Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs yesterday dealt, inter alia, with the question of what was referred to as the “disinvestment campaign”. I have taken the trouble to study his speech in some detail and I would like to come back to the question of the disinvestment campaign and devote my time to it.

In the first place I think the disinvestment campaign is a misnomer; and it is not a disinvestment campaign but actually a campaign of punitive action. It consists of a variety of things of which disinvestment is only one ingredient. When we look at the campaign we see that it is purely a campaign in order to exert pressure and in order to bring a particular result and reaction from the Government of the Republic.

I think the issues as to why we have the campaign and what is involved in it have been canvassed at some length and the hon the Minister went through it again. I think, however, that there are a few issues which should be clarified and clearly stated.

Firstly, should this campaign continue to be opposed? There are now two reasons that are advanced why it should not be opposed. The first one is that we should really take no notice of what is done overseas and we should ignore it. We should become a country in isolation that relies purely upon itself. Another point of view says that we should not oppose the disinvestment campaign because we should encourage the kind of change that those people want in South Africa and therefore we should allow that campaign to progress.

I want to reject both of these two reasons. On the one hand it is utterly impossible for us to exist in isolation, whether economically, culturally or in any other way. South Africa needs to be in contact with the rest of the world and needs to be associated with the rest of the world. Some 60% of our gross national product is related to imports and exports. We clearly have a need for expertise in regard to technical developments. To my mind, any reasonable human being should regard living in cultural isolation from the rest of the world as undesirable.

On the other hand, we also have to ask why this pressure to bring about change is being exerted from overseas and whether we should rather not resist it because we in this country also want change. That leads us to the most fundamental question. Is pressure being imposed in order to promote change which will bring about a society which is part of the free world, or is it being imposed merely in order to abolish apartheid regardless of what takes its place? In this respect I must agree with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Merely saying that we should abolish apartheid offers no solution to the problem, and this is where I think the debate overseas has gone fundamentally wrong from our point of view.

When one speaks overseas against disinvestment today one is automatically assumed to be in favour of apartheid. One is not even given an audience in order to explain that one is against apartheid but also against punitive measures because one wants a particular type of society in South Africa. Unless we actually change the nature of the debate which is taking place overseas so that the issue of what is to follow apartheid is discussed, the debate is lost. The truth is that, in the reality of the overseas situation, nobody can defend apartheid. It is an indefensible concept, and those who seek to defend it will achieve nothing. If one gets into the position of arguing the Government’s case, there is no hope whatsoever of dealing successfully with the question of punitive legislation. That is what has been happening over the years.

I have been present, together with hon members of the other side of the House, at meetings in the United States at which people have sought to defend South African legislation which has since been repealed. It is as a result of this that people overseas say, when certain things are done here, that Pretoria is “up to its usual tricks” as the hon the Minister put it. The tragedy is that, because of what we tried to justify in the past and which has been unjustifiable, we got ourselves into a credibility crisis over the question of disinvestment. That is why we now have to make some fundamental changes in regard to the campaign against disinvestment and punitive measures of all kinds.

I should like to suggest that that requires an approach based on the following aspects. Firstly, there is no point in going overseas, as has been done in the past and as is being done at the moment, and saying apartheid is dead when it is not dead, because one again loses credibility. There is no point in announcing the intended abolition of laws when there is a suspicion overseas that all the Government intends to do is to ameliorate, relieve or present these laws in a more cosmetic form. It is no use saying that. What we have to do in those circumstances is rather to say nothing about the laws, but wait until the change is made and then show what has actually been done. If that is done, the Government will find that real facts, realities, cannot be argued against.

I want to give an example. Let us take the question of influx control. Every single person who has been overseas, to the United States, to Germany or to Britain will know that in the past one has been confronted with the arguments that influx control is an encroachment upon human rights, that it separates families, that it is an inhuman thing, that it is wrong and that it should not exist. Now the announcement has been made that influx control is going to disappear. It would have imagined that there would have been some reward for this, or, as somebody else said yesterday, that there would have been appreciation that that particular goal has been reached. However, this is not the case, because there is this suspicion that maybe there is some hidden agenda in this respect. What we have to do is to go abroad with the realities of what has happened and to say: “We have changed the influx control laws; you cannot argue with us any more about the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and you cannot argue with us on the issue of labour––these are the realities of what has happened in South Africa.” Then one has to get to a stage where one can base arguments on realities instead of arguing on the strength of intentions, because intentions are unfortunately suspect in the circumstances under which we are now by reason of history.

Another point I want to put to the hon the Minister is that it is of no use to have an announcement such as the one about influx control, for example, which should make a dramatic impact on the world, when it comes at the same time as other legislation which is regarded, both inside and outside South Africa, as being another infringement of the basic rules in respect of human rights. One cannot do it, because then one spoils the whole effect of what one is trying to do. On the one hand, one is showing that there is a dramatic change, while on the other hand one is actually spoiling one’s whole case in this regard.

The second point I want to stress here is that reform measures need to have credibility, not only abroad but also at home. They need to be seen as part of a genuine process of dismantling apartheid which has as its perceivable objective a society free of race discriminatory laws and practices in which basic human rights by free world standards are available to South Africa’s people. That is the second part of the argument as to whether in fact those decent people in America, Germany and Britain who oppose apartheid want a system, after apartheid, which is not part of the free world. The reality is that those in South Africa who have opposed apartheid over decades and who have been against it, also do not want a system which, after apartheid, may be equally bad or worse if we do not put our house in order and negotiate in a proper form. Here again one finds that there is a fallacy in what we put across. Surely, it is clear that people in South Africa want to negotiate where they form part of the middle group, whatever race they belong to, whereas the radicals do not wish to negotiate. The radicals want confrontation in South Africa. Confrontation means unemployment; unemployment means more confrontation, and in those circumstances revolution will only breed the kind of society that should be repugnant to the Western World.

For that reason my appeal is that we should review the strategy of dealing with the punitive campaign against South Africa. We should search for areas where we should be influencing the people who really make the decisions, who are the real power brokers overseas, and we should accept that apartheid must go, but that we must debate solely what must come after apartheid and whether South Africa will be a society which will have free world values.

Mr Chairman, there is a great deal in the hon member for Yeoville’s speech that one can agree with, but I think that today he is playing with words ever so slightly. I think we should confine ourselves to realities.

I want to link up once more with what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said yesterday. [Interjections.] Yes, I am very glad that the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs is here too, because those two have to take the full barrage for South Africa, and the circumstances are very tricky.

Yesterday the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that in future we should pursue the same objectives, ie those of maintaining civilised norms and ethical values. He very strongly emphasised, however, as the hon member for Yeoville also said, that there should be an end to terrorism. The Whites must negotiate with one another and with others. He asked how this country should be governed in future and answered the question very beautifully by saying that there should be mutual respect for everyone.

I am linking up with what the hon the Minister said and also want to say that I am very glad that the hon member for Waterberg, for whom I still have a high regard as a person, also conducted negotiations with the king of the Zulus yesterday. It is high time we built up mutual respect, and I hope that the hon member for Sasolburg will also adopt that pattern and that he and his leader will eventually also enjoy that measure of esteem by virtue of the fact that they are negotiating with others too.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that Western countries should come to the fore with a co-ordinated campaign. With reference to the seven world powers at present attending the deliberations in Tokyo, he said that they should come together and dissociate themselves from the use of force.

One cannot understand why they do not want to do so since those powers are threatened by terrorism in the Middle East, Europe and America. They allow terrorism to be perpetrated in South Africa. As the hon the Minister has said, one day the violence which they seek will also bring about their downfall.

I am glad to see that provision is being made for more concerted action to improve the Republic’s image abroad. Campaigns to combat the disinvestment campaign abroad will continue. Publications for distribution abroad will be purchased.

And on the strength of what the hon member for Yeoville said, I also want to point out to hon members that the USA is of greater importance to South Africa than the RSA is to the USA. What is strange is that when Washington sneezes, Pretoria develops a heavy cold, but when Pretoria sneezes, Washington perhaps takes a handkerchief out of its pocket, depending on what mood it is in. It depends on whether it is busy with domestic or foreign affairs. Looking at the magazine Time, I found that its articles dealt with countries throughout the world, except South Africa. Nor should we take too much notice of what certain journalists have to say. On the surface it appears as if the RSA is of lesser strategic importance to the USA. Although South Africa is part of Africa, increasingly less mention is being made of Africa too. They are not interested in Africa as such.

This reminds me of something else. In 1869 James Gordon Bennett of the New York Herald sent Henry Morton Stanley to America with the following instructions:

Those were the instructions given to Mr Stanley at the time.

Today, 117 years later, the American Press is on safari in Africa. They are also more interested in the dead in South Africa than they are in the living, and many of them do not even know where in the world the RSA is. The tragedy is that journalists come from abroad and have no ties with the RSA. They come here as foreigners and, in the light of events elsewhere in Africa, want to prescribe to us what political course we should adopt. When their predictions lead up a blind alley, they forget about the chaos they have caused, and we as South Africans are left to pick the bitter fruits.

Looking at all the reports—I have a whole pile of them here—I was reminded of what Paul wrote to Timothy. I think this is also applicable to many of our politicians and many of our more vociferous individuals. He expressed himself in the following terms:

I think it is high time that we took a little notice of the fact that this is also applicable today, because a new start has to be made. Democracy has to be extended, and the communities in South Africa must share one citizenship in one undivided country. All South Africans must have equal socioeconomic opportunities and there must be a rightful say in Government.

There is international interest in the State President’s opening address to Parliament, and his reform proposals await implementation. The fact of the matter is that the Government must retain the initiative. We must maintain a specific style in our political life. We must have involvement and generate confidence. It is very clear to me, when I look at what is happening out there, that only this Parliament can bring about that reform. So the question that now arises is whether the voters are prepared to carry out reform through their elected representatives. Are those representatives prepared to carry out the mandate of their voters?

What mandate? [Interjections.]

Wait a minute, I am coming to that. The hon member must not be so inquisitive. He must not come along with fruitless utterances. He must now get down to realities. [Interjections.]

I want to ask whether the media are prepared to squash sensational reports. Must laws be abolished? If all laws are abolished, surely this Parliament should also be abolished. Surely it is impossible to draw a line through all these acts. Nor can there be preconditions for negotiation. We must not, in advance, be bound to the conditions laid down by the revolutionary forces. We have a very great responsibility, and all our parties will have to meet certain requirements. There will still have to be intensive investigations which are going to take a very long time. There will also have to be a formulation of decisions, something which is infinitely difficult, but there is also their implementation, which is perhaps the most difficult of all.

It is not given to the media to prescribe to us. I myself am an ex-journalist, but I am now growing sick and tired of newspapers wanting to prescribe to us who we should negotiate with, where we should hold those negotiations, when we should negotiate and what we should negotiate about.

That is not the Press’s job; it is the job of this Parliament and of the Government. Only then will we also be able to convey an image of our success to the outside world. Only then can we indicate that the Government does not break its promises. Then we can give an indication of the fact that the Government can be trusted, because there can be no credibility if there is no resolve about the Government’s seriousness when it comes to these matters.

I want to tell hon members today that owing to injudicious conduct, the lives of the Black community are in jeopardy. In the light of events elsewhere in Africa, do the Blacks really want to destroy the Whites? Are the Blacks not seeking their social and economic prosperity too?

We have the ability, in this Parliament, to bring about reform. We must be less self-indulgent and work harder, but the media must confine themselves to more exact and less sensational reporting. All must be made aware of their responsibilities. In this regard I want to use the term joint responsibility. This should be imprinted on the consciences of all. Our representatives must increasingly accept joint responsibility. The same applies to the members of the general public and our media. Then we will be in a position to bring about orderly reform. Then we can speak increasingly of own communities, own schools and own residential areas. That could then not be linked to the caricature of apartheid, as it has been referred to earlier. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the NP and the hon the Minister are again in a state of collapse as a result of a lack of credibility. [Interjections.] Credibility is one of the foremost requirements of a good government and of a good Minister. There are manifold instances providing the lack of credibility of the Government and of the Minister. Each day that passes and every sentence uttered by hon members of the NP give further proof of this.

Let me adduce a further example of the lack of credibility of the NP. [Interjections.] I want to refer to Skitgoed, No. 7, of March 1980. The article has the following headline: "Inligtingsdiens van die Nasionale Party van Suid-Afrika.” Then there is the following:

Kopiereg voorbehou.

[Interjections.] Yes, the hon member for Bloemfontein North wrote it as a member of the Federal Information Service of the NP and he is the chief spokesman on Foreign Affairs. What does the hon member say? [Interjections.] The following:

Hear that? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bloemfontein North surely lacks any political credibility. [Interjections.] After all, he is not at the Rubicon now. He has jumped from separate development right up to the Progs, to power-sharing and a takeover by Blacks in South Africa. He nevertheless goes on telling the White voters of South Africa that the NP is sticking to the old principles of the National Party. [Interjections.]

I now want to turn to the hon the Minister. He is very seldom in the House because he is busy holding Press conferences and discussing various matters on television. At the beginning of the year the following question was put to the hon the Minister:

The hon the Minister gave the following answer, the gist of which was:

And he was right!

After a special Cabinet meeting had apparently been held, a meeting at which there was some fierce in-fighting, the State President said the following here in the House (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1986, col 409)—the hon the Minister must now listen carefully:

That was a low blow! [Interjections.]

