Mr. Speaker, last night we had a hysterical outburst by the hon. member for Rondebosch. This is, of course, in accordance with his behaviour, both as an academic and as a politician. When he was a lecturer at the University of Stellenbosch, he spoke politics in the classroom. Now, since he has come into Parliament, he talks nonsense in this House. He is the constitutional expert of the PFP. Let us now take a look at what his constitutional talents have brought forth. He has gone the full cycle, from one qualified vote, just once and never again, to venturing onto the terrain of a national convention. Ultimately the hon. member for Parktown says, at this point, that the pressure for a majority vote has now become so heavy that one will have to accept it, even if it is used irresponsibly.

That is an incorrect quotation, but never mind.

Then the hon. member should put it right. If it is incorrect, the hon. member should put it right. However, allow me to take it further. The hon. member for Rondebosch spoke in the defence of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. His defence of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition consists fundamentally of the statement that no substantiating evidence exists for the allegation which has been made against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and that everything that was said, was based on insinuation and innuendo. According to him, that is a new element which is now being brought into politics, viz. that people are judged on the grounds of innuendo and insinuation. That sounds strange, coming from a member of a party which has polluted public life in this country for many months, without evidence, by blackening people’s names. [Interjections.]

Let us take a look at what happened. Hon. members opposite have changed the legal system as far as the law of evidence is concerned in South Africa, in the sense that according to them, a person is not innocent until his guilt has been proved, but that he is guilty until he has proved his innocence. Let us now, just for a single moment, apply this rule of law, which was designed by those hon. members as a new part of our judicial system, to the case under discussion by putting the defence advanced by the hon. member for Rondebosch on behalf of his leader to that test. I should say here and now that only a young man like him would put up such a weak defence. [Interjections.]

Only an old man like you could talk so much nonsense.

Let us just take a look at how the scene unfolds. If the circumstances had not been so difficult, and if it had not been so tragic that an hon. member of this House could have done what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has indeed done, one could even find it amusing.

What did he do?

What did he do? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, those hon. members are obviously engaged in obstruction. No one wants to deprive any political party or a member of such a party of the right to derive political advantage from the embarrassment of his opponent. No one disputes that the circumstances surrounding the former Department of Information, as well as the people who were involved in it, affords hon. members of the Opposition such an opportunity, and I am sufficiently realistic to accept that they will make use of this opportunity. However, allow me to remind the hon. members of the actions of the Government. Allow me to remind them of the fact that it was the result of the actions of the Government by making reports available to the hon. Opposition, which enabled them to launch and motivate their attack on the Government side. I should just like to remind those hon. members, too, that it was the Government side which took the step of calling a special session of Parliament. To do what? To give hon. members opposite the opportunity, in privileged circumstances, to discuss that report. However, what did they do with it?

Thanks to Mr. Justice Mostert!

What did they do with that opportunity? What are they making of the present Parliamentary session? They are making of it an opportunity to commit slander against people without being exposed to the consequences of unlawful behaviour. Therefore those hon. members should not blame us when we question their bona fides in this particular respect.

I should like to state that there is no doubt about the fact that this stain on the country’s administration, as reflected in the activities of the former Department of Information, has hurt the Government, and neither is there any doubt about the fact that we made it known. Those hon. members should realize, however, that they are now no longer hurting the NP. They are now hurting South Africa, and I should like to submit that there are hon. members in the official Opposition who understand and realize this.

Yes, Harry.

I think there are people in that party who object to these methods. However, let us take it further. This debate is one of the important opportunities for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to prove the quality of his leadership and to outline and proclaim the quality of his alternative policy for the administration of the country.

Let us take a look at the amendment introduced by the hon. member’s party. I find it very interesting that after beginning by referring to the economy, it goes on to mention relations politics and, thirdly and fourthly, refers to the living conditions of people, and only in the fifth instance mentions the Information scandal. I have to draw certain conclusions from this. I have to conclude in the first place, that the hon. member’s points of criticism are stated in order of their importance. Any process of logical deduction forces one to conclude this. The party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition therefore placed the circumstances surrounding the former Department of Information as the last point of criticism. However, what does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition do? He takes that subordinate element in his amendment to the motion of the hon. Minister of Finance, and spends nearly an hour of his speech on it.

When was the interim report of the Erasmus Commission published?

Let us take a look…

Colin, there is a telephone call for you. [Interjections.]

It is quite probably a call from abroad. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Rondebosch are always stressing the intensity and the sensitivity of the relations issues in this country. One would therefore have expected that they would make use of this opportunity to formulate their attitude in this regard. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, however, does not talk about his view of South Africa for the future, but gossips about Information. He does not outline to this House the alternative which he as Leader of the Opposition envisages for South Africa. No. Sir. He collaborates with the outside world, which expects South Africa to be prepared to accept models which have to satisfy people who are not seeking political rights, but who wish to put megalomaniacs in power. The integrity of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as a member of the House is at issue. I wish to question it. I wish to tell him that his integrity…

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to question the integrity of another member of this House?

Order! I do not think the hon. the Minister has questioned the hon. member’s integrity.

*I shall, however, listen carefully to what the hon. the Minister says further. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit that the behaviour of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition leaves him with one of three alternatives. Firstly, if anything still remains of what we expect from members of this House, he should resign. If he does not want to do that, he should ask for a Select Committee, because I am questioning his integrity. Thirdly, he could submit a sworn statement in which he states what he discussed with Mr. McHenry.

He will swear to nothing.

The conventions of the House are very clear that when prima facie evidence exists which brings into question the integrity of a member, any action to be taken rests with such a member.

There is no evidence, only lies.

I shall call witnesses. [Interjections.] The question now arises whether one can expect such honourable action from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I should say at once that I have a problem in this regard, because after all, one probably has to make allowances for people whose hatred of their opponents is greater than their love of their country, in respect of levels or standards of integrity. Perhaps I overestimated the hon. member’s norms in this regard in the past. If I have done that, I owe the House an apology.

Let us now consider whether the reply of the hon. member for Rondebosch is well-founded. I should like to tell him that if it had not been so amusing, it would have been childish. Surely he knows that the campaign launched over the past few months by the Press which supports them and which parroted them mindlessly, was nothing but a mass trial in the market place where innocent people were found guilty and guilty people became the witnesses.

What about the Afrikaans Press?

In this regard one may refer to the allegations made by the hon. members for East London North and Pietermaritzburg South. The innuendos and insinuations aimed at the hon. the Minister of Finance, cry to heaven and these allegations, innuendos and insinuations were made in spite of a finding by a judge. I think the hon. member for Yeoville should know that questioning the integrity of a Minister of Finance does not harm his person, but in fact the country he represents. Why does he not object to that? At least he has a legal background. The hon. member for Parktown has an interest in this country, a bigger interest than most other people. Why does he not object to this? [Interjections.] They laugh.

I am laughing at the suggestion that I am supposedly so wealthy. [Interjections.]

I did not say that the hon. member is wealthy, but that he has interests in this country.

Let us take a look at the charges causing me to question the integrity and honour of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to say that while bringing a charge against the Leader of the Opposition, I am keeping in mind the defence of the hon. member for Rondebosch. The first allegation against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that in contravention of all rules and practices, he approached Mr. McHenry to make an appointment for him with Dr. Waldheim. This reflects a pattern, for he avoided the normal channels not only when he approached Mr. McHenry, but also when he visited England and other countries. The hon. member for Yeoville knows what one does in this regard. He does it himself. He ought therefore to object to his leader’s behaviour, because it follows a pattern of behaviour. However, this is not all. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition denies that he asked Mr. McHenry to make an appointment for him with Dr. Waldheim. His denial still stands today. I have read what he said in the House. He denies it, and by doing so, he told the House an untruth.

You must read the whole letter.

What is the evidence in this particular regard? Mr. McHenry and Mr. Eksteen confirmed that he wished to make an appointment. Mr. Donald Sole confirmed it by saying that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself told him, Mr. Sole, that he had attempted to arrange an appointment with Waldheim through Mr. McHenry. However, he denies it. [Interjections.]

†Does he deny that he discussed it with Mr. Sole? [Interjections.]

I said to Mr. McHenry perhaps protocol requires that the request should be made via the South African Delegation. [Interjections.]

Since when do you sit down and speak in this House? [Interjections.]

The fact that he adopted this course, is underlined by the interview he had with Newsweek, because he carried on with the process of innuendo and insinuation in the course of that interview with Newsweek.

In what regard?

Go and read the whole article.

Read it.

I have read it. I do not have the time to read the whole article now.

It is not true.

It is true. The second accusation to the effect that the hon. member told an untruth, is based on the fact that when the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he had called Mr. McHenry, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition denied it.

He said in the morning. [Interjections.]

I should like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if it is not a fact that he makes contact with embassies of other countries. Is it not a fact that he has made efforts to have Mr. McHenry make a statement to get him out of trouble?

Nonsense! [Interjections.]

The truth of the allegation against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can be found in today’s Argus. I challenge him to deny it.

Do you mean the denial?

I challenge him to deny that he made attempts to cover his tracks. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has just said that he had only said that he had not phoned in the morning.

Why are you trembling like that?

Order!

He should now say whether it is true. I shall quote what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said. He asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he had phoned Mr. McHenry of America. His reply was: “No…"

Where do you read that?

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that he had given a copy to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition before he left his office. It is Dr. Waldheim’s statement. After that, the hon. member called Mr. McHenry the next morning. [Interjections.] The issue was not whether it had been in the morning; it was whether he had indeed called. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a statement on 10 March with regard to this complained of conversation with Mr. McHenry. The report which appeared in Die Burger, states—

Hon. members must listen carefully—

But the question was also whether he had called McHenry at all. He did not deny it, nor did he admit it. Do hon. members know when he realized that he had to admit it? It was only when he rose on a point of personal explanation. But as soon as he did so, he immediately landed himself in difficulties in respect of the contents of that conversation. I should like to read to hon. members what he said, because I think it is interesting. The hon. member for Rondebosch should take note of this. The hon. Leader said that he had first had a conversation with an ambassador here, and the ambassador had said something very interesting. I am quoting the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said—

This is the contact man here—

†Who is the other side? And what was the information that he had to check with the other side, other than information that had been given to him by the Minister of Foreign Affairs?

Shame! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is aware of all the conversations. He is also aware of the telephone conversation, but he is not aware of its contents. He is subtly dissociating himself from the contents of that telephone call. His whole performance was aimed at doing so.

I now wish to deal with a new aspect, for my time is limited. There were witnesses present during the interview the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Which interview? The first or the second?

The first. There is another aspect of what I call this tragic occurrence, an aspect which, to my mind, now deserves attention. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not only provide the hon. members with information in the ordinary way. He gave them certain information, information relating to the person and behaviour of the hon. Leader’s confidant and brother, Mr. McHenry. Now, what are the facts? The most important part of the information which was given to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members on 26 February, was in connection with the anti-South African role Mr. McHenry played in certain suspicious activities which had taken place in New York behind the scenes.

Not true!

I ask the hon. member for Simonstown whether it is true. He is nodding in agreement. I ask the hon. member for Durban Point whether it is true. He too is nodding in agreement! It is true. [Interjections.]

Order!

The confidential information which was given to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, inter alia, also stressed Mr. McHenry’s anti-South African role.

No, that is incorrect.

The hon. the Minister also told the members of the Opposition in question that South Africa had been cheated by the agreement and quoted evidence supporting Mr. McHenry’s involvement in the steps taken against South Africa. In spite of the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his people, and others as well, were warned about the dual role of Mr. McHenry with regard to the South West Africa problem, what did the hon. Leader do? In the first place, he held discussions with a contact man. What did he do after that? He had a conversation with a man whose behaviour in respect of South Africa is under suspicion.

But you have been talking to him for a year!

Kindly allow me to finish. I now come to the worst of it. The hon. member went back to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs the next day and kept quiet about the conversation. [Interjections.] There is only one reason why he kept quiet about the conversation, and that is that it was a suspect conversation. [Interjections.]

No integrity whatsoever!

Of course he has no integrity whatsoever.

*What is required to have that hon. member severely censured by this House? In the first place, if he has told an untruth, and the untruth he has told here, is proved. In the second place, if he acts other than in the interests of South Africa in respect of information given to him confidentially.

I wish to conclude by asking how we would have known that the hon. member called Mr. McHenry on the 27th, because only he himself, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and Mr. McHenry knew about it unless he himself mentioned it, and, in fact, he told an untruth about it. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout could have done so, but he did not, because he is loyal to leaders—or so they say! [Interjections.] The only other person who could have done it, was Mr. McHenry himself, and why would he do that to a bloodbrother unless something happened about which he wanted to establish the facts. I now wish to refer to what Mr. Eksteen told us. I quote—

That is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—

That did not appear in Waldheim’s statement, did it? The activities of Mr. Ahtisaari and Dr. Waldheim were not reflected in the statement. Where, therefore, did he obtain that information? He obtained it from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

If there still is any notion of the rules of this House and if there still is appreciation for norms and codes of behaviour in accordance with the conventions of this House, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must adopt one of these courses of action. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stands accused of the allegations against him.

