Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday evening the hon. member for Randburg made certain statements to the effect that it was supposedly the policy of this side of the House that attitudes and relations in Africa should be disturbed. I want to tell the hon. member that under the prevailing circumstances it was uncalled for and a poor show to try to play politics. I want to tell the hon. member that this debate calls for an atmosphere of calm. I want to tell the hon. member for Randburg that I have a feeling that the speech he made about “petty apartheid” was written by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I say this because the hon. member for Randburg did not speak spontaneously. To tell the truth, I asked him by way of an interjection: “Who are you quoting?” The hon. member quoted from a prepared speech, and it was the old “petty apartheid” speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. [Interjections.] Sir, this debate calls for an atmosphere of calm and for that reason I am unable to comply with the request to tackle them.

Sir, I want to state very clearly today that dialogue in Africa is of cardinal importance. But the concept “dialogue” must be correctly interpreted. The dialogue being conducted in Africa by the Progressive Party is in my opinion beneficial neither to South Africa nor to the African states involved. The concept “dialogue” is beneficial when two countries meet at a level at which there are discussions over a broad field, not at a level at which cheap politicizing is discussed. Scientific approaches, the communication of technical knowledge, trade links and many and various aspects of this nature are understood by this concept “dialogue”. The hon. member for Houghton and her friends who visited African states, do not discuss these aspects which are beneficial to South Africa and to other countries in Africa. When I say this, I do not believe that I am doing them an injustice. I very much doubt whether the hon. member for Sea Point did this during his visits to African states.

They only talk about petty apartheid.

Yes, in that field he is a specialist. Sir, what is the position in Africa today? In Africa we have a number of countries in the process of development, both politically and economically. This we must accept. We must accept that we are dealing with countries engaged in a political struggle, countries which are attempting to allow their own political and economic development to take place, countries which are poor, countries which cannot be compared, on an evolutionary level, with many Western countries. This is not to say that this should be held against them, but those countries are susceptible to foreign ideologies. That is the African setup today. In this African set-up we are dealing with communistic influence, with the Russians and with the Red Chinese, and it is a fact that certain African states are susceptible to this influence. They are susceptible owing to the material gain and, on a temporary basis, other gain which is involved. I am convinced that in the long term, these same African states will come to their senses. The Nationalism in any people is innate. When it is realized by these African states that the aid they are receiving from certain countries today is not in their own interests, but is in point of fact given in order to be misused against these specific countries, we shall have a reaction from the leaders of the African countries concerned. Now, in contrast to that, I want to ask: What is the position as far as South Africa is concerned? South Africa is part of Africa, and we pride ourselves on being a part of this continent. We are here to stay. Our approach to dialogue is an honest approach. It is an approach aimed at conducting an honest discussion. It is my philosophy in life that when one does anything with integrity, one cannot but triumph. South Africa has every proof that in the past it has conducted dialogue with African states with integrity, and that it will do so in future. Our conduct of domestic affairs proves this statement. What other country in the world is concerned with the right of self-determination as regards other peoples, as is this Republic? What other people in the world is concerned with putting into practice the rights of self-determination, politically as well as economically, as this people is doing? It takes a lot of capital, but we are engaged in an evolutionary process in Southern Africa; we are engaged in giving recognition to under-developed countries within the scope of our geographic set-up; that is what we are engaged in. In other words, we qualify to conduct dialogue beyond the borders of South Africa, with other African states. Sir, it is my personal feeling that a change will take place in Africa; that African states will come to their senses and realize that this is a country which is honest in its intentions towards them and which honourably tries to assist them, not only in the interests of South Africa, but also in their interests; that we are engaged not only in conducting dialogue but also in trying to make a real contribution to the development of Africa. Mr. Chairman, viewed in perspective, it is very clear that many African states are in ferment today, but it is clear too that nationalism is triumphing in these countries, and that eventually the ethnic grouping, the idealism of identity and the distinctiveness of every country will require of states aiding these particular countries that there should be no interference in their domestic affairs. We in South Africa, Sir, have never interfered with the domestic affairs of any country in the world. We are not a country which believes in colonialism; we are a country which views with favour the political development of all other peoples, and I want to say this to the continent of Africa: This Republic, with its dynamic economic development, with the trade links we establish with various countries, with the processes of enrichment we are engaged in, with our mineral riches which we are utilizing to an ever increasing extent, with our formation of capital for gigantic developments here in our own economy, in the years that lie ahead we shall play an ever greater and more important role in giving assistance to Africa and in acknowledging the right of every people in Africa to promote its own nationalism. Mr. Chairman. I want to conclude by wishing the hon. the Minister well. Unshakeable faith in the will of God and a just cause will ensure that this Republic will triumph in the years that lie ahead.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rustenburg found fault with what the hon. member for Randburg said. Once again this is merely a proof of failure on the part of the members of the Nationalist Party to realize that it is their legislation, their behaviour and their doings which brings so many problems upon South Africa in the outside world.

That is untrue.

The hon. member for Randburg tried to bring certain things home to the Nationalist Government in an honest and sincere way in order to enable them to realize that if we want to make any progress as far as our relations with the outside world are concerned, as far as South Africa’s image in the outside world is concerned, we in South Africa will have to bring about certain internal changes in order to make it possible for the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department to put South Africa’s case in the outside world with success. Sir, it is true that the hon. the Minister has an enormously difficult task, and we want to give the assurance that we on this side of the House will do or say nothing to make his task or the task of his department any more difficult than it already is. Sir, it is the actions and utterances of hon. members on the other side of the House that makes his task more difficult; which makes it an impossible task for him and his department to put South Africa’s case successfully abroad.

Such as what?

I am coming to that.

At the eleventh minute.

The hon. the Minister is faced with a dilemma, a dilemma which I shall describe as a paradox, a paradox between a situation obtaining in the United Nations where he operates and in the other countries of the world where his department has to operate, and the situation here in South Africa which is the product of the philosophy and the legislation of the Nationalist Government. Mr. Chairman, in the United Nations and abroad, the Minister attempts to convince the world that the Government of South Africa is trying to get away from racial discrimination, from racism, from race prejudice and everything associated with it. By means of clever speeches, by means of fine words, by means of sustained efforts, he and his department are trying to convince the world at large that the Nationalist Government is not a Government of discrimination. But, Sir, we have in South Africa a Nationalist Government whose mentality and philosophy is one of racial discrimination. It is a party which has entrenched its philosophy of racial discrimination and applies it from day to day and month to month in terms of racially discriminating legislation.

Where is George Oliver?

The Minister and his department are trying to convince the world at large that we do not practise discrimination in South Africa. In South Africa there is legislation in terms of which every person who is not White experiences racial discrimination every minute of his life; in terms of which every person who is not White is pointedly reminded, every day of his life, of his being subjected to racial discrimination; in terms of which he is pointedly reminded of his being inferior because he is not White. It is pointedly brought to his attention whereever he finds himself that he is inferior, that the Government regards him as inferior, that the Government provides him with inferior services and holds out to him the prospect of an inferior existence in South Africa. That is the policy and the effect of the policy of the Nationalist Government.

May I put a question?

Mr. Chairman, I do not have time to answer questions. Another aspect of this paradox is this: The Nationalist Government tells the outside world that it has a policy, a philosophy in terms of which we want to get away from supremacy; that we want to give each ethnic group, each national group in South Africa, the right to practise its own sovereignty. But, Sir, here in South Africa the Nationalist Government practises a policy of unashamed, perpetual White supremacy in respect of every living soul who is not White.

You are an agitator.

Order! The hon. member who has said that the hon. member is an agitator, must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

The policy of the Nationalist Party is a policy of White supremacy over every group that is not White. The Nationalist Party’s policy of White supremacy is a policy in terms of which the Whites decide on the destiny and the rights of every other group in South Africa; in terms of which the Whites decide on what is to be given to the other groups; in terms of which the Whites decide on the development of every other group, without those other groups being given the opportunity in their own fatherland of having a share in the process of government, in the process of power, of South Africa. Sir, a third aspect of the Minister’s paradox is this: They try to let it be known abroad that their policy and their philosophy is generally accepted by all the groups in South Africa, but internally the situation is entirely different.

In South Africa—and this is a fact— there have been indications recently that the policy of the Nationalist Party is being rejected by an ever-growing number of leaders of the other groups in South Africa. In recent times the Coloureds have indicated clearly that they want to have nothing to do with the policy of the Nationalist Government. A few days ago, two prominent homeland leaders, Professor Ntsanwise and Chief Minister Phatudi said That the policy of the Nationalist Party with regard to separate development was a policy of discrimination and that it was destined to suffer total failure. [Interjections.] Nor are the Indians satisfied with the Nationalist Party and their approach. A majority of the Whites have reservations and are concerned about the policy of the Nationalist Government. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to ask hon. members to give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

I want to make this point. I believe that it is the duty of the hon. the Minister to provide Parliament with a candid explanation of all the reasons advanced why South Africa and its policy are unacceptable not only to the Communists and the leftists in the world, but to the responsible governments and people of the world as well. Why are we acceptable to no one? What is it in the policy and in the approach of the Nationalist Government which is totally unacceptable to the responsible, decent people and governments in the world?

Then I want to say this, that the hon. the Leader of the United Party, Sir De Villiers Graaff, evinced an attitude a few days ago which he stated frankly and clearly. In terms of the relations problems we have to contend with. Sir De Villiers put it very clearly that if the Government is prepared to act sincerely and honestly and to take positive steps to solve these problems, it will find that the United Party will not only encourage it, but will support it, too, and will co-operate with it to find solutions to enable it to contend with the problems South Africa is facing. [Time expired.]

Sir, the previous speaker said a great deal about discrimination, but I wonder whether he can tell us whether the refusal of membership of a certain club in Johannesburg to his leader in the Transvaal did not constitute discrimination. I think this is one of the worst forms of discrimination in existence. The hon. member says that their side of the House is doing nothing which might prejudice the hon. the Minister’s actions abroad, but now the hon. member comes along here and says that South Africa will have to change its policy, before it will be accepted by the outside world. He says we are practising discrimination. Does this not constitute a besmirching of us here at home in order to prejudice the actions of our hon. Minister abroad? They are working directly against the hon. the Minister, and then they come along here trying to express fine sentiments.

Sir, we have heard numerous speeches on Africa in this debate. I think it is very necessary for us to discuss Africa and to ask our people to reflect on Africa, but it is as necessary for the African states and peoples themselves to reflect on Africa and its peoples to some extent. It should not always be we who do so, but also the African states themselves. In the African states and among the African peoples traditional values play a tremendous role in spite of the vast changes that have occurred since colonial times. Among the masses these traditional norms do not simply change overnight. Ethnic groupings, for example, are of the utmost importance to the peoples in Africa. That is why I think it is necessary for us to understand why there are 18 military dictatorships and 17 one-party states in Africa at the present time. We should not just blindly reject these military dictatorships or one-party states. Perhaps it is the best form of management for those states, because they are familiar with that form of government, because it forms part of their tradition and fits in with their ethnic grouping. We should also realize that these people are not amendable to grouping, grouping in the form of federations, about which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke yesterday. If only the hon. member knew how unacceptable a federal form of government is to the states in Africa!

In Africa one still has only one state which has a federal form of government, and that is Nigeria. In states such as the Cameroons, Zaïre, Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Malawi, the Sudan and Senegal, Ethiopia and Eritrea—in all of them, however, a federal form of government failed and simply could not prosper. Even in Nigeria it would have failed due to the Biafran war. So it almost failed, but subsequently the Eastern state was re-incorporated into Nigeria, and since that time they have had a military régime which, in any event, virtually makes a failure of a federation. Therefore, if hon. members on that side of the House ask us to accept the form of government they advocate, I can just tell them that it is unacceptable in the whole of Africa due to the relations and the compositions of the various peoples in Africa.

But Owambo is a federation.

Since the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is mentioning it, I want to point out that the main reason for the failure of the Central African Federation, i.e. the federation of Southern and Northern Rhodesia and Malawi, which took place at that time, was to be found in the very race factor. Since the White man, as far as the level of civilization was concerned, was the most advanced, the other two were quite unable to accept a federal form of government. Drs. Banda and Kaunda objected vehemently to it since it did not fit in with their national aspirations. Whether that side of the House wants to accept it or not, the fact remains that nationalism plays a tremendous role in Africa. This side of the House has always been on the right course by proclaiming it, not only for our own country, the Republic of South Africa, but also for the other African states. To them nationalism is the most acceptable thing and the thing that will work the best in their case.

In Africa we have many interests in common with all the African states, from Egypt to the countries on our borders. One of the most important of these common interests is communist imperialism with its urges in Africa. We find that Russia is playing a major role in North Africa, the Middle East and Egypt, while Red China is playing a tremendous role in Southern and Central Africa. The object of these enemies is to destroy the culture of Africa and its peoples, for once they have succeeded in doing this, it will be very easy for them to undermine the culture of, for example, South America. Once they have South America in their grasp, it will be much easier for them to overwhelm the whole world.

The occupation of the Indian Ocean by the Russian Navy poses a common threat to all the states in Africa. Russia, for example, wants to exert pressure on oil-producing states so that it will be able to cut off 50% of the oil supply to Europe and 90% of the supply to Japan. Russia wants to try and build up a buffer in the Indian Ocean in order to prevent America, with its submarines and projectiles, from readily making an attack on Russia and launching attacks at Russian soil. By means of its occupation of the Indian Ocean, Russia also wants to try to find a short cut through the Suez Canal to its armies on the borders of China. If it can succeed in doing that, it will be easy for its armies to join up with the Navy in the Indian Ocean.

The greatest danger is, however, that the communists want to isolate South Africa as well as the other African states. They want to isolate us so that they may extend their power throughout the world. I think the world, U.N., the O.A.U. and various governments should realize that they are not lending a hand in promoting the freedom of the Blacks in the African states. On the contrary. I think that, with all these contributions, they are prejudicing the freedom of the Black peoples in Africa. Some of them are doing it consciously, while others do not realize what they are doing by playing into the hands of the communists. They are systematically subjecting Africa to ever-lasting Russian bondage.

African countries also have common advantages and I think the hon. member for Vasco pointed out a very big advantage yesterday. He said we could turn Africa into an economic giant. He said that, with our commercial interests in Africa, we could build up a large trading point from which all the African states could benefit —from North Africa with its oil, East Africa with its coffee, cotton and other products, West Africa with its cocoa, coffee and other products, Central Africa which is in fact the butchery of Africa, down to Southern Africa with its mineral riches. We can build up an economic giant here provided there is proper co-operation. We also realize that there are many common dangers in Africa, and one of the great dangers is the communist threat in Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, one of the most remarkable features of this debate is the air of unreality that appears to pervade this House. We face very real difficulties in South Africa and yet it seems as if the reality of the situation does not appear to have dawned on hon. members of the Nationalist Party in this House. What appears to have happened, and it has happened from the moment the debate started on the Nationalist Party side, is that we have seen such a display of pessimism in respect of the future of South Africa from members of the Nationalist Party as we have never had before in such a debate. The reason for it is a very simple one, namely that the Nationalist Party is presently in the position where it can only react to events, where it has lost the initiative and where it is unable to tell the people of South Africa as to how it will take the initiative to solve the problems which confront us. That is the real issue which is before us—a lack of ability on the part of the Nationalist Party to take initiative. The people of South Africa want to know a little bit more from both this hon. Minister, with respect, and from the hon. the Minister of Defence as to whether in fact the future of South Africa is going to mean an ever-increasing escalation of terrorist activities or whether there is a real solution which this Government can offer. The question that we ask very simply is where is South Africa going to be in five years’ time, in ten years’ time, in 20 years’ time, with this Government which has no plan to solve its problems in the foreign relations field and no plans to solve its relationship with the rest of Africa. I want to say here and now that I am not a pessimist like the Nationalist Party; I am an optimist for South Africa. As far as South Africa is concerned, there is an answer as to how to deal with the ever-escalating potential terrorist activities against us. That is an answer which the Nationalist Party fails to accept, wishes to ignore and pretends that it does not exist. This Government correctly, believes in a policy of non-interference in the affairs of other countries. That is a policy I support. However, Sir, with great respect, other countries do not believe in that policy and do not apply it to South Africa. I have here for example the 1974 manifesto of the British Labour Party in which the internal affairs of South Africa constitute a material feature. It is said here in so many words—and I quote:

If that is not interference in the internal affairs of others, I do not know what it is. Similarly, I have the manifesto here of the American Democratic Party. I could quote from it if the time were available to me, but I can tell hon. members that here again there is a clear indication as to what their views are in respect of the internal affairs of other people. With great respect, we also cannot ignore the events in countries which are adjacent to us. We must be realistic about them. We cannot pretend that these events are not happening or that they are going to go away. With great respect therefore to the hon. the Minister, he must accept that where a movement of the kind depicted in these manifestos as a liberation movement or, as other people describe it, a terrorist movement is in operation, such a movement will not overnight suddenly turn into a friend of South Africa. Some concrete steps must therefore be taken in order to ensure that there can be a proper relationship between us and the countries that will be taken over by this type of organization. I want to say here so that there can be no misunderstanding that the only way in which South Africa will solve this problem will be if South Africa remains strong and tough and if, while it is strong and tough, it brings about changes in the belief that those changes are morally right and not because of pressure exerted by other people. That is, fundamentally, the policy we must follow. We have to take certain initiatives in South Africa and also in Africa.

You are a hands-upper.

There has already been a great deal of talk in this House and hon. members on this side have appealed to this Government …

Order! The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet must withdraw the word “hands-upper”.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Sir, the difference between that hon. gentleman and myself is that I have carried a gun for South Africa while he never has. What is required of this Government is that we take the initiative in regard to the removal of discriminatory practices and that we create a society in which there will be equality of opportunity in South Africa. Secondly, we must create an atmosphere in Africa for real dialogue leading to trade, tourism, diplomatic and other relations between the States of South Africa. We must not merely talk about them, but actually do something concrete in this regard.

I want to make a suggestion today to the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Wonderboom is taking up a position in New York with the United Nations. In his maiden speech in this House the hon. member for Wonderboom spoke about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He has a great opening at his disposal when he goes to the United Nations on this occasion because he is on record as having said—

I want to say here that I wish the hon. member for Wonderboom well in New York and at the United Nations because I think it is in the interests of South Africa that he should do well and that he should in fact have a successful tenure of office there.

Japie does not agree with you.

Reasons were given as to why South Africa did not vote for the Declaration of Human Rights in December 1948. Let me say that the hon. member mentioned certain reasons and that others are also on record, but fundamentally the reasons are alleged to have been that one should lay the foundations for these human rights first and that, furthermore, there were obscurities and contradictions in the declaration as a result of which we could not vote for it. It is interesting to note what other countries together with us did not vote on the issue. Let me name the countries concerned. They are Byelo-Russia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, the USSR and South Africa. What company are we in in this instance, which is on record for all time! If in fact there are obscurities and contradictions and if in fact one should lay the foundations first, the challenge I want to offer to the hon. the Minister for the sake of South Africa today is that he should in fact commence with an endeavour to have a convention of human rights for Southern Africa. We should take the initiative with the other African States in order to get together o work out a convention of human rights in exactly the same way—and I have the documents here—as the conventions that exist in Europe and America. We should sit down with them and demonstrate to them that in fact we believe in human rights, that we will put our beliefs into practice, that we will eliminate discrimination, that we will respect human dignity and that they must do the same in their territories. Such a convention could be the basis of real peaceful co-existence in Southern Africa. It is an initiative which would give confidence to Southern Africa, which would show that we are part of Africa, that we are an African State, that we in fact belong to Africa and that we are in the same way an independent African State with African interests as any Black State in Africa, that we are prepared to be a party in Africa to the respect for human dignity, to the respect for human rights and prepared to take the initiative in having such a convention applied to Southern Africa. I believe that if we took this initiative, we would demonstrate to the world that we in fact believed in these concepts, that the attacks upon us were unfounded. I can see no better start for the hon. member for Wonderboom at the United Nations, with his background of having spoken about the Declaration of Human Rights here, than that he should speak for South Africa and say that we want a convention of human rights in Southern Africa. We want to root out discriminatory practices. We want peacefull co-existence and we want to live together in one continent in which peace, honour and dignity prevail. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have been listening with great interest and appreciation to the speeches made by hon. members up to now. Most of them were constructive; most of them had made a thorough study of the topic they wanted to discuss. They tried to be helpful, and I want to convey my thanks for that to them. Of course, there were exceptions. The speech made by the hon. member for Bryanston really stuck out like a sore thumb. He spoke about my task as Minister of Foreign Affairs being complicated by speeches made here in this Parliament. Mr. Chairman, I think you will agree with me when I say that, in the short speech he made here this afternoon, he provided South Africa’s enemies in the outside world with more ammunition than all his senior colleagues together have done up to now. In his speech he revealed an ignorance of the policy of the Government, an ignorance which is alarming. The image which he has created to the outside world in regard to the policy of the Government, his interpretation of the Government’s policy, could be disastrous for South Africa.

The hon. member for Yeoville really failed to impress me with his rhetoric. He spoke about human rights. We are giving attention to human rights. We have discussed human rights in this Parliament before Good speeches have been made on that topic. There are very good reasons why South Africa did not sign the convention at the time. The hon. member gave me advice on how I was to handle my mission to the U.N. I want to tell him that my decision on the instructions they are to receive will be taken in the light of all the facts. I shall not give instructions without being aware of all the facts. This is what that hon. member is trying to do.

The hon. member for Von Brandis made a constructive contribution. He also brought up the question of so-called “petty apartheid’’—that is traditional of the other side —but he tried to be helpful. He asked me to explain what the functions are of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council for South-West Africa. I have furnished good reasons why I do not wish to deal exhaustively with South-West Africa. I am not keen to discuss it in this debate. However, I want to advise the hon. member to read the report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council. It includes a detailed survey in regard to this Advisory Council. If the hon. member wants this document and cannot find it in the library, I should gladly place it at his disposal.

What is the date of it?

It bears no date. It is an appendix to the report of the Secretary-General of the Security Council, and the date of that was, I think, 30 April. I am speaking under correction.

I inquired about its progress and not about its functions.

Yes, but apparently the hon. member is not conversant with what is being envisaged by that Advisory Council. What they do is not reported in the newspapers every day. But in this document the hon. member will be able to see fully what purpose they were appointed for and what was envisaged by the Prime Minister when he, after talks with Dr. Escher, decided to establish such a council.

That was not my question. My question was what progress had been made since then.

Yes, progress has been made. Meetings have taken place. A great deal is happening in South-West Africa as a result of the action taken by both the council and the individual members, White as well as non-White. One of the results of it is that dialogue is taking place at the moment on a fairly large scale among the representatives of the various population groups. All of these are matters arising from the activities of the Advisory Council, which meets from time to time under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister.

Now I want to talk about South Africa’s position in the world in general. In all the previous debates in this session the Opposition created the impression that South Africa was almost totally isolated; but surely, that is totally unfounded. I want to admit at once that isolation is a threat to us. It is the objective of our enemies. I want to admit at once that they have succeeded in isolating South Africa in some respects. But in most spheres, in the important spheres, their attempts have failed. In the previous session, at the beginning of this year, I replied fully to this accusation concerning isolation. I called attention to the extension of our international trade in spite of attempts and resolutions to boycott us in the sphere of trade. I called attention to and furnished statistics in connection with the extension of our diplomatic relations over the past 10 years, in spite of resolutions passed by the U.N. I was able to say that over the past 10 years South Africa had accredited representatives or opened new missions for the first time in the case of no fewer than eleven friendly states. Now I want to say that we have made further progress in this sphere since February. For instance, we have already appointed a first residential ambassador in Central America, and diplomatic relations have already been established with five states in Central America. In the case of three of those five states ambassadors have already been accredited, and in the other two cases agrèment has already been granted.

In the case of a very important South American state the status of the South African mission there has been raised from that of a legation to that of a full embassy. In addition, residential ambassadors have been exchanged with Paraguay, after the extremely succesful state visit by Pres. Stroessner to the Republic. Bolivia has appointed a diplomatic representative in South Africa. We have opened an embassy in Chile. Two treaties have been concluded with Paraguay in connection with trade and technical co-operation, and they have already led to concrete results. A strong economic and technical mission, inter alia, will visit Paraguay and also Uruguay during the course of this year. There are further possibilities of agreements with other South American States. Quite a number of official and business people from that sub-continent are visiting our country. Over the past 18 months I myself was invited as an official guest by the Governments of Latin American states on no fewer than four occasions.