Can one rely on the credibility of the NP? The hon the Minister will simply have to admit that even Mr Freek Swart, with his conjuring act, would not be able to accord the NP any credibility. There are serious questions that have to be put to the hon the Minister. How can he, a senior member in Government ranks, after such a humiliating repudiation by the State President, remain Minister of Foreign Affairs and a member of the governing party?

What is more, when the hon the Minister is talking to the States out there in the outside world—it seems to me he talks to them a lot because he is never in the House—is he giving the outside world his personal opinion or is he putting forward the NP’s standpoint with which the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already compromised South Africa and the Government of the day? Let me ask the hon the Minister what his overall, personal standpoint on South Africa’s future is and whether he can tell us what the NP’s standpoint about South Africa’s future is.

I want to ask him to take us into his confidence and send a copy of the letter that he sent to the State President to each of the Opposition Parties in the House. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister said, however, that we should forget the past. Let me just put him right. He must forget about our forgetting about saying what has happened in the past. That is a reality the hon the Minister cannot get away from. He cannot get away from his own political career, he cannot get away from his own standpoints and we shall not permit him to do so.

Let me tell the hon the Minister very frankly today that the NP and the CP do not only differ in the methods we adopt. We do not merely differ on the question of methodology. Our differences are unbridgeable, fundamental and final when it comes to the ultimate goal that we have in mind for South Africa. The CP struggle is a struggle for a free, independent White Republic, and that is not something we begrudge any of the other peoples in South Africa. [Interjections.]

As far as South Africa is concerned, the hon the Minister’s personal ultimate objective, and that of his party, is a Black majority Government, a Third-World Government. That is what the hon the Minister has already said very clearly in the public standpoints he has adopted. He did not continue speaking today after his speech yesterday in the Committee. His so-called conciliation speech, which he made yesterday, was very "subdued” and he tried to maintain a very low profile. The CP does not fall for that kind of methodology. We shall not permit the hon the Minister to mislead the Whites in that way when later this year, or whenever the Government wants to a referendum or an election is held in this country, because once bitten, twice shy.

We do not trust the hon the Minister and the Government. We reject the hon the Minister’s standpoints and we reject his views about South Africa. We are not going to help him practice deceit and commit treason as far as our people are concerned.

If I understand him correctly, the hon the Minister regards the continued existence of peoples on a separate basis as race discrimination in South Africa. On the basis of the dispensation the hon the Minister advocates, one based on the political philosophy of the Government …

Order! I heard the hon member saying that he was not prepared to help the hon the Minister “practise deceit and commit treason as far as our people are concerned”.

Mr Chairman, if that is unparliamentary, I withdraw it.

Of course it is unparliamentary! [Interjections.]

The fact that the hon the Minister introduced separate schools, separate voters’ rolls, separate residential areas and separate chambers of Parliament for Coloureds and Whites, based on the hon the Minister’s personal political philosophy, is the grossest form of pigmentation. I want the hon the Minister to reply to that statement.

The hon the Minister said that the Conservatives in this country should go and look for another country for themselves. [Interjections.] He says we should go and look for another country for ourselves. I want to tell him very frankly today that our people, in its struggle for existence, not only struggled against the forces of imperialism, but also against Afrikaners who, in moments of crisis, left our people in the lurch. I put it to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs that he is an example of those Afrikaners who, in the 1980s are leaving our people in the lurch in its moment of crisis. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I put it very frankly to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs today … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said yesterday that South Africa needed everyone— even the impossible, even the obnoxious …

Yes, like you!

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon the Minister. All I want to add, however, is that the hon member for Rissik has said “once bitten, twice shy”, but that I know of no one, in any event, who would want to sink his teeth into the hon member, except perhaps for Dr Connie Mulder. He is the only one I know of brave enough to have tried to sink his teeth into the hon member for Rissik. One day, whilst we were together at a group meeting, the hon member for Rissik told me that he agreed with the 99-year leasehold system for the Black people.

You are talking nonsense! That is untrue!

I told him I was gratified to note that he agreed with the Blacks being able to obtain proprietary rights.

That is completely untrue!

The hon member then said he did not agree with Black people obtaining proprietary rights, but that he did agree with their obtaining 99-year leasehold rights. I then put it to him that that was actually one and the same thing, to which he replied: “Never! Connie says it is not the same thing.” [Interjections.] That, Mr Chairman, is how the hon member for Rissik got bitten. I shall leave him at that, however. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has a very difficult task resting on his shoulders. On the one hand he must try to convince countries abroad to view South Africa and its problems realistically, and on the other hand he must likewise attempt to convince South Africans to view our own problems realistically. The West expects First-World standards and solutions from us and cannot, or does not want to, realise that we are a mixture of First-World and Third-World components—a mixture containing a larger portion of Third-World elements than First-World elements. The West cannot, or does not want to, realise that we are an African country with problems unique to Africa and that solutions to our problems should also largely be Africa-orientated.

What about us, Mr Chairman? Our actions on the domestic front are, in many cases, as impractical as the foreign criticism and the solutions presented to us. It seems as if we ourselves believe or think we are merely a First-World country, because our laws, ordinances and regulations seem to be geared to the First-World level. The false picture that countries abroad have of the abuses and the cruelties perpetrated against innocent people in our prisons, the campaign by Amnesty International and a great deal of other unfounded criticism and judgements about South Africa are largely the direct result of the speeches and utterances and appointments of the PFP.

Helen in particular!

Yes, Helen in particular. I did not, of course, want to mention her by name. Just as the PFP is to blame for the overseas hostility towards South Africa, we ourselves must shoulder some of the blame for the resentment felt locally by some people at this system. How is the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs to succeed in explaining some of our inanities to the outside world, whilst at the same time making justified foreign criticism of and judgements about some of our actions acceptable to us in South Africa? Just as we cannot be oblivious of one another on the local front, we cannot live in isolation from countries abroad. Not only must we be able to sell ourselves to the outside world, but we should also be able to sell ourselves to each other here in South Africa. Now I am speaking, in particular, of Whites vis-a-vis Blacks.

I am afraid however, Mr Chairman, that we are not easily going to succeed in doing so. I want to contend that there are too many officials that stand between us and the Black people. We cannot get through to one another. There is a wall of officials, laws, regulations and ordinances, and mountains of forms in duplicate, triplicate and quadruplicate, and then loads of paperwork piled up in offices by even more officials who have to have even more offices. The more laws and regulations there are, the more officials there have to be to impose those laws and regulations on unwilling Black people—laws and regulations that make it difficult for members of the Black population, on their own initiative, to earn a little money with which to purchase a bit of food, except by way of the normal channels of employment. One ostensibly tried to sell an orange, the other a pineapple or a peach, and what is more he did so in the wrong place and without a licence. All of them have to go to court. There is the constable, the clerk, the messenger of the court, the prosecutor, the magistrate, the accused etc. Forms have to be filled in and the paperwork has to be done. It is an endless stream of scribbling and scrawling and all of it at enormous cost. What is more, enormous quantities of valuable time are wasted by the State. And all that merely to be able to tell that poor accused: "You are being warned and discharged. Do not do it again. You need a licence to do it. Next, please!” and then it is the same old story right from the start. [Interjections.]

The Black man has to have a licence or a letter or a pass, or he has to fill in a form to ask for something, to get something or to send something away. What is more, most of the time they are forms which are difficult to understand, which are unnecessarily complicated and with which he is seldom given any assistance.

How must the hon the Minister explain to the outside world this quagmire of legislation regulating every action of the Black man? It is virtually impossible for a Black man to get through this quagmire of regulations unscathed. Of course there must be law and order, but then the regulations maintaining law and order must be simple and practicable. What is more, the regulations must benefit human beings themselves. They must not be embellished with so many trivialities as to keep crowds or officials occupied with unproductive work. At one time or another, during his lifetime, each and every Black man finds himself in a police station, a magistrate’s office, a post office, an office of a development board, the office of a location superintendent or whatever other office. That is not always the case, of course, because there are indeed many good, helpful officials in all departments who have a love for their fellow men, but so often in the past the answer has been a curt, unhelpful and even brutal refusal to deal with a Black man’s request or the business he wants to conduct.

Right or wrong, grudges have built up against some location superintendents, in particular, a grudge against the system which now also includes the development boards and other boards too. Right or wrong, the majority of development boards are no longer acceptable to the Blacks today. Even the funds that the Government is channelling through the development boards for housing and for the improvement of living standards in Black residential areas are regarded with suspicion and hostility.

If we are to find each other, we shall have to establish other channels, other structures or other forms of developmental institutions which have some credibility amongst Black people, not structures that we find acceptable, but structures acceptable to the Blacks! There must be no doubt about this, or we will just go on wasting money and time, both of which are in equally short supply these days. President Sebe said the following the other evening at a State banquet:

I wholeheartedly agree with him, Sir.

I just want us to do a little more than that. The Whites from the Border area and the Blacks from Ciskei and Transkei have, for 200 years now, been living together through friendship and enmity, through times of war and peace, through good years and through lean years. In that area we know each other.

There is, of course, co-operation between the presidents of the three countries. These three countries make high-level contributions in everyday affairs. My question is nevertheless whether we cannot do more for the area as a whole, cannot work together at a lower level, at a second, third or even lower tier of government. There are interesting developments in Natal and elsewhere in the world that we can have a look at. I think there is a great future in store for the Eastern Cape if we can create the structures, can establish the boards of committees, constituted at various levels to deal with specific problems transcending international boundaries. I repeat: It must be possible for these committees to go beyond normal boundaries so that both or all three of these countries can have a say, can make proposals and can obtain the necessary co-operation to implement the proposals made in the committees. Otherwise this would not have any significance either. Not only is there a great deal that is unique to each of these three areas, but there is also a great deal that we can share in these three areas.

I hope the hon the Minister will direct his efforts at establishing such committees, or whatever, so that the interested parties, or those who are affected, at whatever level or in whatever areas, can have a round-table conference to discuss our problems with one another on a personal level.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for East London North has spoken and I want to ask him to be good enough to send his speech to me in triplicate so that I can also give a copy of it to the hon the Minister of constitutional Development and Planning.

The hon member for Yeoville remarked that South African could not exist in isolation. It is indeed a fact that South Africa cannot continue to exist in isolation from the rest of Africa. In this regard, let me refer to an extract from the book, Afrika in ’n Neutedop, by an expert in African politics, Mr Willie le Roux, in which he has the following to say:

After all, it is wellknown that the Goverment’s policy in regard to African states, not only aims at the elimination of misunderstanding and hostility, but is also strongly motivated by economic co-operation. South Africa is the economic and literate giant in Africa and I want to present comparative statistics in support of the statement that South Africa could be the focal point of a constellation of Southern African States. It would not be a good thing to compare South Africa with one of the independent Black States that has obtained independence from South Africa. Let us, however, look at Africa as a whole and then at a few separate African states in particular.

Two of the most important aspects that one could probably have a look at in an effort to determine what kind of international contribution a country is making, is such a country’s economic position and its literacy. If we first look at Africa as a whole—the study involving 55 States included countries such as Bophuthatswana, Venda and Transkei––the position in Africa at the end of 1979 was as follows: In the economic sphere let me first give statistics on the average per capita income. There were only four countries in Africa that had a per capita income of more than R1 000 per annum. It is interesting to note that Libya, then already under the control of Muammar Gaddafi who took over control of the country on 1 September 1969 by way of a coup d’etat, had the highest per capita income, ie R4 417 per annum. South Africa did, in fact, also have a per capita income of more than R1 000 per annum, but of the four countries in which people earned a per capita income in excess of R1 000 per year, South Africa came last. Seen as a whole, in comparison with all the African states, we had the fourth highest per capita income. The three countries that had a greater per capita income than South Africa were firstly Libya with a per capita income, as I already said, of R4 417 per annum, secondly Gabon with a per capita income of R1 948 per annum, thirdly Djibouti with a per capita income of R1 496 per annum and fourthly South Africa with a per capita income of R1 148 per annum.

The overall picture of Africa at the end of 1979 is interesting. Seven states had a per capita income of less than R100 per annum. In thirteen states the per capita income was less than R200 per annum. In twelve it was less than R300 per annum, and so on. Only seven had a per capita income of more than R600 per annum, and one must bear in mind that R600 per annum is, in effect, R50 per month. Of the seven countries in which the per capita income was more than R600 per annum, there were only four in which the per capita income was more than R1 000 per annum, as I said earlier.

If we look at the attitude of the African states towards the Republic, we see that at that stage there were 15 states that were not hostile towards South Africa. Of the African countries there were 39 that were hostile towards South Africa, only officially hostile or reasonably hostile, unforthcoming, uncommitted or with no definite policy or attitude towards our country.

If we look at the literacy of Africa as a whole, it is illuminating to note that at that stage there were 10 African states that had a literacy figure of less than 10%. Eleven states had a literacy figure of between 10% and 20%, 13 states a figure of between 20% and 30%, six states a figure of between 30% and 40%, three states a figure of between 40% and 50%, a further three states with a figure of 50% to 60%, two states with a figure of 60% to 70%, and with South Africa head and shoulders above the other African states with a literacy figure, at that stage, of 89%. Now one has to acknowledge, of course, that if children in our Black towns, in particular, refuse to attend school the literacy figure will inevitably drop. Our per capita income will consequently also decrease, thereby further impoverishing us in South Africa and decreasing our literacy.

Countries abroad must therefore understand that we are taking action and must take action against those attempting to prevent our children from obtaining their schooling.

It is difficult to draw an accurate comparison between African states and South Africa, and that is why I thought of comparing some of the African states, which have recently been in the news, with South Africa. The countries that I should briefly like to compare with South Africa are Kenya, Libya, the Sao Tomé and Principe islands and, for a specific reason, Mali as well.

