Mr. Chairman, when the debate was adjourned last night, I was trying to indicate the important role the Republic of South Africa was playing with regard to the matter of the provision of food in Southern Africa, especially in proportion to the tremendous growth of the populations in the countries in Southern Africa. For this reason Mr. Soapy Williams said the following in 1965—

Several projects have already been tackled jointly. For instance, there is the Kariba project which provides water and power to large areas of various countries. Then there is the Cabora-Bassa scheme, the Kunene scheme and the possible scheme for the development of the highlands in Lesotho which is known to us as the Oxbow scheme. Then there still is the tremendous potential of the water resources of the Okavango swamps in Botswana. Therefore, Sir, if one country can produce food, the other country can indeed produce power to enable his neighbour to produce food for him to feed his growing population.

Another aspect which clearly results from this population increase is the question of the provision of employment. In the economic survey of the U.N. which was launched by its Economic Commission for Africa, it was indicated as long ago as 1969 that 30 000 youths entered the labour market each year in Malawi, while there was an increase of only 12 000 jobs per year. In Lesotho 8 000 youths enter the labour market every year, although only a few hundred additional jobs are created every year. The situation is such that Botswana’s Minister of Local Administration, Mr. Kgobo, made the following statement (translation): “The youth problem in Botswana is a real one. Thousands of children who passed or failed the Std. 7 examination, are loitering in the streets. Many of them either fall into crime or become disturbers of the peace.” Surely it is significant that 43% of the present population of the city of Gaberones is under the age of 15 years. In 1969 there were employment opportunities for only 38 000 new workers in Zambia, although there were more than 60 000 pupils who left school.

In the light of this, Sir, I want to make the statement that one cannot understand for what reason countries such as Zambia and Tanzania can allow their territories to be used as springboards for terrorists against a project such as the Cabora-Bassa scheme. I raise my hat to the Portuguese who, in spite of all this pressure from terrorists, persist in making a success of that scheme for their own good, for the good of their own people and for the good of their neighbouring states who may benefit from it. Similarly, one is unable to understand how a country such as China, with its ever-increasing population of more than 800 million, could have succeeded in finding a springboard here by helping these African countries. Surely it is obvious that they are either looking for food here, or, if not, for a place to which they can send their own superfluous millions. If either of these two alternatives is not the reason, then they are here in search of a foothold in view of their ideology of world domination.

This mornings’ Burger published a photograph of the Tanzam railway line. It is a significant photograph, for on the railway line one sees a Chinese labourer, while there are hundreds of thousands of youths in Tanzania and Zambia who are out of work. When one considers the projects which are launched in Tanzania and Zambia by Red China, one’s suspicions as to their real purpose here are strengthened. For instance, radio transmitters, patrol boats, harbour facilities, military barracks for the Frelimo terrorists, ammunition factories, and so forth, are being erected. A Mao-Tse Tung sport stadium is also being envisaged. I do not believe that this is to help those countries to become more self-reliant with regard to their production of food.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for their good wishes in connection with my illness. Furthermore, I want to offer my apologies and convey my regret to hon. members for any inconvenience they may have suffered as a result of the fact that the discussion of my Vote had to be postponed. I enter the debate at this stage in order to comment on certain important points that have been raised up to now, and in a further attempt at raising the level of the debate. The hon. member for Middelland and his colleagues on this side of the House did their best, and I think they succeeded in doing so, to make stimulating speeches and to give all of us, and also the leaders in Africa, food for thought in connection with our future relations.

The hon. member for Pietersburg apologized for not being able to be here today. He made a very interesting analysis in which he indicated that here in the Republic of South Africa, with our co-operation, quite a number of African states were in the process of developing towards independence, states which will be able to hold their own in the rest of Africa. I think the speech made by that hon. member deserves to be studied by all who are interested in African affairs. These speeches by hon. members on this side of the House form a sharp contrast to the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, especially that part of his speech in which he dealt with our relations with our neighbours and with African states. It is probably his duty, as he sees it, to be destructive, but he could at least try sometimes to be constructive too. I think he allowed a golden opportunity in this regard to slip by yesterday. Sir, at half past two yesterday afternoon it was possible for all of us to read in the reading room here in Parliament a very interesting report in The Argus in connection with a debate which had just taken place in the Lesotho Parliament, from which I want to read a few extracts to you. This report stated, amongst other things, the following—

One of them said—

This is remarkable—

The hon. member criticized us for what he considered to be delay in exchanging representatives with our three neighbouring states. When I referred in the past to the financial implications, the heavy financial burden, which something of that nature would entail for poor neighbouring states, hon. members opposite laughed at me, but listen now to what was said by the Deputy Prime Minister of Lesotho, also according to this report which appeared in The Argus—

This is the true state of affairs.

Sir, the tenor of what the hon. member opposite had to say about South-West Africa is in actual fact that the Government is delivering up the Whites of South-West Africa to the U.N., with the further insinuation that his Party, should they come into power, would not do so. The hon. member for Wonderboom dealt effectively with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in that regard. He dealt with him by referring to the present Government’s record over a period of 25 years in respect of the future of all the population groups, White as well as non-White, in South-West Africa, and he expressed the thought here that if those people were to judge by the past, there would be no need for them to be concerned about their future. But I shall come back to this later on. In passing I cannot but express my astonishment at the hon. member’s statement that the population groups in South-West Africa are apparently showing preference for the United Party’s federation plan for South-West Africa. But, Mr. Chairman, surely this federation plan is nothing new; surely it was already in existence at the time of the previous general election; or may one not accept that even at that stage it was a case of “it was what it was”? What was the result of that election in South-West Africa? How many seats did the United Party take there, federation plan and all? Not one single seat—absolutely nothing, Sir.

The two hon. members opposite impressed the Committee even less with their criticism of the appointment of Mr. Blaar Coetzee as ambassador and of what happened subsequently. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout read out lengthy quotations taken from the light-reading pages of the Sunday papers, which I think was very unbecoming to the dignity of this House.

An article which he wrote himself.

That article was written for amusement. [Interjections.] Of course! It was written by a person who has a reputation for being able to poke fun at anything and anybody, including himself. After all, hon. members know him. It was written for people who do not know what to do on Sundays.

That is what he did in Rome.

I shall come back to that. The hon. member for Von Brandis gave a talk on diplomacy and professional diplomats, and I appreciate the fact that he mentioned me in this regard as being the only exception to prove the rule. I think there are many other examples of good non-professional diplomats to whom he could have referred. But let me say at once that I myself have the highest appreciation for professional diplomats. Over the past 13 years I have been dealing with them virtually day and night, with South Africa’s professional diplomats and also with those of other countries, and the more dealings I have with them, the more appreciation I have for them, for the good, ones amongst them, because not all of them are good. There are also less good ones amongst them, just as there are good M.P.s and also less good M.P.s. I am sure that if there had been school-children on the gallery, they would have found the hon. member’s talk on professional diplomats interesting, but I do not think that those who came here yesterday in an attempt to gain an impression of the solutions offered by the official Opposition to the very important and difficult problems with which South Africa has to contend, did actually find this lecture on diplomacy very amusing. But the hon. member for Von Brandis, who is supposedly so knowledgeable about diplomacy, delivered himself of a number of things which cause one to wonder a little about the quality of his diplomacy. He cast very grave reflections on South Africa’s diplomats in Italy over the past number of years, on his ex-colleagues. He made an analysis, but let us consider the past ten years, the period during which I have been responsible for the appointment of diplomats. At first we had Mr. Frans Erasmus here, an ex-Minister of this Government, who was a good diplomat under difficult circumstances and maintained good relations with Italy, the fruits of which we are still reaping today. Mr. Erasmus was not appointed by me, but his appointment was a good one. He was succeeded by two of our senior and esteemed professional diplomats, both of whom were able to hold their own there in every respect, i.e. Mr. Jock Steward and Mr. Willem van Schalkwyk, who are among our most senior and most esteemed diplomats. Now, are they the people who clouded our relations with Italy?

It is time you sent P. W. Botha there.

Then Mr. Coetzee was there for a short while, and he has been succeeded by one of our best known and most respected senior diplomats, Mr. Thys Botha, who is well known throughout South Africa. Surely it is absolute nonsense to suggest that South Africa’s relations have been damaged over the past ten years by our representation there. One of the most important requirements for any good diplomat is loyalty, loyalty to his country and his people, to his Ministry and to his colleagues.

And that is something hon. members opposite do not know.

Where does the criticism of the hon. member for Von Brandis come in now? He criticized his ex-colleagues. And who took up the cudgels for them?—the hon. member for Pietersburg. Very few members are aware that the hon. member for Pietersburg was also in the foreign service for years, only he does not make such a big song and dance of it. He took up the cudgels for his ex-colleagues and he was indignant because an hon. member had dared … [Interjections.]

Order! I call upon hon. members to afford the hon. the Minister an opportunity of making his speech without having unnecessary interjections. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I have not finished with the hon. member for Von Brandis.

(Inaudible.)

Order! I warn the hon. member. I have just given a ruling but already it is being ignored. I warn the hon. member.

Yesterday the hon. member did something which to my mind is unforgivable in the case of a diplomat. He attacked the Government, he made certain analyses, he quoted certain statistics, but he concealed those things which did not suit him. Let us just consider what South Africa’s position in respect of foreign representation was in the year 1947, shortly before the United Party, of which he is a member, was defeated at the polls. In 1947 there were eight full-fledged heads of diplomatic missions abroad. In those days they were usually called envoys. There were eight full-fledged envoys, and only three of those eight were trained diplomats. The other five were all appointed from outside, and two of those five were ex-M.P.s, former United Party M.P.s. In addition to that more than half of the consuls-general of that time were also outside appointments. Furthermore, in its time the United Party Government had no hesitation in appointing an ex-Adminitrator of Natal as High Commissioner in London. The hon. member for South Coast will perhaps know under what circumstances that appointment was made. The United Party Government had no hesitation in sending Mr. Deneys Reitz, an ex-Minister, to London as High Commissioner in his old age. It is only since 1948 that the position in respect of our diplomatic representation abroad has changed considerably, and today we have the position that out of more than 30 heads of diplomatic missions, there are only two ex-M.P.s. Out of a very large number of consuls-general, there is only one who is an ex-M.P. This is the present position.

As far as Mr. Blaar Coetzee is concerned, I want to concede at once that Mr. Coetzee was and is not what one would call a textbook diplomat. [Interjections.] In all earnest I want to say, however, that Mr. Blaar Coetzee was one of the most colourful public figures we have ever had in South Africa. There is nobody in this House, and that includes the hon. member for Houghton, who does not have a soft spot for him. If it were not for the fact that Mr. Coetzee had landed in that unfortunate position, he could have been very successful. He could then have been just as successful as was someone else, who was not a professional diplomat either and was just as unpredictable as he was, but who nevertheless acquitted himself very successfully abroad on behalf of South Africa. I refer to the late Mr. Harry Lawrence. Gen. Smuts regularly made use of the services of Mr. Harry Lawrence on important missions to the U.N. and countries abroad, where he handled South Africa’s case with success and with honour. For quite some time Mr. Lawrence was also a speaker in the House of Assembly on foreign affairs while I was still a back-bencher. He was by no means diplomatic in the ordinary sense of the word, and yet everybody was fond of him and respected him. I had the greatest respect for him. When Mr. Blaar Coetzee realized in what he had landed himself in Rome, he did what was honourable, for Mr. Coetzee is an honourable person. He tendered his resignation, and I accepted his resignation.

As far as the future was concerned, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wanted certain undertakings from me.

Surely he must be kicked out!

All I can tell the hon. member is that, like in the past, I shall continue in the future to do in this regard what my colleagues, my advisers and I consider to be in the interests of South Africa.

As far as South-West Africa is concerned, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout read out certain quotations taken from Dr. Waldheim’s report to the Security Council, and claimed that he was just doing so for the record. I just want to say that we should, please, not accept that the record is complete now, for even the parts quoted by the hon. member were not complete. Unfortunately I do not have the time to quote all the relevant parts. If hon. members are interested in Dr. Waldheim’s report, I can try to arrange for them to get copies of it from my department.

The hon. member’s announcement that South Africa’s enemies were now using South-West Africa for attacking us and for undermining us, is only remarkable in one respect. It is remarkable that he has only discovered this now. That process has been going on for more than a quarter-century; it started back in the days of Gen. Smuts. Another thing the hon. member apparently does not realize is that as far back as 1946 Gen. Smuts was already negotiating with the U.N. on the future of South-West Africa. However, I want to point out to hon. members in passing that we are not negotiating with the U.N.; we are negotiating with the Secretary-General.

†It is surprising that the hon. member did not make the slightest reference to what has been done over the many years by the South African Government in this regard in order to keep down the temperature, in order to avoid escalation of the South-West Africa issue. While I would very much like to place as much information as possible about the South-West Africa issue at the disposal of the House, it will be realized that there are many waiting to pounce on anything that would help them to wreck the present effort to find a realistic solution to the South-West Africa question. The so-called Council for Namibia, for example, wrote to the Secretary-General even before the recent discussions had taken place in Geneva, expressing its opposition to the continuation of dialogue. It argued that, and I quote:

Please note, they use the word “régime” and not “government”,

According o the news another request was issued yesterday. Here you have a United Nations body which makes no secret about the fact that it would do everything in its power to destroy our efforts and that of the Secretary-General. While the discussions were proceeding in Geneva, the Oslo Conference also indicated its desire to see an end to the contact between the Secretary-General and the South African Government. This conference, too, wanted the discussions to end forthwith. It will also be recalled that when the Secretary-General was authorized by the Security Council in December last to continue his contact with us, the relevant resolution was not supported by the Chinese and the Russian delegations.

These are but examples of those who are also watching today’s debate like hawks, hoping to find something to pounce upon in order to further their own ends. As we all know, the Security Council has still to consider the Secretary-General’s latest report. There is as yet no official indication as to when it will do so, but speculation seems to be that it might be the 20th June. In these circumstances hon. members will realize that it would be unwise for me to discuss the report in any detail at this stage. This attitude is nothing new. It is the general practice also in most countries of the world not to debate in public the substance of important diplomatic negotiations until the completion of such negotiations. I trust that in the interests of all concerned hon. members on both sides will view the matter in this light. It is within this general framework that I would like to offer a few general comments.

Firstly, I wish to emphasize that the most recent report of the Secretary-General merely deals with our contacts since December last. As the hon. the Prime Minister has stated, the report cannot be seen, and should not be seen, in isolation; it must rather be viewed against the background of the contact last year with the Secretary-General and the subsequent visit of his personal representative, Dr. Escher, as well as the statements made by the Prime Minister and by myself, inside as well as outside Parliament. One thing is clear, namely that the question of South-West Africa is highly complex and the search for a solution requires time. Dr. Waldheim himself recognized this since the inception of the contact. He pertinently draws this fact to the attention of the Security Council in his latest report, stating that “time and protracted discussions would be required if any progress is to be achieved.”

The present contacts with Dr. Waldheim over South-West Africa are the most recent manifestation of the Government’s desire to find an acceptable solution to this difficult question, the Government’s efforts over the years are well documented. They earlier took the form of negotiations with organs and agencies of the United Nations appointed for that purpose and include, for example, co-operation with the so-called “good offices committee” and the Carpio-de Alva mission. The Government’s policy remains that South-West Africa shall decide its own future. It is neither for the South African Government nor for the United Nations, nor for that matter for the United Party, to prescribe what the decision should be.

Hear, hear!

Our policy, as the hon. the Prime Minister stated on the 19th February this year, is also aimed at affording the peoples of South-West Africa the necessary opportunity of acquiring experience of self-government, experience which is vital to them and obviously an essential element in the process leading to self-determination. Without such experience, what people would be in a position to make a meaningful choice? As the Prime Minister stated in the House on that occasion, no final step has been taken in that regard. All that has been done has been to lead, inter alia, the Ovambo to a certain level in order to give them experience of self-government. While the advisory council for South-West Africa, which was recently established, is still in a formative phase, the Government intends to make the council, under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, a meaningful consultative instrument for the Territory. To this end the Government hopes that it will include members truly representative of all the different groups and that it will study and advise the Prime Minister of all matters of Territory-wide concern, including matters relating to the future of the Territory. Thus it is hoped that the council will be of assistance to the Government in facilitating self-determination and independence. It is the Government’s intention that, as the council becomes more experienced and effective, it should progressively become an instrument for the development of co-operation and understanding among the inhabitants of the Territory as a whole. It will depend on the contribution of and interest displayed by its members as to how the council will develop in practice.

*Mr. Chairman, in the light of the whole trend of our contacts with the Secretary-General over the past year, the standpoint taken up by us should be obvious to any person who is interested in the matter. It is my well-considered opinion that objective observers in the Free World, and especially the informed ones, such as the members of the Security Council, ought to have appreciation for South Africa’s attitude. The Government has gone out of its way and done everything possible to maintain contact with the Secretary-General. This has been done in an attempt to find a satisfactory and peaceful solution to a deadlock which has been upsetting our relations with others for years, for more than a quarter-century. We are looking for a solution within the framework of the charter of the U.N., especially in terms of article 1(2), which calls upon member states—

I can also assure you that in these attempts the Government was or is not intriguing in secret or leaving the inhabitants in the lurch. The Government has, as far as possible, remained in constant touch with leaders in South-West Africa, including the leaders of the Whites, and it is the Government’s intention to go on doing so. Therefore it is unnecessary for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to act as an intercessor for the Whites and the other inhabitants of South Africa. Nor is there any lack of communication between the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as far as South-West Africa is concerned. The latter has regularly been kept posted and informed, just as he was also informed on other important international affairs. There has definitely been no short-circuit in the communication between the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I am sure that the hon. gentleman will agree with me. If he does not agree, he has had several golden opportunities during this session to raise objections, and he has not done so. The only conclusion I can therefore draw is that the hon. gentleman is satisfied with the contact that has been maintained and with the information he has obtained. If there were other short-circuits—if, for instance, there were a short-circuit between the hon. the Leader and some of his lieutenants—that is of course not our business, but it would not surprise us.

Now you are spoiling your own case.

Our contacts with the Secretary-General have now reached a most delicate stage. Of course, I cannot say whether we shall meet with success or failure at this stage nobody can predict with any certainty what is going to happen. It is no secret that the South African Government believes that this constructive effort should continue and that a practical solution can only be found by these means. However, it is now for the Security Council to decide whether it agrees with this view. It would, however, be foolish on our part to do anything at this advanced stage through which we would perhaps make a negative contribution. If, in the light of further developments, it should become necessary or desirable to inform Parliament on the matter of South-West Africa, this will of course be done without delay.

Mr. Chairman, we have all listened with great interest to the hon. the Minister’s exposé of the South-West Africa situation. He does of course warn everybody in this House that he does not want too much discussion over this delicate matter. That is all very well, but unfortunately South-West Africa is not just a family skeleton to be hidden in a cupboard. It has to be taken out and dusted off. It is a very important international issue. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I think the Government has gone quite a long way in its recent statement in that it talks about ’’the population”—it does not talk about “populations”—and has made the point that the people of South-West Africa will have to decide for themselves what they ultimately want. It has gone a long way further than the Government has ever gone. I think we ought to take note of that. It has also gone further in deciding that, as far as it is concerned, nothing will be done without the consent of the people concerned. It has also established this advisory council, a multi-racial council, which I must say hasn’t got off to a very auspicious start, as several members have walked out. I do, however, say that the Government has gone further than it has gone in the past. It interests me to note that two of the advances anyway, as far as the council is concerned, and the decision to allow the people to decide for themselves, were indeed two of the three suggestions made last year by Mr. Eglin when he spoke to the South African Institute of International Affairs. He made, of course, also a third suggestion, namely that the Government proceed as fast as possible to remove all discriminatory practices in South-West Africa. That I believe is where the Government will make by far the greatest advance in putting forward the case of South-West Africa at the United Nations and in international quarters than by any other move that it has made so far. Here, unfortunately, we haven’t seen much advance.

There is one question which the hon. the Minister did not answer, the question which was put to him yesterday by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It is certainly a question which I too intended putting to him. How does the Government’s statement that all political parties—this is part of the Prime Minister’s statement—of South-West Africa will have full and free participation in the process leading to self-determination and independence, conform with the recent arrest of the three Opposition leaders? As far as I understand from a Press cutting, three of the main Opposition leaders were arrested when they led something like 3 000 people to the Chief Minister’s place and protested with placards against the establishment of a self-governing Owambo. I think the House is entitled to some information about that. I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not yet contemplated that the emergency proclamation under which people can be detained, etc., which was introduced after the strikes in Owamboland in January last year—I think it is Proclamation R17 of 1972—should now be lifted since this too, I believe, would be an important argument in South Africa’s favour in the deliberations over South-West Africa.

I want to say one or two things about dialogue. I must say that it is a very disappointing picture indeed that one has presented after yet another year. Last year when we discussed dialogue with the African States I came to the sad conclusion that we had reached a cul-de-sac in Malawi. I am afraid we are still stuck there. Last year one found that we had only four diplomatic missions in Southern Africa. Those remain. We still have only four, namely one in Angola, one in Mozambique, one in Rhodsia and one in Malawi. That is all. One would have hoped for some progress over the last 12 months. But indeed, if anything, we seem to have gone into reverse. The hon. the Minister will be aware of this. It is no good blaming changes of Government in Africa only for this. There has been a general hardening of attitude even amongst those Governments which formerly were in favour of dialogue with South Africa. I should like to mention in particular the case of Chief Jonathan who has made it quite clear that racial discrimination is the main stumbling block. He made major speech last year in which he stated this. We are still waiting for a date to be announced when the meeting between Chief Jonathan and the Prime Minister of the Republic is to take place. In November last year the Prime Minister told us that it was just a matter of time and it was just a matter of fixing the date. Nearly six months have passed since then and we are still waiting for the date to be fixed. Generally speaking, I think the hon. the-Minister must admit that we have to make far more progress in the race relations field before we are going to soften the attitude of the Black leaders in Africa. Indeed he himself has admitted this, because in a speech he made at Stellenbosch University he stated that our bona fides would only be accepted by the outside world and by the leaders in Black Africa once the homelands got their independence, and that until then it was going to be a struggle to get other countries to accept our bona fides. And, he said rightly, that deeds were more important than words. There I could not agree more with him. I think the international powers accept exactly the same fact. Both the under-Secretary and the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Newson and Mr. Rodgers, have made the point that there has been disappointingly little progress in race relations in South Africa over the last year. They say there has been nothing meaningful that can be accepted even by moderate Black leaders; thus, they say, laying the way open for further action by China and Russia in Africa. So positive action and our part is desperately needed, and I want to say right away that it is more than just the removal of petty apartheid that is needed, more than just the removal of “Whites only” notices in lifts and post offices and elsewhere. What we need is a positive move towards equal opportunity for Blacks, and far more development and job opportunities, for instance, in the homelands. Then we might get somewhere with our advance towards dialogue.

Finally. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I have another case of someone in the diplomatic service who is anything but a text-book diplomat. I refer to our existing Consul-General in New Orleans. I wonder whether before he puts his big feet into it—both of them—the hon. the Minister should perhaps not reconsider this appointment. Last year this Consul-General, the ex-Deputy Minister of Transport, Mr. Martins, gave an interview to Scope which appeared in its December issue, in which he informed the magazine, and I quote—

says this diplomat—

Sir. I ask you; would any experienced diplomat have committed a major faux pas like that? This, Sir, is a direct insult to the country concerned. No diplomat would have dreamed of saying that he had been offered an ambassadorship in another country and had turned it down. There are other examples in this article I could give, but really, they are so fatuous that I do not want to burden the House with them. This is the sort of man who, as he says, “has been sent because the Government has decided it wants people with a political background, particularly in the southern states of America, so that we can bring the right message about our population distribution”, I ask you, Sir—another text-book diplomat that we have sent off instead of a career diplomat! I want to support hon. members who have said that they do not believe that politicians should be sent to diplomatic posts. I do not care whether it was done during the Smuts régime; it was wrong then and it is wrong now. I do not believe in political drop-outs, be they Cabinet Ministers or ordinary politicians, being sent off to these diplomatic posts, for three reasons. Firstly, as I have indicated, they are usually very clumsy in their jobs and secondly, it is very bad for the career diplomats. It discourages those men already in the diplomatic service who find that the top jobs are blocked because the Government appoints politicians to the posts to which they themselves naturally aspire. It also means that young, able people men and women, are discouraged from entering the diplomatic service in South Africa. For all these reasons I sincerely hope that in the future we will not have these appointments filled by political and Cabinet drop-outs.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton has advanced her usual argument here, and I just want to say that if the Progressive Party wants to make any progress at all in South Africa, their leader will have to speak to her seriously. While she sits in this House, the Progressive Party will become weaker and weaker because of the accusations she makes in this House.

As far as career diplomats are concerned, I just want to mention that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as a politician, was a resounding success as an ambassador. In this same debate the hon. member for Bezuidenhout attested to this a few days ago and said what wonderful work was being done by our Minister of Foreign Affairs. I think that it is in bad taste to attack a person here who is unable to defend himself. If the hon. member for Houghton wants to make these irresponsible statements, then I think that she must do so when she is inciting her long-haired students, but in this responsible House she can at least display the decency of not making accusations and launching attacks against people who are unable to defend themselves here.

Sir, this discussion requires calmness and a sense of responsibility. I think that in a debate such as this it is a prerequisite that those of us who take part in it must attempt to improve South Africa’s image abroad; to try and make a contribution which will promote the image of the Republic. Sir, notwithstanding a background of viciousness towards South Africa, it is true that we are making progress in the international world, and this progress is based on certain fundamental principles. The first of these is that we in South Africa are strong politically; that we are politically honest; that we do not begrudge other peoples the right of self-determination, and the second is the economic stability of our country which enables us to hold our own in the international world. Sir, looking at the European Common Market, one realizes that countrits which differ politically and ideologically, can still have common objectives as far as trade is concerned and can co-operate in the interests of their own political economies. The Common Market has proved that this can in fact happen. Member states of the Common Market have proved that through co-operation in the field of economics and trade, they can raise the standard of living of their populations, on the clear understanding that they will not interfere in one another’s domestic affairs, and what applies there, also applies in Southern Africa. South Africa with its inherent potential, its mineral riches, its capital formation and its industrial development is one of the 18 principal trading countries in the world today, and it is not a static country. By means of capital formation we shall play a progressively more important role in international trade, and for that reason it is a pity that this trade which we carry on with other countries, cannot be channelled to Africa to a larger extent. Sir, South Africa’s economic stability gives security to a large part of Africa, and notwithstanding what the hon. member for Houghton said about dialogue, we must continue with bilateral dialogue in an attempt to cause the Black states in Africa to understand that we are not at all interested in their domestic affairs; that a market must be found for their natural resources, and that it would be of the greatest benefit to them to sell their natural resources to South Africa for manufacturing purposes. By this means they will enjoy capital formation and will themselves be put in a position to proceed to industrial development. Sir, it is very important to make our people realize that we must entrench ourselves economically and establish better relations with other countries. There is one aspect worrying the African states, ande that is that we may have colonial ambitions. Sir, our Republic was born out of the colonial concept. As an ex-colony, we become a republic after many years and we do not begrudge other people this; we prove this by our political set-up in South Africa in that we believe in the multinational concept; we believe in the evolution of peoples, and therefore the African states need have no fear that we would want to dominate them. The African states enjoy exceptional benefits from the Republic of South Africa. The Republic of South Africa will continue with dialogue, notwithstanding what is said in this debate by the hon. member for Houghton; we shall continue and we shall triumph because economic laws will triumph in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of the African states.