Now this question may arise: Why do we lay so much emphasis on and why do we attach so much importance to Latin America? I shall tell you briefly. In the first place, they are our neighbours on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. It is a sub-continent which was perhaps neglected by us to a certain extent in the past, in contrast with North America and Western Europe, where we have had strong diplomatic representation in virtually all states for many years. South America is a sub-continent with more than 300 million inhabitants. Hon. members may perhaps underestimate its potential, but it is enormous. Take Brazil, for instance, a country with more than 100 million inhabitants, with enormous natural resources, including oil. The South American countries—and there are 24 Latin American states—play an important role in the United Nations. On the whole they are a moderate group. They are, on the whole, very aware of the communist threat. They are opposed to any form of intervention in the domestic affairs of others because they have in many cases had experience of it themselves. In the light of this I think hon. members will appreciate why one can attach so much importance to good relations with Latin American countries.

Apart from South America we have made progress in our relations with Africa, and I shall be coming back to that in a moment. There has also been progress in our relations with Iran, especially after a very successful official visit recently paid to that country by our Minister of Economic Affairs, accompanied by senior officials of his two departments and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

I do not want to take up too much of the Committee’s time, but I should nevertheless like to remind hon. members once again of the important international role being played by South Africa as a member of the World Bank, of the International Monetary Fund, and of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I want to remind you of the large number of important international conferences which have been taking place in South Africa of late, more than ever before. South Africa, which, according to the Opposition, is the black sheep in the world, is very popular as a meeting-place for international conferences. And so I could go on, Sir. During the past recess I myself undertook an extended tour lasting four weeks. I visited countries in Western Europe, in Latin America, in the East and the United States. Wherever I came, I was received very well. It was possible for me to renew and strengthen the existing contacts everywhere, and I made very good new contacts. The many discussions I had, mainly with politicians, with Ministers and with businessmen, were indeed a revelation to me. Now, hon. members should not think that I am going to tell them that without exception these people are supporting our policy of separate development. On the contrary, virtually without exception they are very critical of it; most of them do not like it at all. But wherever I went, I came across sincere interest in the progress we are making in connection with the implementation of our policy of separate development; sincere interest in the progress in regard to the homelands, constitutional and otherwise; they were interested in the prospects of an independent Transkei and others which will follow. But, Mr. Chairman, there were in fact even greater interest and appreciation in respect of other aspects of the Republic of South Africa, especially in respect of our stability in the political and the economic spheres. There was appreciation for the maintenance of law and order in our country, for our unyielding standpoint in respect of communism, and there were also appreciation and admiration for our strong economy and our highly developed technology. These are the factors and the characteristics which determine our country’s prestige in the world and make South Africa an attractive and reliable trading partner. We should never lose sight of the fact that South Africa has extensive supplies of vital raw materials which the industrial countries of the world cannot do without. Those countries know that we are reliable suppliers. They know that supplies from South Africa will not be cut off overnight, as has already happened in the world, and they also have appreciation for the fact that we are good clients for their products and that we can pay for the things we buy from them. It is therefore no wonder that my colleague the Minister of Economic Affairs and his two departments, Commerce and Industries, are of late being inundated, as it were, with missions from abroad. Apart from appreciation for our economic strength, I found an interest in South Africa’s highly developed technology wherever I went. Sir, in Latin America, for instance, there is such a great need to co-operate with us in respect of mining that we shall be obliged to appoint more mining attachés at our missions. In many parts of the world there is also serious interest in South Africa’s new process for the enrichment of uranium. In the light of the energy crisis being experienced by the world, this is an important matter, and I am convinced that South Africa can play a very important role in solving this crisis, but my colleague the hon. the Minister of Mining will probably inform you on the matter. Sir, I ask myself whether the Opposition is perhaps not aware of all these things. Surely I may not accept that they are only interested in data which they can use in order to prove the statement that South Africa is totally isolated. But, surely, by continually harping on our isolation, by emphasizing the negative aspects all the time, they are playing into the hands of our enemies, encouraging our enemies and doing South Africa a disservice. Mr. Chairman, I accept—and I emphasize this—that this is not deliberate; I am not questioning the patriotism, the love of their country, of hon. members opposite. Who am I to do that? What I do question and have strong doubts about is their good judgment which is wanting at times and as a result of which they are not doing South Africa any service. As I have already said, isolation is a threat to us. It is the objective of our enemies. It is the objective of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, of the World Council of Churches, of the militant members of the Organizations for African Unity. It is also the objective of the communists to whom we are a stumbling-block here in Africa. I need not remind hon. members of the big plans which the O.A.U. devised at the latest summit conference in Mogadishu in order to wreck our trade and to launch onslaughts against our trading partners. Then there is still the Anti-Apartheid Movement. They are extending their activities to Western Europe. They are maintaining very close liaison with the Anti-Apartheid Committee of the U.N. and with supporters in the U.S.A. and elsewhere.

Sir, South Africa’s enemies are not asleep. We may not underestimate them, but we may also do nothing to aid and abet them. I should therefore, for the umpteenth time, like to make a serious appeal to hon. members to choose their words carefully when we are discussing South Africa’s position in the world and South Africa’s so-called total isolation. We must see to it that the emphasis is placed correctly. What is more, it is very unfair to lay all these things at the door of the Government and its policy. Now, this is not only being said by me or by us on this side of the House. There are objective observers in the world, in countries abroad, who share this view. Let us hear what is said by a British author and researcher, James Barber, who recently published a book, South African Foreign Policy, which appeared last year and was published by, I think, the Oxford University Press. On page 34 of this work the following is stated—

The South African Government is left very little choice in the area of foreign policy. This was a situation which already existed in 1945 and did not come into being only after 1948.

† Referring to a speech by Gen. Smuts in Parliament, he comments as follows—

*Now, I must admit, Sir, that all of us are perhaps over-sensitive. All of us on both sides of this House are perhaps attaching too much importance to unfriendly official statements in regard to South Africa, or are attaching too much importance and are too concerned about strongly worded resolutions at the U.N. All of these are things we do not like, but we must remember that critical statements by Government spokesmen or votes taken at the United Nations often result from tactical considerations and not from true hostility. Often those statements and votes are not a reflection of the true disposition of the countries, and in most cases the judgments, or votes are not followed up by actions. Those things often happen as a result of international blackmail, which has unfortunately become fashionable nowadays. However, it is encouraging to know that South Africa’s enemies have also been running into difficulties of late. In this regard I want to read out what was said recently, during a Press interview, by Mr. Abdul Munti—I think he is a South African who left the country— in his capacity as honorary secretary of the Anti-Apartheid Movement in London. I read from Die Transvaler of 26 March (translation)—

I can mention another example. The attempts in the past year to celebrate the anniversary of Sharpeville either fell flat in most of the capital cities of the free world, or were quite tame. Many of the expatriates who are agitating against South Africa from countries abroad are beginning to realize that their influence in South Africa as well as in the outside world is on the wane. This is happening as we are making progress on our home front and as the position of the non-White population groups in South Africa is changing in a peaceful manner. They are beginning to realize, to their disappointment, that the true leaders of the non-Whites in South Africa are not in countries abroad, but here in South Africa. In their desperation they are often overplaying their hand—for instance, when they went out of their way to prevent Mrs. Lucy Mvubelo from making a speech in Geneva during the course of the International Labour Conference, or when they prevented the English-language South African universities, who are definitely no friends of the Government, from attending a conference in Scotland.

†The accusation is being levelled at us, inter alia, by the hon. member for Yeoville, that the Government has no sense of urgency about the solution of our problems, that it shows no sense of urgency about South Africa’s position in the world. This charge is completely unfounded; it is ridiculous. We, the Government, do regard most of our problems as urgent and their solution is, of course, becoming more urgent as a result of recent events in Africa and as a result of the general uncertainty in the world at large. However, there is no reason to panic. There is no reason why we should abandon our policies overnight, why we should switch to the very doubtful policies of the United Party and the Progressive Party. We cannot and we shall not do it; it would, in fact, be disastrous. On the contrary, we have confidence in our policies and firmly believe that our policies alone will stand the test of these critical times.

*But for a few exceptions, most speakers in this debate have up to now dealt with Africa. Most of them tried to be constructive. They came forward with suggestions and stimulating ideas, which I appreciate. I find these very useful. I am convinced that this is a reflection not only of the feelings of all of us in this House, but also of the desire of our people outside to be on friendly terms with Africa. I say that this is of great value to me as Minister of Foreign Affairs, to my department and to our representatives in countries abroad, for our debates in this Parliament, our Hansard, are read very carefully. When our critics read and realize that this desire to co-operate with Africa comes spontaneously from everybody and that it is not a shrewd political move on the part of the Government, those countries and their Governments must be impressed in the long run, and, surely, then it must be to the benefit of our country. The impression is being created that our outward policy has failed—I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said so yesterday—and it is being suggested that the conduct of dialogue has come to a standstill. I want to admit at once that the conduct of dialogue has been and is still meeting with a great deal of opposition. There is an influential group in the O.A.U. whom one can describe as the “professional militants” and who are constantly exerting pressure on any Government that gives only the slightest indication of wanting to have dialogue with South Africa or of wanting to make contact with us or of wanting to co-operate. I shall give hon. members a recent example. Not so long ago an African head of state made a statement in public in which he came out in favour of dialogue with South Africa. Incidentally, I am following this up at the moment. A few days later the country of this head of state issued a statement in which dialogue was rejected officially. Something of that nature can only be attributed to pressure from the pressure group in the O.A.U. This creates the impression that no progress has been made with dialogue, but in actual fact this is by no means the case in practice, for dialogue is continuing. Dialogue is continuing in an unobtrusive manner, without much publicity, for in contrast with the hon. member for Yeoville we do not like publicity because we do not think it is good for our foreign relations. Publicity in the case of our foreign relations calls forth a counter-reaction and that gives rise to pressure. For that reason we are quietly proceeding with making contacts and with consolidating and developing those that have already been made and with implementing them, where possible, in the form of co-operation. In other words, we are in fact conducting dialogue and we are moving outward, even though we are not blazing it abroad. Earlier this year, and also in the past, I furnished statistics here in Parliament concerning our activities in Africa. I do not wish to burden hon. members too heavily with figures, but I just want to mention a few figures in respect of the period of 12 months which ended on 31 July 1974. During this period of 12 months 24 heads of Governments or Ministers of African states were met by members of the South African Government. Contact was made on official level with 12 countries. I am no longer sure how many the hon. member for Sea Point visited. I want to mention here, in passing, that I am not opposed to that hon. member or any other member in the Opposition parties paying visits to countries abroad, provided that such visits have the right motivation, provided that they have the right object in view, provided that the object of the visits is to help and not to derive cheap party-political gain from them. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Sea Point did not say a long time ago what he said yesterday on the Vote of my friend and colleague the hon. the Minister of Defence when he emphasized that he and his colleagues “created goodwill for South Africa”. We appreciate that. Why did he not say so at the beginning? I think that he would have been much better able to create goodwill for South Africa if he had spoken to me or to the hon. the Prime Minister before he left. I am looking forward to a discussion which he and I are going to have after the completion of this Vote. I think it is necessary for us to put our heads together, to stand together and to think of South Africa’s interests, because hon. members opposite have access to countries and organizations which we do not always have access to. However, they could derive much more benefit from such discussions if they also knew our side of the picture.

Let me go further. In the said twelve months 144 visitors from Africa came to the Republic for official talks. Ten visits were paid by members of our Government to other African countries, and 145 South African officials visited other African countries. And so I could continue.

Let us get away from these vague issues for a few moments and pause briefly at a number of our neighbouring states. I mention Malawi in the first place. It is only with the greatest appreciation that I can refer to our good relations with Malawi. Fruitful contact and co-operation in many spheres are being continued to the benefit of both countries and peoples. As far as Lesotho is concerned, fruitful and openhearted talks took place earlier this year between the Prime Ministers of these two states, talks which led to a series of talks in connection with the Malibamatso water scheme, labour matters, etc. Possible co-operation with Zwaziland concerning the generation of power is under consideration, as well as other related matters, especially in the economic sphere. I may add, in passing, that a monetary agreement was concluded with Swaziland recently. Our relations with Botswana are normal, too. We are not quarrelling with them. Recently, again, Sir Seretse Khama explained in a Press interview that Botswana’s policy towards South Africa had not changed, nor was it their intention to change it. We do not intend doing so either. The president of Botswana emphasized on that occasion that it would be extremely unrealistic to try to sever ties with South Africa. He said that his country aimed at extending friendly and economic ties with other countries. We are doing that, too. However, what are the hon. members of the Progressive Party doing? They are looking at it through dark glasses. They interpret this as an identification on the part of Botswana with other states at the expense of South Africa. Why must they always see things through dark glasses?

That is so.

Has the hon. member read the interview which Sir Seretse Khama had with The Argus? Botswana’s attitude amounts to one of strict neutrality. Nobody can find any fault with that. One welcomes Sir Seretse Khama’s reference in the report of the Press interview to the appreciation here in South Africa in respect of Botwana’s position in Southern Africa and in the world as an independent state with an independent policy. Just as is the case with our other neighbours, Botswana does not like our internal policy as they see and interpret that policy at the moment. However, that is no reason at all why the existing co-operation between us and the neighbouring states cannot continue and develop as it is doing at the moment.

As far as diplomatic relations with our three neighbouring states are concerned, the position is unfortunately not as desired. As hon. members know, we were ready a few years ago already and had arranged with Lesotho to exchange consular representatives. The fact that this has not happened yet, is not our fault. Botswana’s attitude is that they cannot enter into diplomatic relations with South Africa as long as “South Africa practises her racial policies”. Now I want to say, with all due respect, that I consider this attitude to be wrong and inconsistent. This would be just as wrong as it would be to make the deduction that Botswana or other non-communist states are supporting the policy of the Iron Curtain countries with which they have diplomatic relations, and surely this is not the case.

But, to come back to contact and dialogue with African states, I can furnish some more examples. I, too, interrupted my holiday in July. I, too, had talks with the head of state, the president of an African state, not one that borders on the Republic. It is not only the Progressives who did so. Some time ago I conducted discussions with the emissaries of a faraway state in Africa. That was our first contact, our first meeting. For a week they were our guests here. They were taken everywhere and could speak to whoever they wished. Do you know what their impression was after six days? After six days those two gentlemen, the advisers to a president of Africa, spontaneously offered to be unofficial ambassadors for South Africa wherever they went—that is how impressed they were with what they had seen and witnessed here. There are strong indications that they are keeping their word. I can also mention in passing that a technical economic mission to this particular country is being arranged at the moment so as to determine—this is the fixed pattern we follow—whether there are any matters or spheres in regard to which we can cooperate with them, as is the case with several countries.

But apart from contact on ministerial and official level, dialogue is also being continued by members of our foreign missions all the time. Our ambassadors and other representatives abroad are continually in touch and exchanging ideas with colleagues from the rest of Africa. These contacts are also yielding good results.

I really wish I were able to take hon. members into my confidence and to disclose more facts here in Parliament. Unfortunately that is impossible. By preserving confidentiality in respect of contacts entered into on a confidential basis, one creates confidence in the minds of those involved in the matter. One would not like to shake their confidence and frustrate and thwart the progress that has been made. I must add immediately that there is nothing sinister, nothing undignified as regards confidential or secret diplomacy. Nor is South Africa the only country that is doing it. For instance, every day we read in the newspapers about Dr. Kissinger’s wanderings. His talks, however, are conducted in secret right up to the end, when a statement is usually made. There are many reasons why he does it and why we do it. One of them is not to allow Press speculation to complicate or wreck delicate negotiations. Personally I am very sorry that so much secrecy is necessary. I dare not even take my colleagues on this of the House into my confidence in our caucus all the time. I can assure you that nobody is looking forward more than I myself am doing to the day when we shall be able to put all our cards on the table.

Trade does of course play an important role in relations between States, therefore also in the case of South Africa’s relations with other countries on this continent. At the moment there is an upward trend in our trade with Africa. However, it is not our policy to furnish detailed figures in regard to our trade with Africa. I can in fact tell the Committee that our imports from Africa last year, i.e. 1973, were 25% higher than in 1972. Our exports to Africa, over the same period, rose by 16,8%. Although progress has been and is still being made, I want to repeat that there is a great deal of room for improvement in our relations with Africa. The position is by no means satisfactory. However, all the blame for the fact that the position is not satisfactory and that enough progress is not being made does not attach to us only, as the hon. member said a moment ago. On the part of the African states, too, there should be more willingness to co-operate, as is already the case with some of them. Now, I fortunately have reason to believe that the realization is taking root in the minds of responsible leaders in Africa that economic problems should have priority; and Africa does indeed have serious economic problems, problems in connection with increased production, improved education, health conditions, etc. Africa is also experiencing serious problems as a result of the increased price of oil, and all the other problems which result from that. What is more, at the present stage the Western powers are curtailing their economic aid to Africa owing to their own problems. African states are receiving lower prices for their products, whilst tourism, which is an important source of revenue, is on the decrease. In addition there is the group of countries in West and Central Africa which have for many years been stricken by serious droughts, with disastrous results. I am pleased that I can inform hon. members today that South Africa will make a contribution in respect of distress relief in the drought-stricken countries of Central and West Africa, the so-called “Sudano-Sahelia area”.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

Just let me finish first; I may have the reply for the hon. member. The spending of our contributions will be handled by UNICEF. This is the organization of the United Nations which concerns itself with distress relief to children and their mothers. It is true that since 1965 already we have been contributing an amount of R35 700—this is reflected in the Estimates—to UNICEF every year, i.e. for 10 years already. But over and above that regular annual contribution, the Government has agreed to contributing a further amount of $200 000, so that the total contribution this year will amount to a quarter-million dollars. This will go exclusively to those African territories that are drought-stricken. The money will, as far as possible, be spent on the purchase in South Africa of food and other supplies which may be required for relieving the distress of these children.

Is this in answer to the request Dr. Waldheim made to 44 countries?

Such a request was made to us, and this was South Africa’s reaction. It was agreed to by the Government quite some time ago.

To come back to my theme, I want to repeat that there is a growing realization in Africa that, in order to overcome its economic problems, it is necessary for Africa to review its attitude towards South Africa. It is being realized that an end should be put to the fruitless confrontation of the past number of years. It would be welcomed if that confrontation could cease and South Africa could be enabled to cooperate and make a contribution towards the economic development of Africa, for it is being appreciated that South Africa is probably in a better position than most other states to help with the development of Africa. It is definitely not in the interests of Africa that our co-operation should not be welcome everywhere in Africa. By this time it ought to be clear to everybody that South Africa is seeking friendship with Africa, is seeking co-operation with Africa on a basis of equality and of equal status. Everyone, every African statesman who makes a contribution towards terminating the confrontation between Africa and South Africa, will be conferring a benefit not only upon our sub-continent, but also upon the whole of the continent. The cessation of that feud will inter alia free our hands here in South Africa so that we may give our individed attention to the implementation of our policy of self-determination of peoples, which we accept is also the ideal of the leaders of Africa. A cessation of that feud will enable us to make more rapid progress, and it will enable us to get away from those things which ourcritics do not like and which we do not like either. It will enable us to allow the change which is inherent in our policy, and about which so much is being said, to take place in an orderly and planned manner. I can say that it is gratifying that there is more and more evidence of willingness to make contact and to co-operate on the part of many African leaders. Furthermore, there are more and more attempts on their part to make contact with us. There are signs of a more constructive approach and a more positive and sober attitude towards South Africa. It is particularly gratifying that this also holds good for African countries which were most hostile to South Africa in the past. One can only hope that these indications reflect the true state of affairs.

Mr. Chairman, I want to extend my heartiest congratulations to the hon. member for Wonderboom on his appointment, and I also want to tell him that he is going to UNO with the high esteem, the respect and the best wishes of this side of the House. He should take no notice of the unpleasant sounds we heard from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout yesterday. Perhaps it was nothing more than the grumbling of less superior person seeking to disparage a more superior person. Then I should also like to wish the hon. the Minister everything of the best with his trip to UNO, which commences on the 17th. Then I also want to congratulate him and the Government most heartily on the composition of the team going to UNO. I ame referring, in particular, to the inclusion of Chief Minister Kaiser Matanzima as a member of that team. In this regard I want to say that this is a timely step and that it is very important that he should go along, especially when viewed against the background of the Press statement which was issued on 14 March by the Chairman of UNO’s Special Committee on Apartheid. The chairman, Mr. Ogbu of Nigeria, reacted to a resolution of the Transkei National Independence Party requesting independence, and said that the Special Committee of UNO would only concern itself with and be interested in organizations in South Africa which were recognized by the Organization for African Unity. It is very clear to me that neither the U.P. nor the Progressive Party will be recognized by that organization. But, Sir, he went on to refer to resolution No. 3 151 (G) of UNO, which reads as follows—

Further on he said inter alia—

He went on to say—

Sir, one is really amazed at the fact that such misconceptions as to the situation and the whole set-up in South Africa do exist in the world. There is absolutely no conception either of the fact that this Government has not in fact created anything itself, but that it merely recognizes the creation of the Great Creator, and it recognizes it in this sense that it gives to the peoples who have been placed by history under its guardianship the right to govern themselves and to exercise their, undeniable right to an identity of their own. Sir, I want to pose this question: Do Mr. Ogbu and his committee want to deny this people that has already been living in its own area for hundreds of years, the right to be able, just like any other people in the world, to seek its total freedom through absolute sovereignty? Sir, charges and reproaches are levelled here that the population of the Transkei are working outside the borders of the territory. If this is a qualification for honourable independence, then I do not understand the logic of that committee at all, for it is a common phenomenon in Europe today that thousands of people go and work beyond the borders of their own country; this is a state of affairs which has been in existence in Africa for many years, i.e. that citizens of independent countries, which have been members of UNO for a long time, go and work in other countries outside their territory. Sir, I think that Mr. Ogbu and his committee really owe an apology to the U.N. member countries whose people go and work in other countries. I think that committee should realize clearly that the Transkei’s process of becoming independent is not a manoeuvre on the part of what he calls the White racist régime, but that it is an endeavour which represents the highest and noblest aspirations of a people here in South Africa to be recognized as equal to other people in the world. Sir, what do we have here? Here we have a country which is being governed by a stable Government and a Chief Minister who is at the head of a Legislative Assembly consisting of 110 members, part of whom have been elected in the most democratic way imaginable, and that is, to be specific, by means of one man, one vote. I would say that Chief Minister Kaiser Matanzima is one of the rising Black statesmen of Southern Africa and South Africa. He is a man who is a veteran in the sphere of politics; he has three general elections behind him, and he has been at the head of his country for as long a period as 11 years. This country of his today comprises an area of 37 695 sq. km. This country has a population of just over 3 million people. The gross national product of the Transkei is expressed in terms of American dollars, 580 million dollars, while the per capita income of that country is 194 dollars per person. The school-going children, expressed as a percentage of the population, is 23% —a very fine achievement. When a people with these high standards and achievements wants to take its place among the peoples of the world, I want to ask whether Mr. Ogbu and his committee still hold to the view that this is, as he puts it, fraudulent independence, or will this committee be realistic and act soberly and realize that an honourable people is standing at their door, with a high, strong and unavoidable claim to be recognized? This claim, I say, is founded on the fact that, without humiliating or offending any other member of U.N., out of the 132 members of U.N., the Transkeian population is larger than that of 45 members of U.N., i.e. 34%. The per capita income of the Transkei exceed that of 43 countries of U.N., i.e. 33%. The Transkei’s gross national product exceeds that of 37 members, i.e. 29%. And the geographical surface area of the Transkei exceeds that of 21 members of U.N., i.e. 16%. Now, if we combine gross national product with per capita income, the Transkei surpasses 24 of U.N.’s members, or 18%. As regards the combination of the three factors-gross national product, per capita income and population—the Transkei surpasses 14 members of U.N., i.e. 11%. And if one combines all four factors, which is a very difficult combination, i.e. surface area, per capital income, gross national income and population, then the Transkei surpasses that of 6 members, or 5%. Sir, I am asking, when the Transkei stands knocking at the door of U.N., will that organization admit them? Or will double standards be applied? [Time expired.]

