Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half-hour, although I shall use only a part of it. The report which the hon. the Minister has submitted to Parliament this year is presented in a much more concise form than previous reports. One realizes that this may have been done in order to economize, but nevertheless it is welcome and I hope it will continue in this way. I do not want to discuss the report as such. I do want to discuss a few matters arising from the report. There is one criticism I have against the contents of the report, but I am afraid that I may not be able to refer to it in the time available to me.

We have the position, unfortunately, that in a very important debate such as this one, the time for discussion allotted to the Official Opposition is limited to only 50 minutes. Last year the hon. the Minister spoke on this Vote for an hour and a half. The time allotted to hon. members on the other side is almost two hours, which means that if the hon. the Minister speaks for an hour and a half again this year, his side of the House will have a total of three and a half hours, as against only one hour and 10 minutes for the Opposition parties. In view of the fact that it is the task of the Opposition to analyse and to criticize, I must say that the system which is being followed at the moment is highly unsatisfactory, because our traditional form of debate in this House has largely been rendered impossible. I believe that something should be done about it.

According to the positive parts of the report, 1975 was a good year, generally speaking, for the department. We are not surprised at this. It was the year in which the hon. the Prime Minister and his Department of Foreign Affairs held South Africa up to be a country of change, of reform, of moving away from discrimination and negative apartheid, and of seeking friendships with Black countries in Africa. As we expected, and as we have often said in this House, this immediately aroused the interest of the outside world and gained us a more sympathetic Press in most capitals of the Western world. We on this side welcomed this, because it is in line with what we have been advocating for years, i.e. that we could improve our position and to increase our security in the world if only we would stop producing bad news on the domestic political front. As one commentator expressed it: “The easiest way to prevent anti-South African news being printed is to stop manufacturing it.” Sir, we were particularly pleased with the break that our information officers got abroad as a result of this movement, especially on the part of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We have a team of competent and hardworking information officers, not only abroad, but at home as well, but in most cases—and I have often encountered this— they have stood against a wall they could not surmount because they had little more than negative politics to sell. Now at last, in the year that is past, they got more positive politics to sell, and one could see at once that their work became more pleasant. So we are not surprised at the fact that 1975 was a better year than the previous years for Foreign Affairs as well as for Information.

As far as the future is concerned, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. He will concede that already there is disappointment and reaction in important circles abroad—we find this especially in our neighbouring states—because 18 months have elapsed and little has been done inside the country to live up to the high expectations created by the Government. I should like to ask him how he sees the road ahead in the light of this fact. Does he expect that there will be enough adjustment and reform in the year ahead to ensure further improvements in our international relations, in the interests of ourselves, our survival and our security?

I notice that the Secretary for Information predicts in his report, amongst other things, that the attempts of the UNO to isolate us will increase, especially on the question of South West Africa. Secondly, he says that the independence of the Transkei will cause the attention of the outside world to be focused on the socio-economic position of the Black man in South Africa outside the homelands. I should like to put a specific question to the hon. the Minister, and I hope he will give me a specific reply: In view of what is predicted in the annual report of the department itself, what steps is his department taking even at this early stage to oppose the predicted attempts? My memory may be failing me, but I do not know of one effective publication which has appeared in recent times to advertise and to illustrate the positive events in South West. Sir, an important political conference is being held in South West and it has produced surprising results already. For example, they have accepted the principle of the rate for the job, the principle of compulsory education for all children, and the principle of one multiracial university for everyone in South West Africa, to mention just a few matters which usually arouse the interest of the outside world. These are events which I believe the Department of Information should already be publicizing and advertising energetically. But one sees nothing of the kind. Now that the hon. the Minister and his department know, and concede themselves, that the emphasis of the propaganda offensive abroad, in countries such America, Britain, France, Canada and Holland, will fall on the position of the Black man outside the homelands, I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister and his department are prepared for what they themselves call the propaganda onslaught which is approaching. Why are they not anticipating it with positive propaganda, or does the Minister not yet have a positive policy in this connection?