I am using Mali as an example because it has very much the same surface area as South Africa, although it is slightly bigger than South Africa. Its population, it is true, is much less than that of South Africa, and therefore there is much more land available per capita, ie 0,2 sq km. Mali’s per capita income was a mere R78 per annum and its literacy figure a mere 2,2%. Together with Upper Volta, Mali is the country with the lowest per capita income per annum, ie R78. Upper Volta’s literacy figure is between 5% and 10%.

I am taking Kenya as an example on the strength of the fact that its President, Mr Daniel Arap Moi, did not attend the coronation of the Swazi King because our President was there. Kenya’s per capita income is a mere R200 per annum and its literacy figure is 40%.

It is probably unnecessary to qualify my choice of Libya as an example and to indicate why Libya was in the news. Its literacy figure was 52,4% and it did have 3,85 times South Africa’s per capita income. As far as Sao Tomé and Principe are concerned, their per capita income was R497 per annum. Unfortunately there are no statistics to indicate their literacy figure.

From this overall picture we can see that South Africa has an important role to play in Africa. Nor must we forget that South Africa is a combination of both First-World and Third-World components, as the hon member for East London North has said. That is why there has to be peace in our country so that Africa can benefit from it. Fortunately the adage that every era gives a people the leader it needs, is very true in South Africa’s case. With our State President, his Cabinet and, in particular, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his hon Deputy Minister, we shall strive, in Africa, to make the contribution we are asked to make.

In one of his books entitled Politieke Leiers van Suider-Afrika Mr Willie Le Roux had the following to say about our State President:

And that is why South Africa has a place in Africa.

Mr Chairman, let me now tell the hon the Minister something about the matter of the Zulus. In regard to my hon leader’s visit to the Zulus yesterday, I just want to tell the Committee that the version presented on television and in Die Burger is completely one-sided and very clear evidence of sour grapes.

It was typical! [Interjections.]

Those reports reflect nothing of the courtesy, the goodwill and the spirit of the meeting between the Afrikaner leader and the Zulu king, which lasted for more than seven hours and involved all the trappings of a top-level visit.

In the Zulu contingent there were, amongst others, the 1968-71 regent, courtiers of the king, Ministers, members of the Legislative Assembly, choirs, dancers and praise-singers. [Interjections.] In our contingent there was the chairman of the CP caucus, a very senior frontbencher in this Committee, the chief secretary of the CP and the Natal chairman of the CP. [Interjections.] That hon member whistling over there can whistle like the whistler walking past a graveyard if he wants to, because here we have a revival of the traditional meeting between great Afrikaner leaders on the one hand and the kings of the Black peoples on the other. [Interjections.] We are now starting again where we left off some years ago. [Interjections.]

That sniggering hon member for Rustenburg will be whistling himself to his grave … [Interjections.]

The visit was by mutual arrangement. Mutual! For that derisive columnist of Die Burger up there in the Press gallery let me say: "Mark my words!” [Interjections.] It was arranged with the knowledge and approval of the Chief Minister, and both sides expressed their utmost satisfaction with the proceedings. The words “graciously” and “cordially” were amongst the words used in referring to the visit. [Interjections.]

Yesterday I quoted to the hon Minister from an American report. The point I wanted to make was that according to that report there is support for what we have always said, and that is that this hon Minister and the Government as a whole are being pressurised by the American government and its State Department. [Interjections.] Yesterday the hon the Minister acknowledged this by implication. That is the point I made and that is what stands there.

Then the hon the Minister tried to sidestep that issue by referring to the fact that on 1 August, without certain qualifications, he would proceed with Resolution 435. I want to tell the hon the Minister that that is so. The State President said that Resolution 435 would be implemented on 1 August, provided there was a definite and satisfactory agreement, prior to that date, about the withdrawal of the Cubans. We know that! The hon the Minister obligingly informed me of this prior to the State President’s statement.

That is not, however, the point I was making. My point was actually that according to that report the hon the Minister actually said that the Americans had, in fact, pressurised him into agreeing to that. [Interjections.]

I am now asking the hon the Minister whether he categorically denies telling Donald McAlvany—I do not know him, but I think he knows him—that the Americans had pressurised him. That is my actual question.

He did say so!

Secondly, since the hon the Minister, in his reply to me, touched on Resolution 435, there is something I want to know from him. If a definite and satisfactory agreement on the withdrawal of the Cubans is not reached before 1 August, what then? Yesterday he said: “Then we shall see.” I now want to ask him whether one of the options would not perhaps be that the Government would then, in any event, begin implementing Resolution 435, without a definite and satisfactory agreement having been reached. That is what I want to know from him, and that is my question from this side of the Committee.

That is a very important question.

There is another matter I want to raise with the hon the Minister. Yesterday he referred to emotional speeches from the CP and to personal attacks. I take it he was speaking about me. I now want to tell the hon the Minister that I was not being emotional yesterday. I do not think he is one who should talk about emotional people. I was being clinical yesterday when I told him that South Africa could no longer afford him. I was being clinical in my objectivity when I criticised him on his use of language on television. That is what it was all about. [Interjections.]

So let me tell the hon the Minister that we are being neither emotional, nor personal, but when we tell him that we can no longer afford him in that post, it is because that is a fact. It is not in the interests of this country to adopt the foreign policy that this Government is adopting.

We are pleased with Pik.

Well, that hon member would be pleased with anything as long as it was capitulation.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Soutpansberg is one of those people in politics who succeed in saying that he does not intend being personal only to move on the brink of very great acrimony and pointedness but he has every right to do so. All I want to say to the hon member for Soutpansberg is that all of us on this side of the Committee together with 90% of the people of South Africa are proud of the person of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, proud of the work he does in the interests of South Africa and stand solidly by him. He has proved throughout his career as our ambassador to the UNO and as a Minister that he regards South Africa as number one and places this country first. [Interjections.]

I should like to tell hon members of the CP that we are experiencing a very important time for South Africa and that the world about us is very dangerous. In this world and at this time in which we are carrying out reforms …

Order! I should like to appeal to hon members not to make unnecessary interjections if nobody really understands them. The hon member for Innesdal may proceed.

We are living in a very important period, one in which we can refute the principal accusation the world has hurled at us in and out of season over many years—some justified, but these accusations were absolutely unfair in the main— through the internal reform we are carrying out. As a country and a nation we can stand and look the world squarely in the eye because we are on the way to a new South Africa with this reform. We shall be able to tell many people throughout the world that we are more concerned about human rights, that our policy has greater respect for human dignity and grants greater recognition to a person as an individual and to people in a group context than is the case in many countries of the world.

I find it most ironic that at this time in which much is being said about apartheid it is our opponents who are most obsessed with the word “apartheid”. Our friend of the HNP, the CP and the PFP and all in this country are obsessed with the word and the concept of “apartheid” whereas the NP Government is attempting to use terminology and bring about reform which is in the interests of South Africa.

If one listens to the White emotions of my hon friends here to my right and one sees how extreme White emotions are in South African politics, one can more or less conceive of the extreme nature of Black emotions. I am anxious as I hear more and more frequently and increasingly clearly that there are people to the right of the NP—at the time they left I told them that there was only a political wilderness to the right of the NP—who think conflict and confrontation are inevitable. That is dangerous. [Interjections.]

Order!

On a previous occasion I went over my Hansard and those hon members interrupted me 46 times in a 20-minute speech. I am not afraid of them, not singly or en masse, but let us respect Parliament as an institution. [Interjections.]

Order! I want no further interjections while the hon member for Innesdal is speaking.

I wish to appeal today, as the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs did at the time when as a backbencher he spoke in this House on the universal declaration of human rights, that we on the Government side should increasingly examine our own approach to and our own bulwarks from within which we wish to present human rights to the world. If we examine the fundamental aspects of human rights for which the world has castigated over many years, such as the question of the franchise, influx control and freedom of movement for all people, it is clear that under the leadership of the State President we have accomplished absolutely dramatic changes in South Africa in the interest of human rights over the past years on cardinal points for which we have been censured for many years. We on this side of the Committee are proud to belong to a party which has set a reform process in motion to bring about justice and equity to all people in a complicated situation in a country with a perpetual potential for conflict between groups and individuals.

If one examines the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations on 10 December 1948, one will see that in almost every one of the sections the word “freedom” comes strongly to the fore. I read this Declaration of Human Rights but it is impossible to deal with it comprehensively in a 10-minute speech. I wish to point out that the NP diverges from few of these sections of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is not the case in many countries of the world—in Europe, Africa and elsewhere. We can say that we subscribe in principle to almost every one of the sections of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It is true that there is a type of sentimentality about human rights throughout the world. Leftists radicals and the communists who support them in this hold up an image of human rights which is not acceptable to us as a party. We deck our image of human rights in the context of human dignity as well. It is very important for us to pursue our task relentlessly in spite of what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said yesterday. We should quote from history where we have been fought on these fundamental points. We should continue pointing out ruthlessly that these things are disappearing; we as the Government party should insist inexorably that we are predisposed toward human rights.

An incorrect message can never be presented correctly. It is true that regarding matters such as influx control, political rights of Black people and various other affairs our message was wrong without our intending this. We are now faced with the reality that we have the right message and all of us in this country should disseminate that message together in the interests in South Africa.

We live in a shrinking world and that is why we as South Africans should think bigger and bigger. We live in a world in which no country can escape the accusations and the focus of the international world in any sphere for its neglect of human rights.

Russia is in the limelight for its disregard of human rights. It was interesting to see Mr Gorbachov squirming recently when French journalists took him to task on human rights in Russia. Even he attempted saying people had rights in Russia.

In the same vein we as South Africans should not interpret the international feeling about human rights as an attack on South Africa only. Today we can rise and claim freely that in nearly every sphere of life we have done our share in the field of human rights.

Futurists say the world is actually only a small town and that is true. We South Africans have a duty to ensure that we do not become the slums of this small town. As regards human rights, we shall certainly become the slums if South Africa does not take the way we as the NP wish to follow.

One should not stifle great ideas, like the NP ideas on human rights based on freedom, through foolish debate. We are all becoming concerned that there are people attaching more value to emotion than the great ideas in which we are involved in South Africa. It is regrettable that at this stage we are in the position that too many of our Black people, church leaders and people in the labour sphere are prepared to attack the Government jointly by putting an inaccurate version of the Government’s standpoint on human rights to a world which is bitterly unjust towards South Africa and applies double standards to us.

We wish to express the thanks of this side of the Committee to all officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs who wear themselves out disseminating South Africa’s message of justice and equity to this hostile world in a wonderful way. It is ironic that, while they are fighting us, increasing interethnic conflict and more and more problems are arising between people of different origins in every country throughout the world. Ultimately—I think within a decade from now—many countries of the world, including certain parts of the USA where they will have very great trouble in future, will come to examine South Africa’s handling of racial relations. There are people who have never experienced the conflict potential of interracial tension but who will see the nature of those problems in the new world to which they are moving inconsequence of the migration of people and the influence of the international media. We on this side of the Committee––we members of the NP—therefore believe that we have a greater message to put to other countries of the world as regards human relations. I always find it interesting when foreigners come to this country to discuss the value of this tricameral Parliament with us. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, under this Vote we have the opportunity to discuss the affairs of the South African Broadcasting Corporation. I see the hon the Minister is smiling, as we have been doing this for years. Shall we do it again today?

I think it would be churlish if we did not say at the very outset that in the past year there have been improvements in the SABC as far as the political content of its programmes is concerned. Certainly the TV programmes Network and Netwerk have made an important contribution to this improvement and I believe that the producers and presenters of those programmes should be congratulated on a well-compiled, in formative and generally fairly objective set of programmes.

However, having said that, all is not perfect. The SABC still seems to believe that full debate on current issues between political figures holding diametrically opposed views, should be avoided on television. Furthermore, all too often interviewers—particularly of hon Ministers of this Cabinet— remain docile and fawning, with the obviously compliant interviewer nodding his head as the answers are given to fairly easy and well-prepared questions. Moreover, one very often finds that when controversial subjects are discussed, the panel of experts selected represents a very narrow spectrum of opinions. Slightly off-beat or radical views are very seldom given any chance of expression at all on the television. All too often, interviews are used by Cabinet Ministers as propaganda platforms—I think the hon the Minister is an expert at that himself—with the connivance of the SABC. While it can readily be understood, and even agreed upon, that the SABC would wish to make a contribution to the elimination of violence in our country and would not want to broadcast material which might instigate or propagate further violence, the general playing down of the unrest and the violence in South Africa and in the townships at the moment—except when it suits its book to do otherwise—is in my opinion largely counterproductive. I shall give hon members an example.

Today the headlines in the Cape Times read: “Forty hurt as police whip pupils”. The story is a horrendous account of what is certainly the disgraceful behaviour of the police, who pulled children from their classrooms whilst whipping them. There are stories from the teacher as well as pictures of the children and their injuries, and exactly the same thing appeared in the centre pages of the newspaper. I wonder whether the SABC will report this particular incident, or whether it will once again leave it to the printed media to do its job. [Interjections.]

I say that selective reporting of events in South Africa can be most counterproductive, and I believe that it is counterproductive in two ways. Firstly, the average White South African is less informed than he should be, less aware of what is happening in this country, and less able to understand the issues a stake and to make rational judgments judgements on those issues. I believe that average White South Africans rely mainly on television and radio for their information. Moreover, I believe that because of this managing of the news, the average White South African is ill-prepared for the problems and the opportunities of the future that faces the Republic.

