the start. Surely these non-negotiable principles are not principles that are peculiar to the official Opposition. Those principles are also subscribed to by the Government and promoted throughout. As long ago as 14 April 1961, during the Committee Stage of the Appropriation Bill, Dr. Verwoerd said that that was the policy of the Government. He said (Hansard, Vol. 107, col. 4617)—

It is not necessary for me to quote what the previous hon. Prime Minister said but I should like to refer the House to the Hansard of 1974 where he stated very clearly that there must not be any discrimination. I can also refer the House to the speech which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs made on 24 October 1974 before the Security Council of the UN. In that speech he said, inter alia, that we definitely did not approve of discrimination based on the colour of a person’s skin and that we were moving completely away from it I can also refer hon. members to the speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance at Brussels in which he specifically said that our policy was to move in a direction of a community based on merit, a statement that was repeated in this House.

A great deal has been said about consociational democracy. Arend Lijphart, the modern exponent of the concept of con-sociational democracy, discussed the Government’s proposals for a new constitutional dispensation for and Indians and Coloured in a paper called “Federal, Confederal and Consociational Alternatives for the South African Plural Society: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives”. He said, inter alia, the following—

Lijphart says further that these proposals ultimately deviate from the classical theory of consociational democracy in only two respects, namely, that the Black man is not involved and that there is no specific reference to a veto. I maintain that the official Opposition has deliberately cashed in on the two so-called shortcomings that Lijphart points out in these proposals, has added something and dished a new policy to the people of South Africa which the PFP intend following in future. I do think, however, that it has brought us closer to a meaningful debate. In the process the official Opposition has begun to understand and to accept a few of the points of view of the NP. They have begun to appreciate the importance of the entity, the cultural entity, even though they have tried to camouflage it in their proposals. They have also realized that the qualified franchise is a concept that has served its purpose, that it is impractical and something that had disappeared from world politics as long ago as the beginning of the century. To put it in a nutshell: They have realized that some form of separate development is absolutely necessary for South Africa with its plural society. However, those PFP members who still firmly subscribe to the idea of majority government are quite satisfied. Why are they satisfied? I can think of two possible reasons. Firstly, every historical example of consociational democracy shows that when it fails one or other form of domination takes over, be it a military or a para-military government or be it a case where the majority simply imposes its will upon the minority. On the other hand, I came across a publication entitled Constitutional change in South Africa by Prof. Marinus Wiechers, edited by John Benyon. I just want to quote what he said in a paper delivered in February 1978 at the University of Natal. He said—

With this policy, therefore, they were able to satisfy both schools of thought within their party. But what does it all mean, Sir? On the one hand, one has the policy of separate development of the NP, a policy aimed at freedoms, the freeing of people. As against that one has the policy of consociation of the official Opposition which, although it recognizes the group idea, is aimed at the destruction of group identities and the removal of ethnic differences. I do not want to score a point against hon. members; I should like to debate this matter with them.

[Inaudible.]

If they can convince this side of the House that their policy is worth while and if we also believe that that is the best policy, we will after all adopt it as our own. However, it is remarkable, it is in fact a tragedy, that during this entire session they have hardly availed themselves of any opportunity of stating their policy. During the no-confidence debate the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition dealt with their policy briefly with reference to five cardinal points and the hon. member for Rondebosch reacted in his speech to the accusations that this side of the House had levelled against that policy. The hon. member for Hillbrow devoted two minutes of his time to refer hastily to four basic principles of consociational democracy but they are still fighting shy of any opportunity to discuss it. Once again today the hon. the Minister of Community Development said in this House that they would avoid doing so time and time again. On Friday, 16 February 1979, during the discussion of a private member’s motion, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said the following (col. 854)—

However, he fought shy of it once again this afternoon. Let us see, Sir, what it all entails. According to Lijphart consociation can be defined in terms of four principles, the so-called grand coalition, the reciprocal veto, proportionality and segmental autonomy. Every one of these principles can take shape in more than one form as well. Grand coalition can take the shape of a cabinet in a parliamentary system or in a presidential system where offices are allocated, as in the case of Lebanon and Cyprus. The veto can be formal or informal. Minority representation can be proportional or there can be overrepresentation and segmental autonomy can be of a territorial nature—the federation idea—or it can be corporative—the recognition of groups—as this Government has clearly indicated in its new proposals.

Great importance is attached to the concept of government by consensus with so-called freedom of association.

The hon. member for Rondebosch—I think he knows what his policy entails—will concede that nowhere in world politics have parties been formed in a plural society other than along segmental lines.

No, that is not necessarily so.

That is how the position has developed basically but I concede that that need not necessarily be so. However, the hon. member must give me an example or where it has happened along different lines. As a matter of fact, in his Democracy in Plural Societies Lijphart says …

What about the…

I think the hon. member for Bryanston would do well to listen; if he does he may learn something about his policy. Lijphart says it is in a society with segmental cleavages or divisions that the formation of political parties follows those segmental cleavages. In a work entitled Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability, Rabushka and Shepsle, one of the other sources—I shall confine myself to the sources they have indicated as far as their plan is concerned—discuss consociational democracy. They identify a plural society as one having three characteristics namely cultural diversity, politically organized cultural societies and the emphasis of ethnicity. Lijphart, in turn, says that the favourable conditions in which consociational democracy can operate must comply with the following requirements: Firstly, the society must adopt a moderate attitude and must be willing to compromise in a system of consociational democracy. As a matter of fact, he regards that as a prerequisite. Secondly, there must be a multi-party system in which at the beginning at any rate, the formation of such parties will and must follow segmental cleavage, but the political parties must be limited to a maximum of three or four. As soon as there are too many parties, it does not work either. I think it is reasonably safe to say—the hon. member for Rondebosch will grant me this—that in our case there will be at least 10 to 15 political parties. Thirdly, circumstances will have to be favourable so that cross-sectional cleavages will be present in these segmental divisions. Therefore, interests must overlap. He goes on to say that if certain differentiations such as ethnicity, race, language, social status, financial ability, cultural values and loyalty are too similar, consociational democracy has no change of succeeding.

Correct.

The hon. member for Rondebosch concedes that point.

