Mr. Chairman, nothing in life is ever completely bad, and here I refer not to the SABC but to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Mass Media. In that report there very occasionally appear a few flashes of relative lucidity. In one such uncharacteristic passage, in paragraph 3.c., on page 132, the commission says—

In paragraph 7.c., on page 136, the commission goes on to say—

By using the word “community” the commission is obviously referring to the whole South African community, the entire mosaic which makes up our population. These are certainly elementary and very trite thoughts. Yet I believe they are quite true. In this regard the commission made this recommendation, in paragraph 6, on page 135 of the report—

The commission goes on to recommend as follows—

It also recommends that the Chairman of the Board should have ad hoc access to all Ministers, depending on the need and the circumstances of the case from time to time. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister directly what his reasoned attitude is towards these views and recommendations. Certainly, the hon. the Minister must support the view that the credibility of the SABC is an important issue. I am sure he does. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister agrees that this credibility relates directly to the degree of autonomy and of independence which is afforded the corporation. If the hon. the Minister does believe that, can he not see that while the SABC is seen as an adjunct of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and more particularly as an adjunct of the Information Service, it can never aspire to real independence? To place the corporation under the wing of the Department of National Education is at least understandable, but while it remains the child of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, the SABC will always be seen by those abroad, and also by many people in South Africa, as no more than an additional arm of the Government’s propaganda machine.

Therefore, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what weight he places on the recommendation that I quoted a few moments ago, and what is going to be done about it.

Surprisingly, there is another paragraph of this commission’s report which is worth quoting. It is also on page 135, and I quote—

In this respect I should like to say that the SABC is improving, particularly in its “Monitor” and “Radio Today” programmes, and even marginally in its television programmes. However, it has yet to shake off the shackles of Government over-lordship and to open its forum to true debate, thus allowing the public to open their minds to full information. For instance, I put the following question to the hon. the Minister: What is the value of a live or even a recorded television debate on, for example, the Steyn Commission without Mr. Justice Steyn sitting there and being confronted by his critics for the benefit of the public? Of what value is the debate without him being there? When are we going to see, on SATV, Chief Gatsha Buthelezi arguing the merits of his commission’s report with a Government Minister? When will Black labour leaders be allowed to put forward their points of view, thus enlightening South Africans about where they stand and why they take certain actions? When will the SABC fulfil its true role of keeping South Africa updated on what is really going on in the minds of our people? That is the task of an autonomous and independent news medium, particularly in the light of the monopoly which the SABC holds at the present time.

On page 137 of the Steyn Commission’s report, in paragraph 10.a., we find the following—

Many people will say, and not without justification, that that has already happened, because if we look at just the past three months, it appears that almost half the programmes which were screened in, say, the 20h30 slot on Tuesday evenings this year have dealt with the Army, with South Africa as beleaguered nation, with communism, with the onslaught, total or otherwise, and the like. All these programmes—and I could mention several of them if I had the time—and also many others, have carried strong political messages, messages directly in line with the thinking of the Government. When one looks at the whole picture of radio and television, it almost seems that our Department of Defence has only to sneeze and the SABC jumps to give them an half-hour slot on the dot.

Oh, really, you are talking absolute nonsense! [Interjections.]

This massive militaristic propaganda overkill will, I believe, yet prove to be counter-productive and not in the interests of the security of the State as such. While the SABC concentrates on the total onslaught and downgrades information programmes that inform and educate people in regard to the problems of our country, polarization will tend to continue. Whites, in particular, will remain dangerously unaware of those very currents that the commission mentioned and that I quoted earlier.

The hon. the Minister is at this moment in a very strong position to do South Africa a very great favour, and that is by calling the Defence Force off the back of the SABC, thereby allowing the corporation to reflect a more complete and balanced picture.

I should now like to say a few words about TV2 and TV3. In the first place I should like to congratulate the SABC. I believe the corporation is to be congratulated on what I can only term a magnificent effort in technical terms, in bringing into being two new television channels that have been broadcasting since the beginning of this year in four different languages.

Can you follow them?

Yes, all of them. It makes more sense than some of the hon. Minister’s speeches.

I think it is fair to say that the quality of the programmes that are at present being presented, are not of the highest calibre, but we cannot at this stage criticize that because it is early days. These channels have only been operating for a few months. As more expertise is gained, and the people involved with TV2 and TV3 gain more experience, I believe the quality of the programmes will improve. I think therefore that we should not be too critical in this regard for at least a year. I believe, however, that there is a case for the corporation to introduce a far more comprehensive educational programme for its announcers, interviewers and broadcasting personnel in general. What should these people be taught, and how should we go about it? There certainly is a great lack of educational programmes for broadcasting techniques and skills. Although experience is the greatest teacher in a profession such as this, I believe there is a very strong case for the corporation to pay far more attention and to spend more money on the training of people who are going to make broadcasting and television their career.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon. member the opportunity to continue his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip for his indulgence.

As I say, I believe that more attention should be paid by the SABC to the education of their personnel, and this can be done in two ways. Either it can be done by way of an in-house programme—in other words, a SABC college where people can be educated for its own needs—or it can be done by sponsoring a Chair at a university in communication, with particular reference to broadcasting and television. I should like the hon. the Minister to react to this and to advise hon. members what is being done by the SABC to overcome this dearth of educational courses available to people who make their careers within the corporation.

I should furthermore like to make one major criticism of TV2 and TV3, and this criticism relates to the complete separation of the languages within the various channels. I once again refer to the report of the Steyn Commission purely to strengthen my arm on this point. There is one little sentence that sticks out in the 1 300 odd pages. It refers to TV2 and TV3 and reads as follows—

What I am raising now, is a policy matter. By insisting on language purity within the various channels to the nth degree, whole population groups are excluded from reaping the benefits of the expanded services. Panel discussions are thereby always restricted, both in terms of the persons who are asked to appear on the panels and in the audience listening to the discussions, because these are beamed exclusively to one language group and in one language only. I believe this policy should be rethought and the restrictions should be relaxed. Also, in actuality and discussion programmes subtitles could be used so as to broaden across the colour line the impact and appeal of the programmes. I now want to raise the question of sports broadcasts. Sports broadcasts in South Africa over the past several years, since the introduction of television, have in fact been matters of great controversy and dispute between the broadcasting authorities and the various administrators of the sports concerned. The public want to see the major sports events of the week, month or year on television and they would like to see those events live, and I think the SABC would like to provide the public with that service. However, we come across a very difficult problem, namely that the sports administrators justifiably fear losing spectators if matches were broadcast live. The sports authorities also fear very greatly the loss of revenue that would ensure if matches were broadcast live because people will stay at home and watch the match on television instead of going to the grounds.

I should like in this connection to make a few suggestions. I do not think they are new, but perhaps they could be helpful.

I believe that in respect of major fixtures the SABC should consider the proposition of blacking out the districts in which the match is being played, while beaming the transmission of the matches direct to all other areas.

Another proposition is to make absolutely no advance announcements as to which matches are to be covered. Above all, it is important that the SABC pay substantially more—I am not saying that they are not paying money at the present time—for the live sports which are broadcast. The maintenance of stadiums, the travel costs of sportsmen and the promotion of major sports are today a very expensive business. I believe we in the PFP can be helpful in this regard. If the hon. the Minister allows more advertising time on television before and during these events in order to generate revenue to cover the cost of broadcasting or to pay more to the sports bodies, we in the PFP will support him on that point.

Finally, and coming back to my earlier remarks, I want to urge the hon. the Minister to think very carefully before making further appointments to the Board of Governors of the SA Broadcasting Corporation, the size of which has been considerably expanded in the past month. I also believe the Bill which was passed by this House a few weeks ago, will shortly become law and we shall then have a much larger Board of Governors. The board should reflect the spectrum of our society, which is White, Black, Coloured and Indian. Further, it should reflect differing standpoints. It does not have to be a board which is totally blinkered in its viewpoint. To have, as we have today, a board absolutely packed with supporters of the Government, is to do a disservice to the citizens of South Africa. What South Africa needs more than ever is a truly independent and a fully autonomous public corporation headed by a non-racial, politically diverse Board of Governors. When this has been achieved, the credibility of the corporation, about which everyone is concerned, will be safe. South Africans of all colours and persuasions will then be allowed, in watching the programmes of the corporation, to discover their own country and to understand their own countrymen, and they will then be fortified and educated to meet the country’s problems, to meet its opportunities and its challenges as never before.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to two aspects of the speech of the hon. member for Sandton. The hon. member began by saying that the credibility of the SABC was related to the degree of autonomy it has. Then he alleged that the SABC did not have sufficient autonomy to be credible. Although it is true that in the Act certain powers are vested in the hon. the Minister, the important question is: To what extent has the hon. the Minister interfered in the affairs of the SABC? The hon. member could not give a single example of a case where the hon. the Minister had interfered with the SABC in any way. Therefore we must accept that in practice the SABC does, in fact, have full autonomy. If indeed there had been an example of interference, I am sure that the hon. member would have cited it.

The hon. member also raised certain objections to the programmes shown on television at 20h30 dealing with the Defence Force, the dangers threatening us, and so on. He also said that these programmes had political overtones. I cannot understand why the Defence Force always has to be dragged into politics by the PFP and others. I cannot understand why the hon. member wishes to politicize the Defence Force. The Government does its best not to do so. The Defence Force is there for the benefit and safety of everyone in South Africa, and therefore those hon. members should refrain from obstinately seeking to attack the Defence Force. I think the SABC’s activities should be judged against the background of its task of educating, informing and entertaining, to a greater extent than the hon. member has done. I wish to refer in a broad context to the SABC’s task of informing and educating. We must adopt a standpoint on the SABC against this background. We must adopt a standpoint in respect of its credibility. It is in the public interest, as well as in the interests of the Government and the SABC itself, that the listeners and viewers must not be alienated from the SABC. The SABC can only inform effectively if it enjoys credibility. If, in the opinion of the public—not in the opinion of the hon. member for Sandton—the SABC is not an accurate and reliable news medium, it will be unable to exercise any influence on public opinion regarding social and political matters, but would then merely be an entertainer. The SABC’s chief public asset is its potential to promote matters of real national or public interest among the public. If the public were to suspect that the Government controlled the news and censored the SABC, the impact of the SABC would undoubtedly be destroyed. The SABC should therefore act in the country’s interests and promote the country’s interests in such a way, that its credibility is not affected. It is therefore essential that the primary principles of journalistic responsibility and integrity be upheld for the sake of independent opinion as far as news is concerned. If the SABC is not in a position to ensure journalistic responsibility and an independent opinion as far as news is concerned, the credibility and the journalistic integrity of journalists will be lost, and this would be to the detriment of the SABC as well as South Africa as a whole. South Africa as we know it, is a heterogeneous, but also a polarized and politicized society with a wide spectrum of views concerning what is really in the country’s interests. That is why we often encounter a sceptical attitude in respect of the SABC, but what is worse, we also have efforts such as the one on the part of the PFP this afternoon, through its chief spokesman on the SABC, the hon. member for Sandton, to create scepticism in respect of the SABC which it does not deserve.

I now wish to come back to the matter of the national interest. The Steyn Commission also refers in its report to the question of the national interest with regard to the task of the SABC. I also wish to refer with approval this afternoon to certain aspects which were singled out yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for Yeoville with regard to the national interest and where the duties of the SABC begin, and that is to promote the idea in South Africa that we should resist sanctions against South Africa, and that we should also resist any effort towards disinvestment, that investments in South Africa should be promoted, and that no changes should be brought about in South Africa as a result of violence. The furtherance of these aims is in the national interest. Apart from this, the SABC has a duty to reflect the standpoint of the Government on these matters, and not only on these matters, but on other Government activities as well. The SABC—and we admit this—also has a duty to inform the public on the standpoints of other political parties and interest groups in South Africa. Since the Government is the initiator of Government actions, and since the actions of the Government influence the lives of many thousands of citizens daily, the information effort and task which the SABC has in respect of the Government, will necessarily be greater than in respect of other political parties. However, once we have established this as a background, we must decide on a standpoint in respect of the SABC, and we must ask ourselves: Has the SABC succeeded in its aim? Today I have a few things to say in this regard.

Firstly, I wish to say that I believe that the people of South Africa, Blacks, Coloureds and Whites, are fond of radio and television. No one is forced to listen or watch them, and yet one finds that many thousands of people make sure that they are available at specific times to listen to a special programme or news report. Secondly, I wish to make the point that in general the public believes the SABC; in other words, the SABC enjoys credibility, and it is believed in respect of its news coverage in particular. The factual news which the SABC broadcasts—and hundreds of thousands of such facts are broadcast—are never disputed in South Africa. We have almost come to the end of this debate, and not a single example has been mentioned where the SABC has erred in respect of its news coverage. It is most important that the true facts be presented to the nation, to the entire population. I am of the opinion that the SABC reporters must be seen as people with journalistic integrity, and I believe that the public sees them as such. We are pleased to be able to give this testimonial to these men and women today. It is evident that the Control Board of the SABC sees to it that the principle of journalistic responsibility and independent news opinion is protected, and we wish to pay tribute to them for this. I wish to mention an example in this regard. After the recent publication of the Steyn Commission Report, Mr. Johan Pretorius interviewed the Minister concerned, Mr. Chris Heunis. In his questioning of Mr. Heunis, Mr. Johan Pretorius clearly did not try to ask questions which could necessarily be replied to with ease. As a result of that in depth questioning of the Minister, two things occurred. Firstly, I believe that the credibility and the journalistic integrity of the interviewer was confirmed, and secondly, it increased the credibility of Mr. Heunis’ action so much more.

While we are stating our standpoint on the SABC, I also wish to refer to the fairness of the SABC. In this regard, I wish to say that not one of the other political parties—the CP, the PFP or the NRP—can say that they have been treated unfairly by the SABC. It is undoubtedly true that these parties are not given the in-depth news coverage in the daily Press throughout the length and breadth of the country which they get from the SABC. As a result of the policy of this medium, their standpoints have been made known and projected throughout South Africa, something which must necessarily be to the NP’s advantage. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I notice that the hon. the member for Sandton is so busy trying to preserve the peace in his party and that he has to deal with so many crises, that he does not have the time to listen to the radio or watch television. If, in fact, he could find the time, he would notice that many of the complaints and the critisism he levels at the Government and the hon. the Minister, do not really exist. He need only look at the programmes presented on television in regard to the TBVC countries to realize what is being done for the Black people in this country. I think the hon. member for Pretoria Central replied brilliantly to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Sandton when he mentioned the wonderful things being said and presented on the channels concerned.