During a visit to the Netherlands, a venerable Hollander asked me: What are you after out there in far-off Africa among the Black people; why do you not come back to the White people here in Europe? Sir, I answered his well-intended question as follows. I told him that we shall remain in South Africa because we belong in Africa; we are happy in Africa and we have a task in Africa. But I went on to tell him this, that it was not merely by accident that it was also a Hollander, Jan van Riebeeck, who started the White Christian civilization on the southern tip of Africa. We believe that we were placed in a virtually uninhabited part of the continent of Africa in the middle of the seventeenth century by Him who controls the destiny of nations, with a purpose, an instruction and a task—the instruction to develop and to civilize and to Christianize. I pointed out to him that these Hollanders, and later the Huguenots and the British Settlers, too, brought culture, religion, education, knowledge and initiative: to Africa and that in the course of time a White nation came into being here, just as was the case in America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and still other countries; that these White settlers in Africa developed an extremely modern country which, on the basis of its achievements in the scientific, the technological, the economic and many other fields, has risen to the status of a leading country. What is our position? We are in Africa; we are part of Africa and we are here to perform a task. I want to make the statement that not only do we have the will to perform that task, but that we are also better equipped than any other nation to perform that task. We are better equipped to play a role in Africa, because we are here, because we are part of the continent, because this is where our hearts are and where we live, because we are inherently part of the heartbeat of Africa. Another reason why we are better equipped to play a role here is that we have become a force here, with an arsenal of knowledge and skill which no other country in Africa can equal. We are better equipped because we have brought into being here an infrastructure and an economy which compare with the strongest in the world.

Faithful to our instruction and in accordance with the policy of the Nationalist Government, we shall not decline our part in Africa. Before us lies a great adventure from which we do not flinch. We are prepared to move outwards energetically where there are doors open to us; we are even prepared to push open doors which have hitherto been closed. We are prepared to make our contribution to the prosperity of the whole of Southern Africa because the prosperity of our neighbours can also be of benefit to us. Their security is also our security.

South Africa has become the most stable factor in Africa, and its striving is for stability for the whole of Southern Africa for the benefit of all. Is it not in the interests of the whole world that the sea route round the Cape be kept open and safe for everyone? What fine testimonial with regard to stability were we not given by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. After an exhaustive investigation, this institute came to the following conclusion—I quote from Die Volksblad of 14 December 1973 (translation)—

What a fine testimonial! In spite of the dragon’s teeth sown by our enemies, we are still making progress, as we were informed this afternoon by the hon. the Minister. Fruitful co-operation is already taking place in many spheres, varying from soil conservation, agriculture and veterinarian services to personnel research, tourism, the generation of power, water conservation, medical services and many more.

Do not exaggerate too much.

There are so many fields that I am unable to mention them all. Running like a golden thread through the statements of the leaders of the National Party over the past decades, is one main desire, namely the desire for co-operation with the countries of Africa. As far back as 1948, Dr. D. F. Malan saw the matter in this light (translation)—

As far back as 1957, Adv. Strijdom was already pleading for the closest co-operation (translation)—

Dr. Verwoerd stated our task in Africa so well when he said that a nation that is strong, that is large and that is developed, can be a friend to others that have not progressed so far. Dr. Verwoerd went on to say that South Africa can provide, not leadership, but service, as well as co-operation and aid, and the aid we are able to provide consists of knowledge. Who has done more to create good neighbourliness and to forge links of friendship and cooperation with our neighbours than the hon. the Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster? In the period of almost eight years that he has been Prime Minister, he has done more than anyone else to open doors for South Africa. His statesmanship has resulted in an ever-growing number of African peoples beginning to look up to him and to South Africa. That too opens doors for South Africa. Future generations are going to be thankful to him for that and Africa will honour him for it one day. Our extending the hand of friendship is not just a game; we do perform resounding deeds in practice. For generations we have been providing employment for hundreds of thousands of workers, from our neighbouring states. Among certain tribes it has already become a status symbol to be able to come and work in the gold mines of South Africa and to be able to say that they have worked there. In the years ahead our vigorous economy is going to be our strongest weapon in making breakthroughs in our outward policy. Economic development in Southern Africa can not be stimulated by any better means than by South Africa with its highly developed economy and industries. International trade is to an ever-increasing extent becoming the foundation-stone of co-operation between countries because it is in the field of trade in particular that countries are unable to get along without each other. South Africa is in a position to make breakthroughs in this field. South Africa will not close its granaries when there are neighbours who are hungry, as hon. members once again heard here this afternoon. Not only is South Africa prepared to provide those who need it, with bread to eat, it is also prepared to do more than that. It is prepared to assist them and to teach them to grow wheat scientifically so that they will have their own bread to eat. There can be no doubt that South Africa’s intentions as far as its neighbouring states and other countries in Africa are concerned, are very good. There is no thought on our part of aggression towards our neighbours or towards anyone at all. We are not a threat to peace or to anyone and we are even prepared to conclude non-aggression treaties.

Our roots in this country being so deep, we are very well aware, more than anyone else, of the problems of the continent, but we realize too that hard work and great realism lies ahead. We know too that we shall be able to overcome the obstacles in our path in a spirit of mutual co-operation and respect for each other. Even though the winds of change my sometimes hit us hard, even though these winds may sometimes reach gale force as is the case now with the taking over of government in Mozambique, we shall continue to make our contribution and to perform our task in this once dark continent to which we were sent bearing the torch of civilization.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the hon. member who has just sat down in this sense that he was presenting to us a dream. However, what he was not presenting to us was the reality of South Africa and Africa. I do not want to argue with the hon. gentleman’s good intentions, but I want to say that it is not in the field of technical advice, know-how, economic assistance or military aid that the problem lies or the answer is to be found. The answer to our relationships in Africa is going to be found when we who are in South Africa can treat the indigenous people of this continent, that is our own Black citizens, with the same dignity as we treat White citizens who come here from Europe. Until we can treat Black people in our country and in Africa with the same dignity which we demand for ourselves as Whites or which we accord to Germans, to Englishmen or to Frenchmen who come here, we are not going to be able to get across to the people of Africa.

We have had two most interesting addresses by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I want to say that after having listened to the debates of this session, I personally believe that they represented one of the more balanced approaches to the problems of South Africa that we have heard during the last five weeks. They were sombre speeches and I believe that our position is a sombre one if one takes it in its totality. At times there was a conflict in the hon. the Minister’s arguments. On the one hand he conceded that isolation was a very real threat to South Africa but on the other hand he tended to wish away the extent to which isolation was a factor in our international relationships. Nevertheless I got the feeling that the hon. the Minister means well and is trying hard. He is like a fighter in the ring who is aided by competent assistants and technical officials but who is fighting his opponent with his hands tied behind his back. His hands are tied by the policy of the National Party Government. If he would only get rid of that policy and the ties that restrict his hands, he would be able to be more effective in fighting for the cause of South Africa in the international field.

There were certain encouraging features in the hon. the Minister’s speeches, especially in his first speech yesterday. We in the Progressive Party approve of the inclusion of three Black South Africans as observers in the South African delegation to the United Nations Organization. We say it is a pity that that has come 26 years late. Nevertheless, even at this stage it is a step in the right direction. The hon. the Minister painted a very sombre picture of South Africa’s position within the United Nations. I think that the picture that he painted is substantially correct, but I hope that the hon. the Minister was not preparing the ground for South Africans to accept that he is about to withdraw from the United Nations. I hope that the hon. the Minister has no such intention. We in this party believe that South Africa should stay in that international organization, no matter what problems are presented to it in its tenure of office within that organization. We want to urge this Minister to fight every inch of the way in asserting, not the privilege of South Africa, but its right to be a member of an international organization which was founded way back in 1945 and in the formation of which the South African Government of the day was an important factor. We believe that we should fight for that right and that we should have no back door open in order to retreat from the United Nations under pressure, from wherever it may come from.

One of the issues which the hon. the Minister and his colleagues will have to deal with is that of South-West Africa, as he himself mentioned. This is on the assumption that he first clears the credentials hurdle which is going to be put before him. I raised this issue briefly earlier this session. I believe that to date the Government has constantly given the impression with regard to South-West Africa that it is making concessions under pressure. This puts it in a very weak position. When you always appear to be making concessions under pressure, the pressure grows and grows. We ask that the hon. the Minister take the initiative. This Government has conceded the principle of self-determination to South-West Africa. There is a difference of opinion between itself and the United Nations as to whether this should be on a territory-wide basis or on the basis of communities, groups or nations. I believe that the hon. the Minister should take the initiative by announcing a timetable for the self-determination of South-West Africa. He should not leave it as a vague question to be decided in the future. He should announce a timetable. I think the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday was a dramatic one. He has actually announced that we are now proceeding on a timetable towards independence for the Transkei. One might agree or disagree with that policy, but I believe that this hon. Minister should take a similar dramatic initiative and should set out a timetable and state the machinery South Africa intends using in order to give effect to its own policy.

The hon. the Minister dealt at length with the Mozambique situation. As I have said earlier in this House, I believe that certainly since 25 April of this year, the behaviour and attitude of the South African Government towards the situation in Mozambique and Angola has been very correct. I agree with the hon. the Minister that events immediately to the north of us do constitute for us an exciting challenge within South Africa, namely the challenge of trying to create good relationships with newly independent indigenous Black states in Africa whose independence has been born out of the turmoil of terrorism or guerilla warfare and all that goes with it. This represents a challenge to the South African community as a whole. It is also going to cause us to review our policies because the tide of self-determination and of full citizenship is starting to flow down towards us from the north again. It is going to cause us to have to review our policies and to accelerate the process within South Africa of according dignity and full citizenship to our own Black South Africans. This is the implication and the challenge of the events in Mozambique.

When I was listening to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I found it very difficult to believe that I was listening to a member of the same party, let alone the same Cabinet, as the Minister of Defence who had spoken only about half an hour before him. It was extremely difficult to believe that these were two people from the same party discussing in the national parliament of South Africa the serious problems of communication with Africa. The hon. the Minister correctly referred to Mozambique in the terms of: “We welcome the ‘ontvoogding’, the emancipation, getting rid of the guardianship of Mozambique”. But when I suggested earlier that the problem was intrinsically one of colonialism, I was abused by the hon. the Minister. I was accused of making excuses for the communists. Yet the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that this was the process which was taking place. One cannot have it both ways. One therefore finds a very considerable difference between the approach of the two Ministers. I realize that the hon. the Minister has a very difficult task for a number of reasons, some of them internal and some of them external. I want to say, however, that his task in defending our position at the United Nations and elsewhere is being made ever so much more difficult by the intemperate and reckless outbursts of the Minister of Defence. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Defence must realize … [Interjections.] No, I think it is important and I shall explain to the hon. the Minister in a moment. The hon. the Minister of Defence does not seem to realize the importance of his position in international affairs. He should realize that when the Minister of Defence speaks he is not speaking at a “stryddag”; he is speaking in an international forum. He is speaking to a wider community. He should realize this. My colleague from Rondebosch and I have been under continuous attack, over some five or six weeks, for having had discussions with heads of State in five African countries.

[Inaudible.]

No, I shall come to that. In this House we have been accused— I have not got the time to quote it—of sitting around the table with terrorists, of conniving with people who are the friends of people who would rape our women and murder our people. This has been the accusation levelled at us. The reason for this attack on us was given by the hon. the Minister of Defence in this House the other day. He said that he had exposed us because we did not come back and have discussions with either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I come to the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point, may I associate myself with the words of the hon. member for Pietersburg in connection with the appointment of our good friend, the hon. member for Wonderboom, as the ambassador at the United Nations. I think everyone on this side of the House, and probably all the responsible members of both Opposition parties, will agree that this is a particularly fortunate choice for South Africa. We want to assure him that our prayers go with him in this tremendous responsibility he will be shouldering for South Africa. I had two brief opportunities of seeing what is expected of our diplomats at the United Nations. I saw the humiliations they had to endure. I was also inspired to know how they unexpectedly received support and friendship from unexpected quarters. I know that in Mr. Botha South Africa will have a man who will carry on that work in the fine tradition which has already been established by our previous representatives at the international body.

But then it is my duty to say how very strongly we condemn the action of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who, in his half-hour speech, could not refrain from dropping a snide remark about the appointment of Mr. Botha. Sir there are certain traditions in politics in South Africa which we should never allow to wane. One of these is that, when a man who has been deeply involved in politics is appointed to the Bench—I have in mind, for example, the case of long ago of Mr. Blackwell, the then member for Kensington, and there are other cases as well—we politicians who remain behind accord him his new status as a judge at once. We respect him, and the reproaches of the past are forgotten. The same applies—there have been many examples of this—to the appointment of members of this House to the diplomatic corps.

I think you should be made the ambassador to Paraquay.

This remark is typical of the hon. member for Houghton. I expected it. The moment one tries to discuss South Africa’s interests in a responsible way, one gets this kind of irresponsible reaction from her. At such times she feels irritable, for it hurts her when one speaks in South Africa’s interests. I recall the appointment long ago of men such as Mr. Waterson, Mr. Bain Marais, Mr. Leif Egeland to the diplomatic corps, in the days of the United Party Government. At that time there were no snide remarks or disparaging remarks about their appointment from the side of the National Party Opposition. In the past the same held true for the United Party when Nationalist politicians were appointed. Where could one find a more controversial man than Dr. Carel de Wet? But the moment he was appointed as a diplomat, which happened twice, the Opposition stopped seeing him as a politician, and saw him as a representative of South Africa, wished him everything of the best and every success for the sake of South Africa. We now get this unfortunate utterance from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. On the basis of my knowledge of that party, I can state as a fact that he did not have the approval of the Leader of the Opposition to make that remark, for it is in conflict with the attitude I am accustomed to having from a responsible Opposition party towards such appointments and towards people who have to shoulder such responsibilities for South Africa. No. Sir. I think all of us who have seen what is being done abroad for South Africa by our diplomats, ex-politicians as well as career diplomats, can speak with nothing but admiration of the way they perform their task under the most difficult circumstances.

The hon. member for Sea Point pleasantly surprised all of us in the first part of his speech today. I want to be the first to say that we greatly appreciate the attitude he adopted in that part of his speech although he clearly differs with the Government. It is quite clear—this was also apparent from the nature of the second half of his speech—that the drubbing they got from the Minister of Defence in the previous debate has had a good effect on them and that they have decided to start trying as from now to do better for South Africa.

I should like to discuss these matters with the hon. member a little further. I want to do this in pursuance of the very striking words we heard from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs today in which he welcomed the fact that members of other parties were also going abroad, and offered his help and the services of his department in order to assist them and facilitate their task abroad. We can try and defend South Africa’s cause profitably at every possible level. This may be done by every citizen of South Africa that loves this country. We must realize, however, that we are not official diplomats. The official diplomat represents South Africa at a high level, a Government to Government level, the official diplomat constantly has to count his words and weigh up every word he hears in order to be able to grasp and interpret its meaning. He may not indulge in flights of the imagination or, as Die Burger puts it, “foefies”—“stunts”. Every hour of his life he is responsible for what he does and says, every day he is seen as the representative of South Africa. The people doing this work deserve our respect and thanks. We must, however, be careful. I sincerely hope that when the hon. member for Sea Point accepts the hon. the Prime Minister’s invitation to come and talk with him, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will bring this matter to his attention—that we ordinary members of the House must guard against black market diplomacy. We must be careful that we do not use opportunities we have of going abroad and talking with other heads of state and representatives of other states, solely with the object of coming back here to make short-term political capital out of those visits on the political market in South Africa. That is what one should watch out for. I hope the hon. member for Sea Point will guard against that. I believe his motives are sound; I do not doubt that for a moment. However, he has a particularly difficult task. He has a more difficult task than the Government to put South Africa’s case. Let me illustrate this with a practical example. If this hon. member were to meet the head of an African state and the latter were to ask him, in regard to a statement made by one of his caucus members, the hon. member for Pinelands, i.e. that to be born with a black skin in South Africa is to go through life with the kiss of death, what would his answer be? What would he do in that case? Would he, as the leader, be loyalty-bound to agree with the hon. member for Pinelands, or would he be courageous enough as a loyal South African to repudiate the hon. member for Pinelands and say those things he ought to say to him, if he has not done so already?

Did he say that?

That is what I learnt he had said. He has never denied it. He has had the opportunity to deny it, but he has not done so.

The other matter to which I want to draw attention, is the danger that, when people go and act the part of a diplomat without consulting the authorities that are responsible for the international welfare of one’s country, one may, on the one hand, mislead the heads of the countries one visits by, quite humanly, exaggerating the importance of one’s own standpoint in one’s own country and creating wrong impressions about public opinion in one’s own country. However, one may also be mislead and abuse oneself. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the previous speech of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and was very grateful to hear about the measure of progress which has, in fact, been made. However, I think the hon. the Minister and other members of this House share my strong impression of the degree of success which has been achieved during the past few decades in isolating South Africa in an increasing number of spheres. It seems to us as though these attempts at effecting our isolation form part of a long-term plan aimed at ultimately leaving our country without any open friends or supporters. It seems to me that in this regard there are a number of factors to which we should devote our attention anew. In this connection I want to mention the undeniably sinister objectives of the communist powers of the world. Today the communists already dominate more than one-third of all mankind, and like a threatening colossus they are ready to prey on the shortcomings of the rest of the world, with false promises of freedom and equality and the equal distribution of the riches of society. I say false promises, Mr. Chairman, for nowhere in the whole world does one see such a lack of freedom, see so clearly the dictatorship of the ideology, as in these very communist countries, characterized by the complete subjugation of man to the system, the total lack of freedom of thought, the helplessness of the individual as against the power of the State, and the unfair favouring of those who are fortunate enough to form part of the power mechanism.

Are you reading your speech?

There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the aim of Communism is to create anarchy and revolution in the free world as well, which is still outside its sphere of control, by exploiting grievances or supposed grievances for its own purposes. I am convinced that nothing we can do in South Africa will be able to bring about any change in that communist urge for expansion, and in my opinion it would be futile to think that we, whatever we may do, would ever satisfy the communists.

What does Horace van Rensburg say?

At the same time. Sir, this conclusion inexorably leads us to two deductions, i.e. that we should do everything within our power to strengthen and extend our relations with the non-communist countries of the world and, bound up with this, that a tremendous onus rests on us to create a political and social system in our country which will give every member of our population such an interest in the maintenance and protection thereof, and such a faith in the basic justice of the system, that it will be immune to the empty propaganda promises from communist quarters.

As regards our relations with the non-communist Western countries, Sir, our problem is undeniably being made more difficult by the fact that an increasing number of people in the West have started turning to Socialism in an attempt to ensure a greater measure of economic and social equality. In the eyes of many of these disciples of Socialism South Africa is seen as a society based on the unequal distribution of wealth in which, in relative terms, the rich White person becomes progressively richer and the poor Black person becomes progressively poorer; in which the Black workers’ mass is being exploited to the benefit of the White capitalist class. They see our society, in a typically Marxist sense, as a class community in which the Black mass forms the lowest class, deprived of rights and privileges. They refer to practices such as job reservation, unequal salaries or wages for equal work, restrictions on the full utilization of labour, differential teaching and training facilities, the fact that these Black working classes are not properly organized into a viable form of trade unionism, and that it is not always possible for someone to sell his labour freely on the labour market. Furthermore, Sir, it is very clear that since the Second World War the world scene has been characterized by the development and evolution of the so-called third world, which is bound up with the end of colonialism of which we are at present, in the last agonies of Portuguese colonial power in Africa with its as yet uncertain implications for the whole of Southern Africa, witnessing the end of the process here as well. A totally new situation has entered into world politics with the gaining of independence of this large number of non-White states in the world. Mr. Chairman, closely bound up with this is their preponderance and influence in the debating chambers of the world, but added to that there is the evolution, during the past 30 years, of a philosophy which is opposed to any possible form of race domination. In the past number of decades the whole of the civilized world has been moving in the direction of the increasing accentuation of the principles of human dignity, greater economic equality and the rejection of colour or race as a determinant in determining the rights and privileges of individuals and groups. Among enlightened persons abroad I found a large measure of appreciation for the dilemma of our political situation and the problems facing the Whites as a minority group in ensuring its rights of political self-determination, its identity and its livelihood, but nowhere did I find any appreciation for our policy of colour discrimination. While it is possible, within the range of our diversity of peoples, for a part of our Bantu population to obtain political justice, it is nevertheless clear that our policy is undeniably based purely on colour discrimination in a large number of cases. Indeed, it seems to me that if we are honest and sincere in offering multinationality as a basis for the regulation of human relations in South Africa, it is imperative that we abandon the enforced separation of people and discrimination on the grounds of race and colour. I want to go even further and say that I do not believe a policy of multi-nationality can ever succeed as long as we uphold a policy of colour and race discrimination. In this regard I want to point out gratefully that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs as well as other members of this House said that it was the policy of the Government to renounce discrimination. I nevertheless want to say now that to me we do seem to have a dichotomy in our thinking in this regard. We cannot say on the one hand that we cannot make that view acceptable, while on the other hand it is said that we simply have to continue upholding what is described as the traditional way of life in South Africa, as we experienced again the other day when the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications was asked to remove those notices in the Post Office and he said he could not for it was part of our traditional way of life. Sir, I want to say it remains a tragedy—and I am choosing my words carefully—that in this era of the twentieth century in which we are living we should still wish to maintain and justify separate entrances, separate lifts and separate taxis. Sir, this is a tragedy we can no longer have in the times in which we are living and with the challenges confronting us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to have the opportunity to say goodbye to this House. Firstly, by your leave, I should like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation towards the secretariat of the House of Assembly and all the officials of this honoured institution for all the help, friendliness and co-operation which I at all times enjoyed as the Member of Parliament for Wonderboom, as well as to the Post Office staff, the catering manager and the reservation officers and last, but certainly not least, to Uncle Munnik and Uncle Jimmie van Wyk, the service officers, who not only made a good cup of tea and coffee, but also assisted me so faithfully, besides fulfilling their numerous small tasks. I also want to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to our highly esteemed Prime Minister and his Government for the confidence they are placing in me. I appreciate it. I regard it as a great privilege to represent South Africa there. To all my colleagues on this side of the House, too, my sincere thanks for the way in which they congratulated me as well as for the friendship and comradeship I experienced here. I had nothing but loyalty. It goes with me, and if things should sometimes get rough on the other side, this will be another light which will shine in that concrete jungle. To my colleagues on the opposite side of this House as well as those in the Progressive Party, my thanks and appreciation for the congratulations and good wishes they expressed to me on my assuming this post. I also want to express my thanks to the Afrikaans as well as the English-language Press in South Africa for the sympathetic way in which they commented on this appointment. I appreciate it.

One appreciates that there are signs of a spirit of unanimity, not so much as far as I am concerned—I am a modest cog in a very large machine—but a spirit of unanimity which is taking root among all of us, regardless of colour or political party, when it comes to those things which most closely affect South Africa’s survival. In this regard I should like to tell the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs that I think I am correct in saying that he is, to a very large extent, responsible for this growing consensus.

I had the privilege of serving him for many years as an official, and also of working side by side with him as his political colleague. I am now going to serve him in yet another capacity. I had the privilege of being with him at U.N. and elsewhere at times which can be described as nothing but critical times. With his quiet dignity and calmness of spirit he was the ambassador par excellence of South Africa and its people and of the goodwill which prevails in South Africa and among the people of South Africa. It has often been a decisive factor at important discussions of South Africa’s case in international organizations and it has probably often been responsible for more drastic action not being taken against us by the responsible states. He is a Minister who has esteemed friends throughout the world; friends he has won on account of his personality, his hard work, his insight, his powers of judgment, his friendliness and human warmth —not for himself, but for us all. My sincerest appreciation to him.