I think present circumstances in South Africa are of such a nature, in any case, that these lines will often mainly follow the same cleavages. He also says that it is only possible to have stability where the relevant cleavages are cross-sectional. I think our circumstances are all but favourable for the introduction of such a policy. Let us consider a few other problems that can beset a government that is based on consensus. In the first place, one has the problem of slow decision-making. In fact, Lijphart says that usually when the whole process collapses the so-called victorious coalition takes over. He is an exponent of this idea but at the same time he says that the veto right can completely demobilize this decision-making process. He says that the danger inherent in that is that it may result in a minority tyranny. The argument against that is that there is a reciprocal veto. One can therefore also frighten another there by assisting in demobilizing decision-making even further. He also says that the fact that one has the veto right, makes one so strong that one will not exercise it: Everyone will agree and govern.

There is a third important point, Sir, and that is the question of a political choice. I think the idea of a consociational democracy can be fairly successful in practice where there are two or three groups, as will be the case under the new dispensation the Government has in mind. In this case we are dealing with the Coloured and the Indian. When there are only two or three groups, the choice is usually limited to the number of parties. There are therefore two or three who have a choice. Where one is dealing with 15 parties and there are 15 different preferences, it happens in practice that when the fifth or sixth choice has to be made, agreement has to be reached in respect of each group in order of merit. In that case the entire community is saddled with a policy and the application of a policy does not satisfy and is unacceptable to them. That leads to serious frustration and instability. There is a fourth and very important aspect that is also emphasized by Rabushka and Shepsle and that is the concept of leadership. On page 60 they quote Schattschneider with approval as follows—

What does that mean? I think it is already common cause that the political parties in South Africa will be established along the lines of ethnic differentiations. From the nature of things, therefore, it means that the politician will have to depend on his own people to back him in his political campaign. What follows and what happens in practice is similar to what happened in Guiana at the time of their 1961 elections. The Progressive People’s Party adopted “Vote for your own kind” as their slogan. That idea wrecked the entire system in Guiana and resulted in anarchy. I think we all agree that political stability in a consociational democracy depends on the ability of the leaders to overcome the differences that exist among the various population groups. In dealing with this point, one must again consider who the leaders are and what attitude they adopt.

I want to refer to Dr. Motlana, the “key figure” in Soweto. I quote from page 118 of Anna Starcke’s book Survival where he says—

I also quote from page 123 where he says—

We all know what happens to traitors.

I also want to deal with one aspect which the official Opposition should put clearly to the electorate and that is what form the government will take in a federation. As far as the system of proportional representation is concerned, they will have to agree and put it to the electorate that in the main the executive posts will probably be filled by non-Whites. In other words, the Black majority will occupy the executive positions. I want to know from the official Opposition whether those people are capable of fulfilling that role.

A second aspect that they will have to state clearly is the idea of proportionality. What attitude are they going to adopt as regards the admission of people to the Public Service because in the ordinary course of events posts in the Public Service are filled on this principle of proportionality. Will room have to be made for the other groups? That position must be clearly explained. They must also tell us on what basis that will be done. Will it be on the basis of proportionality alone? This Government at least subscribes to the principle of a society based on merit and of affording people opportunities according to merit. That is coupled with the concept of “discrimination”. In that connection the hon. member for Florida referred briefly to the allocation of funds. Those hon. members must also explain clearly what their attitude is in regard to the elimination of discrimination. Those people who suggest and subscribe to the principle of a consociational democracy are all in favour of some form or other of affirmative action being taken to eliminate discrimination. I should like to know what their attitude is in this respect. They will have to state that clearly. Are they only going to make opportunities available or are they going to create a situation in which all groups will be put on an equal footing by favouring some people? I can also pose all these questions in respect of the position at Governmental level but at this stage time does not permit me to go into that in detail.

Lijphart says—and this ties up with the federal idea—that federalism on a geographical basis can only be meaningful if the various segments are reasonably homogenous; in other words, if there is a reasonable similarity between the geographical divisions and the diversity of the segments. However, hon. members of the official Opposition do not suggest geographical divisions in their plan and we should like to know why not. Is the reason perhaps because they know that they will not be able to do so on a proper basis? They should also indicate clearly that there is not one magisterial district in this country at the moment in which the Whites are in the majority.

There is.

At a later stage I should like to know where it is because according to all the sources I have consulted there is none. Neither have they accepted the co-operative idea because they are afraid that it will look too much like the policy of separate development of the NP.

Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to refer briefly to the idea of the official Opposition to hold a national convention. At the beginning of the year the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition said (Hansard, col. 44) that no group that advocated or had used violence would be invited to attend such a convention. A few days later the hon. member for Rondebosch said (Hansard col. 329) that Mandela would be invited if the people wanted him. He said it would be stupid of us not to invite him. The hon. member for Yeoville is not here at the moment but he will again have to bring these people together so that they can decide on who should actually be invited.

There is another very important aspect which the hon. members of the official Opposition must bear in mind and that is that once they have accepted the idea of a national convention they they will have to carry it through.

A national sale.

No matter how much they try to impress upon the public that the Government will remain in power if no consensus is reached, they must realize that only chaos can result from that because the image of illegality in respect of this Government will then be created and hon. members can themselves imagine what the results will be if the convention or implementation of the majority idea is not proceeded with. The difficulty is also that the official Opposition are looking for a constitutional solution while South Africa is still faced with the problem of finding a political solution in respect of its Black people.

Why do you have a draft constitution?

The NP holds its convention within the framework of its policy of partition and consensus but not consensus in the PFP way. It holds discussions. The climate has been created, and circumstances are improving daily, in which we seek political solutions. We are moving towards a society in which there will be no discrimination, a society based on merit but a society in which every population group will retain its identity and its culture, and will control its own affairs and maintain law and order. Change is an integral part of NP policy. Those changes form part of orderly practice, changes which do not destroy identity and order but which in fact foster them so that the group and the individual as a member of that group can live a meaningful life.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to reply briefly to what the hon. member for Randburg said. On another occasion we shall indeed come back to what he said this evening. After we have had the opportunity to peruse his speech in Hansard, we shall discuss it again. However, we appreciate the fact that the hon. member evidently made a thorough study of various political opinions. Although he devoted virtually all his time to the PFP, we in the NRP were, nevertheless, also very interested in certain aspects of what he said. Consequently I can give him the assurance that we shall discuss this matter again at a later stage, after we have studied his Hansard.