Sir, to refer again to the report: The hon. the Minister likes to speak of Africa, of better relations with Africa and of South Africa as being an African state. That is fine; he is right. He has been visited, among others, by his counterpart in the Ivory Coast. We welcome this and we should like to see more of it. But in spite of all the talk about détente and dialogue, there is no indication, certainly not in the annual report we have before us, that the hon. the Minister and his department are working according to a systematic plan as far as the African countries and their people are concerned. Africa is hardly mentioned in the whole report. Nowhere are there any details of any plan in regard to Africa.

What I should like to know is this: In view of the importance, the supreme importance, of our relations with Africa, how does his department see the matter? How far has the hon. the Minister progressed in exchanging visitors between us and the African countries, in distributing reading matter and films, in Africa and not only for the long list of viewers in the European world? How far has he progressed in distributing such reading matter and films in the countries of our own continent and in establishing relations between us and the other countries of Africa? Judging by this report, we still seem to be a European country much more than an African one. Here, I think, there is a great deficiency and I should be glad if the hon. the Minister would give us some more information about this side of the matter. I should also like to hear in this connection what progress has been made in training non-White South Africans, not for service in the Transkei, because the Transkei is about to become independent, but for our own services inside and outside South Africa. Sir, it is essential for success that the other population groups of our country be sufficiently involved in the information service of South Africa, especially abroad. We constantly advertise the fact that we are a multi-racial country, and we are, but no one who has walked into an office of the department abroad would believe that we are a multi-national country, a country in which a diversity of people work together. We believe that we must give expression to our multi-national character as soon as possible on our foreign front, that we must display it, and that all population groups in South Africa must be given a share in defending South Africa. Otherwise our credibility will suffer, for it is no use saying we are multi-national and not showing it, particularly on that front where it is of the utmost importance to our country.

During the year that is past, between last year’s session and this session of Parliament, the Department of Information had quite a lot of unfavourable publicity in the South African Press concerning tension and friction that allegedly existed between the Department of Information and the Department of Foreign Affairs. There was talk of friction and discord and it was said that conflicting ambitions among the leading figures on both sides had a great deal to do with it. The most important reports in this connection appeared not in the Opposition Press, but in newspapers of the National Party, newspapers that are supposed to be informed as to developments on the Government side. Rappot and Die Vaderland in particular devoted a lot of attention to this matter. The position of To The Point, a publication favoured by the Department of Information, was also very strongly implicated. The general public believes that somewhere something is wrong. Also, one keeps finding in the Afrikaans newspapers—in other words, in the hon. the Minister’s own newspapers—the idea that the Minister and his Secretary pre-empt the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his department. I think that this is a matter that must be cleared up; I think the hon. the Minister and his department should be able to establish a better relationship with his own newspapers. I am not making any accusations about this, but all the same certain things have struck me. On a visit abroad, where I came into contact with officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and with officials of the Department of Information, it was noticeable sometimes that those two departments did not co-operate smoothly and that they had different ideas about what should be done.

Here at home as well it is clear to me that the two departments have different ideas about the image that should be projected of South Africa. The Department of Foreign Affairs emphasizes change, the well-known theme of moving away from discrimination and negative separation, while it appears to me that the Department of Information is avoiding this and is trying hard to sell the existing dispensation. The department’s aversion to reform and change is particularly clear from the Secretary’s annual report. It is as plain as a pikestaff that his remarks are not aimed at the Opposition, but at persons and bodies on his own side.

Quote from the report.

Very well, I shall come to that. I think the whole matter needs to be clarified, and I say this especially because these matters receive more attention in the hon. the Minister’s own newspapers than in any other part of the Press.

From the nature of the case, the Department of Information emphasizes South Africa’s diversity in the publications it sends overseas, and this applies to South Africa’s human material as well. Personally I believe that South Africa’s human diversity, its multinational character within the unit which is South Africa, can be a source of great strength to the country in its international relations, but only if we use this fact in the right way. However, what strikes me is that there is one part of the population which is simply never mentioned. I am referring to the strong group of South Africans of Chinese descent. It was a pleasure to me the other day to listen to the hon. member for Pretoria East in the debate on foreign affairs. He sympathized strongly with that part of the population.