I wish to conclude by referring to the hon. member for Rondebosch. What did he do last night? He stood up and expressed great indignation at people who accused other people on the basis of innuendos. How did he end his speech last night? I wonder whether he himself remembers. He concluded his speech last night by levelling at this House the accusation that if we had to fight, he would remain and we would run. If those are the norms which he endorsed as a pedagogue and an academic, it is as well that our children, and others’ children as well, no longer attend lectures by him. I should further like to know from the hon. member: What did he give up to come and sit here in the House? Surely his circumstances in this House are better than they were before he came here.

That would be the day.

There are many other people who have sacrificed a great deal to be able to sit here, and it is in that light that I regard that hon. member’s personal attack on me. Must I read it to the hon. member?

I have also read it.

Will the hon. member read it himself? The hon. members are no longer exercising their responsibilities as members of this House. The tragedy of it is that not only are they going to be the victims of their own actions, but that all the people in this country are also going to be victims of their actions. The hon. member for Rondebosch had a golden opportunity to reply to one of the best speeches on statecraft I have heard in this House, viz. the speech of the hon. member for Randburg. The hon. member for Rondebosch, however, did not find it expedient to react to it. Neither did he find it expedient to support any leg of their amendment, but he did find it expedient to defend a lost cause.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to dwell for a few moments on the historic telephone conversation between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. McHenry. Historic it certainly is because in our democratic form of government the Leader of the Opposition is regarded as the shadow Prime Minister of the country. For the first time in the history of South Africa it will stand recorded in our annals that the Leader of the Opposition liaised with and consulted people who do not mean well with South Africa.

I now want to put a very brief question to those hon. members, but there is a major principle with major implications at stake. Hon. members on that side of the House must tell me who pays for this sort of telephone call which their leader makes? I maintain that there are three possible sources from which payment for this sort of telephone call could be made. In the first place, it could come from the funds of that party. If it comes from the funds of that party, I want to tell them that if their leader phoned New York to talk about cabbages and kings, as he is suggesting, hon. members must remember that a telephone call to New York costs R16,50 for six minutes. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is therefore using the funds of his party in this way. A 12-minute call would cost R31,20. If the party is not paying for it, it is possible—Mr. Speaker, you can help me because I do not know; in this connection I am not fully informed—that the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to certain telephone privileges from Parliament, from the State. If he is entitled to make such calls at the cost of the State, I think it is very important that the country should know that taxpayers’ money is being used for that sort of telephone call.

I do not for one moment accept that the discussion had to do with trivialities but in point of fact with the subject of the charge made by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs against the Leader of the Opposition. The third possibility is that the Leader of the Opposition paid for such a telephone call out of his own pocket. If that is the case, I want to tell his followers that the position in which they have placed him entitles him as a member of Parliament and Leader of the Opposition to certain recompense and to use that amount of money, no matter how small, for some malpractice. Up to a few days ago Opposition members were repeatedly asking for an election and I want to ask them now if they are still eager to have an election.

Yes.

I want to tell them that they will see chaos in their own ranks if South Africa went to the polls now.

We challenge you to resign immediately.

In all humility I want to make a serious appeal this afternoon. In South Africa we have a person who for 20 years occupied the position of Leader of the Opposition in South Africa with honour and distinction. When it came to the interests of South Africa and of the people of South Africa, he did not hesitate in the implementation of his duties as Leader of the Opposition to stand four-square behind the Government I refer to Sir De Villiers Graaff. Should my request reach the ears of Sir De Villiers Graaff, I think it is necessary that because of his mature experience and his years of service to South Africa as Leader of the Opposition he should give a verdict and tell us his views and his opinion on these activities, this conduct of the Leader of the Opposition. It would be interesting to have the opinion of such a person who was for so many years the loyal Leader of the Opposition in regard to the conduct of the present Leader of the Opposition.

In this debate each speaker from the Opposition side has referred to the unfortunate Information episode which we have experienced in recent months in South Africa. I want to tell the Opposition that the nation, the people of South Africa, are tired of these unfortunate incidents in the Department of Information. I had the privilege of attending a public meeting in Vereeniging last Friday evening together with the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and the hon. Leader in the Transvaal. I can tell hon. members that the Transvaal leader and the hon. Ministers received sustained enthusiastic applause at that meeting from the audience of 500 people. But the greatest applause came when the hon. leader in the Transvaal told the audience: “Ladies and gentlemen, tonight I am not going to talk to you about Information, because I am tired of Information. Information has gone sour.” Then those 500 people gave the loudest applause of the evening. This is indicative of the fact that the public at large are sick and tired of this misfortune that has taken place in our national economy. The public generally need to go forward and develop and to do the important work that has to be done and that South Africa is waiting to do.

I do not want to refer to the other side of Information and, unfortunately, it has hardly been investigated at all in recent times. Are hon. members aware that our Public Service framework consists of no less than 43 State departments? A Secretary is in charge of every department. I think it is a unique world record for a government, commercial undertaking or any organization which has been operating or in power for 30 years, to have such a misfortune occur for the first time after 30 years. In our national economy it occurred for the first time after 30 years. Of the 43 secretaries of State departments, one secretary unfortunately went off the rails. I want to issue this challenge this afternoon: Show me any organization or commercial undertaking that has existed for 30 years and that is involved with people and money where no irregularities, malpractices or corruption is to be found. It will not be easy. Corruption took place in only one State department out of 43. I want to facilitate this challenge further and reduce the period of 30 years to 10 years. Show me a business undertaking or organization that has operated for 10 years without malpractices or corruption taking place. It does not happen.

That is why I want to say this afternoon that this unfortunate Information episode has opened the eyes of many of us to something we apparently accepted as self-evident for many years. Because of a good Public Service perhaps we just accepted it and felt it would always be the case. That is why, because of this unfortunate episode, we have taken another look at the Public Service and we realize that for 30 years nothing went wrong in 42 State departments. That is why this afternoon we as a Parliament and the nation of South Africa say to those 42 State departments with their thousands of men and women who daily render loyal service to and labour for South Africa, that we honour and appreciate what they are doing for the RSA. These are people who have no platform on which to climb to tell the country and the world what they do and what they are in a position to do, but what they do they do in the interests of the RSA, in silence and often in modesty behind closed office doors. Those people deserve our sincerest thanks and appreciation.

Before dealing with the budget I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that because of his competence and the vision he possesses and because of the expertise of his department we were given a budget last week which has seldom before been so talked about in South Africa. At the same time we also want to tell the hon. the Minister that we realize that in recent months there have been a number of personal attacks on him. There have also been a number of attacks on the office he holds. Hon. members on this side of the House want to say to him that between 70% and 80% of the public at large have always known that his person, efficiency, honesty and integrity are beyond reproach. He has withstood these attacks and passed the test. When attacks are made upon and lies are told about a person, when gossip is spread about him, as happened in this case, and when that person weathers those attacks convincingly and forcefully, he emerges stronger on the other side. That is why we want to tell the hon. the Minister of Finance today that we are grateful to have him in the service of South Africa and its people. We feel that he will render beneficial service to South Africa for a long time.

It is a good budget. A good budget does not materialize in a day, a month or a year or two, because there is a lot of preparatory and background work to be done in respect of such an outstanding budget. That is why with great piety this afternoon I want to pay tribute to a person who laboured for many years to make this wonderful budget possible. I think of our former State President and Minister of Finance, the late Dr. Diederichs, who for years made it his function to travel throughout the world and talk about gold, to propagate a confidence in gold and to tell the world that the best security measure there was, was to invest in gold. Although he is no longer with us we are still reaping the fruits of his efforts and we pay grateful tribute to his memory.

I think of someone else who for years gave all he had to creating a climate in which a budget like this would be possible. That is our former Prime Minister. Can we forget how in the early sixties, when our country and its people were so often threatened by subversive organizations, he was the man who took them by the throat, throttled them and eliminated them in the interests of South Africa.

We also think with gratitude today of our present hon. Prime Minister, our hon. Minister of Defence. He it was who for years kept our country’s borders safe. Were it not for his competence and determination, this wonderful budget could hardly have been conceived.

I do not think we should dwell constantly on the Opposition and on problems. That is why I want immediately to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister and his department to a practical problem that requires their intelligent and sympathetic consideration. After that I shall deal with the hon. Opposition again. In South Africa we have three levels of government. There are our local, our provincial and our central government levels. The central government level is the one with which John Citizen seldom has any contact. The good citizen has little to do with the police. The healthy citizen seldom comes into contact with a hospital. The law-abiding citizen has nothing to do with a prison. These are all things that are the function of the central government.

Then we come to the provincial level of government. Here we find things like schools with which all parents and children are concerned every day. In the third place we have to do with the local level of government. This includes, inter alia, municipalities and other local authorities which John Citizen lives with from morning to night, and again from night to morning, every day of his life, all day and every day, with the obligations which local government imposes on him. This is unfortunately the case, and for this reason the hon. the Minister and his department will have to very serious consider assisting the ordinary citizenry at this level. When one gets up in the morning and turns on the tap, one gets water for which one has to pay the municipality or the local authority. When a man’s wife makes his food, she turns the stove on, and payment has to be made for the electricity that the municipality or local authority provides. When a man gets into his car to drive to work, he uses the roads that have been built by the municipality or the local authority. When he reaches his office and turns on the light or the air-conditioning plant, he uses electricity which is bought from the local authority or the municipality. When he drives home at night and it is dark, he drives through illuminated streets. Those streetlights are provided by the municipality or the local authority. They have to be paid for. If he and his wife go to an entertainment in the town hall at night, they use amenities that have been provided for them by the municipality or local authority. When one goes to the town library, one uses an amenity provided by the local authority or the municipality. When a man takes a bath in the evening and his bathwater drains away, it flows into a sewage system provided by the local authority or the municipality.

What I say now, I say with concern and with emphasis. I could take hon. members to towns in the Transvaal today where there are undeveloped residential lots, lots which the owners are prepared to give away for nothing. They want to get rid of them so that they do not have to pay the obligatory municipal rates. I am not blaming the municipalities or local authorities for this. These are essential services they have to provide, there are costs incurred and their budgets must balance. That is why they are compelled to levy these high rates and tariffs on residents of the town.

That is the problem, but what is the solution? I think the hon. the Minister and his department could perhaps consider a possible solution that I want to suggest. In this connection I want to take myself as an example. I live outside my town and there are also hundreds of farmers and owners of smallholdings in my vicinity. Every day we make use of the facilities our town provides. We drive in its streets, make use of its library, our children use the swimming-bath, we use the town hall, etc. The municipal ratepayers, however, are the only people who are charged and pay for those services that are provided for the whole population. There are thousands of Black people in the vicinity of my town who make use of the facilities of the municipality but pay nothing for them.

I do feel therefore that this commitment should be spread over the whole population. I wonder therefore whether it is possible for the hon. the Minister and his department to consider raising the present general sales tax of 4% to 4½% or 5% so that the funds obtained from this levy in excess of 4% can be allocated to local authorities and city councils to ensure that this expenditure is spread over the whole population. I am sure that no citizen will object to this.

I want to conclude by referring to the hon. member for Rondebosch. This hon. member is a fine young man… [Interjections]… for whom I have a great respect. But I want to tell him that he has unfortunately strayed. I want therefore to give him and the leader of his party a little fatherly advice. They must always remember that there are certain laws in life which they cannot evade, and one of the inexorable laws of life relates to hate. I know how they are filled with hatred for Dr. Connie Mulder and the present State President. But I want to tell them that hatred consumes, that hatred is self-consuming. They can see what is taking place within the ranks of their own party. They are in the process of destroying themselves as a result of their hatred for other people.

The hon. member for Rondebosch said yesterday that we would not fight for South Africa. If he wants to fight for South Africa he is sitting in the wrong place. He must come and sit on this side of the House. The hon. the Prime Minister and the NP and the people who support it love South Africa. We know South Africa. We know South Africa from the Cape of Storms in the south to the Limpopo, our northern border. We know the Boland with its vineyards; Namaqualand, the Karoo, the Free State with its bushveld and its merino sheep. We know the Free State and Transvaal with its mealies and sunflower fields, the Witwatersrand with its industries where the wheels and cogs turn each day to make South Africa economically strong. This is the country we have helped to build and which we love. Further, in the north, we know the wag-’n-bietjie of the Bushveld and the soetdoringboom where the red Afrikaner cattle with their spreading horns graze. Still further we know the gigantic baobab and the country right up to the banks of the Limpopo. This is the land we love. This is the land we shall not only defend; it is also the land we shall keep, not just for ourselves but for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Meyerton will forgive me for not commenting on the major part of his speech as my time is limited and I want to deal with other matters.

†The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, who is unfortunately not now in the House, followed the pattern of previous speakers in the Government benches in the debate of the last few days, and in fact added very little to the debate. I believe that if this debate has shown nothing else, it has shown us the Government’s total desperation about the Information scandal and its desire to get away from the scandal at all costs, as has been indicated by the hon. member for Meyerton and other hon. members. The Eglin-McHenry issue which has been debated here for the last few days is nothing more than a reckless and patent attempt by the Government to throw a smokescreen over the Government’s own culpability in respect of the Information affair, and to create a diversion.

You owe this House an apology.