I hope he will not take it amiss of me if, on this occasion, I relate a short anecdote of what happened on one occasion at U.N. It was one of those typical days when things had been rather hectic. In fact, things had been hectic for weeks, for one attack after another had been made on us. That particular evening we were taking stock of the day’s events and we had to analyse what had taken place as well as decide on our tactics for the following day. We had to decide what the reaction of this or that group of states would be if we did this or that, and what the reaction of another group of states would be if we acted in another way. The hon. the Minister sat at his desk drawing on his pipe. He was looking out of his window at the lights of New York while we were waiting for his reaction to the proposed tactics which were to be employed on the following day. I must add that at that time South Africa was in the grip of a severe drought. The hon. the Minister continued looking out of the window and said: “Oh, if only it would rain in Beaufort West!” It made a deep impression on us that he, in the face of the problems besetting us, did not forget about his people in his constituency.

I have said a few words about a growing spirit of unanimity. I recall that, in 1965 when the oral proceedings were in progress in the South-West Africa court case, we gratefully took cognizance of the fact that the Opposition would not, for example, discuss South-West Africa on political platforms in South Africa. I also recall that this facilitated our task in the World Court to a very large extent, for that being so, we often probably did not have as many cares in formulating policy there since we had no fear of our formulations being exploited on the home front. One works with an easier mind, harder and probably with more enthusiasm when one knows that at home, behind one’s back, everything is safe. I do not want to say that this should be the case while I am in New York, but I would suggest to the Opposition, in all friendliness, that I should not mind if they were to let alone a few arenas while I am serving there. After that they may just go ahead again.

I want to conclude by quoting a short excerpt from my argument in the World Court in which I stated our view on Africa. I want to quote it because the thoughts contained therein are valid still and are becoming even more so. With that I should like to conclude my speech. What I am going to quote now I had the privilege of saying in The Hague in 1971 in concluding South Africa’s argument:

I thank you.

Mr. Chairman, it is necessary for me to conclude with a few remarks in relation to the subject which the hon. the Minister of Defence has taken up. The hon. the Minister of Defence gave this reason for attacking my colleague and myself—

I want to say that the hon. the Minister of Defence in saying this was not telling the truth. I say this because I and my colleague arrived at midnight on a Friday night. On that Saturday he already attacked us at Swellendam. He attacked us for going there and he attacked us “oor hul voete val voor pres. Kaunda”. He attacked us for sitting around the table with terrorists and he attacked our patriotism. He said—

This the hon. the Minister said within 12 hours of the two of us returning from a visit to African states to our north. I believe that this is highly irresponsible. It is irresponsible not only in relation to members of this House; it is a highly irresponsible statement for the Minister to make regarding the head of State of other African countries. It is all very well saying this at a “stryddag” at Swellendam, but it does not help the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and it will not help the new ambassador to the United Nations.

I want to tell this House who the people are to whom I spoke. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us whether President Sir Seretse Khama and Vice-President Dr. Quett Masire are the people who are the friends of rapists and murderers? Are people like Mr. Milner, the Minister of Home Affairs in Zambia, Minister Kishata, the Minister of Mines and Industry, Mr. Chikwanda, the Minister of Finance and Pres. Kaunda, the people whom the Minister of Defence freely denounces on public platforms and in this House as being the friends of rapists and of murderers? Does he regard Mr. Charles Njonjo, the Attorney-General of Kenya, Mr. Joseph Iyala, the Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs in Nigeria and Genl. Gowon the Head of State in Nigeria as the kind of people of whom this kind of language must be used?

I want to say that I feel sorry for the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I hope that this is the last time that we are going to hear this intemperate kind of language used either of people who are doing their best in their own way for South Africa or of the heads of other African states. I have a problem because I was asked time and time again what the reaction will be towards my visit. I said I believed that the Government would accept my integrity, my patriotism and my sense of responsibility. I am delighted to see the reaction of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs today. He said that he does not doubt our patriotism or our motives in undertaking this visit to African states. I said to them that I would prove it to them by sending them newspaper cuttings and by sending them extracts of Hansard on what was said in regard to our visit by members of the Government side.

But I have a problem. I have a file full of comments made by the hon. the Minister of Defence, and I would like the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to tell me if not over the floor of the House then privately whether it is going to be in his or South Africa’s interests when he goes to the United Nations next week for those statements to be seen, read and published outside of the confines of South Africa. I say this because I recognize the problems which the hon. the Minister has. I realize that we are dealing with a delicate situation, but then we should not have Ministers who behave like the proverbial bull in a china-shop.

Sir, we do have a difficult situation. The fact is that, whatever the future intentions of this Government are, we were caught up in the 1950s with the rest of the world moving away from the concept of colonialism while we gave the impression of entrenching it. In the ’50s, and ’60s, while the rest of the world said it was moving away from racism, we gave the impression of entrenching racism. It is no use saying that the rest of the world does not understand. We do practice race discrminination here in the expenditure of public funds, in wages and in political rights. Let us admit that these things are wrong. Let us say that we know they are wrong and that we are going to put them right. Let us say that they are legacies of history and that we are going to eliminate them from our society. For heaven’s sake do not let us carry on defending things in our own country which we know are morally wrong. Let us face up to this and we will begin to get an entrée in Africa.

There are two points in this connection that I want to raise briefly with the hon. the Minister. At the bridge at Maseru before you enter South Africa from Lesotho there is a sign saying “Whites” and “non-Whites”. There is no such sign at Jan Smuts airport, but there is one at the Maseru bridge. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the Government and people of Lesotho are angry about this. They say that when it concerns the wealthy people from other states there is no apartheid, but that in their case as they cross over the border and before they enter South Africa they have to face this sign of “Whites” and “non-Whites”. What is more, there is always a long queue of Blacks waiting but any White person in a motor car can zip straight through. I want to urge the hon. the Minister to scrap that apartheid sign. Let him say to the people of Lesotho: “We are not going to rub your noses in the apartheid dirt even before you have reached South Africa”.

Then I want to appeal to the Press in South Africa and especially the Press supporting the National Party not to act as colonialists or others when they depict Black people. I refer particularly to references in cartoons in what has now become a rather verkrampte Cape journal, Die Burger, in comparison with, say, Die Transvaler under its new editor. The fact is that these newspapers constantly depict Black people in Africa as primitive savages. I have here a cartoon of Waldheim and Escher being put in a cooking pot with a lot of primitive people wearing savage attire dancing around jeering.

What is wrong with that?

You ask me what is wrong with that; when it is circulated in Africa it makes the task of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs more difficult. Last year the hon. the Minister of Finance went to a meeting of the IMF in Nairobi.

Where is your sense of humour?

I think that hon. gentleman over there would realize how they feel if he considers what his reaction would be if, as was the case in earlier days, an Afrikaner was depicted as a man with a dunce cap on. [Interjections.] Let us realize that if we want to communicate with Africa, there should not be cartoons of Dr. Diederichs marching through the jungle with the inscription “ontwikkeling, kennis en handel” over his head and savages standing around. The hon. the Minister knows that that was a highly sophisticated conference held in a highly sophisticated city and hosted by Black people. Yet we depict the scene as one in which White people are going to Nairobi like Dr. Livingstone taking “kennis en ontwikkeling” to the primitive peoples of Africa.

Let us start changing our basic attitude and stop being patronizing and colonial in our attitude. Let us recognize that, whether these people are as educated, sophisticated or advanced as we would claim that we are, they are people seeking a dignity that is even more important since they are today citizens of an independent State. That is why I believe we should declare our attitude in unambiguous terms towards this whole concept of human dignity. The hon. member for Yeoville touched on it in his way and I was going to suggest to the House that the time has come for South Africa, since it has not signed the Declaration of Human Rights and since it has rejected the philosophy of the Lusaka Manifesto, to call our Blacks, Browns and Whites together to work out a declaration of human rights for South Africa. Let us set for ourselves a yardstick so that White people, Black people and Coloured people can see for themselves our declaration of what we have committed ourselves to achieve. Let the people in South Africa and outside South Africa realize that our commitment to human dignity is not pie in the sky, or wishful thinking or evasions. Let them realize that South Africa is prepared to itself through a formal document and that if necessary it will adjust its policies, change its policies, scrap its policies, in order to see that human dignity becomes a reality in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I said the other day that this Parliament was becoming an exciting place for me. When listening to the hon. member, I do realize that major changes are taking place here. Today I heard for the first time that praise is coming our way from the ranks of the Progressive Party. After all, Mr. Eglin, you scratched the Minister’s back a little, did you not? [Interjections.] I mean the hon. member for Sea Point. Is the hon. member ashamed of his own surname? The hon. member for Sea Point scratched the Minister’s back a little. This is something quite unheard of. In his awkwardness and inaptitude as a leader of a mighty party he has, after all, something good. Just compare him with the hon. member for Houghton who has had the limelight focussed upon her here throughout the years. She behaves quite unnaturally. In the past she gave me a smile every now and then, but since they have arrived, since her star has waned and her image has dimmed, I get nothing. No, an unnaturalness I am unable to explain has set in.

Order! Is the hon. member dealing with internal affairs or with external affairs? [Laughter.]

I just want to say that as the former shining light of the image of the Progressive Party fades away, so the presence and impact of that party will in the course of time wane in the South African politics.

An important thing has happened on our borders. It seems to us as if Mozambique, in terms of the Lusaka Agreement, was handed over to Frelimo, or so it seems, anyway. However, it seems to be an accomplished fact. Now, what is Mozambique? It is two-thirds the size of the Republic of South Africa; it accommodates seven million people. It has poor means of communication and very poor health services. The economy is dependent primarily on agriculture. Agriculture contributes 25% to the gross national product, but at the same time agriculture employs 85% of the working population. Less than 6% of the surface area of Mozambique is cultivated. Agriculture is the most important earner of foreign exchange for Mozambique. Nine out of the twelve major export products are agricultural products such as cotton, nuts, sisal, sugar, tea, coconuts, rice and livestock. As far as the second industries are concerned, secondary industry in Mozambique contributes 9% to the gross national product. Only 3% of the population is involved in secondary industry. It is growing—from 1961 to 1967 it had a growth of 75%. The secondary industry relies for the most part on the processing of agricultural products. It is expanding. As far as tourism is concerned, there are an average of approximately 250 000 White tourists per year, of whom the great majority come from South Africa. Mining constitutes 1% of the gross national income, and consists mainly of coal. They have reserves of iron of approximately 200 million tons. In the Zambezi Valley there are large potential deposits of iron, copper, coal and manganese. The Cabora Bassa scheme is being built there. This scheme will cost approximately R25 million. As a matter of interest, the dam wall is 954 feet long and 520 feet high; it is situated 865 miles from Irene outside Pretoria, and will eventually, once the third phase has been completed, produce 4 000 Mw. What is the significance of the Cabora Bassa scheme? It will be able to bring 3,5 million ha of land under irrigation, and it will be possible to settle one million people on irrigation land under the scheme. It will ensure cheap electrical power and will make traffic possible between Cabora Bassa and the Rhodesian border. It will even be possible for ships of 40 000 tons to sail on the Zambezi. What is even more important, is the three large harbours. We all know Lourenço Marques and Beira, but Nacala is one of the major and most attractive natural harbours which could be developed as a harbour at the lowest cost.

What do all these things imply to us? They imply only one thing, and that is that Mozambique, under a Black dictatorship, is not or will not be as independent from us as we think it will be. There is one other factor which is of importance in our economic relations, and that is the labour it provides. Mozambique exports to South Arica approximately 13% of her total exports, while she imports from this country more or less 13%, 14% of her total imports. Therefore, there exists a vacuum for people, for capital investment and for development in the industrial sphere. That is the one aspect, the economic situation.

Now, what is the politically strategical position as we see it today? Number one: we are being confronted with a neo-racialism of the Black man against the White man. In the second place: we are engaged in a process of international terrorism. Number three: We have come face to face with the surprising success achieved by the aggressive communist neo-imperialism here in Southern Africa. Since the Republic of South Africa has an anti-communist political structure, we expect to be directly confronted with a neo-communist imperialistic political structure in the near future. We cannot get away from that. Just as Portugal was confronted and liquidated, just as Portugal lost the initiative, so that hostile structure has now also taken the initiative against us. This confrontation here in Africa is part of a major onslaught against the whole of the Western civilization. It is an onslaught against maritime Asia, and it is an onslaught in Africa. Strategically Africa is Europe’s security zone. It is a staggering thought that whilst Europe was the cradle of Western philosophy, this infiltration of Communism into Europe has taken place to such an extent that it seems to me as if we in Southern Africa, we in South Africa and Rhodesia, are going to be the last strongholds to radiate and proclaim Western philosophy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, yesterday the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs referred here in the House of Assembly to the position of South Africa at U.N., as well as to the almost unbearable insults we sometimes have to endure there.

If it is the aim of U.N. to promote peace amongst the various nations of the world, it is its task and its duty to allow people to speak and to listen in order that dialogue may replace violence and conflict throughout the world. If the policy of the Afro-Asiatic bloc in U.N. is and will be to prevent countries from speaking, or not to listen to them when they do speak they are, in fact, destroying the basis on which U.N. was established. That is one of the reasons why we are experiencing a period of tension hitherto unheard of in the international sphere, tension covering the whole spectrum of the economic, political and social terrain. This tension is being aggravated by die components of the cold war, such as boycotts and sanctions and propaganda of which a great many countries throughout the world are victims at the moment, although the Opposition would like to suggest that it is only South Africa that is suffering because of these things. As a matter of fact, the tension between countries is even reflected by the deeds of terrorism and aggression, and real war which erupts in the world from time to time.

This is what the world looks like in which the diplomats of our time have to fulfil their task. The contribution they make to lessen world tension, to avert cold wars and to prevent real war, is of far greater significance to mankind than all the bullets that are fired and all the bombs that explode. So it was particularly during the last few months, with the war between Israel and the Arabs and events in Cyprus that the inestimable value of sustained and patient diplomacy has been proved and emphasized once more. Sir, South Africa is not excluded from this tension. As a matter of fact, she is one of the victims which I referred to a moment ago, and for that reason the task of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department is in no way of a lesser nature than that of even Dr. Kissinger. On the contrary, Sir, I would say it is even more demanding in some respects and for that reason, considering South Africa’s present position in which I referred to a moment ago, I want to give the credit for the favourable position prevailing in the international sphere as far as South Africa is concerned to the sustained and calculated diplomacy on the part of our Department of Foreign Affairs. But, Sir, these endeavours could meet with even greater success if there could prevail in this country the greatest possible measure of accord in respect of the task we have to fulfil as far as the outside world is concerned, and if the Opposition—-and here I include the modern explorers to Africa from the ranks of the Progressive Party and also some newspapers—would stop their all too evident attempts to neutralize the sound progress the Government is making in respect of its relations policy and the development of the homelands, by means of propaganda, misrepresentations and politicking and even by fanning opposition among the Blacks to the policy of the Government, while holding out to them the promise of their sharing in the political say in the affairs of the Whites, a promise that will never be fulfilled and, therefore, amounts to sheer propaganda.

Mr. Chairman, there are also those hostile elements from outside our borders who want to neutralize this splendid work, because they realize only too well that our attempts to bring about liaison with the African states will meet with success if sound relations and mutual trust prevail among the peoples of South Africa and this, Sir, will also form the basis of sound relations between the State and the whole of Africa, but this the hostile elements want to prevent, because peace and quiet in South Africa have no part of the scheme these people contemplate for South Africa.

Progress in Africa with a view to making the African states better acquainted with South Africa’s case, does not imply and does not suggest either that there will be no set-backs and disappointments. Neither does this give the Opposition the right to be so unpatriotic—a word they fear so much—as to derive pleasure from possible set-backs of this nature, something which they in fact are doing. In a largely immature Africa with its abundance of unwise and high-handed leaders of the Amin type who came to power through coup d’etats and remain in power by virtue of sustained cruelty and bloodshed, there will, from the nature of the case, have to be some set-backs and disappointements, but as the realities of Africa, including South Africa, are accepted by these people and as they are compelled to gain some insight and understanding as far as the position of South Africa inside Africa is concerned, so this hostility will make way for a small group of good, valued and permanent friends. Sir, allow me to add that good friends—and this also applies to the individual—are quite scarce, and when one has good friends one must keep them.

At the moment South Africa’s enemy No. 1 is that small group of people who, against the wishes of all our people, Whites and Blacks, are trying to stir up discord in respect of our relations policy. They are doing so in public and privately, and even against foreigners in order to encourage the spirit of revolution in South Africa. The good work that has been done over decades, i.e. to instil in the hearts of our people in South Africa, whether they be Whites or Blacks or Brown, a spirit and a desire for peace and quiet must be destroyed because, among other things, our Department of Foreign Affairs is able to propagate with good effect the stability of our Government and our social set-up overseas. But this must not happen, because these small groups of people do not desire anything that is favourable for South Africa, and a favourable image has no part of the scheme they are contemplating for South Africa either. And some of these small groups of people, Sir, are at present holding positions and have at their disposal means, which were furnished to them by South Africa on account of its stable social set-up to influence the thoughts of many other people. That is why it is such a shocking thing for everyone who wants peace and quiet for South Africa to see from time to time how these people liaise so enthusiastically with outside bodies, the object being to destroy the social set-up in South Africa and with that peace and quiet in South Africa. This is the background against which our hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department have to operate, and it sometimes demands a superhuman effort to neutralize the cunning of our enemies. But fortunately this constitutes the very source of strength in this country.

The peace and quiet and the stability and the progress in this country for everyone—Whites and Blacks—which have prevailed in South Africa for such a long time, is definitely a thorn in the flesh of our enemies. It is for that reason that practically every international conference has become a propaganda circus against South Africa at which the lackeys of the communists, by means of tricks, try to throw dust in the eyes of the circus owners. This also applies to a large extent to U.N. which is an important operational field of the hon. the Minister and his department. Those who are mainly responsible for the deterioration and the image of U.N.—to put it mildly—are members of the Afro-Asiatic bloc and the fact that their behaviour at U.N. is to a large extent a reflection of the unsophisticated manner in which their domestic affairs are being run, is not without significance for the rest of the world. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs consistently refused, in all the replies he furnished today on the points raised by members on this side of the House, to admit that the problems he and his department are experiencing abroad have a bearing on the domestic policy of the Nationalist Party.

But did you not listen to what I said?

I want to put it quite clearly that to refuse to reply to those points, or to try to evade realities of the facts, or to evade in this debate the consequences of the policy of the Nationalist Party as it is being carried out in South Africa, will in no way contribute towards the progress of South Africa or to the solution of our problems. Sir, we cannot get away from the truth and we cannot get away from the facts; the truth and the facts are that until such time as the Nationalist Party is prepared to get rid of the negative aspects of their policy in South Africa, aspects which are the root causes of the opposition to South Africa, within and without, until such time as the Nationalist Party is prepared to abolish discrimination on the basis of the colour of a person’s skin, until such time as the Nationalist Party is prepared to abolich baasskap, we shall make no progress in relations politics in South Africa and in respect of South Africa’s relations and image abroad. Then the point is made—and the hon. the Minister also said something to that effect—if it is only we of the United Party who comment on the negative aspects and raise objections in respect of the policy of the Nationalist Party. However this is not true. The Nationalist Party is given advice from sources within their own ranks day after day and week after week. They are given advice by the academics at the universities; they are given advice by the editors of their own newspapers. I should like to refer very briefly to three articles which appeared in one newspaper during the past weekend. I want to do so in order to indicate that the representations and the warnings do not only come from the Opposition. It is not only we who say that South Africa is faced with major problems. It is not only us who say that South Africa finds herself in a dangerous position. It is not only we who sound warnings and make representations and appeal to the Government, in heaven’s name, to do something about the problems.

We inherited most of the problems.

Just listen to what Mr. Jan de Necker, chairman of Rand Bank, who has just returned from a visit to Kenya where he attended certain meetings, has to say. He is quoted in the newspaper report as having said the following (translation)—

Warnings are sounded by people within the ranks of the Nationalist Party itself. This is not something which comes from the United Party alone. I want to quote another report in this same newspaper. A certain Dr. Feddema from abroad, who is referred to as a friend of South Africa’s, says the following (translation)—

It is very late in the day. There is very little time left for South Africa. I want to conclude by saying once again that the United Party is making the Nationalist Party an offer in all sincerity and honesty. I am referring to the offer as set out in the statement made by Sir de Villiers Graaff. We are prepared to co-operate with the Nationalist government to find and implement any positive steps that will solve the situation prevailing in South Africa …

Our whole policy is a positive policy.

… and which will find solutions, which will implement solutions which are in the interests of South Africa and all her people. Time is running out. We could eradicate discrimination from the South African community completely. We could do away with baasskap. We could do so without endangering the security, the safety or the continued existence of the Whites in any way. In doing so we can only strengthen and safeguard even further all the things.

In the leading article of this same newspaper the following was said by the editor (translation)—

If the Nationalist Party wants to turn to the United Party for assistance to try and find solutions and to build for South Africa a future of progress, of peace and of happiness, it will find us willing and that we shall gladly do so.

Mr. Chairman, I think the most effective way in which to answer the hon. member is to ignore him altogether, and I am going to do just that. I would like to come to the Budget and point out that an amount of R13,8 million must be voted for this Vote for the current year. This is a relatively modest amount when one takes into account the enormous task the hon. the Minister and his department have to fulfil. By way of comparison, I would like to point out that Great Britain voted £9 million in 1972 for her Washington embassy alone; that is, approximately R15 million. Our foreign service has approximately 45 different offices, all of which are rendering quite effective service, in 34 different countries. I think the department and the hon. the Minister must be congratulated on what is being done with the relatively modest amount appropriated to them.

At this late hour I would also like to make an urgent appeal to our education authorities to introduce French and Spanish as third languages in our schools to an increasing extent. Our position is such that our foreign relations demand more and more that our people should become proficient in these two languages. French is one of our ancestral languages, the language of diplomats, and it is the language we constantly have to use in our relations with France. I believe that if we were to make a breakthrough in Africa, it would probably be in the French-speaking part of West Africa. Also in this connection I think it is very important that more of our people should be proficient in the French language. The same applies to Spanish. Our hon. Minister pointed out today how very important our neighbours across the Atlantic Ocean in South America are. With the exception of Brazil, virtually all the inhabitants of those countries speak Spanish. There is a growing tourist traffic, commercial and diplomatic exchange. I think South Africa should very seriously consider becoming proficient in these two languages to a far greater extent.

