Order! With reference to complaints of breach of privilege referred to me by the hon members for Turffontein and Benoni in respect of the hon member for Langlaagte, I wish to notify hon members that the charges have been investigated by me, that I held a discussion with the parties in my office and that the necessary and customary steps in the circumstances have been taken in both instances. Accordingly both matters have been settled and resolved to the satisfaction of the parties.

I direct that in column 5205 of Hansard of 25 April 1984, the words in the point of order raised by the hon member for Innesdal, which read:

be expunged from the Hansard report.

My attention has been drawn afresh to something which has for some time not merely been troubling me, but has been a source of grave concern. This is a subject I have already raised in this House on a number of occasions and which has been emphasized not only by me, but by various other hon members of this House, inter alia the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman, the hon the Prime Minister and the Chief Whips of the various parties. I refer to the derogatory and ill-considered remarks hon members address to one another, which undermine not merely the image of an hon member in this House, but also the image of this House as the highest legislative body in the country. I wish to state clearly that appeals to refrain from this practice have thus far not had the necessary and desired effect, and I wish to confirm that the mere withdrawal of these statements does not have the desired effect either. I am referring to their mere withdrawal.

As regards threatening attitudes and threats both within and outside this House, I regard them in a very serious light. Hon members ought to realize that it is one of the golden rules of this House that a debate conducted in this House ought not to be pursued outside this House within the parliamentary precincts. This cannot have a good effect on the sound and honourable relations that ought to exist among hon members. Pursuing a debate outside the House in this way results, in the majority of cases, in illfeeling among hon members, whereas it would be far better for hon members, when outside this House, to bear in mind the wisdom of the well-known words from Proverbs—“A soft answer turneth away wrath”.

My attention has been drawn to an incident in this House which occurred on 5 June 1936, when the hon member for Lichtenburg, at that time Mr A J Swanepoel, went to sit next to the hon member for Prieska, at that time Mr C H Geldenhuys, and threatened him in improper language which I need not repeat here. A point of order was raised by the hon member for Prieska, and the hon member for Lichtenburg was directed by Mr Speaker Jansen to withdraw the remark and to apologize. The hon member for Lichtenburg did not wish to do so and had to withdraw from the Chamber. Dr Malan, the member for Calvinia at the time, deplored the incident and said (col 5342):

Dr D F Malan went on to point out that the member for Lichtenburg had withdrawn from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting, but that he would return to the House the following day, whereas the harm done to the image of the person in question and the House had by no means been erased, and he referred to the severe penalties applicable. Mr Speaker Jansen’s reaction was as follows, and I quote his words (col 5343):

In the light of the above, having dealt firstly with derogatory and offensive remarks made to hon members and, secondly, threatening attitudes and threats, I deem it my duty to point out to hon members at this juncture that in future I shall not hesitate to name an hon member where it is justified to do so. In this regard I draw the attention of hon members to Standing Orders 113 to 115.

Accordingly I appeal to hon members once again to behave towards one another in this House as is expected of them as representatives of their various constituencies and, by the same token, as representatives of our country as a whole. A few days ago, I saw on the closed circuit television in my office how the hon member for Klip River was able to complete only the introduction of his speech before—through no fault of his—a point of order was raised against another hon member, and after that, one point of order after another was raised. When the Chairman gave the final ruling, the time for the speech by the hon member for Klip River had expired. In this instance, see Hansard, 25 April 1984, col 5158 to 5165. Our time in this House is too precious to be wasted in this way. I use the word “waste”, not because an hon member raises a point of order, but because I take into account that in this instance the points of order were all concerned with derogatory remarks that had been made by hon members. Let us give our attention to the purpose for which we are gathered here, namely the welfare of, and the sound and proper furtherance of the interests of, our country and its people.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to repeat my standpoint concerning the power of the Administrator-General of South West Africa to release detainees in that territory. This also serves to reconfirm my standpoint. I do so because according to the law advisers of my department, this is the only—and I emphasize “only”—tenable standpoint in terms of the existing legal position. It is that the words in which I replied to the question in this House yesterday, viz that the release of detainees in South West Africa is a matter falling under the jurisdiction of the Administrator-General, reflect the correct legal position: not merely in my opinion, but also according to the law advisers of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I hope that this disposes of the matter and that this is the last that I shall hear of efforts to mislead this House.

†I was asked yesterday—I think it was by the hon member for Sea Point—to inform the House in connection with the progress made regarding the restoration or the possible restoration of properties belonging to South Africans at the time of the independence of Mozambique. The situation is that the Mozambique Government in principle agreed to consider sympathetically bona fide cases of South Africans who owned properties in Mozambique at the time of Mozambique’s independence. The Department of Foreign Affairs is now compiling a detailed register which is to be used during envisaged negotiations with Mozambique. In the meantime Mozambique is also doing research on this issue. As soon as circumstances permit, the two sides will enter into detailed discussions. In the meantime, South Africans who owned property at the time of the independence of Mozambique are welcome and may proceed to furnish the Department of Foreign Affairs with full particulars regarding their property. As a matter of fact, we shall be grateful if South Africans who did own properties there will furnish the department with the following particulars: The full name and present address of the owner; particulars of the deed of sale; purchase price; the person or persons from whom the property was purchased; particulars of deed of transfer or title deed; the exact location of the property; a description of the property, namely its size, the number of rooms and so forth; the approximate value of the property when abandoned, if known; and any other information that may be considered relevant.

Members of the public are welcome to send these particulars to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Private Bag X152, Pretoria, 0001

*I might just add, without wishing to sound critical, that we hope we do not encounter cases such as we have had in the past, of people whose grandparents had possessed a piece of land somewhere near Maputo 100 years ago. These people now request whether they can return to that land. We appeal to South Africans not to approach the department with such cases.

In my opinion, it would be inappropriate to conclude this debate with the main emphasis falling only on the Government’s initiatives to improve and rationalize relations with neighbouring states such as Mozambique and others. I must point out that over the past year there have been important developments in the field of multilateral co-operation among South Africa, Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei. Since the successful 1982 summit conference of Heads of State and Government leaders of South Africa, Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei, solid progress has been made in the establishment of the system of multilateral co-operation in Southern Africa. This is an important development, not only because it has occurred so unostentatiously, but also because it is so promising. The representatives of these five countries are conducting joint discussions on matters of importance to all the countries, making recommendations and taking important decisions which are being implemented in practice in the best interests of all.

One of the highlights of this multilateral co-operation was the signing of the Charter of the Development Bank of Southern Africa on 30 June 1983 and the commencement of the bank’s operations on 1 February 1984. To date the department has taken over approximately 80 projects to the value of R300 million from the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Development Board of Ministers, the multilateral economic and finance committee, its eight multilateral technical committees with their subcommittees and working groups, and the inter-state working group, arranged a total of 63 meetings in 1983, whereas 54 meetings had already taken place this year up to 30 April. These meetings were underpinned by the ministerial meetings for Agriculture, Mineral and Energy Affairs and Foreign Affairs. At present the Department of Foreign Affairs is providing a secretariat for the system of co-operation among the five states, the so-called interim secretariat. The five states have already agreed that this body will be converted on 1 April 1985 into a permanent multilateral secretariat on which representatives of the five states will serve jointly.

Although the heavy programme imposes a tremendous burden on all concerned, the five states have a real need to consult in depth with their neighbouring states on a large number of matters. Since the 1982 summit conference, the multilateral system has developed into a structure of 42 bodies. This expansion is directly related to the areas of co-operation that are of real importance for the participating states.

Parallel with the multilateral dispensation, the regional liaison committees for the various development regions have got into their stride. By way of these regional liaison committees, inputs from the various regional development advisory committees are dealt with by representatives of the states in question in the regions. Last year nine regional liaison committee meetings took place, and this year four have already taken place.

Seen as a whole, the multilateral involvement of the Republic of South Africa offers great advantages, not only due to the new dimension it gives its relations with the TBVC countries, but also because it is providing a special mechanism whereby all relevant State departments are being placed in a position to improve planning, preparation and co-ordination efforts.

By means of the multilateral dispensation the special role played by the private sector in the development of Southern Africa is recognized and emphasized. The autonomy of each of the participating states is confirmed, and each state remains responsible for its own development programmes. By means of multilateral co-operation the participating states envisage a harmonization of activities in specific spheres of development, not necessarily in order to apply uniform strategies of development to all regions, but rather to tackle matters of common interest jointly, in the interests of each participating state. This liaison is being supported by bilateral contact. The underlying principle is the recognition that economic development takes place across political borders and that in Southern Africa, co-operation takes place on a voluntary and equal basis without detracting from the fiscal and monetary autonomy of participating states.

Therefore an extensive dialogue has taken place among the five states in question over the past 18 months, a dialogue which has touched on virtually every aspect of importance for each of the Governments. This positive development has, quietly and without fuss, forged realistic links among these states, and whereas the initiatives of the Republic of South Africa in regard to Mozambique and Angola are exceptionally important, I must point out that the five states have worked hard on a far more drastic development.

The Development Aid Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs has been reorganized in order to give attention to multilateral planning efforts with a view to handling certain specific projects and giving attention to a sphere of considerable importance for Southern Africa, viz aid to the TBVC countries with regard to state administration.

In this regard I should like to convey my special thanks for the outstanding co-operation that the Department of Foreign Affairs is receiving from all other State departments of the Republic of South Africa. In particular I wish to thank my colleague the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning for the gigantic contribution he has made as chairman of the Development Council of Ministers, in spite of the heavy programme of work he has to contend with in so many other spheres.

At this stage I should like to reply to further questions put to me yesterday by hon members.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North asked me about recent discussions with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lesotho. We have held discussions with Ministers of Lesotho three to four times this year. During the last meeting last week, Foreign Minister Sekhonyane was accompanied by his colleagues, the Minister of Water Affairs and Mining and the Minister of Information. On that occasion we conducted a frank discussion in the most important difficulties in our relations with Lesotho. I believe that we made progress. There will be follow-up meetings at official level and I hope I shall be in a position to issue a further statement in due course. My colleague the Minister of Law and Order has issued statements about the bomb explosions that have taken place at Bloemfontein from time to time. I do not wish to elaborate on those statements at this point, except to say that Lesotho is fully aware of the Republic’s profound concern about the so-called “refugees” who abuse their refugee status to plan and carry out acts of violence against the Republic. Only last year Lesotho took certain steps in an effort to deal with this matter, and the responsible bodies are keeping a close watch on the situation. The hon member also asked a question about the attitude of Prime Minister Jonathan to the Republic’s peace initiatives. The statement issued by Prime Minister Jonathan after the signing of the Accord of Nkomati created the impression that he was not an enthusiastic supporter of these peace initiatives. That is a pity, but since discussions between South Africa and Lesotho are the order of the day, and are still taking place at this juncture, I must refrain from any further comment, because such comment would be negative, and could therefore have a negative effect on the discussions.

The remarks of the hon member for Brits concerning the activities of the South African Foundation were most appropriate. This organization is doing outstanding work for the Republic and fills a gap which the Department of Foreign Affairs is, by its nature, unable to fill. Hon members are perhaps aware that earlier this year the SA Foundation invited a group of American congressmen to South Africa and arranged a programme for them which enabled them to acquaint themselves with circumstances here. This was a praiseworthy initiative on the part of this organization, and I want to take this opportunity to make an earnest appeal to the private sector to become more involved in combating the international campaign against the Republic. My department’s resources are limited, and apart from that, the fact is that the private sector is able to reach people and bodies that Government agencies are not able to reach. The private sector has access to individuals and interest groups that are difficult for my officials to reach. There are important and influential people abroad who many not accept invitations from the Government. However, they would be in favour of an invitation by a company or association, eg the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut or Assocom. I wish to appeal to the private sector to give serious thought to what they can do to promote the image of the Republic in the eyes of foreigners. Leading figures in the business world are often in contact with their opposite numbers overseas. In that way they can effectively indicate what the campaign for disinvestment in the Republic would result in, and they can indicate what the consequences of the sanctions campaign would be if it were to be successfully implemented. They can indicate the detrimental effect this would have on the welfare of lesser privileged people in this country, viz that very group of people that the campaign is supposed to help. They should also be able to indicate what the effect of the disinvestment campaign and sanctions would be with regard to economic co-operation with our neighbouring states. It is bitterly ironical, if not totally inexplicable, that there are still members of the American Senate and of the House of Representatives who are pursuing their vendetta against South Africa, an vicious vendetta with the aim of penalizing the Republic, as it were, by trying to stop investment in the country, prohibit the sale of Krugerrands, and in many other ways restrict the conduct of affairs between America and the Republic, whilst knowing full well that in terms of the Accord of Nkomati, a Black state and the Republic have agreed to co-operate, inter alia, in the economic sphere. It is almost inexplicable that America, on the one hand, speaks with quite high praise of the Nkomati Accord and, on the other, is not able to deal with members of Congress who are pursuing their efforts against South Africa. Our private sector is eminently well-equipped to inform their opposite numbers in the USA about these circumstances and to influence them to exert pressure on American congressmen to cease this vendetta, this campaign of revenge on South Africa. My department is in a position to provide information on this matter to interested bodies or individuals. It is not propaganda, but is factual material which indicates what the consequences of the anti-South African measures would be locally, not only for Whites, but for everyone, and, of course, for our neighbouring states as well. It would indicate who would really suffer ill-effects. I invite the private sector to make contact with the department and to consult it about what they could do, individually or jointly, to promote our interests locally and abroad.

The hon member for Walvis Bay expressed concern about the activities of foreign fishing boats in the territorial waters of South West Africa, particularly those of certain Eastern bloc countries. We share the hon member’s concern, because this is a serious problem that we have been battling with for a long time. The international body controlling fishing in the territorial waters of South West Africa is the International Committee for South-East Atlantic Fisheries. We have been trying for years to extend and make more effective the control measures introduced by this organization, and it seems as if we have achieved a measure of success. According to surveys carried out by the authorities, the number of infringements has declined, particularly recently. The Government of the countries in question have promised their full co-operation, and it seems as if the control they are exercising over the actions of their boats in the territorial waters of South West Africa has become more effective. I want to assure the hon member that this matter is being given the earnest attention of all the relevant departments and agencies. As the hon member is aware, however, this is a difficult problem, due to the unresolved SWA issue. The hon member also referred to the licences of the fish factories in Walvis Bay which expire at the end of 1985. I have taken cognizance of his remarks in this regard and the Department of Foreign Affairs will shortly consult with the other bodies involved as well.

The hon member also asked whether my department could not establish a regional office in Walvis Bay. I am in favour of that, and we should like to do so as soon as possible, but then the hon member must help me to get a little more money out of the hon the Minister of Finance. I promise him that in that event I shall establish a regional office there.

†The hon member for Sea Point inquired about the position regarding the special employment action program in Transkei and if there was any possible connection with the squatter problem in the Western Cape. As the hon member will be aware, the purpose of the special employment action programme in Transkei was to provide employment for those people without jobs and who wished to work as close as possible to their homes and families. Many Transkeians have left their homes in Transkei because of drought and lack of employment opportunities to live in unhygienic and dire circumstances in the hope of obtaining employment. Were the possibilities for employment available in Transkei, these people would have the opportunity to live and to work near home and family. The launching of such employment programs will mean that people will no longer feel it necessary to leave their homes simply because there is no viable alternative. Negotiations for the expansion of the special employment action programme are continuing at present. I cannot say that they will be successful, but I cannot imagine that hon members could be opposed to any efforts which would help to alleviate the plight of these people.