In the sense that the Government has found it necessary to resort to the desperate tactics, they have given some testimony of the effectiveness of the attacks which have come from this side of the House in regard to the whole Information affair. On Tuesday afternoon, after an incisive and telling speech by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, which highlighted a number of questions in regard to the Information affair on which the public of South Africa still require answers, the Government suddenly decided that they had had enough of the Information affair and then resorted to their diversionary tactics, and on that Tuesday afternoon the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs burst into this Chamber after being briefed to throw a smokescreen. That is precisely what he did. For half an hour on Tuesday afternoon we were treated to a sickening display of histrionics by the hon. the Minister. He made a number of totally unsubstantiated attacks on and allegations about the integrity and loyalty of the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Prove it.

No, it is for Government members to prove the unbridled attacks and assaults on the integrity and the honour of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. They must not just simply burst into this House, as they have done, and make unsubstantiated attacks. [Interjections.] I shall come to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. Having done this for half an hour, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs then left the Chamber as abruptly as he had entered it. We have hardly seen him since. I want to accuse the hon. the Minister of coming into this House and making a cowardly hit-and-run attack on the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. member to refer to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs as having made a “cowardly” attack on the hon. Leader of the Opposition?

Order! The hon. member for Musgrave must withdraw it.

Sir, I withdraw the word “cowardly”. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs made a hit-and-run attack on the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

What, in fact, is the allegation and the accusation against the hon. Leader of the Opposition? The allegation is that the hon. Leader of the Opposition had disclosed confidential information in a telephone conversation to an enemy of South Africa. That is the gravamen of the whole attack. Sir, it is strange that this sort of allegation should be made six weeks after the event, after the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs first learned of the telephone conversation. It is also strange that only 10 days ago the same hon. Minister said in this House that he was prepared to brief the Opposition on secret projects. At that stage he had no problems with the loyalty and trustworthiness of the Opposition in the interests of South Africa. For that full period he said nothing, but suddenly in this debate, because of the trouble the Government found itself in, he deemed it necessary to put up this smokescreen.

What are the facts of the situation? We are talking about a telephone conversation. There can or ought only to be two parties engaged in a telephone conversation. In this case it was the hon. Leader of the Opposition and Ambassador Mr. McHenry who took part in the conversation. Both these gentlemen have emphatically denied the accuracy of the allegation made by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and that any confidential information was disclosed. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs brought no evidence whatsoever in support of the allegations he made. In today’s Argus one gets the response by Ambassador McHenry. The Argus, quoting him from New York, says—

I ask: Where then is the proof of the Government? The two parties to the conversation have both denied it. Does the hon. the Minister perhaps have more information about that telephone conversation? Was he perhaps tapping the telephone?

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

No, my time is very limited. Where is the proof of the situation? The Government makes totally unsubstantiated allegations and these allegations are denied by both parties to the telephone conversation. I therefore believe that, in these circumstances, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs owes it to the House to substantiate his allegations or to apologize to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for making such an allegation. [Interjections.]

Ask for a Select Committee.

If he does not apologize or bring proof, he will stand condemned as a thoroughly irresponsible Minister, totally devoid of any sense of decency and courage.

I now wish to refer to this talk about enemies of South Africa. Suddenly, speaker after speaker in this debate referred to the United States of America as the enemy of South Africa.

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

No, my time is limited. I am not answering any questions. I pose the question: Who are our friends? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Musgrave referred to a Press report relating to this debate. Does that not constitute a contravention of the rules of this House?

Order! Would the hon. member just tell me to what rule he is referring?

I am referring to rule No. 130 which provides—

The report which he read relates to this debate. The statement was made with reference to the debate here in Parliament and may therefore be regarded as comment on this debate. Consequently I am of the opinion that the hon. member may not quote it.

You are afraid of the truth!

Order! If hon. members may not do so, we cannot have a debate at all. This rule is applicable to a somewhat different set of circumstances. The hon. member for Musgrave may proceed.

I was dealing with the numerous accusations and statements during this debate referring to the United States of America as the enemy of South Africa. One wonders if this is the brand of diplomacy followed by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his followers, and one wonders: Where are our friends? Who are our friends? They say that to talk to the United States of America means that one is talking to an enemy of South Africa. What is the implication of this as far as Government policy is concerned? [Interjections.] I believe, as I have said, that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs owes this House an apology for coming here and making circumstantial allegations against the integrity of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I now want to deal with another matter in relation to the Erasmus Commission. It is a matter which has been referred to by the hon. member for Parktown and by the hon. member for Durban North previously in this debate, but I make no apologies for coming back to it because we have had no response from Government members whatsoever. It is a matter of very great seriousness in relation to the veracity of those people concerned. I want to quote from page 16 of the interim report of the Erasmus Commission where it deals with the question of the transfer of $10 million to Switzerland. The report simply states the following—

The report then goes on to refer to comments made by Mr. Browne and comments by Gen. Pienaar about these moneys having been made available from the special defence fund, i.e. the amount of $10 million that had to be transferred to a Swiss bank. In the short session of Parliament, during a speech made by the hon. member for Durban North—and I quote from Hansard of Friday, 8 December, col. 420—the hon. member said the following—

The only discrepancy is that the amount is referred to as R10 million instead of $10 million—

The Prime Minister does not say it is just a lie; he says it is an outright lie. Those are very strong words indeed! The hon. member for Durban North went on speaking, and shortly after that the Prime Minister interjected again as follows—

A few lines further, when the hon. member persisted, there was another interjection by the Prime Minister—

A little further there is another interjection by the Prime Minister—

A short while later a further interjection by the Prime Minister—

I therefore want to ask in all seriousness—and I am sorry the hon. the Prime Minister is not in the House now—what the situation is. Who is telling the truth? Are the witnesses who gave evidence before the Erasmus Commission telling the truth or was the hon. the Prime Minister, in his absolute denial, telling the truth? They could not all have been telling the truth! [Interjections.] This is a very serious matter indeed.

Someone is lying.

Someone in the Government benches must clear this matter up. The hon. the Prime Minister makes emphatic interjections, yet when the commission reports, it is found that senior officials confirm precisely what the hon. member for Durban North was saying and what the hon. the Prime Minister repeatedly denied in absolute terms. The country is entitled to know who is telling the truth in this case. An amount of $10 million is transferred from South Africa to Switzerland and there is this disparity between the evidence of the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa on the one hand and senior officials who gave evidence before the Erasmus Commission on the other hand.

Whose integrity now?

Yes, now we are talking about integrity! I hope the hon. the Minister of Finance will try to reply to this, but I am sorry that the hon. the Prime Minister is not in the House in order to deal with the situation, because it is a very serious situation involving a reflection on the veracity of either the hon. the Prime Minister or the senior officials who gave evidence to the Erasmus Commission. Now there is a stony silence from the Government benches. [Interjections.] I ask that this matter be given specific attention, attention which is certainly needs to be given.

There is much more one would like to say about the whole operation of the Erasmus Commission, and there will be many other opportunities for doing so. At this stage, however, I should like to stand back briefly and examine the attitude of mind of Government members who allowed it to happen, and I should like to examine this in relation to the real needs of South Africa. I believe that it gives one a frightening insight into the totally unrealistic view the Government of the day has of the real interests of South Africa. If one looks back to the time when these operations took place, one sees a Government, in the mid-’seventies, beleaguered and drifting as it was in a hostile world, being totally obsessed with what it believed was a need to defend its race policies. I say not to review them, change them or rethink them, but to defend them. They were obsessed by what they term—and what they then termed—the total onslaught on South Africa. This is an argument that is still being used at the present time to mitigate, if not to justify, what happened in the Department of Information. Surely if one is faced with a total onslaught, it is not simply sufficient to embark upon a wild and devious counter-attack. Surely, if one is faced a total onslaught, one should look to one’s own defences to see in what areas those defences are, in fact, defensible. This was, however, not the attitude of the Government. Their attitude was to embark on the wild escapades of the former Department of Information, and I believe it was totally against the true interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, hardly anything worthwhile and excellent is ever achieved without some idiots taking pot-shots at it, its creators and its architects.

Their common mistake is usually that they only look at the individual components in isolation and not at the harmonious “whole”, the synthesis, that only a real master can achieve.

My remarks today will be aimed at avoiding mediocrity in our nation, aspiring towards meritocracy and gaining an edge of brilliance over other leading nations; an effort to stop the wastage of time, energy and money.

My views in regard to the former Department of Information remain exactly the same as they were during the no-confidence debate, when I put them forward in some detail.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and his relevant departments have a proud record of handling the financial affairs of South Africa. In my humble opinion the present budget is a further milestone and a further triumph for them. There have been signs of relief in important circles at the fact that the reference to the capital gains tax and the reference to the clamp-down on perks are, at this stage, only references. Whatever the merits or the demerits might be, an amazing sensitivity about these matters exists in important circles, amongst entrepreneurs, investors, capitalists and risk-takers.

What is your point of view?

In the South African context of today we need the energies, the capabilities, the capital, the risk-taking and the entrepreneurship of this kind of a person to help lead and maintain the growth rate we need for full employment. What I am suggesting is that in our consideration of these matters, we should take the alternatives available to them into account, i.e. other investment areas that might be available to these people, just to make sure that we shall continue to compare favourably in this respect.

I also believe that the hon. the Minister will continue to give sympathetic consideration to salaries in the Public Service, e.g. Police, teaching profession and other similar spheres. In this regard I also specifically want to mention the broad spectrum of pensioners and especially those living off incomes from fixed investments which they made at a time when money was still worth a great deal more than it is today.

The hon. the Minister has moved a long way towards more fair taxation for married women. I still believe, however, that we should continue our efforts to abandon discrimination, not only that based on colour, but also that based on sex, age, etc.

I should also like to refer to the matter of travel allowances for South Africans. Taking the realities of today’s world into account, these travel allowances do seem to be inadequate.

I do not wish to continue emphasizing the obvious or repeating what others have already said, but I wish to start off by making three specific recommendations.

In the first place I recommend a National Efficiency and Productivity Council, comprising of practical experts, that should survey and monitor the entire spectrum of our national life and make recommendations. This should be an umbrella body and not a substitute for existing productivity organizations. It should be a body that will amplify and supplement the work of these other organizations.

This would include very sincere and all-out efforts by both the public and private sectors to bring all their activities as far as humanly possible on to a daily, up-to-date basis. This would not only save millions, but it would also be directly in line with the ideal of the hon. the Prime Minister as regards a clean administration. Let us also make it an efficient and up-to-date administration. Modern computer methods make it possible today, with a little added hard work, to achieve this magnificent ideal.

Secondly, I recommend a weekly news survey through SABC/TV under the guidance of a panel of experts. Perhaps all political parties should be represented on that panel? That survey should point specifically to incorrect reporting and specifically mention the names of the relevant media. This would be appreciated by the general public and it would be a most valuable national educational service. The freedom of the Press would remain untouched, but then they would publicly and openly have to compete for a good reputation and an image of the highest standards in journalistic achievement.

Thirdly, I recommend an annual award-giving event to give recognition to accuracy, honesty, the projection of the right perspective and a balanced viewpoint in media reporting.

One could call it The Citizen award.

Any other specific worthwhile achievements in other fields, such as may be proposed by the National Efficiency and Productivity Council, could also be given recognition to on the same occasion. For example, we already have a Top Businessman Award every year. We can also have an Outstanding Industrial Efficiency Award. This important body would serve both the public and the private sectors. I believe that in this South Africa can set an example to practically the rest of the world and make a name for itself for efficiency and up-to-dateness. It will help us to attract investors and investments, business relationships, trade and many other worthwhile benefits.

Let me explain myself and motivate my recommendations in a little more detail. Inflation is a fatal cancerous destroyer of assets and wealth around the world. Why is this so? It is because of the fact that politicians and other leaders, including dictators, clamour for popularity with the masses. It is also due to the gullibility of the masses, so many people who think they can continue everlastingly to render less and less work for more and more pay, maintaining or even improving their living standards. These leaders have also abandoned the necessary monetary and financial disciplines in their countries in an effort to postpone the evil day or to leave it to their successors to cope with. South Africans cannot entirely be the exception because, as a great trading nation, we import about 50% of our inflation. We can nevertheless do important things to improve the position.

Firstly, ingenuity, creativity and technological advances could at a certain time, and still can at times, to some extent make up for inflation. In this regard I would therefore recommend a system of rewards for achievements in this field. Even though some people may scoff at it, I welcome such gestures as that of Mr. Theo Rutstein of Teljoy who has offered one million rand to anyone coming forward with a replacement for petrol.

Secondly, even with our large labour force and taking into account the fact that we have to have incentives to make use of labour rather than expensive and mainly imported capital assets, I still feel we should not neglect efforts at simplification, rationalization, amalgamation and the elimination of duplication and other wasteful practices; also even in what some might consider small matters. Let us take a practical example. One has one’s home carpeted, wall to wall with carpeting of a certain pattern and is assured a number of times that should a small piece be damaged or wear out, it would be easy to replace it with the same pattern. However, that is about the last one hears of it. The same applies over a wide spectrum of similar articles, for example cutlery, crockery, etc.

There are pharmacists who are complaining—and I think that they are making out quite a good case—that they have to sell quantities of tablets and other medicines in excess of what the patient needs and can afford.