I should also like to point out to the hon. member for Randburg, however, that the approach of the NP to a change in the political dispensation in South Africa has two basic and really major shortcomings. We accept, because of the fact that the hon. the Minister of the Interior has now decided to appoint a committee to discuss these matters, that the NP itself has now come to realize itself that there are two major weaknesses in their approach to this matter. Those two weaknesses consist, in the first place, of the fact that we have not yet heard from the NP that the urban Blacks will in fact share in this new deal. The fact that the NP does not want to allow urban Blacks to become involved in this matter as well, will result in those fine words and ideas of the hon. member for Randburg coming to nought.

The second problem is, of course, the approach which the NP has to a new deal. To be more specific, they are trying to work out their own recipe which they will then try to force upon other people. In any event, as I have said before, we shall subsequently have a further discussion on the matters raised by the hon. member for Randburg. However, I should like to congratulate the hon. member on the delivery of his speech, and, of course, on his intensive research. I am certain of the fact that it will still bear fruit.

†Mr. Speaker, the main items with which I should like to deal this evening concern, first of all, the very serious problems which we have in South Africa at the moment, namely the Information problem, and secondly, the things that were said about the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. If time permits I should also like to pose two or three questions to the hon. the Prime Minister. I see he is not here now. However, no doubt, he will have the opportunity of replying to some of these questions in the near future. Time permitting, I should also like to deal with some aspects of what I can only term as an illusionist budget, which the hon. the Minister of Finance has introduced in this House.

First of all, I should like to address myself to the very serious accusations which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs levelled at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. What I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I am not saying in defence of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. However, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs must realize that he has levelled accusations at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, accusations which will probably be of far greater seriousness in the future than possibly the Information scandal itself. [Interjections.] I believe that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and hon. members opposite, will have to ensure, unless they want these two scandals to reverberate along the corridors of our political history, that the accusations levelled at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition are in fact correct. [Interjections.]

He is quite sure!

In the same breath I should like to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that unless positive action is taken by him, either to call for a Select Committee to investigate the allegations levelled against him, or to deny categorically that those allegations are true, I believe he will be failing this country as he has never failed it before. [Interjections.] If the accusations levelled at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition are true, I believe he is busy undermining the very process of democracy and effective opposition in this Parliament. [Interjections.] For the benefit of the rowdy hon. members of the PFP I want to repeat that if they do not take positive action to call for a Select Committee to investigate the allegations levelled at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, they will be failing in their duty to South Africa. [Interjections.] If they do not do it, they may well bring about greater damage to the political situation in South Africa than the whole Information scandal has done. I shall leave the matter there and hope that the message gets through to hon. members of the PFP.

I should now like to discuss, with the hon. the Minister of Finance, one or two points regarding the Information scandal. [Interjections.] It is amazing that hon. members on that side of the House seem to feel that hon. members of the NRP have, in fact, been the cause of the Information scandal. As I said during the short debate on 8 December 1978, a go-away bird will not go away until you have wrung its neck. I notice, however, that hon. members on that side of the House have the greatest difficulty in finding the bird, let alone wringing its neck. I should like to raise two points with the hon. the Minister of Finance. Firstly I should like to ask him whether he would take the opportunity afforded him in this debate to explain, not only to the House but also to the general public, what his attitude will be in terms of the powers granted to him by the amendments to the Secret Services Account Act on 1 April 1978 in this House. In terms of that amending legislation, it is now very clear that the hon. the Minister of Finance carries full responsibility and accountability for any expenditure of secret funds. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to tell the House and the public, who are also concerned about this, what his attitude will be in terms of these powers. The reason why I ask this is that it is now left to the discretion of the hon. the Minister of Finance to grant secret funds to each and every Government department that requests such funds. I trust that, unlike in the past, the hon. the Minister will now take the trouble to find out what those secret funds are going to be spent on because in law he is now totally responsible. In fact he can go as far as to make a request to the Auditor-General about what sections of the secret funds he must exercise his skill on.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to take this opportunity to explain to the House whether he now accepts full responsibility, so that he cannot come back to the House in the future and say that he did not know. The hon. the Minister has said, on many occasions, how concerned he was that he could not gain information. He was so concerned—and all the evidence is here in the interim report of the Erasmus Commission—about not knowing what the secret funds were spent on that he sent the Secretary of the Treasury to find out. On each and every occasion they got a rebuff not only from the Secretary of the department, but also from the former Minister of Information. They were told blandly that they were not allowed to know what went on. If the hon. the Minister was as concerned as he made out he was—and there is plenty of evidence in the two reports that the hon. the Minister was genuinely very concerned and was doing everything in his power to find out—did he, prior to September 1978, ever go to the former Prime Minister and tell him of the difficulty he was having in obtaining information? [Interjections.] If he, on his own initiative, went and consulted, or complained to, the previous Prime Minister, I believe he should tell this House on what day he went and what the results of those discussions were. If, however, the hon. the Minister tells us he did not go and complain and was unable to gain access to information, I believe he owes it to this House to tell us why he did not go to the hon. the former Prime Minister when he was unable to obtain information which he was so terribly concerned about. If he does not tell us why he could not have such a meeting or did not raise the matter with the former Prime Minister, he owes this House an apology for not doing his duty and exercising his responsibility in full, allowing his very principles to be abrogated by a junior official of another department [Interjections.]

Why have you not given evidence before the commission?

The hon. Minister of Finance is now giving us all the impression that he wants to delegate his responsibility to the Erasmus Commission. [Interjections.] He cannot hide behind it.

I should like to come back to the hon. the Minister of Finance in a moment. Before doing that however, I should like to raise two points with the hon. the Prime Minister. I am sorry to see that he is not here, but he will no doubt hear about it. In the first place, the hon. the Prime Minister is in duty bound and has a responsibility to the people of South Africa and to his Cabinet to accept joint and full responsibility, together with the hon. the Minister of Finance for the expenditure out of all secret funds. Despite the fact that he is not legally obliged to do so in respect of all funds, I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister owes it to members of his Cabinet, to the people of South Africa and to hon. members in this House, in order to avoid the pitfalls and the disasters that have been experienced before, to accept full, joint and individual responsibility for the expenditure of funds. We should get rid of the fundamental cause that gave rise to the Information debacle. The cause is very simple: It was the abrogation of joint, collective and individual responsibility by at least two or three members of the Cabinet if not the whole Cabinet.