I have not had time to study the new Yearbook. It seems to be a splendid piece of work, but the first time I consulted it, I discovered a great shortcoming. In the yearbook of the previous year, South Africa 1974—which comprised a million words—not a word was said about the Chinese population of South Africa. There were only a few words to say that the Chinese had been brought to work in the gold mines in the Transvaal in 1904 and that this had been stopped in 1907. That was all. In the latest edition of the yearbook, South Africa 1975—again comprising a million words—it is merely said that among the Asiatics in South Africa there is a community of Chinese descent as well. Only 15 words are devoted to this population group. This is an inexplicable deficiency, and I hope it is the only one of its kind. However, it is the one I noticed first. It is very important for South Africa that we try to establish better relations with the Chinese countries of the world as well. There are many countries in the world in which there are strong Chinese elements which are influential in those countries. This applies even to the USA.

In South Africa a we have a Chinese community which excels in many fields, including sport. As far as they are concerned, progress is definitely being made in removing discrimination. For the most part they have already been absorbed into the White sphere as far as residential areas, entertainment and higher education are concerned. In Johannesburg they live in White residential areas and they may own property there. In spite of this, they and the White people retain their respective identities. These are facts that must be communicated to the world. Where there is progress, this must be communicated to the world. Surely this is the task of the Department of Information, but the department does not seem to be interested in this South Africa population group. The department recently distributed a book throughout the world, and this cost the taxpayer thousands and thousands of rands— Stepping into the future: Education for South Africa’s Black, Coloured and Indian peoples. But this did not contain a word either about the South Africans of Chinese descent. Nothing was said about their future. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell this House what his policy in connection with this population group is.

What about the Hungarians?

There is one final point. I want to deal briefly with the criticism I have against the contents of the report. On pages 8, 9 and 10, the Secretary devotes almost five columns to the political opinions of one Mr. Helmut Schelsky, as expounded in a Chicago publication called Modern Age. I do not know what Mr. Schelsky’s qualifications are, but he deals with the revolutionary onslaught that is being made on the democratic institutions of West Germany. He seems to be referring to the national institutions in which the whole population of West Germany shares and which therefore are truly democratic. This is not a country in which there are discriminatory laws based on colour and race and in which certain population groups are completely excluded from the higher political life of the country. However, the Secretary devotes five columns of his report to Mr. Schelsky’s opinions, applying them to a situation which is in no way comparable. The Secretary is really making a transparent propaganda attack on everything and everyone that calls for adjustment and reform in South Africa. I should like to quote two examples. On page 8, the Secretary complains—

The following complaint is really a gem—

I wonder whether he is referring in this connection to the University of Potchefstroom.

All these “moral pleas”, these calls for change, he considers to be part of a new strategy of revolution. I like to read what others think and I like political debate, but I think that as far as a report to Parliament is concerned, a report on the activities of the Department of Information, the hon. the Minister should tell the Secretary for Information that this is no place for secretarial indoctrination and obvious propaganda.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member said that he had too little time, that 50 minutes was not enough. He then laid the blame for this at the door of the Government. But is the hon. member aware of the fact that the time allotted for the various votes are arranged beforehand by his party’s whips and the whips of this side? This side of the House chooses for itself how much time to allot to each vote and our whips saw fit to allot us two hours. To me the difficulty seems to be that his whips cannot trust him with more than 50 minutes. They know that the time which they allot to him is wasted. What happened this afternoon? In actual fact he wasted all his own time as well as the time of the House. The hon. member also said that the hon. the Minister had spoken for 90 minutes last year. I tried to keep a quick count and it seems to me that the hon. member put 21 questions to the Minister. If the hon. the Minister takes five minutes to answer each question, he will have to speak for more than 90 minutes. Not even a Solomon would be able to answer the hon. member’s ridiculous questions.

I want to thank the Secretary for Information, his department and all his officials for the excellent report which they have produced. The report is concise, pithy and profound. I do not want to criticize it like the hon. member on the other side did. He first praised and then criticized it. He made the shocking statement that there is administrative indoctrination here. What is the hon. member trying to do? Surely these words of his are grist to the mill of the agitators and terrorists in the outside world. I think that we can say today with pride that the Department of Information, headed by the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister, is a department which renders a service to South Africa. It renders a service to the nations in South Africa. It is a department which collects knowledge and facts. We can also say that this department is ultimately the guardian of this nation’s most precious assets in the midst of this permissive world in which we live. I am referring to assets like our moral code, our customs, our traditions and our cultural treasures. The department not only guards those things which are characteristic of South Africa; it also shows the outside world what can be done. This department, with the hon. the Minister at its head, is a building of bridges and of roads to improve human relations in South Africa and to bring peace and quiet to this country by transmitting greater and better knowledge to those who do not have it. This department, together with all its officials and its Minister, renders a disinterested service to all the population groups in South Africa as well as to the Western world and the Black states of Africa. I think that we should thank them very much for this.