I wish to speak more specifically about TV2 and TV3. I regard the institution of these channels as being simply splendid in view of the multinational character of our country. If one considers what has really been achieved with TV2 and TV3, one is absolutely amazed. When these channels were announced on 15 August 1979, not one of us would have thought these achievements possible. These channels were opened on 31 December 1981, almost half a year ago. One should note that only 28 months were allowed for the planning and implementation of this service, which is presented in five Black languages. To begin with, programmes are being broadcast for 27 hours per week. I should like to see where in the world a radio or television service could equal that. I should like to know who else could achieve what we have.

We have a diversity of nations, cultures and traditions, and yet under NP rule we were able to achieve what we have, viz. the recruitment and training of Black production staff, and high standards apply. No fewer than 70 Black journalists had to be trained, and, of course, cameramen, video directors and production secretaries. They were all trained within one year. Today one can proudly watch five news bulletins daily, with a total transmission time of 78 minutes.

That is why, regardless of what the hon. members of the Opposition say, I regard it as important that all these departments fall under the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. In this regard, there are three channels. Firstly, there is Foreign Affairs, secondly, the channel through which information also has to be conveyed abroad, and thirdly, our radio and television service which has to project the image of South Africa to the outside world.

It has now been scientifically proved—I was only told about this yesterday—that the Black man prefers educational programmes on TV2 and TV3. These are what they most like to watch. We watch their magazine programmes and we also enjoy their variety programmes. We enjoy their news presentations, particularly because of the natural aptitude of their news commentators. Their sports programmes, as well as documentary programmes on the Black people, present a new image of South Africa, and they are also broadcast abroad.

Just consider the infrastructure which could now be extended! It is so large that the writers, dramatists, artists, film makers and cameramen all work together so that they can create something special in a particular field. In the past, it has often been requested that there should be only one mixed channel to serve Black, Brown, Yellow and White. What would have come out of such a mixture? TV2 and TV3 have shown that separate cultures, languages and traditions are important. Despite the fact that the English-language Press has said on occasion that there should be more English programmes on these channels, it has once again been proved scientifically that 90% of the Black peoples have said that they prefer their television service to be in their own traditional language. Is this not an achievement? This has now been proved scientifically. It is therefore this extension to TV2 and TV3 which, it is to be hoped, will eventually offer the same independence as TV1.

One need only consider the variety of projects which are already being undertaken, including projects abroad. Certain Black programme leaders went to Cannes recently to present Black programmes there. Each year, the best programmes are chosen for eventual presentation in South Africa. Where can one find better proof of the success of TV2 and TV3 than the considerable interest they arouse in the overseas media? The general public, elsewhere as well as locally, can be kept constantly abreast of developments. One need only look at the spontaneous expressions, humour and articulateness of news readers and sports commentators on the screen. A wide variety of programmes is presented, for example the life of the Zulu kings, as well as local folk legends.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with speakers on the Opposition side and others who referred yesterday to the retirement of Dr. Brand Fourie and the appointment of Mr. Van Dalsen as the new Director-General of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information. As hon. members will recall, I said last year, during the previous session, that at that stage I was not certain whether Dr. Fourie would still be Director-General of the department when next the department’s vote was debated. As it happens, he retired some days ago, on 30 April. As a matter of fact, 30 April was a notable day for Dr. Fourie on which to retire, because that was the day the hon. the Prime Minister and Dr. Kaunda met on the border between the Republic of South Africa and Botswana. As could be expected, Dr. Fourie did of course play an important role, particularly with regard to the arrangements that had to be made to enable that meeting to proceed as smoothly as possible. This being so, I bestowed praise on Dr. Fourie last year, as will be recorded in Hansard. Today I wish to reconfirm what I said then. For 16 years he was head of a department of this country. On his retirement he had 97 days of leave to his credit. Throughout his career of approximately 47 years he took only 31 days sick leave, 22 days of which was for mumps! [Interjections.] This is indeed a remarkable achievement. He devoted himself unceasingly to the service of the State and all the people of this country, and he did so in a manner that could hardly be equalled. I said last year that there was hardly a single important international event with which he has not been involved. He served under all the Prime Ministers except Gen. Louis Botha, because at that stage he was still too young. Particularly in the period since the end of the Second World War, he has played a role in serving and promoting his country and his country’s interests in all international gatherings. I thank hon. members for the tribute they have paid to Dr. Fourie. Fortunately, he will continue to serve us as ambassador in the USA. This is important, particularly in view of the negotiations on South West Africa that must continue.

There is another person of whom mention has not been made and whom I must mention, namely Mr. Donald Sole, our ambassador in Washington. He is now retiring.

†Mr. Sole once told me that the motto of his life, borrowed from Shakespeare, was: “If you are true to yourself, you cannot be untrue to anybody else”. He served South Africa outstandingly. Mr. Sole was a dynamic, dedicated, loyal and brilliant official. He is the man under whose guardianship I received special merit promotion in the Department of Foreign Affairs when I was still a full-time official of that department. We worked closely together for many years at head office. He enriched my life. He served us with great distinction as ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany and to the USA at a time when South Africa needed a man of his intellectual capacity and vigour. His name cannot and will never be forgotten when the history of South Africa’s diplomatic service and achievements is written.

*Then, too, I should like to extend my sincere welcome to Mr. Hans van Dalsen, as he is known in the department. He started his career in Lubumbashi, formerly known as Elizabethville. Subsequently he served in Washington, The Hague, Rome and London, and was ambassador in Brussels, at the European Economic Community, and in Paris, and has from time to time held important key posts as head of various divisions at head office. On a number of occasions he has also been a member of our deputation to session of the UN. We are grateful that he was prepared to take on the extremely demanding task of Director-General in these challenging times.

After some search I have found a brief description which does justice to the norms which these gentlemen have upheld and must uphold. A very well-known statesman said—

I think that describes the norms which the gentlemen I have mentioned have upheld throughout their lives.

It is also a pleasure to inform the House that Dr. P. S. Rautenbach, who has just retired as Chairman of the Commission for Administration, has agreed to act for two or three years as a roving ambassador for South Africa, in Southern Africa in particular. Hon. members will be aware that Dr. Rautenbach is an expert in the field of planning and played an important role in the planning of the new capital of Malawi and in aspects of economic development of various States in Africa. We are therefore grateful that we shall have his skills and his co-operation at our disposal in this demanding but also challenging task in Southern Africa, the task of building up greater co-operation within the confederal context among the various peoples and States of Southern Africa.

†Before I deal in greater detail with the important issues raised by the hon. member for Sea Point—and he did raise important issues—there is one matter connected with the Falkland Islands issue which I first want to dispose of. That concerns the remark the hon. member for Sea Point made apropos an alleged reaction of the Argentinian chargé d’affaires. The matter was reported as follows in The Cape Times of this morning, and I believe it is a true reflection of what was stated here in the House yesterday by the hon. member for Sea Point—

The chargé d’affaires ad interim of Argentina, Mr. Alfredo Oliva Day, wrote me a letter today in which he states—

Mr. Chairman, I must make this point. We owe fair treatment to diplomats representing other countries in South Africa. Diplomats of other countries are our guests. They are not my guests. They are the guests of all the people of this country. Most of them differ with this Government’s policies. Regardless of what Government is in power in this country—including the PFP if they should ever come to power—I take it they will not mete out ill-treatment to ambassadors from other countries.

No, they will bring them in from the East. [Interjections.]

I want to appeal to hon. members to take into account international propriety and decorum when dealing with diplomats in this country. If there is to be a tiff leave it to me; I am quite well trained for it. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Sea Point addressed himself to the question of the Falkland Islands matter and drew an analogy between the present situation in the South Atlantic and the position of Walvis Bay. Hon. members must please bear with me because this is an important matter. The Falklands conflict has assumed a grave and ominous character, and we should be cautious in our public comments not to embroil the status of Walvis Bay in a manner that might be harmful to our negotiating position in relation to South West Africa. The position of the South African Government regarding Walvis Bay is well known and has been publicly documented.

Walvis Bay is South African territory. It is not part of South West Africa. Its legal status and its historical position are indisputable. It has been part of the Cape Province for more than a century. On 12 March 1878 the Port and Settlement of Walvis Bay was occupied by the British. On 14 December 1878 British Letters Patent were issued annexing Walvis Bay to the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope. In the South Africa Act of 1909, which came into force on 31 May 1910, it was clearly determined that the original provinces would have the same limits as the respective colonies at the establishment of the Union. Thereby South Africa’s sovereignty over Walvis Bay was again confirmed. Thus the legal position regarding sovereignty is clear. During the 32 years following the British annexation of Walvis Bay, there had never been any dispute over its status. Never. As the result of a German protest against the delimitation of the borders of Walvis Bay in 1886, the matter was referred to arbitration, and the boundaries of Walvis Bay as determined by Wrey in 1885 were confirmed. Hon. members will know that while Germany protested against the precise delimitation of boundaries, the question of sovereignty was never disputed.

Sir, I have given the House a very brief outline of the history of Walvis Bay because I believe that it is important that we have a clear understanding of the facts and of the legal position in this regard. The South African Government’s position in regard to Walvis Bay is not only based on the provisions of a treaty—and I stress the word “treaty”—which also determines other boundaries, but also on a treaty that has never been disputed by other countries. Moreover, the position as I have outlined it was recognized by the League of Nations and the International Court of Justice. Furthermore, most Afro-Asian and Latin American countries have accepted that colonial boundaries must under international law, continue to be the boundaries after independence. Paragraph 11 of the manifesto on Southern Africa, approved by the conference of East and Central African States at Lusaka on 16 April 1969, and adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity at its sixth ordinary session held at Addis Ababa from 6 to 9 September 1969, states in part—

This manifesto was welcomed by the General Assembly itself in its resolution No. 2505 of 20 November 1969. It is thus clear beyond a shadow of doubt that Walvis Bay is as much part of the Republic of South Africa as Alaska is part of the United States of America.

To demonstrate how intricate, complex and delicate this whole issue is, namely any parallel that is sought to be drawn between the Falklands and Walvis Bay, let me remind hon. members that on 27 July 1978 the Security Council of the United Nations, adopted resolution No. 432, which—

1. (1)declares that the territorial integrity and unity of Namibia must be assured through the re-integration of Walvis Bay within its territory;
2. (2)decides to lend its full support to the initiation of steps necessary to ensure early re-integration of Walvis Bay into Namibia;
3. (3) declares that, pending the attainment of this objective, South Africa must not use Walvis Bay in any manner prejudicial to the independence of Namibia or the viability of its economy;
4. (4) decides to remain seized of the matter until Walvis Bay is fully re-integrated into Namibia.

Who voted for this? All 15 members of the Security Council, including the five permanent members; the USSR, China, Great Britain, France and the USA.

I have said that once we start discussing this issue, we must be careful what we say. At the time that this resolution was adopted Secretary of State Cyrus Vance made the following statement on behalf of the five Western members, including the United Kingdom—

The two parties referred to are South Africa and future Government of an independent Namibia. I objected to this attitude of the Five at the time and I made it very clear in a statement which I made in the Security Council on 27 July 1978. However, to indicate how our Government is always flexible and endeavours to look for a solution in an imaginative way, I went to that day, 27 July 1978, so far as to say in the Security Council, and I read from the records—

This is what I said way back in 1978. Now we are being asked what the Government is doing. Four years ago, in a prophetic way, a member of this Government told the United Nations: Be careful! You are today trying to get at us over Walvis Bay. We deny that it is yours; we deny that there is any uncertainty as to the legal status of Walvis Bay. But nevertheless, because we are not intransigent, a member of this Government offered the world body a possible way out of the potential conflicts that might and could have developed out of situations of this nature. Now I am asked what we are doing. We suggested something constructive. Four years ago; it is a matter of record.

Did McHenry not tell you?

Hon. members will appreciate that this is a sensitive matter and they will appreciate my concern over the Falkland Islands question developing into a debating issue in this House. We are all very conscious of the gravity of the matter, and I believe we have an inherent responsibility not to contribute in any way to possible aggravation. I wish to emphasize that it has consistently been South Africa’s view that international disputes should be resolved by negotiation. We trust that the present conflict will soon subside and that peace will be restored. We support initiatives which seek to do so. Our action has been characterized by a desire to be as helpful as possible in a very difficult situation. The South African Government has, since the escalation of the crisis, been in contact with a number of Governments, including those directly involved, in an attempt to contribute to a lessening of tension and the restoration of a peaceful status. The Falkland Islands dispute remains serious. I can give hon. members the assurance that we are watching events very closely. I have taken note of the views expressed by hon. members on this subject and we shall keep those views in mind.

Then the hon. member for Sea Point set out four principles and suggested that those four principles should be included in a declaration which he suggested I should issue on behalf of the Government. I agree with him that the concepts in the principles he enumerated are important concepts, but surely he must be aware that these are principles which have consistently been recognized and applied by the South African Government. In this regard I wish to draw his attention to the statement that was made by a former Prime Minister of South Africa in this House on 30 August 1974, well before Mozambique’s independence. This is what the then Prime Minister said—

I should also like to quote from a statement made by the Minister of Defence, now the Prime Minister, in this House on 9 September 1974 and which reads as follows—

The previous Prime Minister also made it clear in this House on 30 January 976 that—

That is the Mozambique Government—

As recently as 9 October 1981 I wrote a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations—a letter which is now an official document of the United Nations—and I should like to quote from this letter. It was apropos of a complaint lodged by Lesotho against certain alleged South African activities. I quote—

On 28 November 1981 I stated—

On 3 December 1981 the hon. the Prime Minister said that legislation was being considered to prohibit the recruitment of any serving member of the South African Defence Force for mercenary purposes in the future.

I think the hon. member for Sea Point and the House in general will agree with me that the four principles which he enumerated yesterday are indeed contained in the Government’s Statements which I have read today.

*The hon. member for Sea Point also referred to proclamation AG.8. This is a proclamation—and I have to concede this—which elicited a great deal of discussion and resulted in considerable difference of opinion. Allow me just to explain briefly how this proclamation came into being before—as the hon. member put it—we are attacked about discriminatory measures which, according to him, have allegedly not been removed in South West Africa. Basically, what this proclamation amounts to is a switch from a system of territory government to that of population group government, viz. representative authorities at the second level have been established for the various population groups in the regions that ask for this. I repeat: Only those ethnic groups that ask for this. Inter alia, the proclamation also regulates matters relating to the delimination of functions and the division of funds and assets among the authorities at the first and second levels. What led up to the proclamation was a motion accepted by the National Assembly—in which the DTA has representation—on 26 July 1979 in which, inter alia, the following two paragraphs appeared. I quote—

Then came the following—

After the acceptance of this motion the Administrator-General, having consulted with the leaders of the various political parties, including the DTA and other organizations in South West Africa, submitted to the National Assembly certain proposals for the implementation of the motion, which was to form the basis for legislation and which, after debate, was accepted by majority vote in the National Assembly with minor amendments. The proclamation was promulgated on 24 April 1980. I therefore wish to state very clearly that this Government did not prescribe proclamation AG.8 for South West.