The second consequence of managing the news is that among the Black community the SABC has lost virtually all its credibility and most of its goodwill which, I believe, bodes ill for its future in the new non-racial South Africa which is fast approaching us.

The second political topic which I should like to touch upon this afternoon is the daily dosage of SABC comment to which listeners are subjected. I do not object—and I do not believe my party objects—to the SABC having and broadcasting its editorial opinions but what I do object to is the fact that the opinions expressed daily are by no means in dependent. They are nothing more, neither are they anything less, than a mirror of whatever the Government is saying about any or every subject on any given day. When the Government is for apartheid, the SABC defends that stance. When apartheid is jettisoned, the SABC somersaults in accord with the NP. When the pass laws were in and squatting was out, that was also the SABC’s view. When the policy was reversed, the SABC automatically reversed its policy and its comment. [Interjections.] While removals were sanctioned and enforced, the SABC put the Government’s point of view across. When the policy of removals was stopped, the SABC overnight changed its view on the matter.

What I am trying to say about the editorial comment, is that the SABC does not really have a view of its own at all. The editorial view of the SABC is basically that of the Cabinet, fed to the country on a daily basis. If editorial comment is going to enjoy any respect at all, surely there must come a time, even if only occasionally, when the SABC actually disagrees with the Government, and says so in an editorial comment!

Impossible! [Interjections.]

Certainly, the slavish parroting of Government slogans will do little to enhance the status of this service.

Finally, without wishing to appear wise after the event, it does seem to me that the new radio services have gone a long way to upsetting everybody. [Interjections.] Certainly they have gone a long way to upsetting English-speaking listeners. The new Radio South Africa, which is the old English service and which now has advertisements and combines with it certain elements of the old Springbok Radio, is neither fish nor fowl and, quite frankly, draws few plaudits from its audience.

Furthermore, the corporation continues to make mistakes. A prime example of the sort of mistakes which continue to be made, is the Moira Tuck fiasco where, despite an Industrial Court finding that the lady was unfairly dismissed, the SABC refuses to rectify the wrong it has committed and, by refusing to rectify that wrong, the career of that lady is virtually ruined despite the fact that it has been found that she is an innocent victim of a wrongful dismissal. Her career is ruined because of the monopolistic situation in which the SABC finds itself, in terms of which she cannot in any way get a job in the field in which she wants to be because of her dismissal.

I believe the real problem lies in the lack of competition. Despite its recent attempts at slimming—and those attempts should be lauded—the SABC remains a monopolistic, initiative-killing bureaucracy. What it needs is competition. More free enterprise should be allowed. Perhaps this should start with the radio services. A fitter, leaner, more sensitive corporation, reflecting more validly the whole South African community could well emerge in the face of fierce competition but it will never emerge while the SABC retains the monopoly and while it feeds this bureaucracy.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sandton commented on the fact that the Government used television as a propaganda platform. He also made certain allegations against SABC television and attempted to create the impression that it echoed the Government. I shall revert to this in a while.

Do you agree with this?

I actually wish to express a few thoughts on radio and television in my own constituency but before doing that I wish to make a few general comments. We in remote areas of this country greatly appreciate the fact that television makes it possible for us to see an animated presentation in our own homes of what is occurring in the outside world. In spite of the so-called deficiencies of our television, we can hardly picture ourselves in South Africa today without television; it has already become a way of life in our country. No known news medium is capable of reproducing news as accurately as that of television because the viewer experiences conditions in picture form and may follow the commentary so there is little opportunity for distorting news reports.

Neither do we adequately realise the value of the medium of television in promoting the second language, especially as regards our children. A visual image with words attached is one of the most graphic aids to teaching a person. The image with the attendant words has an impact on our children and in this way the Afrikaans child learns English more easily and vice versa.

Television has succeeded so well in dealing with languages that they have even taught Mickey Mouse, who was previously English-speaking, to speak Xhosa on TV2. [Interjections.] An important request to the SABC is that it should examine the possibility of broadcasting important sporting events as well by making use of so-called dead spots. We understand this is done overseas and that it is technically possible to have a dead-spot area where telecasts cannot be received. People from sporting organisations who complain they are losing on gates will then be able to attract people to a rugby match for instance so that those of us in remote areas will actually be able to see the matches.

The sense of decency of the NP and the oversensitivity of the SABC to criticism that it is the NP mouthpiece cause a great deal of valuable information to be kept from our people. Information such as that furnished by Ministers has already passed through the democratic process and no longer merely represents party-political standpoints but a Government point of view. I think our people do not understand one matter, which is that they think it is the party talking when a Minister or Deputy Minister appears. When that Minister makes a certain announcement, it has already passed through all its stages and is the Goverment’s standpoint and no longer that of the NP.

This implies that the standpoints currently being put are NP initiatives which ultimately become converted into laws and will finally apply and be passed on. This will remain the case as long as this Government exists and, if a different government comes to power, standpoints of other governing parties will ultimately apply and be of importance.

At the end of last year an American mentioned in a discussion with me that the image the average American who was objective towards South Africa had of us was that we were continually on the defensive and were continually explaining why we took certain steps. His view was that we should come forward more and state positively what our reform initiatives in this country comprised. When a Minister or Deputy Minister appears, he should be granted far more time to disseminate South Africa’s case abroad. Opposition parties are provided with more than ample time to put their cases and then it is still said—for instance by the hon member for Soutpansberg—that the reports are onesided. I have never been able to understand how a television report could be one-sided when a chap sits there talking and his words are broadcast. How could that be one-sided? One can slant a report in writing it but one can really not project an image in a onesided way.

Then it wouldn’t be there!

I do not wish to argue for increased licence fees but I wish to tell hon members that television licences cost five times less in South Africa than the average in the rest of the world. Our fees are therefore very low—in the region of 12c a day. If we compare this with the cost of newspapers, it really appears to be a most trifling amount. Surely a single news bulletin is really worth more than 12 cents.

In addition, Mr Chairman, I believe we should continue with the system of subsidised licences in South Africa. I also wish to request that concessions which are granted be made applicable to all pensioners in this country. At the moment the system works in such a way that it is not available to all pensioners.

Just a last thought, Mr Chairman, on my own constituency! I wish to express an exceptional word of thanks to the SABC for the television service which will be available in the Askam area. At the moment they are erecting the relay stations there and the service will become operative on 1 July this years. We have also received promises in this regard for Kakamas and the area west of it and we therefore request the hon the Minister to take the one step but at the same time not omit the other.

Concerning SABC radio services, I wish to refer to the re-introduction of the regional news service on short wave by Radio Oranje. Obviously this was very well received by inhabitants of the Northwest Cape. In any case we are looking forward to the day when an FM radio service will also be available in the Northern regions of Gordonia as well as in other remote areas—those regions of our country which do not have or are not within reach of the target areas of our national newspapers. We hope that an FM radio service as well as a television service will soon be available in all those remote areas.

The SABC should forgive the sometimes unnecessary criticism as well as the fact that we have become so choosy in South Africa. It should merely overlook this and continue its good service. The SABC is one of the show windows of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, one person whose efforts to convince me of the innocence of ministerial announcements I do not mind, is the hon member for Gordonia. He uses that delightful accent in the Afrikaans language which stamps him as coming from a specific part of South Africa. I do, however, want to put it to him that if hon Deputy Ministers and hon Ministers were allowed more time on television, our newscasts would have to be extended up to an hour because at the present moment they occupy something like 60% of the allotted time of a newscast, leaving precious little time for anything else.

Sir, I do not have time this afternoon. I want to point out that either late yesterday afternoon or early today we had placed on our desks here in the House a document relating to the financial position of the SABC. The full title of this document happens to be The SABC’s financial position and accounting policy in perspective. It is quite an imposing document but it was placed on our desks only a day prior to the debate, and I do not believe that sufficient time has been given to any of us either to study the contents or to comment thereon. Nevertheless, Sir, I believe that what we must think about this afternoon is the necessity for such a document. Why is a document of this nature needed at all? I submit, Sir, that this is a sad reflection on the state of affairs. This has obviously been done for one reason and for one reason only and that is to counter the avalanche of criticism that has been heaped on the head of the SABC from all quarters.

Sir, I have neither the time nor the inclination to embark on a discourse on bias here this afternoon. We do that year after year, and certainly every party in this House has had every opportunity of venting its spleen and liver and what have you in the discussion on the Broadcasting Act. What I do want to talk about, however, is the fact that I am deeply disturbed by the reports of ongoing rumblings within the ivory tower at Auckland Park such as the constant changes that are taking place in radio programmes, and the storm of criticism that has been evoked thereby. I agree with an earlier speaker who said that if these new services had done nothing else, they had managed to upset everybody. That they have managed to do very effectively. And not only that, Sir. What about the constant shuffling of staff? Staff are for ever being moved—very few upwards; quite a few downwards, and just about everybody sideways. It is the most incredible performance ever witnessed and it is causing concern. There is always some announcement of tremendous staff movement within the bureaucracy in the ivory tower. The problem is that the image builder—that is what the SABC is or can be—is now starting to suffer an image crisis all of its own; and the SABC is doing it to itself. I believe the time has now come for a clear statement of intent and direction from the hon the Minister, from the board and from the directorate.

Technically speaking, radio and television in this country are outstanding. There is no getting away from that. However, the reported events—in other words, the reports of what is going on in the SABC—are symptomatic of an illness that needs to be rooted out. There are too many questions being asked, eg, why are there so many chiefs and so few Indians? Another question that is often asked—and I am sorry that I have to raise it today—is: Why are there so few, if any, English speakers in the top hierarchy of the SABC? Is there any truth in the Kit Katzen articles that appeared for weeks in the Sunday Star? After all, Kit Katzen has credibility. His name was linked to the initial reports on the Information scandal. That is why I ask whether there is any truth in his articles. Does the SABC ever take any notice of its listeners?

My last question is: Is the hierachy pulling as a team or are all the employees pulling in different directions? This list of questions, and the list of mistaken perceptions is growing every minute of the day in the minds of “die mense daar buite”, and I do not want to see the SABC become the subject of ridicule.

The hon member for Sandton has spoken of its credibility. Credibility is one thing, but when one becomes the subject of ridicule, one is finished. So I want to say that if matters continue the way they are, this proud organisation will become the subject of ridicule in this country. We are dangerously close to it. I suggest that there are too many political motivated fingers in the pie. I suggest further that all the personnel, from the Director-General downwards, are hamstrung by the fact that there are too many people interfering. I think the hon the Minister must now act firmly and ensure that the SABC’s house is put in order once and for all—even if it means that some favoured heads have to roll in the process! The time for dramatic action is now, and I would warn the hon the Minister that if dramatic action is not taken, the SABC will become a subject of ridicule—and that we cannot afford!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umhlanga referred to the criticism that has been expressed in regard to the financial position of the SABC. I should like to come back to that subject and address the Committee on it later this afternoon. Unfortunately, what we got from the hon member this afternoon was mostly negative criticism and a whole bundle of questions.

*I should much prefer to make a constructive contribution concerning an industry— that of the media—which is very dear to me personally. Consequently I should first like to carry out somewhat of an analysis of a specific problematical aspect of this industry.

A large part of the criticism of the SABC expressed in recent times was centred especially on the finances of the corporation. On this head I believe the first question one should put to oneself is whether the SABC and the functions it fulfils can be subjected to the normal criteria of the private sector or the free market. In attempting to answer this question, one should also judge the SABC in the light of or against the background of its statutory guidelines and parameters. According to these guidelines and parameters the SABC has to inform, educate and entertain with cognisance of distinctive language and cultural needs of the ethnic diversity of South Africa. This state of affairs has resulted in cross-subsidisation necessarily having to be applied within the organisation. Services showing a loss, such as TV2, TV3, Radio Suid-Afrika, Radio South Africa and certain services in Nguni are kept going in the process. The fact is that the more profitable, entertainment-orientated services have to help carry their information and educational counterparts. It is interesting that the printed media are not altogether differently placed. The more successful Press groups are those which also operate strongly in the magazine market. By the creation of M-net the printed media will also have greater access to the entertainment world via the primary technological field of the SABC. Nevertheless it is true that the printed media do not escape distinctive South African circumstances. The market is reduced by the fragmentation of language and cultural groups and this has a fundamental influence on the economic viability of the printed media as well. Newspaper groups which have so far fared best in the fight for survival are not only deeply involved in the magazine market but also moved into the market for local and regional newspapers in good time. It is interesting that the SABC recently also began moving in the same direction in its own field by broadening the idea of regional services. In my opinion the hon member for Sandton referred rather superficially to the new dispensation regarding the various radio services without considering that it is actually a natural effort to meet market needs.

There is another important field in which there are strong similarities between the SABC and the printed media. The SABC depends on advertisements for 75% of its income whereas licence fees represent only 25% of this. Newspapers are in a comparable situation as regards advertisements and selling price. The fact is that the SABC and the Press are branches of one and the same industry; they are blood relations and rely on the same sources for their existence. Few facts illustrate this truth better than that the SABC recently started publishing South Africa’s first electronic newspaper as Teledata is nothing but an electronic paper. One has to regard this in conjunction with the movement of newspapers into the world of entertainment by means of M-net. I doubt, however, whether mere agreements on co-operation will provide the solution and whether it will be adequate. In addition I think we should note that market-sharing by agreement is statutorily an undesirable trade practice in South Africa. To my mind one should note that the future of the newspaper industry also lies in the direction of the electronic newspaper and new technology. The economy necessitates new technology. If newspapers do not adapt, their survival is doubtful.