Maybe such an efficiency body could have a closer look at all these issues and recommend certain changes or new methods.

It is furthermore a scientific fact that the more bookkeeping, accounting, internal auditing, external official auditing, administration and correspondence, are not up to date, the more the work load is multiplied and the more effort, energy and expense are required to do the same job. It is a cumulative process and means that tremendous wastage takes place.

However, most important of all is the fact that this creates the most fertile possible soil for fraud, theft and wrong decisions based on false premises of out of date or incomplete statistical figures and particulars. The statistics in certain sectors in our country are sadly out of date.

I want to say that over a period this type of inefficiency could cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of rand, maybe even billions.

Let us take our law courts as another practical example. How long does it take to bring up an important case for a hearing? It takes months, maybe years. In the meantime witnesses die or skip the country, or their memories begin to fail, and ultimately decisions have to be made on incomplete or vague evidence leading to wrong and unfair decisions.

Fourthly, let us take the time consumed every day by the public, by what should be a no-nonsense, hard-working nation in South Africa, in reading incorrect reports in the media, only to find the next day that what they had read the day before is nonsense and completely devoid of all truth. [Interjections.]

Let us take the example of Dr. Rhoodie in Sao Paulo, that “never was”; or take the Katie Rhoodie affair, the story about the documents at the embassy in Paris, that seems to have been a grotesque distortion. Admittedly there are the gullible ones among the general public who like to do their “fiction reading” in the media every day. However, do we really want to cater for that? Do the various media not really want to cater for the busy, productive worker who wants the truth spelt out to him in the briefest possible manner? Is it not appalling, when a top South African like Dr. Danie Craven returns from overseas, that the first thing he says on television on arriving in South Africa is something more or less as follows: “You should not really believe what you read in the papers?” Do we not hear this kind of remark too frequently these days?

I believe we have already too many control boards and interference with basic personal and business freedoms. I should like us to move away from controls and penalties and move towards incentives, awards and the education of the public so that members of the public can be the true judges and demand what is right, truthful and honest. I therefore recommend a National Efficiency and Productivity Council of practical experts, an umbrella body to survey and monitor the entire spectrum of our national life also incorporating the existing productivity organizations.

This would include a genuine all-out effort to bring everything in both our private business sector and in our public sector as near as humanly possible to a daily up-to-date basis. We could not only save hundreds of millions, but this will be directly in line with the ideal of the hon. the Prime Minister of giving us a clean administration. Let us then also have an efficient and up-to-date administration, an administration which will elevate us above the common crowd and which will bring us investors, investments, business friends and trade will prevent theft, fraud and wrong decisions; and many, many other benefits.

In the second instance, I recommend a weekly news survey by SABC TV under the guidance of a panel of experts. All political parties may be represented. Specific examples should be mentioned of incorrect reporting, and the names of the media involved should be made known. The public would appreciate this service and it will be a tremendous educational experience for the whole nation. The freedom of the Press will not be touched. However, the media will now have to compete openly for excellence and brilliance, and morality, if they so wish, in journalism, the ideal towards which we should strive.

In the third instance I recommend an annual award-winning event recognizing accuracy, honesty, the projecting of the right perspective and of a balanced viewpoint in all media reporting, and also recognizing any other specific worthwhile achievement in other fields, such as the National Efficiency and Productivity Council may recommend from time to time. We already have the newspapers themselves running a top businessmen award project. They have been doing so for years, and with good effect. In this instance we could have for example an “outstanding industrial efficiency” award. It can only have a great uplifting effect.

This important body should, as I have already said, serve both the public and the private sector.

I believe that such an approach would make South Africa stand out among nations. It would make us the envy of many nations. We will be known as a country of efficient, honest, clean administration, a country where people invest and where they receive their answers immediately, a country where people know where they stand, a country where one has modern, up-to-date information. Then, and only then, would it be unnecessary to have endless debates and wastage of money on vagaries of the past.

Mr. Speaker, the strategy of the hon. Opposition in this debate is quite clear. Up to now it has been quite clear to us that they have decided to have a lot to say about information, a little about finance and nothing about their policy. I believe the Opposition owes it to this House—to the voters of South Africa, too, of course—to take their constitutional framework out of the cupboard and to dust it off a little so that we can see what that skeleton looks like.

I spent some time examining their constitutional proposals. I can describe them in one sentence only: They are a blueprint for political and economic chaos.

A blueprint for stability, peace and progress.

The hon. member for Bryanston should not be so hasty. I first want to set out the charge-sheet. Later I shall prove my case. In these constitutional proposals of theirs they make certain claims, which simply cannot be realized in practice. In these proposals they are trying to provide certain guarantees which cannot, of course, be fulfilled. Last but not least, they are trying to reconcile certain political ideologies and theories with one another, which are completely irreconcilable. There are three cracks in their constitutional framework. I shall now tell hon. members what they are.

In the first place these constitutional proposals are going to fail because of a national convention, in the second place because consensus is being mooted, and in the third place because of proportionality. When this constitutional phase is examined, there are two basic facts which everyone should take cognizance of if he dares to draw up a constitutional framework. Cognizance has to be taken of the realities of South Africa and of the political climate in Southern Africa. When I say that cognizance should be taken of the realities in South Africa, then it is a fact—and there is no escaping it—that an ethnic plurality, race differences and civilization differences, which are all divisive factors, have to be taken into account.

I concede that there are also binding factors, but for any policy to be able to succeed, the divisive factors which I have mentioned, have to be reflected in some constitutional policy or other. I do not want to go into this matter any further because I think that we do not differ much on this matter. However, it is very important that cognizance should be taken of the prevailing political school of thought in Southern Africa, because it also influences constitutional thinking in South Africa.

I want to refer to a specific facet of the political school of thought, viz. the revolutionary school of thought which exists in South Africa and Southern Africa. It is a fact which we cannot reason away, because it is as plain as a pikestaff that a school of thought advocating political revolution exists in South Africa and Southern Africa, as we have seen in the Shaba Province and Angola and now in Rhodesia. In this regard I want to tell hon. members of the official Opposition that as soon as they open the doors of their national convention to this school of thought—if it has not already sneaked in through the back door—it will cloud the atmosphere of the national convention. The forces which are unleashed in this national convention could only be controlled if the existing structure is replaced by a minority domination—I do not even want to say by a democracy. Only then will the political climate which sneaked in through the back door of the national convention, be assuaged. I want to mention a few examples to hon. members of this political school of thought of revolution. I am doing so only for the sake of the record, because I know it is general knowledge. Nevertheless I think we should take cognizance of it. As reported in the magazine Africa of October 1978, the following question was put to Robert Mugabe, co-leader of the Patriotic Front—

His reply to this was—

So I can quote to hon. members other examples and statements by Robert Mugabe and many other militant Black leaders. I am mentioning this matter because I regard it as so important in the constitutional phase which we are entering, and because I do not see this element of an awareness of the revolutionary political school of thought in South Africa reflected in the constitutional proposals of the official Opposition.

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

I shall give the hon. member for Rondebosch an indication when he may put a question to me.

I made the statement that the constitutional proposals contain certain claims which cannot be met in practice. In the first place it is claimed that it affords everyone the opportunity of participating in the process of political change and political decision-making without one group being dominated by another. I am not very concerned about these claims, for it is one thing to make certain claims and another to realize them in practice, but what I am concerned about, are the guarantees which will be given to South African voters in terms of the PFP’s constitutional proposals. Basically they give two guarantees, viz. that there will not be domination and that there will not be discrimination. In their proposals it is clearly set out that they advocate an open community without forced separation or forced integration, but in the same breath they also claim that every cultural identity has the right to maintain and preserve its distinctiveness. This is a cardinal aspect which we have to debate. They must tell us how they are going to maintain and preserve the identity of groups in an open community without enforced separation and …

Without laws!

Without laws. This is truly an illusion and a dream. I now want to point out an example.

It is better than a Nat dream.

I take no notice of the hon. member for Bryanston at all.

I want to point out an example. A just claim could, for example, be made by a group in order to preserve its identity. In terms of the PFP’s guarantee it can then insist on separate schools. I think this is a just claim it could make in order to preserve its identity. It then approaches the authorities and there it is informed that the authorities grant them the schools in terms of the given guarantee and the policy. However, it is true that one can only keep schools apart if one makes provision for this by statute. I now want to say that if one makes provision for anything like this by statute, one is applying separating measures. If separating measures exist, what becomes of the idea of an open community? This is the reality as we have experienced it and this is the foundation on which we are going to build an orderly government and an orderly community. This is the fundamental point on which the PFP’s policy is going to fail.

I now want to come to the question of domination and the PFP’s policy of proportionality. With regard to proportionality and domination, the PFP adopts the standpoint that all groups in South Africa are minority groups and that no group will dominate another. Let us look at how this will work in practice. We have to make three fundamental suppositions. I hope that hon. members will concede these. In the first place we have to accept that the political division between Whites will be approximately 60:40, as it is at present. We also have to accept that there will be approximately—this is according to the calculations of Prof. Sadie—14 million registered voters of all population groups and races. Furthermore we also have to accept that this pattern of free association which, as foreseen by the PFP, will be an integral part of consociational democracy, will not have worked all the way through to such an extent that Black voters will be overanxious to vote for Whites at the time of the first election.

I think, therefore, it is a realistic assumption that we have to accept that there will still be racial and ethnic separation at the first election.

Let us consider what the federal Parliament of plus minus 100 seats will look like on this basis. In the federal Parliament of 100 seats there will be three Indian representatives, nine Coloured representatives, 18 White representatives and 70 Black representatives. In addition the 18 White representatives have to be divided on the basis of 60:40, so that there will be 11 representatives who support the Government and seven who support the Opposition. This is as a result of proportionality. What does the minority veto look like then? Then it cannot be used by Indians, by Coloureds or White voters who support the NP. The official Opposition’s guarantee that they can guarantee the identity of minority groups and their right to self-determination by the minority veto, is not worth the paper it is written on.

If we go on to apply this question of proportionality to the Cabinet, then we accept that the Prime Minister will be a Black Prime Minister. The minority veto applies neither to the election of a Prime Minister nor to financial legislation. A Cabinet of 20 members will be constituted as follows in terms of the proportional representation of the federal Parliament. There will be no Indians, there will be two Coloureds, there will be three Whites—two representing the Government and one of the Opposition—and there will be 14 Black Ministers. In this august body the Indians possess no minority veto, because they are not there. The Coloureds have no minority veto and the Whites who support the NP, also have no minority veto in this federal Cabinet. Therefore, the guarantee that one group will not dominate another group, is a myth, a figment of the imagination, an illusion. The hon. member for Rondebosch may now put his question.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. member with regard to this revolutionary climate. It is true that it could create problems for a convention, but I should like to know from the hon. member how the draft proposals of the Government and their homelands policy are going to avoid the revolutionary climate. This is not obvious to me. The second question I want to ask the hon. member, is: When it comes to the Whites why does he consistently draw a distinction between the supporters of the Opposition and the Government, but not between the Blacks?

As far as the first question is concerned, I say that the Government’s proposals will succeed because they have a bearing on the reality of South Africa. It is, of course, a diversity of peoples, a permanent structure which will be built on and not a coincidental associational pattern as is envisaged by the PFP’s policy.

I conclude, and I want to reiterate that the constitutional proposals of the Opposition can realize no claim on or guarantee of the identity and the preservation of the various population groups. It cannot make provision for every population group’s justifiable aspirations for political self-determination. I want to repeat that if we are in earnest about the preservation of identity and political self-determination, there are only one of two choices: Either you have a unitary State based on an integrated social structure, or you have separate political self-determination based on separate social structures.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorely tempted to react to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Bellville, but unfortunately my time is very limited. However, there is sure to be another opportunity for that. It was significant that the hon. member referred to the strategy of the official Opposition. But he did not say a word about the blatant strategy of the Government in this debate. However, I shall have more to say about that later.

†As the last speaker from this party in the budget debate I must spend a few moments on the budget itself. I think that most of the things which should be said have already been said in this, the final round—there was previously the Post Office budget and the Railways budget—of the ’Mbongo competition, the praise-singing competition. When it comes to praising the Government, however, I am afraid I do not even rank in the fifth or sixth league. I cannot compete with the efforts we have had here. The weak—the bad—aspects of the budget have, of course, also been dealt with, but as the last speaker in this party it is necessary for me to put our view of the budget on record, and I therefore move as a further amendment—

1. (1) to reduce input costs of farmers and recreate profit margins for farm products;
2. (2) to ensure that all secret funds are audited to the satisfaction of the Select Committee on Public Accounts or a subcommittee of that Select Committee;
3. (3) to ensure that pensions paid to South Africa’s senior citizens relate more closely to their actual needs in a society subject to continuing inflation;
4. (4) to end the Information scandal, which is paralysing Government initiatives in South Africa; and
5. (5) to instill confidence in the political and economic future of the Republic which will ensure investment to eliminate unemployment and instability”.

All the legs of the amendment have been dealt with by one or more of the speakers in this party. I myself only want to refer briefly to two of the relevant issues.