The second point that I should like to raise with the hon. the Prime Minister, I raise from the point of view that he owes this House an explanation, which only he can give regarding the discrepancy between his reply to me on 7 and 8 December in connection with the $10 million that was sent to Switzerland from the Defence Force Account—his reply is recorded in Hansard—and the point that has now been brought forward in the second report of the Erasmus Commission, namely that the $10 million was in fact sent over. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister, in his own interest, should offer an explanation for that to this House, possibly still during this debate if the opportunity is granted to him. He does not only owe it to himself, but also to the Government and to the institution of Parliament to give us an explanation of that discrepancy.

I should now like to return to the hon. the Minister of Finance and his budget. We have now had two scandals which have diverted our attention. In that diversionary tactic there also lies the danger of the kind of thing that has been going on in the NP and, apparently, also in the PFP. The hon. the Minister of Finance has, to my mind, offered an illusionary budget to the people of South Africa. If the hon. the Minister of Finance thinks that he is going to get a 4% growth factor out of the economy of South Africa for the forthcoming year, then I think he is sadly mistaken.

I say this, because he has in effect put the motor vehicle of the South African economy into neutral gear. He has tinkered around with the engine and he says the engine is running well, but he has put the vehicle into neutral. The hon. the Minister is hoping that private enterprise will come along and push that vehicle. What is the use of having an efficient engine when there is no transmissional connection between the engine and the driving wheel?

At least you are original.

The hon. the Minister of Finance has left us in neutral, and I shall tell him why he did it if he will give me a chance. I am raising this point for the benefit of the hon. the Minister. I doubt whether South Africa on the strength of what the hon. the Minister has given us is going to manage a 2% to 2½% growth rate. 4% is out of the question, and I shall tell the hon. the Minister why. The hon. the Minister lectured me in economics many years ago and I learnt a thing or two, so he will have to take his medicine tonight. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister has with one hand given back to the taxpayers of South Africa an amount of R762 million but with the other hand he has taken back, by means of GST, an expected R1 200 million. He has not put money into the taxpayer’s pocket. He has given a little with the one hand and he is going to take back more with the other hand. If the hon. the Minister wants to obtain growth—and the consumers are pessimistic; they will not spend money lavishly—I believe the hon. the Minister should have given an early refund to the taxpayer of the 1976-’77 loan levy.

Did I pass you in your exams?

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he has a number of problems to overcome.

You had a very bad professor! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, productive capacity is utilized for 85% at the moment and if one studies the tables of internal trade, the tables reflecting the sales volume of internal trade, with prices held constant at 1970, it will be seen that the seasonally adjusted trend line is continuously down. The people of South Africa have not got surplus money to spend. There will be no resurgence in consumer spending unless the hon. the Minister of Finance actually puts money in the consumer’s pocket. Juggling around with money from one hand to the other and from one pocket of the Treasury to the other, does not put cash in people’s pockets.

With regard to the unemployment figure, the hon. the Minister has recognized unemployment in his budget speech by quoting the advisory committee to the hon. the Prime Minister, we are saddled with 1 million people unemployed in South Africa at the moment.

Now you are exaggerating.

During the hon. the Minister of Labour’s Vote I will justify that. A million people are at present unemployed and the unemployment figure is still going up. Motor vehicle sales have dropped again. The excess production capacity in our manufacturing sector cannot be taken up because of a lack of cash for consumer spending. A recent survey, which I think expresses it ideally, is headed “consumer pessimism”, published in The Natal Mercury of 27 February 1979. It states, inter alia, that—

Who can blame the consumer for being pessimistic when we have an inflation factor of 13% per annum; when his income is increasing by only 10% per annum in terms of wage increases and not in terms of a net gain in wages; when the tax man—the hon. the Minister made marginal adjustments to this—takes a greater portion of his earnings because of the marginal tax system; and when the prices of everything—take fuel for example—are going up and keep taking more out of the average man’s pocket I want to make the prediction here and now—and I hope that I will be proved wrong—that the average worker’s real income and standard of living in South Africa is going to decrease by 3% this year and next year as compared to last year unless the hon. the Minister does something to put money back into their pockets. It must be real money and not just a change in the tax system which gives back a net amount of R762 million to the consumers while GST is going to take R1 200 million from them.

The building societies are sitting flush with money. They have announced a 0,5% decrease in their interest rates to bond owners, and yet they still expect people to pay the same amount monthly. The banks are also sitting flush with money. It is easy to obtain a bank overdraft. It is cheap. But what the devil are the companies going to do with the money if there is no demand for their services and products?

I want to point out that the majority of the million unemployed are Blacks. I want to point out further that because a number of people in each family are dependent on one wage earner, although 1 million people are unemployed, the number of people who are affected is much greater, despite the fact that there has been a tremendous increase in wages. The money available per capita to the families of these unemployed people has decreased and therefore their spending power has decreased. I hope that the hon. the Minister will do a little bit of arithmetic on that and that he has learnt a lesson from me this time.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban North dealt with various matters and I assume that he will receive adequate replies from the hon. the Minister of Finance. I think, however …

You must please not try!

… there are a few matters that I can reply to. Having replied to the hon. member for Randburg, he criticized two aspects of the NP’s policy, firstly that of the urban Blacks and, secondly, that of our forcing our policy on the Blacks. I trust I have understood him correctly.

That is quite right.

Obviously he has heard, however, about what the Government is doing for the urban Blacks. Surely he has heard about the community councils, about the fact that the Black man will exercise his political rights in the homelands. [Interjections.] I have not yet heard the NRP’s policy on this. Where they err most lamentably, however, is in saying that we have forced our policy on the Blacks. It is not the NP that has done so, it is history! [Interjections.] If he were to read his history, he would know that it is true. I shall not, however, pursue that matter any further.

I now want to come to a few other matters. Firstly, that hon. member said that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs must be very sure of his facts when attacking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I think, however, that one can put the contrary view to the hon. member for Durban North, and that is, as both he and the hon. member for Simonstown have stated, that the onus is now on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to call for a Select Committee. The onus is on him because his credibility has been attacked and his honour has been impugned. It is therefore for him to call for a Select Committee.

About the new amendment to the legislation he has asked the hon. the Minister of Finance certain questions. I want to refer him, to the commission’s report on the previous piece of legislation. I do not want to quote from the report because he knows what was said in that report by the legal advisers.

I now want to deal with the hon. member’s contention that the hon. the Minister of Finance was concerned about the fact that his department had not been informed about the expenditure. He must realize, though, that there is a very great difference between being “concerned” and being “suspicious”. He was not suspicious. He was merely concerned. I think that the Erasmus Commission’s report…

The new report?