Against that backdrop I feel we should not overlook the importance of the media industry. This industry is responsible for the flow of information which is the arterial system of every representative democracy; it cannot function without it. It is a fact that the economic recession has affected the SABC and the newspaper industry equally badly and in the same way. They are also subjected to the same market demands and to the same sociological movements. I think the current battle and attacks launched against the SABC at present should also be seen in this light. One could conduct an extensive argument on the detail and/or the fairness of these attacks. In my opinion this would not address the crucial problem, however, as they are merely also symptoms of the disease. The fact is that a vitally important industry in South Africa is being threatened. The newspaper world can be rationalised at the moment as regards capital expenditure such as on printing presses. Is there no possibility …

We are going to take telephones away as soon as the CP comes to power!

The problem I have with that hon member is that he reminds me a little of the story about Bôggem and Voertsek but I am not sure which is Voertsek. [Interjections.]

The newspaper world is being rationalised but the same possibilities are not open to the SABC; it cannot escape its basic capital expenditure. On the one hand the newspaper world does not have the benefit of the protective hand of authority. Nor do I consider subsidisation a solution because it would prevent the industry from making the necessary technological adjustments.

What I wish to say is that this is a complex problem and I do not regard simple solutions as possible. Against that background I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister, who is responsible for the SABC, to take the initiative in either bringing about an “indaba” between the SABC and the Press Union so that the future of the media industry may be discussed or considering the possibility of an incisive research project on the subject.

Scattering recriminations and emotional attacks from both sides will not benefit this industry at all. I think we should accept that they have to compete but a cool evaluation of future adjustment is necessary for the sake of a cause which is even greater than the industry itself.

Speech signed by Wimpie de Klerk!

I can think for myself—unlike that hon member!

Mr Chairman, I should like to start by giving the Committee the good and the bad news about the rugby. The good news is that the score is 26-6 at present and I shall leave the bad news to the supporters of Western Province. [Interjections.]

We have had the opportunity of listening to a number of speakers. I think it was very clear that both NP speakers made spiteful, monotonous speeches without addressing the actual issues.

As regards the Official Opposition, the hon member for Sandton put it very clearly that his objection was to the fact that the SABC articulated NP policy.

The hon member for Umhlanga directed a very serious warning—with which I heartily associate myself—on the disastrous way the SABC is taking and the necessity of putting its house in order.

On behalf of the CP I should like to convey thanks and congratulations to the officials of the SABC. This also goes for promotions and, regarding those who have retired, I should like to thank those who did good, objective work.

In the eyes of this Committee the SABC appears today in an atmosphere of suspicion. This suspicion hinges on its finances and management as well as its impartiality as a state medium. It is a situation which does not redound to the honour of any country and about which Opposition parties have complained for a long time in this House. Nevertheless it is a situation the Government does nothing about; it is a state of injustice about which something should be done without delay.

A peculiar, mysterious cloud hangs over SABC finance. Its report was submitted far too late; it is no use handing hon members a report the day before because we cannot even look at it. [Interjections.]

It is common knowledge that the newspapers are writing about SABC affairs as the hon member for Umhlanga pointed out and that many unflattering remarks are being made about the SABC. I have been informed that even a police investigation has taken place. Everything has led to outside contributions receiving the credit for cleaning-up operations in the SABC which have even resulted in heads rolling. This creates the following impressions: Firstly, that all is not well at the SABC and, secondly, that it is urgently necessary to lay these matters open which are developing into a scandal and a cover-up should be avoided at all costs.

You said you had not read the report!

The hon member for Innesdal would do better to occupy himself with the question whether the hon the Deputy Minister of Information is still a security risk.

But you did not even read the report, Koos!

I am referring to newspapers reports which appeared recently. I shall read from Rapport of 27 April 1986:

Very serious accusations are laid against SABC finances.

What does the Department of Foreign Affairs know about finance?

The problem is equally serious regarding SABC management. I shall quote again from Rapport of 27 April:

As regards this helplessness, I wish to ask the hon the Minister whether it forms part of the NP’s deliberate programme to sow despondency. [Interjections.]

I should now like to refer to blatant SABC partiality in favour of the Government. If examples are desired of how the SABC favours the NP, one need only look at the debate which is soon to be resumed on the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. One Opposition speaker after the other referred in this House to examples of how the SABC favoured the NP; we raised the matter in Parliament and provided proof—what more can an Opposition party do about the matter? [Interjections.] We exposed it with proof but the Government continues to disregard the serious complaints raised against it.

I wish to warn the Government today not to underestimate White resistance hopelessly in this matter. We have already reached the stage of people’s saying they are going to demonstrate. No good can come of this and the Government will have to bear the blame.

I should like to add a few examples of SABC one-sidedness to the long list. The hon leader of the CP held discussions with the King of the Zulus yesterday.

[Inaudible.]

Obviously that is a newsworthy item. I hear the hon member for Turffontein making a bit of noise over there. He had better go and eat a “vetkoek” and then he will feel better.

The hon member should go and eat a pumpkin!

Order!

The CP leader’s visit to the King of the Zulus was an item of great news value and it was an effort to improve relations in this country. There was nothing about this on the late TV news yesterday, nor did we hear anything about it over the radio this morning. [Interjections.]

Nevertheless the SABC found it newsworthy to compel me at home this morning, where I was preparing to come to Parliament, to listen to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs at least three times. [Interjections.] Last week I also had to listen to the SABC forcing its misconduct on us in uttering threats to rightists and speaking of gorging oranges. What is the news value of Botha misbehaviour on television?

I am now putting a straight question to the hon the Minister. Who does he think he is to say certain Whites should leave this country? [Interjections.] Mugabe used those very words. The hon the Minister can leave this country but we shall not do so. I also hear he issued a great challenge that he would hold a meeting in the northern Transvaal. [Interjections.] I challenge him! I should like to debate the matter of his misuse of radio and television in the northern Transvaal and on the same platform. I challenge the hon the Minister here in Parliament. [Interjections.]

Without oranges!

Another example of misbehaviour is that of a certain hon Deputy Minister who has the reputation that he likes talking “Bols” and with his lackadaisical attitude met his Waterloo at Brits.

[Inaudible.]

SABC-TV permitted this hon Deputy Minister to insult his audience in a vicious, uncivilised and repulsive manner. It was so bad that Die Volksblad of 29 April reprimanded him for it. [Interjections.] The truth is that the hon temporary member for Brits explained his side of the matter in detail over the radio. The NP’s intellectual gallery is therefore being suitably reinforced by the contribution of the “Bek van Boomstraat”, the has-been of Brits, who had the opportunity of addressing the country on television in his rotten English on what had happened there. I was surprised that Mimi Coertse was not also dragged in by the SABC to sing the losers a little lullaby. [Interjections.]

I now ask in all fairness: What about the matter of the rightists who gave the Nats such a sound “co-operation and development” hiding? Is is not obvious and fair that the “Bui van Brits”, Mr Manie Maritz, should also have had the opportunity of putting his case? What are those people afraid of?

A brahman bull.

The CP has reached the stage at which it wants to state its views on the SABC in a nutshell here in Parliament. We believe the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs deliberately misuses the SABC, which is a State medium, as a propaganda machine for both the NP and himself. We believe various members of the top management of the SABC are Government supporters through ideological conviction, that they support the direction of its political thinking and do not hesitate to misuse the SABC to realise NP political objectives. Today the SABC staff is riddled with nothing but active NP organisers. [Interjections.]

In conclusion, as regards SABC finances, the hon the Minister has no choice but to take action. We suggest that the SABC consider instructing the Advocate-General to investigate the matter. This would clear the air and restore the reputations of innocent people. As regards SABC bias, the hon the Minister can expect definite opposition from now on. There are increasing number of listeners who will refuse to pay their licence fees. There is talk of court action against the SABC … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, antiSABC propaganda by the NRP, the CP and the PFP is now becoming as monotonous, one-sided and subjective as the attacks against South Africa from abroad. This afternoon the hon member for Jeppe used very strong language here in talking about misbehaviour, repulsiveness and contempt. Now I want to ask this Committee this afternoon who is talking. [Interjections.] I shall leave the hon member at that, because he brought this debate down to a level at which I am really not prepared to participate. [Interjections.]

†I should like to return to foreign affairs and refer in particular to South Africa’s image abroad. My first experience in the USA confirmed in no uncertain terms what the hon the Minister referred to yesterday as a co-ordinated effort by our enemies and especially the media to project South Africa in the most unfavourable way possible, and to even suppress what we would term “good news” about South Africa. Furthermore, the hon the Minister stated that international action or pressure against South Africa had moved away from the UN and now rests with the industrialised countries of the Western World.

This should be of grave concern to every thinking South African because—and here I agree with the hon the Minister—elements in the West are now doing the work of the Soviet Union. My concern is how we as South African politicians are assisting him to counter this professionally orchestrated political onslaught, which I honestly believe cannot be countered by normal diplomatic means. One is absolutely dumbfounded to see the one-sided, subjective, sophisticated, vicious and unreasonable way in which people who claim to be part of the Western civilised world go about distorting the facts or just suppressing positive news about this country. [Interjections.]

One cannot but pay tribute to all those brave men in all the main centres of the world who have to live with these attacks day after day whilst representing this country abroad. A very senior American politician, in a discussion with us last year, after listening to us, asking questions, making notes and even thanking us for giving him new perspectives on our situation, summarised our position—and I made a note of this because it really stunned me—as follows:

This is how successful propaganda against this country has been over the years. It has become the in thing to condemn South Africa and to be anti-South Africa, and not only to be anti-apartheid, as the hon member for Yeoville tried to make out this afternoon.

What is most worrying are the perceptions of people abroad about South Africa. It is not strange to hear from people over there that South Africa is on the brink of a civil war; that South Africa is heading the same way as Iran; that South Africa is burning; that South Africa is the land of the oppressed. People ask one in all sincerity whether one is going back there. Does one think it is safe to go back to one’s own country?

I was sitting next to a prominent American businessman, the vice-president of an international company on his way from New York to Australia via South Africa to observe their South African operation. He told me how his family pleaded with him not to go ahead with his visit to South Africa but rather to stay at home because of what they had seen on their television network.

The question is: What can we as politicians do to assist the efforts of the members of the Department of Foreign Affairs to improve the image of South Africa abroad? One is hesitant to ask this, but I do want to do so because as an ordinary politician I find it disturbing: What is the message sent back to the capitals of the world by the envoys representing the governments of foreign countries in South Africa? What is the message conveyed abroad by foreign correspondents? What is the image of South Africa in the hearts and the minds of foreigners who come to South Africa as representatives, either of their countries or of the foreign media?

We appreciate the sterling job done by the small but dedicated contingent of diplomatic staff. We appreciate the relentless efforts of our Bureau for Information. We appreciate the fact that influential opinion-makers are constantly being brought to South Africa. However, a professional political onslaught cannot be countered solely by normal diplomatic means. I would like to leave a suggestion with the hon the Minister. My suggestion is that parliamentarians and other politicians in South Africa should be sent abroad in small groups of three or four on a rotating basis to all the major centres of the world to assist our diplomatic staff and to counter this vicious, one-sided political onslaught. Capitol Hill and Westminster should feel the presence of South African parliamentarians. We should be following up the contacts we have made from time to time.

*But while efforts are being made to improve South Africa’s image abroad, while efforts are being made to counteract the negative perceptions and while every effort is being made to get the bona fides of the Government’s reform efforts accepted in South Africa we have to contend with obstinate radical elements inside the country that are endeavouring to destroy everything the Government is doing.

Let us look at two such efforts at destruction. The hon member for Brakpan levelled the accusation at the hon the Minister that hon members on this side of the Committee are ostensibly giving the outside world a distasted picture of the right-wing elements in South Africa. He even draw a comparison with the old United Party which referred to the “Malannazis”.

We only judge the CP by one thing, and that is the friends with whom they associate and with whom they are seen. [Interjections.] This afternoon I want to state that there are two radical elements in South Africa. On the one side we have the ANC and on the other we have the AWB. Both these organisations are striving for a dictatorship: The one for a Black dictatorship, and the other for a White dictatorship, with limited participation by its own particular chosen people. This is a fact. Both these organisations are striving for the nationalisation of South Africa’s riches—the one for the “oppressed masses”, and the other for the “disinherited Afrikaners”. [Interjections.]

In the third place, these two organisations are striving for underground political organisations to bring the existing democracy to a fall. [Interjections.] They both recruit paramilitary groups—the one with terror gangs, the other with stormtroops and citizen guards.

Both these radical groups are misusing the naked emotion of the people in South Africa—the one by means of UDF funerals, the other by means of mass euphoria. They are both denigrating the security forces in South Africa. The one claims so-called “liberated zones”, the other says that the security forces have lost control in South Africa.

Both these organisations are inciting racial revolution. The one is the instrument of communism, and the other is either consciously or unconsciously playing into the hands of our enemies. For that reason I want to tell the hon members of the CP that if they want to associate themselves with standpoints of this kind, they cannot take it amiss of us that we adopt this standpoint towards them.