I am glad the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is present because I want to refer, firstly, to the crisis in agriculture. I had the privilege during the recess of covering a vast area of South Africa and of talking and listening to hundreds and hundreds of farmers. As a result of this, it is clear to me that this is an issue that goes beyond politics. It is an issue that far transcends politics. It is not just a question of a drought either. It is a question of the survival of a vital element in South Africa’s population structure.

The time has come for us to break the vicious circle of debt and more debt. That is what is happening. The Government is simply helping farmers to get deeper into debt. I said as a joke that I would organize a “trekkeroptog” of farmers, and I can promise hon. members that it would be the biggest “optog” to Parliament they have ever seen. Unfortunately, however, the farmers would not be able to afford it. They would not be able to afford the fuel under the present cost structure. What I am saying now is a cry from the heart of the farmers throughout South Africa. With very rare exceptions, it is a cry from every type of farmer. This Government must put an end to the situation.

I believe that agriculture is the greatest armaments factory in South Africa’s armoury. If it was our object to spend special defence funds, I believe we could have spent them to better advantage in building up our agricultural industry as the one weapon we could use with the greatest possible effect in the struggle for a stable Southern Africa.

Hear, hear!

So I hope the hon. the Minister will now make an application for money from the secret funds with the plea: Let us build South Africa’s strongest weapons factory to manufacture the strongest possible weapon—food—in a subcontinent starved of food.

The other aspect I want to refer to very briefly is that of pensioners. I do not wish to deal with the detailed question of the means test and inflation but rather with the moral aspect of this issue—the debt of a nation towards its senior citizens. This cannot be counted in rands and cents or by how many more per cent pensions have gone up in this or in that period. We are not concerned merely with the survival of our old people; we are concerned that they should be enabled to lead a full life and to enjoy their failing years. I believe South Africa has to adjust to a new situation. The old home structure where, as the children moved out to set up their own homes, there was space for the parents to move in has given way to flatlands, smaller homes, and a different sort of life where families are no longer looking after their own parents. I think we have to investigate the situation very carefully.

Lastly on the budget, I want to dispel the idea that this is a give-away budget I do not wish to quote all the statistics now. The hon. the Minister emphasized that there was a 30% tax reduction for this and for that group, but what he did not emphasize was that on the income itself it was a matter of a mere 3%, and not 30%. When one takes the inflation rate into account, it merely means that instead of being 13% or 14% worse off at the end of the year, one is only going to be 10% or 11% worse off. The Minister’s “planned” achievement is nothing else than the correct use of the gold bonanza. He has thrown the ball back to the private sector where it always belonged to see whether they can get him out of the difficulties that Government policy has caused. However, this will all be in vain, unless we restore confidence in South Africa. That brings me to the other issues that have dominated this debate and which, to my mind, are important if we are going to be able to restore confidence.

The first of those is the speech made by the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs. In passing I want to warn him, the Government—this also applies to the strategy which the hon. member for Bellville referred to—that this issue is not going to let the Government off the hook. It is not going to free them of their own troubles, and it is not going to absolve them from blame over their own failures. It might be a temporary lightning conductor to distract attention, but it does not remove the real issue. It is, however, a matter of importance in regard to which this party cannot stand aside or evade its responsibility.

I have said before that parliamentary government in South Africa is under assault This system of government requires a Government which enjoys the confidence of the people—I shall deal with that later—and, as a second element, a loyal Opposition, an alternative to which the people can turn if they wish to reject the Government in power. Against this I have had to weigh up and evaluate the charges and the denials that we have heard following the speech of the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs. Whether it is a smokescreen, or whatever else, there is a specific issue at stake, an issue which strikes at the structure of government in South Africa, i.e. the balance between a Government and a loyal Opposition in whom the public can have confidence. I have looked at both and I have listened to the denials.

Let me deal first with the denial by Mr. McHenry. This morning’s paper reports him as denying only that he had complained and denying nothing else at all. This afternoon he has denied that he received confidential information, but then he qualified that. It is reported in the Press as follows—

He does not deny that any information was passed on: He denies that it was new. I therefore had a look at the original report from which this whole issue arose. I make no secret of the fact that, after the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke, I approached him and asked to see the telegram or telex from which he had quoted. He showed me the courtesy of allowing me to read the actual wording of it, and it accords with what stands in Hansard. What concerns me is the following sentence—

That is the whole point.

I was one of the five who were briefed…

It is not even literate.

I am not interested in grammar or in splitting hairs: I am interested in facts. The fact is that five members were briefed by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and that one of the issues on which we were briefed was the activities of Mr. Ahtisaari and Dr. Waldheim in New York in regard to a certain matter. I know of no other way in which that could have come out neither from the Waldheim report—which I have here—nor from any Press report. I do not believe that the Government would ever have disclosed publicly what it disclosed to us. When I read that the call concerned this specific issue—a matter of the most delicate nature for us at a time when South Africa was negotiating over a settlement in South West Africa that could be peaceful or violent, something on which lives could depend, it worried me tremendously. This afternoon the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs reminded me of the specific details—I can say quite frankly that I had forgotten that aspect—of the briefing in regard to Mr. McHenry. I must say that it accords with my own recollection of what happened. I also checked it with my colleague who was present.

Your memory is very convenient, not so?

I have a very good memory. I remember that he quoted from three different documents. I cannot remember the words he quoted, but he quoted from three documents and they dealt specifically with ambassador McHenry.

This is to me the issue that is before us. The issue is not whether there was a telephone call. I have said in the House and also told the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs that we ourselves met one of the ambassadors and put forward South Africa’s case, South Africa’s attitude. The NP, too, met one of the ambassadors. There is nothing wrong in that. What concerns me is the question of a confidential briefing and what one does about what one is told. I did not even brief my caucus on it. I did not tell them one word about it.

I have weighed up the position. I have read yesterday’s Hansard recording the charges and denials. It was not possible for me to be present yesterday. The denials are a flat contradiction. However this is a specific issue and not one single member of the official Opposition has denied it.

We have not even seen the telegram.

Denied what?

It has been quoted twice. Not one of them has denied that the discussion concerned things which Mr. Ahtisaari and Dr. Waldheim had done in New York. The telegram was quoted on Tuesday and it was quoted again by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications—I have his Hansard here. In fact it has been quoted three times by three hon. Ministers. That it has not been denied is, to me sufficient evidence that there was such a discussion and on that basis I had to consider the situation and stand of the NRP in regard to this matter. I cannot remain neutral.

I want to set this into its proper background. I said that one had to have an alternative Government, an Opposition which was acceptable to the people. Because of its policies, I have never regarded the PFP as being an acceptable political alternative. That is why I have consistently rejected any form of common front, merger or political alliance. I was prepared, however—with “lang tande”—to discuss on an ad hoc-basis and on merit the avoidance of senseless three-cornered contests in certain seats. However, I was not prepared to enter into an election pact or agreement. What has now been revealed has confirmed the correctness of my instincts in this regard. I now believe that the PFP has excluded itself from my concept of the definition of a loyal Opposition. [Interjections.] I want to say clearly that my duty is …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary to allege that hon. members of this House belong to a party which cannot be described as loyal? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I quote the words I used. I will read them: “It excludes the PFP from my concept of the definition of a loyal Opposition.” [Interjections.]

That is precisely the point.

Order! In that sense, the hon. member may continue.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order…

Mr. Speaker, rather than have my limited time wasted I will withdraw the expression if that will settle the issue. It excludes the PFP from my concept of what an Opposition should be. My duty is, to say clearly and without hesitation that on the basis of the evidence as I have seen it, I disassociate the NRP entirely and without qualification from the PFP and will have no further political dealings of any kind with them. [Interjections.] To the supporters of the PFP, whom I believe mostly feel exactly as I do about this incident and who accept our policies and philosophy, I say there is a home for them in the NRP. [Interjections.] Whatever else the NRP may be criticized or accused of, it has never been accused of lacking loyalty and dedication to South Africa, and even our opponents accept that. [Interjections.] The NRP is a party which can be trusted with the interests and security of South Africa. This is not the first occasion on which I have clashed on this very issue.

I clashed with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he called from Botswana for the Patriotic Front of Mr. Mugabe to be brought into an internal settlement in Rhodesia at the very moment when Rhodesia had reached an internal settlement. I attacked him on that issue. I have disagreed with the hon. member for Musgrave and with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on their attitude to the extent to which Swapo should be taken into account and be satisfied in regard to the negotiations in South West Africa. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, both those hon. members are on record as saying that we should continue the negotiations in order to…

Where is it on record?

I will bring the newspaper cuttings.

Why do you not have them here now?

Because I am trying to make a speech. [Interjections.]

You are talking absolute nonsense!

May I take that denial… [Interjections.] Now, this is very important. If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout means by that that he does not think Swapo should be satisfied…

I deny that Swapo should be satisfied.

The hon. member denies that Swapo should be satisfied. [Interjections.] Then I accept it. I welcome it. I welcome it very much indeed. [Interjections.]

You lot of jingoes! [Interjections.]

I want to return now to the context in which I started, the assault on the system of government which we are applying here. I want to state at once that I do not intend to deal at all in my speech with the accusations, the denials, the contradictions and the missing links of the Information scandal. I believe it has been flogged to death, and as an hon. member said earlier, the public is sick and tired of these repetitions. What the people want now, and what they demand of the Government, is a quick, clean and clear end to this whole issue, to this whole sordid affair.

I should like to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister, in the interests of South Africa not to allow this to drag on for two more long months, but to put the onus on the Opposition, not as a sign of weakness or of accepting our arguments. Put the onus on the Opposition, appoint a Select Committee, let them look at the evidence and…

As long as you don’t include Colin!

Then I am prepared to accept that responsibility. I believe the official Opposition will do the same. [Interjections.]

We cannot trust Colin.

It would be an act of strength, not one of weakness. I know of no other way in which credibility can be restored to the commission investigating the matter at this stage, especially against the background of what has happened. [Interjections.]

In the few minutes left to me, I should like to look at the question of what has to be put right in South Africa once this has been cleared up. In the first instance I believe we have to restore credibility in political leadership at a critical time. That refers to leadership on the part of the Government, on the part of the official Opposition and on the part of all other political parties. Secondly, because these are the things that have been destroyed, we will have to restore confidence in judicial commissions as vital elements in our judicial system. Thirdly, we have to end the crippling paralysis which is tying down Government decision-making and administration in our day to day life. Then we also have to present a strong national front to the outside world. This is one of the reasons why I have reacted as I have to what happened and has been revealed in this debate.

I want to end where I started on this issue. We have to get the system of government back into credibility. A government which has the confidence of the people and which has an acceptable alternative is what we need. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said: “Daar is geen alternatief nie”. He is wrong. Whatever the short-term price may be—and I know there is going to be a price that I will have to pay for what I am saying here this afternoon, because there will be those who will disagree with me—and whatever hysterical attacks will be launched upon me by certain newspapers, I am still going to say what I want to say. I know there are certain newspapers who will attack me hysterically on the theory that should one have all Opposition parties in one camp one would be able to beat the Government. If they slaughter me that is too bad. I believe that if someone accepts the responsibility of leadership, he must say frankly, honestly and directly what he thinks about affairs. I have a duty, irrespective of the consequences, to state beyond any doubt at all where I stand. The NRP stands alone and defiant and not as part of some amorphous hybrid opposition group. We stand or fall as an independent party and as an alternative Government.

And you are getting stronger by the day.

An hon. member says we are getting stronger by the day. On three occasions this week we have announced the names of former Nationalists who have joined us, and in this regard I want to tell the hon. member for South Coast that in the ten days ending on 28 March we signed up 900 NRP members in South Coast alone. [Interjections.] We registered over 1 000 voters, and we have a few more surprises for both the NP and the PFP. [Interjections.]

What about Beaufort West?

The PFP did not even put up a candidate in Beaufort West and they will be looking for one in Randfontein soon. The NRP does not see itself as just part of an Opposition opposing. This party must be the catalyst for a new political dispensation as an alternative Government. The NRP stands by its own identity, with its own character. Opposition voters must make their choice. There will be a new Government. The present Government will be thrown out. [Interjections.] The public must decide who they want in place of this Government, and now that the meat is on the floor, let the voters decide in the inevitable situation that is to follow. There is no way that the Government can hold together.

Of course they can!

That hon. member can tell me at 12 o’clock tomorrow whether Dr. Connie Mulder is still a member or not a member of the NP. They are expelling members like a man with no arms throwing money around. The NP cannot survive as a Government. It cannot survive because of the clash between the two philosophic directions which at present it is artificially holding together. The public must now choose what they want as an alternative; the integration policy of the official Opposition or the plural policy of the NRP. We have today thrown down the gauntlet. I said this last night in Johannesburg to a meeting of more than 200 representatives of all the constituencies in the Transvaal…

Is that all?

Selected leaders. After I had addressed them, they rose to their feet and said that we would fight alone and fight for principles. We do not sell our principles for the soft option of an easy road. We will see who will buy the PFP in Swellendam. We will not be able to see in Beaufort West, because the PFP do not have a candidate there, and if they can replace Rockbore in Randfontein, then maybe we will see what happens in Randfontein. Then we will see whom the electorate want as an alternative Government for South Africa and whom they want as the official Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are a few hon. members who can speak Zulu. [Interjections.] Hon. members say that I should pick up the kierie. Mina zo lwa nge kunye isandla. If there are hon. members who understand Zulu, they will know that I have just said: “I shall fight with one hand.” The kierie I reserve for these men. When I fight with women and children, I fight with one hand tied behind my back. [Interjections.] It seems to me that I shall have to concentrate on the NRP. I shall tell you what they remind me of. When one comes to a school and one sees pretty girls and plain ones, and the plain girls never get any attention, they will say: “Coee, we are also here.” That is what the NRP has been doing all the time and is now doing again.