†Mr. Chairman, I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Sea Point, but I can agree with him when he stated this yesterday—

I agree with the hon. member that the South West African issue is complex and should not be complicated by persons who are interested only in interfering with that territory’s internal affairs. In this regard I can inform the hon. member that the authorities in South West Africa are contemplating steps to introduce measures to regulate the admission into and residence in South West Africa of all South African citizens who are not permanent residents of South West Africa. I hope they will then be able to control the kind of activity to which the hon. member objected and upon which he and I agree.

*I think it is of great importance, with reference to the other questions which the hon. member for Sea Point and other hon. members raised, to place on record here today one decisive facet of South Africa so that the leaders in South Africa may take cognizance of this. They must indeed take cognizance of this. I also wish to place this facet on record so that the world at large and hon. members in this House may take cognizance of it. This facet relates to the status of South West Africa and the right of its inhabitants to decide on their own future.

It concerns what the Government is supposed to have promised or guaranteed and what it has not guaranteed. It also concerns international obligations which the Government has accepted after consultation with the leaders of South West Africa. I do not know whether these facts are generally known in the territory of South West Africa. Nor do I know whether they are propounded there. What I do know is that the hon. the Prime Minister and other members of the Government are being maligned and slandered for having allegedly committed a breach of faith in regard to the Whites of South West Africa. Therefore the time has come to place on record, for once and for all, the facts relating to what successive South African Governments have and have not promised, and what the status of that territory was and is.

The then Union of South Africa lost the struggle to incorporate South West Africa at the Peace Conference of Versailles. It is there that the struggle was lost. Therefore, if there are parties in South Africa today that raise a fuss about the separate status of South West Africa, they must go back to General Louis Botha. He invaded the territory and conquered it by military means, but then, at Versailles, we lost the international political struggle for its incorporation in the Union of South Africa. General Smuts and the Allies wanted the territory incorporated in the then Union of South Africa, but President Wilson refused. These facts have been documented.

In any event, arising out of these conflicting standpoints, the mandate proposal was put forward as a compromise. In terms of that mandate, the then Union Government would have to report annually on its stewardship of the territory to the permanent mandate commission of the old League of Nations in Geneva, and this was accordingly done.

The old League of Nations disappeared in April 1946 when the UN came into being in 1945. Soon after that there was an argument about the status of the territory. That is where the argument began. General Smuts consulted the inhabitants of the territory. I do not have the exact figures available, but approximately 208 000 people, including Blacks, were in favour of incorporation in the then Union according to Gen. Smuts’ consultants—they were the people who carried out the consultation—while a relatively small minority, equivalent to approximately 10% to 15% of those who were in favour of incorporation, were opposed to incorporation with the Union. What South West African, then, can come and tell me today that the idea of a “one man, one vote” election is a new one, because here I am presenting the history in which the grandfathers and fathers of the present people in the territory participated? Now all of a sudden it is P. W. Botha and Pik Botha who are selling out! One becomes a little weary of these stories. Long before that, in the thirties, General J. B. M. Hertzog, as Prime Minister of South Africa, admitted to the League of Nations in writing that the Union of South Africa did not have sovereignty over South West Africa. The situation in international life is a little different to the domestic situation. Internally political parties can change their standpoints as they like and deny what they did yesterday, only to follow a new path the next day, but in international life, in international law, that is not how things work. Once a State has adopted a standpoint, it cannot suddenly perform an about-face vis-á-vis of the other states of the world. Then a dispute arises, and dispute leads to conflict. By disputes which amount to the repudiation by a State of its categorical commitments, a people or country acquires a bad name, loses its integrity, its conduct is regarded as scandalous and no one trusts it. This eventually has an effect on the commercial transactions and financial integrity of the country. In spite of the fact that we have been so vilified in the UN, in spite of the fact that we are being isolated to such an extent by the world at large, it has often been asked that our representatives at international gatherings do the counting—not as with divisions in this House—because it is recognized that they can be trusted. That is the point. When this Government adopts a standpoint vis-à-vis another country which amounts to a clear understanding, an express undertaking, then it cannot, without endless harmful repercussions, escape the implications it entails. [Interjections.] No, I wish to discuss these matters at length today. Since the time of Gen. Smuts, and subsequently under all the Nationalist Prime Ministers down to Mr. P. W. Botha, we have never advanced article 2, paragraph 7 of the Charter of the UN when South West Africa has been discussed in the UN. Anyone can look this up, because all the UN documentation is in this Parliamentary library. In other words, neither Dr. Malan nor Mr. Strijdom, Dr. Verwoerd, Mr. Vorster or Mr. P. W. Botha has ever used that article, which states that the UN may not interfere in the internal affairs of member countries, to avert a discussion of South West Africa in the UN, and hon. members are also aware of the many committees and commissions that have been there. It is unnecessary for me to tell hon. members about Arden Clark, Carpio and De Alva, and Dr. Escher. That was decades ago, but why did those people come here? They did not come to interfere in the internal affairs of South Africa. However, they were allowed by successive Prime Ministers to visit South West Africa because successive Governments realized that although we did not recognize the UN’s right of government or administration of South West, we did realize that this was an international problem. If a man draws a knife on one, it is pointless telling him that what he is doing is illegal. One either has to do something or be attacked. It is pointless saying that someone has broken a law when he is coming to beat you up. One has to do something. I think that if a vessel is bearing down on one, it makes no difference that you have the right of way. One has to get out of its way or else make some plan.

Then there was the court case, the long-drawn-out case of Ethiopia and Liberia against South Africa from approximately 1960 to 1966. Why did Dr. Verwoerd have South Africa fight that case? He could merely have said that he would ignore it. I was a member of that legal team. We were told that we had better fight like people who had to win, because if we lost and did not implement the finding, there would be sanctions. This was said because it is stated in the Charter of the UN that if a country loses a contentious action, the Security Council may take direct action against it by way of penal measures.

Then there was a book we issued in 1967, shortly after the death of Dr. Verwoerd. I helped write this book. It was drawn up from the pleadings of the case in the World Court which had been personally approved by Dr. Verwoerd. Mr. Vorster had then just become Prime Minister. With the approval of the Government, we included the following passage in this book in 1967, viz. 15 years ago—

That was in 1967.

What I now wish to point out is very important. It is not widely known. In 1971 the case again came before the World Court. This was not a matter of contentious proceedings, but an advisory opinion of the World Court. There is a difference between the two. The one is binding on the parties, but a World Court opinion is not. In the course of the advisory opinion proceedings the legal team was officially authorized on behalf of the South African Government to make a plebiscite proposal to the court. Now hon. members must not ask me, but must go and determine for themselves who was in the Government in 1971, who was in the NP caucus and who was in Parliament and therefore authorized that proposal. On 27 January 1971, at the instance of the Government, we wrote the court a letter in which we said: “We would wish to make a proposal of overriding importance to the Court.”—

That was 11 years ago. Then, on behalf of the Government, we wrote a second letter to the World Court on 6 February 1971 in which we said—

That is on behalf of the South African Government—

1. (a) That a plebiscite of the inhabitants of South West Africa be held to determine whether it is their wish that the territory should continue to be administered by the South African Government or should henceforth be administered by the United Nations.

Imagine that, Sir: The South African Government dared to say to the World Court 11 years ago: “We ask you to put the necessary machinery into effect to determine whether the inhabitants of the territory still want to be governed by the South African Government or by the UN.” Imagine, Sir, that the South African Government of the day did that! Now other people have to bear the blame when international discussions are conducted on this basis.

In April 1973 the Government officially informed the UN that South Africa would respect the wishes of the population as a whole as regards the territory’s self-determination and independence.

I want to refer hon. members to another document. It seems to me as if this, too, is something which is often forgotten. In 1977, as hon. members are all aware, we began negotiations with the Five. The five Western powers approached us at that stage to negotiate on South West Africa. At that time we were constantly negotiating, as was our practice, with the most important political parties in South West Africa. This took hours. In practice we conducted discussions with the representatives of those countries on a given day in a session which, for example, took four hours. Those were still the days of Mr. McHenry, Sir James Murray and others. Then, on the same day, we had to discuss the proposals again with all the parties of South West Africa. Moreover, in those days the Turnhalle was in a different form. At that stage it had not yet split. There was not yet a DTA. At the beginning of 1977 we were on the point of introducing a Turnhalle constitution. We had virtually reached a point of confrontation with the Security Council of the UN. The Five Western Powers represented in the Security Council at the time—the name “the Five” dates from that time—then put forward the suggestion that a discussion with South Africa be conducted on the matter, because there was a possibility that our basic points of departure did not differ too widely and because we could be striving to achieve the same aim. They also argued that we should hold discussions before the final break occurred. Mr. Vorster declared himself to be prepared to speak to them. They then came here to speak. Unfortunately, I had just become Minister at that stage. That was in April 1977. Accordingly I had to undertake most of the talking with them, something which was certainly not pleasant, or at least not always. Be that as it may, we spoke to the Turnhalle representatives and put it to them that if we were to go ahead and implement their constitution, the South African Government would have grave problems, which would of course mean problems for South West Africa as well. Mr. Vorster told them that he did not want to exert pressure on them, that the final decision should be their own. They then adjourned and met in an hotel here in Cape Town. Shortly afterwards they submitted to us the document I now have before me. What I have here is a photocopy of the original document submitted to Mr. Vorster on 27 April 1977. We now come to what is stated in the document. It is the document of the Turnhalle in which the National Party of South West was represented at that stage. I quote—

1. 1. We accept that all the inhabitants have the right to participate in a fully democratic process in the exercise of their right to self-determination.
2. 2. We further accept that before independence elections will be held in terms of a constitution.
3. 3. We have not been hammering out constitutional proposals over a long period for nothing. We do, however, fully accept that a constitution cannot be imposed on the inhabitants. In circumstances where some organizations allege that the constitutional conference of Turnhalle was not constituted in such a manner as to truly represent the majority of the inhabitants, we are prepared to test the final draft constitution on a country-wide basis before elections in terms of the constitution are held.

Could I put it more clearly? Is further evidence necessary? Is further evidence necessary of how every leader of that time co-operated and agreed at all times? Now, of course, we must ask who was in the Government and who was in the National Party. Who was in the Government and who was in the Party when we held the election of 1977? That, too, is important. It is important that we take note of that time as well.

The NP—not I—issued a booklet at the time entitled Vrugte van die Nasionale Bewind. With that we went to the voters. Hon. members are all aware of this; at any rate, hon. members who took part in the 1977 election. The booklet had a foreword written by the hon. Adv. B. J. Vorster, Prime Minister. In the foreword he said, inter alia,—

What is part of that record of the National Party? As far as South West is concerned, hon. members can read it up. It appears on page 34 of this publication. It also forms part of the archive documents. I quote—

I am now quoting from Vrugte van die Nasionale Bewind, a 1977 publication.

Tom Langley supported it.

I cannot answer for hon. members who joined our ranks after 1977. However, I am now quoting from international commitments I was obliged to enter into on behalf of the Government. Now it is being denied. The following is stated here—

Do you agree, Ferdie? [Interjections.]

I quote further—

Here it is, in black and white.

We did not hold an election on South West.

No, but that was our policy. I say these things because the hon. member for Waterkloof said yesterday that we must stand by guarantees we have given. I am now dealing with the guarantees that my party and this Government have authorized me to give the international community.

We do not run away like the people of the CP. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

No, we must settle this matter here today, and settle it finally. I am not dragging it in. The hon. member knows very well who is dragging it in here. He knows very well with whom liaison is occurring in South West Africa. [Interjections.]

Sir, these negotiations have a long and arduous history, and I hope and trust that I have demonstrated to this House clearly, unequivocally and irrefutably this afternoon how many successive Governments have over a period of years committed themselves to dealing with the South West African issue in a certain way. Consequently I am now making an appeal to all parties represented in this House to help us bring about peace and stability in South West Africa. We want to do this, not on the basis of new principles which the hon. the Prime Minister or I have produced out of the blue overnight, but on the basis of one consistent, ongoing principle which we have pursued with regard to South West Africa. I did not accuse any specific party of not agreeing with this principle. I was speaking with reference to the question of guarantees. Therefore. I now assume that all parties assembled in this House agree with the clear premises I have set out here. [Interjections.]

During the past few days various reports have been received in which it is stated in the first place, that Swapo does not find the proposed electoral system acceptable. This is the electoral system in terms of the constitutional proposals which were formally accepted by the South African Government on January 1982, and which were formally accepted by all the members of the Cabinet prior to 26 January. These proposals were submitted to the Cabinet in written form, and in the Cabinet discussion every member of the Cabinet addressed his opinion on these proposals to the hon. the Prime Minister, and these were placed on record. Consequently we have accepted those constitutional principles. But now Swapo is finding them difficult to swallow. It is now being reported that Swapo does not find the envisaged electoral system acceptable. Moreover, it is also being reported that Swapo is convinced that the approach of arriving at a solution by means of various phases will not produce the desired results. According to the reports, Swapo not only rejects that twofold electoral system but the method of negotiation as well. Hon. members will recall that one section of the constitutional principles provided that a constituent assembly would be elected.

†This constituent assembly would say, for argument’s sake, comprise 100 members. Fifty of those members would have been elected countrywide, proportionately on a “one man, one vote” basis, while the other 50 would have been elected on a single constituency basis.

*Swapo has now rejected that twofold system, but what is even more serious—according to the report—is that it also rejects a solution by means of the various phases.

When negotiations with representatives of the American Government commenced, the Americans asked us and the other parties whether we would accept a three-phase approach. The first phase which would consist of the negotiations on the consitutional principles, should strictly speaking have been completed by the end of last year, but because the Five Western countries only submitted the amended constitutional principles to us on 17 December 1981, we were only able to convey our decision formally on 26 January 1982. Swapo has not yet conveyed its decision in connection with the first phase to the Five.

In phase two we were to have discussed and reached agreement on very important matters. According to the schedule of the Five Western powers, phase two should have been accepted by the middle of this year. This is already May and June is just around the corner. Hon. members will therefore realize how far behind we already are with that schedule. It is now being reported that apparently Swapo also rejects the approach of finding a solution by means of the proposed three phases. The third phase was to have entailed implementation of the plan.