Sir, the notes which I compiled before this debate have a heading, opposite paragraph 1, “Pay tribute to the Minister and department.” I must say that my generosity faltered for a moment when I listened to the hon. the Minister, but I will nevertheless say that we believe that the hon. the Minister and his department are doing, or are trying to do, things which are for the general benefit of this country, and we will continue to support them in everything that they do to that end. If we are critical, Sir, it is because we believe that certain things may be wrongly done or may be better done. But we shall in no circumstances do anything to deter them from their constructive efforts or to jeopardize or to weaken their activities where we believe them to be in the true interests of South Africa. I have said this, Sir, with absolute sincerity. The hon. the Minister has rightly made the point that he can expect a reasonable degree of responsibility and support from the official Opposition. Sir, we agree with this sentiment, but we would say to the hon. the Minister that he also has a corresponding duty to the Opposition. If the Opposition do what they conceive to be their task in this responsible spirit which I have outlined, then I do not believe it is right to distort their motives or to suggest that they are acting in a spirit of wilful, arbitrary contrariness against the policy of the Government, because this is certainly not our intention. Sir, we accept and understand that the situation in many countries of Africa, with some of which we are trying to conduct dialogue, is inherently unstable. Many of these states are new; they have not yet found their feet economically, and we do not expect of the hon. the Minister that he should be able to conduct his policy with even success throughout; one must expect setbacks. The same is true of the South-West Africa situation, which is fraught with difficulties, and we commend him for what he has ben able to do, well and successfully, in this regard. But, Sir, the Opposition also has the right to take a critical view of those things which we think are less well done. Last evening I criticized what I regard as certain ineffectual appointments abroad. I continue to hold the view that some appointments have been highly ineffectual. I gave it as an example. I am very reluctant to go into personalities. I did not suggest that the career diplomats, ex-colleagues, have been guilty in this respect. I did refer in general to the record of the last 25 years. It is also possible, I think, in this mood of constructive criticism, to look at the question of how our policies are projected abroad and what policies are in fact projected abroad. The hon. member for Houghton referred to a speech which the hon. the Minister made in Stellenbosch in February this year. That speech contained many admirable passages. But it contained one particular remark to which I wish to draw attention. The hon. the Minister said that “our bona fides would not be accepted generally until we have developed this policy (i.e. the homelands, independence policy) to its ultimate consequences, in other words, until the homelands have become independent states. That is the case especially with the African states, even with those with whom we have friendly relations or contacts. The hon. the Minister was at pains to make clear that he saw this as the kernel, the nucleus, of what we have to project abroad. Now, I take leave to disagree with him. I do not want to discuss the merits or demerits of the homeland policy in this debate. I have neither the time, nor do I think this is the occasion for it, but let us look at just a few of the facts.

One of the facts is this: that the majority of Black people in South Africa live outside the homelands. This is highly relevant to the question of what image we are projecting and what case we are making, because people abroad know that the majority live outside their homelands and that they will continue to do so and that if the economic and statistical projections are correct, they will continue to do so in increasing numbers. For the response to his approach, which the hon. the Minister has referred to as the key to the break-through on the diplomatic front, one has to look at the attitude of the U.N. and one has to look at the attitude of other nations, friendly and hostile, and one has to look at the attitude of our own Black leaders, who are more and more frequently stating their opposition to certain aspects of that policy, and one has to look at the attitude of many White voters in this country as well. Sir, this policy may well have moral content, but the fact is that it is very hard to sell; it is a very hard thing to sell.

In my experience, and in the experience of most of us who read the journals of international opinion, it is perfectly clear that this particular aspect of our policy is making no headway even in those places where we have made our major efforts. There are certain capitals, certain places, where in fact we have been explaining endlessly, in the greatest possible detail and over a great many years, precisely what is envisaged; yet progress is absolutely minimal.

Now, it is true that our enemies have various motives and the question of resolving the problems of a heterogeneous society will not free us of all our difficulties in the international field. This is perfectly true; but it is also true that our vulnerability to their attacks arises very largely from our inability so far to resolve many of the problems of our heterogeneous society. What we will not do is solve our international problems by merely convincing them that in respect of this marginal problem—because it is marginal in terms of population, marginal in terms of economics, marginal in terms of human relations, marginal in terms of the moral impact—we have achieved a marginal success in the homelands. This will not do the job. I say that if we have to depend, as the hon. the Minister suggests, for a breakthrough in international relations, for a restoration of our position on the diplomatic front, for the ability to recommence normal relations with the other countries of the world—for all this—on the ultimate achievement of our homeland policy and the independence of the homelands, then we have a very long wait. I do not believe that we have all those years in hand. Because we do not have all those years in hand, and because the matter is becoming urgent, and because the dangers are growing around us, I believe that the hon. the Minister, if he really believes that this is the crux of the matter, that an explanation of the homeland policy and the achievement of it will effect a breakthrough, the only thing which will convince people of our good faith and our goodwill, he will not succeed in his foreign policy for a very long time. I believe that the time has come to review his attitude to this matter because unless he does so he will be doomed to many disappointments and many failures on the diplomatic front for many years to come.

Mr. Chairman, as far as this side of the House is concerned I think the hon. member for Von Brandis may rest assured that we respect 100% the right of the Opposition to criticize the Government. It is their right. However, the way in which that criticism is expressed makes a very big difference; whether it is exercised in a spirit of loyalty towards South Africa. I do not accuse the hon. member for Von Brandis of having rendered himself guilty of unfair criticism, but I do think that there are bodies and persons who might well take note of such disloyal conduct towards South Africa.

Who are they?

As regards his remarks about appointments, I think the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already replied to them. As regards his remarks on the Bantu homeland policy, it is true—this side of the House will admit 100% that there are serious problems—that it is a policy which makes heavy demands on the Government and South Africa. However, it is equally as clear from the speech of the hon. member for Von Brandis that the Opposition has no acceptable alternative to the policy of self-determination of nations and peoples as advanced by this side of the House. With that, I want to associate myself with the objectives of U.N. itself. The following is a well-known quotation and is the second objective of U.N.—

If there is a body which takes this aspect of the objectives of U.N. seriously and wants to pursue it to its logical conclusion, then it is this Government, the National Party in South Africa. As far as that point in the objectives of U.N. is concerned, we are evidently more loyal to it than U.N. itself, because what are we experiencing? We are in practice experiencing an undermining of that clause in the objectives on virtually every point as far as the conduct of U.N. itself is concerned. May I quote what an authority on our law in South Africa said by way of criticism of this? I refer to Prof. H. L. Swanepoel, since deceased, who said (translation)—

He continued (translation)—

While that confusion is prevailing in those ranks, this side of the House is convinced that the best, the only way of attaining peaceful coexistence and, at the same time, of placing the relations between the White man in South Africa and the various peoples who also inhabit this southern territory, and the relations between South Africa and other countries, on a sound basis, is by recognizing the right of self-determination of peoples and by recognizing the sovereignty of a country—that right of determination which it does not share with another country.

Does that also apply to the Coloureds?

The hon. member has a few people on his mind. He knows that the hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly said in this House that as far as those people are concerned, their future in South Africa will be measured out and hewed out in accordance with the principle which we have laid down, namely that the sovereignty and the identity of the White man in this country will remain untouched. From that standpoint the future of the Brown people—which that hon. friend does not have more at heart than we do—will be worked out.

What do we need in regard to these matters? I want to mention a few points. In the first instance it is necessary to strengthen the national will of our people because this is contained in the objectives of the United Nations itself. Its Charter provides that peoples must have the right of self-determination. In what does the right of self-determination of peoples reveal itself at its best, its purest and in its highest form? One must give those people the right to govern themselves. That is the direction in which we are working. In case my hon. friends are feeling afraid now, I must say that the hon. the Prime Minister said at the same time that this same right of self-determination and full independence would not be forced on anyone. If they do not want to accept full independence now, that will still not mean that they will share the sovereignty of the White man and of this Parliament because they refuse to accept their own independence. Surely this, too, is a fact, because otherwise one would cause the White man’s right to self-determination to miscarry, and if one were to do this, one would in fact be at variance with the endeavour of the United Nations again.

I have said that we would have to come to the matter of strengthening the national will of our people. The second point which I want to mention, is that we shall have to strive for sound liaison with those responsible bodies and people who interpret this line of thought, this endeavour and this feeling of solidarity of our people, not only at home but also abroad. I have here a quotation from an author from America. He is a person who is kindly disposed towards South Africa. He says—

In other words, a country must be presented to the outside world in such a way that the loyalty of that journalist, or whoever it may be, must be apparent from that presentation. I do not have the time to do so, otherwise I could have quoted to hon. members extracts from newspapers from Canada, for example, from which it is apparent that certain writers—particularly one from South Africa—present us abroad in a way which does not attest to the slightest loyalty towards this country and which does not make the slightest attempt to give a fair presentation of South Africa, and, least of all, of the Government.

A third matter which I want to mention is that together with the function of the news media, sound contact with this media is also necessary. I believe that this is the case and that there is sound contact between our Department of Foreign Affairs and these news media. I believe that this is the case because from most of our newspapers one discovers that our people have a keen feeling for the interests of South Africa and that they want to present South Africa in the best manner. It is one thing to be honest in one’s criticism, it is one thing to value one’s credibility, but credibility is not everything. One may often leave certain things unsaid for the sake of one’s case, for example, if one wants to prevent one’s enemies using them as a stick to beat one with. In addition to credibility there should most definitely also be loyalty. I therefore say that I think that we can do a great deal—and I think that it is being done —to establish sound contact between our department and the news media. I conclude by saying that I think that we can do much to channel sound information to our educational institutions. Our young people must experience a process of growing into what is their own; in them this national will must be sharpened and itensified; we want them to nurse this feeling of regard for what is their own, but at the same time we must teach them and guide them in the direction in which they will see their own interests in equilibrium with the sound relationship between their own country and the outside world so that when our country and our Government act with a view to having a sound relationship with the outside world, we will not have unjustified criticism from within, but will be carried by people who love what is their own and yet realize that the sound relationship between our country and others is also of vital importance. Therefore I plead that opportunities must be seized, and where they do not exist, they must be created, to channel this information concerning our relationships with other countries, to our educational institutions as well.

Mr. Chairman, in a discussion of foreign affairs, the hon. the Minister and all the members of the Department of Foreign Affairs deserve our highest praise and appreciation for the outstanding way in which they serve the interests of South Africa abroad. It is an enormous task in today’s world to attempt to build up a balanced image of South Africa. It is an enormous task because in many respects the world is prejudiced against South Africa. It is in the light of this almost impossible task that I believe that every South African can contribute towards strengthening the hands of the Department of Foreign Affairs. In this connection I want to associate myself with an appeal which has so often been made by the hon. the Prime Minister, and again during the No Confidence debate in particular, an appeal for sound human relations. Let me add immediately that we on this side of the House believe that sound human relations in our complex situation in South Africa are only possible within the framework of the policy of separate development. What is more, separate development is an essential requirement for sound human relations in South Africa, in that the identity of the various racial groups are ensured and because areas of friction are avoided. The framework of separate development is therefore a prerequisite, but as was also said by the hon. the Minister in his opening speech, the emphasis also falls on development. It is not stagnation, but development and change, orderly and planned change, in other words not just change for the sake of change, but purposeful change in the direction of peaceful coexistence in South Africa. The best way, therefore, in which everyone in South Africa can strengthen the hands of the Department of Foreign Affairs, is to build up human relations within the framework of our policy of multi-nationalism to the optimum. I want to add immediately that I believe it is an illusion to hope, as some hon. members opposite think, that if we were to bring about drastic changes in our internal policy relating to peoples, the hostility abroad would disappear. My plea is totally different from that of the member for Bezuidenhout. I believe that sound human relations, within the sound framework of our policy of multi-nationalism alone, will strengthen endlessly the task of our Department of Foreign Affairs.

In the light of these remarks it is very significant to note the number of non-Whites who leave South Africa every year to visit overseas countries, and the number of non-Whites from outside South Africa who visit South Africa or pass through the country every year. According to the Department of Statistics, no fewer than 57 490 non-Whites left from South Africa to visit overseas countries during 1972 for business, holiday or study purposes. In one month, January, 1973, no fewer than 6 156 non-Whites left South Africa for the purpose of travelling, visiting, holidaying or doing business abroad. If these people go over there in a spirit of goodwill, with an understanding of our situation in South Africa and with an understanding of the position of the White man, it would be of enormous importance for South Africa. In the April 1973 edition of the magazine Bantu I read, for example, of a group of non-White teachers who went abroad. The South African ambassador in Germany, one of our senior ambassadors, writes with high praise of this visit and the impact it had. I would like to quote this little sentence—

The behaviour of these people, according to this article, reflects faith and loyalty towards South Africa and towards their own identity, faith and loyalty which can be built up even further through mutual respect and esteem and sound human relations between the members of the various racial groups.

Also as far as the position at home is concerned, the Department of Statistics reports that during 1972 no fewer than 25 208 non-Whites visited South Africa from abroad for holiday, study or travel purposes. The way in which we make contact with each other in our situation in South Africa, and behave towards each other, meet each other and treat each other respectfully within the framework of multi-nationalism, can make an important contribution towards putting our case abroad into its true perspective. Therefore I plead for a foreign dimension in our human relations for, to put it differently, a foreign awareness. In other words, I mean that there should be a greater awareness of and more purposeful attitude towards our place and our responsibility in the world, also in the society of peoples in Southern Africa. In this modern world no one can live alone any longer. Although we often would like to do so, we cannot turn our back on the outside world. It is a simple fact that we are unavoidably part of a greater world in which we can and must take our rightful place. For that reason, everyone in South Africa must always behave himself in such a way, particularly as regards human relations, as not to sabotage, by our unconsiderate words or actions, the good work the Department of Foreign Affairs has built up over many years. I believe that the success of our foreign compaign depends to a large extent on whether it is backed by the sound judgment, the sound attitude and the dignified behaviour of every South African at home and abroad.

Mr. Chairman, no one in this House, I think, would care to deny that our foreign policies are influenced, indeed shaped in many ways, by certain ideological confrontations overseas on the subject of race, confrontations into which we have been forced as a result of international and internal developments since World War II. I think it is important that our conduct in respect of foreign policy should be essentially pragmatic, and not doctrinaire, and thus as free from ideological ideas as we can make it. I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister would agree with that. There is certainly nothing to be gained by trailing our coat or by doing and saying provocative things at home which give rise to emotional reactions overseas. There is a great deal, of course, to be gained—and the hon. the Minister is playing it this way himself—by making South Africa less conspicuous on that stage at the United Nations or anywhere else. Here I would like to say that the hon. the Minister, in fact, handles policy very much on this basis and I do not think he always gets the backing from his Cabinet colleagues in this regard that he deserves.

It is common practice in this House, as other hon. members have already said, for the Government and the Opposition to form some kind of united front when dealing with the related issues of defence, security and foreign affairs. Not only have we offered our collaboration in these fields, but the Prime Minister and other hon. members in the Government benches have recently clearly been putting out feelers as to other vital areas of policy-making over which some common ground may be found to be in the nation’s long-term interests. Our foreign policies are indissolubly linked with the image we are able to promote concerning our willingness to accept our people of colour as equal citizens and the treatment we mete out to them here at home. At the present time, as the hon. the Minister himself mentioned in his overall report at the beginning of this debate, there is increasing concern both in the United States and in the United Kingdom concerning the wages paid to Black and Coloured workers in the Republic, that is to say: those who are employed by American and British firms or by their South African subsidiaries. We all know that a lot of this stems from an attempt at political interference from outside, but I do hope that we will not lose our sense of perspective because of that. I think it is agreed that the pressures in this field are about to increase, instead of decrease, in the years ahead. Since we ourselves have recently experienced a good deal of non-violent but nonetheless genuine labour unrest, I think that the hon. the Minister will probably agree that a pragmatic and constructive approach by the Government and the Opposition to this problem can do a great deal to assist both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and all of our diplomatic representatives overseas. I often think with a good deal of sympathy of our representatives overseas and the almost superhuman task they have there of trying to put South Africa across to a hostile world in view of so much that regrettably is indefensible here at home. How do we strengthen their hands overseas, which in fact is our object in this debate? I suggest that it can only be done by positive action and a clarification of our intentions. This is quite in line with Government thinking at the present time.

The hon. the Minister gave an interesting overall survey at the start of this discussion of our position in the councils of the world. It was not very cheering. Amongst other things, he said: “Hulle hou ons altyd dop, alles wat ons doen en sê.” Where foreign companies and their subsidiaries in South Africa are concerned, there is obvious evidence that this scrutiny is continuing and will continue in future. The pressures will build up and not diminish. I suggest that there is one really effective way of meeting this situation. The hon. the Minister should try to persuade his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Labour, to appoint a permanent multi-racial wage review commission on which representatives of commerce and industry, the trade unions, the Government, parliamentarians, economists and other professions, should sit for the express purpose of narrowing wage gaps and assessing current wage rates for all population groups in relation to their productivity, training and skills and the fluctuations in the cost of living index.

Just plain politics.

If the Government were to appoint a commission of that kind—and call it for argument’s sake a permanent national and salary review commission with Black and Coloured people sitting on it with us—and let it be known abroad what the nature and scope of the commission’s activities were, I firmly believe in facing the problem squarely, all of us together, we would knock a great deal of the ground from under the feet of some of our most bitter opponents.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Foreign Affairs Vote. Labour is an internal matter.

Well, Sir, hon. members keep asking for practical suggestions and when one makes one, one is not in order.

The hon. member should only address the Chair and not worry about what hon. members say.

I only want to say that we are talking about bi-partisan action over foreign affairs. In the field of bi-partisan action, surely, if both sides were seen to be collaborating in the interest of the country, it would assist our diplomats overseas a great deal, particularly over our most urgent national problems. On that basis we would be in a better position to force our way into the international community with justification and confidence instead of withdrawing into increasing isolation as we are dong at the moment. I want to ask the hon. the Minister one question which I hope he will be kind enough to answer. What proportion of new recruits in the Foreign Service in the past decade or so have been English-speaking? My reason for asking this is that I think that we as an English-speaking community have a real contribution to make in the diplomatic field for obvious reasons, because of our cultural and historical connections with so many Western and European countries. I would be sorry to think that conditions of service in the hon. the Minister’s department are not sufficiently attractive to induce a reasonable number of patriotic and intelligent young English South Africans to join the service. I should like him to tell us what the position is.

My last point was also raised by the hon. member for Middelland. I was not able to be here yesterday afternoon when he did so, and I would like to endorse his plea for practical assistance to be given to those West African countries which are presently in the grip of the worst drought they have experienced in the last 60 years. The hon. the Minister has mentioned help which was given to Nicaragua in time of crisis. This was most commendable, but I would think that charity begins at home. The most devastated areas are the six countries previously linked with metropolitan France, and it is these countries above all that tend to be more well-disposed to South Africa than most other countries in Africa. Moreover, our relationship with France is stable and reasonably good. Mauritania, Senegal, Mali. Upper Volta, Niger and Chad have now had five consecutive years of drought, and even the Ivory Coast has been seriously affected. Obviously no country in Africa is better equipped technically, and in the light of our own experience, to offer practical assistance in this field than we are. We have a maize surplus at this very moment. What are we going to do with it? Products like soya beans and fortified fish-meal are not difficult to transport overland or by sea, and help of this kind would obviously be entirely divorced from politics. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give this matter consideration, and use this as a means to help us emerge from our isolation in Africa. This can be done by making an open and a generous gesture to these suffering countries in Africa at the present time.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg mentioned one important point, i.e. that we should continually be looking for methods with which to strengthen the hands of people abroad who speak on behalf of South Africa. In my opinion the argument she tried to advance in regard to wages does not really belong in this debate, and I shall therefore leave it at that.

Sir, yesterday the hon. member for Wonderboom made a very important statement. He suggested that we go out of our way to help the African states. But in the process one really expects a little goodwill towards South Africa on the part of those countries. Many people have said this, and this is very true, that South Africa is part of Africa. This we cannot ignore; we shall have to live with it. We in the Republic of South Africa know the problems of Africa; we live with them. We have common problems, problems of communism and problems of terrorism, but there are also many other common problems. There are problems of poverty in Africa. There are also problems in Africa as a result of internal dissension. We find this in several countries. We are reminded for example of the trouble in Biafra and the problems in the Sudan concerning religion. There are also various other internal feuds. There are also problems as a result of feuds between countries. There is, too, a tremendous backlog in Africa as far as education, health, etc., are concerned. Now one asks oneself: What is the role of South Africa in regard to these problems, since we are so well conversant with these problems? I think that in his introductory speech yesterday the hon. the Minister gave a very good indication in which way one can become acquainted with these problems, and of what is being done by South Africa to assist Africa. We find some of these problems in a little book by Prof. Leistner, titled Co-operation for Development in Southern Africa. I would like to refer to a few of the points mentioned by Prof. Leistner, and then I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Wonderboom, namely that we also expect a little goodwill from the African States. Since 1908 there have been discussions concerning mutual aid in Africa. Various speeches have been made about co-operation. For example, in the technical and scientific world we find that a scientific council for Africa south of the Sahara was established at an early stage, as also a commission for technical co-operation in Africa south of the Sahara. The Republic had a giant share in these two organizations, and it played a major role; so much so that one could almost say that South Africa played the leading part in those two organizations. The rest of Africa derived great benefit from these organizations. But as the African States were being granted independence, they forced South Africa out of this organization. In 1965 these organizations were absorbed into the Organization for African Unity, and at that stage South Africa left the organization for good. But, Sir, South Africa also indicated its willingness to co-operate in Africa in various other spheres. We are reminded of Onderstepoort, this world-famous place in South Africa, to such an extent that Onderstepoort has been referred to in Africa as “the big place near a small town, Pretoria”. Sir. Onderstepoort has already meant a very great deal for Africa and also for other parts of the world. If one considers that Onderstepoort has already manufactured 100 million doses of vaccine against 28 different diseases and how it has helped Africa, then one has some idea of the gigantic role South Africa, through Onderstepoort, has played in helping Africa as a whole. In agriculture we have demonstrated several times that South Africa is an asset to Africa. We have had discussions about foot and mouth disease, about the combating of finches and locusts and the tsetse-fly. Here South Africa has shown Africa that for her part she is prepared to recognize all the states in Africa as full-fledged partners in Africa; that we are fellow inhabitants on this continent and that all of us live and survive here. Sir, then we are also reminded of the Wool Board, which in fact acts as an agent for the marketing of Lesotho’s wool. We are also reminded of the C.S.I.R., this giant organization which, through its various research institutes such as the Food Research Institute, the Personnel Research Institute, etc., has already had a giant share in helping the African states in technical and scientific spheres. In passing I also mention the South African Bureau of Standards. We are also reminded of the co-operation in connection with various water resources, which a previous speaker has also referred to. We are reminded for example of co-operation in regard to various services—labour, migratory labour and the building and construction services. But what is also of great importance in Africa, is co-operation in the field of trade and associated matters. I would like to mention this figure to you, Sir: In 1966 alone our exports to Africa came to R196 300 000, and in four year’s time, up to 1970, they have increased to R263 900 000, an increase of R67 million in four years. Sir, this shows that South Africa is prepared to trade with Africa. But in this process, although South Africa will always be prepard to continue with this co-operation to show her goodwill, although we realize that we are part of Africa and would like to have the goodwill of Africa, we also expect their goodwill and we expect Africa to realize that we are offering our friendship; if they want to make use of it, then it is there for them to accept. Sir, we often hear that when representatives of African states rise to speak at meetings of the United Nations, everyone comes in to listen, but when a representative of South Africa rises to speak then about half the people leave the hall again. We realize that we must co-operate with Africa and, through Africa, reach the rest of the world. Our salvation lies in Africa and therefore we must concentrate on Africa, but in the process we must not neglect other matters. We must not neglect to send our representatives to the rest of the world. We must not neglect to make the necessary contact with the rest of the world and prove South Africa’s bona fides towards the whole world. Then I also want to ask—I asked this last year, too—whether we could not consider again appointing a roving ambassador in Africa. I also want to ask whether we should not consider sending more of our representatives in politics to U.N. as observers, to acquire first-hand information there; or, during the recess, to use our politicians as ambassadors overseas so that there, too, they may acquire more knowledge and to present the case of South Africa in a personal capacity.

There is nothing the hon. member for Potgietersrus said with which we do not agree wholeheartedly. In fact, much of what I had intended to say, he has already said and I shall therefore not repeat it. I just want to say that I shall say most of what I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs by way of questions, and if some of them cover delicate ground, then he should just reply to them as best he can and if he cannot reply to them, then he should rather remain silent.

I want to commence by dealing with our diplomats in the East and the posts they fill, and then I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not arrived for Japan, that vitally important trading station of ours, the biggest trading station we have in the East, our great partner in many of our industries such as the steel industry—whether the post we have there, should not be elevated to the post of Ambassador, instead of that of Consul-General. As I see it, the time is more than ripe to do this, and if there are no sound reasons, diplomatic or otherwise, why this should not be done, I want to recommend it very strongly to the Minister. From there I want to proceed to Hong Kong and I want to suggest that there, too, if at all possible, we should have a minister plenipotentiary or an envoy extraordinary to fill the post there instead of the Consul-General we have now. From there I come to Mauritius. We know what the position is with Madagascar at present. The Minister mentioned it here in the speech he made last week. At this stage we have an honorary trade envoy in Mauritius. I do not know whether it would be possible to appoint a consul there as well. I am only deeply grateful that we still have a trade envoy there, because that is the only post we have in the whole of the Indian Ocean, the only place where we still have a foothold, and it is a very important post.

But now I want to come back to the matter which has been touched on so often here, and that is dialogue with African countries. Here I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Potgietersrus. At this stage there is not much else we can do besides giving them technical assistance, veterinary assistance, medical assistance and scientific assistance, and although we do not want to buy goodwill in this way, I do want to insist that wherever it is at all possible, we continue to do this because it constitutes the only remaining contact we have with those countries. The hon. member for Wynberg has already mentioned the possibility of our making a contribution to feeding those famine-stricken countries in Africa, who are all hard pressed by a drought of unparalleled severity, the most severe drought in the history of Africa. I want to join the hon. member in pleading that we do everything in our power to help them, not because we want to buy their goodwill or good favour, but this is one way of making a contribution, by casting one’s bread upon the waters, so that it may come back at a later stage in the form of an opportunity to appoint an honorary consul there. We are becoming so isolated, as far as this service is concerned, particularly as regards Africa, that it has already been said that for years we have made no progress in Africa and it does not seem as if we would be in a position to have any additional contact with the rest of Africa in the form of a consul or an honorary consul or something in the way of representation. While I am on the subject, I want to deal briefly with the figures mentioned by the hon. the Minister in his speech last week. I speak under correction, but I think the Minister said that in ten years’ time our diplomatic service increased from 23 to 29, the consular service from 13 to 21 and the honorary consuls from 12 to 38. Now, we do not take much notice of the honorary consuls because we only have honorary consuls in countries where we have diplomats and there are honorary consuls in the other cities of the same country. In other words, they are merely supplementary to the diplomatic service we already have there.