In our circus the clowns have not taken over.

I just want to say to the hon. member for Berea, with his green little voice which has not been weaned yet, that he is sitting here as a result of the NP’s support. The same applies to the hon. member for Durban North. On behalf of the Nationalists of Natal, I now promise that they will not get any National support in the next election. The hon. member for Durban Central told me that I was too big for my boots and they would cut me down to size. I assume he was joking when he said that.

Where did I say that?

The hon. member said it in this House. I want to tell him: To be big in politics, I need not have been sitting in my bench in this House for years, because I am a member of a party that came here with Jan van Riebeeck. [Interjections.] Its foundations were laid in the Cape at the foot of Table Mountain, and then the NP spread across the Karroo koppies out to where it is still flourishing today. The nationalism I represent took root in the fertile soil of the Highveld, and its seeds were blown across the Drakensberg and green pastures of Natal. It did not stop there. It took those green sugar-cane fields by storm and captured the NRP’s stronghold. That is why we see those funny expressions on their faces. They could not swallow that, because it was the seat of the lion of the NRP which fell. I want to assure them that they will not get it back.

Before the hon. member for Durban Point started joking at the end of his speech, it was an historic moment to me when he stated for the first time that he was capable of standing on his own two feet. He and other hon. members of the NRP must now realize, however, that they have taken a responsibility upon them. They must now tell us in this House what their policy is. [Interjections.] I shall take out my kieries and address my remarks solely to the hon. member for Durban Point, the Leader of the NRP. He is the hon. member who requested that Parliament should meet about the Information debacle. Parliament then met He is also the one who asked for the appointment of a judicial commission. Today he says that we must appoint a Select Committee which, according to him, will solve the whole problem. I want to ask him—I see that he is talking to other hon. members—whether he holds the previous leader of the United Party in high esteem.

Yes, of course.

I then want to quote what Sir De Villiers Graaff said about judicial commissions and Select Committees. A decision had to be taken at that time about the question of whether a judicial commission or a Select Committee should be appointed in respect of certain organizations which had to be investigated. I shall read it in full and then we shall see what the reply to it is. Sir De Villiers Graaff said the following on 10 February 1972 (Hansard, col. 731)—

I submit that one could not put it better than the previous Leader of the Opposition did. He went on to say (Hansard, col. 732)—

I still think so. You have spoiled the whole thing.

I spent the greater part of my speech replying to that, but I think it is necessary. I believe that the electorate will also judge the NRP by its conduct in respect of this whole Information debacle, because the democratic means which were available and which have been used by them throughout this whole process have been undermined and are still being undermined.

As far as the South Coast is concerned, I just want to get the facts straight. The South Coast is no longer the same constituency and the hon. members of the NRP know this perfectly well. [Interjections.] The combined majority of the PFP and the NRP compared with the previous election, if one takes into account the part which has been added, is 2 000. The Opposition may have made 900 to 1 000 registrations and the NP made 1 000. That is not valid, therefore. I want to mention an example now. Let us take up the challenge. Any majority of less than 2 000 attained by the Opposition is a moral defeat for the Opposition. [Interjections.] That was the Opposition’s majority at the previous election, and I am not saying that we are not going to take the seat. I say we are going to win the seat.

I now want to come to the hon. the Leader of the NRP. I am glad he said that he dissociated himself from the PFP and that he would have nothing to do with the PFP from now on. If the PFP now wants to show where it stands, this is its chance to put up a candidate in South Coast. The hon. the Leader of the NRP has said that they are going to follow their own course from now on; i.e. they are not going to sit on the fence any longer. They have now fallen down, on one side or the other. The hon. member for Marico said the other day that they had advertised a meeting. They said—

All we know is that it is a thirteen-balled monster. [Interjections.] That is all we know. [Interjections.]

I shall write you a letter.

If that hon. member behaves himself, I shall give him a few more balls to play with. I should now like to put a question to the few NRP members who are sitting here at the moment What is their homeland policy? Is their policy independent homelands or not?

Part of a confederation.

Part of a confederation. In what capacity? As totally independent homelands?

Either independent or… [Interjections.]

They can use words like federation, confederation, consociation, local option, or whatever they like! My question, however, is whether it is their policy that they will lead the homelands to independence.

They will have the option. [Interjections.]

That party has never dared to show us a clear written policy. In one respect, however, they have not disappointed us, for in this pamphlet they say the following…

Get another pair of glasses.

I quote—

The hon. member asks me what is wrong, what is meant by the word “political”. I quote again—

Does this mean “independent”?

[Inaudible.]

If so, I ask another question. Why are they always agitating in Natal against the consolidation proposals for the independent homelands?

We have got you by the brandy bottles and you know it.

Why do they do that? At one meeting they held it was said—

They say we are doing that—

They go on in this vein, but in this pamphlet they say that they are in favour of total political independence.

But they are South African citizens. Can’t you understand that?

I must concentrate on the party in an attempt to get something out of them. It has been asked before what the difference is between the PFP’s policy and theirs. All the speakers who have risen have said that basically there is not a very great difference. [Interjections.] The one will hold a convention and the other will hold a indaba. That is the one difference. [Interjections.] The other difference is neatly summarized in this pamphlet, and now hon. members must listen carefully. It is said that persons who want to will be able to live in their own little white spot I quote—

That is their explanation. [Interjections.] The only difference they make is that they are going to set aside small white spots where the White people may live. One can imagine how long it will remain like that! How long will people be able to stay in those small white spots? How much friction is it going to cause? [Interjections.] We shall make it hot for this party from now on until they have told us what their policy entails. They have never said what their policy is. Hitherto, they have been masters of only one art, and that is sitting on the fence. Now they have said that they are going to fall down on this side or the other, and for that reason we now expect to learn what their policy entails. The electorate also expects to learn what their policy is.

I shall read to the House shortly what the hon. member for Durban Central had to say. I have just said that the winds of nationalism have blown all over the country and through the fresh South African air. There is only one rural constituency in the whole of South Africa which the NP has not been able to conquer, and that is Mooi River. Why is that? Because the chairman of that divisional council said that the hon. member for Mooi River was really a Nationalist—that proves how good they are at sitting on the fence—they did not oppose him. Therefore he is present in this House only by the grace of the Nationalists in Natal. That is the only reason why he is here. Some few concrete jungles like Durban Central are the only places which have not yet been stirred by the winds of nationalism, those places where the polluted air is still clouding people’s thinking to that extent. I want to quote from The Citizen of 17 August, where the hon. member for Durban Central quoted statistics, among other things—

That is what the hon. member for Durban Central had to say. Why did the hon. member say that? After all, there are statistics and statistics. Is the hon. member telling the students that 75% of our country’s students want to leave the country within two years of having completed their studies? Is that patriotism?

Read what it says there.

The hon. the leader of the NRP also owes us an answer, I believe, especially in the light of what he said in The Natal Mercury of 17 August—

Surely these are the words of an irresponsible leader.

It was true at that stage.

What does the hon. the leader of the NRP say now? Does he not owe the NP an apology?

But it was true.

Surely the hon. member cannot go to the electorate as a responsible leader of a party and allege that we fought the election on a false platform, while we have in fact produced a new dispensation. Surely that is not right. [Interjections.] The NRP will have to take a stand from now on. It has now taken a stand for the first time, but we shall not be satisfied with remarks like the vague ones they made about the second report of the Erasmus Commission. The NRP is adept at making vague statements, and I find a good example of that in the following—

What nonsensical statements did the hon. the Leader of the NRP make? [Interjections.]

Finally, I just want to say that we in Natal are very proud to have a leader such as the hon. the Minister of Finance. In my opinion, this is the most irresponsible attack ever made on a Minister of Finance. Hon. members must bear in mind that such an attack will affect the pocket of every taxpayer in South Africa. We know in what high esteem the hon. the Minister is held in the world, and we also know the acclaim he met with in America when he addressed the International Monetary Fund there.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

My time has expired. Here is a man who, if there is such a thing as absolute aristocracy, has demonstrated it to us. Under his leadership, there is nothing which will stop the NP in Natal.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a budget debate which is a very important debate for the country as a whole. However, the Opposition have conveniently steered away quickly from the financial aspects of it. I say “conveniently”, Sir, because such a wonderful budget, a budget that is to the advantage of the people of the country, does not suit the Opposition. They would like the economy of South Africa to decline and South Africans brought to their knees in the economic field. That would suit their book. However, the contrary has happened. The hon. the Minister has presented us with a budget which will open many doors to our country in the days ahead. They are very disappointed about that and they have consequently steered away quickly from the economic side of the budget and returned to the old hackneyed story of the Department of Information. I do not blame them for being disappointed. They are in fact always trying to harm our economy. They try to keep foreign investment capital away from South Africa. In spite of their efforts, however, that capital inflow has increased and will be used to our advantage and to enhance our future prospects. That is why they are disappointed.

The disclosure by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the behaviour of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has shocked the country and its people. To think that the Leader of the Opposition could be so irresponsible as to convey something that he was told in confidence to another person! I am not saying that he told McHenry everything; I just want to say that if anybody were to tell me something in confidence, I would not even tell my bench-mate. I would keep it to myself. The electorate of South Africa has been shocked by the actions of the official Opposition. South Africa was very hopeful a short while ago when it looked as if we had overcome the difficulties encountered in the discussions on the South West African question and as if solutions would be found. However, things suddenly went awry and negotiations were in a delicate state. Sir, do you know to what I ascribe that? I ascribe it to the fact that nosey-parkers poked their noses into the matter. For no rhyme or reason things suddenly went wrong; hitches were encountered everywhere. I think members of the official Opposition should confront their Leader about this.

A few pertinent questions were put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition but neither he nor any member of his party has replied to them. He was asked whether the PFP had a wing overseas. There was no reply to that. I want to go further and ask hon. members of the PFP whether they are in touch with a contact group with which they have to liaise regularly. They are silent. Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tell us why he goes overseas so often to visit one country after the other? [Interjections.] This action on his part disturbs South Africa and I think we should ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior and Immigration to seriously consider withdrawing the passport of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I think the wings of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should be clipped somewhat. [Interjections.]

On 1 April 1979 an article written by Ken Owen appeared in the Sunday Times in which, inter alia, he said the following—

I want to know from the PFP whether they agree with this point of view of Mr. Ken Owen. There is no reason why I should not ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North directly whether he agrees with that article in which it is suggested that the leaders of the NP resign and vacate their offices. [Interjections.] The hon. member does not reply, Sir. I take it that he does not agree with the article. May I repeat my question? Does the hon. member want our Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to resign? Sir, I get no reply from hon. members on that side of the House. Could the hon. member for Rondebosch perhaps tell me whether he wants them to resign and get out?

How many speeches have you made over the past 10 years?

I asked the hon. member for Rondebosch a direct question and the hon. member for Bryanston must not ask me another question. I am only asking the hon. member whether he wants those gentlemen to resign and to get out? That is my simple question. Hon. members of the PFP are as silent as the grave. They do not agree with that article. They are quite satisfied that the hon. the Prime Minister should remain in the House. In spite of all the criticism they are also quite satisfied that the hon. the Minister of Finance should retain his portfolio. They know that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance are doing a good job. [Interjections.]

Let us assume for a moment that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance are forced to resign. Do members of the PFP see their way clear to take the government over and to rule the country? [Interjections.] They do not see their way clear to do that. There are only 17 PFP members in this House. They relied on the support of the NRP and that would have brought their numbers to 27. This afternoon, however, a nail has been hammered into their coffin. They will not get the support of the 10 hon. members of the NRP and their numbers will consequently remain at 17. Surely they cannot govern the country with only 17 members. [Interjections.] They do not want an election. The hon. member for Yeoville has said that they do not want an election at this stage. On the other hand, however, they want the hon. the Prime Minister to resign. Do they want to take over the government in that case? Surely that is totally illogical.

Let us assume further that such a catastrophe does hit us and that the hon. the Prime Minister does invite them to take over the reins of government and to show the country what they can do. I should like to know which portfolios each of those hon. members will hold. Time does not permit me to assign every hon. member to a portfolio but I think the hon. member for Houghton will insist on the portfolios of Police and of Prisons. Should the hon. member for Houghton be allocated the portfolios of Justice, of Police and of Prisons, every policeman in the country will be discharged. They will all be discharged and the doors of the prisons will be thrown wide open. The hon. member for Houghton hates a policeman. She is continually fighting with the hon. the Minister of Justice about the way prisoners are treated and dealt with. She will throw the doors of the prisons wide open and there will be absolute chaos in the country.