Together with the Secretary, the hon. the Minister made several trips abroad. What was the aim of those trips? It was to convey information and to present South Africa’s image to the outside world and to create good national and political relations. On 20 March of this year the hon. the Minister was in the Ivory Coast. We saw the film which was shown there. What was achieved there? Very positive work was done there for South Africa. A great blow was struck in Africa. The hon. the Minister did not leave it at that. He travelled further to Western Europe, to Paris, and from there to Israel. What was the final result? Shortly after that our hon. the Prime Minister visited Israel together with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is something of which we may be proud. It is something which was achieved by this hon. Minister. Is the hon. member against the fact that we have established these good relations with Israel? These bridges were built by this hon. Minister and his department. But the hon. member criticizes this.

You are talking nonsense, man.

He sees nothing good about it. Everything which is good for South Africa is bad in his eyes. I think the hon. member should reflect a little on this. We can also look at the other visits which the hon. the Minister and the Secretary made abroad.

We received fine publicity. Let me just quote from the annual report on page 3—

It is a great man who used these words. This is proof of the breakthrough which this department has made in the outside world. The eyes of the outside world are directed at South Africa, whether we like it or not. They take note of what is happening here. Let me quote in this connection from the report what Mr. Paul Johnson has written—this is something which can stand on its own two feet and which the hon. member cannot doubt. I quote (page 4)—

Just like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I read further—

This is what that man said. However, this does not count at all in the eyes of this hon. member. What caused that man to change his views? It was a result of the task accomplished by the hon. the Minister. Why is this department succeeding, not only in South Africa, but also in Europe, in America and elsewhere? With respect to this matter I quote from the Sunday Times of 11 February 1973. This was a report written after the reporter concerned had seen one of the films distributed by the Department of Information. He writes as follows—

The essence of what this reporter wrote— ”no-nonsense way of talking”—which is exactly what this Government has always done, of course—is in actual fact what our hon. Prime Minister is so famous for. This is what he is honoured for throughout the world and what he is honoured for by the NP as well. We are speaking frankly and honestly. We expound the NP standpoint and we forge ahead. This department has introduced South Africa to the outside world. We need only think of all the cultural exhibitions which have been held there. There have been no fewer than 23 of these since March last year. We can also take note of what happened at the 39th international arts and crafts exhibition in Italy. South Africa won the gold medal there for the sixth time. It must be remembered that 46 countries participated. This proves the quality of the work done by this department. A total of 600 000 people attended that exhibition. That exhibition was characteristic of the manner in which the Department of Information introduces South Africa to the outside world. Last but not least, there was the flower exhibition which was held in Monte Carlo in collaboration with the National Botanical Gardens. This took place under the protection of Princess Grace of Monaco. South Africa received 12 of the 15 awards which were made. Those awards included no fewer than four gold medals. South Africa did indeed win five gold medals at the international bowling competition, but the Department of Information also reaps all the laurels in its own sphere, wins gold medals itself and thus surpasses all other similar State departments against which it competes.

There are still many spheres in which this department can make its mark. I realize that the Department of Information performs its task enthusiastically but in my opinion there is another matter to which it would do well to give attention. Western Europe and the USA apparently do not want to realize what South Africa is really doing. It is true that our course runs through Africa. However, our final aim should be to effect a change of heart in Western Europe and among all the other Whites in the West. We must not give up. We must not be afraid. We must persevere in all our attempts. Every disappointment should be an incitement for this department. This department must forge a path for itself by publishing facts and by carrying out the policy of the Government, thus causing the Western world to realize that it must cease telling lies and realize once and for all that the White man is certainly one of Africa’s greatest assets. The West must not forget that the White man is a great asset for Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said here today that the high expectations which had been created had not yet been realized internally. In a previous debate in this House I said that South Africa had achieved great success with détente externally. Today I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that we have achieved even greater success internally with our policy of détente. Human relations between White, Black and Brown in South Africa have never been as good as they are at present. We experience this every day ourselves when we communicate with Brown and Black people. This is not something which we alone notice; people outside South Africa notice it too. I want to mention the names of two people to hon. members, people who used to be venomous enemies of South Africa. The one is the American Negro tennis player, Arthur Ashe, who was prohibited from entering South Africa in 1970 after he had said he wished he could drop an atom bomb on Johannesburg. At a later stage he was granted a visa, and after that he visited South Africa several times. What does Arthur Ashe say after he has been here for another look? He says—

No, not progress, only the maintenance of the old position.