Not necessarily.

If I interpret this correctly, we have 30 honorary consuls, and five of them are in countries where we have nothing else. Those countries are Denmark, Norway, Panama, Paraguay and Peru. The Minister will be able to tell me why we only have an honorary consul in Norway if she has an envoy here.

Norway does not have an envoy here.

I shall have a look in the book on foreign envoys which Norway has here. I beg your pardon. Norway does not have an envoy here. In that case I shall leave the matter at that. But my plea is that we make an attempt, as far as possible, to get our foot in the door on the continent of Africa by way of being helpful until it should perhaps become possible to appoint an honorary consul there, and then we must not hesitate to do so.

While I am dealing with the growth of our diplomatic service over ten years, it would do no harm to draw a comparison with Australia. Australia has 41 full-fledged ambassadors as against our 29, and 16 high commissioners, a total of 57 as against our 29. She does not have any honorary consuls as such. But what is also important, is that in recent times all our fellow countries in the Western civilization and many other countries, too, are opening embassies in Russia and Communist China and in other communist countries, while at this stage even Australia is opening a full-fledged embassy in Communist China. We know that she did so at the expense of closing down her embassy in Taipeh. But now I want to ask the Minister something, and if it is a delicate question he need only say so: Has the time not arrived when we, too, while we are isolated, as far as the communist countries are concerned, particularly China and Russia, should try and find out by way of feelers whether it would not be possible for South Africa to appoint a consul there eventually, to keep in touch with what is going on in those countries, and in so doing establish representation in those countries from which we are totally excluded today? All other countries worth mentioning either have an embassy there already or are establishing one. To me this is extremely important because we are dealing with populations of 800 million in one case and 500 million in the case of India. We have no representation whatsoever among 2 000 million people. This represents a large section of the world market, people who enjoy representation in U.N. If there is any means of achieving greater goodwill on their part, for example by making closer contact with them, then it is South Africa’s duty to do so. We must not stand aside and say that we are being pushed out by the whole world and can do nothing about it, nor must we through up our hands in despair and say, “Let matters take their own course”. I want to address this urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister, and I hope that he will reply to us on this score.

Mr. Chairman, more than ever before in the history of mankind we have now reached the stage in international politics where very high priority is given to dialogue between nations. In this quest for dialogue old-established political and ideological differences have been brushed aside, because world leaders realize today that most countries are economically inter-dependent and that economics, rather than ideological policies, should be the mainspring to international relations. In spite of serious ideological differences between the United States of America on the one side and Russia and Communist China on the other, President Nixon last year paid very successful visits to both these countries. Although we in Southern Africa might have serious misgivings as to how closer co-operation between the communists and the free world would affect our own position, it must be accepted as a fact that closer international co-operation is becoming a world trend which cannot be prevented. President Nixon’s visit to Peking has now been followed up by the opening of diplomatic relations between Washington and Peking. Other Western powers have followed the example of exchanging diplomatic representatives with Peking. This does not mean that all ideological points at issue between the Western powers and the communist countries have been resolved. Indeed, they have not. It only signifies that these powers have agreed that it is better to confer than to run the risk of accidental collision, that it is more advisable to seek areas of co-operation, even limited ones, than to stand aside in angry isolation.

Perhaps we may assume that we have reached the end of the postwar era in international politics and that we are approaching a new era, an era that can as yet only be discerned in vague outlines, but which might most probably be based on, inter alia, the following principles: That international trade and economic growth should form the keystone to international co-operation; and that ideological differences between states, serious though they may be, should not be a stumbling block to diplomatic co-operation. However, whatever the principles for co-operation may be, it is a fact that the “cold war era” where co-operation between groups of nations or blocs have been frozen because of ideological differences, has passed and that we have entered into the era of openness and dialogue. World leaders seem to have decided that negotiations must be held, that dialogue must take place, no matter how improbable or impossible a successful conclusion of the problems may seem to be. No matter how serious ideological differences may be, they are no longer allowed to stand in the way of economic co-operation.

The European Economic Market which has used economic forces to mould a group of formerly hostile states into a new dynamic group of nations, serves as a good example of this new approach. We in South Africa have always advocated that international co-operation should be based on the principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of states. We realize that because of misrepresentations, distortions and communistic propaganda, many countries do not approve of our internal policies because they honestly believe that they are based on racial discrimination and the suppression of people. We are sorry that our good intentions and our enormous task of assisting millions of people to become independent nations and sovereign states are not yet appreciated by the outside world. We hope that in the course of time, as our policy unfolds and nations become independent, hostility and condemnation will be superseded by agreement and perhaps even admiration. We do not ask other countries to co-operate with us because they agree with our policies but we do believe that fruitful, businesslike relations should be maintained, also and especially in our own subcontinent. When Pres. Nixon returend from Moscow last year he stated:

These words could just as well have come from the mouth of our own Minister of Foreign Affairs. I say this because this is exactly what the South African Government has been trying to achieve with its policy of dialogue, communication and co-operation in Africa. In spite of disappointments, we have been able to make steady progress. The latest example of this progress is the creation of an organization to promote tourism in Southern Africa and Mauritius. Considerable progress has also been made in the fields of electric power and water engineering. Several heads of state have also declared that they are in favour of co-operation in spite of the pressure which comes from the Organization of African Unity. Unfortunately, in spite of all our efforts, the stand taken by the Organization for African Unity, as worded in their Lusaka manifesto, was that they stated unequivocally that their aim was to replace the present White Governments in Southern Africa by Black majority Governments and that they had no choice but to give the Black peoples of Southern Africa all the support of which they are capable in the struggle against their White oppressors.

I say that this stand of the OAU makes co-operation in Africa very difficult and is the most blatant example of racial prejudice in the modern world. The support given to violence and terrorism against South Africa by certain militant African leaders is another serious impediment to dialogue and co-operation in Africa. South Africa is the most stable and most developed state in Africa. The South African nation has been fighting against colonialism for many centuries and it knows what premium to place on its own national freedom and on the national freedom of every other country. South Africa with its strong economy, its technological skills, its scientific knowledge and its knowledge of the problems of Africa, is in a most favourable position and is most willing to assist the developing countries of Africa, which are badly in need of this assistance. Their overriding concern is the need for a stable and developing economy. Their future depends on relieving the pressures of poverty and unemployment within the boundaries of their own countries. Africa has 16 of the 25 least developed countries in the world where the per capita gross domestic product is $100 or less.

*I accuse the Organization for African Unity of being so blinded by their hatred and prejudice against the White peoples of Southern Africa that they cannot see that they are stirring up strife in Africa by adopting this attitude, that they are exposing the peoples of Africa to the danger of communism or that they are impeding the essential stability and economic and educational development of the people of Africa.

I may express the hope and confidence that a maturity will develop in Africa as well, so that this new approach in the diplomatic relations of the world, the approach of co-operation in spite of ideological differences, will take root in Africa as well.

Mr. Chairman, our attempt to conduct a dialogue with Africa is the outcome of the greatest revolution in modern politics, a revolution which has unfolded itself in Africa in the past decade as a result of the attainment of independence by virtually every Black State in Africa. The aftermath of this political revolution can still be seen today in the periodic appearance of coup d’états, civil wars and border clashes, the expulsion en masse of Asiatics from African countries, communist penetration into Africa on a large scale, the emergence of one-party states, support of terrorist organizations and activities, boycotts and threats of boycotts against South Africa and her friends.

One could continue to indicate in this way the chaos that really prevails in Africa. One could say with justice that African politics has made of modern politics a distorted illusion, one which can only be reconstructed into something intelligible by the most dedicated politicians and by the most intensive study by students of constitutional law. Therefore Africa has today become the subject of intense study by special institutes and departments and sections in practically every leading country in the world.

South Africa, without asking for it, has become an inseparable part of these complicated politics of Africa because South Africa forms part of Africa. But South Africa is prepared and ready to play its role in these unique and complicated politics of Africa, with only one objective, namely to make of Africa a fine, prosperous and sought-after habitation for all the people of Africa. That is our aim.

Barely two years ago, South Africa, to this end, was indisputably playing a leading role in the creation of new concepts and new levels of contact in Africa. The previous phase of a decade ago is history, and for that reason referred to the creation of a new concept and new levels of contact, because it is only in the past two years that South Africa has really become aware of the major task which has been done in silence through the years, without any fuss worth mentioning, by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department in respect of Africa. That task is of course continuing.

However, there must be no misunderstanding when I talk about the creation of new levels of contact, as if we are now seeking contact with Africa for the first time. There was also contact in the previous phase of a decade ago in accordance with the diplomatic procedure current in those times. Virtually the whole of Africa was colonized and if we wanted to talk to an African territory, which happened often, we did so in accordance with the rules of international diplomacy and protocol. We talked to the ambassador in Pretoria of the country whose colony it was. Thus, contact always existed; it was merely on a different level.

Since then the position has changed; Africa became independent. For example, if we want to talk to the Congo today, we can no longer talk to the Belgian ambassador in Pretoria. We must now talk to the Conge itself, and there are many matters which we simply have to discuss with the African states. For that reason I say that we are creating new levels of contact, but the principle of contact with Africa is nothing new; it is an old principle. It merely occurred on a different level. But contact with Africa, particularly coming from South Africa, which is condemned by the whole world, is exceptionally difficult, particularly against the background of the existing opposition against us and the fervour of our enemies. Therefore we must regard any progress, however slight, in making contact with Africa as a diplomatic achievement of the highest order. It is therefore a pity that diplomatic attempts to make contact with Africa are being hampered as a result of malicious political propaganda on the part of certain English-language newspapers, on the part of the United Party itself and on the part of the Herstigte Nasionale Party about the so-called peculiarity of contact on this new level which must necessarily lead to social contact. It is even said by some malicious people that the National Party has thrown overboard its apartheid policy through this new contact. That is far from the truth.

No Government, no Minister of Foreign Affairs, nor any diplomatic corps is able to attain new levels of contact to any significant extent or of a lasting nature with Africa without genuine interest and active support on the home front, i.e. on the part of the United Party, the Press, the H.N.P. and whoever it may be. That support and interest are essential. The hard work of those concerned with the diplomatic welfare of the country and its people, must be reinforced by enlightened opinion which does not only have an understand of the vital importance of contact with Africa and its people, but which itself actively endeavours to make that contact possible, people who act forcefully and courageously against those who intentionally try to create misconceptions in this connection.

In the interests of the future of this country and its people, the Government and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are entitled to such an attitude from all the people of South Africa.

Because of the urgency of this matter, because of the accelerated tempo at which communist penetration into Africa is taking place and because of the extent of terrorist activities recently, we dare not have any difference of opinion in South Africa as to what must be the policy and the task of the Government towards Africa. Africa must become our friend; it could do no one in this country any harm if Africa becomes our friend. However, if Africa becomes our enemy, it may create a tremendous number of problems in the future. The Opposition must therefore realize that Africa will not exclude the United Party when it comes to real confrontation. Africa is not concerned with the United Party as against the National Party; we are all Whites. Africa is not concerned with the federal system being established here, subordinate to a White Parliament. But for the people of South Africa it may mean the continued existence of that which is their own, that which they have worked for and created for themselves, namely their own welfare, their own freedom and their own body politic, to use the term of the hon. member for Newton Park. Therefore the time has arrived for us to give the non-White what he must receive without our having any differences of opinion on the matter, so that he can guard it himself and can defend it himself against whosoever should threaten it, even if it is threatened by Africa itself.

There are bodies, people and countries, who realize that this is and must be the outcome of National Party policy, but this does not suit them because they do not want South Africa to have peace; they seek its downfall. Therefore we dare not allow hostile people from beyond our borders to join with malicious people within our borders to undo the great task performed through many decades to bring about a spirit of goodwill between White and Black in this country, because in the final analysis, with regard to our great task of creating new levels of contact in Africa, the success of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department will be determined by the dispositions between White and Black in South Africa. That will be the determining factor of the success or otherwise of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Therefore we must see to it that dispositions between White and Black in this country are always placed on such a footing that the hands of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be strengthened. I wish him the success which is his due.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Odendaalsrus that I have yet to meet a Black leader, a Yellow leader or a Brown leader who begrudges the White man his own identity, existence and continued existence. There is not a person alive who is threatening our identity. However, we should just take care that we do not want to retain our own identity at the expense of others. If one retains one’s own freedom—and no one begrudges one that—but does so in such a way that it is not at the expense of the rights of another, one has nothing to fear. In that respect the hon. member will have to take a look at himself and his policy.

Unfortunately we have reached the end of the agreed time for this debate. I would therefore just like to address a few more words to the hon. the Minister. I want to express my disappointment at the fact that year after year we find that the hon. the Minister is annoyed at criticism levelled by this side. It is proper that we should give a critical review of foreign affairs. The good things look after themselves; our task is to look at what is wrong. The last time he returned from the U.N., the hon. the Minister himself said, “South Africa should not fail to note that the attacks against the country were gaining momentum.” The leaders opposite are continually warning us that the situation for South Africa is deteriorating. But when I say so, I am being “destructive”. Then the Minister becomes touchy and irritated. But if he himself says so, it is good. I hope that the Minister will get away from that. I want to tell him that we shall not be deterred in discussions such as these from exercising the right we have. The right to give a critical review of matters is something for which I shall never apologize. It is not only our right; it is our duty.

I am also sorry that the hon. the Minister is so imprecise. I expect a person who used to be a diplomat to be correct in his references when he replies to another person. Let me mention an example. The hon. the Minister suggested that I had allegedly said that the Black leaders of South-West accepted the “federal plan” of the United Party. I never said anything of the kind. I never even referred to the federal plan of the United Party. As it happens, it is not applicable to South-West Africa. What I said, was that in the memoranda they submitted to Dr. Waldheim, the most important Black leaders of South-West Africa, the Damara leaders, the Hereros and some Owambo leaders, too, came out for a federal settlement for South-West Africa. If I had known that the Minister was going to refer to that, I would have had the proof available here. I have all the original copies of the memoranda. The major population groups in South-West Africa came out for a federal settlement within South-West Africa. That is all I said. I therefore suggested to the Minister that it would be wise for us to start working along those lines as a visible solution of what would be acceptable to most sections of the population.

In a manner by which he actually sought to suggest that I had furnished incomplete quotations, the Minister said that I had not quoted all the replies he had given to Dr. Waldheim. Nor did I. I did not give all the answers, because many of them are statements which were made in the past. I only indicated a number of new points, all of which were relevant. Not one of them was not quoted in full. But does the hon. the Minister not think that important statements which are made by him or by the Prime Minister and which are published in public, should be made available to Parliament? I do not expect him to make public statements when delicate diplomatic negotiations are being conducted behind the scenes. The answers he furnished to Dr. Waldheim on 30th April, immediately became public property in New York. They were public property at the U.N. Does the hon. the Minister not think that it would be reasonable if Parliament were advised here of matters of this kind or if they were tabled here for everyone’s information? I think that members on his side take just as much of an interest. This is one of the things which we feel is wrong. Our Parliament should, especially while it is in session, be kept informed of such matters. But this is always a struggle. I have the best of relations with the hon. the Minister and his secretary. When I ask for something, I get it. Our feeling is that it should not be necessary to ask. Parliament is in session and these things should be made available to Parliament.

Sir, the hon. the Minister accused us of not being of much assistance in the solution of our difficult questions, but we are doing this by way of this very criticism which we continually level against the shortcomings which we see on the part of the Government. In conclusion I just want to say that I think there are certain priorities to which the Government should give attention. I shall just mention a few. In the first place the Government should give attention to the training of people from all sections of the population so that they may take part in the struggle in the international sphere. I feel that if the Government is really in earnest about its policy of making the Bantu areas independent, it should in any event be helping those people now with the training of candidates for foreign service. I think that we should start sending multi-national teams abroad so that they may act there on behalf of the whole of South Africa and also on behalf of South-West Africa. I am convinced that the day we have reached that stage, we shall achieve much greater success in our foreign relations. I think that all sections of the population should have the opportunity to lend a hand in the defence of South Africa.

We on this side also believe that we must consolidate the position around us in Southern Africa. We must establish the closest diplomatic ties with our immediate neighbours, and we must take pains to achieve this. A country is often judged by its relations with its immediate neighbours. It is therefore of the utmost importance for there to be an image of the closest co-operation possible in respect of our immediate neighbours. I want to submit this for the consideration of the hon. the Minister.

One of the biggest problems with which most of our neighbouring countries have to contend, is the question of access to the sea. Countries such as Zambia, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Rhodesia and Malawi, all have one salient problem, and that is the question of access to the sea. That is why Zambia is depending on the Tanzam railway to Tanzania, and why Botswana in turn is forging a link with Zambia and is seeking an exit via the tip of the Caprivi Strip. I think that we can be of tremendous assistance in that sphere. I wonder whether we could not consider creating a kind of transport-for-Africa commission, on which our neighbouring states could be represented, and which could sort out problems such as access to the sea on a more general basis. I believe that this is something which would interest even a country such as Zambia. This could possibly become a basis for co-operation between our various countries in Southern Africa.

I want to mention one other point, and that is that we ought to endorse the Declaration of Human Rights. Reference was made to this in the past by the hon. member for Wonderboom; he is silent now. I do not know why he is so silent about this important matter. I think that we ought to endorse it, and I want to suggest to the Minister that if he cannot endorse it for South Africa he should at least do so for South-West Africa.

May I put a question?

No, Sir, I have very little time left. [Interjections.] Very well then, go ahead and put your question.

Does the hon. member not think that it is very unfair, since he knows that I cannot reply to him now, to attack me at this stage? [Interjections.]

Sir, it takes precisely one second to say “Yes” or “No”. That is all he has to say. After all, he pleaded for that, Sir. He was the pioneer. I have respect for him; he was the pioneer and the hon. the Minister supported him in that respect. When are we going to have this step? Now I ask: If it is supposedly impossible for the Republic to sign it, then let the Government sign it in respect of South-West Africa at least.

I want to conclude by saying this: We believe that the South-West issue should be tackled with a greater degree of self-initiative. I did not like the Minister’s “just trust the Government” attitude at all. Sir, this is not the way to handle such an important matter. I think there ought to be self-initiative. It is no use our gaining time, as we have done, without using it to good effect. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout told the hon. member for Wonderboom he wondered why South Africa did not sign the Declaration of Human Rights. I think that through what it is doing, South Africa is honouring it in practice, which is perhaps of far greater importance than merely signing it in a document.

Sir, I think that what is happening in this debate, is significant for the future not only as regards our country, but also as regards all the countries surrounding us, and perhaps to a great extent, also as regards the future of mankind, because what is happening in South Africa is that, on the one hand, a small, wealthy White people has to find a method of co-existence with many much poorer peoples of other colours. This is a world-wide problem. It is also a worldwide problem that we have a small White minority here as against a large Black majority, and that we have to try and live in peace and stability with one another in this part of the world. That is why I think that what is being discussed here and that what is happening in South Africa must necessarily have an influence on the history of mankind for decades ahead. Therefore it is gratifying that on both sides of the House pleas are being made for the closest possible co-operation between South Africa and its neighbouring states and also the non-Whites living in their own homelands.

In this connection I want to refer to one of the new developments which has taken place in the world recently, namely the extraordinary growth of the multi-national companies. When discussing growth in Africa, I do not think it will be State corporations or Governments, in the first instance, which will have to supply the knowhow and the capital to start development in these areas. I think it will be the multinational corporations which, with the enormous capital, manpower and experience they possess, will have to harness their energies to create a higher standard of living in this part of the world. In 1971 a work by Christopher Tugendhat appeared under the title “The Multi-nationals” in which he deals with the rise of these multinational groups. He points out that what we have achieved in the modern world is something we only dreamt about in the past 50 years. The cartel has arrived; it failed in times of depression. Sometimes it also failed in times of great prosperity. The multi-national group of today truly displays the closest possible co-operation in the field of international economics. For example, there is one brain centre which plans production as well as marketing on behalf of a series of companies operating in many countries of the world. It is sinking that in recent times an enormous increase in investments by these great groups has taken place outside their own countries. This writer states on page 3 of this work that estimates made in 1968 by the Organization for economic co-operation and Development in respect of the position in the year 1966 indicate that the investments these groups made outside their own countries in 1966 amounted to about R63 000 million. The growth of these groups in regard to their external investments is about 12% per year on average. This writer estimates that in the year 1971 the total investment of these groups has already reached about R105 000 million. He makes the statement that for every rand they have invested, these groups have produced R2 in countries outside their own, so that the total production in the year 1971, according to this method of calculation, must have reached about R210 000 million. Sir, I merely mention these figures to indicate the enormous power these companies have in the modern world. In the year 1971 the production of these companies, outside their own countries, was more than the total world trade.

I think that it is important to us to note that these groups can play an important role here in Africa, in the first instance because we are dealing here with areas which are all still completely underdeveloped and because, when investments are made in these countries, it takes far longer than the normal period of three or four years after the establishment of an undertaking, before it becomes profitable. From my own experience I have learned that an undertaking started in 1961, is only able to declare its first dividend in May, 1973. I think this is the universal pattern in the under-developed states of Africa, that not only is the element of risk for the entrepreneur far greater, but that he has to wait a great deal longer before he can have a return on his capital. It is therefore only these large groups which, only by operating with a very small percentage of their staff and a very small percentage of their capital, are able to carry this risk and also to wait for these long periods before receiving any return on their investment. But, Mr. Chairman, there is a third important reason why it is these groups in particular which have to take a hand in the tremendous task lying ahead, and that is that in an area such as this where trade between South Africa and other countries can never occur on a significant scale because virtually identical products are produced, it is these large multi-national groups which are capable of planning production in such a way that a factory in a country such as South Africa, will not cause another factory which is to be established in, for example, Lesotho or Botswana or Angola, or in whatever other place it may be, to shut down.

Sir, it is these mighty multi-national groups in particular--our own and those of other Western countries—which will have to use their energies to create, for the Black man in particular, a higher standard of living in Southern Africa. I just want to point out that this fine country of ours was founded through a decision of the board of directors of an international group in the 17th century, when Jan van Riebeeck came here following a decision by his 17 directors, and that the Dutch East India Company of that time regarded it as a business undertaking to establish the White man here in Cape Town in order to protect this sea route. I think that what has happened with South Africa and what has helped it to become the country it is today, should inspire us as South Africans all the more to ensure that the same pattern of development will manifest itself further north in this continent. Sir, the other day I pointed out that these groups can only be really successful if they accept a national identity in the countries in which they establish themselves, so that they are not regarded as colonial powers, but regarded as powers establishing themselves there not only to make profit, but also to cause the inhabitants of those countries to feel that they have a share in those undertakings. I have already made an appeal that South African companies may perhaps set an example in this regard when establishing themselves in these developing areas, by affording the inhabitants of those areas in course of time, and by means of the services of those people working in those companies the opportunity to obtain shares and a substantial interest in those undertakings. I want to ask here today that South Africa take the initiative in two other respects to create a more favourable climate for the operation of these groups, and one of these is to bring about a more uniform system in Southern Africa as far as our company laws and system of taxation are concerned. We have here in front of us a new companies Bill for South Africa, a measure which required years and years of study and which is based on developments throughout the Western world. I think that it would be a good thing, in order to promote a spirit of co-operation, if in this field as well, more co-operation were to take place in Africa, so that the entrepreneur, wherever he may hall from, would not have to study 10 or 20 different systems for an operation which, as far as he is concerned, is relatively speaking a small one.

There is another important aspect I want to deal with briefly, and that is that while we have the practice in our country and other Western countries that deductious for taxation purposes may be affected of losses incurred during the initial years of a business undertaking, this is not the position in some of our neighbouring States, and a change in this regard would considerably facilitate their own development.

The hon. member for Houghton put certain questions to me. She is not present at the moment, but I shall nevertheless try to deal with them. I want to begin by saying that I am unable to reply to two of the questions, because I do not deal with the matters to which they refer. I do not deal with the administration of the Territory. The first question was with regard to the arrest of the three persons.

†I am referring to the question put by the hon. member for Houghton about the arrest of three persons and I just want to explain that although the particular matter does not fall under me, I have been informed about it and that it is being investigated. That is all I can say at this stage. As far as the restrictive regulations are concerned, as the hon. member knows, I do not handle the administration and therefore it would be advisable for her to put this question to my colleague who deals with it. As far as the article about Mr. Herman Martins is concerned, he himself brought this to my notice. He was also unhappy about a great deal of what appeared in this article. Much of it, he tells me, was not based on the interview with him. Seeing that a subsequent statement by himself, some sort of explanation or denial, would have meant greater publicity for the article, it was felt better at the time rather to leave the matter there.

*Both the hon. member for Von Brandis and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout gained the impression, rightly or wrongly, that I take exception to criticism of my handling of the portfolio of Foreign Affairs. I want to tell the hon. members that they are unfortunately quite mistaken. I welcome criticism; I am not over-sensitive to criticism. I welcome constructive criticism in particular, criticism which is followed by useful suggestions, and I am in earnest when I say that I like listening to suggestions from those two hon. members, for I know they have been making a study of foreign affairs. Therefore I listen with great attention and in all earnest to any suggestions which they may make. But although I myself am not over-sensitive to criticism, but welcome it, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in particular must not complain, if I should perhaps, on my part, react to his criticism by hitting back. Then he must not be over-sensitive and hold it against me.

The hon. member for Von Brandis referred, quite rightly, to what I had said in my speech at Stellenbosch, when I stressed the importance of the eventual independence of our Bantu homelands. I stressed the fact that we were faced by certain problems which would not disappear before the homelands became independent. But if he reads that speech of mine again, he will see that that was not the only condition which I laid down. I said it was a very important one, but in the same speech I stressed the same matter to which the hon. member for Johannesburg West devoted his entire speech this afternoon and which our esteemed Prime Minister discussed on several occasions in debates in this House this year, viz. human relations. I stressed that as well in my speech. Therefore, the independence of the homelands is not the alpha and the omega of our problems, but to my mind it will be of infinitely great help to us.

I thank the hon. member for Waterberg for his suggestion with regard to possible closer contact with news media and educational institutions and I shall endeavour, together with my department, to follow up that suggestion.

†The hon. member for Wynberg made a plea for a multi-racial salary review commission. That plea should have been addressed to my colleague who handles these matters. I can assure her that as far as the recruitment of English-speaking South Africans as members of my department is concerned, the position is quite satisfactory. The ratio between the English and the Afrikaans sections appears to me to be quite satisfactory, although I must also emphasize that we do not keep records of our cadets in the department based on their home language. We are not aware of what their home language is. The hon. member also referred to the possibility of granting relief to western Africa.