The reason I am mentioning all these things this afternoon, is that the standpoints of those people—the ANC and the AWB— have all the ingredients for revolution in South Africa. [Interjections.] It is a recipe for civil war.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask what the hon member’s entire discussion has to do with the SABC? [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I just want to say that while the Government is doing everything in its power to try to spread an image of reform and co-operation abroad, there are elements which are making an absolute mess of this country’s image. I want to quote to those hon members—this applies to the CP as well as the PFP—what Bill Irwin once said. He said: “Those who ride the wind will reap the whirlwind.” We on this side of the House do not want to be a part of that chaos, and we will fight them for as long as we possibly can.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Turffontein sincerely for his well-argued speech. A few of the points which the hon member raised are of the utmost importance to us as political parties in this Committee. The questions which the hon member asked, each one of us will have to answer for himself. I just want to say briefly that the point on which I agree with the hon member is his statement that all of us in this Parliament have a joint responsibility to convey a positive image of our country abroad, we can differ with one another here, and argue about our party-political standpoints, but when it comes to the defence of South Africa we all have a joint responsibility to defend and support our country in the outside world. It is true—unfortunately so—that the behaviour of certain politicians within South Africa is being used by the media abroad to disparage South Africa. Each one of us must therefore ask ourselves whether our behaviour has a positive effect on South Africa’s image abroad, or whether we are exposing ourselves to exploitation which certain sections of the media can use. [Interjections.].

In the same breath I want to tell the hon member that we have great appreciation for what he had to say on behalf of our diplomats abroad, as well as the men and women in our missions, who are doing such excellent work for South Africa under very difficult circumstances.

†It was Churchill who said:

I think that idiomatic expression applies so much to those men and women who fight at the front for us in the 52 missions we have around the world.

*I also want to tell the hon member that we listened with a great deal of interest to his proposal in respect of the role which Parliamentarians can play on South Africa’s behalf abroad. Previously we have seen how effectively hon members of this Parliament were able to act in the interests of South Africa against the disinvestment campaign in America. In this regard we want to associate ourselves with what he said.

Today I am not going to reply to many of the hon members’ speeches—the hon the Minister will do that. I do want to reply to the speeches made by hon members who raised matters which fall within the purview of my responsibility, viz the development of our country’s image, our information activities abroad and matters affecting the TBVC countries. I shall therefore confine myself to replies to the speeches made by certain hon members only.

†I should like to start by answering the hon member for Berea, who spoke here about the situation in the TBVC countries, on the points which he raised. Let me say in the first place that the hon member should be very careful when he criticises the fact that this Government was successful in establishing very sound administrations in the TBVC countries because he will know that, in terms of the federal construct of the PFP, they proposed similar and almost identical structures for 11 states throughout South Africa, excluding the possibility of independence.

Not ethnically based.

However, if the PFP did have to come into power tomorrow—heaven forbid that they should!—then I believe he would discover that even they have a responsibility to develop, on a decentralised basis, infrastructure for the development of those areas. I do not think the hon member can deny that. I should like to say to the hon member that they too would have to spend money on the creation of infrastructure, job opportunities, industrial development, educational and other facilities in the 11 states proposed by the PFP.

Although the hon member may be sceptical about what has been happening in the TBVC countries, the facts speak for themselves. I should like to ask the hon member when last he and other hon members of his party visited the capitals and the centres to be found in the TBVC countries …

Last year.

… because I think if they had been there recently—the hon member said he was there last year—they would have been very impressed with what has happened in Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei since they became independent. I think hon members can judge for themselves whether the hon member for Berea had a case when he said that those countries were not worthy of the effort which was being put into them.

I did not say that! Where did you get that from?

That was essentially what the hon member said. He said there was corruption, misappropriation of funds and that the people there were suffering because of racism in South Africa.

However, let us look at some of the facts in respect of the TBVC countries. I want to compliment the hon member for Losberg in this regard who gave us some very valuable statistics by which we can measure the progress not only in South Africa but also in the TBVC countries as compared to the situation in other states of Africa. [Interjections.] I think it was our State President who once asked a foreigner to give him an example of a country in Africa which he wanted us to emulate. Which country would one choose? I ask the hon member for Berea the same question. Which state in Africa would he want South Africa to emulate? [Interjections.]

Let us now look at some of the facts about the development in the TBVC countries and their present position. Hon members will find it interesting to know that there is one medical doctor for every 15 000 people in the TBVC countries as compared with a ratio of 1: 21 000 in Central Africa and 1: 32 000 in North Africa. The life expectancy, which is a very fine, objective measure of the quality of life of the inhabitants of a country, is as follows: The life expectancy for people in South Africa as a whole is 63 years, in comparison with 44 years in countries such as Uganda, Somalia and Kenya, to name but a few.

The hon member for Losberg today told us about the per capita income of countries in Africa. He indicated that South Africa was number four with regard to per capita earnings on this continent. The hon member for Berea should remember that the per capita income in the TBVC countries is R348 per annum, in comparison with approximately R160 in countries such as Tanzania, Ethiopia, the Sudan region and other non-oil-producing countries.

Perhaps one of the finest measures of what a government does for its citizens is to be found in the literacy rate because that gives a man and a woman the opportunity to earn for themselves on merit a quality of life which is probably the best way of doing it through one’s own means. That can be achieved through literacy. The literacy in the TBVC states has been estimated at 66% in comparison with 42% for the BLS countries and 15% in the Congo, Tanzania, Zaire and other regions. I think those figures speak for themselves in terms of what the end product is in regard to what South Africa and the TBVC countries are doing for themselves. Within the TBVC states the industrial desentralisation scheme alone has resulted in an investment of R404 million with 160 new industries created and job creation for over 27 000 people. Even during the economic downturn the Department of Foreign Affairs, in conjunction with the administrations of the TBVC states, was able to create 87 000 jobs in terms of our special employment programme. What is more interesting is that the average annual growth rate of the real gross domestic product per capita for TBVC states was over 6%.

Those who are so quick to criticise should pay more visits to the TBVC states to see for themselves the development that is taking place there. I do not think there is one member of this House or a member of the public who can say that the figures quoted here, do not give us a clear picture of the excellent development and benefits which those countries have built up for themselves. There is not a single person who can objectively criticise the development of the TBVC states.

I conclude my reply to the hon member for Berea by saying that he should take note of the fact that during the period 1982-83 to 1985-86 the total estimates of expenditure of the TBVC states have increased by 80%— from R1,6 billion to R2,9 billion, while their own sources of revenue and loans have also grown, contributing 67% of the latter figure.

The hon member for Berea indicated through the three points which he raised during debate the interdependency of TBVC with South Africa. He indicated the interdependency of the population groups between South Africa and the TBVC states. Then he had the temerity to suggest that TBVC is beholden to South Africa and is in fact paying the price for racial discord in South Africa.

I would like to say to the hon member in respect of his first two points, that the independence and interdepedence of the TBVC states is no greater and no less than that of other countries in the Southern African region. BLS countries are as interdependent with South Africa as the TBVC states. Where the hon member is totally wrong, absolutely and totally wrong, is to say that TBVC is suffering unrest because of the so-called racist policies of the Government of the Republic of South Africa. What the hon member does not realise is that they too, as areas of stability and growth in South Africa, are the targets of attack by those who wish to destroy the establishment in Southern Africa. I think the hon member should have an appreciation for the fact that any part of South Africa—TBVC included—which shows growth and prosperity will become the target of those who want to translate the order, peace and prosperity in South Africa into the chaos of the Marxists. That is what is happening there.

Are you satisfied with law enforcement in those areas?

Of course I am. The hon member gets up and makes a hue and cry about the so-called police action in the TBVC countries, and in particular in Bophuthatswana, but what he fails to tell this Committee is that that system of TBVC countries, including Bophuthatswana, is good enough to appoint a judicial commission to investigate that. In any country in the world suffering the onslaught of violence which is to be found in South Africa, it is inevitable that there are going to be situations which arise where people will say that there was excessive police action. What is important is what the system does about those claims of excesses by the police. The hon member can be proud of the fact that corruption and excesses by police, corruption by any person, is thoroughly dealt with in terms of the judicial systems of those countries. The hon member can be proud of the fact that those judicial systems are able to cope with those accusations.

I would like to conclude with the hon member by saying that what he should be doing is going down and talking to the people in the TBVC states, instead of standing up here and criticising these countries in ignorance.

*That brings me to the hon member for Bloemfontein North. We want to thank him sincerely for the appreciation which he expressed for the officials of the department. I want him to know that we, too, have the greatest appreciation for the excellent contributions being made by our officials—from the Director-General right down to the lowest-ranking official in this department. These are people who are doing excellent work. They are defending South Africa in the front lines against a very aggressive world. We also want to thank him for the fine words he had to say about those people.

As chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs of this Parliament he is also doing an excellent job of work, and we thank him for his contribution. I am in complete agreement with the hon member when he says that we have a major task abroad, by means of our information services, to ensure that the correct image of South Africa is conveyed everywhere to the outside world. It is indeed true that under the present circumstances it is extremely difficult, particularly in view of the multidimensional onslaught he spoke about, to obtain sufficient money to counteract that onslaught effectively.

The hon member also pointed out—and I think hon members must take cognisance of this—that we had less money available in South Africa to launch a counter-strategy to that onslaught than the UN uses every year for their campaigns against South Africa.

I think the hon member for Bloemfontein North also raised the possibility of the use of Parliamentarians in small groups abroad. The hon member for Turffontein referred to the same possibility. I am certain that the hon the Minister himself was listening carefully to the representations made by certain hon members in regard to ways in which we could take effective action abroad.

Last but not least, Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bloemfontein North also referred to a diversity of aspects pertaining to our guest programme. The hon member for Krugersdorp also mentioned it, while the hon member for Umhlanga pointed out the contribution which is being made by way of our guest programme for foreign visitors.

†Mr Chairman, it is quite true that a picture is better than a thousand words. We are very proud of our guest programme in terms of which we bring men and women of influence to South Africa in order to come and see for themselves what the truth is. Some hon members said the perception of South Africa was an incorrect one on the part of the majority of people abroad because the were only acquainted with the telescopic vision given them by television. I agree with the hon member for Umhlanga who said television only used sensational material, and that South Africa is seen as being in a sensational spot on account of the violence is some of our townships.

The opposite occurs in reverse here! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should tell hon members that we have a great appreciation for their contributions. I am referring in particular now to the hon member for Umhlanga, the hon member for Krugersdorp and the hon member for Bloemfontein North, as well as the hon member for Turffontein, whom I want to thank for their suggestions and recommendations in relation to building up and strengthening our information programme abroad. Furthermore, I should like to tell hon members that if they were to look at the statistics regarding business people, politicians, academics and the like whom we have brought out here from abroad to visit South Africa, they would be very proud indeed of the efforts of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Last year alone, Sir, we brought out to South Africa as official guests well over 200 foreign visitors. We also assisted many hundreds of people who paid for themselves to come to South Africa. We assisted them, however, in relation to their programmes here in the country.

One thing all hon members had in common was their realisation—and they also expressed that here during the debate—of how important it was for South Africa and for the Department of Foreign Affairs to attend to building up this country’s image abroad. There is, moreover, no finer example to epitomise the action of this department than the following one. When the State President delivered his Opening Address to Parliament in this House earlier this year, what exactly happened? I should like to tell hon members what happens when an important event such as the State President’s Opening Speech to Parliament takes place here in South Africa. A summary of the main features of our action programme, which was undertaken immediately, is the following. A résumé of the main features of the State President’s speech was distributed by all our missions that same day. Heads of State and Foreign Ministers were personally briefed and provided with copies of the speech and the résumé. The résumé was distributed to thousands of opinion-formers, members of Parliament, academics, journalists, businessmen and the like, in the Americas, Western Europe, Israel and Japan.

In the United States, for example—and this is one single example—4 400 newspapers and 6 000 influential contacts were provided with summaries of the State President’s speech. Throughout the countries of Western Europe and in Japan, Israel and Australia a similar task was undertaken. At the same time our representatives participated in radio and television interviews. In Africa the TBVC heads of state were given personal briefings, and the governments of Swaziland, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Malawi and Mozambique were given copies of the speech. I think hon members will be amazed to see how much we have actually done with the meagre R30,4 million budget allotted to us last year.

With that R30,4 million we have to do everything we can to build the image of South Africa, including our guest programme, the distribution of literature and the making of films.

*I want to assure the hon member for Bloemfontein North that there is the closest co-operation between the Bureau for Information and ourselves. We have joint committees dealing with the control and production of material we use abroad—films, videos, pamphlets, etc. I reiterate that there is the closest liaison between the two departments. In general the Bureau for Informations produces the material we require for distribution abroad. However, we also have our own production unit which produce material which we use for specific and special purposes abroad.

I should also like to tell the hon member for Krugersdorp that we have a very great appreciation for his contribution. He is a person who always makes a well-argued and excellent speech, and we can find no fault whatsoever with what he had to say.

The one point I should like to emphasise is the fact that we can to a great extent develop our own image abroad if we as MPs personally make a good contribution. Surely that goes without saying: What happens here in Parliament is conveyed to the four comers of the globe. The reform process which is taking place in South Africa must therefore be communicated by every hon member wherever he comes into contact with the various levels of society abroad. That is why we are also in agreement with him that it is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that we comply with that responsibility to the fullest extent.

In conclusion I want to point out that because there is unfortunately very little time in which one can reply to the hon members it is not possible to touch on all the points raised by them. Nevertheless I want to say that the attitude we experienced this year from the majority of hon members is a demonstration of the serious approach each hon member has to this matter.

The image of South Africa, the struggle which is being waged in the outside world, is a matter of great import to all of us. We must therefore announce to the country, with a positive and very confident attitude, that we here in South Africa, we at the southernmost point of Africa, are the last bastion of democracy, a free constitutional dispensation and freedom of speech and religion. We want to preserve and develop that value system in this country in partnership with the traditional value systems of the other sectors of our population. South Africa need not take second place to any other country in the world, and that total onslaught of the media against South Africa is going to fail, and we shall be triumphant.