The hon member for Sea Point also expressed surprise that Parliament was not informed for two years of the conclusion in February 1982 of the security agreement with Swaziland although he conceded that there might have been tactical reasons. There were tactical reasons. While we were putting together the moves which led to the recent events, it would not have been helpful to have made public prematurely the existence of the agreement with Swaziland. This was our view as well as Swaziland’s view. They asked us not to make it public at the time.

The hon member also asked for an assurance that the question of Kangwane and Ingwavuma played no role in what he called “this deal”. I would like to recall the circumstances which led to the signing of the security agreement between South Africa and Swaziland and I am sure the hon member will be perfectly happy with that.

The hon member will remember that in January 1981 the Defence Force carried out a raid on ANC bases in Maputo and Matola. King Sobhuza was always an advocate of dialogue and negotiations and became concerned that peace in Southern Africa could be gravely threatened unless something was done. In April 1981 he hosted a meeting in Swaziland of leaders of Black Southern African states to discuss this situation. Of course I cannot speak for the late king, but I knew him well and he came to the conclusion that it was essential for the peace and progress of Swaziland and the whole region that the question of terrorism and subversion had to be addressed firmly. His admirable example has now been followed by others, and King Sobhuza deserves our gratitude and recognition as a great statesman of Africa.

As regards the position of Swazi people in South Africa, I made it quite clear in the past in this House. On 6 May 1982 I repeated what the hon the Prime Minister had said earlier, namely that any process of self-determination would take place with the freely expressed will of the people without intimidation and interference. I said that in the event of clarity being obtained, legislation would have to be brought to Parliament, and this is still our standpoint.

The hon member for Sea Point also asked that I make a definitive statement on the hon the Prime Minister’s envisaged overseas visit. It is not diplomatically proper that visits of this nature are made known unilaterally, but rather that any public announcement should be made by agreement between the Governments concerned. The programme has not yet been finalized, and a full itinerary can therefore not be made public at this stage, even if I wanted to. It would not be completely correct to say that it is only through media reports that the hon member will hear about this visit. In the case of the visits to West Germany and Switzerland, the two Governments were forced to make an announcement due to the fact that the visit had become known to the media. However, in the case of the visit to the United Kingdom, the form and timing of the announcement was agreed upon between the two Governments.

The main purpose of the hon the Prime Minister’s visit at this stage is to discuss matters of common concern and to convey first hand to these Governments developments in Southern Africa, current moves in respect of South West Africa and Angola and the situation regarding South Africa’s relations with its neighbours, as well as various other matters. Visits to other African countries are not excluded in the future, but I do not wish to go into details on such prospects today, although I am fully aware of and appreciate hon members’ keen interest in these matters.

The hon member for Sea Point also asked what South Africa’s response would be if the people of South West Africa, including the MPC and Swapo, should decide that they want the implementation of Resolution 534 without the prior departure of the Cubans. This question is at present hypothetical and would have to be considered within the context of the situation prevailing at the time. South Africa’s position is that it will implement Resolution 435 if there is a firm agreement on the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola. That remains our position and it is understood and supported by the United States of America. It would be a great mistake to imagine that South Africa’s concern over the presence of Cuban forces in Angola is rhetorical. Our position in this regard derives not only from the negative influence which Cuban forces might have on the outcome of elections in South West Africa, but also from our conviction that the consolidation of Soviet power in Angola poses the greatest possible threat to the security of our region and ultimately to the security of the Republic itself. Although we are confident that we can reach a modus vivendi with our independent nieghbours whatever their political systems may be, as we have proved the case of Mozambique, we do not think that we would be able to do so with Soviet-dominated régimes. It would therefore be a great mistake to create the impression that South Africa no longer insists on Cuban withdrawal from Angola as one of the essential keys to the solution of the problems of our region. This would be particularly unwise at a time when pressures are growing within Angola itself for the departure of the Cubans, as was suggested, albeit faintly, by the Havana communique of 19 March 1984. The fact is that there are very strong reasons why the MPLA Government should itself want to get rid of the Cubans. Firstly, with the disengagement of South African forces from Southern Angola, the main pretext for their presence will have disappeared. Secondly, the Cuban forces have not been very effective. In fact, they have failed to carry out the task for which they were really brought to Angola, namely to stop the advance of Unita. Thirdly, it has become apparent that they did not come to Angola as internationalists comrades and brothers. They are being relatively well paid in hard currency from oil earnings which the MPLA desperately needs for the development of its shattered economy. Fourthly, the question must arise whether the presence of so large an alien force, acting at the behest of an expansionist super-power, does not pose a threat to the MPLA Government itself.

Certain speakers in this debate, including the hon member for Umhlanga, have once again repeated the argument that the key to an improvement in South Africa’s international relations depends on changes in the Republic’s domestic politics. They believe that South Africa’s problems will disappear if only apartheid can be dismantled, but what do we mean by this? It seems to me that there are as many concepts of apartheid as there are parties in this House and even more. Do we imagine that our enemies will be satisfied with anything less than “one man, one vote”? Did they learn nothing from the lesson of Rhodesia where even a majority-rule government with a Black Prime Minister was unacceptable to international opinion? The improvement which has taken place in South Africa’s international and regional position is not due primarily to the changes which we have made in our society, although these may have played a role, even a very important one. Those changes have been made and will continue to be made not because of the demands of our critics, but because of the requirements of our own developing political situation. We support reform, not because we wish to appease our critics, but because we wish to solve our problems. The fact that our international position has improved is due in large measure to the growing perception of our economic, industrial, commercial and military power. It is due to the incontrovertible fact that South Africa is, and will continue to be, the regional power in Southern Africa. It arises from the awareness that, whether the world likes us or dislikes us, it will have to deal with us if it wishes to achieve anything in a large and strategic part of Africa. No problems in Southern Africa can be resolved unless the legitimate interests of this regional power, South Africa, are taken into account. If other countries wish to deal with us, they will have to take into account our reasonable concerns and interests and they will have to treat us with the elementary respect which they would accord any other country. We ask no more and no less. Let me make that very clear. If they should decide to follow this course which I have indicated—this is increasingly the case with a growing number of countries—South Africa will work with them for the promotion of our mutual interest. However, if they should prefer to strike moral poses in their relations with South Africa in the vain hope of pandering to Third World and African opinion of a radical nature, they will simply become irrelevant to the course of future developments in this part of the world. Certain of our friends overseas and certain hon members tell us that if only we would move in the direction of majority rule within a unitary society South Africa would once again be welcomed in the community of Western nations. This is simply not true Such a course is a fallacy since the process of trying to bring about majority rule within a unitary society would utterly destroy South Africa. There would be nothing left for the West to welcome into its ranks. Let me make this very clear. The fact of the matter is that although we are prepared to accept the challenges, sacrifices and consequences of change, we are not and shall never be prepared to renounce our right as a nation in Africa to rule ourselves and to determine our own future. South Africa is not a unitary state, and the key to the resolution of our problems lies in the recognition that all its constituent nations and people have a right to self-determination. If by dismantling apartheid hon members mean the elimination of all petty measures which infringe upon the human dignity of any person in South Africa, then we are in agreement and then I can assure them that we will continue our reform policies to this end. However, I must also assure hon members that we will not, and I believe the other peoples of South Africa will not, dismantle our right to determine our own futures, nor would I believe that the NRP expect us to do this.

I should like to thank the hon member for Umhlanga for his constructive remarks concerning the visit abroad of the hon the Prime Minister. He has made some very useful and valid suggestions on issues which could be raised with the British Government. I can assure him that they will receive close and earnest attention. I want to thank him for that.

*The hon member Prof Olivier inquired about the increase of R35 000 to which reference is made in the Explanatory Memorandum that has been tabled. This amount comprises an amount of R25 000 made available to Unisa to enable it to run the newly-established Institute for South American Studies. A director has been appointed and has already undertaken a study tour through various South American countries to establish contact with academic bodies. Academic studies to be carried out by the institute will also promote my department’s interests in the region. Although South Africa has diplomatic and consular relations with seven countries in Latin-America, there is at present virtually no exchange of academic and cultural information. The University of South Africa has a Chair in Spanish, and the Department of Foreign Affairs feels that support for the establishment of a Chair in Latin-American studies at that university could, in the long term, yield important dividends for South Africa in its relations with that large continent. The founding of the institute is welcomed by the local representatives of South American countries, and co-operation has been promised. Unisa itself is making a financial contribution and has also made academic staff available. The institute will operate in various fields, viz politics, culture, economics and strategy. The department is represented on a committee that will determine the functions and fields of study of the institute, and by way of this committee will ensure that departmental interests are also taken into account.

The balance of R10 000 represents South Africa’s contribution to the International Whaling Commission for 1984. To date these amounts have been paid annually by the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. However, this year provision has been made for this in my budget in the event of the Government deciding that my department will in future be the accountable department.

The hon member also inquired about the decision taken some years ago by the International Labour Organization in terms of which an appeal was made to member countries to grant assistance to Mozambique to make that country less dependent on South Africa. He wanted to know what the effect of that resolution had been, and my reply is, briefly, that it seems to me as if the effect was the Accord of Nkomati with South Africa, because the countries which were to help Mozambique, failed to do so.

The hon member Prof Olivier requested details of the round figure of R4,3 million budgeted in respect of international organizations under programme 2. The amount is composed as follows: Firstly, the expenditure on salary and operating expenditures of the officials at head office employed in the Multilateral Division and in the Interim Secretariat for Southern Africa, R1,45 million; secondly, membership fees in respect of the Institute for Maritime Law, R70 000; the International Whaling Commission, R21 000 and, thirdly, the operating expenditure of South Africa’s missions at the UN in New York, in Geneva, and the mission at the EEC in Brussels, R2,6 million. The hon member also asked what the increase of R1,9 million in respect of equipment under programme 2 was ascribable to. This money is being used to purchase durable equipment abroad. These are items that are used over a fairly long period, such as household furniture, official and service vehicles and office equipment. Household furniture is purchased on a limited scale for single and young married officials. Due to steadily rising costs of packing and shipping, the provision of furniture has now been extended to senior officials as well. Official and service vehicles are purchased by the department. These vehicles are used daily on an intensive basis and a programme has been introduced to replace these vehicles in the most economic manner and period. In this financial year the department will have to replace several vehicles in its efforts to promote effective utilization. Then, too, there are the expenditures directly entailed by the provision by our overseas offices of essential services that have been transferred from the Vote of the Department of Community Development to my department. Another contributory factor is that audio-visual equipment must be purchased to keep our overseas offices abreast of events in Southern Africa and to promote image-building initiatives.

†The hon member for Mooi River expressed his concern about what he called a very serious situation that exists in certain farms bordering the independent states. I can, however, assure the hon member that I am very much aware of the problems. Various individuals and farmers’ organizations have in fact been in touch with me and my department. The hon member referred to the efforts that are being made by the department concerned to provide fencing for border farms, but it is clear that fencing on its own is not enough, and in that regard I agree with him. I also agree with the hon member that we must try to avoid border incidents and endeavour to find permanent solutions. I have the greatest sympathy with the farmers who suffer losses and inconveniences as a result of these problems. The department and I have taken the initiative in proposing to the independent states the establishment of local cross-border joint committees where problems and solutions could be discussed. However, the response thus far has been limited. I have been informed that where such committees have been established—there are already three in operation in border areas with Venda—positive results have been achieved on both sides in ameliorating the very sort of problem to which the hon member referred. Nevertheless, this is perhaps only one constructive way of approaching the matter. There may be others, such as increased policing, but this again concerns other departments. It is in my opinion essential that we engage the active interest of the independent states in finding solutions, and I shall give further attention to this matter.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House should like to say to the hon the Minister that it would appear that the times he was not in the House, he was spending productively and in the best interest of South Africa in other parts of the continent.

Your efforts yesterday were not very productive, were they?

No, we did not lose; we just failed to win. [Interjections.] I cannot accede to the request of hon members opposite for an explanation. It will take me a bit of time to work out an answer to this one. [Interjections.]

The first question I should like to put to the hon the Minister is the following. He did not reply satisfactorily—if he replied at all— to the question raised in this House by the hon member for Sea Point, and which was a very important question indeed. That is in connection with the 700 000 hapless South African citizens of Kangwane and Ingwavuma, and what their future would be. We would like to know from the hon the Minister whether in the negotiations regarding the Swaziland-South Africa Accord the position of these territories and the situation regarding its citizens were raised; if so, under what circumstances did it occur, and what was the outcome of those negotiations. Until the hon the Minister gives us a satisfactory answer to this question we must gather from his non-reply that those issues were indeed raised and that they were part of those negotiations.

Furthermore, Mr Chairman, I should like to raise another very important matter in connection with the TBVC countries. The West has learnt to its cost and embarrassment that pouring financial aid into Africa can be both futile and counterproductive; futile in that such moneys are often simply squandered on grandiose projects which are usually impractical and inappropriate to the African society; or such moneys find their way into foreign bank accounts of corrupt officials and politicans. Shortly after concluding the Nkomati Accord the hon the Prime Minister said himself that South Africans did not believe in nor could they afford giving financial aid to African countries on the pattern or on the scale of the West. I understood him to indicate that what South Africa could and would provide would be co-operation with our neighbours, technological assistance, the training of manpower and the making available of know-how in the agricultural and other fields. I believe that that is the correct approach. That is what South Africa can provide, and that would indeed also be in the best interests of the countries concerned.

There is, however, one issue in connection with which I should like to question the hon the Minister. That is the question of whether he and his department—that is the Government—have formulated a comprehensive policy in connection with financial and other aid to African countries—the countries beyond our borders. If such a policy has been formulated, we should like to know whether that policy sets out the conditions in terms of which aid will be granted, and whether it sets out tests to determine the need for such aid. Does it contain a test for the justification of granting such aid? We should also like to know whether it sets out guidelines relating to the application of such aid. We should also like to know whether such a policy, if it has been formulated, also provides the mechanism, the rules and regulations in order effectively to control the granting of such aid. I ask these questions because when we look at the aid that is granted to the TBVC countries we are alarmed because we cannot help but wonder whether the Government, in granting that aid, has really taken into account all the factors I have just mentioned. I am of course not criticizing the Government for granting such financial aid to those countries. It is essential for their development. It is indeed essential for their very existence, and we are morally obligated to those countries to provide such aid. In fact, if South Africa did not provide such aid those countries would not be viable.

If one looks at what happens in those countries, if one looks at the way in which money is spent there, one wonders whether there is any effective control over expenditure.