In addition Swapo is apparently making another appeal to the Five Western powers to give favourable attention to a previous proposal of Swapo to arrange an international conference, similar to the one which was held in January 1981, in Geneva, to finalize all outstanding points, and I understand that they have not excluded other methods of achieving that object. Hon. members will consequently understand that I do not wish to state any particular standpoint today because the matter has become extremely sensitive and serious, and has extremely serious implications for South West Africa and South Africa. For that reason I wish to refrain from trying to indicate today what the immediate road ahead looks like or is going to look like, or even from placing any provisional ideas on record. What I should like to say and emphasize, however, because it is in line with our constant premise in respect of South West Africa is that the Government will, as usual, deliberate on that future road with the Administrator-General, and through him with leaders in political, economic and other spheres of life. When this occurs, attention will inevitably have to be given to the maintenance and strengthening of internal stability and effective government in South West Africa and to what extent steps will be necessary to prevent any further erosion in various important spheres of life from occuring. That process will be initiated without marring or terminating international negotiations and efforts to find solutions. Hon. members will understand that the internal stability of South West Africa has now become a matter of burning importance to South Africa and the whole of Southern Africa.

In conclusion I should like to emphasize that on the road ahead, where the inhabitants of South West Africa will materially be able to work out their own salvation within the framework of the constitutional principles, it is encouraging to know that all parties in this House support those constitutional principles, the principles of 26 January 1982, which the Government accepted after consultation with the internal parties. This is a great encouragement to us, and in my opinion will contribute to the negotiations in South West Africa being conducted on a realistic basis.

†The hon. member for Durban Point raised another important issue, namely Swaziland. The hon. member has referred to reports which have appeared on the question of border adjustments with Swaziland. His complaint is that the Government should have come to Parliament and that there has been no consultation with the province of Natal in accordance with the provisions of our Constitution relating to alterations to provincial boundaries. Let me deal with these two points first, before I come to a historical survey of the matter.

The South African Government is engaged in negotiations with the Government of Swaziland—an independent State—on the question of possible border adjustments for reasons I will give later. I was glad to hear that the hon. member acknowledged that he regarded this as a long-standing issue. No agreement has, however, yet been reached. It is not a breach of any practice not to bring a matter of this nature to Parliament before agreement with another sovereign independent State has been reached. No Government can report to Parliament on agreements which are still in the process of discussion and negotiation. Let me put it this way: I am not looking for more work. I can assure the hon. member and the House that I have enough work, and if Parliament wants to take over this task, it can do so. It involves hours of travelling to meeting places with a host of representatives, the studying of maps to iron out all the various alternatives, negotiating claims and counter-claims, etc. If Parliament wants to do that, I will be quite happy. I do not say this in a spiteful manner. I will gladly stand back for Parliament to carry on the negotiations, and we will see where we get. There is no question of horse trading and deals in dark corners, as the hon. member expressed it. I am sorry he used that expression. Of course, if we can reach agreement with Swaziland on an adjustment of the borders, the matter will then be brought to Parliament. That is a separate matter. Surely the hon. member knows full well that not one square inch of South African territory may be ceded or transferred to another country without the explicit approval of this Parliament. There exists no constitutional requirement concerning consultations with the provinces of this country in a matter such as the one under discussion. There is no constitutional requirement whatsoever. Section 114 of our Constitution Act was amended last year by Act No. 101 of 1981, and as a result of that amendment there is no legal obligation for Parliament to be petitioned by a provincial council in the event of the boundaries of the province being altered in order to excise from its territory a part which is to be incorporated into another sovereign State. The section as it now reads applies inter alia to territory transfers between provinces. That amendment was the subject of a wide-ranging discussion in this House. In addition, section 114 featured prominently in an application before the Cape Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, in which hon. members of this House were cited as respondents. The legal position should therefore be well known to all hon. members. This does not mean, however—and this is important—that the Government does not intend consulting all parties, including the Natal Provincial Administration, its Parks Board, organized agriculture and the like.

At what stage?

Just give me a chance. A distinction ought to be made between the land involved in our negotiations with the Kingdom of Swaziland and, on the other hand, the land involved in the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development’s discussions with Chief Minister Buthelezi. There is a distinction. The land involved in my discussions with Swaziland is largely—virtually all of it—land belonging to the Trust and to KwaZulu.

Not all of it.

All of it.

Virtually all of it. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt says all of it. I thank him. Somebody asked me whether we also consult with his commission. He is the man who is virtually in charge of the day-to-day negotiations, the practical side of it, because of his and his commission’s intimate knowledge of the land issues in that whole region. As I see the position, however, Natal will have an interest in the proposals and suggestions which the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development would wish to discuss with the KwaZulu Government. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development informed me this morning—I spoke to him personally—that his meeting with Chief Minister Buthelezi this week was of an exploratory nature only. He also told me that he had invited the Administrator of Natal and members of the Executive Committee to meet him on 14 May.

I therefore do not understand why there is any ground for complaint on the part of the hon. member for Durban Point. We are in the process of honouring the concept of self-determination. The hon. the Prime Minister again spelt out his views on this subject in this House on 15 April during the debate on his Vote. On that occasion he said that we should accept that there is a situation of multinationalism in Southern Africa. There are self-respecting nations that have the right to self-determination. While the hon. the Prime Minister was dealing with the question of self-determination of nations which belong together, the hon. member for Durban Point interjected by asking whether this would take place of their won free will. The hon. the Prime Minister then said: “Of course, this process would take place of their own free will and without interference and intimidation.” Those were the words with which the hon. the Prime Minister qualified his remark. We are at this very moment endeavouring to implement the very principles enunciated by the hon. the Prime Minister. The whole issue should, however, also be seen against the background of tidying up as far as possible the legacies of imperialism and colonialism. We have had numerous discussions with the Swazi Government, and His Majesty the King has addressed several letters to the hon. the Prime Minister, and he is the head of an independent State. When another State addresses a claim or a demand to me, I cannot simply say “No, I refuse; let us fight it out.” It is not this Government’s style. This Government prefers negotiations.

And that is how we landed in this situation. There is no other way out. This situation goes back quite a number of years. It does not matter which Government is in power. That Government will have to handle this issue let me quote to hon. members from a recent letter from His Majesty the King to the hon. the Prime Minister. He said—

What must the hon. the Prime Minister do when he receives a letter like this? Must he ignore it? Must he pretend that it does not exist? We cannot run away from history, nor can we argue with history. The determination of the boundaries of Swaziland in the colonial era of the 19th century left numerous Swazi tribes outside Swazi territory, and this is a fact. The Swazis in South Africa have the same language, customs and culture as the Swazis of Swaziland and they acknowledge the King of Swaziland. We have stablished that this is a fact.

And the Tonga of Maputaland?

Mr. Chairman, there is a saying in Rehoboth: “Frightened cats leap about in a frightened way.”

†I did not interfere with the hon. member’s statements yesterday, despite the tone the hon. member adopted. Chiefs, community leaders and other Swazis visit Swaziland to call on the King and to participate in traditional ceremonies. Hundreds of Swazi leaders from South Africa attended a reception at the royal residence in Swaziland in November 1981—just recently—to congratulate His Majesty on the diamond jubilee of his reign. On that occasion they asked him: “But when will we be joined with you?” The king replied: “Be patient. I am in discussions with the South African Government.” This goes on all the time and evidence of support for the King is forwarded to us. The King of Swaziland as well as Swazi leaders in South Africa through this whole century nurtured the ideal of unifying the Swazi people. The King of Swaziland made frequent representations to the British Government on this issue before independence, and Swazi leaders in South Africa submitted numerous petitions to the King in furtherance of this ideal, and these petitions are on record. They were not confined to oral petitions. They are on record. On the South African side all Governments after Union—and this is an important point—until Dr. Verwoerd became Premier endorsed the principle embodied in the schedule to the South Africa Act that the High Commission territories could be incorporated into South Africa if the inhabitants so wished and with the approval of the British Government. In speeches on 10 April 1961 and 3 September 1963 Dr Verwoerd, however, abandoned the concept of incorporation. In the speech of 3 September 1963 he advocated the prospect of consolidation with adjoining areas where there were cultural affinities with an offer to assist in the purchase or exchange of territory in South Africa. Therefore, in 1963, 20 years ago, Dr. Verwoerd abandoned the idea of incorporating the BLS countries, the old High Commission territories. He envisaged purchases and exchanges of land, but now it is being alleged that this is something new, now there is talk of horse-trading and of making agreements in the darkness. Some time before the independence of Swaziland in 1968, the British Government formally asked Swaziland—and this is on record—whether Britain should negotiate with South Africa on boundary matters on behalf of Swaziland. Swaziland replied—and this is important—that it preferred to negotiate directly with South Africa after independence, and we accepted it. How can I go back on that? All of this is in writing; all of this is documented.

Swaziland initiated negotiations with South Africa on border issues in the early 70s. Regarding the north-western boundary of Swaziland, the discussions required greater urgency—I admit it and I state it openly—with the upgrading in October 1977 of the Swazi Territorial Authority to the Kangwane Legislative Assembly and the prospect of further constitutional development in Kangwane in terms of Act 21 of 1971. This prospect increased the King’s apprehension that the further constitutional evolution of Kangwane would complicate negotiations and would prejudice Swaziland’s demands and interests. A well-known principle is involved, because in terms of the law of contracts one must be careful not to act in such a way as to jeopardize the rights of the other party.

In April 1981 the Executive Council of Kangwane requested the Minister of Co-operation and Development to grant Kangwane the second phase of self-government as provided for in the abovementioned Act. I admit it. In view of a request by the King of Swaziland to the Prime Minister, a decision was deferred, and the discussions between South Africa and Swaziland were continued. The Chief of the Executive Council of Kangwane, Mr. E. Mabusa, and his colleagues were aware of the discussions between South Africa and Swaziland. He was informed. He indicated in general terms at that time—I do not know whether his attitude might have changed—that he had no objection in principle to border adjustment. He nevertheless expressed a desire to first obtain the second phase of self-government. He said it had to be left until later, but in principle he was not against it. On 24 November 1981 Minister Koornhof conveyed in writing to Mr. Mabusa the South African Government’s decision on the request for greater self-government. This was done openly and no facts were hidden. The reply from the Government indicated that the request by the Executive Council of Kangwane had been considered with much sympathy and profound understanding. In its deliberations the Government, i.e. the Government of South Africa, had to recognize certain historical features and constitutional imperatives. Reference was made to King Sobhuza’s pre-independence request to negotiate certain border adjustments. The king was guided by aspirations of Swazi unity and the pursuit of the interests and the ideals of a unified Swazi people. South Africa could not but respond positively to these objectives, and a commitment had since developed to seek a realistic solution of the border issue. Since Mr. Mabusa had identified himself with these objectives, although he might have a different view on the method, an appeal was made to him to adjust his demands and to accept the inability of the South African Government to accede to his request. It was emphasized that the South African Government had an inescapable responsibility to work for an environment in Southern Africa which would hold out real prospects of political and economic stability. Dr. Koornhof had since repeatedly held discussions with Mr. Mabusa to keep him informed of developments. The talks with Swaziland on possible adjustments to its borders are continuing. Should agreement be reached, a whole range of matters, besides border adjustments, will of course have to be dealt with to ensure that the existing rights, amenities and living standards of the people who might be affected by border adjustments should not be impaired. This is of great importance to the South African Government.

That is my point: There should be consultation.

I have now replied fully to all the points raised in this regard by the hon. member for Durban Point. There is as yet no agreement, and therefore I cannot come to Parliament with what I have. One must first reach an agreement and then come to Parliament. There is no other way.

Consultation with the people affected—that was what I talked about.

But my hon. colleague, Dr. Koornhof, is in the process of doing that. Just recently he held the first exploratory discussions with Chief Minister Buthelezi. Why does the hon. member not wait until he sees what package of possible compensatory land is offered to Natal, the Parks Board and to Chief Minister Buthelezi?

I appeal to the hon. member. I honestly thought that we had a unique matter here, which all parties in this House could support. I shall indicate why I thought so. As far as the PFP is concerned—they have every right to differ with me, but this is what I analysed their standpoint on this matter to be—I think that if they had to make a choice between the full independence of Kangwane on its own—and then of course a capital city will have to be built, a flag designed and a national anthem written and set to music, while across the border there is an independent State with the same people—they would prefer those people who belong together to be brought together in order to have greater viability and greater economic possibilities and to make amalgamation possible. I believe in all honesty that the PFP would prefer the latter, and now I do not wish to associate them with the Government’s policy. If they would prefer that, it would surely, in the nature of things, be fair. I thought that the federal policy of the party of the hon. member for Durban Point…

If they want to do that, we say yes.

But my goodness me, that is not what the hon. member had such a lot to say about yesterday. Yesterday the hon. member attacked the Government because we were allegedly negotiating in dark comers, but I have now explained to hon. members that we are not negotiating in dark corners, but the hon. member is now raising the question of willingness. I have just quoted long passages indicating how the people are arriving in their hundreds to see their king—representatives of the Nkundlas throughout the Transvaal—or are writing to the king and asking him when he is going to make them one. The hon. the Prime Minister said that we were engaged in a process of granting self-determination, of ensuring that people were not deprived of their rights, and if we have clarity in regard to these matters, a law will be made and that law will be brought before this Parliament, How else should I deal with this matter? Can I do it more openly or more clearly? [Interjections.] Here we have a unique opportunity which in my opinion can be supported by the PFP, the NRP, by the CP, by the NP, by Chief Minister Buthelezi, by the King of Swaziland, by Mr. Mabusa, by the Natal Parks Board, by organized agriculture—what a unique opportunity! Let us refrain from confusing one another on this issue. Here we have now found common ground to bring something worth while into existence in Southern Africa

We support you.

Thank you.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member’s requirements are a little onerous. [Interjections.]

I should like to thank the hon. member for Parys for his observations on the recent conference between the hon. the Prime Minister and President Kaunda, as well as for his encouraging observations on South Africa’s attempts to promote contact and dialogue with the rest of Africa. I share his opinion on the dangers which communism constitutes for Africa and I agree that it is time the West looked at the facts of Africa with more objectivity.

In my opinion the hon. member for Sea Point also dealt with the subject of the meeting of the hon. the Prime Minister with Dr. Kaunda with great responsibility, something for which I am indebted to him. I cannot say more today than was made public at the conclusion of the congress held by the two leaders. I am grateful that hon. members did not insist on this, and I am also grateful that the hon. member for Sea Point understood why I was unable to do so, but matters were raised on both sides which could be of great importance to Southern Africa. However, I want to content myself with saying that those matters are receiving attention, are in fact receiving serious attention.

I want to thank the hon. member for Bloemfontein North for the fact that he singled out, with so much understanding and appreciation, the development that has already taken place in the TBVC countries—i.e. Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei. I agree with him that internal and external capital is urgently required for the development of those countries, and that is why we are working so hard on the concept of a development bank for Southern Africa, which must, however, be dealt with in such a way that it is possible to establish a bank which can work in practice.

The distressing situation in which a large part of Africa finds itself today, and the major contributory role which South Africa can play in the rest of Africa, was sketched by the hon. member for Sasolburg. He mentioned that development is the greatest priority in Africa, in fact that it is a matter of critical exigency. I want to agree with him whole-heartedly on that score.