What is even more remarkable is the case of the Dutch journalist, Henri Schoup. After Sharpeville he was put out of the country after what he had written and done in South Africa. A short while ago he returned to South Africa with a television team and made the most pro-South Africa television film which has ever been made by any foreign television team.

I am referring to the film Het Blanke Bastion. This television film is crammed with satisfied people and a multitude of beaming Black faces. What does this journalist say now, after he has had another opportunity to move around in South Africa? He told a newspaper that he was amazed at the many things being done in South Africa for the non-Whites. He said that the world need not close its eyes to what was happening in South Africa and that it should give separate development a fair chance. He asked that greater recognition be given to the détente attempts of the hon. the Prime Minister. This is what is said by a man who used to be a venomous enemy of South Africa.

We can also call local witnesses. A Bantu, Mr. Manasse Moerane, wrote a very enlightening article in Beeld of 20 January, and he used the following significant words—

This was written by a Black man himself. We know that what he says, is the truth. We know that we are making progress in South Africa, and there must be sound reasons why we are making progress and why human relations in South Africa are improving.

There is the good work which is being done by the Department of Information. I should like to quote two examples of this to hon. members from the annual report of the Department of Information. The following is stated on page 15—

In this one sees the good work which is being done by the Department of Information.

We understand that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Information, who is responsible for internal information, takes a special interest in this and is very zealous in this regard. We appreciate this greatly.

In addition to the good work to which I have referred, there are also other reasons why human relations in South Africa are improving. One of the most important of these is the guidance given by the hon. the Prime Minister and the example set by him in this regard. With a philosophy of “I give to others what I ask for myself”, he, more than anyone else, has created a climate for better understanding and healthier attitudes in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister has indeed paved the way for recognizing the human dignity of people in this country. He himself set the example by conferring with the leaders of the population groups in this country and discussing their problems at all times and on an equal level. The hon. the Prime Minister has done this in a manner and on a scale unequalled in the history of South Africa. His action has impressed these people; it has won their confidence. In his endeavours, the hon. the Prime Minister has a good ally and a sound instrument, and that is the NP’s policy of separate development. The strength of separate development is to be found in the fact that it renders possible the largest degree of reconciliation between the various interests and aspirations. The strength of separate development is to be found in the very fact that it makes provision for good neighbourliness in every sphere. The hon. the Prime Minister said the strength of separate development was to be found in the fact that it was not based on envy, fear or hatred, but that it fully recognized the human dignity of all people.

Separate development also means elimination of discrimination, a matter about which the hon. the Opposition often become very concerned, but it often forgets to remove discrimination from its own policy. As far back as 1961, Dr. Verwoerd made the statement that certain historical practices which might be regarded as discrimination, would have to a fall away. Our attitude of moving away from discrimination, is therefore nothing new. It is a logical consequence which has been inherent in the whole concept of separate development right from the outset. Internal détente is not a matter for the Government only; it is everyone’s duty to make a contribution towards better human relations. Practising détente with Africa requires of every White person in this country to treat non-White persons with human dignity, otherwise it cannot succeed. When the Whites show good manners towards the non-Whites, when they treat them with goodwill and dignity, and when they eliminate degrading practices, it does not mean that they are crawling, showing signs of weakness or sacrificing anything. This is nothing more than Christian principles and practice. Good manners do not include crawling on either side or a sentimental back-slapping. Nor are good manners paternalism, or confessing to a feeling of guilt. It is much rather an attitude towards life. Good human relations can become a powerful and unconquerable weapon to us, provided we use them correctly. Having said this to the Whites, I also want to tell the non-Whites that good relations cannot come from one side only; two-directional communication is necessary for this, a mutual recognition and appreciation of one another’s humanity. For this reason the admonition of Chief Minister Matanzima of the Transkei was such a timely one when he urged his own people to be tolerant towards the Whites. He said that the Whites had major adaptations to make and that the Blacks could not expect them to do so overnight.