And the farmers? At a glance I would say that the farmers would probably be saddled with the hon. member for Green Point. [Interjections.] Surely a greater catastrophe than that cannot hit our farmers. That will be a greater catastrophe than the existing drought. [Interjections.] That is why they do not see their way clear to take over the reins of government at this stage. The electorate should take note of the fact that the PFP is incapable of taking over the government at this stage. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said a few things yesterday to which should like to reply. I should like to have the attention of the hon. member. He said: “We must fight for the farmer.” He also said: “They shut up; they do not say a word.” The hon. member continued in this vein and said: “They are dead scared.” In saying that he was referring to hon. members on the Government side. According to him we are supposed to be too dead scared to state the case of the farmer. Did the hon. member really not listen when the hon. member for Bethal was speaking? Did he not listen when the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke was speaking? Did he not listen? If he did listen why does he say: “They shut up; they do not sa a word.” Surely that is not true. [Interjections.] The leader of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said: “The crisis in agriculture is an issue beyond politics.” That is so. However, we should not drag the problems of the agricultural industry into politics. Neither must the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South tell us that we are too dead scared to state the case of the farmer.

State it then.

But, Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member for Bethal did so. I suppose the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was asleep at the time. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke also did so. Even the hon. the Minister of Finance did so. [Interjections.]

I have to hurry, Sir. I wanted to say something more about the agricultural industry but I shall have an opportunity at a later stage of doing that. I want to conclude by thanking the hon. the Minister of Finance and congratulating him, not only on the budget that he has presented but also on the image he personally has created overseas—the image of a person who can be trusted. The image he has created overseas, his image as Minister of Finance, is of inestimable value to South Africa As a matter of fact, his image is as valuable to South Africa as her gold. I want to say in public what my constituents have asked me to convey to the hon. the Prime Minister. My constituents are wholeheartedly behind the hon. the Prime Minister. They have asked me to say that to him publicly. Their message to him is that he must continue, as is his intention, to govern South Africa. They give him their assurance that they support him.

The hon. the Minister of Finance reminds me involuntarily of what the late Dr. Verwoerd said on one occasion—

Those who stand behind the hon. the Prime Minister still have the necessary energy, the necessary fighting spirit and the necessary mental strength. That is why we believe that he will lead our country forward and that he will do so to our advantage.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Winburg in this debate because he has delivered a superb political speech. He made a point which was also made by several other members and that is that this is a budget debate which is one of the most important debates in any parliamentary session. It is a debate in which the Opposition has an opportunity of looking at the financial policies followed in the country and of assessing the priorities of the Government. According to the newspapers the Opposition started the debate this week with its tail in the air. The Cape Times said that a big row was expected in the House. Tense debates were envisaged and it was thought that the Opposition’s prospects were superb and that the Opposition ws going to take the Government to pieces. That was the approach at the beginning of this week but the official Opposition has, as the week proceeded, slowly collapsed back into a state of complete apathy, of total indifference and disillusionment. The fact that the Opposition has concentrated on matters which, although important, are nevertheless not strictly relevant to the budget issues which really count, is in itself almost a vote of confidence in the hon. the Minister of Finance, as the hon. member correctly pointed out.

In his speech in this debate the hon. member for Musgrave spoke of the Government being obsessed with defending its race relations policies—not with changing these policies, but with defending and explaining them. He said this was the reason for the Information crisis. As the whole issue of the role of the Opposition in foreign affairs has arisen, I want to tell the hon. member for Musgrave that this Government, and most Governments in South Africa’s history, have taken the view that South Africa’s role in the world, its foreign policy, its international relations and the projection of South Africa’s image, is a matter which should be handled in a bipartisan way. This Government has set an example in presenting the country’s image in a bipartisan way. The hon. member for Musgrave will know that visitors who are brought to this country invariably also see Opposition members. It has in fact astonished me, and I am sure it has astonished him, to observe the wide range of people visitors to this country see. They see members of the Opposition, Black leaders and other persons of colour. The visitors who are officially brought to this country talk to people representing the whole spectrum of oinion. It was never the intention of the former Department of Information and it is not the intention of the present Information Service of South Africa simply to defend the policies of the Government. As a matter of fact, the Government and serious-minded members on this side of the House are concerned with presenting an image of South Africa in all its complexity, which includes the Opposition point of view. We are aware that we are not a monolithic society, but very much a society in debate with itself. We are a society wrestling with the answers to our fundamental problems. That has been the assumption of this Government and it has been the assumption of other Governments.

Moreover, it is true that individual English-speaking businessmen, for example, play a major role in the promotion of the image of this country in all its complexity and with all its problems. They present that image through the S.A. Foundation, through a variety of organizations and in individual contacts when they meet with overseas visitors. There is, therefore, a role to be played by all Opposition parties in the foreign policy of South Africa and in our international relations. That fact has not been denied by a single hon. member on this side of the House. This Government indeed welcomes the Opposition playing a role in the determination or formulation of its foreign policy. The unfortunate issue which has dominated the second part of this debate and which I believe has caused the official Opposition very considerable damage in the eyes of the electorate of this country, has arisen precisely from an act of confidence on the part of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, because it was he who invited leading members of the Opposition to come to him so that he could explain to them South Africa’s position in regard to the South West African issue at that particular time. It was out of an act of confidence and an expression on his part of a bipartisan policy that this unfortunate incident has arisen. I want to deal with the question of the telephone call to Mr. Don McHenry, because in my mind there are certain honest questions which arise and which have not been explained by the Opposition. I just want to set out a few of the facts.

First of all it is a fact that there was a confidential briefing. Not all of what was imparted by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs was confidential—that is accepted. However, as has been confirmed by the hon. leader of the NRP, part of the information that was imparted, was in fact confidential. It is also a fact that in those discussions certain statements or documents with which Ambassador Don McHenry was associated were mentioned.

Another fact is that, following that briefing, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went to see a representative of one of the Western Five in Cape Town. That is a fact. Another fact he admitted in his Press statement was that he was not satisfied with what emerged at the meeting with that representative of the Western Five in Cape Town and in consequence decided to telephone Mr. McHenry. It is a fact that he telephoned Mr. McHenry. According to his Press statement, he was still not satisfied and therefore asked for an interview with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. That second interview he subsequently had with the hon. the Minister the next day. It is also a fact—none of these issues have been denied—that in that interview he mentioned that he had spoken to a representative of the Western Five and that he had made a telephone call to New York. To my mind Ambassador Don McHenry is not an unimportant man. In fact, he is a very important cog in the very difficult negotiating situation in which South Africa finds itself. He is the representative of a major power in that negotiating process. Furthermore, it is of material importance whom he spoke to. He did not speak to a reporter of the New York Times.

He did not speak to some academic in New York and ask him what the state was of UN/ South African negotiations. He spoke to an extremely important person and in his discussion with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs he suppressed that fact. It is not a question that he did not divulge that information: He suppressed a fact because that is a material fact. I could understand it if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had said to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs: “Mr. Foreign Minister, I want to tell you that I telephoned Mr. Don McHenry yesterday and it will interest you to know that this is the latest American view on this particular issue.” That would be understandable. That is the kind of conversation one would have expected. Furthermore, one knows that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs would then have said: “Well, I am very interested. What did he say? What did he tell you?” After all, it would have been an up-to-date, first-hand report of a conversation between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and Ambassador McHenry, a very important person in this whole process of negotiation. That would have been the normal discussion, that would have been the normal conversation which would have taken place. But it did not take place. As a matter of fact, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition actually suppressed the fact that he made that telephone call to Ambassador Don McHenry.

The question that arises in my mind—and it is an honest question and it is not answered by the sort of propagandistic editorial we find in The Cape Times today, nor has it been answered by any single member on the Opposition side—is why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition suppressed that material fact Why did he not tell the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs something the Minister would obviously be interested to know, namely that he had had that conversation and therefore had a first-hand impression, a recent and immediate impression, of what the thinking was on the American side? But he suppressed that fact. Why did he suppress it? There are three reasons why he might have suppressed it. [Interjections.] I want to suggest to the hon. member for Houghton that any reasonable person will draw this inference. Firstly, he suppressed that fact because he did not want the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to know of the fact that he had actually spoken over the telephone to Ambassador McHenry. Whatever the reasons for that may be, they are certainly sinister. The second reason why he did not want the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to know of the telephone conversation was that he might have inferred the purpose of the telephone conversation. That is the second possible reason. Thirdly, he might not have wanted the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to know of the telephone conversation for the reason that he wished in some way to use that telephone conversation or the information which he derived in the future. There are three possibilities. Firstly, he did not want him to know that he made the call, period, because of something that arose in that briefing of the previous day, because of something that was said; secondly, because it would indicate his purpose and his whole attitude towards the negotiations between South Africa and the Five; or, thirdly, because he wanted to use the information which he got, in a certain way in the future and he did not want the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to know. Those are the three inferences which one can draw from his failure to divulge what is a material fact. Those inferences will be drawn, by any reasonable person, on the basis of the facts, and it is to the credit of the hon. member for Durban Point that he has spelt out so very clearly the concept of how a loyal Opposition should act in these circumstances.

I want to suggest that whilst there is the danger of a Government on the one hand sometimes confusing the interests of the party with those of the country—and that can happen—it is also true that an Opposition can confuse its hostility, animosity and opposition to a Government with the interests of South Africa. I also want to suggest that the official Opposition is guilty of that, and this is one specific illustration. There are, however, others. The fact is that members of the Opposition give interviews to international publications and to newspapers abroad, interviews which, in fact, write off this country.

They also write articles.

They also write articles, as the hon. member for Maitland reminds one, writing off this country.

Writing off the Government.

The hon. member for Parktown is nodding his head because it is quite correct. We recall, in a budget debate not so long ago, that attention was drawn to an interview he had given to Business Week, an interview in which he said that if he were an outside investor, he would not invest money in South Africa. There is that example. There is also the example of the interview recently in the 24 March edition of Newsweek, an interview given by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. One could go on giving countless instances of this kind of confusion between opposition to the Government or the ruling political party on the one hand and, on the other hand, what is in the interests of South Africa. This reflects an intellectual arrogance on the part of the official Opposition and a certain section, a small section, of the English-speaking community of this country. It is an arrogance which, in part, has its roots in history. It was described by Morris Broughton in that excellent book Press and Politics of South Africa. In speaking of this particular section of English-speaking South Africa, he says—

There are many illustrations of the point Morris Broughton makes. There is, for example, yesterday’s Cape Times editorial, that front-page editorial bearing the name of the editor, an article in which he says that the hon. the Minister of Finance should resign because, he says, of incompetence. There is no charge of his being unscrupulous. There is no charge of his acting dishonestly. There is also no charge of his covering up something he knew about. The charge is incompetence. There is an amazing irony and paradox in this statement. The hon. the Minister is responsible for a budget that was praised throughout financial circles in this country, and particularly by English-speaking financial circles, which is praised by virtually every English-speaking economic commentator in this country and which is, in fact seen to give stimulus to the private sector. The hon. the Minister himself is praised by these people for his competence, his guts and his courage for coming forward with a budget like this. He is, in fact, described as an “excellent” Minister of Finance by a political commentator who is generally critical of South Africa, but despite all this the editor of The Cape Times calls for his resignation and his retirement from public life. This shows an arrogance which tends to conceal the fact that Press freedom is not a personal freedom. It is, in fact, an institutional freedom, a freedom attaching to a newspaper as a whole, and therefore it must be exercised in a responsible manner. It is not simply a case of allowing an individual to express his political preferences just as he wishes. There is a need in our situation for a sense of proportion. This Information scandal has gone as far as it is likely to go. The Government has tackled the issue with intelligence, integrity and honesty. The electorate, my voters, the voters of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and other voters are sick to their back teeth of this issue at the moment.

When last were you there?

I can make that inference from the experience of others. There is a need for a sense of balance, a return to a sense of proportion in our politics. A removal of the personal is necessary, in fact a return to the traditions and conventions of our politics, like a determination on the part of the official Opposition to practise a foreign policy in our politics, which is bipartisan. They should, for example, recognize the efforts of our Government in a very difficult and tricky situation. They should recognize that it has handled the situation with great wisdom, great realism and great diplomatic finesse. The time has come for them to show some recognition for these factors, for some of our journalists to recognize that there is no monopoly on political wisdom. Nobody has all the answers, and nobody is always right in politics. The time has come for them to show a little bit of modesty.

Mr. Speaker, the kindest thing one could say about the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, is that after a tortuous effort, he arrived at three inferences. He said that these were the three inferences that a reasonable person would make if he looked at the facts the hon. member mentioned. I want to be generous and not reflect upon the hon. member when I say that I shall accept that, provided that he will accept that it would have to be a reasonably half-witted person who would arrive at those inferences.

Before I deal with a number of important issues, I should like to refer to the rather remarkable performance of the hon. leader of the NRP this afternoon. I do not want to make a long speech, but I do want to define his performance as a remarkable case of deplorable political expediency, deplorable political opportunism. I say this because he arrived at his conclusions without the true facts at his disposal, in fact without any facts whatsoever on which to arrive at that conclusion.