*The hon. member for East London City, too, mentioned such a possibility. I shall give attention to that particular matter, although I agree with him that we are not, of course, trying to buy friendship.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus once again referred to the possibility of including members of the House of Assembly as observers in missions to the U.N., I shall once again, as I did last year, give consideration to this matter. I think I may possibly succeed in persuading the Cabinet this year to do this on a small scale.

I always like listening to the hon. member for East London City, for he tries to make suggestions. Sometimes his suggestions are very useful and sometimes they are completely impracticable as a result of problems of which he is not aware, as in the case of our mission in Japan. I happen to be 100% in agreement with him on the matter of the status of our mission there. As the hon. member knows, we have a particularly experienced diplomat, with the personal rank of ambassador, as Consul-General there. This is so as a result of certain problems, with regard to raising the status of that mission to that of an embassy, which have been insurmountable up to now. The hon. member, my department and I, as well as the Government, are in complete agreement on the necessity of expanding our diplomatic missions. We are doing what we can in that regard. To my mind it would be useful if the hon. member and I could perhaps have coffee or tea together some time and discuss the interesting theme which he raised, namely the possibiltiy of representation, even if it were to be honorary representation, in the case of communist countries.

The hon. member for Algoa delivered a strong plea for contact and détente in Africa. We are used to pleas of this nature. We may sometimes consider them to be unnecessary, but I do believe that we should remember that our Hansard is read throughout Africa and, as I have reminded you, at the U.N. as well. It is a good thing that people who study our Hansard, should come to the conclusion that it is not only the Minister of Foreign Affairs who is in favour of discussions, etc., but that the members of our Parliament also support it. Therefore I welcome pleas such as the one made by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Odendaalsrus delivered a strong plea and made an appeal to our own people not to play into the hands of our enemies through the agency of the Press and other publicity media. I agree wholeheartedly with him on that.

With regard to the reference by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to the so-called support for the federal system under the non-White peoples, I want to point out that the hon. member did not understand me clearly. Perhaps I did not express myself quite clearly. What I was actually referring to, was his statement to the effect that the Whites allegedly were greatly in favour of a federal system in South-West Africa. That is why I made a slight attack on him and criticized him. I did not express any views on the feelings of the non-White leaders, in spite of the impression Dr. Escher gained and conveyed to the U.N. In future I shall try, as far as it is at all practicable, to table documents such as the Secretary-General’s latest report. In this particular instance the hon. member must concede that we made a copy available to him, on request, as soon as we had received it. In this particular instance it was not so difficult, but the procedure which is followed abroad is not always the same. Sometimes we, too, are only informed at the last minute and are unable to prepare the reports locally in their final form so that they may simultaneously be released locally and abroad.

The hon. member again raised the question of the training of non-Whites as diplomats and asked whether the time had not arrived for us to send multi-racial teams abroad. I must point out to the hon. member, as I did in the past, that others, the former colonial powers to be specific, tried to do the same thing prior to the independence of the subordinate nations, but that it failed. What happened at the United Nations was that those persons were discredited in the eyes of their own people, because they had allegedly, according to their attackers and accusers, colluded with the White oppressors. It simply did not succeed. It would be much better if South African non-Whites went abroad under their own steam, by invitation—and this is a frequent occurrence—and were then to put their case. Then they would be able to do so with much more conviction, even though they should often criticize us abroad and tell the outside world that they did not like everything we were doing here, but that they nevertheless co-operated with us. In fact, that would be much more effective than it would be for us to use them for going there and doing the work being done by us Whites at the moment, because we are governing the country at the moment and that responsibility is actually resting on our shoulders. I may tell the hon. member that I had a very interesting conference with Mr. Tom Swartz and members of his council in connection with this particular matter. The discussions were most fruitful, and he and his people were very happy when they left. I am not yet in a position to tell hon. members what the result of the discussions was, for we have not yet agreed on announcing it.

The hon. member once again referred to the Declaration of Human Rights. To my mind a very good reply was given to this, exactly as I would have done it, by the hon. member for Vasco. The hon. member for Vasco said that we were concentrating on the implementation of human rights rather than on declarations of that nature. This Declaration has a long history. We concentrate on practising and implementing human rights, and if one were to take the trouble to make an analysis, as others here and abroad have already done, one would arrive at the surprising conclusion that, generally speaking, far more human rights are being enjoyed in South Africa than is the case in most other countries, especially in the countries of Africa.

Then it should not be difficult to endorse it.

The question of endorsement has a long history, and I do not wish to elaborate on it now.

The hon. member for Vasco raised an important matter, and I hope those concerned took note of it. We all realize that economics play a very important role in international relations.

Permit me to express a word of hearty thanks to the Secretary for my department, his deputy in South Africa and also to his staff here in South Africa and abroad, for the magnificent service rendered by them during the past year, just as they did in the past. In the same breath I also want to thank all officials seconded by other departments to our missions abroad, for the excellent work which they have been doing abroad. We have, and we may consider ourselves fortunate, some of the very best diplomats in the world. Apart from the hard work they do for us, they also have to wine and dine for their country and their people. This forms part of their commitments, and as an honest Minister of Foreign Affairs I may say that at times this does become a rather difficult task.

I think I can say here at the end of this debate that it is generally being appreciated by hon. members on both sides of the House that although we are progressing in certain respects in certain fields, the onslaughts against South Africa are, on the other hand, gaining momentum in certain respects. Those were my words at the start, and I want to conclude with them. These onslaughts are gaining momentum in certain respects.

Red China’s entry into the U.N. and its membership of the Security Council, as well as its rivalry with Russia for the favour of the so-called Third World, do not augur well for us at all. I also want to say that the progress with regard to the so-called détente policies of the past year also holds ominous dangers for us. To the communists détente is nothing but a welcome opportunity for realizing their deals and for doing so without the risk of a confrontation. As somebody put it: Those who believe the road to world peace is paved with the goodwill of the communists, are living in a dream world. We welcome the détente between East and West in so far that an armed conflict between the great powers has been eliminated to a large extent, but along with other small powers, we are deeply concerned about the fact that the door has been opened wide to conflicts between smaller powers, to conflicts on a smaller scale, and to conflicts between great powers and smaller powers. However, South Africa should not allow itself to be deflected from its course, nor shall we allow this. We must simply ensure that our own progress is more steady, more extensive and more rapid than that of our enemies. Not only do I believe that we are capable of doing so, but also that this is actually happening.

Sometimes it is encouraging to learn how outsiders view the future of South Africa. I want to conclude by quoting two such views. The one was expressed by Dr. Charles Malik, a retired statesman of high order and of international repute. At one stage he was the Lebanese Minister of Foreign Affairs and president of the General Assembly of the United Nations as well as co-author of the Declaration of Human Rights. Recently he paid an extended visit to South Africa. To me personally and in a Press interview, he said there was no reason for being pessimistic about South Africa’s international position in the present unstable world. According to him, we have maintained our position well, in comparison with other difficult situations elsewhere in the world. The second quotation is taken from a leading article of a newspaper printed in Chinese, The United Daily News of Taiwan, the Republic of China, a state seriously being threatened by isolation. I quote—

This, of course, is not quite correct—

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 25.—“Information”:

Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like, with the concurrence of all of us, to welcome the new Secretary for Information to his new post. We are impressed by his record and we should like to wish him every success. At the same time I think it would be fitting to express our appreciation towards his predecessor, Mr. Barrie, who left the stamp of his unmistakable organizing talents on the department and who is now Auditor-General.

†Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear to most observers that any Department of Information in most Western countries suffers from a marked type of dichotomy, a type of dichotomy which is not necessarily bad but which is inherent in the type of work it does. In South Africa, in the Department of Information you find this dichotomy between its publicity inside the Republic and its publicity abroad. Abroad you find a dichotomy existing too in regard to the publicity in respect of the policy of the Government and the policy aimed at improving the image of South Africa. These two naturally can and often do fall together, but they do not always necessarily do so. Last year the hon. the Minister announced in an important speech that his department intended reviewing certain important issues, namely the priorities in the department, the target areas at which publicity should be aimed, the quality of the productions and the modus operandi to be followed by the department. I am pleased to see that many significant changes have occurred since he made that speech. As a matter of fact, the hon. the Minister will permit me to say that many of those changes do accord with certain views that have been expressed by this side of the House. Regarding priorities, I am glad to see that the amount being spent locally in the Republic remains almost static judging from the amount to be spent during the next year, while the amount to be spent abroad is to be increased by R850 000. I am not complaining about that amount. As a matter of fact, if the rules of the House had allowed me, I would even plead for an increase in that amount because, after all, the total expenditure of about three cents per head of the population is not so large at all.

I have been interested to see the progress made in the organization of his department and, again, while not saying that the United Party’s view has triumphed, let us at least say that common-sense has triumphed in some regards. The first thing that impressed me is the full year’s training that is now going to be given to cadet information officers. They will be trained in the latest information methods, public relations, the study of South Africa theoretically and in the field. They will pay visits from the Parliament in the Cape right up to the University of the North. All these things are good factors. I am also glad to note that the hon. the Minister has now decided that it will in future be essential for all officials to know a third language. I am glad to see that be has decided that the target areas will now be the trendsetters and those people who can influence and sway public opinion in other countries. At the same time one notices that he is going to use some unorthodox, subtle methods. I shall not press him to find out what those are, but I was rather intrigued to see those words mentioned. Perhaps, without giving away any secrets, he could tell us what one or two of them may be. I am also pleased to see that these cadets are also going to have training in regard to their television image over our own circuit television. I trust that there are hon. members on this side and on that side who will apply for a short training course in that, too, before 1st January, 1976. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to help us in that regard.

I mentioned the dichotomy in our information abroad. Firstly, there is the problem of information on the Government’s own policy. I am not complaining that the Department of Information is issuing information on the Government’s policies. It is necessary, obviously, because it is the Government. The rest of the world ought to know what its policies are, but there are several difficulties. I am sure the hon. the Minister must realize that the policy of the Government in regard to inter-racial affairs, particularly in regard to separate development, is not a policy that is easily and readily saleable abroad. Often there is confusion between so-called “grand” and “petty” apartheid, and confusion worse confounded amongst people who do not understand the position in South Africa at all. But there are other aspects, I think, to which the hon. the Minister could pay greater attention in stressing the Government’s policy. There is, for instance, Bantu education. We do not agree on everything the hon. the Minister is doing there. There are, of course, certain good things that have been done in that connection. There are things like raising the Black standard of living, housing and also such improvements as will come in regard to wages. All these things can impress our friends abroad. Instead of laying too meticulous stress on the Bantustan policy, I wonder whether his department should not lay more stress on the possibility of a natural constitutional development in South Africa over the years, with perhaps some independent and some dependent states, provinces or communal areas within our borders, involved in some form of economic union where consultation could take place through means of special consultative bodies. I am thinking of some sort of a federal concept without necessarily adopting the federal plan of this side of the House.

The hon. the Minister in speaking about the policy of his Government might also on occasion say a bit more about the policy of the Opposition, partly because I believe we have an excellent policy. Thereby the rest of the world will be made acquainted with the fact that we have a political democracy in this country, a parliamentary democracy, and that criticism of the Government is freely permitted under your Chairmanship.

*The second aspect of the Department of Information is the image of our country as a whole. Here the Government may count on the support of this side of the House, just as it may count on the support of this side of the House where it is necessary to present a united front on foreign affairs, defence and even in the interior in regard to national security. There are organizations, terrorist movements, boycott movements and an organization with a fine name which sometimes does ugly things, however, viz. the World Council of Churches, which gives money for attacking South Africa, not only in the theoretical field, but also in the field of terrorism. I predict that certain of those organizations will continue to attack our country, no matter what the policy that is being followed here. When we are dealing with that type of organization, I am sure that the Government may count on the support of this side. Against them we stand united.

I found it an unhappy duty, for example, to take cognizance of the evidence that was given before the Schlebusch Commission, of which I am a commissioner. There I had to learn that a South African organization, a student organization, viz. Nusas, contributed to attacks made on South Africa abroad, with the excuse that they were doing so because the Department of Information was allegedly trying to create a wrong impression. I do not want to go into that any further. I am not allowed to elaborate on the evidence any further. I think it is fitting that I should confirm here what has in fact been published and that I should say how sorry I am that there is such an organization which is doing these things against South Africa today.

I hope the reply of the Department of Information will be that it is not biased, that it will always try to be impartial. I hope it will not allow itself to be polarized in its propaganda in regard to these attacks by being biased in its actions. I want to trust that it will follow the golden mean in this respect. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to link up with the hon. member for Orange Grove and also express the sincere thanks of our side of the House to Mr. Barry, the former Secretary of this department, who was in that position for about six years and was then, as a result of his very competent service in this department, promoted to Controller and Auditor-General on 1st September last year. I also very sincerely want to welcome Dr. Rhoodie on behalf of our side. We hope that he will also spend a profitable period here. This department is fortunate in successively having such competent secretaries. We just want to wish him everything of the best for the years ahead, for the years he will be in that position.

Sir, permit me also be express a word of thanks to the hon. the Minister and the department for this splendid annual report which we have received. This year we have witnessed a new deviation in this connection. The report does not contain only pure statistics; the department has taken to placing a photograph for us on almost every page, apart from all the data, of all our officials and staff who are serving locally and overseas. It is really a pleasure, when one is reading such a report, to see the faces of the persons themselves; one then knows that this is the person who is at the forefront of the department and who is fighting for South Africa. I think this is something unique, and it could perhaps be extended to our other Government departments. I therefore want to tell the department, on behalf of the House: Heartiest congratulations on this splendid document.

There is another thought I should like to express. You know, Sir, this department’s name is the Department of Information. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to investigate whether the name could not perhaps be changed to the Department of State Information. To the man in the street “Department of Information” means the department which can tell him what time the bus leaves, when there is a plane and whether there are any lovely spots in the area which he can have a look at, etc. The name is completely confused with general information, which it is not the function of the department to supply. This department supplies State information. I therefore wonder whether the name of the department could not be changed to the Department of State Information.

In addition I want to take a look at the task and function of this department. Here I cannot neglect to express my gratitude to the hon. member for Orange Grove for the fact that he took so positive a stand in this House today. I think he kept the debate on a high level. However, I just want to point out one thing to the hon. member. He asked that the Opposition’s policy should also be advocated. Two years ago the hon. the Minister extended an invitation to the Opposition and said that if they wanted to present their policy—some people may ask “what policy?”, but in any case one of their policies—in black and white, he would see to it that it was published. That invitation still stands, and this can be done.

With Notice No. 1142 of 1st December, 1961, when this department was called into being, one of its functions was “the co-ordination of all State publicity services”. A second function which was entrusted to it was “the performance of all the additional services and the utilization of such media as may be effective to supply, wherever it may be necessary or advisable, accurate information on all aspects of the way of life, activities and natural resources of South Africa and South-West Africa”. I should like to say a few more words about this. That is to say, I want to ask what we in South Africa can do to fulfil this task. To be able to do this money is necessary, and here I must say that the hon. the Minister of Information has hitherto succeeded, through his crystal clear vision, his dynamic leadership and the enterprise and conviction which he has always displayed, to develop this department to such an extent, with the little money at his disposal to make it known and to do so much for South Africa, even to the point of doing what the Opposition has asked for here today, apart from many other things we do not even hear about. Sir, we are also grateful for the fact that the hon. the Minister has a little more than 400 competent officials, who are loyal to the department and to South Africa, to assist him in carrying out this service. But, Sir, money is needed, in fact much more money is needed to carry out this task, and therefore we want to advocate that the hon. the Minister of Finance should treat this department much more generously next year, as far as finances are concerned, to enable it to carry this task further. Mr. Chairman, here no cannon are fired and no bullets are used. This good work is done through contact, film shows and the radio, etc., and we need money in order to make use of these channels. Sir, let us just look at the Estimates for a moment. For the year 1972-73 provision is made in the Estimates for a mere R7 049 000, which was only ,19% of our total expenditure and which is, as I see it, far too little. If we take this per capita of our population, it amounts to about 30 cents. The expenditure per capita was about 20 cents abroad and 10 cents locally. Sir, let us compare this with the position in other Western countries. West Germany, for example, apart from its ordinary expenditure, has a guest programme, its Inter-Nationes, where it spends about R8 million on 4 000 guests per year. The United States, on the other hand, has a per capita spending of about R1-60. Let us now look at what is spent abroad by other countries. South Africa’s per capita expenditure abroad is, as I have said, about 20 cents, but we find that a country like Germany, for example, has a per capita expenditure abroad of R1-20. The United States of America, with its various bodies for which provision is made in its budget, has a per capita expenditure of about R2-20. Its foreign aid programme alone amounts to R2 000 million. Sir, we compare very poorly with the countries I have mentioned here in this connection. The question now arises as to where we can obtain additional money for this important task, and now I want to come to our private sector. Apart from the contribution made by the State. I think the private sector should also furnish a contribution towards extending South Africa’s name and making it known. I am thinking here of commerce and industry. Just recently the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut had the following point for discussion on its agenda for the congress in Johannesburg (translation)—

On behalf of this House I want to express my thanks to the Handelsinstituut for that positive step. But I also just want to address myself to them today and ask whether they, in conjunction with other organizations such as Assocom and the Federated Chamber of Industries, would not also do their share towards donating money to South Africa for that purpose. Sir, there are many ways in which they could donate money. One of the ways is to do what they similarly do in the outside world, i.e. to hold local symposiums to which they can invite a lot of overseas businessmen—let us say 20 top businessmen from any one country. I have in mind one very suitable symposium that could be held, and that is a symposium about the economic growth of South Africa. Sir, along those lines they could introduce those people to South Africa and place South Africa much more prominently on the world map than is now being done. What is more, in co-operation with our exporters—and this year provision is being made in our Estimates for the tremendous amount of R31 495 000 for export promotion services—they can do something to develop our economy, and it is here where the department’s important task as a co-ordinating body comes in. I then want to ask that these people, by means of our department, should make their contribution and thereby furnish a service to South Africa in order to develop our economy and also to carry South Africa’s name overseas in positive and not negative terms.

Sir, we can also direct our thoughts along other lines. As you know, we have very clever and competent people in South Africa. I am now thinking of the people whose doctoral theses are lying on the shelves— people who have devoted a great deal of time and energy to their studies and who have come to light with good suggestions. But those people do not have the money to publish their documents. Commerce and industry could, however, donate funds so that these books could be published overseas. One book of 250 pages could, for example, be published in London in French and English at a cost of R10 000. Those books could then find their way into all the libraries of the world, and thereby commerce and industry could contribute their share. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Sunnyside raised a very interesting point, to which I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply. He was also very fulsome in his praise of the 1972 report of the department, which I think overall is quite an attractive publication, the contents of which will be dealt with by other members on this side of the House. Sir, without wasting too much time, I just want to mention to the hon. the Minister, as a former newspaper and magazine journalist, who has also made mistakes in lay-out in his day, that part of this publication is almost unreadable. It is very bad lay-out practice to have a lot of white type on a yellow background. From page 54 onwards, the part dealing with Press liaison, it is barely readable. But, as I say, we have all made mistakes in this sort of thing; I have, and I hope that we will not see this sort of thing again.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal this afternoon with the whole question of the acceptability of the work that is being done by our Information Service abroad, acceptability in the sense, as I see it, that we need rather more balance in what is put out by the Information Service. Sir, the hon. the Minister will recall that in past debates we from this side of the House have asked for a much more balanced picture of South Africa to be sent abroad by the Information Service. Sir, it does not rest with a mere statement of United Party policy. You will recall that last year, for instance, I mentioned the case of a publication such as the German Tribune, a publication of high standard, which gives a good picture of the dialogue that is taking place within Germany on political, religious, cultural and other matters. I think it is a tragedy that we do not have something of that sort in this country. You see, Sir, what our Information Service has tended to do—and it has done it well—is to present what one might call the pleasant face of South Africa, and that exclusively. There is obviously no objection to this; I think it is a very worthy thing for us to tell the world about our assets and the progress that is being made in the country. But the problem, especially with a country such as ours where you have so many divergences of opinion, mainly in the political field, is that if only one message goes out to the world and that message is presented only in the best possible light, there comes a time when the whole value of an information service that does this must be questioned.

There is only one good message in South Africa.

Sir, that hon. member said that there is only one good message in South Africa. I challenge that, but I shall deal with it if he will just keep quiet.

He is a very bad judge.

One runs into the problem that an information service might be regarded more as a propaganda service. If one looks, for instance—and the hon. member for Potchefstroom might do well to listen to this—at all that has been sent abroad about the Government’s Bantu homeland policy, one will see that only the very best picture has been painted down the years. One will see quite valid publicity given to such things as our industrial expansion, agricultural expansion, education and things like that, and even the political evolution of these Black states. But if people abroad had to rely purely on what has been sent out by our Information Service over the years, they must have found it a very sobering experience to read in the newspapers, especially in the last few months, what some of the Black leaders in this country have been saying. One comes to the point where, in their minds, they might wonder whether there is not perhaps a credibility gap. The hon. member for Potchefstroom says there is only one good message and that is the National Party’s message but imagine the position of an overseas reader who has relied purely on what this Government has put out to present itself in the best possible light, when he reads in the Press that a very prominent leader, such as Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, says such things as that he fears that the Black people of South Africa are being taken for a ride, as he put it “not because we are a bunch of fools but because they (the White Government) are all-powerful and we are powerless”. We all know too what another Black leader said within the last few days. I refer to Chief Kaiser Matanzima and what he has said about the prospects of a blood bath in this country if his land demands are not met. The point is this. I believe it is the valid, and it would be a very valuable task, of our information service if the whole picture of what is going on in South Africa were to be given abroad, as for instance the German Tribune does. Why cannot we tell the people abroad that there is a vigorous dialogue going on in this country, a political dialogue between White and White and between White and non-White? Why cannot our information service, quite honestly, put out the views of others, not only honestly but also fully? You see, Sir, if the people abroad are only going to have what is largely glossy, pleasant magazines, then I am quite certain that the whole effect, the whole import, of our effort will be lost.

There is one other thing that I wish to suggest to the hon. the Minister and that is that greater use should be made of the department abroad to feed back information to the Government because it seems to me that too little is being done in this respect. I am quite certain that if a true reflection were to be given by the department of the reactions abroad to some of the things which have happened here—and I shall mention just one—the Government would act. While we have something like the South African Games, a most pleasant occurrence and I think a very worthwhile one, one out of which we were entitled to get a fair amount of mileage, one also has what one might call the ugly face of South Africa, and I believe it is the duty of the department to keep on warning the Government as to how people abroad react. I want to refer very briefly to just one instance where, I think on the day before Easter week-end, 28 Black youths were convicted in the Langa Bantu Commissioner’s court of contravening section 10 (4) of the Bantu Administration Act. This sort of thing is regarded by people overseas as purely a technical offence. What happened was that these 28 youths were each sentenced to something like eight strokes. One day’s haul was something like 224 strokes, for what overseas people must regard as essentially a technical offence. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I believe that that one day’s work in the Langa court could not be put right by a million rands worth of advertising to present the pleasant face of South Africa. I want to tell him that this sort of thing is just not understood by people abroad. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I was really sorry that after the very positive speech, for a change, of the hon. member for Orange Grove …

Good, for a change.

Yes, a change for the better is always to be welcomed. The hon. member has made progress and I want to congratulate him on that.

That has only been so since he became a member of the Schlebusch Commission.

I think the Schlebusch Commission has done him a great deal of good. I was, however, sorry to have had to listen subsequently to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down. He simply cannot get away from cherishing unobjective opinions even about so important and ticklish a matter for South Africa as the struggle which is actually being conducted at the outposts for the defence of our country. We heard from the hon. member for Orange Grove that his side of the House would also do its share in this matter, as in the case of related matters, for example defence, foreign affairs and state security. He also did so today, and I want to congratulate him.

However, the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, did not speak in the same vein. The hon. member said “only one message goes out” and there he had the campaign of the Department of Information in mind. However, the hon. member did not present a single example of what he was criticising and therefore I have to reject his criticism. On the other hand I want to ask him, since he was connected with a prominent English-language newspaper in this country for many years, whether he does not agree that the truth is actually that South Africa’s problem abroad lies in the fact that there is a one channel system of marketing to countries abroad— to put it in those terms—since the Press is hostile to this country and not only to the Government which rules the country. That hostile Press is injuring our country. That is, of course, the problem which the Department of Information also has to wrestle with, the fact that there is a one channel system of marketing in which the newspaper for which the hon. member worked and other newspapers play a part. What appears in the Afrikaans Press virtually never gets through to people abroad.

The hon. member mentioned an incident at Langa as an example. I want the hon. member to listen to me, because I want to discuss something with him and mention a point which will enable him to reveal some perspective in this matter. He says that incident at Langa has hurt us. It is surely true that things happen in every country that give rise to problems and adversely affect one’s outward image. Even in the United States such things are happening every day. A year or so ago there was the Attica prison incident.

Do not talk nonsense.

No, I am not talking nonsense; I am speaking the truth. I want to give him another example; something which happened in this country recently. One of that hon. member’s colleagues, a member of the Natal Provincial Council, was involved in a serious court case in connection with a Bantu. Is that something we must now trumpet to the world in order to hurt that party? We surely do not do such things.

You did not understand what I said.

I want the hon. member to gain some perspective about these things. His objection is that the Department of Information is presenting a pretty picture of South Africa. Why not? It is surely a fool who does not advertise the fine things in his country. Are there not sufficient people and bodies who feel inclined to trumpet out all the bad and wrong things?

Were you not listening?

I was listening very attentively to what the hon. member said, and my plea to the hon. member is that he should gain some perspective about these matters. If, unlike the hon. member for Orange Grove, he then expresses criticism about the Department of Information being prejudiced and one-sided in the execution of its task, he must furnish specific proof.

However, I want to deal with positive aspects as far as this department is concerned. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Sunnyside in congratulating the department on this fine annual report, but also on what is evident from that report, i.e. that the department is disposed towards, and is already prepared, to meet the challenge of the new world in which we are living with even better resources. In this annual report a surveyable image is given of the onslaught against us. Now that the military confrontation between the great powers has temporarily cooled down and arms have for a while been set aside or are being displayed, but not used, the confrontation is taking place on another level. That is where the department’s task comes in and for that we must have the best forces, the best trained forces, at our disposal. I am saying that it is clear to me that the department is now ready to tackle that task to good effect. It does not have a manpower shortage; it has the services of hand-picked men. There is a special training scheme for them. I think I am correct, and I do not think the hon. member for Orange Grove would argue with me if I say that under prevailing circumstances we shall in future have to think bigger when we are dealing with the task of the department. The importance of this department is going to become greater and greater, and it is for us, as the House of Assembly, to take note of that. I want to refer to one of the ways in which this department is trying to gain or buy goodwill for South Africa. It is only one of the several ways in which it does so. I am referring to the invitation of official guests by the department. Those of us who have had dealings with such guests in South Africa, and those who later had dealings with them abroad, can attest to the fact that all these people, with few exceptions, left South Africa with a positive image. They could observe what was taking place here and they could also observe bad or wrong things to which the hon. member for Kensington referred. They could observe these things personally and could see for themselves that there is some truth in the English adage “seeing is believing”. Through having seen all these things, they are positively orientated and full of praise for South Africa in the knowledge that their countries also have problems as we do, and consequently they do not try to pose as cleverer a people by wanting to solve our problems for us.