Mr. Chairman, inevitably one agrees with the sentiments of the hon. member for Bloemfontein North when he talks about the need for improved human relationships in this country. Surely it is something we all strive for. But the real issue is how we are going to achieve it. Sir, I am afraid that I cannot share the euphoria of the hon. member for Sunnyside or the hon. member for Bloemfontein North in thinking that the Department of Information has in the past year achieved something really important in its efforts to sell South Africa abroad.

I shall come back to the work of the department in a minute. There are aspects of it which I think are admirable and there are spheres in which they have done very good work; but there are also other spheres in respect of which we will be very critical. It seems to me, Sir, that the two hon. members who spoke before me are simply living in cloud-cuckoo land if all they think we have to do is for the Department of Information and its officers to sell apartheid abroad. I think it is high time we realized that apartheid is a non-saleable commodity anywhere in the world. This is the simple fact. [Interjections.] Until we accept this fact, we may as well try to sell ice-cream in the Antarctic. While we in these benches remain highly critical of many aspects of the work of the department—in fact, we are critical of the main thrust of the work of the department—I would like to start saying that the Department of Information and its Minister have in fact done a good deal of work …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I do not have time to answer questions. I only have 10 minutes. As I was saying, the Department of Information has done a deal of very good work in a variety of fields during the past year. One of the things I would like to commend it for is its programme of bringing foreigners to this country and exposing them to all shades of opinion. This, I believe, is something which is desirable. The Minister of Information and his Secretary are certainly mobile. Nobody can accuse them of not being that. In fact, they sometimes give me the impression of being a kind of poor man’s Kissinger team floating around the world. Naturally one hopes that they will achieve considerable good for South Africa and that they will in fact go around making friends and influencing people. But I submit—and this is the gravamen of my charge—that until they see South Africa whole, until they are prepared to see South Africa in focus, and until they sell South Africa in that kind of light, they are not in fact going to achieve anything. In fact, I go so far as to say that unless they do that and unless they see South Africa in perspective, their efforts will be self-defeating and largely in vain. Let me take one example.

I believe that it is pointless and totally misleading to tell South Africa’s critics, as the hon. the Minister has said he does, that in a multi-national sense South Africa has a “one man, one vote ” system. I concede immediately that in a very narrow technical sense this may have some kind of validity, but it is in fact a total misrepresentation of the situation. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that it deceives nobody who knows anything of the facts and that it is misleading and that, to that extent, this kind of double-speak, which is all that it amounts to, widens our credibility gap immeasurably and makes it so much more difficult to put across anything that is positive.

Are you sure about that?

There are few things in life that I am sure of, but I am very sure of that. Mr. Chairman, there is something else in this latest report in respect of which I want to question the department’s wisdom. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also referred to this, but I want to deal with it a little more specifically. I believe that it is unwise to over-emphasize what it calls “the new strategy of revolution”, which it believes is going to be employed against South Africa in the coming year. The department’s report for 1975 devotes what to my way of thinking is an unprecedented amount of space to a discussion of what it calls “this newer revolutionary strategy”. Anybody who is interested should have a look at the section headed “Prognosis”, which I think is a kind of basic guide to revolutionary processes and techniques in the modern world. I am afraid there is no time to discuss the basic philosophy of this so-called Schelsky thesis. I must content myself with saying that there are grave dangers for South Africa in regarding all criticism of this country, from outside as well as from inside, as part of a world-wide left-wing conspiracy. This is what I make of the department’s interpretation of the doctrine of “conquering the system”. Everything, all criticism, is part of a world-wide conspiracy. Sir, everyone in his senses knows that there are countless people who want to plough this country under; but to lump them all together indiscriminately, as this doctrine seems to do, and to suggest that all our overseas critics are left-wing revolutionaries, is crazy. It is crazy because it obscures the legitimacy of a great deal of criticism of South Africa and, in fact what is worse, might hinder the process of peaceful change in South Africa which is so necessary. And it is just as crazy, Sir, I suggest, to say that local critics of the Government and advocates of change are dangerous radicals and are in some way or other linked up with this world-wide conspiracy.