The hon. member for Roodeplaat requested that the department should make greater use of Indian and Coloured people in its information effort. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Information is in fact engaged in the creation of more posts of a higher grading for representatives of these communities, with a view to the promotion of South Africa’s interests abroad. The hon. member proposed that more regional publications for the various population groups be brought into existence. I have pleasure in informing him that the department has already made a great deal of progress with the necessary preparations for the introduction of such publications, where such publications do not yet exist, as well as supplementary publications on a national level.

The hon. member for Langlaagte put two questions to me in connection with the State Trust Board. Before I reply to them, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the State Trust Board for the dedicated way in which it has tackled and carried out an extremely difficult task. In addition I want to say that this board cannot work any harder than it is already doing. Nor do I intend exerting any pressure on the board with a view to trying to speed up the disposal of the work which has been entrusted to it in its terms of reference. I also hope that hon. members of the Opposition parties in this House will in future see their way clear to thanking the State Trust Board for the huge task which they have performed with so much expertise, and that it will not be necessary for me to accommodate this House very year and reply to questions to which the State Trust Board itself furnishes the replies in its reports which are tabled in this House. I am making this remark with specific reference to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, with whom I shall deal in a moment.

The first question which the hon. member for Langlaagte asked, dealt with the progress the State Trust Board was making with its activities. On page 2 of the fifth report of the State Trust Board of 7 December 1981 which was tabled in this House earlier this year, the board stated that such progress had already been made …

You must remember this is six months later.

… that the board envisaged disposing of and reporting on its task during the course of this year. I also took up the hon. member’s question personally with the chairman of the State Trust Board, and he informed me that the board would soon adopt a resolution on a matter which is at present sub judice. Then, depending on the board’s resolution on that matter, it ought to be possible to conclude the activities of the board within the next three to four months.

Secondly, the hon. member asked whether any prosecutions or legal proceedings arising from the investigation of the board had been instituted against any person or company. The answer is that the board has not instituted any legal proceedings against any person or company. Prosecutions which have been instituted, and which had their origin in the Information Affair, were instituted after decisions taken by the responsible Attorney-General, and did not arise out of the activities of the board.

The hon. member was also of the opinion that the Information officers are dominated by their colleagues in Foreign Affairs. I do not agree with that statement. I work in the closest contact every day with many of the officials, and there is no question of any group dominating another. All officials—I repeat: All officials—make valuable and equal inputs every day in respect of all activities of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information. In fact it is personally gratifying to me that, with the amalgamation of the two departments, such an excellent level of co-operation among all the officials has been achieved within such a short period of time.

The hon. member for Langlaagte also observed that it had been his experience that Beeld was quoted more frequently in the documents of the UN than the English-language newspapers of South Africa. I think he will concede that I am correct when I say that the way in which he said it, implied that Beeld was consequently quoted to a greater extent as a source to give credence to allegations against South Africa. That is not the case. In five recent official UN publications on South Africa and South West Africa, there were 45 references to English-language news publications of South Africa, and not one to any Afrikaans-language newspaper of South Africa. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must not become annoyed with me now. He made a statement and we investigated his statement and we discovered those facts. Now he must be prepared to accept them.

In any event, you misquoted me completely.

The hon. member for Brits, on the basis of statistics, indicated the expansion in South Africa’s foreign representation. The number of foreign diplomats and consular missions has expanded significantly to comprise approximate a 100 offices in 45 countries at present. I am in full agreement with the philosophy of the hon. member that we should state South Africa’s case wherever possible, as frequently as possible and as clearly and forcefully as it is possible for one to do.

If we were able to accomplish what the hon. member for Virginia advocated, viz. that we should all set a watch upon our lips when we are discussing delicate matters, it would in the nature of things make life just that little bit easier for all of us. I think hon. members will agree with that. Personally I am sorry that the hon. member was unable to complete his speech. It would appear to me as though it would have been a reasonably comprehensive presentation of the important information-disseminating methods that are being employed abroad. As regards the techniques to which he did in fact refer, I am in agreement with him. I thank him for his well-thought-out contribution.

†I should like to thank the hon. member for Yeoville for his constructive contribution. He informed me yesterday that he would unfortunately not be able to be present here today. The hon. member for Yeoville made a very constructive contribution to the debate yesterday by focusing attention on the need for the expansion of South Africa’s representation abroad. It will be realized that any such programme is, of course, subject to the constraints of finance, staff, and also certain considerations of a political nature. The hon. member also made a special reference to the need for permanent representation in Strasbourg in order to reach the European Parliament more effectively. The only form of representation we could have in Strasbourg itself would have to be a consulate, but a consul would have no status or accreditation in the European Parliament. That is the problem. Moreover the European Parliament sits alternatively in Luxembourg while a decision on the future permanent seat of Parliament has yet to be taken. As the European Parliament is one of the organs of the European Communities, we do have accreditation to that Parliament through the South African ambassador to the European Communities. As hon. members know he is resident in Brussels, which is the headquarters of the Commission of the Communities. Other organs of the Communities are stationed in Luxembourg. In order to strengthen South Africa’s representation in that sphere, it has been decided to appoint a senior Information Counsellor to the staff of the mission in Brussels shortly. As is already the case with the head of mission, he will have direct access to members of the European Parliament, and I feel sure that hon. members will approve of this step.

*The hon. member for Vasco made several interesting observations on Africa. I share the hon. member’s confidence that the successful implementation of the new decentralization initiative will make an important contribution to prosperity and to raising the living standards, particularly to those of the less developed people in our midst and on our borders.

The hon. member for Brakpan advocated the re-introduction of an independent Information Service. On 1 February this year, in this House, the hon. the Prime Minister made the standpoint of the Government in this regard clear, viz. that the present structure of the department was the result of the rationalization of the Public Service, and that he did not wish to change it at that stage. I obviously concur with the standpoint of the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Brakpan also referred to the orientation of officials who serve abroad. I thank him for his interest in this matter. The guidelines laid down in this particular connection are as follows: Only in highly exceptional cases do officials serve abroad for longer than six years. Compulsory home leave must be taken after three years, and in some cases, after two years. Upon transfer home, and during home leave, an orientation programme is drawn up for each official, according to the specific requirements. Funds permitting—and funds are our problem—the qualifying period for compulsory home leave is going to be reduced to two years as from 1 April 1983. At first it was four years, then three years, and now I am trying hard to make it two years. In this way officials will be better able to acquaint themselves with developments in South Africa, and will be exposed to the realities of South Africa more regularly. However, the hon. member will permit me to say that I see my way clear to keeping South Africa’s representatives abroad constantly aware of the realities of South Africa. Yet the hon. member must pardon me when I say that I do not know how to acquaint the CP with the realities within South Africa. [Interjections.]

As regards the establishment of our own schools abroad, this cannot unfortunately be considered owing to the limited numbers and the costs involved. However, officials whose children are attending schools in South Africa receive special travel concessions, which enable the children to visit their parents three times a year at State expense.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp was quite correct when he said that our information effort abroad must inevitably concentrate mainly on opinion-shapers and decision-makers. Our funds and manpower position necessitates that we carefully determine the target audience in advance. We are certainly in no position to attempt to win over and reach the masses abroad. However, he indicated, quite rightly, that if the smaller more influential target group were correctly ascertained, one would nevertheless be able to reach a wider audience through these people. It is a good thing that the provision in the estimates for this part of the department’s work has been brought into sharp focus. I can only say that with a modest increase in funds it would be possible to undertake more of the interesting and ingenious proposals which were put forward yesterday and today by Opposition and Government speakers.

The appeal which the hon. member made to all South Africans to be diplomats in their own right for our country in their daily lives, is one which I trust will be taken to heart by everyone in South Africa.

†The hon. member for Durban North in his complimentary remarks about the SABC yesterday, focused attention on a rather important facet of the relationship between the Government and the SABC. Recognition was given by him to a reality which has often been denied by critics of the status of the SABC, when he commended the SABC—and I agree with him—for the quality of its external radio service. In a certain sense he identified a paradoxical situation in my ministerial responsibility for broadcasting affairs. The position is that in practice the external service is the only part of the SABC’s activities over which the Government, through the responsible Minister, can exercise some form of control. Over the rest of its activities the Government has no control. The hon. member congratulated us on our efforts in this regard, and I accept these congratulations and am very grateful for them.

The hon. member also conveyed some very interesting impressions of the growing impact of the EEC countries in global politics. I agree with him, but wish to remind him that on 17 September last year in an address to the House during the discussion of my Budget Vote, I postulated the concept of the formation of new power groups. He will remember that I foresaw a Europe-Arab-African triangle, with a possible realignment in the world political order developing. This is a situation that we shall have to take notice of, but it does not necessarily mean that South Africa could not and would not derive any benefit from such a development.

The suggestion of special interest groups making regular visits abroad to present South Africa’s case, undoubtedly has merit. The department has an active but limited programme of further visits of this nature but is hampered by a lack of adequate funds. The fact that many tens of thousands of South Africans who travel abroad on business or on holiday are acting as worthy ambassadors through their actions and responsible representation of South Africa’s views, is an indication of how this particular problem can be overcome. South Africans of all political persuasions who represent South Africa in this way must be lauded and supported. They must also know that at all times the department in South Africa and its representatives abroad are at their disposal to provide briefings, information, advice and assistance.

The hon. member for Maitland also referred to conditions in Africa, particularly to the destabilizing influence of approximately 2,8 million people under arms on the continent, and he appealed for a regional convention against terrorism. The hon. member will recall that during the debate on my Vote in 1981 I appealed to the countries in Southern Africa to stop the seemingly inevitable drift towards confrontation and conflagration. Terrorism is one of the contributory factors to this confrontation and must be eradicated if there is to be peace on our subcontinent. Accordingly I should like to associate myself completely with the views expressed and wish merely to add that there has been progress in this regard. Unfortunately I cannot furnish details.

I should also like to point out that in spite of a declaration issued by the meeting of Western heads of State and Government in Ottawa during 1981, in which concern was expressed about the active assistance given to international terrorism in the form of money, weapons, training and sanctuary, certain States, including several Western countries and international organizations, continue to contribute generously to terrorist organizations in Southern Africa under the guise of humanitarian assistance.

*I listened with interest to the observations made by the hon. member for Randfontein. He referred to the conference between the hon. the Prime Minister and Pres. Kaunda of Zambia, and to the relevance of the Lusaka Manifesto of 1969. Constructive ideas are contained in the manifesto to which we can pledge our support. Our standpoint on the principles of human dignity and the recognition of South Africa as part of Africa, is well known. This links up with the recognition of that fact by the African leaders in the manifesto. However, there is a deficiency—and this is important—which not only affects South Africa but the whole of Southern Africa, namely our inalienable right to exercise control over our own self-determination to the same extent as which we confer this right upon other population groups. If it were possible to respect this principle in the Lusaka Manifesto, or if the manifesto could be interpreted in such a way as to include this principle, we could possibly reach unanimity on its substantive contents. I want to emphasize that the day on which Africa grants us the same right to selfdetermination as we confer upon and grant to other nations, a new era of co-operation will dawn in Southern Africa and in Africa. I have not ceased to hope that that day will arrive.

The hon. member for Rustenburg referred to the establishment of relations committees on the border between South Africa and Bophuthatswana. I took cognizance of his observations with appreciation and I should like to make an appeal to all members of this House to contribute their share to the development of a better understanding between the people of South Africa and the independent States of Southern Africa. It is becoming increasingly clear that it is inadequate to try to build these relations between our neighbouring States and ourselves solely on the foundation of formal official representation on forums of discussion. Non-official forms of co-operation must therefore be promoted, and in my opinion members of the public ought to become involved in this to a greater extent. All hon. members, whether or not they agree with the particular policy of the Government, have a role to play in this, and I am therefore addressing an appeal now to all hon. members. After all, there are White farmers, businessmen, agricultural co-operatives, pharmacists, medical practitioners, teachers, builders, mechanics and many others in our country who have the necessary knowledge and ability which could be utilized to great benefit in smaller, needy individual cases in the TBVC countries. The help which is given to a sick child can be of great importance. The same applies in respect of advice in the educational sphere, where perhaps only a small school exists, and also in the establishment of a dispensary, advice on the correct methods to be used for ploughing, advice in respect of the dipping of cattle and the handling of sheep. There is no end to the forms of assistance which I think could be rendered on a small scale when committees on both sides of the border liaise with one another. It goes without saying that this assistance could also contribute to the creation of a healthy climate along our borders which could in turn have a positive influence on our relations with the TBVC countries and other independent countries. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Information is ready and willing to assist in the establishment of such committees, as well as in the establishment of initial contact between the respective committees.

†The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred the House to the fact that on page 37 of its supplementary report the Erasmus Commission of Inquiry stated that the facts enunciated in that report indicated prima facie that there was extensive misappropriation by Mr. J. van Zyl Alberts of State funds under his control and that this seemed to be in conflict with the direction taken in the State Trust Board’s report of 7 December 1981, in which it was reported that Mr. Alberts had been paid a sum of money in full and final settlement of a claim which he submitted to that board. In its said report the board dealt with this matter. Having referred to the provisions of section 6(1) and (2)(a) of the State Trust Board Act, the board concluded that it was its function not only to enforce rights in its favour, but also to fulfil all liabilities. Having said this, the board then dealt with the position of Mr. Alberts as follows, and I quote—

There is no other proper way to deal with this matter. Earlier on, on page 14, the board specifically stated that in the course of its investigation it duly took into account the evidence given before the Erasmus Commission and preceding investigations ordered by the Government and found that the net application of funds by Mr. Alberts corresponded with the total amount of R17 million handled by him. The board then proceeded to categorize the net application of the funds. On page 15 of the report the board stated that Mr. Alberts was debited with all amounts to which he had no rightful claim and that he was credited with all amounts he was entitled to. It must be borne in mind that the board found that funds belonging to Mr. Alberts had become mixed up with those of the State.

In conclusion I want to tell the hon. member that I am satisfied with the board’s explanation of this matter, that I am in agreement with the board’s perception of the task entrusted to it by Parliament and that I sincerely hope that hon. members will study the reports of the board in conjunction with the appropriate provisions of the Act before raising matters here that may confuse members of the public who do not have ready access to the relevant documents.

The hon. member for Benoni made reference to the cost effectiveness of the department’s foreign information programme. Several hon. members, however, have recognized the financial constraints imposed on the department. It is only as a result of careful planning and the constant reappraisal of programmes that the foreign information service is able to promote South Africa in such a manner that maximum effect is gained by means of resources at our disposal. The hon. member also identified the difficulties of bias, double standards and active attempts at disinformation by certain elements of the media. He can be assured that these attempts to slander and harm South Africa are vigorously opposed, but I am pleased to note that as a result of developments inside South Africa as well as a greater understanding internationally of the complexities of South Africa’s position, international reporting on South Africa has assumed a somewhat more sober and moderate character. The department is actively involved in encouraging and supporting this tendency.