Let us look at the amounts being made available for the task of this department. We can try to compare this aspect with what is being done by way of a guest programme in a country like Western Germany. In this committee there are a few members who have already been guests of their organization, “Inter-Nationes”. This organization spends more than R8 million per year on foreign guests alone, and in the process they receive more than 4 000 such guests per year. Looking at these figures, I must say that there is a still much greater task awaiting us in South Africa. This afternoon I want to adopt the standpoint that not only the small group of guests whom we can invite with our limited means, but also the people who visit the country of their own accord and who frequently make use of the services of the Department of Information, including people who come as guests of other state departments, organizations, etc., should be handled by the Department of Information. They are professionally geared to carry out this task. Hon. members can imagine that if people travel through the country on an organized tour of their own, whether in a private capacity or as guests of another body, and frequently have to ask questions of people who have not been trained for such a task and cannot tell them exactly what certain things mean, they may obtain a very erroneous image of our country. We know how this department handles its guests or people who come to South Africa of their own accord and then come to the Department of Information. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on the task they are doing in this connection. I want to give a further hint, i.e. that attention be given to such guests and visitors through co-ordination of the functions of the Department of Information. Contact must be sought with local organizations, which would also give these people the opportunity to appear before audiences. There the people could, on the one hand, present their impressions about our country, and there they could also be given the opportunity to get to know personally those people whom they would otherwise not meet. Then they would be able to hear their opinions, and this applies particularly to the Afrikaans-speaking section of our population with whom they would otherwise never have had direct contact. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say in defence of the hon. member for Kensington that the hon. member for Stellenbosch gave a most extraordinary interpretation of something he had said. I must say “there are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear.” The hon. member for Kensington was not suggesting that the department should send abroad news of unfortunate happenings at Langa. What he said was that the department should fulfil a feed-back function to tell the Government what was said about these things when they were published in journals overseas. If the hon. member for Stellenbosch had listened or had any sense of objectivity and fairness in his composition, he would have understood that without having to be told. Another thing, the hon. member for Stellenbosch … [Interjections.] I wish hon. members would shut up and let me speak. The hon. member for Stellenbosch blamed the English Press in a sort of generalized statement for a lot of our information difficulties overseas. Let me tell that hon. member that the freedom of the English Press in this country is one of the things that impresses our overseas visitors most of all, and whether or not the reports are always entirely accurate or whatever it is, people who come here over and over have said to me that they are astonished at the contents of our Press. That goes for the Afrikaans Press too, but mostly for the English Press which for obvious reasons they are able to read. They say: “We did not realize that you had as free a Press as in fact you have got.” It is a great asset, not a liability.

The new secretary, Dr. Rhoodie’s approach to the whole question of our Department of Information is much more practical and realistic with due respect to his predecessor and we very much welcome this approach. We welcome particularly, as the hon. member for Orange Grove has said, the compulsory public relations training course for information officers which has just been instituted. I must say I think it a pity that the department has taken quite so long to realize that South Africa’s enemies overseas are extremely well organized and sophisticated in their presentation of anti-South African propaganda. Those of us who have been personally involved in lecturing about South Africa overseas, with due respect to all concerned, could have told the Minister and his department that some time ago.

In the past so many of our information officers were journalists—we have raised this point before—mostly from Afrikaans newspapers seconded overseas to fill these posts. I have no complaint against them as people; they are very good people, but surely we need more than that. We also need more than a few training courses for these officers if we are to make any real impact upon the international scene. I wonder sometimes, as hon. members before me have already suggested, why we always appear to be so afraid of a free and open description of the argument that goes on continuously here within South Africa. It is our biggest asset. What we need, amongst other things, is a co-ordinated team— this is a practical suggestion—of professional public relations officers, field officers, whose task it should be to travel throughout the country, not to sit behind desks, in which they are posted for the purpose of observing aspects of affairs there which might be relevant to South Africa. The men behind the desks at the headquarters in our overseas offices have a different function altogether, as I understand it. They should be at work processing information both from home and from the countries abroad where they are serving for general distribution and, as the hon. member for Kensington has suggested, for feed-back purposes to the Government here, so that we know what arguments to counter and what things can be ignored. I do appreciate that this would be voting a substantial increase in the money presently allocated to the Department of Information. At the moment, according to the Secretary of the department, who gave an interview to Die Burger here in December last year, 0,19% of our total Budget goes to the Department of Information. There is an increase for the overseas service in the estimates this year, but in view of the assault upon us from overseas, I consider this allocation totally inadequate, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not perhaps try to persuade the Minister of Finance to be a little more generous in regard to funds in this field because our whole future, internationally, is at stake here.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could tell us on what basis, generally speaking, visitors who are invited by the department to visit us here, are selected. We have said already that we consider that the Government continues to make far too much propaganda overseas about its own policy of separate development. I wonder why we cannot put out a paper, such as the one I have here which I received in the post fortuitously last week with the compliments of the information section of the British Consulate-General under the title “Parliamentary Elections in Britain”. Without expressing a single opinion, all it does is to set out the British parliamentary system. It tells you that they have an election every five years, how the constituencies function, the review procedure, who may vote and who may not … the whole parliamentary system. Half the people that I have come across overseas are people who have been fed with the wrong sort of propaganda and who do not even know that we have a working parliamentary system in this country. This booklet is not propaganda in the sense that there are no subjective views attached to it, it is a basis of fact which if it were dished out to lots of people overseas, could be of inestimable value. It simply tells you how Parliament works. Let the hon. member for Middelland write it for us; he is an expert on that subject. Since we are so often described overseas as a “police state”, surely a pamphlet compiled not only on this basis, which sets out how the elections are run, but one that also sets out in brief form the policies of the different parties and how we all differ from each other, could be published. It can then go on to describe, by all means, the homeland governments, the Coloured Representative Council, etc. What does it matter, since it is all to the good that people overseas know that we are talking, we are arguing and alive and that we are not stone-dead or static. This is the important thing: that we have a dynamic system of our own and that we do not want their interference as we will handle these affairs ourselves. A frank description of the South African political scene would make a far greater impression than the one-party approach which is unfortunately always presented at present. I want to say—and this validates my argument—that people who come here on a visit are frequently referred to me by the department. I am only too delighted to receive these overseas visitors but they always eagerly ask me to send on to them, when they have gone, documents and policy statements which describe the differences of opinion between the Government and ourselves. They say to me: “Well, what do you folks stand for? Where are you in this whole spectrum?” Then I promise to post them what they require. Yesterday I posted two lots to the United States, one lot to West Germany and another to Australia which cost me, altogether, R10. I am delighted to do this, but it seems to me that it should be unnecessary for me to do this when the department has all the facilities available to distribute this matter throughout the world. Then these folk go back and say: “This is great! There is an Opposition; they have a battle and the whole thing is done on a reasonable basis.”

Yes, they really have a battle!

It has been my experience that too many people overseas think that we do not even have an Opposition in Parliament. That is not our fault; it is the fault of the Department of Information. This is another reason why proper public relation officers—and I stress this because my son happens to be one—ought to be technically trained in marketing techniques, because we are marketing a product, we are marketing the policies generally, of the country. I think we should have people trained on that basis to assist not only overseas but the department itself.

I would like to end by making one suggestion. We are quite aware that for many years now a number of technical people have been responsible for assisting various countries in Africa itself with their problems in a quiet and inconspicuous way. We approve of that very much, but the Government’s approach to this matter seems to be very restricted and it worries us a little. They seem to limit their approach to the practice of sending only civil servants on these missions. With all respect to civil servants, we take the view that a far greater use could be made of voluntary civilian aid in this field, helped and encouraged by the department. This aid could be based on private initiative in the first place without having any links with the Government. Could we not surely send Black technical officers, even on short missions, to talk to Black people in Africa on technical matters—I am thinking of agricultural officers, mining officers, people trained in radio, medical people, education officers, etc. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg is being very bad-tempered this evening. I do not know what about. Perhaps she is being bad-tempered about the hon. member of the Schlebusch Commission who is sitting in front of her. The hon. member spoke of the freedom of the Press which is said to be our greatest asset. Well, who is the guardian of the freedom of the Press in this country? It is this National Government which is being discredited to such an extent by that side of the House. The hon. member requests that the dialogue which takes place every day should be made available to everyone who wants it. But, Mr. Chairman, surely it, is available. Every detail of that with which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout besmirches this country every day is available in every Hansard, which is distributed throughout the world.

[Inaudible.]

No, that is the raw product. It is the naked truth that is available.

Order! I think the hon. member must withdraw the word “besmirch”.

I withdraw it and substitute the word “whitewash”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word unconditionally.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member asks that the policies of the various parties should be made available by the Department of Information.

That is correct.

Well, they are available. According to my information no one has ever inquired there about the policy of the United Party or that of the Progressive Party. The hon. member is free to make inquiries.

I want to come back to the Local Services section of the Estimates on page 171. I want to express my joy at the fact that the Vote has been increased by R66 000. This pushes up the total amount to almost R3 million. Because of the importance of the Local Information and Press Liaison Vote I want to ask the hon. the Minister very seriously whether he cannot push this amount up next year to at least R3 million. I am suggesting this because of the very important work this section is doing. The Local and Press Liaison division is of great importance to us because there is not only liaison with the Whites but, as is explained so neatly in this annual report, there is liaison with the respective national groups in their own languages. Making information available in the respective languages is a big and expensive job. I consequently think we can also very profitably spend more money on that.

In respect of Press liaison work, which has recently been instituted, we have had the very good services in the past of the two officials who initiated this work, i.e. Mr. Mel and Mr. Eyssen, who have now been followed up by Mr. Muller. I should like to record here my appreciation for the work being done by the Press Liaison division, during Parliamentary sessions as well. It is a fact that the political correspondents, in particular, and the visiting political correspondents from abroad, do not want to take very long detours to get to the heart of the matter. It is a fact that the Press Liaison Service, particularly the Parliamentary Press Liaison Service, is very helpful in giving these journalists or political correspondents the pith and marrow of what they are looking for, for example the complete speeches of Ministers and complete statements that are made. The journalists can then sift that information themselves and prepare their own stories. Indirectly this gives rise to the publication of true facts about the politics in the Republic. I want to record again that this is one of the most important pieces of work which the local division of the department carries out.

Locally, the rapidly-increasing problem of the English-speaking person is his guest for another regular publication in which he can get the facts about South Africa. I want to agree, to a certain extent, with the hon. member for Kensington in his reference to the German Tribune, but I am actually thinking of something deeper and more penetrating; I am looking for something that can really give us something more than this S.A. Digest, which is already being used with very good results, but which has a limited striking force and circle of impact. Being able to give our English-language fellow citizens and English-language visitors from abroad something on a weekly basis, which they are looking for, is a problem. I humbly want to suggest that a completely new publication should be established by the Department of Information. I am thinking of a publication in newspaper form, which could perhaps be fed from copy of the most important news reports and political comments of the week from both Press groups of the country, and then supplemented with business news, topical agricultural news and concomitant matters. To a certain extent this is in line with the hon. member for Kensington’s view, but it goes a little further. I think it is time for the department to give very serious attention to the creation of such a publication, not only with a view to a small circulation, but with a view to mass communication.

The hon. member for Wynberg had a great deal to say about the Press. She spoke of the “gagging of the Press” in certain respects. I want to state now, as I have frequently done in this House under this Vote, that the role of the South African English newspapers ought to be to strike a good blow for South Africa here and there. Sir, if we take away the political columns of our leading English dailies and weeklies, if we take the political venom out of them, we find that from time to time we get articles, photo articles, etc., about our country and its people, which are really interesting and worth reading. I want to state that these editorial staffs do not always realize what role they are playing in the creation of a good image of South Africa amongst the English-language readers who cannot also supplement their reading with Afrikaans articles. We want to convey our thanks to that sector of journalism. But, Sir, no matter how forcefully we develop this Department of Information of ours, no matter how many millions of rand we put into it, everything is complicated and at times undone by ill-considered utterances from some members of the Opposition on that side of the House, in particular. Everyone knows that there is a stigma attached to the word “Nazi”, which is disliked throughout the world. If an hon. member of that side of the House therefore accuses this side of even a trace of nazism, as that hon. member for Kensington has already done again this afternoon by implication, this travels throughout the world within an hour, and it unnecessarily besmirches the Republic’s name, and those hon. members know this. If they are patriots, those hon. members must now stop those kind of subtle reference. They may hurt the National Party, but they are complicating the task of our information officers overseas, and what is more, they are hurting South Africa and themselves.

Sir, if I could suggest this evening that an hon. member’s salary be reduced, I would now have done so in respect of the salary of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Sir, with his continual “petty apartheid” parrying over the years he has created, as a by-product, a new international swearword against South Africa, which makes things extremely difficult for our Information Service. The damage the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has done to South Africa is incalculable in financial terms.

You are talking rubbish.

That hon. member says “You are talking rubbish,” but she would do well to read all the leftist publications throughout the word—here is one of them, Towards Social Change—and she would find that it could just as well have been written by Japie Basson.

Do you now want a debate on petty apartheid? You can have it …

Sir, if that side of the House is sincere as far as our Information Service is concerned, as the hon. member for Orange Grove, one of that hon. member’s fellow party members, professed here this afternoon, I want to say that it is necessary for that party to speak to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout about his irresponsible conduct. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what I have done in this House to deserve the pleasure of almost invariably replying to the hon. member for Pretoria District.

It is a fate worse than death.

I am afraid it is almost a fate worse than death but, Sir, there is one thing about it and that is that you always get something out of him.

Say something nice about him.

Sir, I am afraid it is a bit difficult to say something nice about this hon. member. Sir, what has the hon. member said? All he has said in effect is that the English-speaking people of South Africa are getting a slanted and a biased viewpoint of what is taking place in this country. Not only the permanent residents and the citizens of this country, but the English-speaking visitors to South Africa, are also getting a slanted and a biased viewpoint of what is happening, and therefore we must ask the hon. the Minister to spend more money to issue a newspaper. He suggested that it be a weekly.

Yes.

You see, Sir, he agrees. He suggests that it should be a weekly, and all it should have in it is Nationalist Pary propaganda. He even hands the English-language Press a left-handed compliment, and you know, Sir, what my attitude and our party attitude is at the moment towards the English-language Press. As I say, the hon. member even hands them a left-handed compliment by saying: “If you take the political comments and the political reports out of those newspapers, do you know that they are damn good papers; they are worth reading.” In other words, he is saying, “As long as you do not criticize the Nationalist Government or the Nationalist Party, you are doing a fine job of work; get on with it; good show! ” [Interjections.] That is what he said, Sir, but he even went further. He talks about smearing South Africa’s name, and he mentions my hon. friend, the member for Bezuidenhout. He suggests that he would like to move a reduction in the salary of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I want to ask him, Sir, in which session since he has been here has he ever earned his salary? I do not believe that in the seven or eight years that he has sat in this House he has earned his salary in one of those years.

Not a month’s salary.

No, I would not go so far as to say that. Perhaps he has earned one month’s salary, but I do not believe he has earned one year’s salary in the eight years he has been here. He must not come here with this sort of thing.

“Boerehaat!”

Now he is beginning to talk about “Boerehaat” again. All we have had from him is hatred for the English, and that is all we expect from him. I am still waiting to hear whether he and his comrades on that side will perhaps express themselves in English in this House one day.

†Sir, let us come back to the Minister’s Vote. I want to say that the hon. member for Pretoria District has only confirmed the impression that I got out of this publication of the hon. the Minister’s, because when you look at page 48, you find that they talk about “internal liaison”. What is it? Under the heading “Bantu” they say—

You know, Sir, this is as at the 31st December, 1972. I wonder how many Bantu leaders has expressed criticism of Government policy by that date, but there is no mention of that here. Then, under the heading “Whites”, we find the following—

Of course it did, Sir, because our whole future depends on it, but why did the hon. the Minister not give us a correct picture of what is happening? Then, under the heading “Coloureds”, we find the following—

Sir, the first time I read this, I read it as “subtle”—

Sir, it is nothing more than a blatant propaganda publication, as are most of the publications of this department, and particularly those publications which are for internal consumption.

But I want to talk to the hon. the Minister about something which could be useful and not only internally. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Potchefstroom agrees that this is the function of the department, that this is what it should be there for, and that it is nothing other than a blatant propaganda machine for the Nationalist Party. He should be ashamed of himself but my time is unfortunately limited. [Interjection.]

*I should like that hon. member to express himself in English here. I challenged him, but he took fright, Sir; he “chickened out”.

†I have here the official year book of the Union of South Africa for 1960. Unfortunately this is the last publication of a year book for South Africa. I want to know why. Why did we in 1960, at the end of Union, suddenly stop issuing a year book for South Africa? I have here the year book of Australia for 1971.

Order! That falls under Statistics.

No, with respect; I would just like to read from the preface to this particular year book—

That was in 1960. Now my plea to the hon. the Minister is that he must produce a book similar to this, with information in it, and a certain amount of statistics; but we have a statistical year book. I am not asking for another statistical year book. My plea is for a book similar to the one which is issued by Australia. In the library you will find a similar year book for Canada, for New Zealand, the Commonwealth and for various other countries. You will find there The State of South Africa, of 1972, but this is a private publication. It is not a Government publication; it is published by Da Gama Publishers of Johannesburg and printed by the Natal Witness’ printers in Pietermaritzburg. But we do not want such a private publication. That is not what I am after. What I am after is an official document, a Government publication, without propaganda, unbiased and free, which should be issued for the benefit not only of we citizens, so that we can find out what is happening and which can be used as a reference book, but also of visitors and of new South Africans, immigrants when they come in, so that they can find out what is going on. The preface to this year book of 1960 continues—

This. Sir, is the crux of the whole matter. I believe that we should have such a work of reference. What are the headings in this book? Let us look at the table of contents. There is reference to “Central Government”, and under that heading there are subheadings: “Constitutional development”; “Establishment of the Union and subsequent constitutional developments.” Of course, now it would be the establishment of the Republic and subsequent constitutional developments, including the constitutional development of the homelands, and of the Coloured people, or whatever has happened. Factually, this should be set out, for people to be informed of what the position is within the Republic. Then there is another heading: “Parliament and legislation.” Then under “Local Government” we find the “Powers and duties of local governing bodies”, “Municipal rating”. Then we even get such interesting things as “Prices and price indexes”, “Labour and industrial conditions”, “Wages”, “Hours of Labour”, “Industrial legislation”, “Social conditions and pensions”—all information which not only we, the citizens of South Africa, require but also our visitors and in particular new South Africans or potential new South Africans. Every single immigrant when he comes into this country should be handed a book like this. It has maps in it, population maps and geographic maps. It also had two pull-outs, which are not here, which contained the necessary statistics. This is a hive of information, something which is of value to every South African and particularly to every potential South African. I believe that a publication of this nature can only be of use to this country, particularly when it is taken in conjunction with the statistical review which is issued. But I want to repeat that I am not pleading for a statistical review at all; I want more than that. I want something of the format of this last year book. I deplore the fact that it was the last one that was issued. I do not know why publication of it was ceased. I hope the Minister in his reply will tell me. If he has the information and does know why, I shall be glad to know. I accept that this was published by the Department of Statistics. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, South Africa’s Information Service is probably one of the most important fronts in the struggle for the preservation of the security of South Africa. South Africa is being threatened militarily and we ensure that South Africa is militarily prepared. To be able to do this efficiently, we have increased our military budget this year, as far as current expenditure and not capital expenditure, too, is concerned, from R335 million to R447 million. In the information sphere, where South Africa is the target for psychological warfare, verbal warfare and warfare of human ideas, it is extremely important for South Africa to be prepared to lie able to take action against its enemies. In my view it is absolutely essential for us to have a long-term programme of preparation to be as efficient as possible in that sphere, locally as well as abroad. This year, it is true, we have an increase of about R900 000 in the Estimates—i.e. from R7,05 million to R7,96 million—but I accept the fact that it will not be practical to increase such a budget in the course of one year by 20, 30 or 40% if there has not been preparation in advance for the efficient application of the additional funds.

One of the aspects that can play a role in making our preparedness more efficient, is, as I see it, that there should be co-ordination on a wide level between all the departments that are in any way involved with information and the dissemination of knowledge about South Africa. I accept that there is a measure of liaison between the Department of Information and other departments which also deal with that, but I should like to advocate the establishment of a standing liaison committee between the Department of Information, the Department of Tourism, the South African Railways Travel Bureau, which does very good work overseas, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the overseas services of Radio R.S.A. All these organizations deal with the projection of South Africa’s image, chiefly overseas. We are aware of the fact that overseas forces are bent on destroying South Africa, on smashing South Africa’s image. The South African approach should not necessarily be to offer our information service abroad with a fanfare of trumpets. It must be a soft approach, which could be more efficient in those parts where this could really be of value to South Africa. For that purpose, preparedness and efficient preparation are essential. One of our excellent publications, which is very well known both in South Africa and overseas, is the publication Panorama. According to the Estimates I see that the costs of the audio-visual service and publications amount to R2 783 000. The costs involved in Panorama alone contributed R1 088 000 to that amount. I wonder whether so great an expenditure on a single publication is really being employed in the most efficient manner. I wonder whether it would not possibly be advisable to have that distributed over a variety of publications, which could then also give more emphasis to other aspects.

The hon. the Minister will know that I have, in previous years and also this year, personally discussed with him the magazine German Tribune, which is made available to members of Parliament. I agree that it is desirable, for the presentation of news about South Africa, to have a magazine in which the opinions of a variety of newspapers are presented. Unfortunately the position is that politics in South Africa historically has a language basis and that the Afrikaans newspapers consequently present one standpoint while the English newspapers, generally speaking, present another standpoint. I would be quite in favour of a similar publication being issued by South Africa and also being sent to important persons overseas, a publication which would give a summary of the opinions, ideas and news presentation of all newspapers in South Africa. I should like to have such a magazine presented in such a way so that it could give a balanced picture of South Africa. It is unfortunately true that as far as foreign news media are concerned, the source of information is, time and again, very one-sided. The newspapers read by foreign visitors to South Africa are unfortunately, from the nature of the circumstances, one-sided because the Government-supporting newspapers are Afrikaans-language newspapers. It would be a good thing if visitors to South Africa and people from overseas were to be granted an opportunity to obtain a balanced picture of all political nuances in South Africa.

Hon. members of the Opposition referred to the leaders of the Zulu and the Xhosa peoples, to mention just two examples. Do these hon. members realize what positive value this entails for the South African image overseas when those countries also hear of these apparently negative opinions of Chief Buthelezi and Chief Matanzima? What impression must this create when they test the impression which they gain from our Press, and which they gain from their local Press, to the effect that South Africa is a police state, against the fact that in South Africa there are people like Chief Buthelezi and Chief Matanzima and others who are openly adopting a standpoint against certain trends of thought of the Government? This must surely open the eyes of the people overseas. It must surely create the impression overseas that South Africa is not a police state. After all, these things are not suppressed overseas. It is not also necessary for State information to place the emphasis on this, but it could just be presented as a fact.

South Africa is a democratic country and the people overseas ought to be aware of that, and they ought to be aware of the fact that South Africa holds elections regularly and that the support of the majority of the electorate is given to the Government according to the democratic tradition. The Opposition is there, after all, and their opinions are continually being presented overseas.

In the few minutes at my disposal, I just want to point out one further aspect of the Estimates. I see that R237 000 is being spent this year on television and films. [Time expired.]

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by congratulating the hon. the Minister and his department on what I consider to be a good report. I have read it with great interest and I find that it contains many ideas, concepts and sentiments which I think are consistent with the modern approach to the whole question of foreign information. I believe it is a good job and that it is one well done. I have three minor criticisms, which I hope will not detract from what I said at the outset, because I believe it remains a good report. The three points to which I would like to draw attention are, firstly a degree of extravagance in its presentation, which I think is perhaps justified in this case. We drew attention last year and the year before to extravagance in the presentation of departmental reports. A great deal of colour and pictorial evidence was being produced in these reports and we felt, since the main purpose was giving information to Parliament, that all this high rate of expenditure was not justified. However, in the case of the Department of Information we think they have a case, because apart from merely presenting the information, the report also serves to illustrate the quality of the work the department does, so that besides merely producing the evidence, the data, the facts which Parliament requires in order to assess their progress over the years, in the case of this particular department, I believe they also have to show us the quality of work they produce when they present the South African image overseas. I would therefore say that we accept that this is a job well done, with perhaps a mild proviso in the words of the poet that one should strive to be “neat but not gaudy”.

My second point is a very minor one and I hope it will not be taken too seriously, but it is nevertheless relevant. The department has rightly tried to improve its services in foreign languages. We are grateful for the evidence the report provides that it is in fact insisting on training in languages as part of the preparation for the foreign information task. However, on page 46 there is a poorish sort of advertisement. There is a list of foreign publications which contains no less than three spelling errors in foreign languages. This I think is not a very good advertisement of their intentions for the future. The third one, which might be taken even less seriously, is that this particular edition contains no less than four pictures of the hon. the Minister.

Is that a good thing?

I would be the last person to suggest in this House that the reproduction of the portrait of the hon. the Minister is not a good thing for the projection of South Africa’s image abroad. It may have a certain aesthetic quality which somehow gives people a warm feeling about South Africa, and as I say, I do not contest this projection. However. I found, in comparing this with two previous reports, that in the report for 1969-’70 there was one picture of the hon. the Minister. In the report for 1970-’71 there were two pictures, so creating a doubling effect. In the report for 1972-73 which we have before us, there are four pictures of the Minister, i.e. a further doubling effect. As I have said before I am the last person to protest, because I have no doubt that the Minister’s image abroad does us a lot of good, but I want to warn him against the principle of geometric progression, because 1 to 2 is a doubling effect and 2 to 4 is a doubling effect, but 4 to 8 or 8 to 16 or 16 to 32 is perhaps a little overdoing the case. It is what is described as gilding the lily. However, I do not want to be too concerned about this because, in fact, one of the reproductions of his portrait was inadvertent, as it is a picture of a picture of him on the wall.