Our African continent has in these days come to the end of an era. With the decolonization of Mozambique and Angola an era of colonialism which lasted for almost 500 years, has come to an end. Africa is standing on the eve of a century of free states or on the eve of a century of new imperialism, and imperialism from the East at that. We in South Africa are and should in fact be very grateful for the fact that this century of colonialism has come to an end, because we were the first nation in Africa to have opposed colonialism. We fought against it for more than a century and we appreciate what problems colonialism has left us with. We are struggling with the problems even to this day, and the finger that is being pointed at us, is actually pointing at the remnants of the colonial system which we inherited and which we are in the process of phasing out. When we consider what colonialism left behind after 500 years in some of our neighbouring states and other states in Africa, we must say that colonialism did Africa no good and we must be grateful for the position we are in. Therefore we are also in earnest to guide in a responsible way the Black-people’s living around us who are dependent on us now, towards freedom as soon as possible. At this historical moment of new states being born in Africa—whether through pain and suffering which usually accompanies birth—South Africa, yesterday and today, once again extended the hand of friendship and co-operation to all the states in Africa through the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We want to ask them to join us in casting aside the sword and spear, in taking up the spade, the pick-axe and the test-tube, and to join us in building up Africa by means of our labour and scientific know-how. We want to ask them to join us in the fight against poverty, misery and disease, backwardness and famine. We want to ask them to join us in the fight against the threat of the hammer and sickle from the East. We want to ask them to co-operate with us in building a happy home for all Africa’s children. We can achieve this by means of the well-known formula which has made nations co-operate through the ages, i.e. the two basic principles of recognizing one another’s sovereignty as independent states and the principle of non-intervention in one another’s domestic affairs. Nations have co-operated with one another in terms of those two principles through the ages, and there is no other principle on which nations can co-operate with one another. We ask that we should co-operate on these two principles. However, we know what the African states will say to us. We know what the Organization for Unity in Africa will say to us. They will say to us that they decided in 1969 in the Lusaka manifesto on what formula they will co-operate with us. In studying that manifesto I find that two basic principles are laid down there. In the first place, they said “All men are equal and have equal rights to human dignity and respect regardless of colour, race, religion or sex.” In other words, this is the recognition of human dignity. The second principle is:

In other words, it must then be a democratic government. These are the two principles required by the Organization for Unity in Africa. I want to state that South Africa subscribes to those two principles in theory as an ideal just as every State which signed that manifesto subscribed to it only as an ideal and a theory. Regarding the practical aspect, it is quite obvious that South Africa is able even better to comply with requirements than the African states. They subscribed to those principles in theory as an ideal, but let us consider which of them lived up to those principles during the last five years. Did the man who acted as chairman there, Emperor Haile Selassie, the patron of the faith, the Lion of Judah, apply these principles of human dignity in his country? He did not, and when one considers newspaper reports, things are not going too well for him at all. Land which belonged to him and his family was expropriated. Did Pres. Nyerere of Tanzania or Pres. Kaunda or Pres. Amin apply the principles? No, they did not. However, hon. members need not believe me. We have another witness regarding this matter who is a most unprejudiced witness and a friend of those people, who would not say any nasty things about them, and that is the hon. member for Sea Point. In To the Point it is said:

He gives it a very sophisticated name, but other people simply call it blatant dictatorship. This is Africa’s problem. That is why I say that we can subscribe to the Lusaka Manifesto the same as those people did as an ideal and in principle, but are these really the only requirements laid down by those people? Then we get the Mogadishu statement, which says: “Violence!”, or the statement of the “Good neighbours” conference in Dar-es-Salaam where it was said:

Are these the utterances of responsible people? I want to join the hon. the Minister tonight in making an appeal to Africa to refrain from these utterances of violence for the sake of Africa. We are all free in Africa now. There are no longer any colonial powers in Africa, except for a small part of the Sahara which will also receive its independence next year. Let us join forces and speak to one another according to the age-old principles on which nations speak to one another, and let us build up Africa. Let us also make sure that the East is not responsible for another five centuries of colonialism and imperialism.

Mr. Chairman, we have come to the end of this debate and I just want to address a few final remarks to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Anyone who has been following this debate must have come to the conclusion that it has contained many highly unsatisfactory aspects. We know that the debate on Foreign Affairs is limited to four hours. This leaves, the joint Opposition two hours. This is really the total amount of time devoted specifically to the discussion of foreign policy by our Parliament every year. And under these circumstances, what do we get from the Government and from the speakers on the other side? The Minister presents us with the report of proceedings at the U.N. This is only the second time that a report has been presented, but he presents it to us one day before this discussion is to take place. In this report he furnishes us with particulars concerning his deputation’s handling of the South-West African question at the U.N. He presents the report, but at the same time he says that we cannot discuss the matter here. In other words, we are told in advance that one of the vital issues that South Africa has to contend with in its foreign problems cannot be discussed here. The hon. the Minister tells us that he is going to present a new copy of the South-West Africa Survey, but then he virtually tells us in advance that we shall not be able to discuss it; it is too delicate.

Rhodesia is another important question for South Africa, but we are not allowed to discuss that either. [Interjection.] We have put quite a number of direct questions to the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Von Brandis, for example, specifically inquired about the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council in South-West. He asked how often it met. The hon. the Minister evaded this. I specifically asked him about the charge being made at the U.N. that the Government fails to state clearly what it means in practice by “seld-determination and independence” for South-West Africa, which, according to them, was the reason for the termination of relations between Dr. Waldheim and the Government. I asked him about this and there was no reply.

In my explanation of the United Party’s foreign policy I said that it was our aim “to place South Africa in a morally sound position”. The hon. the Minister was offended. He said it was a dig at the Government. It was not a dig, it was a statement of fact. The Government’s apartheid policy may be politically defensible. But who can say that it is morally defensible? It is not morally defensible. If the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs thinks it is, then morality has taken on a completely new meaning. In addition, I want to ask the hon. the Minister why, in that case, he himself gets up in the U.N. and says that his Government will eventually see to it that discrimination is removed. Furthermore, I expressed mild and balanced criticism—and allow me to say that I did so on behalf of my party as a whole—on the appointment of politicians to the diplomatic service. The hon. the Minister took umbrage at this. I am not going to take any notice now of other hon. members who merely follow him in everything. He took umbrage at this. He called it petty. Why petty? Is it not the duty of the Opposition and of Parliament to scrutinize appointments?

But it was an excellent appointment.

Yes, but that is a matter of opinion. What do the hon. members expect of Parliament What kind of debate do they want The Government seems to expect us to regard them as so many Greek gods sitting on Olympus, who must either be worshipped or feared. I understand the Government’s psychological problems. Nowhere on earth does it find any affection, not in the remotest corner of the globe. That is why it reacts sharply when it encounters a similar lack of affection here. But is it fair to expect us to show the Government affection and devout and regard? That is not our task. We are here to criticize, but it seems to me that they would prefer us to close down Parliament. The moment any criticism is expressed, every single man opposite is up in arms. They cannot even take a little criticism.

I was glad to learn that the hon. the Minister has at last proceeded to include Black and Brown leaders in the deputation to the U.N., even if they are merely to act as observers for the time being. It is a step forward and I have already indicated that we welcome it.

The hon. the Minister has said that he will again include members of Parliament as observers in future deputations to the U.N. We support this in principle, as the hon. the Minister knows. But I want to tell him, nevertheless, that we shall have to find a different approach to that matter. We heard the hon. member for Brentwood yesterday when he took part in the debate. If I remember correctly, he was invited to the U.N. as a guest last year. The Minister invited him. In other words, he had the privilege of being sent to the U.N. as an observer from this country. This probably cost the taxpayers a few thousand rand. What was his contribution? Now he returns and produces musty old newspapers here and quotes from political speeches made 16 years ago.

He got under your skin.

I am not opposed to that. I am opposed to this debate being used for quoting from musty old newspapers what I said 16 years go in South-West when I criticized the then United Party of South-West. For goodness’ sake, Sir, it is no trouble at all to read strings of quotations from what the hon. member for Turffontein said about the National Party only yesterday, or what the Prime Minister said against the National Party in the days when he was a member of the Ossewabrandwag; but how does that affect the matter in hand? The hon. member has not made a single positive contribution in return for all he has received from the taxpayers. He has busied himself with local party politics. I must say that I regard it as an injustice to the taxpayer, and if this is the result of assisted visits to the U.N., I am afraid that we shall have to withdraw our support in this regard. In any case, I want to say—I am saying this merely because it has been raised by the hon. the Minister; I myself had not intended to raise the matter—that if another Parliamentary deputation is sent, our party will insist on each party’s appointing its own representatives.

I am glad that something is being done about the training of non-White persons for the foreign service, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister when the training will commence and what proportions it will assume, how many he thinks will be trained, where the training will take place, and whether those who are trained will eventually be able to rise to the rank of mission chief.

The Minister has again rejected our proposal concerning a standing committee on foreign affairs. What actually surprises me are his reasons. He said that he could not betray secrets. Surely, Sir no secrets are betrayed by Governments in those countries which already have standing committees on foreign affairs. The functions of such a committee are very clearly defined, and they never interfere with the right of a Government to have its own secrets. In this debate we do not even have time for a proper discussion on the Budget, simply because of the limited time allowed for this debate. Our main problem is that there is not sufficient frankness in regard to foreign policy. Compare the position with that in other countries, for example. In America, whose position as one of the world’s great powers is very delicate, a full report on the administration’s foreign policy is submitted by the President to Congress every year. Even when they were fighting in Vietnam, the policy was stated on every delicate point. Why then should matters of this nature not be discussed in a standing committee? In Sweden there is an Advisory Council on Foreign Affairs, consisting of nine members of Parliament. The Minister himself does not even serve on it. Surely the hon. the Minister will concede that the members of Parliament do have a contribution to make, much more than can be made across the floor of this House. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, although I am a newcomer to this hon. House, I am perfectly aware of the fact that the subject of foreign affairs is a very delicate one, which should be approached with great circumspection. But one is surprised at the lack of circumspection that has in fact been shown by some senior members of this House in their treatment of the subject in this debate.

It is absolutely essential that there should be no double-talk in this House on the subject of foreign affairs, and particularly on the position of South-West Africa. We cannot afford any vacillating and playing with words in these matters.

During the discussion on the Prime Minister’s Vote last week, the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement that the peoples of South-West Africa would decide for themselves what their political future would be was received with considerable scepticism on the side of the official Opposition. I want to refer to what was said in this regard by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said—

This is the position of South-West Africa—

Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have a problem with the fact that the Government recognizes the right to self-determination of the peoples of South-West Africa? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to refer to the hon. the Prime Minister and said—

These are the misgivings expressed by the Opposition when the hon. the Prime Minister states that the Government believes in those people’s right to self-determination. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout came along yesterday and told us very piously that the United Party, too, believed in the right to self-determination of the people of South-West Africa. Now I want to know from the hon. member why, in that case, he is always trying to cast suspicion on the Government’s declared policy. Why does he come along to this House and ask the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to spell out exactly how this right to self-determination is going to be exercised, while he knows that this is an extremely delicate matter at the present moment?

The hon. member for Bryanston went even further. He openly levelled the accusation at the Government that it was because of Government policy that we were leaving problems in South-West Africa and in the U.N. as well. Surely these people know that this is not true. Why are they always wanting to sow suspicion in this House? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout and his party must tell us whether they are on the side of the Government in this matter or whether they are on the side of those who bear us ill-will in this regard. For sometimes they talk the language of the latter, by suggesting that the policy that is being followed in South-West Africa is inconsistent with peoples’ right to self-determination.

Sir, the fact is that since the mandate over South-West Africa was granted to the Union Government of the time, the South African Government has had full legislative and administrative authority for governing South-West Africa. This means that this Government is not only entitled to apply to the Territory laws of the Republic of South Africa, with such amendments as may be required by local circumstances, but may also apply to the Territory the judicial and social systems of the Republic of South Africa. The League of Nations was not interested in the form of government practised by the mandatary, as long as the requirements of the mandate were complied with. Consequently no attempt was ever made to prescribe a particular system of government for the mandated territory. The mandatary was left free to take such steps as it deemed fit in connection with self-government, as long as— and this was the only qualification—the Government promoted the interests of the territory’s inhabitants. Does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout mean to tell me that he and his party believe that the Government is not promoting the interests of the inhabitants of South-West Africa?

As far as the future political position of South-West Africa is concerned, surely this Government has always said that it believes in those people’s right to self-determination. This being the case, why are those members suggesting here that it is a question of concessions made under pressure? Surely, Sir, that is not true. I refer to the report which has been referred to by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as well, i.e., the Review of Proceedings at the United Nations. On page 11715 there is a statement by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, dated 12 December 1973, and I quote from the fifth paragraph—

This, after all, is the crux of the problem, the fact that the U.N. is bringing pressure to bear on the Government to follow a certain line of action, with which the Government does not agree. But now members of the Opposition come along and blame the Government, and specifically the hon, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for not being able to come to an agreement with the U.N., because it is not prepared to yield blindly to their demands.

Sir, I want to conclude by telling the Opposition that the Government will firmly adhere to this policy, the policy based on the right to self-determination of the peoples of South-West Africa, and that it will not allow itself to be pressed by the Opposition or by the U.N. into following policies or adopting standpoints on these matters that are not in line with the policy of this Government. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to conclude briefly by conveying, in the first place, my sincere thanks to all hon. members who made useful, stimulating and constructive contributions during this debate. I think I can say that almost the entire debate, with a few exceptions, was of a high standard throughout. I appreciate this. I can give you the assurance that my department also appreciates this, and that we try to apply in practice the suggestions we receive here every year. I do not want to mention the names of hon. members who made good contributions. That would take up too much time, for if I were to mention one person’s name, I would be obliged to deal with everyone’s contributions, and there was undoubtedly a large number of good contributions. Nevertheless, I do want to refer to the hon. member for Sea Point.

The hon. member for Sea Point said that he felt sorry for me. I do not think I am a person one should feel sorry for. In any case, I can look after myself. I thank him for that, but I think the problem with that hon. member is that he feels too sorry for himself. He was hurt too badly when the Minister of Defence dealt with him. Sir, what has happened now? The Minister of Defence told the hon. member why he attacked him. He spelt it out very clearly. I also told the hon. member in what regard I thought he had been mistaken in what he did. The hon. the Minister of Defence and I are not opposed to these visits, but the hon. member was attacked, by the Press as well, in regard to the impression which he had made. I tried in a tactful way to point out to him in what regard I thought he had been mistaken, and I thought that would have been the end of the matter.

I want to refer now to the hon. member for Wonderboom, and I also want to thank him for his kind words to me and others. I want to wish him and his wife—for the wives of diplomats occupy important positions; great responsibilities rest on them —all success and everything of the best in their difficult task. I want to express my regret to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout at the fact that he only received the White Paper on Monday. Mine was on my table early last week. I assumed that it would also be made available in good time to M.P.s. My information is that it was in fact delivered before the weekend. If there was some hitch somewhere, I want to apologize for that to the hon. member and to other hon. members who received it late—the day before the debate is definitely too late.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and I think the hon. member for Von Brandis as well, put questions to me in regard to the activities of the Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister. I made the information available and I presented it, the information on how that body is constituted and what its aims are. But now the hon. members want to know from me precisely what procedure is being adopted at the moment. But hon. members must bear in mind that I am not in charge of that council. The hon. the Prime Minister is in charge of that council. Why did you not ask him? Nor am I in charge of the administration in South-West Africa. I am not the person who is responsible for the application of our policy in the Territory. I state South Africa’s case abroad. That is my obligation. Why did hon. members not avail themselves of the opportunity of discussing this matter with the hon. the Prime Minister? I think that at one stage in the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that as far as he was concerned, they had finished dealing with South-West Africa. But now they are again putting questions to me here, to which I can hardly furnish replies. There are very good reasons why I cannot, as Minister of Foreign Affairs dealing with the outside world, lay all my cards on the table here beforehand. I hope hon. members will appreciate this. It would be poor tactics; it would not be in the interests of South-West Africa and its people, nor in the interests of the Republic.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? If meetings of the council are in fact being held, surely it would be a public matter for many representatives of the various groups in South-West Africa would have to be present. It cannot therefore be regarded as a secret matter, and we are in fact asking how many meetings have been held, and what the plans for the future are.

Sir, as far as I know, two meetings have been held. The statements were subsequently issued giving an indication of the kind of items which were dealt with there, but, as I say, I do not attend the sittings; I am not a member of the council. The hon. member should have put those questions to the hon. the Prime Minister, and he may still do so. It is not that I am trying to conceal or withhold information, but I do not have it at my disposal. In the normal course of events this is not part of my obligations.

But you will have to deal with it at the U.N.

I shall know how to handle this matter there, but I do not want to drag it across the floor of this House beforehand.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to Rhodesia again. I said yesterday that it has become the practice in this House that hon. members do not discuss the Rhodesian issue in debates here. The Government has never requested hon. members not to discuss it here; they simply used their good discretion, their sound judgment in the past. As far as I can recall, Rhodesia has never been the subject of a full debate in this House. This came about quite voluntarily because I take it there is unanimity in our attitude to that thorny, difficult question which will, it is hoped, be solved soon.

The hon. member for Bryanston referred to the question of getting away from discrimination. He implied that it was our official policy to keep on discriminating left, right and centre. If he knows anything about the policy of the Government, as he ought to know as a Member of Parliament, then he will know that even from the days of Dr. Verwoerd it has been our declared policy, in the words of Dr. Verwoerd, to get away from discrimination as quickly as possible. That is what we are seeking to achieve. Apparently the hon. member for Bryanston has never heard of this. Apparently, too, the hon. member was not listening when I spoke and said that others did not like our policy; that they adopted a critical attitude towards it and were attacking us because of it, but that they were interested in other aspects of South Africa and had appreciation for those aspects. We know that we are not perfect; we know that there are still many aspects of our policy which we are compelled to keep in the form in which they are standing on the Statute Book and which are making us vulnerable. We accept this; we do not run away from this. The hon. member’s ignorance in regard to the policy of this Government is really shocking.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout wanted to know more about the question of the training of non-Whites for service abroad, but the hon. member must bear in mind that I stated here that the details of this training are being worked out by my colleague, the Minister of Information, and myself, and by our two departments, in consultation with our three colleagues and their departments which are involved in the matter. It was only recently that we took this decision in regard to the training of Coloureds, Indians and citizens of the Transkei. We still do not have any clarity as to what the final form is going to be. I may say that in the case of the department of my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Information, this training will probably proceed more easily and more rapidly because they apparently have people who have already received a measure of training in regard to information services, while there are not yet such persons in the ranks of these three population groups who have received training as diplomats. I can say nothing further at this stage because we will still have to work out this matter.

We still have to clear up in our own minds this matter of what is going to happen. There is one answer, though, which I can give the hon. member as far as this training is concerned: If a citizen of the Transkei is worth his salt and his country becomes independent, he could possibly become a full ambassador one day. This I can say to the hon. member, but further than that I cannot go.

Sir, in regard to the standing committee about which we have already exchanged ideas here in the past—I do not want to say that we have crossed swords, for that was not really the case—I want to say that such a standing committee on foreign affairs is not part of our system; it is not suited to our system; it is not to be found in other systems which are similar to ours; it does not exist in Great Britain for example. Our parliamentary system is different to that of America or Sweden. I told the hon. member yesterday that there are countries with such a standing committee system which found themselves in difficulties in the international sphere, and discovered that this system had disadvantages too, precisely in so far as secrecy is concerned.

Must we still be so terribly British now?

No, but we took over many good things from the British. The system works well in that country, and it works well in ours as well. But I must repeat what my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Defence, said: We have the practice in this Parliament that the Prime Minister from time to time discusses matters of general importance to the country with the Leader of the Opposition on a confidential basis, and that Ministers discuss confidential matters, which must not be debated in public, with their counterparts in the Opposition. Perhaps we have not done this often enough in the case of foreign affairs; perhaps it is my fault, but I hope that we shall do this in future.

But with whom should you discuss matters?

But I also want to lay down the same conditions which my colleague laid down. I also want to point out that I cannot allow members from outside to interfere in my department; that goes without saying, and I think that hon. members on that side accept it in that way too. Nor can I allow other persons to attempt to dictate policy to me or to my department. In the third place, there is always very confidential information with regard to the foreign relations of any country which cannot, from the nature of the case, be discussed.

Mr. Chairman, I think that I have with this dealt with all the outstanding matters. In conclusion I want to express my sincere thanks here in this Committee to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs and all the members of my department. As we all know, we have excellent officers in our foreign service. All of them are good. This is not surprising, for they are hand-picked. It is not just anyone who can enter that service, and when a young diplomat wants to marry, even his wife is approved; her name is submitted for approval. The members of the foreign service are all first-rate officials and South Africa can never be grateful enough for them. Our people abroad, with their wives, are holding their own in the frontline for South Africa. They have a hard time. The officials who serve at head office in South Africa and are not so prominently in the limelight, are also doing their very demanding and responsible work with great distinction.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I want to say a few words on this occasion by way of preface to the Third Reading debate. In the first place I want to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior very sincerely on behalf of the House—I think I may do so on behalf of all sides of the House—on the way in which he has handled the Committee Stage. It was his first important trial in his capacity as Deputy Minister. It was a very difficult trial, but I think that he has come through with flying colours and that he handled the debate very well indeed. For that reason I want to have his success placed on record and I want to thank him for having handled a difficult matter so well.

Where we have now come to the Third Reading, I want to say by way of introduction that we are dealing with a new system in respect of publications and control over publications. As in the Second Reading debate, I want to proceed from the point of view that the basic concept underlying the whole Bill is that the population itself should control its publications in the spirit of clause 1, which reads as follows—

This is the spirit in which the Bill was drafted and this is the spirit in which we believe it should be administered.

I want to say at once that many amendments were made during the Committee Stage. In particular, the amendments moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister were accepted. We even accepted an amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton, and in doing so we broke her record, for she said that no amendment moved by her had ever been accepted. I think it is an achievement that, during the consideration of this Bill, we were able to accept one of the amendments moved by her. I do not think I am mistaken in saying that the Bill as it reads at the moment, after having gone through the Committee Stage, is a better Bill than the one we considered during the Second Reading. As a result of the discussions during the Committee Stage, therefore, amendments were made which were essential in order to make the Bill more effective and to improve its administration.

I want to repeat what I said during the Second Reading debate by pointing out that when this Bill has come into operation we shall find, as is the case with any instrument, that it will present problems. The idea is—I want to make this quite clear from the start—that when we have problems we should not hesitate one moment to come back to the House next year or the year after, as the need may arise, to make further amendments to enable this Bill to perform its function efficiently. I definitely want to keep that possibility open and I want to give the assurance that we shall do so.

I should like us to conduct the Third Reading debate in this spirit and I am looking forward to listening to the hon. Opposition in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, we want to associate ourselves with the remarks of the hon. the Minister so far as the patience and the tolerance of the hon. the Deputy Minister in the Committee Stage are concerned. We unfortunately cannot agree that he exercised the degree of wisdom that we would have liked him to exercise in so far as the amendments we have moved are concerned. I do not propose to address the House at any length on this Third Reading, but I want to say that it is quite clear that the need for the revision of the existing statutory controls on pornography, on the depiction of violence and blasphemy and on the dissemination of seditious, communistic or other matter affecting the safety of the State is accepted both by the Government —as a result of which this measure is before us—and by us, the official Oppositon because of the unsatisfactory working of the present Act. The need arises from the severity, the inconsistency and from the unreasonableness of the controls which are now applied. Therefore in considering this Bill as amended in the Committee Stage, we must look at it in the light of this necessity to improve what we have and to assess the effectiveness of the measure in providing for such improvement.

The attitude of the United Party is apparent from the minority report of the commission and it has been made abundantly clear after many hours of debate in the Committee Stage. These discussions have prominently identified our differences with the Government. Whilst we believe that a clearer definition of what is undesirable is necessary and that the penal provisions should be administered by the courts, the Government in this measure is adopting a directly opposite approach of generalized statements as to what is undesirable and of opting for an administration which is a more cumbersome and less scientific bureaucratic procedure than that which exists at the present moment. The public is excluded from the determination of what is undesirable for the spiritual welfare of South African society. It is no good the hon. the Minister saying that that is the effect of this legislation, because this legislation will have the directly opposite effect. The creative attributes of authors, playwrights and artists are being placed in bondage by this Bill. They will be stifled by the concepts of a series of committees which can only aggravate the inconsistencies which have arisen under the present system of a central control board. The fundamental right of access by any aggrieved person to the impartial judiciary is withheld in this legislation, and final decision will be arrived at with complete disregard by these committees of the audi alteram partem rule in regard to matters which are before them. The mere possession, however innocent, of a publication or object deemed undesirable will invoke criminal sanctions.

Grossly undesirable.

The hon. the Minister says “grossly”, but the hon. the Deputy Minister refused to put “grossly” in the Bill. The unseen, the unread future editions of periodicals can be banned without regard to the financial consequences for the publishers. If a committee approves of a publication, its decision does not become final because the Minister or the administrative director of this new organization can appeal against such approval to the appeal board.

The necessary contributions to effective control such as contributions by the public, the legislature and the courts, should be provided for in any legislation. However, these are all wiped away by this Bill which is before us. We have had expressions of intent without inclusion of the provisions to give effect to provisions for compulsion in the Bill before us. However, I must say that perhaps one of the most important was the expression of intent given by the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to the compilation of the panels and persons to be available for appointment to the various committees. The hon. the Deputy Minister gave the assurance that it is the intention that persons of all races, irrespective of colour, will be judged by their educational qualifications and if they have them, whether they are White, Brown or Black, they will be entitled to be placed on the panel for appointment to these committees. We welcome this non-racial approach, but this is perhaps the only realistic and acceptable improvement on the system which we have at the moment.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we will be watching to see the implementation of the undertaking, this expression of intent which we had from the hon. the Deputy Minister and also, I think, from the hon. the Minister himself when he introduced this Bill. We must realize that we all want to see control of pornography and such matters as I have referred to. However, when we are to determine the dividing line between the desirable and the undesirable, there can be no committee that is infallible. The human approach of the individual concerned becomes material and no one is infallible. No section of the population, such as those persons who are selected from a panel approved by the hon. the Minister, can have the exclusive right to determine undesirability or otherwise with regard to literature, the theatre and the arts generally.