Yes, the new report. I shall quote from the Afrikaans version, page 16, paragraph 55—

That is the answer to the hon. member, the final answer! [Interjections.]

*We have now had the benefit of two reports by the Erasmus Commission. We have also had the benefit of further evidence which has been given and which has been embodied in the report of the Erasmus Commission, evidence concerning the whole Information tragedy. The crux of the whole matter we find in the paragraph I have just read. How can one look for a black cat in a dark room if one does not know that the black cat exists? The hon. Opposition have had the benefit of two debates in which the vast majority of Cabinet members participated. I am referring to the December debate and the no-confidence debate. We have also had the benefit of the statements made by the hon. the Minister of Finance, both here and in the Other Place. The statements and explanations and the findings of the Erasmus Commission have made no impression on the hon. Opposition, however. They simply go on denigrating the hon. the Minister of Finance in particular. Since yesterday, this attempt by the hon. Opposition has begun to boomerang on the specific persons who launched it As the hon. member for Waterkloof said this afternoon: If there is one person whose credibility and integrity must be unblemished, then it is the Minister of Finance. He is the man who personifies South Africa’s creditworthiness abroad. The material and economic well-being of every man and woman in South Africa, whether he or she be White, Black, Brown or Coloured, depends on the good name and integrity of the hon. Minister of Finance. I am grateful for the fact that the hon. the Minister of Finance, in whom we have had the fullest confidence at all times, has once again been completely exonerated. One simply cannot understand the shameless and irresponsible conduct of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in particular. The one moment he wants to reserve judgment and he even appeals to the public to do the same, and then he says in the same breath that the hon. the Minister of Finance “was ineffective and there was an alarming inefficiency in the control of expenditure by the Government”. The only conclusion I can draw is that he has not read this report. He has not read the evidence of the hon. the Minister or the annexures to the report, nor has he read the legal opinion quoted by the hon. the Minister and embodied in the report.

He did not have time for that, because he was talking to McHenry.

Either he has not read the report or he is refusing to bid farewell to this carcase on which he is feasting so royally. Unfortunately he is not here at the moment. I want to refer the House to what he said on 9 February this year (Hansard, col. 457)—

At that stage the hon. the Minister of Finance told him by way of interjection, “Put it to the commission”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not do so, however. He has been exposed and he must resign. That is the only course for him to take. Now I can also understand why he wants this matter to be examined by a Select Committee. He wants to know what the secrets of South Africa are so that he may use them as it appears that he has used things he was told in confidence.

He traffics with the enemies of South Africa.

That is the point. He wants to ferret out the secrets of South Africa. He is not interested in the Information scandal. He is only interested in the secrets of South Africa, which he wants to use as he has used these.

Yes, he wants to traffic with the enemies of South Africa.

As the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said the other day, they have been relying in this process on the evidence of a totally discredited witness, Dr. Rhoodie. Dr. Rhoodie made certain statements to the Rand Daily Mail and I now want to ask that newspaper a question. I hope that the reporter of the Rand Daily Mail will convey it to his editor.

Order! The hon. member cannot address the Press.

I just want to refer to the allegations made by Dr. Rhoodie. I shall obey your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Rhoodie alleged that he had not received any money from any person for the tape-recordings he made. I want to know how much he got for his family album. He must tell us what he got for his photo album.

Then I want to come to the hon. member for Parktown, who referred to the former Prime Minister yesterday. You will allow me, Sir, to refer to this aspect, because it has a bearing on the new report by the Erasmus Commission. Referring to paragraphs 52 and 53 of that report, he mentioned the former Prime Minister. The Cape Times also mentioned it today. We must remember that the commission was asked to report before 31 March 1979 and to say whether any member of the present Cabinet, before the facts were disclosed as a result of inquiries by the Government, had any knowledge of the subsidizing of or the rendering of other financial assistance to The Citizen by the former Department of Information or of any other irregularities in that department. In its report, the commission deals with the question of whether the hon. the Minister of Finance was aware of these irregularities. In this connection I refer to paragraph 52 of the report. When we read the report in its entirety, we see that the commission rejects the evidence of Dr. Rhoodie, but as often happens in court rulings, the commission uses Rhoodie’s own evidence to refute his allegations that the hon. the Minister had been aware of the irregularities. The commission states it pertinently in paragraph 52 of the report—

It is not the evidence of the former Prime Minister nor that of the hon. the Minister of Finance which is under discussion here. Nowhere in either of the reports does it say that the hon. the Minister of Finance discussed this aspect with the former Prime Minister. Neither the former Prime Minister nor the hon. the Minister of Finance said so. From a legal point of view, this paragraph cannot be used against the former Prime Minister. His position was dealt with in full in the first report of the commission. Specific aspects of his evidence were corroborated by the Press statement made by Gen. Van den Bergh. The latter said that he had always told Dr. Rhoodie that the Prime Minister was not prepared to put up with an enterprise such as The Citizen or something of that nature. He went on to say—

I see that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is back in the House. I want to refer him once again to the speech he made on 5 February 1979 (Hansard, 1979, col. 31), a speech in which he implicated the present Cabinet in the Information tragedy. He should now resign.

†I now want to come to the hon. member for Musgrave. As he does not understand the other official language of South Africa, I shall read to him in English what he has said in the December debate (Hansard, 7 December 1978, col. 147)—

*In saying this, the hon. member for Musgrave revealed his suspicious attitude. I want to refer him to page 22 of the commission’s report, because I think the hon. member owes this House an apology for that suspicious and irresponsible statement he made. I quote paragraph 72 of the commission’s interim report—

I wonder whether the hon. member for Musgrave will accept that.