*I can add that during the past few months the international Press has been far more positive in dealing with this country than have elements of the Press in this country. I am merely mentioning this.

The hon. member for Rosettenville spoke with great enthusiasm yesterday about the expanded publications programme of the department. I can only say that I thank him very sincerely. I endorse his enthusiasm, and time and again I have referred to the special achievements of the officials under difficult circumstances. I also took cognizance of his argument in connection with the SABC today, and I appreciate what he said in that connection.

I should also like to express my thanks to the hon. member for Klip River, the hon. member for Turffontein, the hon. member for East London City and the hon. member Mr. Schutte for the constructive way in which they presented what they had observed of the economic progress made in the TBVC countries. It was clear to me that the tour to the TBVC countries was useful and informative. Similar tours are being envisaged, the hope is to have another this year and if not this year, then next year. I associate myself with the important standpoint of these hon. members that the development of the private sector is the appropriate way to meaningful development and growth. The newly announced industrial incentive measures which came into operation on 1 April this year, are a further important step in the optimum mobilization of financial resources and the proportional distribution of economic activities in Southern Africa. Reference was also made to regional co-operation in Southern Africa. I am grateful for the ideas which were expressed in this connection by the hon. members to whom I have referred. It is undeniably true that regional co-operation represents a fresh and constructive approach to the development problems of this part of Africa.

†The hon. member for Umhlanga referred to the value of the SABC’s radio services and I wish to thank him for this. It is too often forgotten that the radio is a valuable source of information, culture and entertainment to which people throughout the entire country have access through the SABC’s 16 radio services broadcasting in 11 languages.

The hon. member also raised the question of extended broadcasting hours for television. As he knows, the SABC is continually striving to reach an increasing number of people. The channel for Black languages was recently introduced and the priority at present is to expand this transmission network. At the same time it is intended to supplement transmitters for TV1 in order to cover the whole country as soon as possible. Largescale and comprehensive extension of hours of transmission will be considered but there are other priority considerations at present.

As far as the interruptions of television transmitters are concerned, this is a worldwide problem. I do hope that it does not occur more often here than it does in other parts of the world. The SABC’s technical installations are known to be among the best in the world but in any highly complicated electronic system problems do occur from time to time. The SABC has, however, given the assurance that everything possible is being done to limit such interruptions to the absolute minimum.

The hon. member also referred to the expansion of the television services and in particular, that of TV1. In this respect he went so far as to propose that the present policy of the use of the official languages on a fifty-fifty basis should be amended. I am sorry, but I cannot see any justification for altering the fifty-fifty balance of programmes on TV1 and I think we ought to retain that balance. The expansion of the service as a whole, however, is a matter which the SABC Control Board constantly has under review and I shall certainly forward the hon. member’s views to the board and support him as far as that matter is concerned.

I am aware of the hon. member for Hill-brow’s concern that the handicapped such as the deaf and the hard of hearing should be able to enjoy the benefits of the television services. I share his concern and I want to thank the hon. member for his constructive suggestions, for the obvious study that he undertook in order to make those suggestions here in this House in such a clear manner and also for the feeling with which he presented his case. I thank him for that. This is a matter for the SABC board to investigate and I want to assure the hon. member that I shall draw their attention to it.

As far as the hon. member’s reference to ministerial responsibility for the SABC is concerned, I want to refer him to the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement of 1 February 1982 in which he expressed satisfaction with the present arrangement.

In regard to the Spanish service to which the hon. member referred briefly, I just want to say that that service which is beamed to South America was begun on 1 June 1981 and broadcasts for two hours per day between 23h00 and 01h00 GMT.

*The hon. member for Johannesburg West made an enlightening contribution. He placed the functions and responsibilities of the SABC in their correct perspective. An important distinction was drawn between the Government and the political parties. There is no Western country that I know of in which Government leaders are not given sufficient time on radio and television to make important statements. Really, I invite hon. members of the Opposition to establish how much television time is allocated in Britain, France and the USA to statements by the leaders of those countries. I am referring in particular to the executive leaders of those countries.

Then they get reactions from the other political parties.

Please! I lived abroad for more than 12 years. [Interjections.] Well, if the hon. member knows everything I cannot argue with him. If the hon. member does not want to accept my word, it is up to him. Everything President Reagan says is immediately broadcast on all three channels without any of his political opponents getting equal time. That is the position. [Interjections.]

*I want to thank the hon. member for Florida for the responsible way in which he approached the question of television programmes on Sundays. The desecration of the Sabbath is creating concern among a large portion of our public. However, South Africa is a country which derives benefit from its great diversity of peoples, and that variety and diversity must also be taken into consideration by the SABC.

I find it gratifying to ascertain that the hon. member for Rissik agrees that the Government should be given full opportunity to state its standpoint on the radio and television. The hon. member also asked me what my policy and norm was in regard to the composition of the Board of the SABC. It is very simple. For the Government it is of primary importance that the listening and viewing public should have confidence in the integrity of the Board of the SABC. It is with this object in mind that the chairman and members of the Control Board are appointed by the Government. That is the norm. It is also with a view to a wide representation on the Board that consideration is at present being given to expanding the membership of the Board. In this connection I took cognizance of the views expressed by the hon. member for Sandton.

†I am pleased that the hon. member for East London North referred in such positive terms to TV2 and TV3. It is essential that our radio and television services provide high-quality programmes for all the population groups, and I am happy to note the extent to which the new television services have been received by the viewing public. With the growing demand for television facilities, I can foresee that TV2 and TV3 will develop into a powerful medium for the expression of the talents of the people for which it caters. The potential is immense.

I think the hon. member for Sandton did an injustice to himself. As an objective critic of the conduct of broadcasting affairs, he should not have said what he said.

I am not an objective critic; I am a political critic.

Oh, I see.

It is particularly regrettable that his argument totally ignores the factual situation. Responsibility for the SABC is not related to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information. Parliamentary responsibility has been assigned to the Minister who happens to hold the portfolio of Foreign Affairs and Information. I want to say again that I have enough work. If the responsibility for the SABC could be removed from me tomorrow, I think I might be the first one to rejoice. The responsibility for the SABC has not been assigned to a particular member of the Cabinet because of the particular Government department he controls, and that is the only point I am trying to make. This approach is followed especially to depoliticize broadcasting affairs. The affairs of State are thus separated from media responsibilities. The autonomy of the SABC is legislatively vested in a board of control. The only extent to which Government control or influence can be said to exist over the SABC’s activities is in respect of the external service of the radio for which funds are voted by Parliament.

The hon. member made reference to the desirability of open debate. I agree with him.

I think he referred to programmes about the Defence Force. It is correct that the SABC has devoted considerable attention to the role and activities of the Defence Force. I find this not at all surprising when I consider the fact that hardly a family in this country is not immediately affected by the necessities of military service, the continuing problems with South West Africa and other neighbouring territories and Soviet expansionism in Southern Africa.

I think the hon. member also referred to the necessity to improve TV2 and TV3 …

To provide educational facilities.

The SABC has informed me of the attention being paid to the training of all staff members with a view to improving this service as well. The hon. member will see—I cannot say how soon, but in due course—that more use will be made of SATV for educational purposes.

*I should just like to refer to the hon. member for Waterkloof. He asked me what my foreign policy was. I have no foreign policy of my own. The Government has a foreign policy.

Where is Tom?

Leave him alone!

He is sleeping!

Could I please continue. I said nothing about his absence. I did not remark on it.

No, your colleagues did.

My time is almost expired, and I should just like to display a little courtesy to the hon. member. [Interjections.] I just want to explain this very carefully. One could probably talk for a long time on all the facets of our foreign policy. However, I can sum it up as simply as possible by saying that the foreign policy of this country consists of all the means and methods which it employs to promote the interests of South Africa internationally. That is the first premise. It embraces a wide range of means or subjects. In that sense I am grateful that the hon. member put the question to me, because I do not think the public is always aware of what the task of a representative of South Africa abroad entails or what the task of South Africa’s representatives who have returned from abroad to head office entails. I wish more of our people could spend a typical week at our mission at the UN, or in Washington, in London, in Paris or in Mmabatho or Umtata. I wish more members of the public could go and see what the daily task of such an office consists of, how one has to keep an eye on innumerable developments every day, how one first has to monitor the news to see what is being said about the country, how we are being abused and lied to, and also how one must keep an eye on the commercial possibilities, because one has to promote trade as well. Without trade this country cannot live. We all know that. Billions of rands worth of agricultural products and processed agricultural products are being exported. One must keep an eye open to see whether the country in question has perhaps amended its packing regulations, because our agricultural produce is packed in a certain way in this country. Consequently one has to take cognizance of this in good time so that our packing methods may quickly be amended, otherwise one loses the market.

This, of course, extends over the entire spectrum of exports. It covers agricultural produce, processed agricultural produce and manufactured goods. One has to keep a constant watch to see that another country does not capture one’s markets. This is only in the commercial sphere. Then there are the spheres of sport, churches, culture, finance, the purely diplomatic sphere and the sphere of technology. It is not necessary for me to tell hon. members today what huge leaps have been made in the technology of human existence during the past five years. Mankind is sending spacecraft to the moon and the planets, and if something goes wrong in such a spacecraft, it can be rectified by means of radio signals. The technology is astounding. The Russian and American satellites passing overhead every day, can photograph objects the size of a marble on a sidewalk in Cape Town. This is the kind of technology that has already been developed. South Africa cannot lag behind in this sphere either. One has to watch new developments and analyse them. New discoveries have to be monitored, and reported back to the Government department concerned, and decisions on these matters have to be taken. Above all, one must constantly be able to evaluate—I do not wish to refer to the Falklands crisis—without being afraid of your own Government. Our man at the UN must be able to tell the Government: “If you do A, sanctions will be imposed; if you do B, perhaps; if you do C, you will scrape through by the skin of your teeth”. Then the Government has to face up to those facts. We cannot run away from them. A person cannot run away from the existing facts. I repeat: It does not matter which Government is governing this country; the government of the day will have to face up to certain basic facts which it cannot change. I concede that a government can change its policy, but today I wish to say with great respect to all my colleagues in this House, without acting aggressively—I am saying this almost pleadingly—that the government which wants to govern this country within the ambit of certain democratic norms and standards, that any government whose object is to retain an independent judicial system, private ownership, religious freedom and freedom of speech, as well as the right to hold elections to change Governments constitutionally, will basically be confronted with precisely the same facts as this Government is being confronted with, particularly when it comes to the attitude towards South Africa abroad. I do not wish to elaborate on this. I do not wish to be provocative about this today. I am saying almost pleadingly that we must bear this in mind. Consequently when we differ with one another on internal policies, the way I would like to see it is that everyone in this House would in fact like to see the norms I have just mentioned, plus other values as well, preserved and would like to see them survive. Basically, as I see it, we differ with one another on methods of achieving the same goals. It is a pity that we sometimes have to differ so vehemently on the methods and make emotional statements which have repercussions abroad and do this country a lot of harm. I just wanted to make that point.

The hon. member for Waterkloof said that if the CP were to come into power, the difference between us and them would be like the difference between President Carter and President Reagan, if I understood him correctly.

†That is a very interesting parallel. The hon. member for Waterkloof identifies his leader, I take, it, with President Reagan—Dr. Andres Reagan! I want to say to the hon. member that I think it is an inappropriate parallel to draw. I invite the hon. member to go and check what President Reagan’s point of view is on the Immorality Act and on the Prevention of Mixed Marriages Act. I invite him to go and check that.

I was talking about the type.

But the hon. member said he would be like President Reagan.

With regard to the quality of government: One strong Government … [Interjections.]

I accept that. Well, that strong Government with that high quality repudiates and rejects with abhorrence just about every principle …

Are you going to abolish it?

… on which the CP differs from us. [Interjections.] I did not say that. I am dealing with the hon. member for Waterkloof s own parallel which he draws to try to put his party in a better light. [Interjections.] Now they are running away from it.

*I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Waterkloof. If this Government—the hon. member may ask any official in my department about this—has to struggle and toil to such an extent to keep our international trade channels open, if we have to make such strenuous efforts to maintain a reasonably constructive dialogue with President Reagan going, what hope does he think he has of ever getting through to him?

Far better.

What hope does the CP, with its policy, … [Interjections.] … When the policy of the NP is labelled in virtually all the council chambers of the world and even by some of our best friends in the world as being an objectionable policy—I am referring now to our policy in its present form—what hope does the CP have? What hope does the CP have, a party which is now moving backwards, a party which is retrogressing further … [Interjections.] The CP is a party which is trying to return to the situation that prevailed years ago, when this country was virtually on the point of having sanctions introduced against it. What hope does that party have? [Interjections.] I should like to conclude. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to make an appeal to all hon. members. As we already know, South Africa has a great diversity of raw materials, it has many forms of wealth, a wonderful climate. We, the Whites, the Black people, the Coloureds and the Asians, have all accomplished tremendous things. We are fortunate that there are moderate, fair and reasonable leaders in each of these ethnic groups. Just consider the roads in South Africa, its high-tension electricity grid, its telecommunications systems, its clinics, its hospitals. See the kind of things South Africa has achieved. This is what I wish to emphasize here today. Instead of our people pausing occasionally and going down on their knees to indicate their gratitude … [Interjections.] Yes, hon. members of the CP can laugh if they wish. This nation, isolated from its European countries of origin, developed a higher standard of living than that of most European countries, and did so in conditions in which we were isolated and for many years were subjected to vehement international pressure. Instead of gratitude, instead of a spirit of humility, instead of a spirit of self-criticism, instead of investigating the norms which this nation has created, the ideals which brought it to where it is—the desire for freedom, fairness, justice …

We wish to retain those things!

No! No! Oh no! [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rissik is not going to get away with it so easily. Instead of trying sincerely to harness and combine the human material, the raw materials and the relative measure of peace which we are enjoying, as well as the moderation of the leaders of all the nations in this country, to work out a future for all of us, we are maligning one another, we are splitting hairs, we are spending hours discussing things such as power-sharing and non-power-sharing. I want to issue a warning today. There are greater priorities facing White, Black, Coloured and Asian leaders in Southern Africa today. Our future is in our own hands. There is still time. I believe the will is there, too. I believe the faith is there. However, we shall then have to shake the gossipmongers and the hair-splitters from our backs as quickly as possible. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I will not detain hon. members for more than one minute. At the outset of his speech the hon. the Minister read a letter from the chargé d’affaires of Argentina. I want to state that I am very pleased that he read it. In the circumstances, I believe, one does not, either as a Government or as an Opposition, want to attribute anything to any diplomat which he did not say. The words I used in this House I used in good faith. The questions I put to the hon. the Minister in respect of this matter were based on a Press report of 6 April in which the words quoted were attributed to the chargé d’affaires of Argentina. I quote from that newspaper report again—

I accept the statement of denial by the chargé d’affaires of Argentina and I take it that the matter is now closed.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the explanation given by the hon. member for Sea Point. He based his question on the content of a newspaper report for which he was not responsible.