I want to conclude my remarks by quoting to the hon. the Minister what the Secretary of the British Board of Film Censors recently said—

The approach in this Bill is in direct contradistinction to that because the attitude here is that decisions of these committees are sacrosanct and the essence of infallibility. South Africans are to be told what they may see, hear and read by a committee consisting of persons who in the Minister’s opinion are suitable by their educational qualifications to be members of this panel. Without the right of real appeal, but only on appeal to an appeal board such as that created by this Bill; without rights of review by a court, and only the emasculated reviews provided for in this Bill. I believe we are creating an intellectual straitjacket in South Africa with this Bill whereby literature and the arts will be in the hands of a bureaucratic establishment. For those reasons we certainly cannot support the Third reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Third Reading of the Publications Bill is a further development of the very thorough discussion we have had so far. This is a very important aspect of human society and is nothing new. In other words, in discussing the control which we want to deal with again in this Third Reading, we are discussing phenomena in human communities which are as old as the human community itself. That, then, is the reason why this Bill, when it becomes law, will not be introduced as if it were a totally new creation. However, the hon. member for Green Point has in fact said that through this Bill we will become killjoys all over again because we want to bring about the destruction of freedom. Control and restrictions, do’s and don’ts, form part of human nature and of the human community. The commission that preceded the Bill considered this problem as scientifically and as fairly as possible, and not only in a local context but in comparison with other countries too. Let me say, too, that having had the opportunity to re-read, in the far more restful atmosphere of my study, all these speeches by hon. members on both sides of the House, it became clear to me that on both sides of the House there has been a very thorough awareness and a well thought-out set of arguments for which, in my opinion, all of us—and that includes myself—should have the greatest appreciation.

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, it is also true that this Bill affects all the people in South Africa. That is why this Bill displays throughout a realization of the diversity of cultural groups. The hon. member for Edenvale rightly referred to the process of acculturation which is taking place among the diverse peoples here in South Africa. Members of the Opposition differ from us and maintain that we do not fully grasp this diversity, that, for example, we do not consider race groups such as the Indians and the various Bantu peoples, particularly those individuals in close contact with the larger White communities. The charge is, further, that we want to force a sectional norm, specifically that of the Afrikaner, on them.

Who said that?

No, not that hon. member. I shall come to that shortly. I want to dispute that, because although various peoples have various norms concerning a number of matters, ethical and aestheitc, there is still a universal striving towards cleanliness, orderliness and decency. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout agreed with this. I want to express great appreciation of what he said, in contrast with what was said by the hon. member for Parktown. This Bill will not be too insular or too narrow-minded for the ordinary individual belonging to those particular race groups. On the contrary. My experience is that the majority of those race groups will support this Bill, and will even want to make it more strict when there are people who want to corrupt their own social systems and ways of life by means of pornography and other evils which we want to eradicate by way of this Bill.

Furthermore it is wrong to maintain that here it is once again the Afrikaner who wants to force his norms on the English-speaking people. That spectre frightens no one any more. The National Party governs because the majority of Afrikaans- and English-speaking people voted for it, and they voted for it because they agree with its principles and policy. That is why I find it a great pity and very disappointing that the hon. member for Orange Grove should have said the following—

That is my reply to what the hon. member asked a moment ago. These words will have no beneficial effect on our society. For a number of years already the public of South Africa has been told how learned, clever and brilliant—mention the adjective and they have it!—the Progs are. To a person coming from the common people, such as myself, who can only read about that upper-crust, intellectual, moneyed power-group in South Africa, such a statement is disappointing. Therefore I want to address a few words specifically to the Progressive Party. They maintain that this Bill wants to take us back to a period of ox-wagon mentality and mediaeval viewpoints In saying this they fail dismally to hit the nail on the head. The hon. member for Orange Grove, as a member of this intellectual upper crust of our society, displays a disturbing lack of knowledge of the real moral character of the people of the ox-wagon. In doing so the hon. member displays the typical attitude and philosophy of this super-class, namely that they give lip service to the freedom of the individual, while inside, in their hearts, there is contempt for the normal, ordinary people who need these moral norms for the stabilization of their own community. This Bill will not result in perverse people never infringing the law again. But on the other hand, if I may use the classic, evolutionary terms, it is not the aim of this Bill to allow freedom to be granted in the sense in which the hon. member for Pinetown intended it, either, namely that we want to create modern Neanderthal communities in our world. Nor does this Act aim at restricting the creative urge of artists. The term “precensorship” has been used by various members opposite together with the suggestion that this legislation will supposedly have the effect that when an author wants to write or a poet wants to compose poetry, he will have to have the legislation next to him, in order to ensure that he does not infringe it. That is a very absurd argument. I cannot remember that any of our former authors or poets have had to have the laws of libel with them when they wanted to compose poetry or write. The same goes for our universities. I cannot see this legislation being a hindrance to research students. In spite of the fact that a university is autonomous and in spite of the fact that we also uphold academic freedom these people know that a university derives its character from the community, for the community, that a university also has to be a responsible institution taking its place alongside other institutions and that the whole has to work harmoniously to serve the broader social community. No student or researcher need fear that this legislation will hamper him in continuing with his normal work as an academic. This legislation is not there to hamper the normal person, but is there to discipline the abnormal people.

I want to conclude by telling the hon. member for Orange Grove that the principles of the people of the ox-wagon can still have a disciplinary effect on the people of the space age.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if I am going to disappoint the hon. member for Rissik a little. I am not going to say what I think about it, or what the Progs or my hon. friend on my right … [Interjections.] Just wait a little; I am going to tell him what true-born Afrikaners think of this Bill.

You are not a true-born Afrikaner.

No, wait a little. [Interjections.] Even to the less brilliant among us it is now clear that the hon. the Minister and Deputy Minister are not really receptive of any further criticism or amendments to this Bill. Well, if they do not want to listen to us, let them at least be so good as to take note of what some of the leaders in the sphere of Afrikaans literature have felt about this Bill before us at present Will they not reconsider now, at this late stage, and realize that what they are doing by means of this legislation is destroying, or at least seriously damaging, perhaps even discarding, many of the things which people like N. P. van Wyk Louw, among others stood for. Let us take a brief look at this, because we must know what is waiting for us after this Bill has been passed. [Interjections.] The truth hurts, but let us listen. Is it not true that through this Bill we are running the risk of departing from some of the finest creative philosophies of the Afrikaner as personified by Van Wyk Louw? I ask this in all seriousness. [Interjections.] Let me continue with my theme. You need not believe me.

We won’t.

No, listen now; let us now hear …

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting from Rapport … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I am quoting from Rapport what Prof. Frans van Rensburg, senior lecturer in Afrikaans-Nederlands at the Rand Afrikaans University, had to say. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

Prof. Van Rensburg said the following (translation)—

[Interjections.] I know that this is hurting, but just listen. Then a very important point is made (translation)—

That is what Prof. Van Rensburg said. Van Wyk Louw concluded the article in Standpunte as follows (translation)—

Mr. Speaker, the threat to Afrikaans could surely not have been put more clearly. If the worst were in fact to happen, we could not say that we were not warned in advance. I am not going to repeat all the arguments we have already employed against this Bill. All I can say is that I fear that our system of censorship is henceforth going to expose us to absurdities of the kind one finds in this notice on the Republic-Lesotho border. Just listen to what it says. It is enough to make all of us laugh—

A few days ago these two books were sent to me. The first is The Pictorial History of the Third Reich and the other is John Bull’s Nigger. The manager of the bookshop who sent the books to me—here they are; anyone can come and look at them—writes as follows—

Nonsense.

I am sure you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that if these books are put on a special list,

they will be banned. You will agree with me? [Interjections.] Certainly, certainly. Is there any reason to think that they will not be put on the special list?

*The manager of the bookshop goes on as follows—

Sir, the more we have become acquainted with this Bill, the more repugnant and the less acceptable has it shown itself to be to anyone who is concerned about the rights of the individual and the rights of the clergyman and the cultural welfare of our people. If we would only learn from those who have been in these deep waters and in whom the creative abilities have been stifled, we should not have embarked upon this present course. Sir, let me just read to you what has been written by the great Russian author, Solzhenitsyn; perhaps that will impress hon. members; he writes as follows (translation)—

That same openness referred to by Van Wyk Louw (translation)—

[Interjections.]

Order! To my regret I shall now have to mention hon. members by name if they do not want to heed the Chair when it calls for order to be maintained.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I proceed with this quotation (translation)—

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of censorship contained in this Bill. Our ills will be driven inwards to fester there. I repeat that this is going to protect no-one, whether as an individual or as a group, against any dangers, real or imaginary, and that is why so many authors, English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking, are opposed to this Bill. I am not going to quote the English-speaking authors, since, according to my hon. friends behind me here, they are not filled with patriotism. May I quote you the Words of an Afrikaner who writes in Afrikaans, namely André Brink (translation)—

Sir, that, one hopes, is the spirit for the future of this country and for the sake of its authors and its artists and its creative people, who will triumph over the limitations and the inhibitions forced on them by this ill-conceived and misguided legislation; that is one’s earnest hope. This Act is going to do severe damage to our creative life; we should have no doubt on that score. It is an Act which is going to make obscuratism and bureaucratic control the final arbiter of our cultural and spiritual values, instead of verligtheid and openness, the openness referred to by Van Wyk Louw— it is going to make it the final arbiter of what we as South Africans may read, see, and hear and, in the final analysis, what we may know and think; in other words, the coming into being of a kind of deadly conformism. Sir, the hon. the Minister shakes his head. It is not I who am saying this; it is the leading intellectuals. Sir, what a commentary on South Africa in the sixties and seventies! Sir, in the last instance I fear the effect of this Bill, because growing repugnance and conflict are inherent in it. If this is what is sowed, then one reaps what one sows and I am convinced, Sir, that it is going to be a bitter harvest for everyone, as Van Wyk Louw has already warned in connection with all censorship.

Mr. Speaker, this evening we saw the hon. member for Parktown in a strange guise. We listened to him, a member of the Progressive Party, quoting from the works of our great poet, N. P. van Wyk Louw, who in his works propounded a philosophy which clashes radically with the philosophy of that party, who, in one of his great poems, says— unfortunately I am unable to quote it verbatim—that resistance must be offered to outside pressure, that, resistance must be offered to the onslaughts which are aimed at changing the character of a people, that a people must continue to be true to itself and its blood.

Forget the blood.

It would be a good thing if the hon. members of the Progressive Party were to read a little more N. P. van Wyk Louw. It could be to their political benefit. Sir, the virtual hysteria with which both parties opposite opposed this Bill can, basically, be reduced to two fundamental standpoints which they have taken up—on the one hand, that the Bill will be unworkable in practice, and on the other hand that the Bill wrongfully encroaches on individual freedom and other human rights which go hand in hand with it. They maintain that the various provisions of this Bill, particularly the abolition of the right of appeal to the courts, and the transferring of the right of appeal to a special appeal board, creates the basis for one-sided and unbalanced control, for interference by the Government in the thinking of the people of South Africa, which can lead to the suppression of thought and ideas, and, as the hon. member for Green Point put it, to the placing of the people of South Africa in a straitjacket. In this process extremely irresponsible statements have been made and the bona fides of the hon. the Minister and the Government have been recklessly called into question. I should now like to try and indicate in respect of these two basic premises of the opposition parties, that their venom is without foundation, that, in the first instance, this Bill is workable in practice, in the second instance, that it does in fact make full allowance for the freedom of the individual and that it is designed for and will accomplish balanced and fair control.

As far as the practical workability of the legislation is concerned, the hon. member for Green Point stated very eloquently, in column 495 of Hansard, 1974, that he believed that this machinery was impracticable and would lead to chaos; it would lead to chaos in so far as publishers and the cinema industry were concerned. In column 522 his friend, the hon. member for Von Brandis, said that there were not enough hours in a year to enable a normal quantity of skilled people to look at films at that rate, and that there would be utter and complete congestion. In column 523 he said that the whole scheme staggered the imagination and that it was impossible to find sufficient time for qualified people to do this job properly. However, what is the real state of affairs? It is not so difficult for us to determine that. After all, we have had 11 years of experience of publications control under the existing Act and all that control was exercised by a mere 38 people in South Africa. In 1972, 38 people were employed to inspect and subsequently decide on 2 630 films, to deal with 1605 publications and objects, and investigate seven public entertainments. Only 38 people were employed for that. Now the hon. members opposite will say: “Yes, but this Bill is going to cause a far greater volume of work and consequently it is not going to work.” What are the heavier demands that are going to be made by this Bill in respect of control? In the past all films were viewed by the Publications Board and in this respect, therefore, there will be no further increase, apart, of course, from the normal increase. Since we are growing in all aspects, there may perhaps be 100 more films next year than there were.

What about video tapes?

Perhaps they will tell me that television is going to be introduced, but if they had read the Bill, they would have noticed that television was excluded as far as the operation of the Bill is concerned, because it is to be controlled by the State, and the S.A.B.C. has also been exempted. They will ask me: “What about the private amateur photographer who films in a game reserve, etc.?” He need not submit the film unless he wants to show it in public. Besides, it is also true that he need not submit the film since he may apply for exemption. It will be found that exemption will often be granted. If the hon. member peruses the Bill carefully, he will see that for certain classes of film a religious organization can obtain total exemption without submitting the films. Thus, there will be no escalation as far as films are concerned.

As far as publications and objects are concerned, there will similarly be no increase worthy of mention. In a moment I shall come to what I suspect they are going to say by way of interjection. In the first instance, as far as the imported publications are concerned, the Customs are still going to be there. In the past the Customs performed that task and it will continue to be done that way. More is not suddenly going to be imported. Now they will ask, as they have already done in a sneering way: “What about these new ‘super-snoopers’ who are now going to inspect all the books throughout the country?” The task of these authorized persons to whom the Opposition refers so sneeringly, but who will nevertheless have a worthy task to perform, will be to perform precisely the same task in respect of domestic publications as the Customs performs in respect of foreign publications. Neither the hon. the Minister nor the hon. the Deputy Minister have made any remark nor has there been anything in the commission’s report on which to base allegations that the directorate were now supposedly instituting a massive investigation into virtually every publication.

In passing, I want to say that the impression created in this debate, that every book which is not prohibited in the future is by implication approved by the committees or the appeal board, is a mistaken one. That is the last thing this Bill envisages. This inspectorate, these “super-snoopers”, will seek out only those extreme cases which are prima facie worthy of investigation by a committee. That, after all, is the procedure followed by the Customs as well. In that instance too, therefore, there can be no escalation.

In the third instance they can tell me: “Remember, you said that the directorate would have to acquaint itself with each decision.” The Publications Board, with its five full-time members, also acquainted itself with every decision in respect of about 3 000 films and the approximately 1 600 publications, which were turned down. Not only did it acquaint itself with them, but it in fact decided for itself whether or not they should be banned, or whether or not changes should be made to them. In terms of the Bill, the directorate need take no decision. It is given the decision, looks through it quickly, and files it in the event of an appeal being lodged, unless the decision relates to something exceptional about which there has been publicity or which is worthy of public attention, in which case it will be inspected in order to determine whether the right of appeal should be employed.

Against this background I want to maintain that the Opposition has merely tried to conjure up a number of spectres by maintaining that this legislation is going to be impracticable. If 38 people have been able to control the system on an organizational basis up to the present, there is no reason why a relatively small number of people will not be able to control the new system to the same good effect. Even though the work were to double or triple, with the good organization and the elimination of much duplication which took place under the existing system, it will be just as easy for this new directorate, the committees and the appeal board to keep abreast as it has been for the existing Publications Board.

In the second instance I want to make the statement that the Bill makes allowance for the freedom of the individual and that its aim is fair and balanced control. [Interjections.] I have listened to the whole debate very attentively up to now, and nothing said by any hon. member on that side of the House has convinced us on this side in any way that the appeal board is not a positive step. They have been unable to reason away certain facts, and I want to restate these facts briefly for the benefit of hon. members. Firstly, this new form of appeal will be more easily accessible and cheaper for people who want to appeal. Secondly, this form of appeal protects the courts because they are now removed from the arena of polemics, in regard to which there will always be arguments. Thirdly, this is going to be a well-constituted tribunal, a tribunal which will possess balance between legal knowledge and specialized knowledge. It will be a tribunal which is going to follow a flexible and fair procedure, a tribunal charged with just handling of a difficult matter and, finally, a tribunal which will lead to greater legal consistency than the system of appeal to the courts. This evening I want to rely on new authority—I have already quoted previous authority—and this authority is a case, The People v. Kirkpatrick, which was heard in the New York Superme Court. The judge was Mr. Justice Tyler, and before I quote what he said, I just want to mention that in that country the courts have the full say. He said—

Then he makes the following quotation from Macbeth—

He went on to say, and now I want the hon. member for Green Point to listen carefully—

Connie says what we have to do.

This appeal board places the matter of appeal in the hands of selected, specialized people who will build up a tradition of justice, of fairness and of knowledge. There will inevitably be difference of opinion concerning the findings of this appeal board, because there can be difference of opinion on any finding. However, I want to make the statement—up to now it has not been refuted by the other side—that this appeal board, owing to its composition and in view of the period for which it will be appointed, will be capable of acting just as fairly and with as much justice as any court. That, too, is what it will be directed to do. Nor can the other side of the House escape from the fact that separation of the administrative function of the directorate and the decision-taking function of the committees is an improvement on the old system, because the Publications Board had simultaneously to act in an administrative and a decision-making capacity.

I shall conclude by saying that it is the object of this Bill not to interfere with the freedom of the individual, but specifically to protect it. We want to protect the rights and the freedom of the individual and hon. members on that side of the House had better say at once whether they agree with that or not, and whether—I am now talking to the hon. member for Orange Grove on the Progressive side who is shaking his head—they are concerned about those rights. We are concerned about the right of all individuals not to have to come across filth at every corner. We are concerned about the right of teachers to educate their children in a country which wants to offer resistance to the corrupting onslaughts of the communications media.

Was Van Wyk Louw not concerned about that too?

The most important thing is that we are also concerned about the right to live safely in South Africa instead of in a country where the existing order is allowed to be undermined by all kinds of publications and other matters. I want to tell the hon. member for Parktown that as far as this side of the House is concerned, it is not a question of insularity as against openness, or verligtheid as against verkramptheid; the concern of this side of the House is with building up an effective counter to a wave of commercialized sex which is being sold cheaply everywhere, but which enriches no one, and against a wave of violence which is represented as the essence of manliness while cultivating a sick and sadistic spirit. To conclude, we are against the onslaught of a wave of political literature whose aim it is to bring about revolution and war. That is what this Bill is all about. These onslaughts which have already had such an adverse effect on other countries—and we should realize this—are organized. We should not be naïve about them; they are organized for the sake of profit or for the sake of political gain.

Is Frans van Rensburg naive?

That is why these onslaughts justify effective countermeasures and we believe that this Bill will serve this purpose.

The hon. member for Parktown was very indignant just now when the hon. gentlemen on that side spoke to him, but it will not help him to hide behind a few academics. I myself have the highest respect for these academics, but their utterances have been delivered in an emotional atmosphere created by the Press and by the Opposition parties, and in that emotional atmosphere it is given out that it is the intention of this Government to enforce insularity and bigotry by means of this Bill.

Frans van Rensburg will be very pleased to hear that … [Interjections.]

The last thing this side has in mind is to force insularity on anyone. What we are seeking is balance, justice and space for decency.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vereeniging ended by saying: “Dit is nie die plan van die Regering om engheid en geslotenheid op die mense af te dwing nie”. I want to quote to him a little passage I came across the other day. I want to refer to that passage fully a little later in my speech but I want to quote part of it now while the hon. member’s words are fresh in his memory. I want to quote the following to him—

I want the hon. member to remember that, because I want to come back to it a little later in my speech. The hon. member for Vereeniging started off by saying that 38 members have in the past done all the work that was required. I presume he is referring to that gang of people under the chairmanship of Mr. Jannie Kruger.

Gang? You should be ashamed of yourself!

No, Sir, that is all right. I know that the hon. member for Parow is sensitive, because I know that he does not support this Bill either, exactly the same as I do not. As I say, those 38 people have administered this censorsip under this Government up to now. But what is the answer? I gave the hon. member the answer the other night. We had to appoint a commission. The State President had to be asked to appoint a commission to get rid of those 38 people, because of the mess that they had made. And then the hon. member says that these 38 people were able to cope, and that they would have been able to cope in the future. Will they be able to cope with the flood of TV films which are coming in? They are not all going to the SABC. Surely the hon. member knows that. He knows that all those TV films are not going there. What about the closed circuit TV which is being operated in the Republic today? What about all the video-tapes? What about the video-plates? What about the slides which are now brought in, in terms of this Bill? What about all the extra work, just dealing with films alone, apart from the other functions with which they are now going to be entrusted? I want to say that we have here tonight the embryo of an unworkable system, a system which can never work, apart from the iniquitous principles which are contained therein.

The hon. member referred to the appeal board which is created in terms of this Bill. He says that we have now established an appeal board which is a positive advancement and which will make a positive contribution to the regulation and the control of publications, and so on, in this country. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that this Bill which he introduced two weeks ago, is the final motion of no confidence by this Government in the courts of South Africa to carry out the wishes of this Parliament. Why did we have a commission? Why have we got this Bill? We have got it, because the courts upset some of the decisions of Mr. Jannie Kruger and his gang of censors. That is why. The sole object of this Bill before the House is to remove from the courts their discretion, to remove from them the right to hear an aggrieved person when he is dissatisfied by a decision which is now going to be made by an administrative body appointed by the favour of that hon. Minister. You know, Sir, it is said that kissing goes by favour. Appointment to that appeal board will also go by favour, the favour of that hon. Minister. What can we expect from that board when their appointment goes by the favour of that hon. Minister?

Kissing?

No, not kissing.

The kiss of death!

What do we have here? We have the removal from the people of South Africa of the inherent right of appeal to the courts if they are dissatisfied with the decision of a committee or of the directorate of publications. Even in those respects in which the court is left with a certain function, in terms of this Bill, namely when somebody has contravened a provision which involves a criminal sanction, the discretion of the court is removed by this Bill. I refer to the provisions which provide that in the event of a prosecution of a person for having produced or being in possession of a prohibited item, the court may not investigate whether that item does in fact offend, or whether it is in fact offensive. The court may not do that. All the court must do, is that it must accept a certificate, given by a committee, to the effect that the item in question is in fact offensive. The court then must—not “may”— find the accused person guilty. So what do we have? I come back to the quotation which I read to the hon. member for Vereeniging a minute ago. We have a situation where every artist, author and person of original thought in the the Republic of South Africa in the future will produce or publish at his peril. Whatever he has produced or published, will be decided upon by two people; because, Sir, a majority of two in a committee will decide whether or not that particular item is offensive. Then, when that poor unfortunate person is arraigned before the court, he has no defence whatsoever, because his defence is removed from him. The discretion of the court as to whether or not the article which he produced or possesses is in fact offensive, is removed from the court by the Bill introduced by this hon. Minister. As I say, there is no discretion. But the discretion of the court is further fettered by this Bill because in the event of a second or a third offence the court has no discretion regarding the penalty that shall be applied. This is because a minimum penalty has been laid down. In the case of a second offence it is a minimum of R500 and in the case of a third offence a minimum fine of R1 000. Do you wonder that I call this an iniquitious measure? Where an artist produces three consecutive nude paintings, each one in turn can be found to be undesirable by a committee and that artist can be arraigned before the court and found guilty. On the first occasion—I accept what the hon. the Minister said earlier—a fine of R1 can be imposed, but on the second occasion there is a minimum fine of R500 and on the third occasion a minimum fine of R1000. Do you wonder that I now say that one is hereby going to stifle the creativity of the artists in this country?

Let us come to the next matter mentioned by hon. members on that side. A plea has come from them throughout the debate that we must not break down the confidence of the public in this system which is now being introduced. In fact …

Of course.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom says “of course”, but he is a man with a legal background and legal training. I want to ask him: With that training, what confidence has he got in this system? I ask him as a lawyer, not as a Nationalist member of Parliament …

Don’t you worry about that.