I should like to mention only a few examples in this connection. The first example has already been mentioned before in this House. That applies to Ciskei. We all know that Ciskei is an impoverished country, that its citizens go hungry and that they are in want of education, housing, clothing and jobs. The President of that country, however, purchased and had at his disposal a modern jet aircraft which cost that country something like R2 million. By no stretch of imagination, I believe, can it be argued that that country or its politicians ever required an aircraft of that nature. The aircraft stood idly at the airport for most of the time, obviously costing many thousands of rand in the form of maintenance and other fees. I believe that aircraft has now been sold at a heavy loss. It was purchased for R2 million and was eventually sold for R900 000. It is totally unjustifiable that such a country should have spent that amount of money in that particular way. It is one of the delusions of grandeur which I think arise in certain African countries, probably as a result of their observation of what happens in certain Western countries. However, those countries cannot afford this sort of thing. I believe that when we give financial aid to these countries conditions should be applied to such aid and that some control should be exercised over the expenditure of such funds. The argument is advanced that because they are independent countries they can do as they please. Certainly, Sir, if they were spending their own taxpayers’ money then we could not, of course, interfere in any way or have any sort of control. However, the money that is spent and wasted there is to a large extent money that has come out of the pockets of South African taxpayers. Whilst that money comes out of the pockets of the South African taxpayers, those taxpayers must certainly have the right to apply some sort of control over the expenditure of that money.

Let me give another example in this regard. One of these days Ciskei is going to build an international class airport for something like R25 million. Guess where that money will come from? The airport will have a 2,5 kilometre long runway and will be able to accommodate Boeing 747 aircraft. From where are the people going to come who are going to make use of that airport? What is this all about? Can this grandiose project be justified? Is it cost effective or is it once again a waste of money?

We also had the embarrassing and sordid situation that arose in Venda when the hapless president of that country was taken on a pleasure jaunt to Mauritius by the former NP candidate for Von Brandis, Mr Jaap de Villiers. They tell me that he is a very good salesman. Perhaps if the hon the Minister would send him along to the Afrika-nervolkswag he could sell them the new dispensation. [Interjections.] Perhaps more productive use should be made of the man in that way. Joking aside, however, that little venture could in fact have cost South Africa hundreds of millions of rand indirectly. I know that there is the probability of a settlement to be announced soon but there was even the possibility of this Parliament making itself guilty of passing a sordid piece of legislation in order to save the bacon of the people from Venda.

What I am saying to the hon the Minister is that we must hold him responsible as Minister of Foreign Affairs because he is the man who is disbursing hundreds of millions of rand in foreign aid to certain African countries. Obviously that is his responsibility. The hon the Minister decides on the disbursement of that money and in the end he is responsible and will be held responsible by us for the expenditure or wastage of those funds.

Mr Chairman, I have a very good idea why the hon member for Bryanston vented all his spleen on President Sebe and the Ciskei today. I just want to tell the hon member that if I were he I would think twice about travelling through the Ciskei.

The hon member did not say a word about the fact that they came third. In Durban Point and Randburg they came third—and both were former PFP seats. [Interjections.] The hon member should rather concentrate on this problem and leave the Ciskei alone.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Are we discussing local affairs or foreign affairs? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to get back to the debate and say a few words about the stabilizing role Portugal is to an increasing extent playing in Southern Africa. A Portuguese was probably the first European and therefore the first White person to see Table Mountain when Diaz sailed past the Cape in 1487 and when Vasco de Gama landed at the Cape in 1497. It is therefore not strange to find another Gama arriving there 500 years later—this time Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs—to sign an agreement with South Africa on behalf of his country here in Cape Town.

The closeness of the historic ties that exists between Portugal and South Africa have varied from time to time, particularly after the change in government when Portugal withdrew from Mozambique and Angola. Sometimes the hon the Minister and his predecessor could only count on a single vote in the UN, and that was the vote of Portugal that stood with South Africa.

Over the years this small country, Portugal, has played a role out of all proportion to its physical size. When I was still at school and learned the history of Portugal in primary school, I thought is was a large, powerful country—they were after all the first to sail around Africa—until I visited it. To get an idea of how small Portugal really is, it should be noted that Portugal is only 88 000 square miles in extent, whereas South Africa is 443 000 square miles in extent. The gross domestic product of Portugal was 15 000 million American dollars in 1975 compared with South Africa’s gross domestic product of 31 000 million American dollars. Portugal, together with Madeira and the Azores, has only approximately 10 million inhabitants compared with South Africa’s population of approximately 25 million people.

One day in a speech in this House the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the colonial powers in Africa left only two things behind. The one was arbitrary borders and the other was an official language. This was also the case in respect of Mozambique and Angola. Portugal was therefore, able to play an important role in the coming into existence of the Nkomati Accord. In October 1983, when Pres Samora Machel visited Portugal, the Portugese President said in a public announcement that anyone who wanted to assist in stabilizing Southern Africa or solving Southern African problems, would have to take cognizance of the existence and the position of South Africa, because without doing so this would be impossible.

A month later the hon the Minister also visited Portugal. Since November 1983 the relationship between Portugal and South Africa has improved a great deal and Portugal began very actively and almost eagerly to participate in stabilizing the situation in Southern Africa. When the present Portugese Government was elected, I happened to be in Portugal. The comments in the media were extremely negative, so negative that I as a South African and our officials were very sceptical; we did not expect much. Now events have proved that the Government of Portugal is probably one of the most objective Governments in Western Europe.

While I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister on all his initiatives and on his breakthroughs and powers of persuasion, I should also like to refer to two other groups of people who worked very hard to achieve these things. In the first place, I want to refer to our officials in Lisbon, people who worked day in and day out to create a new image for South Africa, to bring about new relations between Portugal and South Africa in spite of very negative Press reports. I want to single out one man. He is not affiliated to the department of the hon the Minister, but to the Department of Industries and Commerce. I am referring to Mr Toon Murray who is doing extremely good work for South Africa in all the Portuguese-speaking countries. The second group consists of the Portuguese immigrants in South Africa and Portuguese-speaking South Africans. Every year they send millions of rands to their families in Portugal. I have seen copies of representations by Portuguese organizations in South Africa to the Government of Portugal and to the Government of Brazil, in which they made it quite clear where their loyalties lay. They put South Africa’s case in such a way that one felt proud, in contrast to some members of the official Opposition who are sometimes ashamed to put South Africa’s case. They did not do that in this debate. This time the mantle fell on their no-brothers, the CP.

In this regard I should like to point out to the hon member for Soutpansberg that yesterday he struck a discordant note in the debate and I want to take the hon member to task about that. His remark about a boy dying in Mozambique while having to guard electricity supply lines left me, as a parent who also has a son in the Defence Force, with a bitter taste in my mouth. As a person who has always had close contact with the Defence Force, it does not befit the hon member to pass such a remark in this debate. I just wanted to tell the hon member that.

We are aware of the fact that the ANC probably does not have offices in Portugal. Nevertheless they visit Portugal freely. As a matter of fact, some of them were pointed out to me in Lisbon. Some of them are there with false documents. Because our Prime Minister is the first South African Prime Minister to visit Portugal in 12 years, this would be a good thing to discuss with Portugal, namely the accommodation of terrorists and terrorist leaders, particularly in view of the fact that Mozambique and Swaziland have taken positive steps in this connection. As far as the Western World is concerned, Portugal could take a leading role in this connection by moving away from providing accommodation to terrorist groups that outspokenly endorse the doctrines of the communists. I want to express the hope that as far as this is concerned, closer co-operation between the Republic and Portugal will be possible.

Mr Chairman, to a large extent this debate has been dominated by the success the Government has achieved in recent months with its peace initiative. Of course, the reason for this is obvious. Sound relations with countries in Africa have always been of fundamental importance to the National Government.

Those of us who belong to the younger generation do not always realize how strongly a man like Dr D F Malan felt about the matter as far back as 1948. On 1 September of that year, in reply to a question in this Council Chamber on what his policy was with regard to Africa, he said (Hansard, vol 64, col 1323):

So important was this matter to Dr Malan that he appointed Mr Charles te Water as roving ambassador. Mr Te Water travelled far and wide in Africa and in Europe and he addressed people in many capitals of the world in order to proffer South Africa’s friendship and co-operation.

Peace initiatives in Africa again took fire during the premiership of Advocate John Vorster. On 4 April 1975, inter alia, he said the following at the autumn school at the University of Stellenbosch:

That is how two of our greatest leaders expressed their deep desire for better relations.

Yet now that the flame of hope is burning brightly once again, it is odd that there is a group of people in our ranks, people who like to hark back to Dr Malan and Advocate Vorster, who cannot identify with this long-cherished ideal. It is they who refer to us— we who are engaged in peace talks—as traitors. It must be said that these expectations come from way back and that for many years, from as far back as Dr Malan’s time, better relations have been striven for.

There are various reasons for this striving. South Africa’s security position is affected substantially by this. With its strong, healthy economy South Africa can get its neighbouring states to grow closer to it, which will discourage hostile action against South Africa. Sound relations with Africa also contain tremendous implications in the international sphere. This is the most effective way of combating Soviet imperialism. [Interjections.] I hope that the hon member for Kuruman will afford me the opportunity to make my speech.

The prize that is being competed for at present—of course, the hon member for Kuruman thinks that this is a joke, since we know that he does not understand these things—is a very large one, and we will therefore have to work purposefully at bringing about better relations. We shall have to accept that a power like South Africa will often not be popular with the surrounding weaker states. Surely it is also true that the most common reason for poor relations is ignorance, and that for that reason we must build up our image as a helpful partner. Knowledge of one another and of the revelant facts is one of the most important requirements for the normalization of relations. South Africans will have to acquire a deeper knowledge of South Africa’s realities and aspirations. Our information campaign will have to think of ways to realize this. The same knowledge of South Africa will also have to be conveyed to our neighbouring states.

One of the most effective means we have at our disposal at present in bringing about liaison with Africa, and of conveying this information is by way of the activities of Radio RSA. At present the external services broadcast to Africa in 11 languages for 208 hours per week. The number of letters received from listeners is always a good indication of the range of these broadcasts. For the third successive year response to the external services has exceeded the 100 000 mark. 75% to 80% of this response is obtained from African countries such as Uganda, Tanzania, Zaire, Kenya and others.

The importance of Radio RSA’s service is that in this way we can reach countries in Africa where there are no South African diplomatic missions or officials. Other countries which also broadcast to Africa and who compete to be heard by Africa—this is an important fact of which we must take cognizance—are, inter alia, the BBC, Russia, Egypt, the Voice of America, Cuba, Red China and Japan. Furthermore, it is also known that these radio services are deemed by these countries to be of such great importance that they are at present planning to expand their services, which will cost hundreds of millions of rands.

The value of Radio RSA in bringing about liaison with Africa can therefore not be overemphasized. Consequently, one would be able to reason that now, more than ever, it is necessary that these services be extended. I therefore want to appeal seriously to the hon the Minister on this occasion to give urgent attention to this matter. More contact and better liaison could play a decisive role in the future of South Africa. I believe that the services of Radio RSA are of the utmost importance in this regard, and that more funds will simply have to be found in order for it to function effectively.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House should also like to wish the retiring Director-General everything of the best. It is a little premature, but since the hon the Minister has seen fit to do so at this stage, we, too, want to wish him everything of the best. We agree that he can look back on a very successful career.

I should like to discuss an aspect with the hon the Minister which specifically has to do with my constituency, viz the question of the Zimbabwean border. We are all aware that the border between Zimbabwe and South Africa runs through the centre of the Limpopo River. However, there is a security fence on the south bank of the river. I understand that the Zimbabwean Prime Minister has alleged that South Africa marked out the border itself and that it now regards the fence as the border. I want to know from the hon the Minister whether he is aware of this, and if so, I would be pleased if he would admonish the Zimbabwean Prime Minister. In addition, there are South African farmers on the border who have many problems as a result of drought, and so on. They are also plagued and frustrated by stock theft and other border violations. I think the time has come for the South African Government to tell the Zimbabwean authorities in no uncertain terms that they must restrain their subjects from committing border violations, otherwise some of those farmers could begin protecting their properties themselves out of frustration, as has already happened.

I also want to mention a matter to the hon the Minister regarding Mozambique. Since an hon member of the official Opposition has already referred to personal property in Mozambique, I also want to ask the hon the Minister to make inquiries about the Louis Trichardt Garden of Remembrance which was established in the then Lourenco Marques with the permission of the Portuguese authorities. He must please find out whether that garden of remembrance still exists, whether the present Government respects it and whether South Africa would be able to gain access to that garden.

Today is 10 May, a day I like to remember. Today it is precisely one year ago that the National Party was felled in Waterberg and knocked out for a number of counts in Soutpansberg. This is something we recall with a great deal of pleasure on this occasion.

Yesterday we came here to conduct a debate on foreign affairs and we prepared ourselves to conduct a meaningful and relevant debate. We believe that the matters we raised here were indeed current affairs and that we as an Opposition party were entitled to raise them. What happened, however? The National Party did not prepare itself for a debate on foreign affairs and current affairs, such as the initiatives of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Prime Minister, but launched a concentrated attack on the Conservative Party. I regret having to say this, but, in addition, we were given a performance by the hon the Minister before ambassadors and other people in the public gallery, a performance which does not befit the Minister personally, his office or this House. Practically speaking, he did not reply to a single question that was put to him. Unfortunately, one finds the trend on that side nowadays that if one tackles them with an argument, they cannot reply to it point by point, but accuse one of hating them; of being opposed to them; of being jealous of them and Heaven alone knows what else.

The hon the Minister said yesterday that I had acted maliciously towards him and that I had harboured this malice since my university days. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister was my senior at university. When I was an “ienk”, he was already in his second year. He came to our attention when he became cheerleader of the university. [Interjections.] We were in different hostels. I went to guard him with members of my hostel at Sonop, which was his hostel. We were subsequently in the Defence Force together. We were in the citizen force together. He then entered the diplomatic service. When he returned and wanted to stand for Parliament, he consulted me. Does he recall that? I said: “Do it, Pik. Why not?” he was still doubtful, but I encouraged him to stand. Now he is speaking about my malice towards him!

Now the hon the Minister has again come here to practise his speech with a view to Potgietersrus. I do not think it suits him. I do not think it befits his office. I shall conclude by saying that he quoted my hon leader selectively in respect of paragraph 7.1 of the statement of 2 May. My hon leader made precisely that point again in his speech, with which the hon the Minister himself said yesterday he was satisfied. Immediately after my hon leader had resumed his seat, the hon the Deputy Minister rose and told him that he wanted to express his appreciation for his speech. Yesterday, however, the hon the Minister came and made the point that that was something Jaap Marais had told my hon leader to say.

Mr Chairman, I think it is somewhat absurd for the hon member for Soutpansberg to say that the hon the Minister did not reply to a single question asked by the Opposilion in his brilliant speech in this House yesterday. I think it is rather tedious of the hon member for Soutpansberg to be trying to make a second personal attack on the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

He put certain other matters concerning his constituency directly to the hon the Minister, and I assume that the hon the Minister will reply to him in that connection. The hon member for Bryanston also addressed his remarks to the hon the Minister and the hon the Minister will reply to those remarks.

I should like to express my appreciation for the speech made by the hon member for Geduld and his very illuminating remarks about radio RSA and his representations in this connection. I should like to place on record my sincere appreciation for this.

The hon member for Roodeplaat—I do not see him in the House at the moment— made a speech about Portugal and about the role that should be played in South Africa by Portugal and by the Portuguese-speaking South Africans. All I want to say to him in this connection is obrigado: Keep it up. He also referred briefly to the protection of the Cahora Bassa transmission lines and to the remarks made in this connection by the hon members of the Opposition.