What newspaper was it?

Vote agreed to.

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

Mr. Chairman, in the Second Reading debate on this Bill which took place some weeks ago, I stated our opposition to this Bill and to this clause in particular. I also referred to the history of the matter, particularly in so far as it affected the people of KwaZulu and Natal. The amending Act which we passed last session stipulates that every person practising her profession within the Republic shall be a member of the Nursing Association, and I said last year that that would have to include nurses operating in KwaZulu. I also said that it could not be reconciled with the advice given to the KwaZulu nurses that they should form their own nursing association and neither could it be reconciled with the new constitution of the Nursing Association of which I had a draft. In its definition it says—

The hon. the Minister at that stage said that a self-governing State would not be considered as part of the Republic. Now he comes with this Bill on the advice, as he admitted in his Second Reading introductory speech, of his legal advisers. This Bill is now designed to correct the situation which obtained last year when the amending Act was passed, and it now states that a self-governing State shall be deemed not to form part of the Republic for the purposes of the operation of this Bill.

The history of this matter is well-known. We know, and we debated it before, that there was an agreement some years ago, with the KwaZulu Government in relation to the taking over of health services, and that agreement excluded Chapter 4 of the Nursing Act, namely the chapter dealing with the South African Nursing Association.

The KwaZulu Government have repeatedly asked that that chapter be included. In this regard there is a long history, which we recounted last year again, of discussions and negotiations which the KwaZulu health authorities and the KwaZulu Minister of Health have had with the hon. the Minister on the issue. From the outset they have made it perfectly clear that they want their nurses to belong to the South African Nursing Association and that they are bitterly opposed to any form of separation on grounds of race in regard to the nursing profession.

However, not only are the Black nurses of this opinion. There are White nurses in Natal who also subscribe to this because of the practical results of this sort of measure and because of the disruption that it will cause in the interchange of nurses between areas that fall within the area of KwaZulu and areas that fall within the rest of Natal. There are obvious practical difficulties of which those who are responsible on the spot have been very conscious indeed.

It is therefore of general concern to the people of Natal in the nursing profession and to the people of KwaZulu. I am concerned because of this situation and I am also concerned because I know the local situation in Natal. I believe that it is of as much concern to me and the people I represent as it is to the people living in the area of KwaZulu.

The hon. the Minister, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, once again challenged my right to be concerned in regard to what happend to the nurses of KwaZulu. He said that I should not claim—and I do not—to speak on behalf of KwaZulu. I want to say categorically that I have never claimed to speak on behalf of KwaZulu and I do not claim now to speak on behalf of the KwaZulu Government. They are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, and they do speak for themselves. They are perfectly capapble of adopting an attitude and of taking a view of a situation, and they do just that. They are intelligent, competent people, and it is not for me to claim to speak on their behalf. It is important, as I have said, that in Natal we know and understand each other on an issue of this kind. We in the PFP, because of this situation, have close contact with them. We have a standing liaison committee with the Inkatha movement and there is nothing secret about it. It is perfectly public. We meet at regular intervals in order to discuss matters of common interest.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The principle of the Bill was laid down when the Second Reading of the Bill was accepted. Despite this, the hon. member is again discussing the principle at length.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister should know that as the first speaker on the clause I am entitled to speak more widely. We and the Inkatha movement meet at regular intervals. There is no secret about it, there have been Press statements about it.

The hon. the Minister during his reply to the Second Reading talked about a meeting which had taken place in his office with the Minister of Health of KwaZulu and other representatives of the KwaZulu Government. He said (Hansard, 20 April 1982, col. 4898)—

I want to say that I was shocked when he made that statement because I knew they were coming to see him. They had spoken to me before they came to see him, and indeed the following morning after the hon. the Minister had made that speech, it was reported on by the SABC, and that speech was repudiated immediately by the Chief Minister of KwaZulu. I also received a spontaneous phone call first thing that morning from the Ministers of KwaZulu denying that they had made that statement. They phoned me to deny that situation. The Minister of Health of KwaZulu then issued a Press statement which I want to quote—

He then went on to say that he was sick and tired of meddling. I want to say that I find it very difficult to reconcile that statement with the account which the hon. the Minister gave in his Second Reading reply. I believe the hon. the Minister deliberately misled the House when he replied to the Second Reading debate.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Chairman, does the hon. the Minister deny that?

The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. the Minister lied to the House when he replied to the Second Reading debate.

He lied.

The hon. member for Berea must withdraw that remark.

I refuse to withdraw it.

I again ask the hon. member to withdraw the remark.

He lied.

I have given the facts of the situation, which clearly indicate that the hon. the Minister lied to the House, and I am not prepared to withdraw the remark.

I once more request the hon. member to withdraw the remark.

Mr. Chairman, under the circumstances I am not prepared to withdraw the remark.

The hon. member must then leave the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

[Whereupon the hon. member for Berea withdrew.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member for Bryanston also said that the hon. the Minister had lied.

The hon. the Minister did lie. Consequently I, too, shall leave the Chamber.

If the hon. member for Bryanston does not wish to withdraw the remark, he must leave the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting. Does the hon. member withdraw it?

[Whereupon the hon. member for Bryanston withdrew.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston, by leaving of his own accord, is totally disregarding the authority of the Chair, and I move that the hon. member be suspended.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I should like the hon. Chief Whip of the NP to explain to us exactly in what way the hon. member for Bryanston is alleged to have abused the Chair.

Sir, I said on a point of order that the hon. member for Bryanston had said that the hon. the Minister had lied. However, the hon. member ignored the request by the Chair to withdraw those words and decided of his own accord to leave the Chamber. I, therefore request that he be suspended.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I think there is probably a dispute as to the facts. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I am addressing you on a point of order and I expect you to order silence.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, I think it would be a mistake for you at this stage to decide in a matter where I think there is a genuine dispute with regard to the facts. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am prepared to wait until that hon. member has finished with his discourtesies to the Chair.

Carry on. Do not get so excited.

That hon. Minister is always so discourteous in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I think we are in a danger area and we must not make it more dangerous than it is already. I think there could well be a dispute as to what exactly the hon. member for Bryanston did. May we not first of all deal with your ruling in regard to the hon. member for Berea and then, with your permission, I could perhaps ascertain the facts from the hon. member for Bryanston? If I may discuss the matter privately with you later, I shall be happy to do that.

Order! The hon. member’s suggestion is a fair suggestion. As far as the hon. member for Berea is concerned, he has been ordered to leave the Chamber, and as far as the hon. member for Bryanston is concerned, I shall be pleased if the hon. member for Groote Schuur will negotiate with him and, after I have listened to the facts, I shall decide on the issue.

Mr. Chairman, I request that you direct that the hon. member for Bryanston return to the Chamber so that you can settle the matter with him, because we all heard what the hon. member repeatedly said. I do not think that the matter can be left at that.

No doubt the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition will, in his negotiations with the hon. member for Bryanston, make the suggestion to him, and I shall then deal with the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I respect the ruling you have just given. However, I just want ta say that it is a great pity that as far as health services are concerned, not only in South Africa but also in the self-governing States and national States in South Africa, one of the finest arrangements that has been made and which is now being tabled, should be disparaged in such an obscure way. It is also a pity that a political issue is being made out of a matter which should remain outside politics and that we cannot concentrate on the interests of those people whose interests are at stake. I am referring here specifically to the nurses and the nursing profession, and not only the nurses in South Africa are involved. The nurses in the self-governing and national States are also involved. I am really sorry that a very fruitful debate which could have been held between the governing party and hon. members of the official Opposition on this matter had to fall flat in this way and it does not redound to the credit of the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Bryanston that they discredited their party in this way when they felt they were fighting for the interests of these people. However, when they ought to have been fighting for the interests of these people, they took the ill-considered step of getting up and walking out. I do not even want to voice an opinion on the unsavoury remarks which were made.

Because certain principles are involved here I feel we ought to draw a distinction. As far as this legislation is concerned we must not emphasize one of the components which is part of a composite whole, in other words the various sovereign countries and the self-governing States, and try to make the position of one of these States all-important. This is a distortion of and a negation of the reality. I also want to say, with all due respect to the hon. member for Berea who walked out, that he did not confine himself to the essence of this Bill. He did not confine himself to the essence of the clauses either. I think it would perhaps be a good thing if I said a few words on the essence of this Bill so that we could have a fruitful debate on this matter. What is at issue here is an agreement entered into between the nursing associations of various independent and self-governing States. There are two matters at issue. In the first place the South African Nursing Council is now, figuratively speaking, taking the hand of statutory associations that exist in the other countries and that are proud of their identity. These associations are also entitled to have the same development and educational opportunities as their colleagues in South Africa who are members of the S.A. Nursing Council. This clause therefore states quite clearly that only two matters are at issue here. In the first place, this clause aims to perform a function, to enter into an agreement which determines that there will be control over the practising of this specific profession and also over the education and training of persons who want to pursue this profession. We must not forget that we are now debating the interests of the nurses who are taking each other by the hand across national borders in the association they have just established, Lonansa, an umbrella association, so that, inter alia, doors can open for them which were closed in the past. Henceforth every qualified nurse—no matter what country she is in—will be able to participate in international congresses, for example.

Because I myself have been privileged to be a member of executive committees of national councils, I just want to say that in the past it was a tremendous struggle when international conferences were held to make capable people from the medical profession and from various paramedical services available to attend such international congresses with the chairman or the president of an association. In this case it will no longer make any difference whether a nurse comes from a national State, a self-governing State or even from South Africa. Such a nurse is not prevented from making her contribution as a nurse at an international conference and having the privilege of gaining international experience and ploughing back that experience into her country or her association and to do what she can in respect of liaison for the sake of her profession. More important is the fact that this clause makes provision for membership of international bodies; they can be members of an international council. I think that when we discuss these matters in this House we must realize that party politics are not involved here, it is a matter of principle. In fact, this is what we did in the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. We discussed the platforms that exist abroad and the opportunities offered and the fact that we must seize those opportunities and must afford people from our own country and from the national States, regardless of race an opportunity to make use of those international platforms.

The second part of the agreement is aimed at ensuring that there will be development as regards the profession and that the standards will be raised so that there is no need for us to be ashamed of our nurses and so that nurses from South Africa, the national States and the self-governing States within their associations need not take second place to any of these colleagues, no matter where they come from. I feel that basically, this is what this clause is all about, and I think that is why we should cease any further discussion of the matter.

It is very important to take cognizance of the fact that through this amendment Bill the nursing profession is being brought into line with the medical and pharmaceutical professions because those professions have just indicated that certain legislation meets with their approval. What we have here is a wonderful attempt to bring all the health services into line with one another.

Since we are dealing here with a paramedical service which provides a tremendous service and without which no medical service could do its work, I repeat that it is a great pity that it has been turned into a political issue. I do not think it is in the interests of these people, and it is certainly not doing them any good. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to enter the debate at this stage to make a few remarks on certain statements made by the hon. member for Berea earlier this afternoon. I consider the allegation he made to be scandalous, and I also consider it to be “papbroekig” (spineless) if an hon. member makes a statement here and is not prepared, for the purposes of conducting a debate …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order…

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “papbroekig”.

Sir, I withdraw that word.

The hon. member is not prepared to withdraw such a statement for the sake of decency and for the purposes of conducting a debate, so that he may complete his speech, which in reality is concerned with a nursing matter, as the hon. member for Brits said. The hon. member made an allegation against me, saying that I had misled this House and that I was lying. This is a serious allegation, and I am not going to leave it at that. This House will have to express its opinion on this at some stage.

After all, the hon. member was not present when the interview took place. I attended the interview, and my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development was also there. At least four officials accompanied me. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation also attended the interview. The KwaZulu Minister in question was having talks with me. The interview took place at his request. He had addressed the request to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development who, in turn, referred it to me. His request was that he wished to discuss this clause with me. He did not agree with the provisions contained in the clause. We then reasoned the matter out. He expressed certain views, and I pointed out that these views were not correct. He alleged that the provisions had been inserted in the clause because we wanted to force KwaZulu to accept independence.

I then told him that if the Government had ever harboured such a foolish idea of forcing a State to accept independence, we would not include a provision aimed at this on the back page, as it were, of legislation dealing with nursing, but that it would in fact be contained in a separate important piece of legislation. Surely it is not the Government’s policy to force KwaZulu to accept independence.

I explained that the amendment Bill was merely aimed at establishing order in the nursing profession, something which the nursing profession itself had requested. The hon. member for Berea is intimating in a sanctimonious way here that the nurses in Natal did not want this, but they are part of the South African Nursing Association which requested this. The nurses in Natal are not part of another country or another association; they are part of the nursing association which requested me to change the legislation in this way. This is the third time I have had to change the legislation because there are all kinds of legal points which have had to be rectified at certain stages.

I now return to the facts. I was absolutely shocked when I was telephoned about a report which had appeared in a Natal newspaper according to which the KwaZulu Minister had allegedly said that I had fabricated these things. Perhaps he has a short memory; perhaps his memory is not very good. The other people who also attended the interview, will be able to confirm what was said. I now wish to state in a few sentences what he said. One thing is certain: There has been “gemene” (scurrilous) politicking here today about something which the hon. member did not even consult me about.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “gemene”.

I withdraw the word “gemene”. Today there was politicking in this House which I cannot understand, but for whose benefit? Not that of the audience sitting here. The object that it should get back to the area which the hon. member comes from, to show that he is the champion of those people, who can speak for themselves in any case. It is the first time that he has admitted in this House that he does not speak on behalf of those people. There have been other debates in which he said that he would speak on behalf of whoever he pleased. However, it is the first time that he has admitted in this House—I have forced him to admit this time after time—that he does not speak on behalf of the Zulu people. If someone has to speak to them, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development could so, or I could speak to my counterpart there. The reason why I am sorry that he had to drag this matter into this debate, is because I have to confirm my integrity before someone like the hon. member for Berea. I wonder who he really thinks he is in this House?