Let us also examine the figures for a moment. The amount involved is R64 million over a period of five years. We have seen from the budget that the appropriation of expenditure for the 1978-’79 financial year is approximately R12 000 million. R64 million therefore amounts to R13 million a year on average. We heard the other day that Soekor has hitherto spent approximately R129 million in the search for oil. To this day, we cannot evaluate exactly what the real loss is that was suffered in the Department of Information, and still the Opposition, along with the enemies of South Africa, is highlighting the negative aspects of the matter. Now I simply ask: Seen against the background of world circumstances, of resistance to South Africa which is increasing almost every day, as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated yesterday and as he indicated in Bloemfontein when he was opening the show there, does the Opposition not consider that it also has a duty to South Africa to contribute in a responsible way to moderating world opinion about South Africa? The hon. member for Yeoville did make some move in that direction, as though his conscience had begun to prick him. I wonder whether the Opposition realizes what is happening. I just want to refer them to volume 9, the January 1979 edition, of the magazine South Africa International of the South Africa Foundation, and specifically to the article written by Mr. Roger Fonteyn, where he quotes Fidel Castro on pages 110 and 111. In an interview in 1977 he said—

Just think what the position would be if Soviet Russia could gain only temporary control over South Africa. We know what South Africa’s contribution to the mineral potential of the world is. But has it been calculated what the position would be if Russia were to gain control of it? I should like to furnish a few facts. Russia would then possess 94% of the world’s platina production and 99% of its reserves; 67% of its chrome and 84% of its reserves; 62% of its manganese and 93% of its reserves; 72% of its gold and 68% of its reserves; 70% of its vanadium and 97% of its reserves; and there are many more examples. Just look at the progress Russia has made in Africa. In 1956, there were only two diplomatic missions of communist countries in Africa, and in 1971 there were 273. The Soviet navy has long been threatening the American navy in size and in strength. Last night we read in the papers how the Russian boat Minsk had entered the harbour of Luanda. In the Indian Ocean, too, they present a threat. They visit Mauritius, as well as Dar es Salaam, Zanzibar, Mogadishu, the Seychelles, etc. In addition, there is the statement made by Mr. Gromyko of Russia—

Against this background we must also regard the situation in Rhodesia and in South West Africa. We have just learned that the House of Representatives have voted down the motion that American observers attend the Rhodesian election. We also saw the Americans keeping out of Iran until the Ayatullah had taken over, making no attempt to ensure what régime would be established there

In this atmosphere, hon. members of the Opposition are still dragging the dead cat of the Information tragedy back and forth across the floor of this House. From the time the Information scandal was made public up to this day, they have not made any attempt to do something constructive to improve South Africa’s position in the world and to assist the Government of South Africa in a positive way in helping South Africa through its troubles in these difficult times, in these times of survival. However, the people of South Africa will deal with them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Brakpan on the very clear exposition he has given of this specific aspect of the debate. Of course, I have great sympathy with the hon. members of the Opposition as far as the budget is concerned. The question with regard to the budget is this. How does one criticize success? Because that is not possible, the Opposition is taking refuge in the Information scandal. They are flogging a dead horse.

The Opposition’s main criticism of the second report of the Erasmus Commission is that it is not a report of not guilty, but, as the hon. member for East London North said, a report of not proved. According to the hon. member for East London North, the case has not been proved because the right witnesses were not called. The hon. member for East London North went on to name the witnesses who should have been called, according to him, so that a proper finding could be made. In the first place, he mentioned the former Auditor-General, Mr. Barrie. Very well. Mr. Barrie gave evidence. His evidence was contained in the first report. In that, Mr. Barrie said that he had reported to the previous Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster. That was his reply. However, there was absolutely no need to ask a judicial commission what Mr. Barrie’s position in this matter is. The hon. member could have phoned Mr. Barrie himself. Mr. Barrie lives at Stellenbosch. Mr. Barrie would have informed him that he had not submitted any report to the hon. the Minister of Finance. In fact, that was the reply Mr. Barrie gave to me, and he would have given the hon. member for East London North the same reply. Then there is the evidence of Gen. Van den Bergh. This is dealt with on page 9 of the interim report. As the hon. member for Brakpan has already said, some hon. members probably have not read the report, or have not understood its contents. On page 9 of the interim report, reference is made to the evidence of Gen. Van den Bergh. He said the following—

That was the evidence given by Gen. Van den Bergh. If Gen. Van den Bergh were recalled to give evidence again, what question could be put to him after he had already given evidence in full in the previous report?

There is also the question of Dr. Rhoodie’s evidence. This is mainly hearsay evidence which he got from Dr. Mulder. However, Dr. Rhoodie wrote two letters at a stage when there were no problems surrounding the former Department of Information. One of the letters—the one dated 24 January 1977—read as follows—

I assume that hon. members on that side of the House will say that the hon. the Minister of Finance was also a member of that circle. However, Dr. Rhoodie could then just have mentioned it in this letter, then it would have put an end to all the arguments. Dr. Rhoodie went further and in his next letter, again addressed to the Department of Finance, he confirmed the following—

This letter is dated 4 February 1977. If this is the case, surely it is not worth reconsidering this evidence. Only the evidence of Dr. Mulder then remains. This report refers in full to the evidence of Dr. Mulder. The report reads as follows (page 11)—

Dr. Mulder replied—

With reference to the question asked in this House about The Citizen, Dr. Mulder said the following (page 12)—

If this is the evidence given by Dr. Mulder, what other evidence could he give if he were to be recalled for that purpose? What other evidence could he give which would not discredit him? Therefore, the validity of this interim report is beyond any doubt, and nothing it contains can be refuted. The Erasmus Commission has issued the further invitation and remarked that if there should be any further evidence indicating that a new finding could be made, the commission would not hesitate to make that finding. The hon. members are still entitled to give evidence. If they say that they have only hearsay evidence, they would do well to ask the informant to go and give evidence, because the commission has undertaken to change its findings in that case. [Interjections.]

As far as the budget is concerned, I shall only refer to a remark made in the Sunday Times to the effect that the budget is a personal triumph for the hon. the Minister of Finance. That is indeed true. I do not wish to repeat old arguments, but I do want to refer again to the behaviour of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the McHenry incident.

He will be haunted in his dreams tonight.

I accept that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had only one motive in phoning Mr. McHenry, i.e. to serve the interests of South Africa. If this is not so, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is welcome to say so.

Of course it is.

Surely he can answer my question for himself. Any other motive would be reprehensible, in my opinion. If his motive was to serve the highest interests of South Africa, I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition why he was so terribly upset by the disclosure of that fact. [Interjections.] It upset him so much that he told an untruth about it in this House.

That is not true.

Prove that

Here it is. I quote the hon. the Minister’s Hansard—

*Mr. C. W. Eglin: No. That is not true.

[Interjections.] I can assure the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that this question will not go away.

It will not go away.

I also want to refer to another statement made by the hon. member for Parktown. During the discussion of the Part Appropriation, the hon. member for Parktown said, among other things, that South Africa could have apartheid or prosperity, but not both.

Yes. That is true.