He did not take into consideration the fact that the telephone conversation involved only two persons and that both of those persons denied categorically the false allegations that have been made by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs with regard to that telephone call. Purely for reasons of political opportunism and in the hope of gaining a few votes, the leader of the NRP saw fit to adopt the attitude he did. Then the leader of the NRP announced that in future he would never again consider an agreement with the PFP. I can tell him that most of the people in the PFP will be very happy to know that. [Interjections.] I may say, further, that the PFP, in the interests of South Africa and in order to assist the Opposition cause against the Government, decided to assist to improve the chances of the Opposition in South Africa. We have shown our goodwill. In the South Coast constituency, for instance, we did not nominate a candidate in order to give the NRP a better chance to win the election. [Interjections.] The attitude adopted by them comes very strangely from a party with only 10 members, at least three of whom won their seats because the NP assisted them. Do they deny that? At least three of them would not be here today were it not for the active support of the NP. I can mention seats like Berea, Durban North and others where the NP actively assisted them to get to this House. What is more, in at least three other seats our party actively assisted them against the NP to enable them to turn up in this House.

Such as which?

Today we have this pathetic little party exposing themselves to a charge of political opportunism of the most deplorable and despicable kind the country has ever seen.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance, or possibly the hon. the Minister of Health or the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development, to assist the House with a very, very important matter. Twice today we have asked the hon. the Prime Minister to be present in the House in order to enable us to deal with this matter, which is very important indeed, but on both occasions when we came to that matter the hon. the Prime Minister was not present in the House. It is important that this matter be dealt with right now. Possibly the hon. the Minister of Finance is prepared to deal with the matter. Firstly, let me refer to Hansard of 8 December, col. 420, where the hon. member for Durban North said—

At that point the hon. the Prime Minister leant forward and said—

Next, in the Interim Report of the Erasmus Commission one reads on page 16—

The hon. the Minister of Finance and any other hon. Minister who would like to listen to this, must listen very carefully to what comes next—

On page 17 of the interim report Mr. P. W. Botha is giving evidence—

The final sentence is very significant indeed. Mr. Speaker, you will not allow me to use the words “outright lie”, but I think you will allow me to say that the Prime Minister’s interjection, on the basis of evidence of the Erasmus Commission was, if not an outright lie, nevertheless an outright untruth. I certainly would use the words “outright lie” if you would allow me to do so, Mr. Speaker.

Outright lie by whom?

By the person who made that interjection, i.e. the hon. the Prime Minister. Unfortunately the hon. the Prime Minister is not present in the House. Therefore I am not in a position to put this to him again. However, possibly one of the hon. Ministers will speak to him, will take these documents to him and will ask him to react to the facts. Apparently the facts indicate incontrovertibly that the hon. the Prime Minister did in fact make himself guilty in this House of an outright untruth when he referred to what was said by the hon. member for Durban North as an outright lie. If one would study the two sets of facts, one will find that they are corroborative of each other. There has been a great deal said about Select Committees, and I would like to ask whether this is not justification for the appointment of a Select Committee to establish whether the hon. the Prime Minister was lying or not. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a short question? This has been referred to many times. There is a judicial commission of inquiry investigating this matter. Does the hon. member not think that the right thing for him to do is to give evidence before that commission under oath? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, has the hon. the Minister seen and read this report? Let us find out whether the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Finance have each been supplied with a copy of this report. The hon. the Minister of Finance can shake his head up and down if he likes. [Interjections.] Secondly, have they read this report? Thirdly, have the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Finance accepted the findings of this report, because if they accept the findings of this report on pages 16 and 17…

Do you accept the findings of the report?

It is not important for me to accept the findings of this report. I am asking the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Prime Minister whether they accept the findings of this report. I believe that here is an incontrovertible case for the appointment of a Select Committee.

I now want to deal with the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. When he made his unfounded allegations against the hon. Leader of the Opposition, his performance in the House was of such a nature that he should immediately resign from this House. [Interjections.] He should also immediately resign as Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker…

That hon. member, who is a gigantic thrombosis, should sit down!

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

No, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to ask the hon. member…

It is not necessary for the hon. member for Bryanston to answer a question, but the hon. member should not shout “sit down”!

Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling. [Interjections.] I really do not know how to handle the gigantic thrombosis that is the hon. member for Von Brandis. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs owes it to South Africa—if not to the NP, he owes it to South Africa—to resign his position immediately, because he is not fit to carry out his duties properly. Here in this House he made allegations which were totally unsubstantiated, allegations for which he did not have a single grain of evidence. [Interjections.] He made allegations which were subsequently repudiated by both the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. McHenry. Mr. McHenry himself confirmed that he had raised no complaint in connection with the telephone call by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

He also said the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had not discussed any confidential information with him. [Interjections.] I think it is shocking that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs of South Africa should refer to Mr. McHenry and to the USA as enemies of South Africa. [Interjections.] May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he agrees with such a statement? [Interjections.] Is the hon. the Prime Minister prepared to pay attention to me and to reply to this question? [Interjections.] Does the hon. the Prime Minister consider the USA an enemy of South Africa? [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister is not prepared to say so. Does the hon. the Minister of Finance consider the USA an enemy of South Africa? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I believe that in these very sensitive times South Africa’s foreign affairs should be in the hands of a man who is responsible. I believe our foreign relations are jeopardized by being put in the hands of someone so totally irresponsible, so wholly unscrupulous, so utterly unreliable. I believe that we will not in the future be able to lift our heads high in the international sphere as long as that pompous ass, who has no concept of diplomacy, who believes that by throwing tantrums, by sulking, by shouting, by screaming, by waving his hands… [Interjections.] As long as that pompous ass remains the Foreign Minister of this country South Africa has no chance. [Interjections.]

Order! Order! Did the hon. member say “pompous ass”?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member must withdraw it immediately and I warn him that he must restrain himself and moderate his language.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that if you rule it to be offensive. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston seems to be completely devoid of any constructive thought. Indeed, he seems to be quite incapable of any thought at all. In the border area where I come from, the Xhosas use the word “horace”. When they refer to somebody as “horace” the inference is that that person is not well-balanced in his head.

Horrible! [Interjections.]

I should not like to refer to the hon. member Horace van Rensburg of Bryanston, now. However, I must say that sometimes I have my doubts about him. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston is a perfect example of what we can expect from that party to which he belongs. I am becoming very dubious of the bona fides of hon. members of the official Opposition. [Interjections.] Very dubious, Mr. Speaker. The more I listen to those hon. members…

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Surely, the hon. member must clearly elaborate on that statement. It certainly cannot stand as it is.

Order! What did the hon. member say?

Mr. Speaker, if I am given a fair chance I will elaborate. The more I listen to the hon. member for Bryanston, the hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members of the PFP, the more dubious I become…

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: What the hon. member for King William’s Town is saying is that he is dubious of the bona fides of hon. members on this side of the House. I should like your ruling on that.

Order! I think that is quite in order. The hon. member may proceed.

Now you are going to get a hiding.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville reminds me of the horse Harry Hotspur. [Interjections.] Of course, I do not want to say disparaging things about the horse… [Interjections.] Harry Hotspur was a very good horse, a very fast horse but with no stamina. The hon. member for Yeoville always jumps up very fast and makes a lot of noise. However, after a short while he loses his stamina, digs in his toes and back-pedals like he did on Monday afternoon when he took part in the budget debate.

The hon. member for Yeoville seems to be a specialist in making allegations. He makes all sorts of allegations without concerning himself about the facts or the truth. He does not seem to be interested in facts or in the truth. The truth, in fact, passes him by like a flock of migrating swallows. Like a Walter Mitty, the hon. member makes believe that he can govern from his Opposition back bench and that he is entitled to Government secrets, and because we cannot trust him and his party, he screeches like a parrot when we refuse to pass him secrets or to let him govern with us. It is alleged that the hon. members for Yeoville and Bryanston are not interested in bad or good government, that all they are interested in is that they should have a share in the Government, whether it be bad or good. It is alleged that the hon. member for Yeoville lies awake at night bemoaning the fact that he never had a chance to get his itchy fingers on the secret funds allocated to Government projects. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker, I said it was alleged.

The hon. member must moderate his language.

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that it was so, but merely that it was alleged.

Order! The hon. member cannot make that allegation.

Mr. Speaker, I am not making it…

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Mr. Speaker, it is alleged that the hon. member does not care overmuch whether the money was spent badly or well, or whether some of the money was wrongfully spent on The Citizen. All the hon. member seems to care about is that The Citizen, an English-language newspaper, dared to be impartial. [Interjections.] Its sticks in the hon. member’s gullet like a fishbone that an English-language newspaper dared to be impartial.

Are you defending the Government’s actions about The Citizen?

The fact that that newspaper dared to be impartial makes the hon. member screech like a parrot on its perch from his back bench. It is also alleged—I do not say so—that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is more interested in character assassination and the besmirching of the good names of other people than fulfilling his role as Leader of the Opposition and to oppose in a responsible way with a view to providing an alternative Government. I am becoming very dubious of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s bona fides as far as his answers with regard to the McHenry affair is concerned. When given the opportunity last Friday to serve on a Joint Select Committee to consider a new Constitution, he seemed to find it very difficult to either accept or reject the proposal. He seemed to want to suck some political poison out of the opportunity. The well-being of South Africa and its peoples seemed to be very far away from his mind. It seemed to be his intention to stir up as much muddy water as possible. It seems as if it is above and beyond him to either accept or reject anything in a clear-cut manner. If anything is too clear-cut or obvious, it seems to make him very nervous. In fact, the most simple question requiring simply “yes” or “no” for an answer seems to give him the heebie-jeebies, like for instance: Did he or did he not phone McHenry? It seems that he does not relish being exposed to public scrutiny, but prefers the political murky waters where he can lurk like a political scavenging shark and can remain indistinct and hidden and where no one can…

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “scavenging shark”.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw those words.

Why do you not withdraw yourself?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to use the Select Committee offer, this golden opportunity offered to him in good faith, to make propaganda for his national convention farce. He reminds me of a card player who bids and calls before he has even picked up his cards. In that manner he can only go one way—and we all know which way that is—unless he is in cahoots with, has a secret understanding with and obtains secret information from the dealer and knows something the other players do not know. In this case McHenry is the wheeler-dealer in the South West African issue. Sir, I am becoming very dubious about the credibility trustworthiness of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to say that he questions the credibility and trustworthiness of the hon. Leader of the Opposition?

Order! No, he is not allowed to say it and he must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it, but…

The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally, Mr. Speaker.

I want to warn the hon. member that he is sailing very close to the wind as far as his choice of language is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was good English to use!

First of all the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he had not telephoned McHenry and then later on he admitted having telephoned McHenry.

That is not true and you know it [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Pinelands said: “That is not true and you know it.”

Order! The hon. member for Pinelands must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them.

The hon. member for King William’s Town may proceed.

It is not true and you should know it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Pinelands not guilty of undermining the authority of the Chair? He has just been asked to withdraw something, but then he uses words with exactly the same connotation.

They do not have the same meaning. The hon. member for King William’s Town may proceed.

I want to reiterate again that the hon. Leader of the Opposition first denied having telephoned McHenry and then, later on, admitted that he had done so.

You should know that is not true.

You are a cunning clergyman. [Interjections.]

I want to ask him which answer is correct.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to refer to an hon. member as a “cunning clergyman”? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw it. We only know “hon. members” in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Order! Hon. members must now give the hon. member for King William’s Town a chance to proceed with his speech.

First of all the hon. Leader of the Opposition denied it.

He looks like a cunning clergyman.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. Minister of Justice permitted to say that the hon. member for Pinelands looks like a “cunning clergyman”? [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon. the Minister say?

I said that the hon. member looked like a cunning clergyman.

The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must now give the hon. member a chance to proceed with his speech. Hon. members are wasting his time.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members are wasting my time and they know it! [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition which of his two answers we must believe: the “No” or the “Yes”? How can we trust the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and when must we believe him?

Any time you like!

How must we know when he is telling the truth? Is it when he is saying “No” or is it when he is saying “Yes”?

Read the Hansard.

I want to ask hon. members of the official Opposition: Is their leader not getting worse than Rhoodie? All I can say is that at least Rhoodie was a consequential liar. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is in a special position of trust.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Can the hon. member refer to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as being a consequential liar? [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member refer to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as being a consequential liar?

I said that Rhoodie was a consequential liar.

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: That is not what the hon. member said. I heard very clearly what he said.

Order! I have to accept the hon. member’s explanation of what he did say.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct in saying that he said that. But he also said something else. He asked whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was not worse than Rhoodie and then said that Rhoodie was a consequential liar.

Order! What did the hon. member for King William’s Town actually say?

I asked hon. members on the other side whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was not getting worse than Rhoodie. I asked them that twice, but they did not reply. Then, after a fullstop, I said… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words. I now wish to give him a final warning. There is no sense in insulting hon. members across the floor of the House. If the hon. member does it again, he will have to resume his seat. The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is in a special position of trust and confidence because of his office and if, as it seems, he is not worthy of that trust in this House and as Leader of the Opposition, then it might become very dangerous for all of us in this country, because at times we have to divulge certain matters to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. If he does not keep that information to himself, but telephones people overseas to share that information, it could be very dangerous to South Africa.

The hon. member for Houghton seemed to cover all the wars right up to World War II and its traumatic effects on this country in order to try to kick up enough dust to cover her leader. She even threatened us with a revolution like the Red Revolution of 1917. Perhaps she is becoming just as dangerous to the country as those people of whom she spoke.

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat. I put the Question!