Once again I thank those hon members with whose problems I had to contend with here, for their positive contribution to this debate.

Mr Chairman, I did not reply yesterday afternoon to all the questions that were put to me by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

He asked whether the proposed Joint Operations Centre had already been set up in Komatipoort. The answer is “yes”. The centre has been completed, but it has not functioned optimally as yet. In view, however, of the newly established liaison committee to which I referred—it was established as a result of discussions I had last week with the members of the Mozambican Government—I am optimistic that the centre will soon be used more effectively.

The hon the Leader also asked whether the South African Government had given the Mozambican Government any assistance in protecting the Cahora Bassa power-lines from attack. No, to date we have not. In terms of the Cahora Bassa agreement South Africa and Mozambique shall jointly take steps to protect the transmission lines. Meetings did take place to consider steps to safeguard the lines. That we have done. We have often considered steps and we have made proposals on occasion after consultation with my colleague the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs but in large parts through which the lines runs—I believe it is 900 km thorough Mozambique alone— there is conflict.

In reply to the other question of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition I want to say that we have not in recent years received any power from Cahora Bassa because at the moment 520 pylons are down.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also asked whether the South African Government was taking any active steps to see that Mozambique is assisted economically either directly by the Government or indirectly by the private sector. The answer is “yes”. It started with the State President himself calling together important representatives of the private sector of this country and urging and encouraging them to invest and to do business with Mozambique. The Government has made available credit lines and loans and we are at present studying the upgrading of facilities in Maputo harbour because that port remains the cheapest port for South African exporters in the PWV area, both of fruit from the Eastern Transvaal particularly and of minerals—coal in particular—also from the Eastern Transvaal. It can make us more competitive. It remains the cheapest port for that part of our country and we are giving serious attention to upgrading the facilities in that harbour and improving the railway line. However, the problem again is the conflict in Mozambique. Members of the private sector also asked us whether we could give them a guarantee that their installations, their factories and their workers would not be blown up and be sabotaged. This is the problem. We are giving attention to that as well. The Mozambique Government knows that the South African Government stands ready to play a role to try to facilitate peace in that country. It is in our interests to have peace in the Southern African region. There is no such thing as any country in this region imagining that if violence occurs in a neighbouring state and becomes endemic the other countries will not suffer. Investors and business people all over then shy away and become worried about the region as a whole. It therefore remains in our interests to try to establish peace but it is not all that easy.

The hon member for Benoni referred to President Reagan’s firm stand on the need to combat the scourge of terrorism and for all civilised governments of the world to stand together and to act jointly and forcefully to eradicate this scourge. South Africa certainly welcomes the firm action taken by the United States Government. The State President dealt with this matter recently supporting and subscribing to the statements made by President Reagan. It is also heartening that there is a move among European countries to take joint action against international terrorism. I am referring here to the statement adopted by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the 12 member countries of the European Economic Community on 14 April 1986 and the subsequent statement by the Ministers of the Interior and of Justice of the 12 on 24 April 1986. The 12 European countries recognised their strong common interest in combining forces in Europe in the fight against international terrorism and, what is most interesting and significant—I believe it is very important that I should refer to it—is the statement on international terrorism agreed upon by the heads of the seven major industrial countries now meeting in Tokyo in the so-called Summit of the Seven. It read:

Then the statement continues with other paragraphs which we also support. Indeed we support the whole document that they issued.

In paragraph four there is a very interesting and significant passage which states:

That is the seven—

They then list a number of measures which this Government also fully subscirbes to. One of them is:

The State President recently made it clear in this House that we have evidence of complicity of the ANC in international terrorism, particularly in association with the PLO and Libya. I hope that the seven major democracies—these are the major industrialised free countries—will make their own statement seriously and will be prepared in future to implement their own statement. This Government stands ready to do so and this Government can give the assurance that we will never support international terrorism in any form whatsoever. I thought it was important for us to deal with this matter here in Parliament.

*I am indebted to the hon member for Walvis Bay for the gratitude he conveyed to my department and the works we are doing under difficult and turbulent circumstances. I also want to convey my personal thanks to him for the appreciation which he had for the modest role I was occasionally privileged to play.

I also think it was very appropriate of the hon member for Walvis Bay to remind us in this debate that South Africa has considerable assets at its disposal. We have considerable assets and we seldom realise this. That is why so many of us are so afraid of the future. We become so panic-stricken as a result of the pressure—I am not underestimating the pressure—that we often do not make inventories, in our thinking and planning, of the assets this country has at its disposal. I thank the hon member for referring to this. In fact, it is ironic that it is in fact the country’s assets such as its raw materials, its developed infrastructure and its technological development that are in fact the targets of our enemies. It is those very things that attract them and that make us popular or unpopular, depending on the side from which one is looking at us.

I thank the hon member for Walvis Bay for his sustained interest in the task of my department. Over the years he has studied and supported the activities of my department with interest.

The hon member for Randburg referred to the determination of a large number of multinational companies to remain in South Africa in spite of the tremendous political pressure to which they are being subjected. It is true that we in South Africa do not perhaps always realise how companies, particularly in the USA, are literally being threatened and menaced—even with violence. They are being threatened with penal measures from the particular state or even the city in which they are established. They are being threatened and menaced with legislation from the American Congress if they do not withdraw from South Africa or comply with certain conditions which that government adheres to.

These companies came to South Africa because they had sufficient confidence in our country. It is a fact that these companies are not ours; they are foreign companies, and the owners are foreigners and are subject to action taken against them in their own countries over which we in this country have no say.

Many of their boards are constantly coming to South Africa and meeting the State President, hon Minister and others in our public life. We tell them what we are doing in the sphere to reform and what we think the future holds. We do our best not only to reassure them, but also to inform them properly about the problems of South Africa. We encourage them to perceive who the instigators of violence are and what the real intentions of our enemies—who are also enemies of the West and of America—in this struggle are.

In respect of these foreign companies I should like to emphasise one aspect. A company belongs to its owners. In the case of the vast majority of these foreign companies the owners are the shareholders in the USA, Britain, France, Italy and Germany. That is the formal legal position, but the matter also has a moral side to it. As an example I wish to mention the case of one of the biggest American companies in our country. Today the estimated value of its investment is approximately R100 million. Its original, direct investment, however, was R60 000. To whom can this enormous increase in the assets of this corporation be attributed? With all due respect I want to suggest that it is our people, the employees of this country, the White and Black South Africans whose labour and sweat is ploughed back to the benefit of both the legal owners abroad and those whose welfare is dependent upon this undertaking, to whom this increase should be attributed. Our people are in that case not the legal owners, and will not decide whether the company should withdraw, but they have a moral right that was created through their own labour and skill, and which is evinced through their confidence in the will of the foreign company to remain in this country.

Foreign companies are treated on an equal footing with South African companies throughout. We are impressed by the well-disposed attitude of the vast majority of foreign companies in this country. It is to be hoped that they will not forget the interests of their South African employees, co-workers and partners.

The hon member for Randfontein emphasised one of my department’s most important premises, viz that the extent of our acceptance on the international level is going to be determined by our acceptance in Africa. The hon member for Brakpan also made that point, and I am in full agreement with both of them. I can assure the hon member for Randfontein that we are according a high priority to our relations with African states—with the TBVC states, the BLS states, and all the way through to countries in the North.

It is true, as the hon member said, that there is greater understanding in Africa for the realities of Southern Africa and for the important role of South Africa in our region. There are government leaders in other African countries far to the north of us who told me personally, or through emissaries whom I met, that if things went wrong in South Africa, the whole of Africa would collapse. They admit it, but frequently they are not in a position to express in public the views which they convey to us in private. We are constantly on the lookout for opportunities we can utilise, but for good reasons I cannot furnish more particulars today about the ties which do in fact exist between other African states and our country. The hon member Mr Schoeman, referred to the simplistic solutions which are being offered for our problems. He was quite right. He also pointed out the unreal image which the media has built up of the RSA. It is shocking to see how compactly channelled misrepresentations of South Africa are presented for weeks on end overseas and are still being presented. If one takes action against these people one is violating a fundamental right, namely the freedom of speech. If one does not take action against them, they get away with murder. This is a dilemma this Government has. It is not an easy task to deal with, and all one can do in fact is appeal to the professional ethics of the media representatives themselves. As hon members know, however, the Government has made a fair arrangement somewhere between the two extremes. It did not, as has been alleged, imposed a ban on the reporting of events in this country. A ban was only imposed on certain visual material which created the impression overseas that this country was going up in flames. That is untrue. No one in this House believes that, nor is there any person in this country who really believes it, although there are many who want the world to believe it.

Apart from our representatives in our embassies and consulates, we also make use of consultants to help us present South Africa’s image correctly, and also to tell the truth about this country. It is true that the USA is a vast country and that the American is a unique kind of person with his own idiom. We do not have sufficient staff to perform this important task, but this year we envisage increasing our diplomatic and political staff in the USA.

The hon member Dr Vilonel pointed out that reports on incidents in the RSA were immediately conveyed throughout the entire world and that we were in fact harming our own image abroad. To a certain extent this is correct, but not entirely. It is true, after all, that a distorted image of events in South Africa is deliberately being created. To a certain extent the hon member was correct, however, and therefore I want to agree with him that we must co-operate, including all the parties in this Committee, to find acceptable solutions to our constitutional and ethnic problems which will eliminate harmful incidents. The rapid media liaison possibilities of the present-day information traffic will then hold no fears for us.

The hon member also referred to the 23 years during which I have been dealing with the problems of South West Africa. I share with the hon member his interest in the weal and woe of South West Africa.

†Yesterday I appealed to hon members not simply to forget the past but to forget the negative side of the past, to learn from the past, to take courage from the past, and to cultivate that which is noble and beautiful in our past. There are such values in our past. I asked that we make a new beginning and bury unimportant differences for the sake of our country. The squabbles of the past are unimportant and irrelevant compared to the challenges we face in building our future. I do not say this in a spiteful way, but I would like to say to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North in all sincereity that, after he has left this House this evening, he should go home and ask himself whether there is really nothing beautiful in South Africa. He should just ask himself that and try to see something beautiful in this country. I do not want to say anything more. That is my advice.

The hon member for Yeoville made an important contribution, for which I want to thank him. By and large, I agree with the hon member. We have a dilemma in implementing important reforms expeditiously. Due to the way the Government and this Parliament function, as well as the Public Service and all other Government and semiGovemment institutions such as the various boards, the President’s Council etc, it is not possible for the Government to implement immediately a particular plan or intention, from the moment an important announcement is made.

We are in a difficult position. The South African government insists that change and reform in this country must be brought about and implemented in a democratic way. The only alternative is to govern by decree. Then we could do things far more quickly. Then we could do things at a much faster rate.

For instance the Bill pertaining to deregulation—which I do not want to discuss now—is, I believe, an example of the seriousness of our State President to get things done. The main motivation for that Bill is to give the State President the power to suspend or change regulations in order to assist small businessmen—a vast number of whom are Black businessmen—to get on with the job. That is an indication of the seriousness of this Government to move ahead. We tend to talk only about political reform whereas it is of extreme importance to remember that it does not matter how much we reform or what changes we bring about or what laws we repeal because unless the Black people of South Africa feel and experience that the system we propose has more to offer than the socialists, they will not participate in the system. It is that easy and elementary. The Government acknowledges and recognises that, and is moving in that direction. Basically, I agree with the hon member. I thank him because we are continuously inviting ideas on how to counter this very dangerous disinvestment campaign or punitive action against us the purpose of which is to undermine order in this country and, eventually, to get this Government or any democratic government replaced by one based on an ideology of nationalisation, a government-controlled Press and a one-party state, doomed to govern by violence.

May I remind the hon member of the substantial progress already achieved in implementing reform in South Africa. We have an impressive track record in the field of labour. The hon member referred to this and I thank him. In this regard I am also addressing myself to our friends in the West, In Europe and in America when I say: Look at what we have done in a brief period of time in respect of labour matters. Visitors who come here and find that racial discrimination has been removed from our labour laws have not known that. I think we ought to concentrate on inviting more trade union leaders from Europe because they can also subscribe to what we have achieved in the field of labour.

I can also refer to desegragated sport, the repeal of the offensive racial provisions in the immigration laws and in the Immorality Act, and the repeal of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act which the hon member also mentioned. Public amenities in this country are now to a large and important extent desegregated. The principle of parity in education has been announced, although it will probably cost us billions.

Then there is also the whole question of influx control and the pass laws. These involve 34 different laws and proclamations that will either be repealed or amended in order to ensure that the movement of people in this country will not be subject to racial discrimination. There is too the whole issue of property rights for Blacks and the central business districts being opened up, or in the process of being opened up. It is a lie to allege this Government is doing too little too late or doing nothing at all. We need the assistance, also of hon members in this House to carry this message out to our friends in Europe and elsewhere.

*As usual the hon member for Rosettenville made a particularly interesting and lively contribution, and made an enlightening speech on the opinions of the outside world, its motives and lack of equilibrium. I thank him for presenting the problems in their correct perspective. His understanding of media responsibility was striking.

The State Presidence once said that not only should there be power-sharing, but that the freedom of this country should also be shared, as well as its values and prosperity. It is not only the Government that has to comply with that joint responsibility.

Recently I addressed a group of businessmen, including supporters of the PFP, NP, NRP and the CP. They hammered the Government and asked why we were not moving faster. Why was there no peace and stability? Were the riots never going to end? They said their businesses were going bankrupt. Many people were having to pack up and close their business undertakings. They could not endure it any longer.