†I personally should like to make a few remarks about the Cahora Bassa issue. I should like to deal with some of the criticism of the Conservative Party in this regard. The criticism of the CP is based on an inference that they draw from article 8 of the agreement. They say that in terms of this article it will be possible for security forces of Mozambique to be allowed into the RSA. I want to say quite categorically that the agreement does not provide for Mozambican security forces to be allowed into South Africa, and any such inference is wrong. The agreement is this regard reads as follows:

In this regard I should like to say that the two Governments have already acted in terms of article 8 of the agreement. The matter has been referred to a joint security commission which must work out a modus operandi as to how the lines could be protected.

In this regard two points are important. Firstly, the transmission lines in South Africa run for a distance of approximately 600 km. These lines in South Africa are not under attack and if they ever should come under attack the SA Defence Force is quite capable of protecting them on its own. Secondly, the transmission lines in Mozambique run for a distance of approximately 800 km and they are under attack. The security forces of Mozambique have difficulty in protecting those lines. In all probability in one way or the other South Africa would be asked to assist as far as this is concerned. [Interjections.] This can of course be assistance in various ways. As the joint security commission will discuss this matter I will not deal with the details of that at this particular moment. I should however like to assure the CP that their fear that the security forces of Mozambique could come to South Africa and undertake military work in South Africa is a fear which is without base.

It is also necessary to refer to article 9 of the agreement. This article determines that the Governments of South Africa and Mozambique, and I quote:

In this regard I should like to inform the House that a few hundred technicians are working on the hydro-electrical project at Cahora Bassa. These technicians by and large are not Mozambicans. They are Portuguese. This article was included into the agreement at the specific request of Portugal to facilitate the entry of their people into Mozambique. Let me immediately say that South Africa has technicians to maintain and operate the transmission lines in South Africa and at the Apollo power-station near Pretoria. South Africa does not need technical assistance from any country and can really do the job on its own.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question? [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon the Deputy Minister prepared to answer a question?

For old times sake I will answer one question.

Mr Chairman, I should like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister whether article 9 could not also be interpreted that military personnel should be allowed to enter either country?

In terms of article 9 it can only be interpreted that way if there is a specific agreement that security forces of Mozambique should enter South Africa. However, let me point out that then there must be such an agreement. I am saying that there is no necessity to enter into such an agreement because the SA Defence Force is in a position to protect and look after these lines. We do not need the assistance of anybody in this regard. The hon member need not have any fears. Sir, I was explaining how it came about that this provision for the entry of persons connected with the Cahora Bassa project was included. It was included at the specific request of the Portuguese, and because we have an interstate agreement and the principle of reciprocity applies, the provision has been phrased in that specific way. I am sure that the CP will accept that in the circumstances they really need have no fear as far as this specific point is concerned.

*Mr Chairman, arising from last night’s debate, I have to make a few remarks which I consider to be very important. In the first place, I want to make a few remarks about war and peace. A few days ago, certain people talked about war without peace in the Skilpad Hall. In order to refresh my memory, I have had another look at the television recording which was televised the other night, and the things that were said there were disquieting in many ways. Referring to the Afrikaner people, Mr Jaap Marais said—I am not quoting his exact words, but the general purport of what he said:

He went on to say:

He also said:

Later on in his speech, he said:

He went on to say:

By the way, the hon member for Waterberg was present at those meetings. Mr Jaap Marais’s remark is very significant. Further on he said:

Mr Chairman, these remarks are emotional and militaristic. Remarks of this nature promote a war syndrome and a war psychosis in South Africa. The problem with statements such as these is that they place a high moral premium on war, on conflict and on a struggle for power. War, conflict and a struggle for power are elevated to a prerequisite, to a precondition for the development and preservation of the Afrikaner’s identity. The implication is that if the Afrikaner does not move into a war situation, he will lose his identity as an Afrikaner and the Afrikaner people will disintegrate.

The conclusion that must be drawn is that the people at that meeting whose reactions I observed had become the victims of a war psychosis. However, the important question is: On whom are Mr Jaap Marais and the others who appeared with him so anxious to wage war? In this connection, the remarks of Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche are of material importance. Mr Terre’Blanche says that he does not want any Black people in the uniform of the Defence Force. He does not want any people of colour in the uniform of the Defence Force. If he really wants a Defence Force to defend South Africa, why does he not want those people of colour to be members of the Defence Force? The question is whether it is not true that he wishes to use the Defence Force to wage ware on other Black inhabitants of South Africa. I am afraid that there is a strong indication that this is what he has in mind.

In this connection, I should like to put a few standpoints to hon members briefly. The people who spoke in this vein in the Skilpad Hall last Saturday were not really talking about war; they were talking about revolution. Their references to traitors and so on also reveal that they are actually talking about revolution. A further standpoint I wish to state is the following: The Afrikaner people will never wage war again on its own, as a separate people. The Afrikaner people will never wage war again on their own, because they are fully integrated with the English-speaking people, with the Germans, the Portuguese and other South African citizens. In the third place, I want to point out that the Afrikaner does not have a country in which he alone can govern. Prof Boshoff’s standpoint that the AV has been formed because the Afrikaner people finds itself in a crisis situation, because it does not have a national or a territorial base with which to identify itself, creates the impression that Prof Boshoff actually thinks that we should have an Afrikaner country because we cannot have an Afrikaner people with an identity of its own without a separate Afrikaner territory.

Finally, Mr Chairman, I want to point out that the defence force of a country—this includes the Defence Force of South Africa— should always be strong and prepared. There is an old saying: “If you want peace, prepare for war.” This is why it is the Government’s declared policy that our Defence Force should be expanded and kept strong; not to wage war merely for the sake of war, but to protect the citizens of South Africa and their liberties, to protect the integrity of the country’s territory, and to serve the interests of South Africa, in accordance with the decisions of the Government. All countries must know that South Africa will not hesitate to fight for this if it becomes necessary. A strong defence force is in fact an insurance policy against war; an insurance policy for peace. For this reason, the Defence Force of South Africa will remain strong, so that when South Africa negotiates for peace, it will negotiate from a position of strength— economic strength, but also military strength.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister dealt mainly with two aspects in his speech here, viz Cahora Bassa and the AV. I believe the standpoints of this party in respect of both are well-known. We are wholly in favour of the South African Defence Force and the Police protecting the interests of this country, no matter where those interests are to be found.

As far as the Volkswag, too, is concerned, Mr Chairman, I should like, to support on behalf of my party, the viewpoint which the hon the Deputy Minister expressed.

†One particular issue which I should like to raise here this afternoon, has already been touched on by both the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon member for Geduld. That is to deal with a specific aspect of American attitudes towards South Africa, and I refer here specifically to the Solarz Amendment, which is currently being discussed in the US Congress. For the edification of hon members I should like to point out that if the Solarz Amendment is accepted by both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the USA, it will in essence mean that US companies that have subsidiaries in South Africa will not be able to transfer capital from the United States to South Africa for their operations.

That means that South African subsidiaries of American companies will indeed have to finance themselves from profits generated in South Africa or from loans which they may be able to generate in the South African market. There are other unfavourable aspects to the Solarz Amendment as well, for instance statutory sanction, which will be given to a code of conduct similar to what is known as the Sullivan principles.

I do not think the American companies would have too much trouble with this as most of them have already acceded to the requirements of the Sullivan Code. There are of course other aspects which the hon the Minister touched on, namely the sale of Kruger Rands in the United States, etc. The one aspect, however, with which I should like to deal specifically is the effects of the investment clause in the Solarz Amendment. In this respect I should like to join forces with the hon the Minister by saying that those people, and in particular congressmen Solarz, who are advocating this type of sanction against American companies in South Africa, are probably doing it from a standpoint of ignorance of the consequences of their actions. If they think that they can enjoy some short-term political gain in the United States from an amendment that will cause untold hardship to the Blacks in this country, then I say that that is not typical of the United States citizen’s viewpoint. I believe, as the hon the Minister has indicated here today, that those people who are promulgating this type of sanction that will lead to unemployment among the Blacks and all the hardships that go with it should come to this country in order to see for themselves what is happening here and what, in fact, will happen if that amendment is passed by the United States Congress.

The first consequence of that Solarz Amendment will be a reduction in the number of employment opportunities in those American companies operating in South Africa. It will also mean that future opportunities for employment for Blacks will be denied them in this country. A man, particularly a Black man, who not only cannot earn a living but will also suffer hunger and discomfort, will be placed in the situation where neither he nor his children will be able to receive an adequate education, and it is education that determines the quality of life of a man in any country whether he be white, black, brown or yellow. I say, therefore, that the punitive action of the Solarz Amendment is not designed actually to influence South Africa. It will be punitive action against the people whose cause they purport to champion. I say that that is short-term political gain and I want to appeal to those people to come out here to South Africa themselves and see what it is all about. They can then go back to the United States and see whether they are prepared to sanction such a piece of legislation.

Let us look at the dimensions of the problem. There are over 350 American companies with subsidiaries in South Africa. They have an investment of over 3 billion United States dollars. They employ over 150 000 people of whom only 30 000 are Whites, and they generate a wealth for the population that assists in improving the quality of life of predominantly Black employees.

I was in the United States of America last year for a month, and I want to tell the hon the Minister that I consulted officials of his department before I left South Africa. I can testify to the fact that the information that I was given was excellent. In fact, when I reached the United States—I saw many people in regard to the so-called Solarz Amendment—I was already extremely well informed and I found that very valuable indeed. I want therefore to thank the hon the Minister and his department for an excellent service. I am sure that there are many other hon members who will attest to the efficiency and the excellence of the service of our Department of Foreign Affairs in assisting hon members and other people travelling overseas.

I want to appeal to the American people to judge objectively the effect of the passing of the Solarz Amendment. I want to say to those Congressmen who are so anxiously participating in the popularity stakes in the United States that they will be acting contrary to the interests of those very people they are trying to help if they persist with this amendment. The lobbying that is being conducted in the United States in this regard is also being very effectively countered by the South African Foundation, as was mentioned by the hon the Minister himself and the hon member for Brits as well. I can attest to the fact that they are doing sterling work in trying to inform the American people and opinion formers in regard to what is actually happening in this country today. I think that they should take a leaf out of the book of their own President Reagan who has entered into constructive engagement with South Africa. I believe that that constructive engagement has produced more goodwill for South Africa and more for relationships within and outside South Africa than the carrot and stick approach of President Jimmy Carter.

I also want to say that I believe that the countries that the hon the Prime Minister will be visiting will do well to listen to what he has to say when he does visit those countries. Most of the people who oppose South Africa do so from a platform of ignorance and prejudice. In this particular respect I want to mention the case of the Australians who refused two of our politicians visas to visit that country. They are the very people who say that they espouse the right of the freedom of speech. However, when our own people want to go there to put our case under that provision of freedom of speech, they are denied that opportunity. I want to say that type of hypocrisy will not do well for any minority whose cause is championed by those people.

Again it is always the vociferous minority who are heard and not the silent majority. I believe that the majority of people in the US, the majority of people in Australia are not the kind of people who practise and espouse hypocrisy. I believe that they are genuinely concerned in the welfare of the people of this country. I want to say that the American companies that operate in this country have made a magnificent contribution towards the improvement of the quality of life of those people who work for them. I have been privileged to visit a number of their establishments in South Africa and to speak to their staff and their management. I said earlier on that I believe that they in fact are operating at a level beyond the requirements of the Sullivan Code.

I should like to pay tribute to the Rev Sullivan who at least, although I do not agree with him, had the courage to come to South Africa to see for himself what is happening here. I do not think there is a single hon member of the Opposition and a single hon member of the Government who would disagree with me that seeing something is worth a thousand words in a newspaper. Regrettably so much of the image of South Africa which those people have, is obtained from the sensational reporting of the media right throughout the world.

It is the right of the media to write sensationalism if they wish to do so. Newspapers in all the democracies of the world are founded on private capital and it is their right to say whether they support the PFP or the CP or the NRP or the Government. It is their right to do so. If they want to write sensationalism, let them do it. However, let opinion-makers be well informed with the objective facts by visiting countries which they are criticizing and against which they intend to take very punitive action.

In conclusion let me say that if there is anything which this party can do to facilitate the process of exchange of ideas, we will not be found lacking. I believe there is a very good chance that those people who are the greatest critics of South Africa in the other countries will come to this country to see for themselves what the facts are, and I am sure that having done so, they will go back to their countries and actually assist those people who want to help the Blacks in South Africa by genuinely helping them and not participate in this hypocrisy which is to be found in the Solarz Amendment.

Mr Chairman, as usual the hon member for Durban North made a very constructive contribution, as we have come to expect of him. I want to congratulate him because I think it was a good contribution to which the hon the Minister himself will probably react later.

In the limited time allotted to me, I should like to put one or two questions to the hon the Minister. I also want to mention that we should very much like, when we are dealing with our foreign policy, to take another look at Africa particularly in view of the present successes we are experiencing. I ask that we look at the Africa situation reappraisingly.

What is the present Africa scenario? Economically speaking, we have the position that of the 38 poorest countries, 22 are south of the Sahara. In this connection one could quote innumerable sources, for example:

During a recent congress held at Sun City at which people like Mr Harry Oppenheimer and Dr Kissinger were present, the conclusion was reached:

In contrast South Africa is known as the jewel of Africa. It is also known as the only developed industrial region and country in Africa. South Africa is also known as the country that comprises 4% of the surface area of Africa, but utilizes more than 50% of all the electricity generated in Africa. Our economic situation glitters like a jewel in comparison with this “land of misery” as Africa has been labelled. The trouble lies in the fact that when one sets up South Africa as a model of progressiveness in contrast to the other countries in Africa and realizes that it is the only African country with a capitalistic system, one perceives that this is what gives rise to the antagonism, the hate and the envy of the rest of Africa towards South Africa.

If one looks at it from our side, it seems unfair, but then one must ask oneself what the actual position is. What would we have done if the position had been reversed? What would we have done about the country and the people we had to look up to, the country that had everything while we had nothing? Would we not have been like ants around a honey pot, trying to consume the country and its people? Would we not perhaps also have considered becoming terrorists and looked with hate and envy and jealousy at the country that had everything? Because man’s strongest urge is to survive, can we blame those people?

As far as politics in Africa is concerned, we also have to put the situation in perspective. South Africa is the most stable country with the political system which has developed to the furthest extent. In contrast there are the African countries in which there have been 35 civil wars during the past few decades and in which coups d’état take place every few weeks. Politically speaking South Africa is the focal point of contention between East and West, between North and South. How long did it not take Europe to develop politically to where it is today. Even today it is not entirely stable politically. What it took Europe 2 000 years to achieve, we expect Africa to achieve within two or three decades. We in South Africa, the only developed country, must therefore look at Africa, and our neighbours around us in particular, with more piety and understanding.

The hon the Minister has now succeeded in initiating his peace initiatives in the midst of this chaos. His success is so much greater when one considers that he was able to do this in the midst of this chaos. I believe that all of us would like to convey our unconditional congratulations to him on this achievement.