I want to come now to a second point, one which I have already made in the Vote on Foreign Affairs, but which I think it deserves to be made here briefly. The main thrust of the information effort abroad very often has to do with the homeland policy or theory. Again, I want to say at once that I do not wish to discuss the merits of this policy in this particular debate; there are other places, other occasions and other times when one can do this. However, it tends to be accepted by many people when they are abroad, or even at home, that the total justification for South Africa’s policies, the total answer to foreign criticism, is in fact the propagation of a homeland theory. The homeland theory does contain certain merits which we acknowledge, but it does not contain the whole answer. Therefore it does not satisfy the overseas critics. To rely entirely on the homelands policy as a solution to all the problems of South Africa, faced as it is with certain economic growth problems and certain population growth problems, together with the fact that the majority of South Africa’s Black people live not in homelands but in the White areas and will probably continue to do so increasingly in future years, is wrong. These factors must be borne in mind when one projects the foreign image. I am not contesting the policy at this stage, but I do want to say that it is commonly accepted, I think, that for the foreseeable future anyway, it is not a policy which will cope with the majority of our Black people living in Greater South Africa. Our foreign critics are concerned with precisely this problem. However impressed they may be with the theoretical arguments, with the moral content if you like, of the homelands policy, they know it is not the whole answer and that the real problems, the main areas of possible confrontation and conflict, lie not in the homelands but in other areas in South Africa. I merely wish to make this point that, while there is merit in arguing the homelands policy so far as it goes, it is not the whole answer. I find in this report certain references which are more reassuring in that there is a recognition of the other elements of the problem. I refer, since the hon. the Minister seems interested, to page 5 of the report for example, where it is said that—

The “successful” dialogue, please note—

But there is also the recognition that there are other areas which need to be looked at, that there economic and technical areas which can in fact be projected as a part of the overall picture. I do not wish to suggest to the hon. the Minister that his department has fallen into the error of treating this particular concept as the whole answer, the whole solution and all there is to South Africa’s problem, but I do wish to warn that very often there is the tendency to take the view that, if you can project this particular image, this theory or policy, you have in fact solved the whole question. There are, as I say, these areas of realism in the report which I welcome.

I would like to support the hon. member for Wynberg in what she said about projecting the overall panorama of South African discussion and conflict, the dynamism inherent in the whole South African political and social scene. This gives an enormous impression of vitality to visitors from abroad. The projection of the whole South African image, wide as it is, does in fact give people the feeling that South Africa is a vital country conducting its own affairs, and with less need than they thought for other people to intervene. If they thought South Africa were a dead society there would in fact be a serious need for other people to try to intervene, as they see it, to try to get things reorganized on better lines. But, Sir, if they see the South Africans themselves concerned and interested and engaged in full debate, then obviously there is less need for this. I wish to commend the speech of the hon. member for Klip River. Sir, he has said things which one cannot commend too highly. [Time expired.]

The most important point which the hon. member for Von Brandis made, concerned the task which the Department of Information has, to make known the Government’s homeland policy. If I have time, I shall come back to this later to point out how the United Party’s view of the homeland policy specifically burdens the Department of Information with an amount of work which would otherwise not be necessary.

Several hon. members on that side of the House, inter alia the hon. member for Orange Grove, the hon. member for Kensington and the hon. member for Wynberg, came along with another allegation against the Government to the effect that it is using the Department of Information to make the National Party’s policy known overseas without, to an equal extent, also propagating the United Party’s policy. This is an old story which they already told last year. In Hansard No. 37 of 1972 (col. 2491), the hon. member for Kensington said—

He is referring here to the policy of the United Party. May I remind hon. members, or focus their attention on the fact, that the policy of the Government or the State is based on the principles of the ruling party, which is the National Party. When the State makes its policy known overseas, then it is the policy that is based on the principles of the ruling party. And then the Government does so without apologizing to the United Party and without binding itself to also making known there any form or part of the Opposition’s policy. That is not the task of the Government or of the Department of Information. Making its policy known is a purely State function, which is of necessity based on the policy of the governing party. I hope hon. members on that side of the House will now stop coming along with this ridiculous old story of theirs.

Mr. Chairman, what is it we should like to make known overseas? What is it that we are compelled to make known as a result of certain factors? We should like to display to the world, with goodwill and sincerity, our lovely country with its unparalleled beauty, our people, Blacks and Whites, who for various reasons are exceptional people, and our country’s achievements.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member for Turffontein says “hear, hear”. We should like to do this, but as a result of the conduct of that side and the way in which they make politics, the Department of Information is compelled to devote a large portion of its money and time, manpower and energy to making known the policy of the Government which is presented to the world in a totally different light by that side.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. member says I am talking nonsense. I shall prove to him exactly what I mean. We are compelled to make our internal policy known overseas. We do not do it in a manner which I could describe as spontaneous. We do it under compulsion as a result of the Opposition persisting in its unpatriotic conduct towards South Africa. As a result of the way in which they conduct their politics, thereby presenting pictures of South Africa and its people which create a poor image overseas of this country and its people …

That is nonsense.

Mr. Chairman, just look at their Press, their discussions in the House and their discussions at meetings. It is their life’s task, because they thereby want to place the Government in a poor light as far as the electorate is concerned. That is all they are interested in. Sir, I say they are presenting pictures of South Africa which create a poor image overseas of this country and its people, who are indeed people with outstanding characteristics, characteristics which result in our nevertheless being able to live in this country in harmony and peaceful co-existence, notwithstanding the Opposition’s malicious political propaganda according to which they proclaim discord, unrest and friction between Whites and Blacks. They proclaim this, but in spite of that we are still living in harmony and order in this country. The peace and the order prevailing in this country, notwithstanding the Opposition’s attitude, is an achievement which is the result of the outstanding characteristic of goodwill of the people of this country towards each other, and the desire, which all cherish in their hearts, to live together in peace, and not to look for unrest, discord and friction as hon. members opposite allege. That is not in the nature of our people.

We have had to listen for many years, during the discussion of this Vote, to the fact that the National Party’s policy of multi-nationalism is what brings down upon us coals of fire as far as the world at large is concerned, and that it is this policy that results in the Department of Information having to spend large amounts on information and advertising overseas, to correct the so-called poor image caused by this policy. That has been the Opposition’s accusation for years.

I now want to ask them whether they still say so. Does someone want to reply? Do they still say so? They are completely silent, Sir.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not say so. He repudiates this allegation on the part of the United Party, and I see one hon. member there on the other side is very amused.

In column 1133 of this year’s Hansard the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that the policy of multi-nationalism, which is this Government’s policy, is “the easiest policy to sell in the world”. That is a brand new concept on the part of the United Party. It is the result of the Sunday Times’ instructions to the Opposition to accept the homelands, and in conjunction with that multi-nationalism, as an accomplished fact. To give weight to that statement which he made, the hon. member goes much further in column 1140 and says the following—

Mr. Chairman, they have surely not been telling us this for years. Up to last year they were still fighting it. But what is the hon. member now telling us? He says the Opposition accepts the policy of multinationalism, and that there should be a division of authority and decentralization of powers. In other words, independent authority states must be created with the autonomous powers and with separate freedoms. But that is surely the positive work the Government is doing in the direction of the division of authority in this country, and that is the image which the Department of Information must convey to countries overseas.

Sir, to confirm that this is exactly what he meant, the hon. member says two months later—two months after he used the words I have just quoted—in column 4201 of Hansard that it is not the Opposition’s policy to grant the non-Whites full civil rights in South Africa. But, Sir, that is not true either. They had been wanting to do that up to last year. In column 4201 the hon. member says the following—

In other words, Sir, division on the basis of multi-nationalism into authority states with autonomous powers and separate freedoms, where each separate people will obtain its civil rights in its own country. That is what they are now advocating, which is exactly the policy of the National Party.

Sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that the policy of multi-nationalism is the easiest policy to sell in the world, and he mentioned examples of countries who do not need to convince the world of their multi-national composition. Why must South Africa then sell the same concept to the world at great cost? Because the Opposition has never wanted to accept that South Africa is a multi-national country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to spend a great deal of time on the hon. member who has just sat down, because there was no logic at all in his arguments. First of all, he made the claim towards the end of his speech that “veelvolkigheid” is something that is accepted all over the world. I would like to ask him whether it is accepted in KwaZulu and in the Transkei?

Of course.

Obviously then, Sir, the hon. member’s reading of events in South Africa is entirely different to mine. I would like to point out to that hon. member that he makes the mistake that is made by all hon. members on the Government side. They equate South Africa with the Nationalist Party; they equate the State with the Nationalist Party. I would like to remind that hon. member and other hon. members on that side that South Africa consists of all its peoples of all colours and of all its political parties. Sir, I should like to have the attention of the hon. member for Klip River for just a moment. That hon. member made an interesting statement before the suspension of business; he said that our propaganda overseas should include statements from all sorts of people, from people from all walks of life, and he mentioned the leader of KwaZulu and the leader of the Transkei. I would say that that is the answer to the hon. member who has just sat down. At least the hon. member for Klip River, with his long association with Natal, has begun to learn something at last. I had in fact given up hope earlier, but he had the answer to the hon. member who has just sat down.

Sir, I would like to join with my colleagues on this side of the House in congratulating the Minister on the department’s report, but my congratulations are of a different nature. I congratulate him because his is one of the few departments which have tabled their reports in time. The reports that we have been getting this year from other departments are at least a year, and sometimes two years, out of date.

Sir, it seems to me that this whole debate has ranged over the question of what we consider should be published overseas and internally, and what the Government considers is the right thing to do. As I said just now, the difference is that the Government equates the Nationalist Party with South Africa and we certainly do not do so. I would say to the hon. the Minister that if he wants to sell the Nationalist Party ovesreas, he could do no better than try to sell South Africa overseas and not the Nationalist Party as it stands. I say this because the hon. the Minister should know by now, with the senior positions he holds in his party, that he has not got a product that he can sell overseas any better than he can sell it in South Africa. If he wants to sell South Africa overseas, the best way, the finest way, and the only way to do it, in my opinion, is to sell the concept that South Africa is still a democratic society, and that being a democratic society it consists not only of the Nationalist Party, which unfortunately has ruled it for so long, but that it consists, too, of the United Party, of the Progressive Party and all the other political persuasions in South Africa, that we have now and that are beginning to emerge. Anybody sitting overseas, looking at South Africa from afar, would then be far more convinced that there are other views in South Africa than only those of the Nationalist Party, because if people overseas felt that the Nationalist Party was entirely representative of the views of South Africa, then heaven help us; we would then never have any good publicity overseas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to impress upon the hon. the Minister that he should sell overseas not only the views of the Nationalist Party which, after all, is merely a political organization which one day will be removed from office …

You are just a joker.

Sir, all good things come to an end and all bad things come to an end, and they come to an end a good deal more quickly. Sir, the Minister should sell not only the various views of the political organizations in South Africa, but the views of its leaders. I would like to ask the Minister how often the Leader of the Opposition, for instance, is quoted in his overseas publications? There could be no better demonstration of the correctness of what I have said than this particular aspect. One member on the other side went so far as to suggest that Hansard could be read overseas. Mr. Chairman, I feel sorry for anybody wanting to read our Hansard overseas. I pity those who have to read our Hansard in South Africa, but if Hansard is an organ that the department could use, I would then like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should cease all his activities in South Africa—all the internal operations of the Department of Information—and that the department should confine its activities to sending out Hansards internally. I have never accepted that the department should be active in South Africa at all because I have always believed that South Africans can get their information from the Press and from Hansard, if they choose, and that they do not need an organ of the State to put out propaganda, which to my mind is nothing more or less than sheer party propaganda on behalf of the Nationalist Party.

Sir, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a direct question as well. Recently, after the South African Games, a private individual took lengthy and expensive space in newspapers overseas to advertise the fact that the South African Games had taken place in Pretoria. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what his department did in this respect, because in my experience no politician produced on the Government side, no delegation from the Government side, has ever had as much success in selling South Africa overseas as South Africa’s own sportsmen. Therefore I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what he did and what his department did to advertise the success of the South African Games in Pretoria.

Sir, I would also like to plead with the hon. the Minister that when he disseminates propaganda overseas, it should at least be accurate. I say this because this propaganda is studied by immigrants, by prospective investors, and therefore it is essential that the information it contains should be as accurate as it can be. It should contain information in regard to housing, the cost of housing, job opportunities, salaries and the cost of living; it should obtain information in regard to education; and what degrees obtained at oversea universities are accepted in South Africa. It should also contain information in regard to our language position. Sir, in conclusion I would like to say this to the hon. the Minister and to that side of the House; They will get our full co-operation on this side of the House if they try to sell South Africa because we are part of South Africa, but I personally and, I am sure, a good many of my colleagues do not believe in trying to sell the Nationalist Party which, in any event, is not a saleable proposition.

I want to tell the hon. member for Port Natal that he really should not get so excited as to come along here and suggest that the hon. the Minister and his department are trying to sell the National Party abroad. The hon. the Minister and his department are trying their best to sell South Africa abroad. But South Africa is the National Party. [Interjections.] I may as well tell those hon. members that we are thankful that there still is an Opposition in South Africa, and we are trying hard to keep them on the map, but public opinion abroad wrote them off a long time ago; according to public opinion abroad they do not count. Now there is one other thing I want to tell the hon. member for Port Natal. If the hon. the Minister could give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members opposite a great deal of publicity in his publications, what would the Transvaal leader of that party say? For whenever the Nationalist newspapers have anything faintly favourable to say about the Leader of the Opposition, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction on the part of the English Press and the leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, because something ugly is supposedly going on here. Sir, the dissemination of information is of great importance to South Africa, and I want to express my hearty congratulations to the hon. the Minister and his department on the fine brochures and information documents published by them from time to time. One could talk about them for hours, but I do not want to go any further than to say that outstanding work is being done in that connection. I also want to associate myself with the plea made earlier this evening by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District for a weekly publication which would summarize what had appeared in the Afrikaans Press during a particular week—“This week in the Afrikaans Press.” This is essential because I cannot understand how English-speaking people who have been living in this country for so many years and who do not read the Afrikaans-language Press, can form a balanced idea of South Africa. To my way of thinking it is a wonder that there are English-speaking people who, basically, still have a balanced outlook when all they read is the English-language Press, because that is a slanted presentation. If one were to read the Afrikaans-language Press only, one could use the same argument. For that reason, but particularly for our diplomatic representatives in this country, who must know what is going on here, and for the masses of tourists who travel through this country every year, for our immigrants who enter this country in their thousands and who chiefly read English, it is absolutely necessary for a periodical of this kind to be published weekly—“This week in the Afrikaans Press”. I think that the hon. the Minister should really give this his very serious attention. I want to say, and I hope that the Chair will allow me to say this, that this programme broadcast by the SABC on Sunday evenings, “Week-end News Room”, in which information is furnished in connection with pressing problems in South Africa, is a very important program, and we want to thank the SABC for it. People from abroad who listen to it tell me that the questioners are somewhat too tame. They say that in order to make this programme truly realistic, the questioner must have a little more “bite” in his questions. This is perhaps something which could be considered. Sir, nothing is more essential in these times we are living in today than that peoples should have a thorough and sound knowledge of one another’s way of life. I think that it was the great philosopher Aristotle who said we did not understand one another because we did not know one another, and we did not know one another because we did not talk to one another. If that applies to the individual, then it also applies, to a far greater extent, to peoples. The exchange of factual information about the way of life and the schools of thought of the various peoples is an absolute necessity today. Since this is true in respect of peoples, it is particularly true in South Africa in respect of the Afrikaans people; because 300 years ago, a Christian-Western people was founded here in South Africa, a people which, thoughout these 300 years, had to fight for its continued existence at every step and which has to continue this fierce struggle, in the present and in the future, with greater resoluteness and greater courage. This is a struggle which cannot be fought with cannon and rifles today, but with thoughts and ideas. There are many factors responsible for the threat to our continued existence in South Africa, but I do not want to go into them now. Suffice it to say that this unholy campaign against us has its origin in red and pink organizations abroad, which want to undermine the stability and the economic strength of South Africa and create chaos in this country in order to improve their own position. At present there are unquestionable indications that these enemies of South Africa intend to co-ordinate their efforts and to launch a new and intensified crusade of misrepresentations and condemnations against South Africa with the ultimate aim of attempting to destroy the constitutionally elected Government of this country. In this endeavour our enemies are inspired by the assistance received from the World Council of Churches, where they can act under a cloak of piety, as well as through the provision of progressively increasing amounts of money for the terrorists who act against South Africa. Another important aspect of the intensification of this crusade against South Africa is the apparent relaxation of the cold war and the cultivation of more friendly relations between the East and the West. The Soviet Premier informed the Supreme Soviet in 1972 that the concept of peaceful coexistence really signified the intensification of the struggle of all communist parties to promote socialism by peaceful means. That is how they see the matter. This relaxation merely helps them to promote their cause by peaceful means. When the enormous task of the Department of Information is received, it must be done against this background. To present to the world an objective and true picture of all the facets of South African life today, particularly if regard is had to the fact that in many countries the bulk of communication media are in the hands of leftist-liberal groups who simply refuse to regard anything positive about South Africa as being an item of news, is a difficult matter. I say that to present an objective picture of South Africa to the world, is very difficult. Under these circumstances we are very fortunate, not only in having a dynamic and a positive Minister who tackles this task with great dedication, but also in having a departmental head in the person of Dr. Rhoodie, who disseminates information in a very dedicated, enthusiastic and purposeful way. But because a carefully planned and well co-ordinated campaign is being launched against South Africa, it is necessary not only for the Department of Information to disseminate information, but also for there to be a major and well co-ordinated national effort, stemming from the nation itself, for all strata of the national society to join forces in disseminating information in countries abroad as well. In this regard I want to say, in conclusion, a few words about the role our universities could play in the dissemination of information. For example, there are lecturers who go overseas. University people, more so than the ordinary groups of people in society, are continually travelling abroad, and from time to time they study abroad and take part in symposia there. These people can therefore do great and important work for South Africa. There must of course be liaison between the Department of Information and the various universities so that their efforts may be co-ordinated and these people may be furnished with information which may then be disseminated abroad. This is a very important matter. A case in point is that of the Stellenbosch professor who studied at an American university and who became friendly there with a Japanese professor, and after they had returned to their respective universities, the Japanese professor sent a post-graduate student from Tokyo to the University of Stellenbosch, where he is studying at present. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, here at the end of this debate I should like to thank all hon. members who participated in it for the standard which has, in general, been maintained this year. I think we have made great progress along the road to seeing the Department of Information in the light in which we ought to see it viz. that it is the show window of South Africa and that it is not the place for politicking or playing petty politics, that it is a department which is in the face of the tremendously keen competition and opposition of numerous evil forces from outside, trying to uphold South Africa’s name and state the case of everyone in South Africa in order that our country may prosper and in order to prevent our becoming isolated or false concepts of us being taken too far.

I should like to thank hon. members for the kind words they addressed to me and to the former Secretary for Information, Mr. Barrie, who has in the meantime been promoted. It is a pleasure for me to say that we had a few years of pleasant co-operation, and that I really wish him well with his promotion. Kind words were also addressed to the new Secretary for Information, Dr. Rhoodie, who is a young man, who is above all an expert, who knows his subject and has the necessary drive and dynamite to take this department to great heights. I am grateful that hon. members on both sides deemed it necessary and saw fit to convey their congratulations and wish Dr. Rhoodie a successful term in this capacity.

When one considers the debate in its entirety, I think it would perhaps be a good thing if I advanced, by way of introduction, a few ideas arising out of last year’s debate. I think this is necessary to be able to view the entire matter in its true perspective. Last year, when I concluded the debate, I said the following (Hansard, 19th May, 1972, col. 7715)—

Apparently I was then involved in a race against the clock—

That is how I concluded my speech last year.

It is a pleasure for me to state that what we started then, has now been accomplished; we have effected structural changes in the department which makes it far more streamlined. The annual report gives a picture of this, but the diagram of the department which I have before me at the moment illustrates this in masterly fashion. Where previously we were dealing with what was really a two-legged structure with internal and external information on the one side adjoining press liaison, and on the other side the administrative section, we have now arranged the department on a far broader basis and according to a horizontal division under the Secretary and Deputy Secretary and under nine different divisional heads, each of whom has a detailed knowledge of and is making a study of his specific division so that we can obtain expert knowledge and accomplish more specialized work. There is the administration on the one hand. Then there is the Division for Guests and Visitors. I immediately want to thank the hon. members who discussed this particularly interesting aspect of our work and the excellent results we have achieved as a result of the visits of guests from all parts of the country and the world. Next there is the Foreign Division, which has under it a considerable number of subdivisions, the various desks. In this way there is the American Desk, the European Desk, the British Desk, the Desk for Africa and the Desk for the Far and Middle East. In this division we experienced an expansion in the Department, for at present we have 20 overseas offices with 48 posts. A considerable number of the offices which previously had one-man posts only, have now been converted into offices with two-man posts, which of course entailed an improvement and easier conditions of service in our work. In the third place there is the Foreign Publications Division, responsible for publishing the normal publications, i.e. the South African Digest and Suid-Afrikaanse Panorama, as well as specific occasional publications. In the fourth place there is the Film, Television and Radio Production Division. This offers a challenging field for the head of that division who is working on films, future television programmes and radio production, as well as on preparation with a view to the introduction of television in South Africa. We have already made great progress with video tapes and other items which we can use in regard to closed circuit television for example. Then there is the Press Liaison Division, in which there have been staff changes, but which retained the same task and function. Then there is, in addition, the Visual Services Division, responsible for exhibitions, photography, art, culture and the photo library. Then, I can also announce with pleasure that for the first time the Department of Information this year won not only the gold medal but also the grand trophy for the best pavilion at the Rand Easter Show. Then there is the Training Division, which I shall have more to say about in a moment, and the Internal Division, responsible for specific liaison with the internal inhabitants of South Africa.

Since I am dealing with that aspect of our activities, I could perhaps say just a word or two about the interior. Objections were raised by a few hon. members in respect of the Internal Division, to which reference was made in the annual report, and which is responsible for internal liaison and liaison with the Bantu peoples and the Bantustans, as if it were exclusively National Party propaganda which is being disseminated here. I want to tell hon. members at once that in the State President’s announcement in terms of which the department was established in 1960, instructions were given that it shall be the task and the function of the department to inform the one group of inhabitants of South Africa in respect of the customs, habits, etc., of other groups. It was also instructed to disseminate information in respect of the policy as such, so that the people could know in what direction we were moving. I do not want to dig up old bones of contention now, for I said this last year already, but it is the task of this department to inform the inhabitants of South Africa, Whites and non-Whites, of what the Government of the day is doing. When I say “Government of the day”, then it means that if another party should come into power at the next election, for example, it will be their privilege to do so for that party. The policy of the Government of the day is essentially something which affects the voter of South Africa, and which also affects the Black man of South Africa. The policy of the Government of the day re-formulated and implemented in practice, and for that reason it is something which affects John Voter and John Citizen directly. If the Government makes a policy statement, we must convey it to the voters because we are in future going to deal with the practical implications of that policy statement. When the Opposition announces a change in policy or a new line of thought, it is not necessary for us to convey this to the voters, for it is not put into practice. However, if the policy of the party on the opposite side of the House becomes Government policy, it is certainly the task of the Department of Information to convey that policy to the voter and to inform him in what way it affects him. It is not the task of the department to convey it now, and in particular it is not our task to do so internally, since all the channels are available.

The hon. member for Orange Grove as well as the hon. member for Wynberg discussed the question of policy in general. They said that our policy should have a many-sided complexion, and that information about it should not be one-sided. I have here a few very good examples of such information. The hon. member for Wynberg referred to the pamphlet of the British Information Service dealing with the democratic system, etc. I can tell the hon. member that we are streets ahead of the British Information Service in this regard. We have had a similar pamphlet for a long time, and that subject was re-included in this publication which I have before me, viz. “This is South Africa.” I want to quote a few extracts from this publication, for time will not allow me to quote the entire publication. I quote—

The publication continues in this vein. I quote further—

†We have all this information already in the pamphlet I am referring to. I want to refer to what it has to say about political parties, since I have been accused of giving a one-sided story. Under the heading “Political parties”, the following is said:

In the House of Assembly: National Party, 118 seats; United Party, 47 seats; Progressive Party, 1 seat. The National Party came into power in May, 1948, and has won all subsequent elections since— 1953, 1958, 1961, 1966 and 1970.

All true facts.

Does it also state that you are going downhill?

No, that is not stated, because it is not true. I would not say anything about going downhill if I were the hon. member for Green Point. We give a full account of the provincial administrations here. The constitutional development is fully elucidated here, in this pamphlet which is available throughout the country. It contains many-sided information. But we also have a book, The History of South Africa, an excellent little edition totalling 64 pages in all, which is available in English and in Afrikaans. We are making this available, as far as possible to immigrants coming to South Africa who do not know, and would like to know, the country’s history. In this field we are co-operating with the Department of Immigration. We also make it available to guests from overseas. Here is The History of South Africa, and hon. members would do well to read it. It is not easy to compress the history of South Africa over 300 years into 64 pages. This history is very interesting; it begins right at the beginning and deals with the entire course of South African history.

And finally, I can show this to the hon. member, photographs of Sir De Villiers Graaff, the Leader of the Opposition, and Mrs. Helen Suzman, the only Progressive Party member in this House, appear. I am mentioning this merely to illustrate how many-sided and representative our publications are. I hope hon. members are able to recognize all the photographs.

Where is Cathy?

Unfortunately I could not include a photograph of the hon. member for Wynberg here, for up to now she does not have her own party! I may perhaps be in a position, if things continue as they are doing, to publish her photograph as well in a subsequent issue. I think it is very possible. The moment she has her own party I shall include her name and also a photograph of her in this publication.

And Japie?

And that of Japie as well. There is the question of many sided reporting, and the question of whether we ever convey the standpoint of the United Party. I have here in my hand now a brochure entitled Bulletin of the South African Embassy which appears in the Netherlands as a publication of the Department of Information. This publication appears weekly and the political events, etc., of the week are reported in this Dutch publication. I should like to quote a few words from a recent edition of this little publication (translation)—

You see, “It was as it was”. It is being reported here, or is it “It is what it is”? I read on—

This is a quotation from The Star of 18th October, 1972, which was taken over and translated literally.

Eighteen seventy-two?

18th October, 1972. I am not referring to the hon. member’s date of birth, but to 18th October, 1972. I read on—

I plead not guilty to the hon. member for Orange Grove. I say that we are reflecting a many-sided image of South Africa with its entire political situation as far as we can.

We should have used it in Aliwal.

You should, for it is far better than you yourselves can put it. It is far better than anything hon. members opposite have ever been able to put across. The position is very clear. The hon. member for Orange Grove said that we could for example say something in pamphlets, etc., about Bantu education. Last year an individual pamphlet appeared dealing exclusively with Bantu education. We made a film—I do not know whether the hon. member will remember it—called “Bantu Toddlers”. This is a film which we made of little Bantu children playing. The film pointed out how each child could develop and eventually find a place in life, wherever it might be. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District must not talk to the hon. member for Orange Grove now while I am dealing with him. I could just inform the hon. member for Orange Grove that that film we made was rated so highly that we won the “Golden Camera Award” in Chicago with it. As to the policy of the United Party, that hon. member maintains that we should at least say that there is a United Party as well, and that we should make their policy, etc., available. I just want to tell him that we have stated on various occasions already that we are prepared to explain any part of their policy if such inquiries should be made. We have the necessary particulars at our disposal. We have the policy pamphlets, but let me be honest: There have as yet been no inquiries overseas into what the policy of the United Party is. That is the way it goes with politics. The Government of the day is the body that receives the attention; the policy which it advocates is the official Government policy. I can continue in this vein, but I want to leave the hon. member for Orange Grove at that for the time being. I shall return subsequently to the question of training which he raised. This is something which I regard as being very important, and I should like to say a few words about it, a little later in the debate. I want to thank the hon. member for the standard of the contribution with which he introduced this debate today. It seems to me that since he was entrusted with a third portfolio, he underwent a general raising of standard.