There is no need for him to say “don’t you worry about that”. I am asking him now as a lawyer, not as a Nationalist member of Parliament who has to say “ja”. He will not answer. This is the point. No lawyer on that side will answer this question. Throughout this debate I have tried to get them to answer it and they will not. As lawyers are they prepared to accept the legal principles that are embodied in this Bill?

Just carry on with your speech.

The hon. member says I must just carry on with my speech. Why will he not answer the question? Is he ashamed of it? I think he is. I think his legal training does not allow him to accept the principles that are embodied in this Bill. That is the whole point. It not only applies to the hon. member for Potchefstroom. It applies to every single lawyer on that side of the House.

What about the hon. member for Vereeniging?

The hon. member for Vereeniging too. What did he say about the legal principles that are embodied? He quietly skated around them. He did not even refer to them. We are asked to request the public to have confidence in this system which is being introduced. The first thing we have to ask is: Does one believe that the public will have confidence in the system of super snoopers which is being introduced, whereby the housewives of Pretoria or Cape Town can generally be empowered to go into any corner bookshop or tearoom and go through their books and check?

You are talking nonsense.

No, I am not talking nonsense. That is what is written in the Bill. This was never denied when we debated this. Is one to ask the public to have confidence in that? Let us go further. Is one really serious in asking the public to have confidence in a committee which might consist of three people appointed by the Minister, as I say, by favour of the hon. the Minister? A majority of two of those may decide on whether or not an item, a book, a painting, a play or whatever the case may be, is in fact offensive. Two people may decide once they have been appointed by the hon. the Minister. They are bound by this Bill to decide without hearing any person, without hearing any evidence. They have to decide, and then the hon. the Minister turns round and asks the public to have confidence in this system. How can the public have confidence in a system like this?

Let us go further. When a person is aggrieved, whether he is an author or a producer of a play, or whether he is merely a person who possesses a painting, he can appeal to the appeal board. As I have said, these members of the appeal board are appointed by the favour of the Minister. And then, Sir, we find in the Bill that the meetings of the appeal board when they hear such an appeal, “shall not be open to the public.” How can the public have confidence in such an appeal board when their meetings shall not be open to the public, shall not be open to scrutiny? I want to repeat the old cliché that not only must justice be done, but that justice must also be seen to be done. When it comes to the question of justice being done, apart from the fact of its not being seen to be done, I want to quote again from the Bill i.e. that an appellant may appear at such a hearing with his legal representative, he may question the witnesses—those who are called by the board, those called by the members of the appeal board, and I quote again from the Bill … but shall not have the right to give or adduce evidence”. How could anybody have confidence in such an appeal board?

You are moving me to tears!

The hon. member for Potchefstroom says I am moving him to tears. As a member of the legal fraternity and with the legal background that he has, I think he should hide his head in shame. I ask him whether he accepts such principles? I ask him this as a lawyer, not as a Nationalist member of Parliament. Does he accept them? He nods his head. Am I to take it that he now accepts these legal principles?

Yes.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom now says that he accepts them. I am pleased that we have it on record that at least one lawyer on that side of the House has had the courage to say that he accepts them.

I want to go further. The application of this Bill is going to be worse in South Africa than the application of censorship and the curtailment of freedom of expression in communist Russia. In this regard, I want to come back to the quotation that I began earlier and I want to read it again for the benefit of the record. I am sure, Sir, that you will bear with me in repeating it.

I would love that!

I quote—

I want now to tell the House who said this. This was said by the former head of communist Russia, Mr. Khruschev. I want to say that notwithstanding these thoughts which he expresses in this statement, we still have the case of Solzhenitsyn and other artists who have had to flee from Russia because of the lack of freedom of expression there. I say therefore that the same thing will happen here in the Republic under this Bill. We are either going to stifle expression by our artists, by our free thinkers, by our creative people in this country, or else they are going to leave the Republic because of the stultifying influence of this iniquitous legislation which is before us today.

You are quite wrong!

I am afraid they are going to do the same. In conclusion, I want to say that I wish the hon. the Minister well with what he is trying to achieve here.

Thank you very much.

I know, however, that he is not going to achieve it. He is either going to achieve what I have just mentioned, i.e. the stultification of free thought and enterprise among our artists in this country or the result is going to be that these people will flee the country in the same way as these other people have left communist Russia.

He would not care.

If this Bill works, if this Frankenstein monster that he is creating works, that is going to be the effect. I want to say here and now, however, that he cannot make it work even under those circumstances. Next year we shall be sitting here in this House again debating an amendment to this Bill, and the year after that and the year after that. I think that the hon. the Minister agrees with me in this.

He said that at the beginning.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that he staid it before. The hon. the Deputy Minister said it as well. I concede that. Why then is the hon. the Minister wasting the time of this House now by coming forward with a half-baked measure which he knows is not going to work?

Like the Group Areas Bill.

With all the respect in the world, I find it impossible to add my name to the names of those who will vote for a measure as iniquitous as this. I believe that this House has heard enough from us tonight apart from the hours of debate in this regard that have gone before, to know that we reject this Bill with utter contempt and we shall vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, apart from a number of irresponsible statements, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was also guilty of at least one half-truth and two untruths. I want to tell him at once what the two untruths were. In the first place he said, “this Bill will stifle expression”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the expression “half-truth”.

I withdraw it. I shall explain to the hon. member what I meant. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South made a mistake, in all his eloquence, when he referred to the “stifling of expression”. I just want to tell him that we have had an Act on the Statute Book for eleven years which has been working in precisely the same way as this Bill before us will work as soon as we have placed it on the Statute Book.

You are wasting our time!

We regulated precisely the same matters, placed books, periodicals and films under control in precisely the same way as is now going to be done with this Bill. Was expression of opinion, political or otherwise, stifled in this country? Did what should have been published remain unpublished? I think the hon. member is going much too far with such a remark. In the second place, the hon. member made this untrue statement: That this commission of inquiry had been appointed to get rid of a certain 39 persons. I regard that as being a disgraceful remark. I have told him this before in these debates. Previously he made a similar remark in respect of the chairman of the present Publications Board; he apologized, and now he is making the same accusation in respect of these members, implying that they are incompetent to perform their task in terms of the Act, and the hon. member knows that this is not true. These members who served on the Publications Board were not involved in the commission of inquiry; we examined the system and not the members, not the persons who were rendering service there. They rendered excellent services, and we were satisfied with them. As far as these two points are concerned, the hon. member was therefore mistaken.

Sir, I come now to his standpoint concerning the prosecution in a court of law of a person who has published an obscene work. He presented the position here as being that such a person would be convicted by three persons sitting in obscurity, by a committee which decides whether or not the work is obscene, and then he asked us as jurists on this side of the House whether we are satisfied with this position. Mr. Speaker, I want to say in all humility that I am also a jurist; I am also in practice, and I want to assure the hon. member that I am completely satisfied with the system, for if I am not satisfied with the decision of that committee. I can take the decision of that committee on appeal to the appeal board …

Then it is too late; you have already been prosecuted.

No, that is not true. I can take the decision of that committee to the appeal board, and I may appear before the appeal board on behalf of my client, and state and argue his case, and the appeal board may set aside the decision of the committee. The hon. member was therefore telling a half-truth—I beg your pardon, I may not say that he was telling a half-truth—but he tried to present half of what appears in this Bill to this House tonight.

Mr. Speaker, this was not the object of my participation in this debate tonight. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the success of this measure, as it stands here and as it is now going to be implemented, is going to depend on the degree to which it is supported by the public. The success of this measure is going to depend on whether the public is going to support it and on whether the public is going to co-operate with it. In the second place, it is going to depend on whether the public and its institutions in general are going to participate in the forming of opinions and the setting of standards in this country, and this is an important function. It was emphasized in both the minority as well as the majority reports which we have been dealing with here for the past few days in the consideration of this Bill that the church, the school, the family should all participate in this function of setting standards and cultivating sentiments in respect of what is obscene and what is not obscene. In fact, it is my standpoint that unless the public is prepared to maintain certain standards in South Africa, unless they cherish these specific standards, the application of this legislation will be discontinued through disuse. It is therefore essential that the general public should know that the application of this legislation is the only means of combating the wave of obscenity, violence and political indoctrination to which my colleague, the hon. member for Vereeniging, referred a moment ago. But it is not the function of this legislation alone. It is also the function of the community in general, and in the community it is the function in the first place of the individual, the responsible, well-balanced, well-orientated individual with an awareness of his responsibility to the community from which he stems, to that community which gives him his freedom, and who wishes to return to that community of which he forms a part, a small portion of the freedom which he received. It is important therefore that these moral standards should be maintained, cherished, disseminated and defended by the individual and in the institutions of the community. In this context the function of the father to the child, of the minister, the pastor, to the congregation, of the teacher to the children at school, the actions of youth associations, the actions in cultural associations are of the utmost importance to us in South Africa. It is the task of these people to warn and to instruct; to warn against the consequences of an overly libertine approach to freedom, for an exaggerated libertine freedom mars the spirit as easily as the suppression of freedom. It could lead to moral degeneration, which has already been the cause of the fall of cultures and civilizations. But apart from warning—the negative aspect—it is important that the positive should also be emphasized in the community by not only creating healthy prejudices against those things which should be debarred from our society, but also by creating the opportunity and the ability to distinguish between what should be debarred and what may be tolerated. For apart from this general function of the public, without which this legislation cannot really function—this is after all the nursery of the standards which have to be applied—the public has another specific function in respect of the application of the legislation itself. The hon. member for Green Point said this evening that the public have no say in this legislation. But the public do indeed have a wide say in the application of the legislation. Let us consider this. It has a say in the committees, in the constitution of these committees in terms of section 5 from lists compiled annually by the Minister and on which members of the public may place their names.

No, the Minister places the names on that list.

Members of the public offer their names and the Minister may place these on the list, and therefore the public does have a say. There is the directorate which is the channel through which complaints on the part of the public are channelled to the committees and to the appeal board. There is the Minister who is the sounding board of public agitation when a certain work has aroused feelings. These are all channels through which the public have to work. I want to make an appeal to the public not to sit back and to say that this is not their task, that it is someone else’s task, and then merely to pass it by if there are any problems. They must participate positively in the application of the Bill by being the public arm of the directorate, the committees, the Minister and the appeal board.

Let us consider the appeal board for a moment. In this, too, the public ought to have great confidence, as well as a measure of participation, for it is not, as the hon. member for Parktown said in a previous debate, that the public will not have confidence in the appeal board because its chairman will not be a judge. We are in fact creating a bench, a quasi-judicial bench, which we are affording the greatest measure of independence. We are creating a bench on which a jurist of repute will have representation, a person who is well-versed in the tradition of the liberal profession. In the second place there will be opportunity to submit and argue facts. It will also be possible for a party to be represented by jurists. The audi alteram partem rule will be applied. In the third place the opportunity is being afforded a person to receive written reasons for decisions, and study them. I only hope that these written reasons will also be published in the same way as court records. I think that a great deal will have to be done to make them accessible to the public. In the fourth place the public has access to the appeal board, and it will be possible for the Press to publish the decisions which follow from the deliberations of the appeal board. I dispute what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has said, for it is not true that this appeal board is completely closed to the public. It can be opened, and access can be given under specified circumstances, and I believe that this will be utilized.

In general I see the public being able to participate in the administration and application of the Bill, and therefore being able to promote this Bill in its application from this point onwards.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House towards the end of the Committee Stage; I was prevented by meetings from attending the debate, but I did attend the greater part of the Committee Stage. I, too should like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on the way in which he handled the Bill. If one considers that he did not serve on the Select Committee or on the Commission of Inquiry, I must say that he made a very good job of bringing a very difficult baby into the world. I think that several senior Ministers may take lessons from him. I want to emphasize, though, that our satisfaction does not relate to the bill but to the way in which he brought the baby into the world. This does not change our view that it is an ugly baby that is lying in the shawl in front of us and that we very definitely refuse to accept any responsibility for it. We gained the impression that the hon. the Deputy Minister would have accepted many more amendments if it had been in his power, but we understand that he had to act under orders and did not always have a free choice. The amendments that have been accepted and introduced into the Bill are all of a minor nature, and not a single one of the amendments has met our principal objections to the Bill. So in this last stage, too, we must oppose the Bill up to the end.

I just want to give a brief summary of our principle objections to the Bill. In the first place it creates a whole series of new offences, unnecessary offences, new statutory offences. One may well say: Poor South Africa! We have more statutory offences in our country than there are in any Western country in the world. And now we are placing yet more statutory offences on the Statue Book. It is now becoming an offence to have a film in one’s possession which has not first been seen by the directorate. Everyone involved in films is regarded as a potential criminal. His property must first go to the State to be examined before it may be returned to him. Another new offence is the possession of a book which has been listed in the Government Gazette as a book you are not allowed to possess. Two categories of banned books are now being created here, and the category of books that may not be possessed will keep on growing. Eventually we shall come to a situation where, if you are not allowed to possess a book, you have to destroy the book, and there is no other way of destroying a book than burning it. This is the kind of provision that one would not find in any democratic Western country.

In addition it is now becoming an offence if a publisher or a printer does not ensure that his full name and business address are printed in a conspicuous place in everything he publishes. This is going to create tremendous problems, particularly for sellers of literature printed abroad. I do not want to repeat the arguments we have had, but I can foresee that staff will have to be appointed by the various publishers and booksellers to check all the thousands of items sent from overseas and to ensure that they are provided with a full name and address. Staff will have to be appointed to see that if this is not the case, it is put or stamped in them. This is a senseless and unnecessary provision and it must necessarily push up the price of literature. The Bill gives a clear definition of the term “publication”, and as I read the Bill, it means that nothing which is published is excluded—neither a stamp nor a bookplate nor a label for a medicine bottle. I regard this as an unreasonable burden which is being placed upon people. The same applies to the provision that the business address must be in one of the official languages. In South-West German is a national language and in the Transkei Xhosa is the third official language, a national language. Anyone who publishes a document in a language other than one of the official languages, is now being forced to put his full and correct business address in a conspicuous place on the document, in a language other than the one used in the publication itself. The position even means that in a Flemish book which arrives in South Africa and which contains the full business address of the publisher, the name and address will have to be restamped in one of the two languages. It will also be an offence to look askance at the new appeal board, which is not a court. In doing that one would be committing an offence. The Bill is full of “do’s” and “don’ts” and a whole series of unnecessary new offences is being created in South Africa.

Now you want less control.

Not this ridiculous control. We have never had it up to now.

Another of our major objections is the fact that the Government has refused, in clause 1, which establishes a directive norm, to write in and to guarantee the recognition of freedom of religion and of conscience. No one is opposed to the ideal of a Christian view of life, no one is objecting to that, but the fact that the Government went so far as to reject by way of a division our amendment in favour of inserting the recognition of Freedom of religion and of conscience … I must say I can think of few things which have created or will create as much distrust in this Bill as has been created by that step.

Furthermore we strongly object to the abolition of appeal to the courts, which is a fundamental right which should never have been tampered with. A tragic campaign was being conducted against the part played by the courts. We even had the situation, in the evidence given before the Commission, that an important person, who served on the Publications Board, went so far as to say: “To hell with the courts.” This was the situation that we had. There is not a single good reason for the abolition of appeal to the courts. This, more than anything else, has made it impossible for this Bill to enjoy the confidence of the public. By abolishing the right of appeal to the courts, the Bill is interfering with and removing basic human rights, rights which every person should have, namely to appeal to a court if he feels that he has suffered an injustice. There is another reason which is related to this: We regard it as being most unwise for such a Bill to be made applicable to the Territory of South-West Africa, which is being subjected to international scrutiny at the present time.

The Bill gives a handful of people who have been appointed at the discretion of an ordinary politician the right to ban all further copies of a periodical, thereby causing a whole firm to go out of business if need be.

That is an existing provision.

The existing rule allows representations to a court. If such a thing were to happen, the firm would have the right to appeal to a court if it believed that it had suffered an injustice. Now we have the situation that if a firm were to be ruined in this manner, it would not have the right of appeal to an impartial court. As regards the people on the committees and on the so-called appeal board who have to take this kind of decision, there is no guarantee that they will be impartial. What guarantee is there that they will be impartial, not only in their judgment, but also in respect of their private business interests? Nevertheless these powers are being given to them, unchecked by the protective shield of the courts.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to protest against the abuse in this debate of the names of Mr. Justice Rumpff, who is now Chief Justice, and particularly of Mr. Justice Kowie Marais. The remark made years ago by Mr. Justice Rumpff was used entirely out of context in the debate and was never meant to be a plea for the abolition of appeals to the courts. The impression which was created here that Mr. Justice Kowie Marais would have been satisfied with the appeal board that is being instituted by this Bill is quite wrong. Mr. Justice Marais submitted two memoranda to the Commission, one as a member of the committee, and one personally, in his capacity as chairman of another body. Together with the Transvaal Performing Arts Board, he signed a memorandum which includes the following clear statement (translation)—

That is what he wants, and not what is contained in this Bill. He wrote to the Secretary to the House of Assembly under his own name while the Select Committee was sitting. Hon. members will recall that it was then proposed that the existing Publications Board should actually become an appeal body. With reference to such a proposed appeal body he said—which is applicable to the new appeal board as well (translation)—

That was his opinion, and this is the nature of the body which is now being instituted. But he went further and said that if the Government were to have problems, he would propose a board of review which would be constituted as follows—these are his words (translation)—

1. (i) a jury of, say, 9, 11 or 13 members, chosen in exactly the same way as juries are still being constituted in England today (with an experienced lawyer as chairman without a vote);
2. (ii) a court consisting of three members, i.e. a chairman (who is a retired judge or a retired senior magistrate), a permanent assessor (who is a man of standing and independence), and always an acknowledged ad hoc expert as third assessor.

He further said that the appellant should then have a choice between the jury and the other body. These are the opinions of Mr. Justice Marais, and it is wrong to have given out here that he would have been satisfied with the Bill as it reads at the moment.

The evidence we received was overwhelmingly against the abolition of appeal to the courts. The few people who were prepared to support abolition all insisted on a special court under a judge with assessors. I must tell you, Sir, that the abolition must be regarded as one of the most important factors giving rise to distrust. The hon. the Minister should have tried to do one thing above all. He should have produced a Bill which would above all have inspired the confidence of the public. This he has destroyed himself. If he had inspired confidence he would have obtained the co-operation of the public. That confidence he has destroyed himself.

In conclusion I want to point out that we already have the most stringent system of censorship in the Western world today. We are not interested in importing trash. We have said over and over again that we have no objection to trash in the sense of obvious pornography and communist propaganda being kept out. Pornography may very easily be recognized and stopped, but our fear is based on this: If one examines the list of banned books in South Africa, one sees that nowhere else is there such drastic political censorship as in this country. The way things are at the moment, it is impossible for a South African today to make a thorough study of African affairs. We regard ourselves as being an African state, but there is not a single African leader of any standing whose books and political creed have not been banned in our country. I do not have time to read out lists here, but I may mention a few to you. The speeches made by Nyerere, the president of Tanzania, when he was still an M.E.C., have been banned. All the books by Nkrumah have been banned. Speeches made by him at the U.N., and reported here in the newspapers, have been banned. Lumumba’s Congo, My Country and President Kaunda’s Zambia shall be Free have been banned. Freedom and After by Tom Mboya has been banned. Sekou Touré’s book on Guinea, his political creed, has been banned. The political creed of Leopold Senghor, one of the greatest philosophers in Africa, an eminent poet, has been banned—a creed written in French, and how many people in South Africa read French? When one comes to literature, there is hardly a name among the classical or modern writers which does not appear over and over again on the list of banned books. Zola, Tolstoi and more modern writers such as Alberto Moravia, Pearl S. Buck, Robert Graves, William Faulkner, James Mitchener, Nadine Gordimer, Norman Mailer, Bertoldt Brecht: Mention the name of a writer who is read all over the world, and you will not be able to read him here in South Africa. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. In reply to a question in this House he disclosed that there are 17 000 books on the banned list in South Africa at the moment, and among these one finds the type of book I have mentioned. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is anything he can do to change this position and to have the banned lists revised. What can he do to bring South Africa back to the modern age?

Where we used to have one Publications Board, we are now getting a whole octopus of censorship boards, scattered all over the country. This system has no hope of inspiring confidence. I think it is a pity that South Africa is not getting something better.

I want to conclude by quoting these interesting words of Van Wyk Louw, in which he, quite rightly expressed his concern—he was our greatest philosopher (translation)—

This is applicable today to the situation we have before us. We consider it our duty to oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall come back to some of the arguments raised here by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. This is not something quite new; these are mostly repetitions of what he has already said during the debate. In spite of the sombre picture the hon. member tried to paint here in connection with banned publications, I must say that I have never been unable to find in South Africa any book I wanted to read. So the matter is not quite as bad as the hon. member tries to make out. We have come to the end of a very long debate. It was a debate in which, especially during the Committee Stage, an intense rearguard battle was fought, a battle which delayed the business of this House for a considerable time. When considering the whole picture, one must only realize that the whole strategy of the Opposition’s was to a great extent a political manoeuvre. They are not really concerned about the merits of the censorship system. They are concerned about their image as an effective Opposition in competition with the Progressive Party. I think this has quite a lot to do with it. They want to show the public outside how they can fight.

The second conclusion one must reach when considering this debate in retrospect is that the Opposition is hopelessly divided on the merits and principles of this Bill serving before us. We have that group of Opposition members—-and one says with gratitude—who assist us in our endeavours to establish a sophisticated and effective system of control over publication. There are people who are also concerned, as we are, about the colossal influx of soul corrupting literature and films. These are people who realize that control is essential in this age of pornography and permissiveness, in this age of the shameless uttering and display of those things that decent people rather keep to their bedrooms. There are those, and we are grateful for them. Unfortunately it is also quite clear that there are hon. members sitting over there—although they do not say so frankly —who are pertinently and in principle opposed to any form of control.

Who are they?

We shall tell you. I do not want to embarrass you now. We have those people who do not care in the least whether South Africa is inundated with the world’s worst pornography and filth.

Who are those people?

They are the apostles of permissiveness. They are those who destroy and demolish the conservative norms and standards of Western civilization. These are the people who practise personal freedom to the point of self-destruction. Because they are so divided, a split that goes far deeper than merely political viewpoint, a split that even involves the philosophy of life, they have to try and find a formula. By means of this formula they wanted to express harmony. This formula they found in the so-called right to access to the courts. They elevated this to a sacred cow and this is what this mock fight was all about. It was said by this side that the old system of control was working quite well initially, but the public gradually lost its confidence in it. They lost their confidence to a large extent, because of the right of access to the courts embodied in the old Act. [Interjections.] That is true. A deadlock was reached because there was this right of appeal to the courts. The Publications Board become the laughing-stock of the public. That was no fault of the court, but simply because different norms were applied here. The Publications Board judged administratively, and according to norms; the court knows only one procedure, and that is the judicial procedure. When one applies different standards, one does not come to the same conclusions, with the result that the old system did not work. Then the hon. the Minister searched for a new system. In his search for this new system, he searched far and deep. We had the departmental committee which made a recommendation, but that did not meet with the approval of hon. members opposite either. They rejected this as well. Then we had the Select Committee and the commission on which they also served. They rejected it once more. It was a comprehensive report, and I think that this House is greatly indebted to that Commission for all the hard work they did. We now have this Bill before us which is going to become law. We on this side of the House are convinced that we here have a modern, sophisticated, effective piece of legislation to apply this control. We are convinced that this control will be applied justly and equitably and that this will satisfy all the groups except that small group of blood-suckers who want to make money out of pornography and filth. The hon. the Minister said that if any deficiencies became evident in the Bill he would put them right by means of amendments until it is completely effective.