When one looks at these peace initiatives, one also tells oneself that in every victory lies the seed of the next war or failure. I should therefore like to make two requests of the hon the Minister. The first is that when we look at these initiatives, we must remember that in the same way that our path to Europe leads through Africa, Europe must also remember that the path of economic recovery for Africa runs through South Africa and nowhere else. We are the only country with a developed infrastructure and a developed economy. We also have the local expertise.

In the second place I should like to ask that because we are now engaged in these initiatives, we should not endeavour to involve the whole of Africa in them to an extent that is beyond our capabilities, but that we should do so within our economic, political and military capabilities. We have to endeavour to give the people living around us a viable alternative to communism, an alternative built on realities which can be seen, felt and experienced by those persons we are trying to help. This can then serve as an example which could systematically be taken further in Africa.

What I am actually trying to say is that we should try to help certain parts of Africa selectively, as far as we can. If the hon the Minister can succeed in doing this, we can systematically bring about a greater measure of peace in future. This peace will then be more lasting. I believe that the statement which has been made that the hon the Minister could perhaps receive the Nobel Prize, may become reality. The people carving out the history of Africa in various countries, may perhaps say to each other: How does one spell his name? Botha? No. Is it Pik or is it RF? Both win.

Mr Chairman, I wish to move away from the topic which was raised by the hon member for Vasco and deal with some information promotion aspects of this department.

During the discussion of the private member’s motion which was moved by the hon member for Bloemfontein North earlier during this session, a number of positive and negative aspects of the department were raised and some discussion took place. The hon member for Brits, for example, raised the issue of the liaison division which was to be established of which the hon the Deputy Minister was to take charge, and this is the first aspect which I would like to raise.

For the past two to three years there have been promises and indications that a liaison division or section would be created in order to facilitate the flow of information from Government to the media generally. I want to refer to what the previous Deputy Minister said on 12 July 1982, and I quote from a report in The Star:

A year later, on 11 May 1983, the previous Deputy Minister said under this Vote:

Almost a year later, the present hon Deputy Minister said, according to a report in the Sunday Times of 12 February 1984 what was basically a repetition of what had been said the previous year:

What progress has been made over the past two or three years?

Very good progress.

There are indications that some departments have accepted that it is important to have a liaison officer. However, one gains the impression—without having the information available—that other departments are lagging behind and are reluctant to co-operate. What will the function of the media liaison section be and how will it operate? What progress generally has been made with this aspect which is very important for the flow of information to the media?

The second aspect I would like to raise relates to the foreign visitors programme. I mentioned last year that the department was, in my view, doing good work in this area. However, there is one aspect about which one is concerned. It is something which one picks up from those visitors to whom I or members of my party have met. We obviously do not meet all the visitors who are invited and one can therefore only speak of a small cross-section. One sometimes gains the impression that some of the visitors are invited as a reward for a strong stand which they have taken in their particular countries in favour of South Africa. This is the reward. Why not rather invite someone whose visit may break the ice as far as critical opinion leaders are concerned? Why not rather invite a critic whose firsthand information of South Africa will be worth much more for South Africa’s image and for the debate overseas than is the case when somebody is invited who has settled, conservative and hard views on South Africa? The purpose of the visitors programme should in the first instance be to acquaint critics of South Africa with the realities and complexities of the country. It should not be to reward faithful supporters for services. I am not suggesting that this is the main emphasis, but one is concerned that some of the individuals do fall into the second category.

A further aspect which does relate to the visitors programme concerns the activities of the information sections at embassies overseas. Unfortunately, one does not travel to many countries overseas and is therefore not in a position to deal with information recieved in various countries. I did, however, together with representatives of some of the other parties, visit Germany, and I was there again last year. I there met members of Parliament and more than once there was the suggestion that, generally speaking, those members of Parliament who were sympathetically inclined towards South Africa were receiving invitations to attend various functions, while those who were known to be hard critics somehow did not fall into the club of those who were welcome at the South African embassy and at other functions hosted by South Africa. This is what was reported. If that is the case, then it is again obviously counter-productive, because the hard critics are the ones who need to be got at, who need to be supplied with information.

This links up with something that was reported to me by the editor of a very well known newspaper in West Germany. He said that, since he had written some very harsh articles about South Africa—I cannot remember in what particular issue that was—his contact with the embassy was not as close as it used to be. He explained to me that he found that strange because, when other countries were in the limelight at a particular period and were criticized, those countries at that very time would go out of their way to inform, to keep up contact and to build contacts. I mention this because I believe—and this relates to visitors as well— that the critics of South Africa, the ones who can be kept informed in order for there to be a more balanced debate, should be our target.

A further aspect I should like to deal with very briefly relates to the information work as far as advertisements are concerned. That can be a very important aspect, particularly if one takes into account the disinvestment programme which has been referred to by the hon member for Durban North. Full-page advertisements appear in prestigious American financial publications and those advertisements have been commented on by highly respected South African public relations and advertising people. I want to refer to one such advertisement to indicate why I believe that not much is achieved by advertisements of this sort. A very expensive advertisement appeared in the magazine Forbes on 19 December 1983. It was a full-page advertisement headed “South Africa: I don’t know much about it”. It then proceeded in some detail to present a very rosy and comfortable picture of South Africa:

It went on like that. I do not have the time to read it all. One cannot say that the message it puts across is untrue, but, viewing it as a marketing exercise, I would point out that it does not even suggest that we have serious problems here which we are trying to tackle honestly. I am informed that, unless honesty comes out in an advertisement such as this, it is not accepted, particularly not by any critic.

Let me refer to an article which appeared in the Sunday Times on 4 March this year. It was written by one Darrel Phillips, who is regarded as a well-known advertising man. In that article he referred to this type of advertisement and wrote:

I do not have the time to go into this any further, but I want to say that what one needs is a more critical approach in the advertisements as well, because no one who views the country critically will accept that the picture is as rosy as it is painted in such advertisements. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Central levelled criticism at the foreign information service. I do not intend to react to his speech. I feel the hon the Deputy Minister will give him a complete reply. However, I do want to tell him that in my opinion he was very reasonable in his criticism and therefore deserves a good reply.

I should also like to say a few words about the Information Service. If one goes back in history one finds that the late Gen Hertzog introduced the State Information Bureau in 1936. This was the precursor to the present Information Service of the Department of Foreign Affairs. When Gen Hertzog announced the establishment of that bureau in this House, he said the following (Hansard, 6 May 1936, volume 27, col 3106):

From this quote it is quite clear that at that stage Gen Hertzog was of the opinion that the information effort consisted of two main parts. The first was the distribution of correct information abroad, and the second the distribution of correct information at home. I do not want to talk about the overseas information effort today. I just want to point out that there is usually a great degree of unanimity in the House on the activities planned and carried out abroad. We appreciate the services our people are rendering under difficult conditions. The sacrifices they are making are not going unnoticed.

I want to dwell on the other part of the information effort for a moment, namely the distribution of information at home among foreign visitors and tourists, as well as among the inhabitants of South Africa. Quite a number of tourists come to South Africa every year. Quite a number of people are also invited and come on other visits. The department can provide these people with reading matter containing a great deal of information on our country. I have two brochures here with me, namely “This is South Africa” and “South Africa from A to Z”. These brochures are published in both official languages. If a tourist is handed one of these, he can form a wonderful picture of what is happening in South Africa.

Another facet of this part of the information effort is to provide the people of South Africa itself with information. Today I want to say that it is the duty of the State to inform the inhabitants of its country about the Government’s planning for the future, its actions, its decisions and its policy. It is, after all, the duty of the State to explain to the taxpayers in what way and for what purpose the money which the State collects is going to be used. It is only informed people who can take a considered decision at a polling booth on the way in which and by whom their country should be governed. The best example of this we saw in the recent referendum. In spite of all the propaganda, all the scare stories by the “no” people—they made it sound as if the “no” people had caused a tidal wave in the country—after they had been correctly informed, the voters voted “yes” by a vast majority. [Interjections.]

The media is used to inform residents. This is the correct way of doing things. Publications are, however, also used with great success.

I should like to refer to a few of these publications, Mr Chairman, inter alia to Panorama, an excellent magazine of outstanding quality which appears in both English and Afrikaans. Then there is also the South African Review, which appears in both English and Afrikaans, and has for the past five years also been published in French and German. I should like to suggest that, if possible, the department should send copies of these publications to every school library. They contain valuable information which could be used in schools. It is not only the Whites that are provided with information, for it is essential to inform people of colour as well, and the department also makes provision for this. I am referring to Alpha, a monthly magazine that commemorates its 21st anniversary this year. It has been edited and distributed by the department for all these years, but recently the Department of Internal Affairs took over its editing and distribution. It is an unusual magazine and is aimed mainly at the Coloured teacher. There is also the tabloid Karet which is distributed free of charge among the Coloured community. It contains selected news aimed at informing people about important matters which affect them.

For Black people there are various newspapers aimed at informing them about matters that affect them. Owing to lack of time, I can only mention a few of these newspapers, for example Umso, which is distributed mainly in Port Elizabeth and the Eastern Cape. The Metropolitan Digest is distributed mainly on the Witwatersrand and in the Southern and Western Transvaal; Light/Khanya is distributed in the Northern and Eastern Transvaal, and Puisano in the Orange Free State, the Northern Cape and Qwaqwa. The demand for the tabloid Puisano grew by 800 in a period of one month.

There is one other newspaper I want to refer to, namely Phoenix, which is published for the Indian population. Because the Coloureds and the Indians are involved in the new dispensation, it is essential for them to be properly informed about it.

By means of these newspapers, information is conveyed to the people so that they can understand matters and take dicisions. These publications are also aimed at providing the inhabitants of South Africa with objective news coverage. The news items are selected and are of high quality, and no advertisements appear in the newspapers.

We in this House should like to have our thanks and appreciation placed on record for the service rendered by the regional offices along with their regional directors and staff. I am thinking, inter alia, of Mr Adendorff, the chief of Internal Information, who according to the hon the Minister’s announcement yesterday, is to retire in the near future. We also want to express our sincere thanks to him, and I want to repeat what I have already said, namely that an uninformed person is a dangerous person. If we inform our people, things will accordingly go well in the new dispensation.

Mr Chairman, South African radio and television are both persuasive and pervasive. The interpretation of its charter by the Board of Governors has progressively led to programmes which are narrow in scope, which are bland in comment, which are antiseptic in style and which are banal in their content. The ethnic conditions of licence, No 1A and No 1B, are religiously followed by the corporation, and the policy of separate development is promoted as the natural or general norm. This fact was clearly illustrated as recently as 11 April 1984, when an internal memorandum No 0087 was issued, in which the following was stated:

What does this memorandum really say? What is the real content of this internal memorandum circulated to the staff of the SABC? It is saying that as the ethnic constitution for Whites, Coloureds and Indians is put into operation, and as the NP policy of Bantustans gathers pace, so it will be necessary for the SABC to gear itself more efficiently and more effectively to the promotion of those policies. So even within its own ranks the SABC sees itself as one of the tools to be used in preparing the political ground for the progression of NP policies.

The SABC has given its own interpretation to the term “newsworthiness”, and in all its broadcasts it adopts a heavyhanded and an obviously pro-Government bias in what it says. Little that is truly controversial is given any in-depth treatment. When controversial subjects are covered though they are usually covered through the eyes and the views of the most limited spectrum of people and opinions. In such cases the views of Blacks are generally ignored. When the views of Blacks, however, are not ignored, and in fact included, it is the controversial subjects which are then ignored.

The extent of the bias, continuing even today, is starkly illustrated by the coverage given to the referendum campaign last year by the SABC. Let us take for instance the regular programmes conducted on the legal aspects of the new constitution, presented by Prof S A S Strauss. They were blatantly used to favour a yes-vote under the guise of presenting the views of a supposedly independent academic.

During that period a regular weekly summary of referendum coverage was conducted and published in the Rand Daily Mail. To quote its findings for the week from 10 to 16 October 1983, the total yes coverage—that is speeches, staements and appearances by people favouring a yes response—amounted to over 72% of all the time allocated on television to the campaign. [Interjections.] Time does not allow me to go into detail but the disgraceful hatchet job on the hapless and naïve Sir Richard Attenborough illustrates even further the lengths to which the SABC will go to serve its political masters. Even “News Focus” programmes, in which there is so much potential for good television, are kept as tame as possible. When, I ask, is the SABC going to treat South Africans as adults? When will we be allowed to view people with deffering viewpoints arguing their cases across a table and face to face?

How, we may ask, has this state of affairs come about in the SABC? After all, the SABC enjoys autonomy and supposedly is deemed by statute to be independent of any ruling party of government. Over the past 30 years or more, through judicious ministerial appointments to the board, the Government has effectively taken control of the SABC. A significant number of the board are today members of the Afrikaner Broederbond. I do not think that any single member of the Board of Governors of the SABC is a supporter of any Opposition political party in South Africa, either privately or publicly. As a result, since the accession to power of the NP in 1948, nearly all sensitive and senior positions in this semi-state monopoly have been filled with Nationalist supporters. This phenomenon has permeated right through the ranks, from the management committee to the news desk editors. Supporters of any Opposition party are few and far between and when they are found, they are effectively neutralized. Forgive me then, Sir, if I conclude that in essence the SABC labouring under none of the restrictions that the other echelons of the media labour, is no more than a straight mouthpiece for NP propaganda as it has been for several years and is becoming more so day after day. The end result is a chloroformed public, a public that is less informed than it should be, a public that is blinkered and a public that is less prepared to meet the demands of the future than is desirable.

Now, Sir, having got that off my chest, I want to say that I believe there is much that can be done and should be done positively to improve matters. I have four suggestions for the hon the Minister in this regard which are all geared towards upgrading the status, the standing and the credibility of the SABC.

Suggestion No 1 relates to the appointment by the SABC of an ombudsman. This is not a new idea. It has been called for before but I do not believe that it has received the serious consideration of either the SABC or the Government. It is, however, an idea that could work. Too often persons, institutions and political groupings who from time to time feel aggrieved by statements issued over the SABC and by the treatment meted out to them, can obtain no redress whatsoever. An impartial ombudsman with powers to investigate and to recommend redress will go a long way towards giving the corporation a human face.

The second suggestion I would like to make relates to the jurisdiction of the Media Council. It can be argued that the SABC does in fact subject itself to some sort of discipline, namely that prescribed in terms of the Publications Control Act. In truth, however, we all know that the form of discipline as set out in the Publications Control Act and as it applies to the SABC is virtually meaningless. It is the SABC alone that stands aloof from the jurisdiction of the Media Council. I believe that the SABC should without further dealy recognize the Media Council and submit itself to the council’s jurisdiction. This council is a body independent of Government. It is a body independent of any sectional interest. It is a body representative of both the media and the public. By submitting itself to the jurisdiction of the council the SABC will put itself in the same situation as, say, any other conveyor of news and views and of entertainment, which I believe to be highly desirable in the present South African context.

Thirdly, it is high time that both the Government and the SABC adopted a more mature attitude towards senior appointments. The Board of Governors should not be a clone of NP thinking. What a sterile situation is reached when virtually all who are appointed are either Nationalists or tame fellow-travellers.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am merely rising to give the hon member for Sandton an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon Whip, Mr Chairman.