The hon. member for Sunnyside discussed the question of the department’s name. He proposed that the department be given the name of “State Information”. I think that there is a good deal to be said for changing the name of this department. We have considerable problems in this connection. Because we are the Department of Information, people make the strangest inquiries from our department. We receive telephone calls asking where people can find accommodation in an hotel here in Cape Town, when the plane for Johannesburg is departing, when a ship is sailing for overseas, etc. People are under the impression that we are an information bureau and are able to supply all kinds of information. I think that the name, “State Information”, or perhaps even better, “State Extension Services”, would probably give a far better indication of what the department’s work really comprises. For that reason I think it is a matter which we could consider very favourably; I shall give attention to this matter.

I want to thank the hon. member for his kind words about the annual report, and I want to endorse what he said in regard to the private sector, viz. that if South Africa’s name were to be positively built up overseas and the possibilities of the country were to be made known abroad so that people from overseas could invest in South Africa, the whole of South Africa would benefit from that, including the private sector. For that reason I think that the private sector could really go out of its way to contribute a little more itself in the same direction in which we are working. I think that this would be welcomed in any case.

I come now to the hon. member for Kensington. He referred to faults in the annual report. I looked at the faults he pointed out. He then referred to the question of the balanced image of South Africa, for example of the dialogue between Black and White, the dialogue between White and White, etc. If the hon. member were to open the same annual report he has now criticized to such an extent, here towards the end, just before he gets to all the photographs of me to which they objected, he would find on page 52 a clear photograph of the men of the Department of Information holding talks with Coloureds. There is also a photograph of the Department of Information’s people together with the Indians. There is also a photograph of the head of the Internal Division, Mr. Zimmerman, in conversation with Mangope, the Bantu leader. In other words, the entire concept of dialogue, of precisely what we are doing in this connection, is reflected in the annual report, to mention only a single example. Reports concerning this matter are being compiled which are constantly being disseminated. They talk about many-sidedness in the general activity—Curshaw, one of the stars, I would say, of BBC television in the programme “Panorama”, made a television film in South Africa a few years ago; he is in South Africa again. The Department of Information arranged a television interview for him with Gatsha Buthelezi, we arranged an interview for him with the Leader of the Opposition, Sir De Villiers Graaff, and with the Prime Minister. Could one wish for a more balanced and objective statement of all standpoints? I am asking hon. members what their objection is?

What about publications?

The same applies to publications. Did the hon. member not hear? I know he does not understand Dutch, but I did after all quote it. The hon. member for Orange Grove even told me it was a good thing. Now the hon. member is saying it is not good enough. The publications convey precisely the same ideas and the same image. I want to say nothing more about that. However, I just want to add that I am not in any way ashamed of the presentation we have in this connection. The balanced picture is in fact there. It is quite in order, and we are experiencing no problems with it.

Then the hon. member discussed the question of “feeding back information”.

†But we get that in exactly the same form. The feed-back of information takes place continually in our department. Weekly and monthly surveys of the world Press are being fed back to the department. Press cuttings from all over the world come back to us, at least weekly.

*The entire concept of a feed-back of information from overseas is being fully applied.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch presented a very interesting situation in regard to the question of the guest programme. I want to say at once that we are grateful for the contribution made in this connection by the hon. member for Stellenbosch. We are also hinting that our guest programme is one of our most successful enterprises, and is achieving excellent results. For the most part people who have been here return with the idea that South Africa’s problems are more complicated than they had thought from 10 000 miles away. They are made aware of the fact that South Africa’s inhabitants are working daily on their difficult problems through discussing in depth the relations between Whites and non-Whites. They know that they are working daily on these problems. They also know that we are making efforts to solve a difficult problem successfully, and to the satisfaction of all. Those impressions are being made on all overseas guests, without exception. I persist in saying that the guest programme is one of the best we have, and one to which we attach the greatest value with a view to the future.

The hon. member for Wynberg raised the matter of a free Press. But of course we have a free Press. I want to say at once that it is probably one of our best advertisements in the world that our Press is so free. But let us have no illusions about this. If any person from overseas were to get up in the morning in South Africa and read The Daily Mail or The Cape Times, or perhaps the Sunday Times on a Sunday morning, then no one would doubt any longer that South Africa has a free Press. On the contrary, then everyone would be aware of the fact that they had for years been under a completely incorrect impression when they thought that South Africa was a police state. They then ask themselves where the Press gets all the freedom from to carry on so recklessly.

If only the hon. member for Wynberg were as free as the Press.

The freedom of the Press is there as a symbol of South Africa’s maturity as a democratic state. That I want to concede at once.

The hon. member also discussed the question of our officials overseas who should not remain sitting behind their desks. She said: “They must get out from behind their desks and take tours through the country.”

The other people …

I accepted that the hon. member was referring specifically to America, which she visited last year. At present the New York office consists of eight staff members, two of whom deal with publications and the normal work in progress there. The other is constantly going on study tours and paying visits to various parts of the United States of America. Each one of them is on the move for at least six weeks in various parts of the country, and if one takes eight officials who are each on the move for six weeks, it amounts to 48 weeks out of the 52 in which officials of ours are travelling about. I shall concede at once to the hon. member that America is a huge country with millions of inhabitants. One really makes very little impression with the few people we have available there. I want to take off my hat at once to those people who are fighting in the front lines. They are prepared to appear before television, before clubs and students and elsewhere. They are stating our case in the front lines. Quite frequently they have a very difficult time of it because they are not dealing with people who are seeking information. They are dealing with people who are seeking to humiliate us, as that hon. member, as my information has it, herself experienced. They behaved so rudely towards her that they did not even respect the fact that she is a woman. That is the kind of thing my people have to go through every day in the United States of America, but they are there and they are doing their work in this connection.

The hon. member referred to something else, And I should like to furnish a direct reply to this.

†The hon. member said that she had actually had to despatch pamphlets to friends inquiring about South Africa. She said that she sent away some of these pamphlets yesterday or the day before, and that it cost her a certain amount. I want to make her an offer immediately. If she has a request of this kind again, she can approach the Department of Information, and we shall send it off and pay for it. There is no problem whatsoever in this regard. If we can use the services of a person like Mrs. Taylor to advance information about South Africa, then we surely will use a person like her—as long as she despatches the information we give her and not her own!

The hon. member for Wynberg also asked me on what basis we select people whom we invite to come to South Africa as our guests. We realize that we cannot reach everybody; that is impossible, so we have to decide on our priorities. We have made up our minds to concentrate on people who are opinion-formers in their own countries. The people we invite at the moment are opinion-formers such as politicians of different political parties, people in the academic world, for example professors in different fields, editors of newspapers, businessmen and even leaders of student groups. We invite these people to come to South Africa and to see for themselves, because we in this department believe that nothing on earth can replace the personal impressions these people gain by coming to the country and finding for themselves what the position is and determining the climate and the atmosphere for themselves. Neither television nor the reading of innumerable books and pamphlets can really replace such personal impressions. That is my personal experience, and I know that that is the position with everybody. Those are more or less the grounds on which we select the people whom we invite to this country.

*The hon. member for Pretoria District spoke for the most part about internal liaison. I want to thank him for his contribution. He referred to the matter of Press statements distributed by the department. I want to say to him at once that at present we are receiving the finest co-operation from the Press; there is a gradual building-up of mutual confidence. The Press Liaison Division of the department issues statements, as compiled by Ministers, and these Press statements are issued to all newspapers under the same circumstances, and if that is not the case, I should like to know about it, for we are not seeking to give certain newspapers advantages over others. It is our policy to make statements of national or international importance simultaneously available to all newspapers, at home and abroad, which have been accredited with us. In that way we achieve the widest coverage, and in that way we also obtain the best co-operation with the Press as such. The Press Liaison Division is doing good work. We have made good progress in the few years we have been working on this, and we shall continue in this way. I hope that we will be able to expand it even further, and render an even better service to the Press, for we must co-operate with the Press in this sphere, for the sake of our country.

The hon. member also discussed the question of a weekly publication, in which we could perhaps assemble opinions. This is approximately the same concept as the German Tribune, to which the hon. member for Kensington also referred. I have given attention to this matter. There are certain practical implications and problems, but I want to give hon. members the assurance that I am giving this matter my serious attention, so that we can try in this way to convey leading articles, etc., from the Press to foreign readers by way of a publication published by the department. I think it is a good idea.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District was very upset because our internal propa …, internal …

Yes, “propaganda”; you may as well say it.

Yes, I am looking for the word which the hon. member used. Our internal information was termed propaganda by the hon. member. I just want to tell the hon. member that if he wants to debate intelligently in this sphere, I would advise him to begin at the beginning. He should go and read the terms of reference stated in the Presidential Minute, which established this department in 1961. It forms the basis and the nucleus of the task of this department. If the hon. member had read it, he would not have made the kind of speech he made here this evening. In other words, I want to accuse him of not having done his very first piece of homework, lesson No. 1 concerning this department; and then he presumes to talk on this subject. He has not even read lesson No. 1 yet.

The basis is wrong.

If the basis is wrong, then there is opportunity to advocate that the basis be changed, but these are the terms of reference of the department, and as long as they remain, this department will continue to implement them. That is its task, and it cannot change it. As I said here in passing a moment ago, it is essential that we should convey the policy of the party which is governing to the voters of South Africa and to the inhabitants of South Africa, Black and White, for that policy affects the inhabitants of South Africa directly, every day. If hon. members have objections to that, then I just want to add that that they ought to welcome it, for they say our policy is not acceptable or capable of implementation. Now, the better we are able to explain this policy to the people, the sooner those people are going to see through it and vote against us, and place that side in power. Therefore, the better we do it, the better for that party. Instead of being thanked for doing so now, the hon. member is taking exception to my telling the people what the position is. After all, it is true that the sooner the people realize that we are engaged in a policy which is incapable of implementation the sooner that party will come into power. Surely that is logical. But, Sir, it is sufficient for me to say that we have to promote sound relations between White and Black in South Africa, and for that reason we must supply information internally to the Black people of South Africa. We must obtain information from them and furnish it to our own people, so that a better understanding can develop, and the issue here is not a political party; the issue is our human relations in South Africa, between the inhabitants of this country. It has nothing to do with political parties. The issue here is a better understanding of one another, and the mutual acceptance of human dignity, and also a mutual understanding and comprehension, and the mutual aid we can render one another, for the sake of our coexistence in this country which is the fatherland of us all. In this way we must go to meet the future. For that reason this department has a tremendous task of ensuring that relations between Black and White are improved from day to day, not for the sake of the National Party, but for the sake of everyone in South Africa. The department is working to achieve that every day.

But it is only for the sake of the Nationalist Party; that is in fact my complaint.

Sir, if the hon. member now thinks that the future of South Africa is safe only in the hands of the National Party, then I want to tell him that it is the first time in his life that he is right. If I say I am promoting sound human relations in South Africa for the sake of all the inhabitants and for the sake of the benefit of our country in general, and he says it is only for the sake of the National Party, then I say at once it is an admission from a member of the Opposition that the future of South Africa is only safe in the hands of the National Party. I think that is quite a logical inference.

Sir, the hon. member also put a question to me in regard to the matter of a yearbook. I just want to tell him that the yearbook to which he was referring there, was compiled by the Bureau for Statistics. It has never been our task and we have never given instructions for it to be drawn up. The Department of Statistics dealt with this matter in the past. In addition I just want to inform the hon. member that we are already working on the compilation of a yearbook for South Africa for 1973-’74.

Hear, hear!

We are working on this at the moment, and a great deal of progress has already been made. We shall continue to do so, and we hope to make it available within a year or two. Subsequently we will supplement it annually, because we think it is necessary.

You reacted to that very quickly, didn’t you?

Sir, before the hon. member pins a feather to his own cap, he must appreciate that we were working on this before he made his speech. If he comes to my office tomorrow I shall show him the manuscript; it will not be possible for us to complete it overnight.

The hon. member for Klip River discussed the possible liaison and co-ordination, on a high level, between the Department of Information, Tourism and a few other departments. I want to say at once that I think that such a co-ordinating committee could do a lot of good. It could mean a great deal to us, and it could entail a tremendous number of advantages for South Africa abroad as well. We, as Department of Information, are represented on various committees which are in fact dealing with this kind of liaison work, but such a co-ordinating umbrella committee could only be a good thing, and I shall give attention to the matter as soon as the debate is over.

The hon. member for Von Brandis recommended the report very favourably, and raised three minor problems in regard to it. I want to tell the hon. member at once that fortunately the report is not too expensive. It cost us approximately 38 cents a copy. It was printed by the Government Printer, and I want to boast at once of the fact that the Government Printer was able to produce work of this quality at that price. The hon. member also raised the question of the four photographs. I accept this in the good spirit in which it was raised. I just want to inform the hon. member that only one of the photographs was supposed to be of the Minister, and that is the very first one. The second happens to be a photograph hanging on the wall, and the other two photographs are actually photographs depicting the work of the department, where the Prime Minister is holding a Press conference. The Prime Minister is the central figure at that Press conference, and quite by chance I am seated there as the Minister concerned. I plead not guilty; it is not for my sake that the photograph has been included. The same applies to the television conference which was subsequently held. These were to illustrate the work we are doing. But I accept his remarks in the good spirit in which the hon. member stated his case. We are not there to make propaganda for ourselves; it is only by chance that our photographs appear there.

What about next year?

No, we will not appear there next year; if we continue with this it will eventually look like a picture magazine.

The question was raised here whether we are presenting the whole, the full story. I want to say to the hon. member at once that this is in fact what we regularly try to do. We try to present the whole story, in all its facets, to South Africa. I quoted a few examples here of how we tried to present the different sides of a matter. One of our best selling points in the outside world is the fact that we have a bicameral and a political two-party system in South Africa; that we are not, as so many other African states are, a one-party state; that we have a democratic system here, as in the rest of Western civilization; that we do not have a policy here, as in many other African states, where in practice it amounts to “one man, one vote, once only”, but that we have here a normal Opposition, which has been in opposition for many years, and according to all indications will continue for many years to come to remain in the opposition; in fact, that they are establishing a record for the number of years they have been in opposition.

The hon. member said that we like selling the homeland policy, and that we do not discuss the other part of our policy. The fact of the matter is that we do in fact do this by means of films and publications, etc. I can inform him that we are now working on a book on the entire concept, the reality, of separate development, and in that book specific chapters are devoted, entirely, to the Bantu outside the homelands, to the medical services they enjoy, the health services, the educational services, etc. We are not in any way trying to conceal part of the policy—on the contrary— for then we would in fact be telling lies, for every visitor who comes here can see immediately what is happening in South Africa. Consequently I am not taking this accusation to heart at all. I just want to put it to the hon. member in this way: We are to the best of our ability trying to give a complete picture of South Africa, but hon. members must realize that the policy of the Government of the day is in fact far more important for the outside world to know about than the Opposition policy, for the Government policy is the official policy which is being implemented. The Opposition policy is a policy which is not being implemented at the moment, and is perhaps never going to be implemented, and for that reason it is not my task to present that policy in detail.

The other matter which is constantly being raised is that we are presenting too positive a view of South Africa. But, Sir, we are fighting against forces which not only say negative things about South Africa, but which deliberately stress even further and exaggerate and distort what is negative. I have here a few publications of the U.N. which will give hon. members an indication of what we actually have to cope with as far as the negative side is concerned. This will give hon. members an idea of what the problem really is, and what the total challenge is as far as these publications are concerned, I have here Special Study Series by the U.N. Sir, this is an all-out attack on South Africa. I can mention to hon. members the dates of publication of these publications. I am mentioning only a few examples: Transit Camps in South Africa: Reports submitted by the London International Defence and Aid Fund; The Sharpeville Incident and its International Significance, by the Rev. Ambrose Reeves; Apartheid in Practice, by Mr. Leslie Rubin; Industrialization, Foreign Capital and Forced Labour in South Africa; I do not know how they come by this idea of “forced labour”; Basic Facts on the Republic of South Africa and the Policy of Apartheid. This is a publication which appears daily overseas. Then, too, there are the following: “Banning Orders” issued against Opponents of Apartheid in South Africa; Review of Recent Activities of the Special Committee on Apartheid. Sir, so I can continue: The Prisoners, the Banned and the Banished, by Mrs. Helen Joseph …

Helen Suzman?

No, by Mrs. Helen Joseph. The next one is A Decade of Repressive Legislation in South Africa, by Miss Jill Chisholm. Sir, I was astonished to see that name there, for did that lady not sit in the Press Gallery last year as a representative of the Daily Mail? Her publication now appears as a U.N. publication against South Africa. Then there is also the following: Special Committee on A partheid hears Mr. Dennis Brutus; Arbitrary Detention in South Africa: Application, by Mr. Joel Carlson; Bantustans in South Africa; that sounds perfectly innocent; Tenth Anniversary Celebrations of South Africa: “Republic” to be boycotted; What have ten years of “Republic” brought us?: Text of a Letter by the President of Nusas. Sir, these are the kind of things which are being used against us abroad. Here is another: “Special Committee on Apartheid holds hearing on Polaroid experiment in South Africa”— The idea that foreign investment can improve the conditions of Africans is a delusion, by Mrs. Jean Sinclair. And another: “Some views on Apartheid;” “World against Apartheid.” Mrs. Jean Sinclair. That is a name which definitely rings a bell. I think, if I am not mistaken, that she is a very prominent member of the Black Sash. These are the kind of people we are dealing with. “International Boycott of Apartheid Sport, with special reference to the campaign in Britain by the Anti-Apartheid Movement,” by Abdul Minty. We know him very well. “Assistance to the victims of apartheid,” by the Rev. Canon L. John Collins. “Apartheid, the politics of sport,” by the Rev. Edward Crowther. So I can continue to mention scores of these things. I still have pages full “Don’t play with apartheid,” by Peter Hain. “Labour conditions on the gold mines,” by the hon. Charles Diggs. He is the man who abused the kindness of South Africa in allowing him to come here by writing such things about us. Then there is the following “Foreign investment and apartheid in South Africa,” by Ruth First. So I can continue. In three years 129 publications appeared, five special study series and seven special articles. That is the wall of resistance we are dealing with. But what form is it taking? I have here a book in my hand: “A Crime against Humanity—Questions and Answers on Apartheid in South Africa.” As we have now had our “Quiz” over the years, questions and answers, it is being distorted here and given to us in a negative form, and it has been many years since I last saw so many untruths in one publication. I have underlined a number of them. I want to quote one or two of them—

I am going to read out the kind of vicious statement which is being made here, because this is vicious—

How many of them are not living here with their families, and how many hundreds and thousands of houses have not been built here for them?—

And, please take note of the perversity of the writer—

That is the argument which is being advanced as the reason why she can come for 72 hours—

So it goes on, one lie after another—

These are things which were withdrawn long ago and therefore no longer exist, but they are being used against us, the one after the other. There are a host of such things I can still quote. These are the kind of publications we are dealing with, and for that we have a meagre R7 million available this year. Now I want to say at once that South Africa is in the position where we must realize that as a result of the tremendous dangers constituted by a third world war, and the tremendous destructive force of the atom and the hydrogen bomb and their after-effects, the great nations of the world all fight shy of a third world war, for after such a war there would be no victors; everyone would have been destroyed. As a result of the closer liaison between various great powers, for example the dialogue between America and China, and reciprocal personal visits between America and Russia, the possibility of a hot war in practice is diminishing, but a war of words is taking its place. Countries and peoples and nations are trying to persuade one another with information, with attacks on one another, with dialogue and with whatever means, to persuade one another to accept one another’s standpoints, or to harm and isolate one another in a process involving the division of power. In other words, the possibility of a hot war has in fact evolved into a war of words in the world. That is the modern technique. Countries far less vulnerable than we are spending far greater sums of money on countering these techniques.

On internal information—the hon. members say we need not spend so much on internal information—the U.S.A. is spending R3-60 per capita. South Africa is spending 10 cents. On foreign information Germany, which is certainly not in such hot water as we are in the international word, is spending at least R1 per capita. South Africa is spending 25 cents per capita on foreign information. That we are with this small amount of money achieving what we have achieved, and making the breakthroughs in quarters where we have made break-throughs, speaks volumes for the Department of Information and the officials of this department who are really fighting like soldiers in the front line for South Africa. I want to pay tribute to each and every one of them, at home and abroad, they who are not only defending our country, but telling people every day what the position in South Africa is.

I should like to dwell for a few moments —I think this is necessary for the sake of the record—on the Training Division of the department. This is one of my special concerns, and I made a start with it a year or two ago, because I very much wanted to introduce training and because it had been my problem and my experience that although we were selecting good young men to work in the department, the necessary training and background was not, in my opinion, adequate. They were, after a period of service in the department, being sent out into the world to go and wage a struggle, but they were in fact being delivered up to problems which they encountered there without their having been fully equipped to handle the task. We have now introduced a thorough training system, but I shall not go into all the facets of it now. However, the training goes further than the study of the phenomena we have to counter. It extends to the identification of the psychological processes occurring in people when they are confronted by a communication content. It goes into details in regard to, for example, how to counter psychological processes, such processes as, in the first place, selective exposure to communication.

It embraces the concept that most people turn to only those communications media in which they expect to find a confirmation of their existing opinions and convictions. In the second place there is selective observation. What is meant by this is that when a person is unavoidably confronted with a specific communication content, he is inclined to repress whatever is not in accordance with his own opinions and convictions. In the third place there is selective recall, where only those parts or facets of a communication content are remembered which meet the expectations and are in accordance with the belief structure of a person. To be able to do this we have now introduced the language laboratory in the Department of Information where we are able to train people. At the moment we have ten persons undergoing training, and by means of the language laboratory we can teach them a third modern language. At the moment three of them are taking French, two are taking German, one Portuguese, one Italian and one Spanish. That is the present position.

In addition we give them a wide knowledge of the development conditions and problems of South Africa by paying visits to the Houses of Parliament for example, which they visited in March to see Parliament in action. They have been to Simonstown, to Pelindaba, to the gold mines where they went down a gold mine to see what the inside of a gold mine looks like so that they could speak about it with authority, to the Tswana homelands, to the SABC, to Defence headquarters, to the University of the North, the C.S.I.R., the Bureau of Standards, an urban Bantu area, a Bantu hospital, etc.

In addition we are also training them— this is very interesting training—for television appearances. We have video-tapes with closed circuit television available in our departmental offices in Pretoria, and there they are given the opportunity of appearing, delivering and address to the class as if they were standing before a challenging and provocative audience. They must state their case and the whole talk is taped and the tape is then shown. Everyone then views the tape and makes constructive criticism by pointing out errors and saying that this or that should not have been done. These people are in actual fact therefore preparing themselves to be able to make professional appearances. This is an excellent thing, and also something which the hon. member for Orange Grove recommended highly. I think we shall, if it is possible, make these facilities available to members of this House as well, if they are interested in them. I think it is necessary for us to prepare ourselves for that specific medium which will shortly be in our country.

We also have the idea that it is certainly necessary, as a result of the fact that so many officials are overseas—not only officials of our department, but of all the different departments jointly—for us to extend this training to other departments as well. We must establish precisely what the task is, so that we are then able to determine how we may also train officials from other departments to be able to appear in public and put South Africa’s case.

Another idea which we have in this connection is that no one spends so much money to sell something without knowing to whom he should sell it and how he should sell it. For that reason we are at present engaged in a fundamental market analysis in various countries of the world in an attempt to establish precisely what the needs are, precisely what the problems are and precisely what the angle of approach should be from which we will best be able to convey information about South Africa. We are making a market analysis in various countries, and the experience we have acquired there, is very interesting. Hon. members who have been overseas will agree with me that although Britain and the United States are both English-speaking countries, one’s method of presentation in America differs completely from one’s method of presentation in Britain. One cannot use the same pamphlet in both the United States and Britain if one wants to be effective, because the ways in which one has to approach these two nations are completely different, although the same language is spoken in both. The same applies to the Netherlands on the one hand and Belgium on the other, where one also has a common language medium, but has to present things differently. Consequently we are making a market analysis in various countries of the world so that we can establish precisely what the requirement is, precisely what the people want, in what way one has to convey it and in what way one may best succeed in presenting the image of South Africa.

I think there are one or two speakers to whose speeches I have not vet reacted. The hon. member for Odendaalsrus made an attack on the Opposition with which I am in complete agreement. For many years there is an accusation which has been levelled at us, viz. that we associate South Africa with the National Party, and that we convey only the image of the National Party to the outside world. I reiterate that we have to give preference to Government policy, and that we have to convey the image of South Africa as a whole. This we are doing from day to day. The hon. member for Port Natal intimated that he had to leave, and that I therefore had to excuse him. He had the same criticism which is raised so frequently on that side, and that is that we are one-sided. I do not think that I need to reply to that. He asked me what we were doing in regard to the South African Games. He referred to a certain group of private persons in South Africa who placed advertisements overseas to give South Africa the benefit of the Games which took place here. He asked what the Government, in particular, and the Department of Information did in this regard. The hon. member may perhaps not know, but the fact remains that we made film records of these Games, and that we sent these films overseas. In addition, he may perhaps not know that we sent hundreds of photographs to various countries, photographs depicting the Games. We sent daily radio news bulletins to foreign publications and to our offices, and our department invited a considerable number of journalists and members of the I.O.C. to come to South Africa at our expense so that they could attend the Games. That was the contribution we made in this connection. In general we recorded the image in various ways and places, and we devoted special editions of various publications to the Games, to illustrate to the outside world what South Africa was doing. I think it is far-fetched to come and accuse us of having done nothing in this regard.

I want to thank the hon. member for Algoa very much for this views in regard to this matter. It is always interesting and refreshing to listen to an hon. member who says the kind of things in regard to this matter the hon. member for Algoa does.

Now I want to conclude with a single thought. I have enough confidence in the Department of Information and in the integrity and dedication of its staff to expect that we will, with the new structure, as we now have it, with the modern means of communication which we now have and with the methods in which we are acting, make good progress. We can expect this for we have the manpower, the technique and the technical knowledge to accomplish this task successfully. We have, and I enjoy boasting of this—hon. members can see it in the annual report for it appears in the first photograph—put into operation a data transmission apparatus.

Who is the man who appears in the photograph?

I do not know him. It is a particularly interesting piece of apparatus; I do not know whether hon. members know how it works. When one makes an ordinary telephone call to New York, one connects the telephone to this apparatus, and then one places in it a written document. This apparatus has a revolving barrel and it can transmit a photograph, a typed text, or one’s handwriting. Within three minutes the apparatus transmits the photograph, the text, or whatever, to New York where it is recorded on a similar apparatus. It is cheaper than quite a number of other methods, and affords this advantage that it is totally uninterceptible because it is not transmitted through sound waves, but telephonically.