I believe it is necessary to examine this statement more closely.

Do examine it; I am enjoying this.

I want to make the statement that it is precisely the successful implementation of the policy of separate development over the past 30 years which has brought peace, stability and prosperity to this country. I do not want to commit the same error as the hon. member for Parktown by making this kind of statement and then letting it hang in the air. He made the statement in the last sentence of his speech.

It was the subject of his whole speech.

It may rightly be asked, therefore, what facts I can produce to substantiate my statement. In the past 30 years that the NP Government has been in power, South Africa has developed from a rather poor agricultural country into a mining country, and today it is one of the 15 great industrial countries in the world. Can the hon. member call that adversity? However, prosperity is to some extent a relative concept, and one cannot evaluate prosperity unless it is compared with other tendencies which indicate prosperity. That norm, or tendency, is mainly the balance of payments position of the country. In the same speech, the hon. member indicated what a large surplus there was on the current account.

And on the capital account?

The hon. member said that there was a deficit on the capital account, but this is chiefly due to the repayment of loans.

That I did not say.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member did not say that, he was uninformed.

[Inaudible.]

That is the position in the Republic while prominent countries are having serious balance of payments problems. The De Kock Commission has just made a drastic recommendation to the effect that the rand should be freed from all other currencies to find for itself an independent place in the currency market of the world. This can only be successful if our currency is in a position of strength as against competitive currencies. Our currency can only be in a position of strength if it is supported by a healthy and a stable economy. What happened in respect of the freeing of the rand? The rand actually appreciated by a small percentage in terms of the dollar, which is the Free World’s most powerful currency. The fact that the currency of the Republic was able to hold its own, even with good results, in the currency market of the world, is an undeniable sign of economic stability and prosperity.

I want to come a little closer, through my argument, to the hon. member for Parktown.

Overtures!

I understand that the hon. member occupies an important position in the Oppenheimer organization of companies, of which De Beers Consolidated is the biggest. In fact, it is the biggest company in South Africa and one of the biggest organizations in the world. This South African company is so prosperous and stable that its shares are regarded as an international currency. The company attained to that remarkable position on South African soil. However, that is not all. The hon. member made his irresponsible statement in this House on 27 February 1979. Only eight days later, on 7 March 1979, The Argus published this outstanding report—

The report says that on 31 December last year, the cash supply of De Beers was R1 294,9 million.

Nice, isn’t it?

Correct! I fully agree with the hon. member, but if he cannot regard that as prosperity, I should like to know his definition of “adversity”!

What about the clinical view?

Today, Eglin is the definition of adversity.

The fact is that this statement has wider implications. There are other things implied in that statement as well, because the underprivileged are told that they are underprivileged because they live in a country of apartheid. However, this agrees with the previous statement made by that hon. member, who said that if he had to look at this country clinically as a foreigner, he would not invest here.

Nor did they!

Because that hon. member had told them not to. [Interjections.]

Order!

The question is, therefore: Is that hon. member unable to recognize prosperity? Of course he is not!

I am waiting for a growth rate of 5% or 6%.

The fact is that the hon. member’s understanding has become so blunted by his bigoted obsession with integration that he is no longer able to appreciate the brilliant achievement of his own country, not even when it benefits him personally!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Namaqualand and the hon. member for Brakpan began by discussing the merits of the Information debacle, but eventually they could not resist the temptation. They too had to soil their hands with the dirty White politics that we have been having since the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs began to speak. [Interjections.] It was just too inviting to them. [Interjections.]

Order!

He began the whole thing.

Order! The hon. member must moderate his language.

Mr. Speaker, I shall do so with great pleasure, but this is really the way I feel about the type of politics which is being indulged in here. This is innuendo politics. [Interjections.] That is exactly what it is, pure innuendo politics! What it amounts to is that there has been no substantiation of the insinuations which have been made. Situations have simply been concocted and interpreted to cast suspicion on a particular member, in this case the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to mention the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs as an example, and I said in advance that I was going to refer to him.

He is absent as usual!

In his Hansard he stated the following, and I quote—

This is the hon. Leader of the Opposition—

However, in the whole speech no evidence was adduced in support of that allegation. [Interjections.] These are nothing but insinuations. In the same way, one member after another stood up here like wind-filled bagpipes and crooned and groaned till they were flat. However, they could not adduce any evidence to confirm their accusations.

Not a single word!

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs… [Interjections.]

Order!

… and the hon. the Minister of Labour did not have the elementary decency, if they knew about it, to tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition that they received such a telegram six weeks ago. [Interjections.] No, they chose this moment, purely on grounds of political opportunism, for broadcasting, the matter. [Interjections.] What I find interesting, even fascinating, is that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs …

You are probably McHenry’s bosom pals.

… as well as the hon. the Minister of Labour are prepared to accept McHenry’s word above that of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.] Here it says so. The word of that “great enemy” of South Africa is accepted without… [Interjections.]

Order!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The word of that “great enemy” of South Africa is accepted uncritically. It is simply seized on as the reason why there should be an investigation.

Prove him wrong in that case.

If this were the case, why was the hon. Leader of the Opposition not asked to give an account of himself six weeks ago? But they waited with it.

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

I have very little time, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] They selected this debate to bring this matter out into the open. This is pure political opportunism. Sir, two can play this little game. I, too, can engage in innuendo politics.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, unfortunately I have very little time. I am not a Minister who can speak until everyone is sick of his voice. I only have five minutes left. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that two can play innuendo politics. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself showed during the short debate on Information last year that he was obsessed with telephone calls. In that debate he stated—it is all contained in Hansard and I can quote it—that he received two telephone calls between 23 September and 28 September. He stated that they were of fundamental importance to South Africa. He said that on 23 September advocate Van Rooyen had ’phoned him and told him the whole story—on a Sunday at that—precisely as it later appeared in the Mostert Commission report. What did he say then? He said: “Then I knew I was in hot water because I was one of the three men in the race for the premiership.” He said that he then tried to contact the members of the Cabinet and the first one that he could get hold of was the Minister of Health. Then he went with the Minister of Health to the Minister of Defence and told him everything. Later they received a telephone call from Mr. Justice Mostert himself. Of course this was pure coincidence. He had not told advocate Van Rooyen to tell Mr. Justice Mostert, but he then received a call from Mr. Justice Mostert and asked him: “Is this information correct?” The reply was: “Yes, this is the information which I received from advocate Van Rooyen.” All of this involves telephone calls, Mr. Speaker. Then Mr. Justice Mostert told the Minister of Foreign Affairs: “I am now going to ask the Minister of Information to come to me.” Then the Minister of Foreign Affairs said: “No, you cannot do that; you may not do that The Minister of Finance will stop you.” When Mr. Justice Mostert said that the Minister of Finance was not there, the Minister pointed out that his seconder was the Minister of Economic Affairs. Then the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs began to search frantically for that seconder.