I was saying what a sterile situation is reached when we find on the Board of Governors only Nationalist supporters or tame fellow-travellers. Surely there should be room for the occasional devil’s advocate, for a few persons who are not slavishly conformist, for a few persons who sometimes will speak out against the majority viewpoint. The hon the Minister’s appointments should be far more even-handed than they are. The same goes for senior management and for staff appointment. The recruiting ground for political reporters, editors and even managerial positions in recent times seems to be limited to Nasionale Pers, Perskor and perhaps even the Public Service, all organizations well disposed to the Government. I believe that a less partisan approach to appointments and promotion within the SABC is long overdue.

The fourth suggestion is one which deserves careful consideration. The lengthened broadcasting time of TV 1 and the growth in popularity of TV 2 and TV 3 continue to make heavy inroads into every limited South African advertising cake. The four major newspaper publishing houses are nearly all suffering grievously. Not one of the newspapers published by Perskor, except for Rapport which is jointly owned with Nasionale Pers, makes a profit today. The South African Associated Newspapers Group runs two newspapers which are large loss-makers at this time. The whole situation is becoming very unhealthy in so far as the publication of major newspapers is concerned and it is no exaggeration to say that a vigorous and independent Press, because of this very factor, is seriously under threat.

The SABC also has its problems. TV 4 is on the way and yet this will involve vast capital expenditure on top of what is being spent to develop TV 2 and TV 3. Does the answer not—this is the suggestion I make— lie in the SABC entering into a partnership with the four major publishing houses, that is Saan, Argus, Perskor and Nasionale Pers, to develop the fourth channel as a joint venture? [Interjections] Hon members over there laugh, but they have not even given the matter consideration. This is a system, a method of bringing publishers into participation in television, which has been tried across the world, and it has succeeded. It has kept a free Press alive and vigorous as a result.

As a joint venture this will involve at least three important advantages. The first is that the SABC will to some extent be relieved of heavy capital expenditure. This is a major advantage in the light of its expenditure which is being poured into TV 2 and TV 3 at this time. The second advantage is that the newspaper houses will have an investment in a channel which could partially offset the losses they are presently sustaining because of the huge inroads being made into that advertising cake by a growing television service. The third advantage is that private enterprise will at last have some stake in what has up to now been a semi-state monopoly. I hope that the hon the Minister will think seriously about this idea.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to allow myself to be led astray by reacting to the distorted criticism of the hon member of the PFP. Yet I can understand them, in the sense that if on the same basis, 2 November had been a general election, not one of them would have been here now. One can therefore understand this bitterness to a certain extent. Yesterday’s municipal election emphasized this matter even further, and one can see how far removed they are from the realities of the day. I shall therefore leave them at that. I want to convey my sincere gratitude and congratulations to the SABC for this fine annual report I have in my hand and for the fine work they are doing in our country. Since we are discussing the Foreign Affairs Vote, I just want to say that we could perhaps persuade our countries of origin to understand what is happening in this country at a cost of millions of rands. We could perhaps conclude many a treaty with foreign countries which could cost us millions of rands and we could perhaps gain billions of rands. In the end we could have our best South Africans in our foreign offices and let them give information around the clock by way of video equipment, so that the entire world will ultimately understand precisely what is happening in South Africa, but domestically, we could lose everything. In view of this, I want to say thank you very much for the policy statement in the annual report of the SABC. One finds this on page 7 of the report. It seems to me that the hon member has not read the report at all. It says:

Surely that is true. It goes on to say:

That is wonderful. I continue to read:

What is wrong with that? It goes on to say:

The reaction of viewers was that this was what they wanted. My Whip is keeping me in check, but I would very much like to quote what appears on page 27 of the report with regard to the basis on which debates on the new consitution were arranged with a view to the referendum. It is stated here that the SABC gave all the various parties precisely the same undertaking, viz that the programmes would be aimed at reflecting the political debate according to certain guidelines. I shall read the following:

Surely it was correct to do it that way. If someone should be disappointed that the SABC’s presentation was ultimately to their disadvantage, they must blame themselves for their conduct during the referendum campaign. In the Tukkie debate which was broadcast over the radio, each of five speakers was given precisely the same amount of time. Is it the SABC’s fault that the questions afterwards were addressed to the person who could lend substance to that debate? If more time was spent on people who propagated the yes vote, why are we blaming the SABC? If I wanted to be critical, I could say that the SABC only devoted 52,4% of the time to the yes vote. The people who propagated the yes vote were those who addressed the problem and who gave substance to what the new dispensation would mean to the country. The SABC devoted 47,6% of the time to the no vote, to those who objected and the critics.

Far too much.

Then they are still complaining about it. I am very concerned about the public at large. They do not have the privilege of being present here and of sharing in the facts which come to light here. The following issues are still in the air for these people. The Skilpad Hall has now become known as the place where both the ultra-right and the creators of the new constitution forged their ideas. The Skilpad Hall placed on the same platform on the same night the image of true culture, as well as the hon member for Waterberg, with his statement. “Joint resistance to selling out the White man in South Africa politically”. The Skilpad Hall displays the toga of Christian uprightness, as well as the words of Eugène Terre’Blanche “Go and talk to those who are despondent so that they can go and dig up their weapons”. The Skilpad Hall also heard the following words of the hon member for Waterberg: “A people does not build monuments to traitors”. However, he forgot to mention the signing of an election manifesto in 1981 and the contents of a unanimous Cabinet decision concerning Resolution 435 in November 1980. The AWB appears on the same platform as the leader of the CP and the leader of the HNP and concludes a cultural unity, whilst the AWB advocates a dictatorship in a national-socialist system; the nationalization of industries; the confiscation of land, the joint utilization of land and ultimately its redistribution; anti-Semitism and an unscriptural view of God and man. The Skilpad Hall houses aunts and milita(u)nts. In contrast, there are those who are seeking ethnic diversity in Southern Africa, for which answers based on Christian values and civilized norms must be found so that each group can come into its own, and not at the expense of others.

I have a great deal of respect for the autonomy of the SABC, and I also greatly respect and appreciate the expert, professional and correct way in which they have to broadcast the news of the day to South Africa under these circumstances. The SABC was placed in a dilemma. They expected an orderly cultural meeting in Pretoria on Friday. For that reason, they taped a peaceful debate between four cultural leaders. Then on Sunday evening the SABC showed the blood-curdling result of what really happened. As a result of this situation, the SABC now has to endure criticism, as though it is the one that is unbalanced.

Unfortunately, my time has expired and this will have to suffice.

Mr Chairman, let me, as far as the hon member for Turffontein is concerned, refresh his memory. A number of years ago ex-Minister Punt Janson said that in politics one should not be petty. In reaction to this, the hon member for Turffontein said, and I quote from Hansard of Friday, 14 April 1972, column 4956:

Mr T N H Janson then said:

Mr Janson went on to say in column 4957:

On Thursday, 13 April 1972, the hon member for Turffontein said the following, and I quote from Hansard, column 4876:

Here he is referring to the present hon Prime Minister. I quote further:

Yesterday the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs gave us a dramatized political narration here that contained not only errors of fact, but was actually only part of the nomination struggle he is engaged in, a nomination struggle against the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. We do know, after all, that shortly a new State President is to be elected and that that State President is getting on in years. In 1978 the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs still thought he would be a better Prime Minister than the present hon Prime Minister. Let us therefore grow up as far as politics is concerned. Let us, in particular, forego this political profligacy and address the fundamental issues of South Africa, both those on the domestic front and those abroad.

As far as the SABC is concerned, let me say that it is with appreciation that we in the Conservative Party, myself included, regard the hundreds of men and women who work there in an endeavour to inform the South African public, on a daily basis, of what is going on in South Africa and to provide us with entertainment in a variety of ways. Today I also want to convey a special word of thanks to one of the ladies working for the SABC, a lady who, since my childhood—not that she is all that old—enchanted me with her beautiful and friendly voice and, I think, hundreds of thousands of other listeners too. I am referring to Esmé Euvrard. I sincerely want to thank her, in particular.

Today I want to state very clearly that the SABC and SATV have merely become extensions of NP propaganda. The other political parties can speak for themselves, but as we in the CP see it, the SABC staff members who deal with politics leave no stone unturned to get a dig in or purposely offend the CP, particularly the leader of the CP. During the referendum it was shocking to see a certain Prof Strauss and a Prof Van der Walt giving a blatant, one-sided, propagandistic view of only one facet of the new constitution, ie the National Party’s interpretation of it. No academic supporting the PFP, the NRP, the CP or any other party was there to paint a clear picture of his side of the story. That was blatant party propaganda that those two professors dished up to us. Let me tell the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs that he is being just as selective—the SABC is merely following his example—when he says that the Conservative Party, the ANC, Pravda and others were united against the “yes” vote. Let me point out that Pravda, the communist party, the ANC and the National Party do not agree with Conservative Party policy. What elementary and superficial kind of debate is the hon the Minister trying to conduct here! He is the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and if he is telling us what is happening abroad in the same way in which he is telling people abroad what is happening in South Africa, he is making a lamentable mess of his job.

They welcome you and they welcome your speech. [Interjections.]

Yes, Sir. Let me say that in broadcasts involving the Conservative Party, and particularly the hon the leader of that party, what are normally highlighted are those excerpts in regard to which the CP can be denigrated and the socalled “wonderful” image of the Government enlarged upon.

I have heard tell that when an ordinary member of Parliament goes for a recording session, he is not allowed to look directly at the television camera, because that is reserved for the Ministers. I do not know whether it is true. [Interjections.] If it is true, it is absolutely ridiculous. [Interjections.] Even in the report of what happens here in Parliament, no clear picture of the Conservative Party is projected to the outside world. I have here a letter I received from an SABC official, a good man about whom I would almost prefer not to make a single negative comment. After we had repeatedly telephoned him and his colleagues, he wrote to me, saying:

He apologized and says the mistakes are not made on purpose. The relevant official is a friendly chap, a fine fellow, and I told him that as far as that was concerned, I did not trust him because I did not trust his bosses. I said I did not trust people who gave instructions to the SABC in regard to the political interpretation of events taking place in this House or outside.

I also want to mention a recent SABC appointment, and I am referring to Freek Swart. It seems to me his appointment is merely an SABC extension of Die Burger and Beeid so that the ideas of Nasionale Pers, which in any event has taken over the NP and swallowed up the Transvaal newspapers, can be disseminated by the SABC. I am told that this Mr Freek Swart’s father was the late Mr Wolfie Swart. He said he was bringing his children up to be neither Afrikaans nor English. Hon members know what Mr John Vorster said about that. [Interjections.] I get the impression that from within the large Press groups the politics of television and that of the Opposition political parties are being monitored by persons specially appointed for that purpose. Let me tell the hon the Minister than his version, the other day, of what happened at the Skilpadsaal was just as one-sided. I do not mind if he discloses the workings of the CP’s inner circle, but why single out one man and a small bunch of his people? The hon the Minister is free to focus his attention on them, but then he must also focus attention on ex-Speaker Henning Klopper, Prof Hamman, or Mrs Verwoerd. Why does he not do so? In this country he is creating the kind of image Jan Hofmeyr created in the ’forties. The fairest and most sensible comment came from my hon colleagues sitting om my left, the NRP, and from those sitting om my right, the PFP. I can understand that, because some hon members have a specific background when it comes to certain kinds of organizations. The NP’s absolute hysteria means only one thing, and that is that they are trying to do what the jingos of the ’forties tried to do, and that is to try to place us, the Conservatives, in a poor light. The NP will not succeed in doing that, because the truth will catch up with them. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, Mr Riaan Eksteen took over control of the SABC in his capacity as Director-General on 1 January this year. Since this is the first opportunity we have had of mentioning it in this House, I should like to congratulate him on his appointment on behalf of this side of the House, and to wish him and his management every success in that organization.

I must honestly say that I find it somewhat difficult not to get angry about what the hon member for Rissik has just said. I shall not get angry, but what I find astonishing is that he should strongly attack the Government for having made personal attacks on his leader, or anyone on that side, but should then proceed, the very next moment, to make personal attacks on the Minister of Foreign Affairs and other hon members on this side of the House. He did the same in respect of persons outside this House. The extemely personal way in which he attacked a journalist of the SABC, while that journalist cannot defend himself in this House, was an absolute disgrace. [Interjections.] The question is, therefore: Why demand that people should refrain from making personal attacks on the hon the leader of the CP, if the hon member for Rissik himself is guilty of this? It is a question of the pot calling the kettle black.

As regards the allegations made by the hon member for Rissik, as well as those made by the hon member for Sandton earlier today, about the bias of the SABC, I just want to make a few remarks. Surely it is a fact, for example, that before the referendum campaign began, discussions were held with the various political parties about the way in which the referendum campaign would be conducted and the way it would be presented by the SABC on radio and television. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sandton indicates that he is aware of this. I take it that he personally attended those talks. It is also a fact that the SABC laid down certain guidelines on that occasion according to which it would report on the campaign. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sandton concedes that this is so. I also assume that those guidelines were accepted by the various political parties who took part in the discussions. Now the question is: If the undertakings given by the SABC on that occasion were accepted by the various political parties—and I take it that the CP also participated in those discussions—why make all kinds of allegations at this stage about the bias of the SABC while the SABC adhered strictly to those undertakings during the referendum campaign? If we look at the way in which it was applied in the programme “News Focus” on television, we find the following: In the 25 programmes that were televised, 52% of the total time was devoted to the yes vote and 47,6% to the no vote. There was more or less a balance, therefore.

The hon member for Rissik endorsed the remarks made by the hon member for Sandton as far as this allegation is concerned. What about the allocation of time during the by-elections last year, in which his party was involved? What was the allocation of the time devoted to news about those by-elections? The Opposition parties got 51,2% of the time allocated to this, and the NP got 48,7%. Now the hon member for Rissik is making these unfounded statements which only he can understand.

The facts I am stating here are also confirmed by feedback received after the referendum, for example. This took the form of independent surveys conducted for the SABC. In one case, it proved that 66% of the people who took part in the survey expressed their satisfaction with the way in which the campaign had been conveyed by the SABC; in another survey, 73% expressed their satisfaction. In one case, 90% of the viewers expressed their satisfaction with the fairness and the impartiality of the news coverage, and in another survey the figure was 80%. [Interjections.] Hon members are laughing at this, but do they wish to dispute the reality or the truth of those independent surveys? If so, go and tell it to the people who conducted the surveys, and do not make unfounded statements across the floor of this House.

Mr Chairman, I want to make a few other remarks about this subject, with particular reference to the shift in emphasis which there has been in the SABC with regard to the handling of the political debate in South Africa over the past year. I want to commend the SABC for the fact that there has in fact been a shift in emphasis. In the past, it was all factual reporting. Now the SABC is also concentrating on dialogue and debate. I believe—and at least we can all agree about this—that this is a very good approach in terms of present development in South African politics, namely that the tendency has now developed to enter into dialogue and debate openly and to a greater extent. The SABC has played an important role in this for the past year, and we must all commend the organization for this, because it has tried in its particular way to encourage debate. I believe that 1983 was indeed a particularly appropriate year in which to encourage this approach.