It cannot be Watergated.

This method definitely cannot be Watergated because it is completely safe. This method cannot be Colgated either, for it goes directly overseas. The fact remains that we now have these modern techniques. We now have a link with various of our overseas offices, and the Cape Town and Pretoria offices are also in communication with each other. We can, with this quite effective, newest means of communication, react immediately. Let me give hon. members an idea or two. If we are aware of a certain statement which is to be issued at a certain stage by some Minister or other and we know that this will have certain reactions abroad, we can in advance compile the full background and facts and in this way convey these to our foreign offices, so that when the statement is made and the reports appear here, we can then make the true facts available before the false image arrives abroad. That is one of the advantages of this system. If something happens abroad which requires our immediate attention, we can immediately draw up a reply here and within three minutes transmit it to any one of these countries. We now have all these facilities at our disposal, and I want to express the hope that this department will go from strength to strength, and that we will achieve great success in the years which lie ahead in this difficult struggle in which South Africa has to defend itself against quite unjustified criticism, and the completely unfair attacks which are so frequently launched at us.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? There was a time when his department issued to members of Parliament all the copies of pamphlets that were issued by his department. I wonder if he would consider reintroducing that system?

We have done that in the past, but all members are not interested.

How do you know that?

I have seen that. At the moment we have the position that any member who gives us his name and address can receive all copies of all pamphlets, but in this respect hon. members must take the initiative themselves.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? There is a publication called Custos, which comes from one of the Government departments. It is a very lovely publication and is sent to every member of Parliament. I am privileged to receive three every month …

That is very kind of them, but it is not one of my publications. The fact that the hon. member receives three copies every month proves that mistakes can occur with these publications.

May I put a question to the hon. Minister? Last year he sent some of our members a summary of overseas Press commentary. Since November of last year I have received nothing. Is it still being published, and if so, could he again send it to members who ask for it?

I shall go into the matter and let the hon. member know.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 26 and S.W.A. Vote No. 14.—“Interior”, Revenue Vote No. 27 and S.W.A. Vote No. 15.—“Public Service Commission”, and Revenue Vote No. 28. —“Government Printing Works”:

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half-hour? At the commencement of my remarks in discussing this Vote with the hon. the Minister I want first of all to record our appreciation and congratulations to the Secretary for the Interior with the innovation of preparing a departmental report. Although it is mainly a question of statistics, it is an extremely valuable report. Might we also congratulate him on the fact that he is able to produce one for the calendar year 1972 so that we can debate matters on up-to-date figures.

The hon. the Minister of the Interior has donned the new mantle of the Minister of this portfolio and this being the first occasion on which we are to debate his Vote with him, I propose to confine myself almost entirely to the broad principles of policy so that we and the country can get from the hon. the Minister his ideas, his approach to the various problems which fall within the Ministry of the Interior. Might I say that we realize that with his enthusiasm he has a very enthusiastic Deputy Minister in the hon. member for Prinshof to assist him. I shall have something more to say about their enthusiasm a little later in the course of my remarks. Since the hon. the Minister assumed office last year I have followed with great interest the Press reports to try to glean some idea from them as to what his approach was going to be to the various problems of his department. One found that while he was going from National Party congress to National Party congress he oozed sweet reasonableness and, in fact, was gaining a name in the Press as a moderate. He was applauded in the Press as a moderate. Then, with the hon. the Minister’s election as leader in the Transvaal, we found that the Press image changed rather rapidly. To his party Press he then became “die kroonprins” and Rapport stated “kragdadige Connie is op die oorlogspad”. We want to see what his “oorlogspad” is so far as this department is concerned.

Whom is he going to shoot?

The public became concerned at this new approach. We had lost the former Minister of the Interior, Mr. Gerdener, who had brought a new approach to the department after his predecessor. What did the hon. the Minister do? He very soon announced in Press statements that he was going to see to the restriction of those people who come from overseas to South Africa; they were going to be more carefully screened. He refused a few visas and passports en passant. Then, without giving any reasons for the actions on his part, he left the public of South Africa guessing as to what his motives were. Finally he promised very firmly that there would be much stricter censorship with regard to publications in South Africa. In taking over this portfolio the hon. the Minister therefore adopted an attitude which was almost one of “leave things to me; I know what is good for you and I will bring in the necessary legislation”. I can remind the hon. the Minister of the very classic remark he made when he said: “I have my own way of seeing things and I have my own way of doing things”. What we want to ask the hon. the Minister this evening is to explain some of his own ways of seeing things and doing things in regard to this portfolio, because what has followed so far, as the hon. the Minister’s actions as Minister of the Interior are concerned, has shown that that self-appreciation and self-assessment of his has proved to be quite correct. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that some of his actions with regard to this department have shown that he is completely out of touch with the thinking and the attitudes of the ordinary, good, solid, loyal South Africans in this country.

When I say that, I want to look at the legislative programme that this hon. Minister has produced since he assumed office. I want to look at the bills which he has produced, relating to various aspects of his department. What have we had? There was quick legislation brought in to deal with deprivation of citizenship under certain circumstances; there was quick legislation brought in to deal with the control of movement of individuals; and there was a Provincial Affairs Bill, dealt with by the hon. the Deputy Minister, which was rushed into this House and debated almost before we had an opportunity of reading it. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I think the country should know that we pointed out in the House that this legislation was being rushed. I want to add that I believe that before this legislation has finally passed through this Parliament, there will be a select committee in the Senate to deal with certain problems because the Bill was brought before Parliament with unnecessary haste. I want to say too that the public noticed the manner in which legislation with regard to public holidays was introduced. There the hon. the Minister and his department brushed aside the tradition of select committees and commissions to deal with these matters and rushed through legislation to remove public holidays. What has happened? The Government has incurred the displeasure of historical and cultural organizations divorced from politics because of this over-hasty action.

Then we come to the censorship position in this country. We come to the sad position of publications control in this country. And what do we find? The hon. the Minister promised stronger measures; in fact, Sir, in one of his speeches on the 15th September, 1972, he said: “I will publish a draft Bill to show what I want in regard to publications.” We have a Bill now. A Bill has been tabled in this House and I appreciate that the hon. the Minister has referred this Bill to a Select Committee before Second Reading. But what has been the reaction of the public of South Africa to the details of that Bill as published? I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I still have to read in any English or Afrikaans paper, support for the measure and the thinking of this hon. Minister which is depicted in that Bill. This is what has been done by this “kragdadigheid”, this “get-on-with-action” without proper thought and investigation as to what the people of South Africa want. That is the position in every English and Afrikaans paper.

And, Sir, what of the Electoral Bill which also fortunately has gone to a Select Committee to be ironed out before it comes to this House? Where is the support for those revolutionary and radical suggestions that are introduced and brought before the country without that period of thinking and consideration which is necessary to good government? I mention these things because I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the portfolio he handles has a specific significance because of its personal relationship with each and every citizen of South Africa. But what does the hon. the Minister do? He even entered the municipal political sphere in his own constituency attempting, rather unsuccessfully, to help a municipal candidate for election. What does the hon. the Minister say? He is reported as having said that he is really fighting fit. The United Party is so divided, according to a Press report, and this is why we are pushing through legislation like a knife through butter. I must say that the hon. the Minister did say to me when I asked him whether he was correctly reported that the accent was incorrect in this report. But is this the way to deal with the Department of the Interior? Is this the way to deal with the responsibility and the obligations of this department? I raise these matters right now when the Minister is commencing his responsibilities of this department. I want to give him the opportunity and I wish that he would reveal his thinking in regard to various aspects of his department. Before I do so I want to repeat what I said a moment ago. He is concerned with many aspects of individual freedom of movement, individual freedoms from the cradle to the grave. There is the question of race classification and all that it involves for the individuals concerned. The right to vote, registration and other matters are in his hands. There is the freedom to travel and the selection of entertainment and reading. All these matters are within his hands.

Now I want to deal with some specific aspects of his department. I want to deal first with the question of passports. In 1972 according to the report of the Secretary, 98 passports were refused. The first question I would like to ask the hon. the Minister is whether it is his intention to follow the practice which was commenced by his predecessor Mr. Gerdener, namely that when it was possible to give reasons for the refusal, without militating against security measures, that he would do so. There were instances where Mr. Gerdener refused passports. There was complaint, but at least the public had an opportunity of knowing why those passports were refused. When he refused the passports of two students he made it quite clear. In the one case the student had been supporting and advocating the arms embargo of South Africa. He made it clear and issued a public statement. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will endeavour, in the interests of the acceptance by the government of the restriction of liberties, to adopt that procedure which has been adopted by Mr. Gerdener. And secondly I want to appeal to him as I have appealed before that where a passport is refused and a South African citizen is deprived of his right of movement, whether he will not consider introducing a form of appeal tribunal in order that that man can at least go to somebody and say: “Look, can we just have a look at this.” Sir, I am not asking too much because I am asking that this right should be given to a South African citizen who is refused his passport. The hon. the Minister will know that under the law today a prohibited immigrant, a man who is not even a citizen of South Africa, has the right of appeal to such a tribunal. I hope that the hon. the Minister will consider doing this.

I want to deal further with one other aspect of passports. Ninety-eight were refused in 1972 and 197 821 were granted.

What percentage?

What I am getting at is that this vast number of 200 000 passports had to be individually processed, and this resulted in the refusal of a mere 98 applications. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is worth the candle. I believe that we must go back to what was the original concept in dealing with identity documents, and that was that travel documents would be issued as a matter of right to South African citizens, subject to the right to withdraw them under certain circumstances. In other words, you do not sit down and process 200 000 applications for passports in order that you can refuse less than 100 of them. Sir, I ask this particularly because it is clear from this report that the staff position in the Minister’s department is not entirely satisfactory. One finds, for instance, that during the year 1972, 949 clerks were appointed to the department, and when they are appointed one assumes that there is a certain period of non-productivity or little productivity while they are learning their duties; 949 were appointed, but 638 resigned from the Service during the same year. In other words, there was a two-thirds wastage in the clerical staff of the department. Sir, with that turnover, is it worth the candle to insist on these applications for passports being made individually when there is not a large material number of applications refused?

How much harm can be done by that small number you are allowing to leave the country?

Sir, my point is simply this: Can we afford all that work necessary to handle 200 000 documents, if only 100 applications are turned down?

†Sir, I want to go further. There is one other little matter in regard to passports where perhaps we should consider changing the procedure. A passport at the present moment is issued for three years and there can be a renewal for another three years; thereafter the passport becomes invalid, and the whole process of reapplication for a passport starts again. Sir, why cannot a passport be issued for five years, as the position used to be, and then allow it to be renewed for five years, and then for another five years, instead of having to reprocess it within a limited period of six or ten years? [Interjection.] Sir, it is quite simple; the department can say that after, say, 10 years, a new photograph must be submitted, or something of that nature. This would eliminate an awful lot of waste of time. The hon. the Minister knows that the tendency in the whole world today is towards free travel. I myself, within a matter of weeks, was in and out of France three times, and there is not a single stamp on my passport to show that I went to France or left France. All I was asked on the continent was whether I had an identity document or something to identify me. Are we not therefore lagging behind in modernizing the position with regard to passports and travel documents?

Sir, I want to deal with another matter which arises in the report and which I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with. I find with alarm, at page 8 of the report under “Investigations of claims to South African citizenship” that there were no fewer than 57 146 cases. How have these arisen? Have they arisen because of queries about the registration of voters? Have there been cases of persons being on the voters’ roll, applying for registration and being told that their citizenship must now be proved? We find that that has happened in a number of cases. I hope the Minister will look into this and explain what these queries about citizenship involve which one finds in such vast numbers.

Then I want to move on to another aspect in regard to the Minister’s approach, which I hope he will explain to us, and that is the question of the granting or refusal of visas. The report is silent as to the number of visas refused. I can refer the Minister to a question asked on the 8th of this month by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, in regard to exemptions under section 7bis of the Aliens Act. As the Minister pointed out, the exemptions apply at the present moment to White citizens of the United Kingdom, the Colonies, Australia, Canada, Rhodesia, Malawi, Mauritius and the Republic of Ireland, citizens of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland and contract workers from Rhodesia, Mozambique and Malawi. The Minister indicated in his reply to this question that he intended to withdraw the exemptions in respect of White citizens of Commonwealth countries who are exempted. Again I want to know whether this is really worth the candle. I know the hon. the Minister wants to get at these drug pedlars which he tells us about over and over again, but what are the figures involved? One must realize that an extremely large number of people will now have to be processed; visas will have to be issued to them, and it is clear that they will have to be dealt with by civil servants somewhere. When one looks at the figures in this departmental report, one finds that there are something like five million people coming in and going out of South Africa, although admittedly a lot of them are South Africans.

It is not necessary for all of them to have visas.

But the Minister said in his reply that he is going to exclude this class from exemption under section 7 bis.

It does not mean that they must all have visas.

But if the exemption is withdrawn …

Then they can have permits.

Yes, permits or visas, but that is the point I wish the Minister to explain. Permits must still be issued at the moment they arrive, show their passports and enter the country. The figures indicate that a limited number of visas were granted last year. There were something like 100 000, but persons who came in and went out numbered five million, of which three million were from the neighbouring countries. This means that roughly two million came in and out, and they will now have to be processed for permits or visas. Sir, is it worth the candle to introduce these restrictions because you want to catch a few individuals who may be undesirable?

Then I want to deal briefly with the question of the Population Registration Act. One is pleased to note that the number of disputed classifications has now become almost minimal. According to the report some 60 cases were dealt with under section 5(4) (c). There were 62 appeal board cases and some five supreme court cases, but why does the sort of thing have to happen that happened in a case reported in the 1973 Law Reports, the case of a man named Gaffoor and his action against the Department of the Interior? What happened? Here was an individual who was originally classified as a Cape Coloured. He was then informed by the secretary—this must have happened some considerable time ago because the case came to the Courts at the end of last year—that he had been reclassified as an Indian. To this he lodged an objection. It was heard by the Race Classification Appeal Board and the appeal was upheld. In other words, he could stay as a Coloured. This was one individual. No principle was involved; it was whether Mr. Gaffoor should be a Coloured man or an Indian for the purposes of race classification. But what happened? The department then appealed to the Cape Supreme Court, was unsuccessful, and then appealed further to the Appellate Division. Now, is this litigation, this cost, this hounding of a person, justified when it is for one individual, whether he should be a Coloured man or an Indian for purposes of classification, when at the same time we happily classify people out of their accepted and proper race categories to another one to enable them to marry somebody? What is the explanation for this cost involved, the cost and anxiety involved to the individual concerned who goes to court in a matter of this kind? I hope that this is the end of litigation of this nature in so far as race classifications are concerned. I should like to know what justification there is for a case of this sort and why this action was taken.

There are other matters which will be raised by other hon. members on this side of the House with the hon. the Minister. I raised these matters which I have raised to ask him to tell us and South Africa what his attitude is to the preservation, to the fullest possible extent, of the liberties of movement, the inherent, basic individual liberties of the citizen of South Africa by reason of his citizenship. If he wants to move, if he wants to travel, he must be able to do so and if he is prevented, he must know why he is prevented. I think that is a matter which is important and I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us his philosophical approach to this problem, because I believe it is an important aspect.

There is another matter to which I believe I must refer. That is the importance of the contact of his department with the individuals with whom they must deal. I want to refer immediately to the personal nature of that contact. You have the visitor from overseas who is having trouble with a visa and must see an official of the Department of the Interior. You have a South African who wants a birth certificate or marriage certificate fixed up and who has to go to an official of the Department of the Interior. I want to record that my experience with the vast majority of the head office staff, the regional representatives and their staffs, is that they are extremely courteous and extremely efficient in dealing with these people. If one realizes for instance that 2 100 000 persons were handled by passport officers at the various centres of passport control, it shows the emphasis, the importance of a contented department and a contented group of officials handling this work because of the reflection which they cast of the Government and of the administration on the persons with whom they come into contact. While we on this side appreciate what is being done, I hope that the hon. the Minister will see to it that the officials who are charged with these duties are given the facilities, treatment, remuneration and rewards to which they are entitled so that we will get the desired type of official to handle this shop-window, as it were, to the visitors to South Africa.

Finally there is one point in the department’s report which needs some explanation. It deals with the statistics in regard to “persons cleared at ports of entry” shown on page 7. We find that the number of persons cleared at the various ports of entry like Jan Smuts, Durban, Cape Town, Beit Bridge and Komatipoort, in and out of the Republic throughout the year 1972 amounted to some 2 100 000, but the number of persons cleared at border posts between the Republic and Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland amounted to no fewer than 1,5 million in and 1,5 million out during the same 12 months. More people crossed through the border posts than through any other place of entry or exit from and to the Republic. What is the cause of this large-scale movement of persons? It cannot be just workers who come in and go out at that rate. I thought that “temporary permanency” was being introduced, but with all these workers coming in and going out at this fantastic rate, it looks like “temporary temporariness”.

Sometimes the people who are doing business on the other side of the border move from three to four times a week through the border post.

To the Casinos?

Maybe.

When one looks at the vast number of people that have to be checked, one wonders whether every one of these persons who goes backwards and forwards across the border has to be recorded. If that is not the case, these figures would not have appeared here. It seems to me that an awful amount of work is being done on people who move across the borders three or four times a week. It looks to me that if work study is being done in the department, work study has to be done on this aspect, to see whether this work is necessary and whether it is necessary to carry on in this way.

Wait until we have independent Bantustans.

The hon. member reminds me that one will have to do some work study if we are to have the same sort of border control not only between these territories but also between the various Bantustans and the rest of South Africa, should this policy ever materialize. I raise this point because it seems to me that problem of staff shortages is facing the department. I know that these matters, as well as various other matters, are being investigated by this department, but when one looks at these colossal figures, one realizes that there can be further investigation.

Finally, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I have referred to legislation which he has brought before this House this year, which is, judged by the reaction of the public, not in accord with public thinking. There was an outcry against the various proposals of the hon. the Minister’s Censorship Bill, and these outcries did not come from the way off-beat people but from normal, decent, respectable South Africans. It shows that when the hon. the Minister is administering his department he has to temper his “kragdadigheid” and exercise a great deal of patience towards and a great deal of understanding of the people of South Africa in regard to their basic thinking and their basic needs. Unfortunately the record which has emanated from his department this year is a cause for grave concern. The method of haste and rushing, and the type of legislation which has emanated from his department, are causing great concern. But that is perhaps because of the new broom. I hope that the hon. the Minister will realize that in his portfolio thought is never wasted and that a little hesitation is better than this type of action with which we have been faced in this country during the term of office of this hon. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, we have just listened to the big gun of the United Party in the field of internal affairs. The hon. member began quite correctly by saying that because the Minister was a new Minister, he would very much like to discuss the principles and the policy followed by the Minister in his Department. He also touched on a fairly wide spectrum of the work of the Department of the Interior. But this hon. big gun, if I may call him that, actually disappointed me a great deal in the end. I think that the shot fired by this big gun was nothing more than the squirt of a water pistol, some of the water being somewhat muddy. What amazes me, is that the hon. member for Green Point should have touched on such a wide spectrum but that in spite of that he should have ignored one very important facet and function of the Department of the Interior. To be specific, he omitted to refer to the Public Service Commission. I find it amazing that this hon. member who wanted to touch on the broadest spectrum, did not deal with this extremely important aspect.

I want to deal with certain points this evening, and I am particularly pleased that the hon. member for Pinelands is in our midst. I want to commence by congratulating the hon. the Minister on his appointment to this portfolio, particularly in view of the fact that he will also be serving the interests of the Public Service Commission and the public servants in the future. I have come to know him personally as a hard worker who is fair, judicious and balanced in his actions. I want to tell the public servants of the Republic of South Africa this evening that they have a good man to see to their interests. I want to tell the general public, as people who are dependent on this one great pillar on which the machinery of State rests, namely the Public Service, that they have a Minister who will maintain good control and sound management here. For that reason I was really very surprised when the hon. member for Pinelands made certain remarks here last Friday. In fact, I was more than surprised, I was shocked because, and I want to tell the hon. member this, I have great respect for him. I have great respect for the hon. member, because I think he is a good member. To tell the truth, I rather like the hon. member because he is never sensational in his conduct, but is able to discuss matters quietly and calmly. But let us take a look this evening at what this hon. member really said. If it had been the hon. member for Kensington or the hon. member for Orange Grove, I should have felt like fighting about it, but I should not like to fight with this hon. member. I should like to have clarity on these aspects from him. Let us go back to what the hon. member said. In his speech he said, inter alia, the following—

In the light of this I now want to repeat the statement made by the hon. member for Pinelands. Initially he said that approximately 12% of the people who joined the Public Service, were English speaking and that the reason why more of them did not join the Public Service was the fact that they felt that English-speaking people were discriminated against in the Public Service because they were English speaking.

No, later on I said it was because they were not Nationalists.

I have a copy of the hon. member’s speech here and I want to elaborate on this point, because what we are concerned with here is the matter of English-speaking people. The hon. member went further and said in order to substantiate his argument, that he would quote instances of personal experience which his colleagues, too, had had in this connection. In other words, it was not based on hearsay, it was not “rumours of common talk” as Cicero wrote; they were personal instances which had come to the attention of his colleagues. He went on to say that not only his colleagues, but he himself knew of many cases which had come to their and his attention. He repeated this by saying—

not just a little knowledge! —

I repeat, this is not the hon. member for Orange Grove, or the hon. member for Kensington; it is the hon. member for Pinelands who said this. I do not believe that the hon. member is correct, and I shall give my reasons for this later, but, for the sake of argument, let us assume this evening that the hon. member is in fact correct, that some of these cases have in fact been brought to his attention. Then I want to ask the hon. member this evening to tell us how many people have complained to him, and, more important, what he has done with regard to those complaints, and not only he, but his hon. colleagues as well. Flow many complaints have all of them received and what have they done with regard to those complaints. For various reasons I was deeply disturbed by what the hon. member said. In the first place this is an accusation against the National Party, of which I am a member; in the second place it is an accusation against myself, because I represent a constituency in Pretoria in which many public servants reside; and in the third place—even though hon. members do not believe this—I myself cannot tolerate people being wronged, particularly since I belong to a national group which has been discriminated against a great deal in the course of its history. I then went to see a number of ex-Ministers to discuss this matter with them and I asked them whether the hon. member for Pinelands or any other member of the United Party had approached them and told them that they had proof or complaints that English-speaking people were being discriminated against, or, as the hon. member said, people who were not Nationalists, simply because they were not Nationalists.

That’s it! Now you have got it right!

I want to say to the hon. member that he must just go and read his speech in Hansard once more to see exactly what he said. I go further. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior how many people he is aware of, people who have come to him in the time that he has been Minister of the Interior to complain that they are being discriminated against— just this, I do not want to confine this to complaints from English-speaking people only. I want to ask the hon. member how many members of the United Party have come to him to complain about discrimination within the Public Service against public servants, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister specifically whether the hon. member for Pinelands has come to him and said that he has heard rumours, or whether he has quoted specific instances, of discrimination against public servants, even because there has been nothing more than an impression that they are not well-disposed towards the National Party. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rissik continues to amaze me. In view of his conduct towards the hon. member for Pinelands tonight, it again amazes me that he has not spoken English.

†Mr. Chairman, what has he said here? He has taken the hon. member for Pinelands to task for a speech which he made during the Police Vote dealing with the recruitment of persons into the Police Force and into the Civil Service, people whose home language is English. The point that was made quite clearly by my hon. friend from Pinelands was that it was not only the English-speaking people, but also those people who were non-Nationalists. I want to say to the hon. member for Rissik that, if he takes the trouble to investigate the situation in the Public Service today, he will find that it goes further than those people who are non-Nationalists. It extends to those people who are not members of the Broederbond and to those people who are not members of the “Rapportryerskorps".

You cannot prove a single thing.

I do not hear a single word of denial from the other side …

You are talking nonsense!

… because that is exactly what the situation is. [Interjections.] Now suddenly I hear shouts of denial from the other side, but it is too late now because I was speaking the truth; they know that it is the truth. I want to say that notwithstanding the fact that I had a certificate signed by the late Dr. Verwoerd, that I was bilingual I too felt that I could not get anywhere in the Public Service, even though I did have a LL.D. (Lower Law Diploma). They cannot tell me anything about this matter. I want to say that it exists within the Civil Service. There is a lot of dissatisfaction in the Civil Service, but the members of the Public Service Commission are not aware of it. Until such time as we reintroduce Public Service commissioners who will go about and hear individual complaints from public servants, who may speak without fear of victimization, the hon. the Minister and his Secretary will be unaware of it because the reports will not reach them. Under the present system the only recourse a civil servant has is to his superior officer. It can never reach the hon. the Minister or the Secretary of his department of the Public Service Commission. I have pleaded for this before. I did not intend pleading for it tonight, but I want to draw the attention of this hon. the Minister who, for the first time this evening deals with this portfolio, to what has been said before in this House about the reappointment of a Public Service commissioner, an independent person who can go around and who has the trust, the faith and the confidence of the individual civil servant who can speak to him in trust, in a manner in which he cannot speak to his senior officer, because of the political situation in the Civil Service today. Sir, I am serious about this matter. I am sorry about the hon. member for Rissik but this is the situation as I firmly believe it is in the Service today.

Unfortunately there is not much time left to me. I want to discuss briefly the matter of the Publications Board with the hon. the Minister. I have received complaints from various small centres about action which has been taken against the showing of certain films. We had an experience a year or two ago with a good South African film Katrina which had been passed by the Publications Board but when it finally arrived at one of the smaller towns in the Free State it was impounded by the police who advanced as a reason that it was not a properly censored copy of the film. It led to a lot of trouble and inconvenience to people, as well as a loss of revenue. Recently we had a similar experience with a film, Steptoe and Son. This was passed by the Publications Board, with certain cuts, I accept. A copy of the film with the usual certificate at the beginning, indicating that it had been passed by the board, was exhibited in a small town in Natal. It was due to be exhibited for three successive nights, but halfway through the first showing the police arrived and said: “Stop the show; this is an uncensored version; we are now confiscating the film.”

Sir, how does this come about? I know it is the police that took the action; not this Minister’s department, but it is this Minister’s department which is responsible for it. Surely, where a certificate is projected on a screen, I believe that that should be prima facie proof that no action should be taken against the owner. I know the provisions of the Act, which lays down that the onus is on the owner to prove that all the cuts have been made. I know all about it. But I am talking about the administration of the Act. The cinema owner of this town was left with no income and the people of the town left with no film for two nights, having paid for the first night although only half the film was shown. Do you know what happened the very next week, Sir? The very next week in that same town the police arrived and confiscated a news reel. Now really, I think this is getting a bit thick. Surely these films are passed by the board and the certificate which is projected, surely should be sufficient. I believe that the hon. the Minister should ask the powers that be to be a little bit more realistic in their application of the Act.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.