The major feature of this Bill, in respect of which a great deal of concern has been expressed on that side of the House, is the fact that it recognizes the constant endeavour of the population of South Africa to uphold the Christian view of life. It is a fact that White civilization here at the southern tip of Africa managed to survive and was protected against many a crisis over a period of 300 years, thanks to the basis and norms of Christian Western civilization. Without them we would never have been able to survive here; without them we would have had neither a task, nor object, nor aspirations in Africa. It is this very Christian Western civilization our enemies, the communists, want to destroy. It is these very norms and values of that civilization we want to protect by means of this Bill. That is why we are grateful that it provides for the upholding of the Christian view of life. There are hon. members on the opposite side who expressed deep concern and in very strong language criticized these principles in this Bill. This I regret. After all, hon. members also believe in and also have the norms of the Christian Western civilization as their basis. It would be a sad day if we should differ on this important principle. After all, this is the fundamental view of life of the whole White nation in Southern Africa. I do not want to don a high priestly robe, but I regret that this principle should have been argued about so vehemently. I find no grounds in the objections that this will mean a loss of religious freedom and that freedom of belief and conscience will be endangered. We have a long history of religious freedom. We have a long established tradition. In this Bill there is no danger of that tradition being violated. The second basic feature of the Bill is that it establishes a speedy and effective system of control which will be applied by the people themselves, and that, Sir, is very important. There is no question here of a Draconic censor who is out of touch with the public and who derives a sadistic pleasure in keeping away from the people everything that is important and interesting. The people have the right, as it were, to make suggestions themselves on who is to serve on the committees and the Minister appoints, from these groups, people with the necessary ability. The committees, in fact, exercise control, and to my mind this embodies a valuable principle because the committees will be reappointed annually. There will therefore be constant interchange of ideas: there will be constant enrichment of thought as new people are appointed to the committees, and because the limit of acceptability is not static, these committees will keep pace with public opinion and changes in moral norms and standards. Sir, it is, therefore, a very effective and efficient system, and I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and South Africa. I believe the Western world can regard this piece of legislation as a model of control over publications and entertainments, and I am really sorry that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has belittled and criticized this Bill in advance. The hon. member used very strong language; he says the Bill stands before us with its excessive bureaucracy, with its octopus-like committees and its brigade of snooping officials who will encroach upon the privacy of the individual to the point of becoming intolerable. Sir, I think one may remind the hon. member of the Dutch proverb which says: “The superlative is the greatest enemy of truth”. I want to say that I welcome this and that I am very grateful that Coloured and Indian ancillary committees will have the opportunity of equipping themselves to be able to make a contribution in this regard, and this gives the lie to the arguments raised by hon. members on that side to the effect that this Government, as mouthpiece of the predominantly Afrikaans-speaking section of the population is now going to force their norms on the ideas of other people. This is not so, Sir. Here the opportunity is afforded to every one, even to the non-Whites, to prepare themselves and to speak their mind in this matter. Sir, since hon. members of the Opposition are trying to create a kind of fear of this Bill among the English-speaking population, I want to say this to them: They are trying to execute a political manoeuvre against the Government among English-speaking people, and my experience during this last election was that the English-speaking people support this Government because it takes these firm steps for they are the people who are opposed to this tidal wave of pornography which is flooding the world and that is why, Sir, we take such firm action. I want to remind those hon. members of another saying: A desperate disease requires a desperate remedy.

Mr. Speaker, I was listening very attentively to the hon. member for Algoa, especially when he was saying that he was very pleased that these committees to be appointed, would be getting new members each year. I just want to ask the hon. member what type of speech he would have made here this evening had he been elected for the first time this year? I do not think that he would have been able to make the fine speech he has just made. I think it would have taken him at least four years to have gained enough experience to have been able to deliver a speech such as the one he delivered here this evening. I wonder whether he really believes that new members of a committee who are elected each year, will be able to do the work of such a committee efficiently. I think he will agree with me that it will take those new committee members at least two to three years to find their feet.

Then the hon. member spoke of people in this House who were opposed to control. He was asked repeatedly who these people were, but he remained silent. I wonder if there are any members in this House who are opposed to control. I do not think so. I think that each hon. member in this House is in fact in favour of control; there is no one here who is opposed to control. The hon. member is wrong in saying that there are people here who are opposed to control. The only difference between us is that the hon. member wants us to be prepared to accept, without another word, that bureaucratic committees appointed by the Minister may tell us what is good for us. We are not prepared to swallow this. We say that we, as members of Parliament, are fully prepared to make a law here, but we should like the courts to pronounce on the meaning of what we decide here. [Interjections.] Now it is being said that the courts are not capable of doing this. The hon. member went so far as to indicate that the reason for this legislation was that the Nationalist Party had no confidence in the courts of our country. He said that what the people of the country wanted to have was strong control. In other words, the courts of our country would not be able to give us such strong control. Consequently he also referred to the so-called right of appeal to the courts. The hon. member does not even know what the right of any upright person in South Africa is. Any upright person in South Africa naturally has a right of stating his case before the courts, and who is the hon. member for Algoa to come and tell us that a committee, which a bench mate of mine termed super snoopers, is to take the place of the judiciary of South Africa? This is a theme which ran through all the representations and speeches made by hon. members on the opposite side.

†Sir, my time is very short indeed and I would just like to end by saying this. We have been told time and time again by hon. members opposite, by the hon. members for Vereeniging and Bellville and a host of others, that the judges of the Supreme Court are not interested in this control of pornography and that they believe this is an administrative function and not a function for the courts. Here I believe they have interpreted whatever the judges said quite incorrectly. What the judges have said in fact is this: “If you are going to treat us as part of an administrative bureaucracy, we will have no part in it.” And that is what the hon. members opposite have been doing. Hon. members opposite and the Minister have treated the judges of this country very shabbily indeed. What have they done? They have said: We will have a Publications Board which will decide what is good for you to read, what is good for you to see and what is good for you to have. And if this Publications Board has said A or B, or yes or no, then you may take them on appeal. In other words, you are asking the judges to be part of this bureaucracy which you have established. Now obviously, if I were a judge, I would say I want to have nothing to do with it, and I believe any other person here who has had any legal training and who found himself on the Bench would also say: Why should I be bothered with these administrative functions; why cannot the courts decide for themselves what is fit and what is not fit for the public of South Africa to see, read and hear?

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 68.

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the end of this long debate, and I am grateful that I am able on this occasion to express a few last ideas on the Bill before it goes to the Other Place. At the outset, I want to reply briefly to the speeches made by the hon. members of the Opposition who participated in this Third Reading debate, and after that I shall proceed to make certain comments on the Bill itself and on the matter with which it deals.

Fundamentally, the hon. member for Green Point stated only two principles to which he objects. The one concerns control by the court, and I shall deal with that when I come to the last part of my speech. The other fundamental principle was that we should provide a clearer definition of what is undesirable. He said that we have a vague definition, one which is not defined precisely enough. In terms of the existing Act of 1963, we have in fact been trying to apply a clear definition, for it is provided in section 6(1)(c)—

In addition, a whole series of phenomena are mentioned, but after all these things have been mentioned in an attempt to give a clear definition of what is meant, it was felt that this was nevertheless not sufficient, and a further provision was added—

When an attempt was made, therefore, by means of the existing Act, to define more specifically what “undesirable” is, the legislature considered itself compelled to mention a whole series of phenomena. However, this entire series was not sufficient, for subsequently many things occurred which were not mentioned, and in order to cover those aspects as well, a general covering provision was added.

My problem is that the moment one begins to circumscribe and define, one narrows the base of one’s actions, for then one begins to refer to specific things. However, when one states a concept as it is being stated and defined at present in the Bill, we create a broad base for action and leave it to the judgment of the committee to interpret. That is the crux of the matter. If it could be precisely defined, as one is able to give definitions in the case of an exact science, we would have done so gladly, but this is an indefinable term in legal language. It is impossible, and if we had attempted to do so, we would have come up with something clumsy. In any case, criticism was levelled in court decisions at the way in which it was stated in the existing Act. With that I leave the speech made by the hon. member for Green Point.

I come to the speech made by the hon. member for Parktown, who adopted a standpoint on behalf of the Progressive Party and said that the Bill would stifle good art. The Bill is aimed at encouraging good art, and not at stifling good art. It is only that art which, according to the opinion of a committee of people who are part of everyday life and who deal with these things every day and who experience and interpret the norms of the world around them every day, is totally undesirable, which will eventually be prohibited.

The hon. member said that there was no openness. I think this Bill opens up matters to a far greater extent than ever before, for we intend appointing approximately 100 panel members, as I have said on so many occasions before, from the ranks of the people as a whole to try to make it as representative as possible of the entire community which it has to serve.

The hon. member referred to Prof. Van Rensburg. I think Prof. Van Rensburg would qualify very well indeed to serve on the panel, for then he could take decisions himself. As a man of letters of high standing I should like to appoint him to one of these panels, if he would be prepared to serve on it. I have no objection to that. In other words, we want complete openness, an open idea and an open opinion on this matter. I really think the hon. member was doing an injustice when he said that we were dealing here with something that is insular.

The hon. member stated in conclusion that it would be bureaucratic control and that we would one day reap what we are sowing here today with this Bill. In his speech there was, for the rest, all kinds of veiled threats and ominous predictions. The hon. member was not here at the time, but I want to remind him of a previous Bill which I piloted through Parliament, the Abuse of Dependence-forming Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Bill. Precisely the same standpoint was adopted in regard to that Bill, viz. that we were sowing disaster and would eventually reap the fruits of disaster. It was with great satisfaction that I was able to quote to hon. members in the Second Reading debate that the number of charges as a result of contraventions of the Drugs Act had diminshed by 31% since that Act had been passed. These are the fruits which we have plucked from that Act, a measure which was also totally unnecessary in the eyes of that party and which should not therefore have been on our Statute Book. These were the practical results.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South told me that he would not be here; unfortunately he has been called away. As far as he is concerned, there is just one matter I want to set straight. The hon. member based his entire speech on the provisions of clause 11 (2)(b) which read—

He tried to make a tremendously melodramatic case of the fact that a committee, which consists of three people, may take a decision with an ordinary majority, in others words two, without hearing any person, and that that decision would then be binding on the whole of South Africa. The hon. member for Bellville stated quite justifiably that he had only told the half of what is stated in this Bill. If he had really wanted to present a balanced case, he would also have quoted clause 3(b) to us, which summarizes the functions of the directorate, and in which it is very clearly stated that the directorate shall—

That same committee to which the hon. member was referring—

In other words, an expert in that field may be requested by a committee to give his advice on a specific matter, and only then will they pass judgment on the matter. The legislation makes provision for that, but it did not suit the purpose of the hon. member to quote it. That is why he omitted to mention it, and quoted only half of the provision, and not the other part which has to be read in conjunction with it. I leave the hon. member and his political honesty at that.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout enumerated a series of offences to us. One of them, according to him, is that it is an offence to have a film in one’s possession. Now, I want to know how one is to take action against a person who gains unlawful possession of a smutty blue film and hires it out nightly for an amount of R200 to R400 to make money and undermine people’s morals. How does one bring such a person to book within the network of the legislation if one does not make the mere possession of that film an offence?

They will still continue to do so. After all, criminals operate outside the law.

Now it is an offence; otherwise one has nothing against such a person. The hon. member is again making this a special point, but I stated very clearly in the Second Reading debate that the Bill establishes the possibility that the Minister may grant exemption from this provision. I have already announced in public that I intend, and am prepared, to make exception and grant exemptions in respect of the large companies that deal with our everyday film industry and which will naturally handle this matter correctly. They will not create any problems for us, because we know them. There is so much at stake for them that they will not give us any problems. I have already announced that I am going to grant them exemption, but I refuse to grant exemption to the sellers and purveyors of blue films. For that reason the net has been spread so widely that I can catch them unambiguously in this network, while exemption will ge granted to people who are worthy of this confidence and who really deserve it. In addition the hon. member quoted from what Mr. Justice Kowie Marais had said in regard to the matter, and he implied that we had quoted him entirely incorrectly and quite out of context. That may be; the hon. member quoted certain passages, but I also want to quote a passage. I want to read out the passage which I think is applicable again, and I am quoting from his official evidence as it appears on page 95 of the report (translation)—

It is as clear as daylight. Mr. Justice Marais envisages a board which is identical to this one which we have in mind here. He says there should be a senior person with legal knowledge, an expert in the field of the literary arts, or whatever it may be, and then—in reply to the question put by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout—Mr. Justice Kowie Marais repeated that the appeal to an appeal board should remain and not necessarily appeal to the Supreme Court. He said “Some form or other of appeal; I should say not the Supreme Court, but to a jurist and two assessors …” This is precisely as it is now being stated in the legislation. That is precisely what we want to establish. I can continue in this vein, but I do not want to spend any more time discussing this matter. In general I am simply following the general line of thought.

It is interesting to note that we in South Africa are being accused of incredible absurdities which we are going to perpetrate in this regard. Quite by chance I have in my hand at the moment the London Times of Thursday, 22 August 1974, quite a recent edition therefore. What is stated here?—

It was seized by the Police and taken to the courts—that is the point.

Yes, very well, but the fact remains that we were criticized in regard to Three months gone a number of performances of which were allowed before it was stopped. Here is a film which was exhibited for eight weeks, in modern, sophisticated London, before it was seized by the Police and the persons in question were brought to book and taken to court. This is therefore precisely the same procedure which is being applied, and then hon. members want to hold up to us here that we are a State which is completely out of step with what is happening all around us in the world.

The difference is that they took him to court.

Yes, I am coming to this court story in a moment.

Let us in the few remaining minutes—I only have half an hour in all—summarize the matter briefly. The speeches of the Opposition give the impression that according to the present dispensation the system of control is an utter failure. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South spoke about “that gang of people”, and the hon. member for Green Point said, by way of an interjection: “Look what they did; now I understand the mess they got up to,” etc., etc. They said it was an utter failure. They allege that people were being wronged on a large scale, and that numerous decisions taken by the Publications Board were at variance with the opinions of the public. What are the statistics of the Board’s activities throughout the entire term of its existence? It is interesting to consider these. From 1 November 1963, when the previous Act came into operation, to 30 June 1974, i.e. a period of 11 years, the public, the Police or the Department of Customs and Excise submitted 14 847 publications and objects to the board. The public, the Police, or whatever, regarded these as being undesirable and they were therefore submitted to the Board. The existing Act provided that a person should first have reason to believe that a publication or object was undesirable before he submitted it. Of these 14 847 submissions the board found 8 671 or 58% undesirable. Remember, this is over a period of 11 years. In contrast to this, 42% of these submissions were not found by the board to be undesirable, in spite of the misgivings of the public, the Police, or whoever it may have been. Therefore, people could possibly have been wronged in respect of only 8 671 of the cases submitted. How did the courts deal with these cases? With much gesticulation the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said in his speech a moment ago that this Bill was “a final motion of no confidence in the courts of South Africa”. This board, as I have said, found 8 671 submissions to be undesirable. Of these 8 671 submissions appeals were lodged with the court in only 43 cases over this period of 11 years. This is an average of 4 per annum, or 0,5%, i.e. an appeal was lodged in only one out of every 1 000 cases.

So why abolish appeal?

Precisely. Now the argument is just the reverse. It shows the weakness of the Opposition. Why do you not then support the present Act in full, and why do you not stand by it? Why do you speak of “a gang of people”, etc.? Now that I have given them the facts, this “gang” are suddenly fine fellows.

We had all those facts before the Commission.

Of all the cases which came before the courts, the decisions of the board were rejected in only nine cases and partially rejected in three cases. This leaves a total of 12 cases where the courts did not agree with the board, in other words, 0,08%. What was the result? The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South described this board, which did such fine work, as a “gang”. The hon. member for Green Point said: “It is people of this kind; now I understand, the mess which they made of things.” Here, now, are the statistical facts. This is how the work of the board was handled by the courts. I want to say here this evening that this group of people who, unprotected by legislation, had to endure endless abuse because they were doing their duty, who displayed a fallibility factor of only 0,08% over a period of 11 years. What a fantastic record of efficiency! Should we now open the floodgates to a stream of pornography which is brought in for purely commercial reasons and reproduced, and which is aimed solely at the lowest human passions? I am asking this in all earnest. The Opposition says: “No, but …” and emphasize the “but” in particular. Sir, what is the history of this Bill? Did we come here precipitately with a Bill? No, it has a long history. On 14 March 1972 an interdepartmental committee was appointed by the Minister of the Interior to investigate the existing Act. On 22 December 1972 this committee made a report available which was published in the Gazette for the information of the public, and on which comment was invited. On 3 May 1973 the Publications and Entertainments Bill was introduced here, in which the recommendations had been included. Then it was once again referred to a Select Committee of the House of Assembly, and the public was once again invited to submit memoranda. On 6 July 1973 the committee was converted into a commission of inquiry, because Parliament prorogued and the select committee was unable to complete its task. On 20 December 1973 this commission completed its report and submitted it to the State President. On 1 February 1974 the aforesaid report, together with the minority report, was laid upon the Table in both Houses of Parliament, and a Bill was introduced. On 2 August notice was given of the present Bill, which, in general outline, is identical to the Bill which was introduced on 1 February. In other words, from March 1972, from the Select Committee of Parliament onwards, complete candour was displayed on every occasion by invitations to the public, to anyone who wanted to submit a memorandum, until we had the Bill before us in its present form. The Opposition is not prepared to touch it, because they regard it as an ill-considered Bill and are levelling all kinds of criticism at it. If Parliament, after all those proceedings in which the Opposition also played a part, has not been able to come forward with something, then it does not say much for the democratic system in South Africa.

The objections of the Opposition centre around a few matters. One of these is the question of the possession of certain publications. Now I want to say at once, and repeat, that there are certain publications the possession of which is so undesirable that it is necessary, in the interests of South Africa, to prohibit this. Once again I want to mention as example to motivate my case. When one—this happens in practice, in the present times in which we are living—finds a description of how to make bombs, for example, and where precisely one should launch an attack on South Africa, where all the power stations are situated which should be blown up, where all the reservoirs, etc., are, and such a publication is published, is there anyone in this House who wants to tell me that it is in the interests of South Africa that someone should possess such a publication? For what purpose does he possess it? At present there is no law prohibiting him from doing so. For the first time now, this Bill prohibits him from doing so. A row is being kicked up here, as if we were going to ban rows and rows of books, and no one will be allowed to possess them. The hon. member referred to the bonfires which we would have to keep lit to burn all the books. I tell you, as long as this Government is governing in South Africa, we will impose restraints on this kind of thing. It is necessary. We have a duty to South Africa, and the Opposition is not prepared to share that duty with us. What safe precautionary measures do we have here? How may a book which a person may not possess appear on that list? In the first place it is being required that a committee should decide that the publication or object in question is undesirable. In the second place, the decision referred to in that paragraph (a) is then subject to an appeal to the appeal board. In the third place, the prohibition on possessions has to be promulgated by notification in the Gazette before the prohibition applies. In the fourth place, such a notification cannot be promulgated in the Gazette before the appeal board has confirmed the prohibition. Here there are four safety valves therefore to prevent us abusing this matter. Nevertheless, the burden of the song they sing here is that we are going to place tremendous restrictions on these people.

I come to the Opposition’s second argument. This centres mainly around the abolition of the appeal to the Supreme Court. In my Second Reading speech I already quoted from what Judge of Appeal Rumpff, Mr. Justice Snyman and Mr. Justice Kowie Marais said. This evening I want to quote two or three other sources in support and endorsement of our standpoints, l want to quote what Judge of Appeal Williamson said, pages 161-162—

And to that the hon. judge objected. I also want to quote what was said by Prof. Marinus Wiechers, who is probably one of the experts in administrative law in South Africa. In the publication Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg, he said the following in this regard, and I quote what is quoted here (translation)—

And then—

This is precisely as it is being applied here.

We have a hundred witnesses against abolition.

Yes, I accept that. The hon. member did not quote it; I am still waiting for the quotation. I can quote even further. I shall perhaps have to do so very briefly because I also have to keep one eye on the clock. The following quotation is from what Prof. Van der Vyver, head of the law faculty at the Potchefstroom University, said. He put it in this way (translation)—

I can mention numerous other sources to you. Eventually we deemed that it was in our best interests, and in the best interest of the courts, that we should abolish the appeal to the courts and handle the matter as is now being set out here.

What precisely does this legislation do? The official Opposition says that they prefer the existing system to the system which will now come into operation, while the Progressive Party states that they do not want any system. The official Opposition maintains that they prefer the old system to the new as a result of the single principle that appeal to the courts is being abolished. They reject this new system in spite of the fact that the present legislation, one could almost say, affords relief in regard to the existing position. To have persons who have to form opinion on a publication, film or object themselves, i.e. the committees, to have these take the decisions themselves and not, as at present, merely convey their views to another body to reach a decision on, is in my opinion an administrative improvement on the present system. Secondly, reasons must now be furnished for decisions. Thirdly, editions of periodical publications which are found to be undesirable, may be exempted. Fourthly, the decision-taking function is clearly distinguished from the administrative function. In the fifth place, this legislation provides that experts may be consulted. In the sixth place, evidence may be adduced before the appeal body. In the seventh place, an apparently undesirable publication need not inevitably be seized, it is only necessary to take down particulars. In the eight place, the reasons for the prohibition of an object or publication are announced in the Gazette. In the ninth place, it is being provided that age restrictions in respect of films be limited to two main groups. Another change is that decisions may be reviewed after two years. A further and eleventh advantage is that the directorate may appeal to both sides not only for the protection of the public, but also of the interested party. This, too, is a change in the existing system. In the twelfth place, the legislation provides that appeals may now be made against decisions of the directorate where permits and exemptions have been refused. In addition, official lists of objects and publications are published so that everyone can know precisely what they are. In the fourteenth place, the Coloured and Indian populations will also be consulted in regard to films now. The public will be given access to the considerations which applied in regard to the appeal board. In the last place, the same definition of “undesirable” will be used in respect of all these media, films, publications and public entertainments. We will therefore have standardization. Sixteen benefits of the new system.

In the few remaining minutes, I want to say in conclusion that we all accept and recognize that this is a difficult problem. Norms differ from one person to another and from one community to another. They are difficult to define and difficult to determine. What creates no problems for one person, is offensive to another person. This is therefore a concept which is difficult to define. At the same time there is a general feeling, and I do not believe there is anyone in this House who differs with me on this score, that we cannot be without a form of control; there must, in some way or other, be a form of control. I do not think that anyone will differ with me on this score, except the Progressive Party. They maintain that the general legislation can deal with the matter. [Interjections.] Hon. members must not tell me a different story now. The official Opposition and we agree that there should be control. What is the position then? There has to be control in order to debar pornography. The Opposition decides where a line should be drawn, and we decide where a line should be drawn, but it is impossible to lay down a specific norm. Now we have to find someone or something to determine where the norm is, and where one may draw the line. The Opposition maintains that the court should do this. The court should therefore be called in now to perform a purely administrative function. The court should now, according to those hon. members, give decisions on norms which are difficult to determine. We say, and this is the underlying premise of this Bill, that the people themselves will determine their own norms, and will exercise control over their publications and entertainments. The people themselves will do this through committees, constituted from a panel of members. The hon. members have already kicked up a great deal of dust in regard to these panel members. As yet, no official invitation has been addressed to people to nominate panel members. All that has appeared in this regard is the speeches made in the House of Assembly and the discussion of this matter which followed. I can now inform hon. members that I have already, at this moment, received the names of panel members, or possible panel members, together with their curriculum vitae, from more than 50 organizations in South Africa, without any invitations having been issued.

From Whites only?

I have not checked to see who they are. Nevertheless, there are 50 organizations that are making recommendations at this early juncture and which are therefore prepared to co-operate and prepared to give this legislation a fair chance. I want to say at once that this Bill is an honest attempt on the part of the Government to handle a situation which is difficult to handle, and do so in such a way that it will, as far as possible, give general satisfaction. I want to add that we will implement this legislation with the greatest circumspection. We shall handle it in as reasonable a way as possible, because I know that the success of the legislation will depend on the persons who are appointed to the various boards.

I want to conclude by saying this: Please give this legislation a fair chance. Let us make an attempt to handle this difficult problem. We cannot allow the moral standards of the people to be destroyed, as is at present the case in many countries of the world. The strength of a nation does not lie in its Defence Force or in its wealth, but in the inner spiritual resistance which it can offer to the onslaughts being made on it.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, J. P. C. le Roux, A. van Breda and C. V. van der Merwe.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.