I then told them that we were solving the country’s problems on a partnership basis. The Government had decided to share power. The Government had decided to amend or repeal laws in order to remove racial discrimination. There were approximately 60 or 70 businessmen at that function, and I asked them how many of them had Black people as directors in their companies. Not one of them did. I am merely mentioning this today. We are entering a partnership situation. The Government cannot do this alone. The Police and the Defence Force cannot preserve peace alone. Our diplomats overseas cannot fight singlehandedly. We are all ambassadors. We are all reformers. If we love this country we must all convey the message and we must all bring about change together; the private sector as well as the Government, and indeed all of us in this Committee.

The hon member for Rissik complained a great deal today about lack of credibility. He said once again that we were on our way to a Black takeover. I should like to talk seriously to this hon member. [Interjections.] The hon member says the CP differs with us fundamentally, and not only in its methods. I now wish to ask the hon member with all due respect—I am doing this with a sincere disposition and not in order to provoke the hon member—whether he really believes that it is only he and his party that love South Africa. Does he really believe it is only he and his party that are concerned about the survival of the Whites? I now want to make an appeal to the hon member. We on this side of the Committee, and more than anyone the hon Leader of the party to which I belong, endured far more pain, by virtue of his background and history, to direct this country along a course which affords the Whites a chance of survival than, any of those hon members, and I say this with all due respect. [Interjections.] As we see it, those hon members are sticking to a policy—the hon member must listen to me for a moment; I listened to his argument— which we think is lethal. I am making this contention without being wilful, and we are still going to convince those hon members of this. As I have said, we contend that the policy of apartheid is lethal. We contend that that policy is going to leave South Africa isolated. It is going to impoverish South Africa completely. It will impoverish and weaken South Africa economically. It is going to unleash upon us the wrath of the entire world; and ultimately the Whites will have no say in anything here. Ultimately those hon members will have to explain the Peace of Vereeniging, but to whom will they have to explain it this time?

You are sending us to Holland, remember.

That hon member must just wait a while, unless he wants to go there himself, because I did not send them; I was only referring to those who advocated White domination. [Interjections.] Surely I know what I myself said. Those who advocate White domination must not remain in this country because the time for White domination is past.

Who advocates White domination? [Interjections.]

Those are the facts and it is not necessary to quarrel about them. The fact of the matter is simply that …

Then stick to the facts.

… the hon members of the CP cannot sit down to make a survey of their ability to implement their policy, because it is impracticable. [Interjections.] It is impracticable.

I welcome the fact that the hon the leader of the CP paid a visit to the king of the Zulus yesterday, and I still do so. I would welcome it even more, however, if the hon member for Waterberg would come here and report back on precisely what the king of the Zulus and the others said to him, and what the hon member’s reaction to the Zulu king was. The report I have—it is important enough to read it out—is that the Zulu king told the hon member for Waterberg that the path of war which some Whites and some Blacks had chosen as a means of solving South Africa’s problems, constituted a danger to everyone. Neither Whites nor Blacks could ever win such a war, and every idea of a scorched earth by taking up arms, had to be rejected. That was the message from King Goodwill to the hon member for Waterberg and to the other hon leaders of the CP.

He also said God save South Africa if the Whites were intractable and refused to share power. The signs were already there that the crossroads had been reached, and Whites and Blacks should not try to force their will upon one another. The Zulus attached value to their language and culture, but those things did not form a barrier between them and any other South Africans, regardless of their race of creed. The Zulus did not fear that their identity would be lost.

King Goodwill also told the CP leaders that he was encouraged by the confirmation by the State President, Mr P W Botha, that people in South Africa of all races were one, and shared one country. It was obvious that they shared a common future.

Why did they not say what my leader said?

Talking about civilised norms, I did not once interrupt any of those hon members. [Interjections.] If the hon member would only be as clinical as he maintains he normally is, perhaps he could clinically begin to keep his mouth shut. [Interjections.]

I welcomed the visit paid by the CP leader to the Zulu king. I knew what the king of the Zulus was going to say; we on the Government side of the Committee have known it for years. Dr Treurnicht also knew it, and he went to hear it again. What I find encouraging is that the king of the Zulus said that hope had been kindled in him. It was necessary for Dr Treurnicht to go to the king of the Zulus to ascertain that hope had been kindled in the country after what our State President had done. Now I also hope, and I am going to keep on hoping, that when Dr Treurnicht returns and reports back to the CP, he will also share that hope and will convey it to his party. [Interjections.]

We shall not stop, and I shall not become angry, because those hon members of the CP cannot change the facts of South Africa. [Interjections.] The Black people are permanent in this country. The hon members cannot even have their own newspaper printed without the help of Black people. There is no way in which one can recognise the permanence of Black people in South Africa and continue to think that one can deprive them ad infinitum of their political, social and fundamental rights. [Interjections.]

One man, one vote!

This Party and this Government will convey the message—and I also want to repeat it in this Committee— that the only hope for White security lies in power-sharing, as well as in the removal of racialistic practices, laws and customs. That is where the hope and security of the Whites is to be found. I am not afraid to say it.

The matter of credibility was discussed here. The hon member for Rissik will concede that I am correct when I say that in my maiden speech in this House in 1970, and in the United Nations in 1974, I said that we should subscribe to the Declaration of Human Rights and that discrimination on the basis of the colour of a person’s skin could not be defended. What I have had to say about these matters during my lifetime—I thank the hon member for Jeppe for admitting it—I have said openly and candidly. What is more, I was allowed to do so in the NP. I frequently met with opposition in the NP, and was rapped over the knuckles, but I was allowed to say what I wanted to say. Why? [Interjections.]

To the question why I am still a member of the party and of the Cabinet after my remarks about a future Black State President, I shall give a very frank answer. I am still member of the Government and this party because I submit to the right and authority of the leader of my party to interpret and formulate policy. [Interjections.]

Hear, hear!

I submit to that. The day when I cannot submit to that, I shall leave of my own accord. I shall not act dishonourably.

As who did?

I cannot remain in this party honourably without recognising the authority of my leader.

As who did?

As you did! [Interjections.]

Order!

Because the hon member has no idea at all of what party discipline means, he will not understand what I am now saying. [Interjections ]

When we speak about a lack of credibility, one does not lose credibility when one has the courage to perceive the truth and the facts of one’s circumstances, to repair them and set them straight, and then carry on. The mistake those hon members make is that they think they are on the right track, but they are moving in the wrong direction. They may be on the right track, but they are moving backwards in the direction of an approaching locomotive. [Interjections.]

Then get a new mandate!

One loses credibility when one refuses stubbornly and obstinately to perceive that there is a precipice ahead of one.

What mandate do you have?

We are not governing this country!

Those hon members reject the facts, and then on top of that, they invite and mislead other people to plunge over that precipice with them. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is what I consider to be a lack of credibility. There is also a harsher word for this which I would prefer not to use.

Obdurate!

The most appropriate comparison is the disorientation process which happens to a pilot who has had no training in reading his flight instruments. When one is flying through cloud and one’s view is obscured, one becomes disorientated. His instincts, or whatever it is in him that goes wrong, tell him his instruments are wrong. He flies straight upwards until his fuel is depleted and he plunges back to earth, or he flies straight downwards and crashes.

That is the colonel speaking!

We must guard against a disorientation process. We are flying through cloud. It is a fact. We are living in tumultuous times. The circumstances are oppressive. But we believe the instruments in front of us, while the CP does not. They want this aircraft to plunge straight back to earth. They think it is heroic and patriotic, and they think they have a monopoly on patriotism. [Interjections.]

I want to tell them today that we shall expose them, wherever they stand in elections and in every speech they make. They know it. They know that the facts will eventually count. [Interjections.] They know that the truth will ultimately prevail, and not their emotional approach. I am not angry with them; I understand their fear I understand it, but I predict that they will in due course, in the same way as Mr Ian Smith—but this time I hope in time—perceive the truth and will once again throw their weight in on the side of South Africa … [Interjections.] They will do it, because their voters are going to compel them to do it. I have no doubt about this. [Interjections.]

Then why do you not hold an election?

Koos, you will not come back! [Interjections.]

Order! I want to ask the hon member for Jeppe now to make no further interjections during this debate.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It is the hon member for Turffontein who is making interjections in my direction, and when I reply to him, you reproach me, and not him.

Order! I forbade the hon member for Jeppe to make any further interjections in this debate today. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member for East London North singled out the problems and challenges of the Eastern Cape very clearly, and I thank him for doing so. The Government is aware that this is one of the most afflicted areas in our country. We are giving attention to the matter. Colleagues of mine are giving attention to the matter in various spheres. We thank him for his proposals concerning closer co-operation across borders. This matter is receiving attention, and we support it.

The hon member for Losberg made a valuable contribution on the conditions and incomes in other African states. The fact of the matter is that I deduced from his speech that one ultimately only retains what is one’s own through one’s own achievements. There is no other way except achievement of keeping what one claims for oneself. In the long run a law cannot preserve one. In the long run one cannot maintain oneself in an artificial manner; either the ability is inherent in one through achievement, or one does not have it in one. No wall and no law will be able to protect one. Even Rome, with its 20-metre-high wall, was ultimately unable to keep out the attackers, because the wall they built was the same kind of wall our friends in the CP are now building. That wall should have been built with spiritual values, freedom, achievement and skill, with faith and courage, adjustment and co-operation. Then Rome would not have experienced such a decline which led to its fall.

The hon member for Soutpansberg put two questions to me. I shall not reply to his other remarks. He said that he accepted that I had him in mind when I referred to emotional speeches. I should like to tell the hon member that he should not be so egocentric. It so happens that I did not have him in mind.

Very funny!

The hon member asked whether I denied having told Mr McAlvany that we had capitulated under pressure from the Americans. Of course I deny it! I deny it of course!

I am going to write to Mr McAlvany!

You write to Mr McAlvany, you write to all your American friends, morning, noon and night! I do not mind! If the hon member for Soutpansberg attaches so much value to Mr McAlvany’s opinion, let him do so. [Interjections.] It was the hon member who dragged Mr McAlvany’s name into this debate.

I held a comprehensive discussion with that group of Americans who came to see me—if the hon member would only take the trouble, he would hear this from Mr McAlvany as well—and I told them that they should persuade their Government to admit that the South African Government had adopted substantial reform measures. I told them they should persuade their Government to announce this in public and not to exert further pressure on us in respect of reform, and not to create the impression any further that Black leaders need not negotiate with us because the West would do the negotiating, that the Black leaders need not come forward to participate in dialogue because the West would pressurise us and would keep on pressurising us until the radical Blacks felt that they need not accept powersharing since they would be able to seize all the power because the West was in the meantime weakening us with compulsory measures, penal measures, etc, until the radical elements succeeded in attaining their objective. That is the kind of conversation I had with Mr Mcalvany.

As regards the announcement by the State President concerning 1 August, it is true that we and the Americans agreed that such an announcement some time in January would be useful to put paid to Luanda’s procrastination and to set a fixed date so that Luanda’s ideas could be directed more concretely in the direction of an agreement in respect of a Cuban withdrawal prior to 1 August. The initial idea was that the State President should make that announcement at the opening of Parliament on 31 January. However, we then decided that we would do so later, at a date which suited us, and we did so on a date on which we decided, viz 4 March 1986.

The hon member asked what was going to happen if there was no Cuban withdrawal by 1 August. I just want to explain the terminology again. We are not insisting on a Cuban withdrawal by 1 August; all these years we have been insisting on an agreement on a Cuban withdrawal.

That is what I asked.

If there is no agreement by 1 August, nothing happens. Resolution 435 is not implemented, and the Government will then consult anew with the South West Africans, with the Administrator-General, with our security services and with friends in the West about what future course is then going to be adopted.

My time is running out, and I cannot therefore reply to the other hon members who made such valuable contributions. With reference to the SABC I just want to say that I think it is unfair to attack the SABC in this way in this Committee without its having had an opportunity to reply. I want to tell hon members who made critical remarks that it is not fair. They must be fair now and allow me to arrange an opportunity for them to meet the chairman and the board of the SABC, as well as its management.

Oh, please! [Interjections.]

They were appointed by legislation of this Parliament to manage that corporation. [Interjections.] This Parliament passed an Act to appoint a board that has to undertake the administration. I am therefore making an offer. The offer I am making is that the same critical remarks may be made before that board, and hon members will receive every opportunity to do so. [Interjections.] I do not manage the SABC. If hon members want me to, will they allow a statutory amendment giving me full control of administration in respect of the SABC, its programmes and its staff? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

No, there is no time left for questions now. I have received a note from the Whips informing me that I must finish off.

What I wanted to say in conclusion was that it is a well-known fact that all the opposition parties are continually complaining that the SABC is biased in favour of the Government party. Remarks made in this connection will be conveyed to the SABC.

As far as finances are concerned, the newspapers have been attacking the SABC during the past two weeks. Hon members of Parliament are held in such high esteem, however, that the SABC compiled a special document on the background to this matter within a few days. I am making an appeal to hon members to read and study it. This was done out of respect for Parliament.

I conclude. The communities of all colours in South Africa, in the cities and in the national states, are all waiting for peace and stability in this country. They are waiting to negotiate on the basis announced, namely the elimination of discrimination, and on the basis of power-sharing. In my opinion the Government has demonstrated its good faith sufficiently to cause all reasonable South Africans to come forward now to co-operate and build a new South Africa, with a new future, in which we and our children can share in its prosperity, peace and freedom.

Hear, hear!

Amendment put,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Amendment declared negatived.

Vote agreed to.

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