In the time I have left, I should just like to refer to one other matter, and that is a project which is being undertaken by the SABC at the moment and which I believe deserves to be mentioned here. This is the ShakaZulu project, which may be described as probably the greatest project yet undertaken by the SABC. It deals with the Zulu king who made a name for himself in South Africa and throughout the subcontinent, throughout the world, in fact, between 1820 and 1830. The life of this Zulu leader, who certainly made a name for himself in British circles as well, in his confrontation with the British Empire at that time, is now going to be the subject of a film which is going to be made in co-operation with international groups. It is going to be a truly great project, in the sense that many international film stars are going to appear in the film, while the local cast is going to be very strong and there will be 120 speaking parts in all. By the way, it is going to be shot on 35 mm film.

How much money is involved?

The hon member talks about money. Filming will only commence in July. Even at this early stage, however, so much interest is being shown in the project that all the indications are that it will be financially profitable. I think the most important statement that should be made here is that it could also place South Africa in the forefront of the international film industry. It is with regard to this aspect that I want to pay tribute to the SABC. This is probably going to be its biggest attempt up to now, and it is also an attempt which mean a great deal to South Africa, especially as far as its image abroad is concerned. The presentation of such a film as a product of South African television could also be successful abroad, I believe.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Johannesburg West devoted some of the earlier part of his speech to the impartiality or otherwise of the SABC. He also did his best to defend the SABC. In regard to the referendum and by-elections, I must say, he seems to forget that time allocation is in itself not the only factor relating to partiality. In relation to Prof Strauss as the objective, independent observer, I believe the hon member ought to know—and I am sure he does know, as the SABC should also have known—that that same gentleman was signing an advertisement calling for a “Yes” vote, an advertisement which was widely published throughout South Africa at the very time he was pontificating on the radio about his independent views. [Interjections.]

A final and very recent example I should like to draw to the hon member’s attention—it was alluded to by the hon member for Rissik too—is something which occurred last week. The hon member for Berea, as chief spokesman of the PFP on Co-operation and Development, was asked by SABC-TV to be interviewed in connection with the debate on that Vote. While he was being interviewed the interview was stopped abruptly after about 90 seconds and the hon member for Berea was told that while he was being interviewed and while he was answering questions he should not look at the camera. When he asked why he was not supposed to look at the camera the interviewer replied that a ruling existed in terms of which only the State President and the hon the Prime Minister were allowed to look at the camera. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Tygervallei shakes his head. He can ask the hon member for Berea whether this is true because it happened to him last week. I am not telling a tall story now. [Interjections.] Hon members may laugh, and I accept it has its amusing side. I do think, however, it is a disgrace. [Interjections.] It is typical of the way in which the SABC and Government funds are often abused. [Interjections.]

You are spinning a yarn.

No, I am not joking. It is absolutely true. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, perhaps the hon the Minister does think it is a joke. I want to tell him though that it is genuinely true. He shakes his head. Anyway, I cannot go on repeating it until he ultimately believes me. I can only tell him it is indeed true.

The hon member for Sandton has covered SABC matters in general, and in the few minutes at my disposal I should like to deal with a very specific and parochial matter concerning my constituency. People living in Cape Town Gardens are unable to receive TV-2 transmissions. I might add that Parliament is also situated in the suburb of Gardens. We can also not receive TV-2 transmissions here. This in fact applies to 62 000 owners of television sets in the Cape Peninsula, which is nearly half the total number of owners of television sets in the Peninsula. That is the whole of the central Cape Town area, the whole area along the Atlantic coast, from Green Point all the way down to Cape Point, which includes Sea Point, Camps Bay and so on, as well as the whole of the False Bay coast from Muizenberg right down to Cape Point as well.

It causes a great deal of justifiable dissatisfaction, and there is no indication as yet of when the situation will be remedied. There are a number of good reasons why TV-2 transmissions should be provided to these people, although in most cases they are not predominantly Black communities.

First of all—and I speak in respect of my own constituency and the Atlantic seaboard in particular—there are many Black people who work in the area as well as sleep there who have very few social and recreational facilities available to them. Access to TV 2 would brighten their lives a little and help to relieve the boredom that can result in antisocial behaviour.

The second reason is that many programmes on TV 2 are of considerable interest to Whites as well as to Blacks. I think particularly here of some of the musical and sporting programmes that viewers in the Gardens area are denied. In recent times, for example, when we had the cricket test matches between South Africa and the touring Windies team, very often between 16h00 and 18h00 in the evening—a critical part of the day’s play—the telecast of that play was only available on TV 2. It was not available on TV 1. During recent months as well European soccer competitions that have a wide following among both White and Black South Africans could be seen live on TV 2 whereas only a summarized version was available at a later stage on TV 1. There are also, of course, scholars studying Xhosa at school or university to whom access to TV 2 would be of great value.

It is unfair that people should pay the same TV licence fees and not be able to receive the same service. When radio licences were still operative, a licence cost R8,40 for people who could receive FM transmissions and only R5,40 for people who could not. They received a discount of 36% because of that fact.

Finance has been cited as a problem, but approximately R2,5 million per annum is received from people in the Cape Peninsual who are unable to receive TV 2. The cost of a transmitter to bring TV 2 programmes to the Gardens as well as central Cape Town, Camps Bay, Clifton and parts of Sea Point would only amount to between R50 000 and R60 000 or about 2% of those annual licence fees. The money required to be able to transmit TV 2 to people in the Gardens area and elsewhere in the Peninsula is minute, and I ask the hon the Minister to do something about it.

Mr Chairman, I shall refer the hon member’s representations to the SABC, and that organization can then reply to him in this connection.

I should like to convey my thanks and appreciation to the hon member for Vasco for the contribution he made. Perhaps the hon the Minister will react to it later on. The hon member for Winburg also gave us a very interesting discussion of the Information Service. I also wish to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon member for Johannesburg West for his contribution here today.

Although my time is unfortunately limited and I shall have to be brief, I wish to react to what the hon member for Durban Central said in connection with the Government’s approach to Press liaison. In this connection I want to say that excellent progress has been made in that the various departments have appointed public relations officers. The inter-departmental liaison forum has already been established, and since the beginning of the year it has been meeting on a monthly basis, under my chairmanship on two occasions, and under the chairmanship and the Director: Media Relations, Department of Foreign Affairs, on other occasions. An active programme is worked out every month and lectures are given to prepare these peopel to communicate more easily with the media. They have been addressed by people from the media who have described their requirements to them. A programme is being conducted this week and next week in terms of which these media relations representatives will visit various newspapers over a period of two or three days and will then be informed by the newspapers of their needs in this connection. There is positive co-operation between all these different public relations officers and we are not experiencing any problems in this connection.

In the second place I want to refer to what the hon member for Durban Central said in connection with the guest programme. In this connection, I just want to point out that we invite a limited number of guests of the State—approximately 160 a year—to South Africa from abroad. The hon member said that we were inviting too many friends and too few enemies. That is the essence of what he said. I just want to tell the hon member that there are a lot of hardened critics of South Africa for whom one cannot do anything and who just want to come here to see what they can ferret out to use against South Africa, and the Government is not prepared to invite people of that kind to South Africa as its guests under any circumstances. We do not bring people to this country on the basis of rewarding them for their attitude, not at all, because that would be ridiculous and a waste of State money, but we bring them here to enable them to gain a better knowledge of South Africa and to multiply the message in that way. That is why we do this.

As far as foreign members of Parliament are concerned, the situation is exactly the same. The idea is to encourage well-disposed persons among members of Parliament of foreign countries and to impart as much knowledge to them as one possibly can. In this way we can gradually extend our influence. I want to give the assurance that in the process, our embassies also make contact, on a regular basis, with people who are not well-disposed towards South Africa, but in respect of whom we believe that it may be possible to change their attitude by providing them with good and first-hand information.

As far as advertisements are concerned, the fact is that every person who writes advertisements has his own opinion. No matter how an advertisement is produced, there will usually be other advertising people who will criticize it. We make use of the best expert assistance in this connection.

I want to refer to what the hon member for Sandton said. He referred, in the first place, to the internal SABC instruction in which reference is made to the new constitutional dispensation. In this regard it is said that a heterogeneous population will be accommodated within the framework of a constellation of Southern African states by means of differentiation and decentralization. This is a factual statement and this is what the new constitution is designed to achieve; what is wrong with saying so in the memorandum? The memorandum also says:

Surely this is absolutely correct. In the light of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa which has been passed by the Parliament of South Africa, it is said that in order to achieve this, adjustments are necessary. It goes on to say:

What is wrong with that? Surely the PFP supports it, because they support the implementation of the new Constitution. Surely this is a fact. I now want to make the statement that there is no difference between the official standpoint of the PFP and the SABC in this connection. The hon member is just trying to make cheap propaganda and nothing more. [Interjections.]

It is being said by all parties on the Opposition side that the SABC and the television service are being misused for propaganda purposes. It is true that a television viewer may sometimes get the impression that Government spokesmen appear more freqeuntly than other people. That is what he will see. On the basis of this it is then said that the SABC is prejudiced. There are two background facts that are of the utmost importance. The first one is that the SABC cannot achieve a balance in every separate news bulletin, and no news medium in the world can do this, because the contents of a news bulletin depends on the uncontrolled flow of news and newsworthy events. The SABC cannot make news. If the hon the Leader of the Opposition is not a newsmaker on a particular occasion, if he is not getting divorced or married, we cannot show him on the box; that is impossible. The ABC reports on what actually happens.

The fact is that the Government of the day simply happens to be a bigger newsmaker than the Opposition, as it is all over the world. The Opposition does not determine the standard and circumstances of life of the citizens; this is the task of the Government which has been elected to carry out its political programme. It is the duty of the SABC to ensure that the population of South Africa is informed of the way in which it is being governed, and I want to say that this is very definitely right. It very often happens that as a result of a party congress or other circumstances, Opposition parties are more newsworthy and therefore get more news coverage than the Government at that stage. Events, actions and incidents are always more newsworthy than a mere political standpoint or propaganda. The Government provides action, among other reasons, because it governs. The Opposition only makes the propaganda, and then it gets cross when the SABC does not broadcast the propaganda.

The hon member also referred to the case of Prof Strauss. The big problem which the PFP and the CP had with the constitution concerned the actual contents of the constitution. Their problem was that the constitution did provide for proper group representation of the various population groups on a group basis. They also had the problem that they had to argue away the fact that a significant role was in fact being accorded to other colour groups in the Government of the day. What the SABC did was to confront the population of South Africa with the actual contents of the constitution …

Blatantly to mislead …

Order! The hon member for Bryanston has had a turn to speak. If he wants another one, he can make arrangements with the Whips. Meanwhile he should not interrupt the hon the Deputy Minister.

The hon member also referred to the question of an ombudsman. This is a very interesting proposal, but why does he address it to the Government? After all, it means that he is asking the Government to interfere with the activities and the operation of the SABC. He should rather address this proposal to the Board of the SABC itself. The Government certainly does not intend to interfere with the operation of the SABC by means of an ombudsman.

The other interesting proposal made by the hon member for Sandton was that the newspapers that were suffering losses should form a corporation or a partnership with the SABC and should then start a fourth television channel so that the newspapers could recover their losses in that way. In this connection I want to put a question to the hon member. We all know that Die Patriot is also suffering losses and that it finds itself in a serious financial predicament. I just want to know, for the sake of interest, whether the hon member includes Die Patriot in his proposals. [Interjections.] So the hon member includes Die Patriot. This makes it very interesting. I just want to say in this connection that in terms of a decision taken by the Government, the SABC is entitled to televise advertisements for a certain number of hours each week. That number of hours has been laid down, irrespective of the number of television stations which there may be. If the SABC were to start a fourth television channel, the total number of advertisements televised by it would have to remain the same. In order to make it profitable, the SABC would have to take a bigger slice from the total advertising cake. This is a very complex matter and I do not know whether this fact has been taken into account in the representations that have been made in this connection.

The hon member for Sandton also stated his standpoint with regard to the Media Council. It surprises me that the hon member should be so enthusiastic about the Media Council all of a sudden, because if I remember correctly, he and his party were opposed to the establishment of the Media Council. They condemned it, but now they are suddenly in favour of the establishment of the Media Council. However, I thank the hon member for having changed his mind and for his support in this connection. It is greatly appreciated. The SABC began by having talks with the National Press Union in connection with the Media Council. Correspondence was conducted in this connection and the SABC made certain inquiries. It has not yet received replies to some of these. I approached the Media Council itself and they told me that an appointment had been arranged between the Director-General and other officials of the SABC and the Media Council, and that this would take place tomorrow. I do not think there is any need for me to go into the matter any further at this stage.

I come now to the remark made by the hon member for Rissik in this connection. Before reacting to this, however, I think it is necessary that I should react to the silly business of only the State President and the hon the Prime Minister being allowed to look at the camera, while other people have to look at the interviewer. I had inquiries made at the SABC, and I was told that the policy with all interviews was that the person who was being interviewed was advised to look at the man who was conducting the interview. If I or any hon member were to go there, the interviewer would tell us to look at him. That is the general principle. In other words, one looks at the man by whom one is being interviewed. The hon member knows that this is so, because he has been there himself. When the hon the Prime Minister and the State President appear on television, it sometimes happens that they are not interviewed, but that they address South Africa directly. [Interjections.] That is quite correct. I do not know why the hon members are laughing. When the State President and the hon the Prime Minister are delivering their New Year’s messages, for example, they are not being interviewed, they sit behind a table and they look directly at the cameras. They are not being interviewed, therefore. However, I can give hon members the assurance that if in future, when they are being interviewed, they want to be able to look directly at the camera and not at the interviewer, they are welcome to do so, and I would personally recommend that they do. However, the hon member would look a perfect fool, because the person who was conducting the interview would be looking in one direction and the person who was being interviewed would be looking in another. That would be very silly. [Interjections.]

Present-day National Party nonsense.

If the hon member for Brakpan does not want to look at the interviewer the next time he is being interviewed, I shall request that he be allowed to look away from the man who is questioning him, and then one will see what a clown he will make of himself on the box. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister is reacting to questions that have been put to him. I call upon hon members to hear him out in silence.

But he is provoking us, Sir.

Order! I am listening to what the hon the Deputy Minister is saying. He is simply explaining the way television cameras work during interviews, and hon members must now allow him to continue.

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

No, Sir. I want to make only one more remark. The hon member for Rissik is saying in effect that by using certain techniques, the SABC is trying to destroy the image of the hon member for Waterberg. But the times I have seen him on TV, the hon member for Waterberg seemed to me to come across very well. However, the problem is not what he looks like, but what he says. As long as the hon member keeps falling between two stools, as he does with regard to the Nkomati Accord and many other things, he will have a poor image. Looking at him on television, however, his appearance is not at all bad. He should rather work on the contents of his speeches; then he will come across much better and his image will improve.

Mr Chairman, last year I called this particular section of the debate the “Knicky Knacky Noo Show”, but I think there is a better name for it. This is the “Bedtime Hour”, because this is the bewitching time when the PFP and the CP climb into bed with each other and cosily cuddle up. They cuddle, and snuggle, and say: “I want to look at the camera.” They both want to look at the camera! What has happened now? Mommy has said: “All right, you can look at the camera from tomorrow onwards.” So, all is well.