†What I am now going to say, I want to say very clearly. In the discussions we had during the meeting, reference was made to the statements made by the hon. member for Berea during last year’s debate when he stated that he had had a discussion with the Minister of Health of KwaZulu on the particular morning prior to the debate. I asked the Minister why it was necessary to have to discuss a Bill that was before Parliament the previous year with a member of the Opposition on the morning before the debate and not discuss it with me if there were any problems with the Bill. I did not say that he could not discuss it with that hon. member, but I asked why he did not discuss it with me, because after all I was the Minister who was piloting the Bill through Parliament. It does not matter why I asked him, but I did ask him that particular question. I stated that I had informed Mr. Swart that he was not the spokesman for or the representative of KwaZulu and that anything the KwaZulu Government or he wished to raise could be discussed with me personally. The Minister for KwaZulu first replied that he did not remember the interview with Mr. Swart or even where it took place. Then he remembered that he had met Mr. Swart in the lobby, that Mr. Swart had invited him to his office and that they had only been chatting for a few moments when Mr. Swart remarked that he had to speak in a debate on the Bill. He then tendered his apology, excusing himself on the grounds that he had to deliver an address and then left the office. The Minister of KwaZulu then remarked that he had never discussed the matter with Mr. Swart, except in so far as Mr. Swart had remarked that the Bill was going to be debated. Then the Minister for KwaZulu further remarked that Mr. Swart’s statements during his speech on the Bill were only Opposition politics, which he as Minister for KwaZulu ignored, and that the media and the Opposition only made trouble. Those were the very words he used in the presence of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, the Deputy Minister and a number of other officials. That is exactly what happened.

*I did not see this as being all that dreadful, except that I had told the hon. member in this House that he did not speak on behalf of the Zulus. I said it that afternoon in the debate. I merely mentioned that that Minister had said that the Opposition did not speak on their behalf. However, that hon. member has attacked me about something he knows nothing about. [Interjections.] I regard it as outrageous. In fact, I regard it as an impugnment of my integrity. I have had many calls from newspapers asking me to make a statement on this matter, but I refused to make any statement on it. It is not for me to get involved in an argument with the hon. the Minister of Health of KwaZulu in this House because of the hon. member for Berea. If there has been a misunderstanding on his part, I can understand it, but I have enough people with integrity as witnesses in this House, as well as senior officials outside this House, the head of my own department for example, as well as the head of the Department of Co-operation and Development. Why should I fabricate a story for the purposes of petty politicking? I would therefore ask the hon. the leader on that side to speak to the hon. member for Berea. He must either believe what I have said here, or he must believe the hon. member for Berea. It is for him to decide whom he wishes to believe. It is a matter for his own conscience.

Are you suggesting that the Minister of KwaZulu was lying?

You see, Sir, the hon. member for Pinelands is once again engaging in petty politicking here. I want to use other words as well, but I am afraid that you would ask me to withdraw them.

Just answer the question.

That hon. member and the hon. member for Berea are always trying to unleash a conflict between us and the Black leaders. They do not want sound co-operation between us and the Black States.

They cannot both be right.

I said there could have been a misunderstanding on the part of the hon. member. None of the newspapers that telephoned me, not even the local English-language newspaper, the Cape Times, has written a word about it. I read it in the newspaper, and the hon. member for Berea also read it in the newspaper. My experience has been that if one reads something in a newspaper, one should look twice, believe you me, to establish whether it is true. One cannot numbly believe it. I do not know whether the Minister ever said it. The hon. member for Berea says that he did so. I wish to repeat that I have given a precise account of our interview. If I wanted to make trouble today, I could have added other things which the Minister said, but I shall tell the hon. member when we meet face to face. Then we can talk about this matter.

There is something else which I have learned. If that hon. Minister did in fact say those things, I shall in future—and no one must blame me for this—not only in the case of that Minister, but in respect of anyone with whom I have talks, in respect of any deputation, whether from the Republic or from a Black State, have the conversation put on tape, so that we can have a full account of it. One learns something new every day. One does not realize that such matters can be brought up here. This is being done for the sake of petty politicking. It is being done to make the hon. member for Berea a hero in KwaZulu, while he cannot even be a hero in this House because he is not man enough to withdraw something which he said with the object of challenging me. When he said that, he knew that he would have to withdraw from the Chamber. He knew that he would have to withdraw, since he wanted to be in the news and cause banner headlines stating that the chairman had to throw him out while he was speaking. I merely wished to rectify this matter.

There is nothing further I wish to reply to at this stage. I shall return to this matter at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to the statements made by the hon. the Minister by saying that, if the hon. the Minister alleges that his integrity has been impugned, my integrity has also been impugned. I want to say at once that, just like the hon. member for Berea, I was also involved in a long series of discussions with, inter alia, Dr. Madide, Dr. Mdladlose and other members of the KwaZulu Government. I know these gentlemen well and the hon. member for Berea and I discussed this Bill with them.

The statement made by the hon. the Minister in this House that I am complaining about, appears in column 4898 of Hansard of 20 April of this year. I quote—

This is the statement I am complaining about, and this is the statement Dr. Madide denied. The hon. member for Berea and I have never suggested that we want to speak on behalf of the Government of KwaZulu here. We believe those people are capable of speaking for themselves. The accusation one frequently hears that those people are being told what to say by the PFP, may be flattering to the PFP, but it is untrue and it actually insults the intelligence of those people, because it insinuates that they cannot think for themselves. If Dr. Madide therefore objected in that interview to the statement that the PFP tells them what to say and what to think, that denial is quite justified.

However, that is not what is at issue here. I have already said that I know Dr. Madide and Dr. Mdladlose very well. I want to make it quite clear that our relationship with them is not only one of the greatest goodwill, but also one of frankness, sincerity and mutual trust.

It is therefore clear that in view of this relationship I am compelled to weigh up this statement by the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare against the denial by Dr. Madide that he said these things, and to try to reconcile them with my integrity.

What clause are you discussing now?

I am putting my case as against that of the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, allow me to make it quite clear that I have been placed in a situation in which in every future discussion I have with Dr. Madide he can say: “Nie Olivier, you refused to accept my denial.” My integrity is therefore at stake, as is my relationship with Dr. Madide. In addition, I am being placed in the situation where every possible future discussion I have with Dr. Madide will cause me to be in the position of having to accept that Dr. Madide says things behind my back which he is not prepared to say to my face. In this sense his integrity is also at stake.

Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I have no option in the light of what I know but to say that I believe that the hon. the Minister misled this House and told a lie. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that allegation.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but in view of the circumstances I really cannot withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must definitely withdraw that allegation.

Mr. Chairman, I am extremely sorry, but I have just explained the circumstances and that I therefore cannot withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon. member refuses to obey my ruling he must withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

[Whereupon the hon. member Prof. N. J. J. Olivier withdrew.]

Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of becoming involved in the argument between the PFP and the hon. the Minister.

That is the PFP’s only way to hit the headlines!

It does seem to me though that I am everlastingly being drawn into speeches in circumstances in which I have to precede my address by saying I am not becoming involved in an argument. The last time I had to make a similar statement it concerned the dispute between the NP and the CP. [Interjections.]

Be it as it may, I do propose to come back to the clause now under discussion. We cannot support this Bill, primarily because we do not accept that it is a reasonable concept that we “deem a part of South Africa to be not a part of South Africa,” and in the process deprive a large percentage of the population, the nursing population in KwaZulu and in the other non-independent homelands, of rights which they presently possess. One must obviously concede that there are great difficulties in reaching arrangements and agreements between the South African Minister of Health and Welfare and a proliferation of other Ministers of Health. One must concede that there will doubtless be difficulties in this regard. I hold, however, that these difficulties can and should be overcome. There are many other problems that develop, and they are overcome even though there are a number of Cabinet Ministers involved.

The hon. member for Berea, before he was ordered out of the House, said he knew the situation in Natal and that he did not speak for the KwaZulu Government. I should like to suggest that in so far as the position in Natal is concerned, I probably know it even better than the hon. member for Berea, having been the MEC in charge of hospitals in Natal for quite a number of years. I also believe that I am speaking for the people who are running the hospitals in Natal today; in other words, the Natal Executive Committee. I therefore believe I can speak with some authority.

During the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North made some snide comments intimating that the hon. member for South Coast was talking with “lang tande” and that I was the shrewdy who was inciting him to oppose this Bill. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North did not use those exact words, of course. I have the original speech before me. We are, however, opposed to this Bill for a number of reasons.

None of them very good.

The hon. member says that none of our reasons are very good. In my opinion, however, they are all very good reasons. One of the three principle reasons is, as I mentioned earlier, that we cannot deem part of South Africa not to be part of South Africa for this purpose. It will furthermore substantially reduce the mobility of nurses, especially in the Natal-KwaZulu area and, even if the nurses can subsequently be members of the South African Nursing Association, the KwaZulu Nursing Association and also of the proposed umbrella association, this is going to involve them in considerable extra expense, and we feel that this is quite unreasonable.

During the past few years there have been statements throughout the country to the effect that the nursing shortage is chronic and critical. The one province in which the problem is not as acute as in the other provinces, is in fact Natal, and that is largely due to the fact that we have had a more flexible attitude towards the use of nurses for a considerable time. In Natal the basic policy for medical and psychological reasons is that, where it is practical, nurses of each race group will nurse their own people. I was the MEC for hospitals in Natal when we accepted this as official policy in the province. In the event of the need arising, however, we maintained that the interest of the patient should be of overriding importance and, if circumstances necessitated it, any nurse could work anywhere in any hospital, irrespective of whether it was a hospital for White, Black or Brown patients. The policy was, however, that for purely medical and psychological reasons, where practical, that nurses of each race group should attend to their own community. As a result of this, the Black, Indian and Coloured nurses have primarily been nursing their own people but there has been a certain interchangeability and this applies to private hospitals as well as to provincial hospitals. This has worked very effectively without any problems at all.

Many of these nurses live in KwaZulu and work in what we might term White Natal. In this regard we also have had no problems. Our system works efficiently and well. I believe, however, that in the event of this Bill being passed, the effect will be that those nurses who are presently working in KwaZulu will be tied to those hospitals. Interchangeability will not be possible and these nurses will almost be in a position where they have no job option or where they are unable to be employed in another area other than that of KwaZulu. They have had this right of mobility for many years and I do not believe that it is in the interests of the nursing profession, particularly in regard to the running of hospitals, to restrict those nurses to that extent.

Similarly, there are in the KwaZulu hospitals certain White personnel who are members of the South African Nursing Association, and it may well be that they too will encounter difficulties as far as their mobility is concerned. If not, it will mean that the same laws do not apply to both communities, and that is something, I believe, that is contrary to Government policy. I know, as I mentioned earlier, that it is intended that an umbrella organization come into being but all these organizations cost money to operate. The nursing profession is the organization and the nurses are the individuals who will have to pay for this. It is quite unnecessary because the system has worked adequately for a long time and I really cannot see any great advantage of depriving these nurses of the rights which they presently have. In conclusion, I believe it is quite wrong to deem a part of South Africa not to be part of South Africa, especially for such a purpose as this.

Mr. Chairman, members of the PFP are making matters extremely difficult for us this afternoon, because they make certain statements and create certain situations which result in their having to leave the House and as a result we are not given a chance to debate matters with them.

In the first place I want to refer to a matter raised by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. He adopted a standpoint in support of the view of previous speakers of the PFP by telling us that the PFP’s relationship with the KwaZulu Government and in particular the Minister of Health and Welfare, is one of the greatest goodwill and sincerity. The hon. member also said he was able to have an open and frank discussion with them. The hon. member raised the matter to re-emphasize that what the hon. the Minister said here this afternoon was not the truth. One cannot discuss matters with the PFP in this way. In previous debates they tried to make political capital out of this legislation, but because they saw that they were unable to succeed this afternoon they politicised matters in a way which is beyond comprehension.

In contrast, one can debate matters with the hon. member for Umbilo. He gave a few reasons why the NRP could not support this legislation. He said, inter alia, that they were of the opinion that a nurse should be able to work in any hospital. I want to put it to the hon. member that this Bill does not prevent anyone from working anywhere or from applying for work anywhere.

A second point the hon. member raised is that it is the view of the NRP that nurses must serve their own group, and this, too, is something with which we cannot find fault. As a matter of fact, it is our policy. This Bill does not affect this principle at all.

The third point raised by the hon. member is that they cannot accept that a certain part of the Republic is deemed not to be a part of the Republic. But it is certainly not the intention of this legislation for part of the Republic not to be a part of the Republic. The important point here is to gain clarity. The less the official Opposition interferes with other population groups with regard to the implementation of this Bill, the sooner we shall find a solution and the sooner we shall have co-operation. The situation is very simple, namely that we have three different Acts which regulate matters in the province and are at issue in the implementation of this legislation. The simple principle which was accepted at the Second Reading and which is at issue in the clause under discussion is merely that for the purposes of this Bill there must be a clear definition of where the different nursing associations may operate. If there is no clear description, the situation may arise, and, in fact, the situation is created, where certain nurses have certain privileges in terms of the constitution of a nursing association. The White nursing association has already changed its constitution and in terms of certain clauses in that constitution, certain nurses enjoy protection and have certain privileges. However, other nurses do not. Whereas the nurses of KwaZulu have now intimated that they want to organize themselves and establish their own association, which will give them bargaining power, the situation is that if we do not have a clear definition, there will be confusion which will lead to an untenable situation. The sole aim of this Bill is the proper implementation of the Act, and with a view to this it is stated in this Bill that a certain section of the Republic is deemed to be outside the Republic. That is all that is at issue, and to try to make political capital out of this at this stage is absolutely outrageous. The way in which attempts were made to do so this afternoon has been beyond the comprehension of any normal person.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Middelburg is a master of understatement if he wishes to suggest that this clause only concerns a minor nursing matter. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that I have to call upon you, but I believe any hon. member in this House will appreciate that this clause contains in essence a very important constitutional and political principle which affects the whole of South Africa. At this stage I do not wish to become embroiled in the dispute between my colleagues and the hon. the Minister, although I basically support the view of my colleagues, but I do want to make one plea to the hon. the Minister in this regard. I think he and his colleagues must appreciate the fact that the attitude of the KwaZulu Government is that they do not want independence and they will not take independence. That means that the KwaZulu Government will have to continue to negotiate and deal with Ministers of the South African Government constantly. I therefore believe that it is very important that there should be a good relationship. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare and the Minister of Health of KwaZulu must find out what exactly went on and they must try to sort it out, because quite clearly there are contradicting statements and contrary views and I do not believe that that is in the interests of either party. We in the PFP do not mind telling the Government straight from the shoulder what we think of them, but we do believe in consultation and we are not a confrontationist party. I believe that if we want peace in Natal there must be the maximum amount of communication, although there may well be disagreement, but there must at least be communication and good relationships between the Ministers of the two Governments.

We are now involved in the whole question of KwaZulu and South Africa because that is what this Bill is all about. When one looks at the map of Natal and KwaZulu, not the one that is proposed with the consolidated sections coloured in in one colour, but at what is now land occupied by Blacks under trust, freehold, “Black spots” or whatever it may be, that map is like somebody with a bad case of measles. Not only that; there are changes all the time. For example, there is the Driefontein group of farms.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.