You are not standing in a classroom now.

Mr. Speaker, this is all contained in Hansard. Then he asked the Minister of Economic Affairs to stop Mr. Justice Mostert. In this regard I just want to quote the following words of the Minister (Hansard, 7 December 1978, col. 73)—

Why am I referring to this? I am doing so because that particular incident led to the statement which was issued today by the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and which was broadcast to the country at 6 o’clock this evening. The statement reads as follows—

I now want to ask the hon. member for Namaqualand whether he, like the hon. member for Von Brandis, regards Dr. Mulder as a traitor.

No.

The hon. member for Stilfontein is one of the few honest hon. members in this House who are prepared to acknowledge that. He is the only hon. member that I have come across who is prepared to defend Dr. Connie Mulder here. It is interesting that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs was not prepared to do that for one moment. He actually joined in the race to get rid of Dr. Mulder as Minister. He says that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not to be trusted, but he was not even prepared to trust his own colleague. For that reason I want to tell him that before he begins tarring and feathering, he must ensure that his own head is not full of pitch. That is what he has to be careful of. He can give one of two explanations as to why he was not prepared to publicize that information before the election for Prime Minister: Either he knew that Dr. Connie Mulder did not have a chance to become Prime Minister, or it did not matter to him whether he became Prime Minister and was ultimately discredited by his own party. Which one of the two is the possible one? I want to suggest that he knew that as soon as he came to the Cape and spoke to the present hon. Prime Minister, that information would spread throughout the caucus of the NP with the result that Dr. Connie Mulder’s chances of becoming Prime Minister would be impeded. That was what he did.

What have I achieved? I have given a simple demonstration of the innuendo politics to which we have been subjected since yesterday afternoon. I have assembled various incidents, drawn certain conclusions and put certain questions, just as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has done. Incidentally, I want to say that it is a great pity that the NRP are acting like parasitic political predators, because they are trying to feed on a carcass which they have not hunted. I am watching them. I see how they are trying to steer a middle course and pretending to be extremely sorry. The charge I want to make against them is that they seize upon unsubstantiated statements to gain short-term political profit from them. I feel sorry about that, for the simple reason that I really believe that we in South Africa, particularly the Whites, cannot afford that.

You are covering Colin.

No, I am not covering anyone. Let me just say what aspect I should like to discuss. I should like to speak up here for the hon. member for Randburg. I am sorry that I have to praise him now, because it could perhaps damage his career. However, I do not mean it that way. He made a very good speech. I think he made a very thorough study of the subject that he discussed. He spoke well. It is just a pity that he began to play clever politics at the end of his speech. I consider his speech to be the type of debate we should have conducted here, a debate in which the one party pits its policy against the other party’s and in which the real problems in South Africa are discussed. But we little White boys in this House prefer to play dirty politics.

Order!

Pardon me, Mr. Speaker. We now prefer to play White politics in the short-term. After having arrived in my office in Parliament today, I read Die Burger, and when I read a report on page 13, I felt a cold shiver run down my spine. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Stilfontein really cannot appreciate these things. It is difficult for him to understand what I am talking about. The heading of the report read: “Talle hoës verlaat Rhodesië.” The report read—

Who are these people who are being referred to? They are the people with the big mouths. They are the people who, as the hon. member for Parys said, will fight till the rivers run red. But there is fighting to be done, they slip away unseen. This will also happen here. I see it coming. It will happen as the first paragraph says: “Hulle laat die oorlog in die hande…” Hon. members must listen because these are prophetic words “… van diegene wat in 1965 met die eensydige onafhanklikheidsverklaring nog maar kinders was”. That is what they are doing. And we enjoy ourselves talking White politics in this House. We try to score political points off one another as though we had more than enough time. Calmly we sit here talking, making unnuendoes and insinuations, but we do not use the time to discuss real politics. Now and then one hears a word about so-called survival politics, the battle for survival. [Interjections.] I have tried to illustrate what is going on here. However, I am still waiting for one hon. member on that side of the House to stand up and ask what is really at stake in this battle for survival. The lesson is clearly spelt out for us by Rhodesia and South West Africa. All these things tell us clearly that we as Whites—and now I am speaking of all of the Whites together—will have to use the time…

Is that the policy of surrender again?

No, it has nothing to do with surrender. There the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs sits. He is one of the big talkers now, but I foresee where he will be when the battle… [Interjections.] Now he boasts. Every time he rolls his eyes to the gallery, he is courageous and brave and tells us that we have to stand together. But the real battle has not started yet. It is still to come. Then we can see who talks. Then we can ask who has to fight. Then we shall have to see whether it is our children who will have to go and fight or whether those hon. members who are boasting now, who are telling us that we must fight, will be here. I want to predict that very few of them will be here. A few of them will have left the country and will watch everything on television in Switzerland. There are too many of them who boast and too few of them who tell us what to do to solve the problem.

Mr. Speaker, one does not often have occasion to be grateful in this House, but after having listened to the hon. member for Rondebosch tonight, I am grateful that he is no longer in the academic world, that he is no longer able to pollute the minds of young people as he is trying to do with adults in politics. This evening we witnessed the most flagrant form of hypocrisy. The reaction of the hon. member for Rondebosch was concerned with the accusation that we were allegedly playing a political game as a result of the conduct of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition…

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I accused no person of hypocrisy. Is the hon. the Minister insinuating that I am a hypocrite? [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon. the Minister is implying that the hon. member is a hypocrite, that is not permissible.

I said that we had witnessed the greatest exhibition of flagrant hypocrisy in this debate tonight.

By whom?

That is what I said.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What is the substance of the argument of that hon. member, who previously posed as an academic? [Interjections.] That hon. member should rather use his transmitter to broadcast to the people with whom he has the most contact.

The general.

I am speaking of the honourable general. What is the substance of the argument of the hon. member for Rondebosch? He accuses this side of the House in general, and more specifically the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, of playing innuendo politics.