Sir, what is bias? Bias is like beauty: It is all in the eye of the beholder. You know, Sir, bias in South Africa depends on exactly where one stands in the political spectrum. Where one stands is where bias starts or ends. The Press will gladly take up the cudgels against the SABC, particularly when there is adverse comment about the television services. I do not blame them one little bit. After all, television, as the hon member for Sandton has said, is today the greatest threat to the Press. Television is a threat to the centuries old monopoly the Press have had on the sole medium for transmitting news and views, namely the written word. Radio has introduced the spoken word en television has now given us what I could call the visual word—and it is far more powerful than the printed word. It is far easier for the South African to sit and watch television. It requires far less effort. He does not get ink on his fingers when he watches television. He does not have to go and wash his hands every five minutes—I find that these days I cannot even read the newspaper in bed because I get so dirty.

I want to commend the hon member for Sandton, because for the first time in a long time I have heard some positive proposals come from a member of that party—not just criticism, but also some proposals to rectify a certain situation. I am interested in his proposal that the SABC should do something about saving the Press. That was his call in as many words. I am intrigued to hear him talk about that, because he talks about saving the “independent” Press—he particularly stressed that. That, of course, I find quite amusing, because an “independent” Press to a member of the PFP is a Press that supports the PFP. No other Press is independent, let me assure hon members. Do not think that Nasionale Pers en Perskor are independent! No, no! Only those that support the PFP are independent. Sir, look at what is happening at present. Look at the spectacle of Saan and the Argus tearing each other’s throat out and tearing each other to pieces over advertising rates. They are having a go at each other over the advertising charges in respect of the property sections of their newspapers. If television were to be let loose on that business, I think it would be the end of them all.

Let us talk a little more about bias. From the PFP we get hysterical attacks from their “on-off” spokesman. He is an “on-off’ sort of gentleman. It depends: At their annual congress he has a bit of a tiff and goes off in a huff, and then he comes back again. [Interjections.] We get the sort of situation of “if my leader asks me to come back, I might come back, but, you know, there was no-confidence in me”, and all that business. That ”on-off ’ spokesman must spend hours dreaming up adjectives to describe the SABC. Did hon members hear the string of adjectives he used today? He must spend days looking through Roget’s Thesaurus for adjectives.

The CP members are apprentices when it comes to this sort of thing. Consider their criticism. The SA television services presented a report on what happened at the Skilpadsaal last week and those gentlemen are all upset because the camera focused on that I want to call the “guy with the gat”, the man with the gun. [Interjections.] They also focussed on the fellow with the tie with the little “krom draaitjie” thing or whatever is was he had on his tie. I think that what those hon gentlemen wanted was for the cameras to focus on possibly some dear old lady with a rose in her hair or with a carnation sticking out of her buttonhole while the gentlemen were extolling the pious platitudes and those gentle little words they were coming out with. No, I think the SABC did a very good job.

What about us, the NRP? We have no Press and we are therefore grateful for the fact that at least the SABC gives us the same coverage as it gives these two parties. For that I want to say that we are grateful. That at least we have. Whenever the viewpoints of the other parties are reported we are also asked for our comments and we are also reported.

There is another interesting point. There is going to be a news broadcast in 20 minutes time. We had three municipal by-elections yesterday. There was one in Durban where the NRP actively supported the winner.

The Nats.

That is right! [Interjections.] Full marks to that man in the corner. Give him a cigar! There is a report on the front page of today’s Mercury where the winning candidate thanks the NRP for its support. Who did we beat? We beat the CP, by 55 votes. Those Charlies, the PFP, came trundling along a long way behind. [Interjections.] I want to say that if it was not for that extra 55 votes it would have been a different story!

Having said that, there were also two other by-elections. Both were in Randburg. There the NP won, independents, I believe, came second and the hon gentlemen down the end there, the PFP, trailed in last. To-night at six o’clock if the SABC reports it it is going to be biased because it is going to report NP victories. However, if the PFP had won and the SABC had not reported it then there would have been a howl because it would have been biased. [Interjections.] One cannot win in this situation. Whatever one does, one cannot win.

Let us look at the facts. I believe, and I will say it, that the SABC is biased, but in all fairness, it shows far less bias than it did in years gone by. For that I commend them.

Finally, I want to turn to a subject which was described by the hon member for Sandton as “this disgraceful hatchet job that was done on Sir Richard Attenborough”. The hon member for Rissik saw fit to mention a journalist by name, which I do not think was called for. Let us look at the bias in that respect. Let us look at how this bias thing and the “hatchet job” that the hon member for Sandton talks about, works. In The Cape Times, a member of the Saan group, of Tuesday, 14 February, it is stated:

That was Saan, The Cape Times. Let us now turn to Saan, Natal Mercury. On 11 February it stated:

Sir, they must make up their minds. If these gentlemen here can get into the same bed then surely Saan can also get into the same bed. I believe the gentleman of the Press who has been maligned here today did a jolly good job of work in ferretting out Sir Richard Attenborough and his many nom de plumes while he went around South Africa creating mischief. I do not think I want to see Sir Richard Attenborough or his ilk back in this country again for they come to do nought but make mischief in this country which has enough problems of its own without anybody else trying to prescribe to us what we should do [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Benoni notified me that he could not be present this afternoon, but I should nevertheless like to express my appreciation for the words of congratulation he addressed to the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I am particularly pleased that he made special mention of our old friends in Africa who have stood firm over the years as far as their relations with South Africa were concerned. Among others he mentioned the names of Pres Banda, Pres Houphouet-Boigny and the late King Sobhuza—all statesmen of Africa who stated their standpoints courageously.

I should also like to thank the hon member for East London North for his positive contribution on the Nkomati Accord; the hon member for Uitenhage for emphasizing the value of Nkomati and the idea of cultural contact with the African states; the hon member for Krugersdorp for his contribution in that he exposed the distorted and antiquated views of the CP and also for emphasizing the need for regional co-operation in Southern Africa; the hon member for Roodepoort for his illuminative glance at the historical development of our contacts with the African states; the hon member for Maitland for his survey of the changing scene in Africa and for emphasizing the need for regional co-operation; the hon member for Innesdal and the hon member for Turffontein for their contributions in exposing the hypocrisy of the CP; the hon member for Randfontein for the useful and correct perspectives he gave us on the threat of sanctions and the hon member for Helderkruin for emphasizing the new realism which is now emerging in Africa. I should also like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon member for Losberg for his perceptive speech on diplomatic privileges, and to the hon member for Umlazi for his understanding of the conditions under which our representatives have to live and work abroad, and for the information which he furnished on the conditions of employment that are being introduced to facilitate their task in the outside world.

†To the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North I wish to say that the policies and objectives of the South African Government can be reconciled with the important aspects of the Lusaka Manifesto, provided that there is also reciprocal acceptance of South Africa’s interests on the part of the African states.

*Mr Chairman, unfortunately time does not allow me to reply to all the hon members. I still owe the hon member for Bryanston a few replies. Apparently he has ascertained from the hon member for Sea Point that they have backed me into a corner on the question of Ingwavuma and Kangwane. What the hon member actually wanted to ask was whether we had obtained that security pact with the Swazis by assuring them that we would cede Ingwavuma and Kangwane to them. He did not put it in so many words, but that was what he actually wanted to ask. The answer is “no”. I shall not deny that I was able to tell them in talks that were held at an earlier stage, in 1978 and 1979, that if they were one day to test the free will of their people—and, as I have already said, such a test will have to take place because without it there can be no incorporation—that if they wanted to further their case for incorporation; if they wanted the people whom they wished to incorporate to have confidence in that incorporation, it would be a good thing if reciprocal security arrangements could be made. I shall not deny that I could have used words to that effect. But there was no deal, and there was no condition either. I hope the hon member is satisfied now. After all, it would have been absurd to have made such a deal and to have said at the same time that the people would have to be satisfied and that Parliament would have to agree to it.

As far as the granting of aid is concerned, the hon member knows very well what the situation is, and I think he is being a little unfair now to want to hold me responsible for the granting of aid to African states, or rather for misspending by other countries. When a country is independent, it has various sources of income, but these countries do in fact receive aid from South Africa as well. As for the projects that are being financed in terms of the Economic Co-operation Promotion Loan Fund Act, I can give the hon member the assurance that I receive objections from some of the independent states that my officials and those of the Treasury and other departments are too strict, for every project is properly investigated and evaluated. It is a fact that we investigate every project properly, evaluate and investigate it properly from the viewpoint of its employment generating possibilities as well as its viability. Consulting engineers are frequently appointed to monitor the completion of the project when our own officials are not able to do so. Everything possible is being done on the part of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Treasury in regard to those projects that are being financed with South African money.

These countries are, however, independent. They have obtained their independence in terms of legislation of this Parliament. They also have other sources of income, including loan sources and tax sources. They also receive money from the Customs Union pool, money which is legally theirs. Therefore it is very difficult for me to say to an independent state, in a given case, that the airport or the piece of road it wishes to construct is being absolutely financed with money from my country. When water is thrown into a tank, it is difficult for a person to draw off 10 litres, for example, and then to allege that every drop of those 10 litres is the water which he had added to the other water in the tank. I can give the hon member the assurance, however, that the Government of South Africa does worry about this matter. This concern has been demonstrated by the urgency with which I placed legislation in this connection on the Order Paper earlier this session. The hon member says he does not like that legislation. I do not like it either. But that legislation reflects my deep concern about White South Africans, and of course Whites from other parts of the world, coming to this country—in the same way as they also come to countries elsewhere in Africa—and sometimes catching some of the officials or even the Ministers of those countries unaware. They conclude contracts with officials or Ministers of a specific country. Only later the government of that country discovers that the agreements in question are utterly detrimental to them and that they do not have the funds to implement them.

In the case of Venda, the Government of that country was confronted with a R300 million claim, which in my opinion was morally indefensible. It would have bankrupted that state. Consequently I had no choice but to take action. I can assure the hon member that, after hard work and intensive negotiations, and of course with the help of this stringent legislation, an agreement was reached on a settlement that was acceptable to Venda. What this agreement amounts to is that the original claim of R300 million has now been reduced to R500 000, which fairly reflects the actual costs and expenditure involved in certain activities.

As far as the Ciskei is concerned, I am personally worried about the fact that a R25 million airport is going to be built, while the East London Airport is so close to the Ciskei. It is a fact, however, that every independent state also aspires to have its own structures. Every state aspires to have its own symbols of independence. Throughout the world it is a fact that an independent country wants its own international airport, and we will find that this is the one thing they would all like to have. This is a difficult and sensitive matter. Personally I think it is an erroneous preference, especially since there is such a scarcity of money at present, and I do not think that preference should be given to the building of an airport rather than to the undertaking of employment generating projects, particularly not at the present stage. Far more important than the building of airports, while there is after all a suitable airport in the vicinity, are projects which can provide people with an imcome. That is my personal opinion. The hon member for Bryanston will concede, however, that we are now discussing the affairs of another country; the affairs of an independent country. I was prepared to give the hon member my opinion on this matter because it is true that South Africa did make money available to the Ciskei and we therefore have an interest in the Ciskei managing its affairs in such a way that our interests are not detrimentally affected.

Furthermore it is of course true that the IMF or the World Bank lays down certain requirements when we receive loans from them. Therefore I think that because it is an international principle and practice we ought to have the authority—and I do think we have it—to speak to countries that have received relatively large financial loans from us and who act in such a way, and put it to them that they are also jeopardizing South African interests when they allow their own credit standing to be jeopardized in this way. My department is giving attention to this matter. We are doing so in co-operation with the Treasury, and we also contemplate holding talks in this connection with the Ciskei.

The hon member for Soutpansberg put questions to me with reference to a report which he brought to my attention. The gist of the report is that the Government of Zimbabwe alleges that the fence on our side of the Northern Transvaal border, which was erected by South Africa, is considered by the Government of Zimbabwe to be the new border. I can give the hon member the assurance that borders cannot be altered in this way. If the Government of Zimbabwe did in fact make a statement of this nature, the South African Government does not accept it at all. We shall not accept it.

As far as stock thefts on our northern border, particularly along the Northern Transvaal border and elsewhere are concerned, this is a very difficult problem. In this connection the Government has a great deal of sympathy for our farmers. There are cases of stock theft. I am aware of them. I am also aware that our police are doing their best and that they are, I think, trying to form special units in an effort to cope with this problem. I am aware that our police have already been in contact with the Zimbabwean Police because we consider it to be more effective if Police Services are able to co-operate on this level. Then they can take more effective action when livestock is stolen. I also know of cases where they were successful in recovering the livestock. However, I also want to say in all fairness that complaints of stock theft have also been made against us by Zimbabwe. These cases are also investigated from time to time, and I want to give the hon member the assurance that we share his concern about the seriousness of the problem and are continuously doing our best to try to cope with the problem.

The hon member also asked a question about the condition of the Louis Trichard Garden of Remembrance in Maputo. At the first opportunity we had of visiting Maputo, I asked the Director-General of Foreign Affairs to lay a wreath there, which he did. I also visited the Garden of Remembrance when I was there, and it is in a surprisingly good condition. Over all these years the Mozambique Government together with the SA Railways, have maintained that Garden of Remembrance in a commendable condition. The Mozambicans told me: “That is a sign of our respect for your history”. This was said by members of the Mozambican Government, and I am grateful for it. I also received a letter of appreciation from descendants of Louis Trichardt for what had been done in this connection.

In my opinion the hon member became a little too personal about my behaviour yesterday. I should like to tell the hon member for Soutpansberg that we do not make strangers from outside, ambassadors, the criterion of the effectiveness of the performance of members of our Parliament. The criterion is how loudly the Opposition squeal, how loudly the CP squeals. If this is the criterion, then I am perfectly satisfied with my performance yesterday and I am just sorry that I have to say so myself. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik said that I had tried to present his party in a bad light. It is not necessary for me to do that. The hon member does that himself and does it far better than I am able to do. [Interjections.] He spoke about renegades and he also referred to Mr Jan Hofmeyr. But the hon member was a member of his party. [Interjections.] He was a member of that party.

That is untrue. [Interjections.]

The hon member can say that until he is blue in the face. I have the testimony of people who are absolutely reliable and who were with him at the Normal College in Pretoria. They said he was a staunch supporter of that party. [Interjections.] There is no one who doubts this. [Interjections.] Then the hon member talks about renegades!

May I please ask a question?

No, my time is almost up.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister not obliged to accept the word of the hon member for Rissik when he says that he was not a member of the United Party? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I said that I had evidence that he had been a member of the United Party.

Bring me that evidence.

It is false evidence. [Interjections.]

Order! I prohibit any further interjections for the remainder of the debate.

Mr Chairman, I should like to concede one thing to the hon member for Rissik: He is a consistent man and he has never been so consistently true to himself as he was yesterday and today. I grant him that.

Before we conclude the debate on the Nkomati Accord, I should like to say this: Just as I cannot say that if we have had good rains by October or November and we have done our ploughing and sowing, the young crops will not be destroyed by droughts in January, so no one can say that the Nkomati Accord will not collapse. I do wish to say, however, that if it does collapse it does not collapse for South Africa only. It collapses for everyone in Southern Africa. I believe that the leaders of Africa do not want this, but that they want to pursue a course of peace and development. This Government will play its part in this development for the future.

Vote agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 22.