This, to me, is utter nonsense. Of course there are people who are planning our downfall, as I have said, but for heaven’s sake, we must realize the legitimacy of criticism, the legitimacy of a great deal of it, and until the Department of Information realizes that the Government’s race policy is simply not acceptable to countless people the world over, just as it is unacceptable to countless South Africans of all races and of all colours, it will make no progress, I suggest, in improving South Africa’s image abroad. We need look no further than a couple of days back when Dr. Kissinger said that the world would continue to insist that the institutionalized separation of the races must end. Sir, one can accept that, or one need not, but to suggest, as this doctrine might well suggest, that Dr. Kissinger is part of a world-wide left-wing conspiracy, is simply stupid and dangerous. That is all it is—nothing more and nothing less. A couple of days later a German academic, Dr. Klaus van der Robb, said in Umtata that South Africa—and I hope that the Department of Information will listen to this—is sadly mistaken if it believes that the world does not understand our policy and that all we have to do to be accepted by the community of nations is to correct some misunderstandings. He pointed out in unequivocal terms that there was no misunderstanding of this country and that, according to Rapport—

I hope they will make a note of that, because that is the basic truth in regard to the position in this country. But that is precisely what the department does not do. It keeps on plugging this verkrampte line and trying to justify the unjustifiable. Sir, I suggest to you that nobody is impressed, but nobody. What distresses one about the report of the department is that all the time it is discovering new enemies, all over the place. One of the latest that it has discovered is the World Health Organization, and heaven knows there is no more innocent body. It suddenly ridicules the World Health Organization because a special study of that body found that apartheid is harmful to both the mental and physical health of Black people in South Africa. It is a hilariously funny statement, according to the department. What happened? Last week a leading South African medical man said that disease among the Blacks was too often due to the acts of men. He said—

That is not the World Health Organization, Sir. So why this overreaction? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown quoted one single source here as proof of the fact that South Africa’s policy was so well-known overseas that no doubt existed as to this country’s policy. I disagree with the hon. member, of course. What does one expect from the Department of Information, and how does one gauge the effectiveness of its activities which are directed towards the interior as well as the exterior? I believe that both these fronts are of equal importance in a country such as South Africa, in which so many peoples are living together and in which so many different languages are spoken. The only method of gauging the effectiveness of the Department of Information, is to evaluate the various dispositions around us and towards us abroad. There is no other method because the largest part of this department’s activities is concerned with the matter of dispositions.

Dispositions are a relative term, however, and should not be gauged to any large extent in terms of the political views or pronouncements of bodies like the UNO or the OAU. After all, we know that dispositions in practice are different to the views which countries express to the outside. Especially in respect of a country like South Africa the personal dispositions are completely different to the views expressed in public. The hon. the Prime Minister also referred to this in the discussion of his Vote. To my mind the effectiveness of the Department of Information is to be found in this very fact. The personal, private disposition of representatives of countries is different to the public view which is expressed for the information of the world. As I have said, dispositions are a relative term. There is the fine example of our hon. the Prime Minister’s recent visit to Israel, where he was given a cordial reception. However, there were newspaper reporters—Jews just like those members of the Government—who did not say such pleasant things. On the other hand again, there are countries who are completely hostile towards South Africa, while their newspaper reporters say pleasant, edifying things about South Africa. So what is the true disposition? In this way one has countries in the UNO that express themselves venomously towards South Africa but conduct a brisk trade with us. There are states in Africa that incite their people to hate the Whites of South Africa, but yet they flock here in their millions to utilize the employment opportunities created here. So how would one describe this type of disposition? South Africa is condemned by many countries, but their ships visit our harbours, their aircraft land here, their sportsmen and women attend our meetings and their scientists attend our congresses, and so I can go on. How would one describe this type of disposition? How far does the influence and the effectiveness of the Department of Information extend as regards this host of international activities within South Africa?

And this under the most extreme discrimination.

The department’s activities have everything to do with this. The importance and effectiveness of the Department of Information can be illustrated in no better way. In theory, and according to the public standpoint of many countries—this, evidently, is also what the Opposition would like the position to be—South Africa’s position is a so-called isolated one. However, in practice this is far from true. Thanks to the activities of this department, South Africa has its full quota of international intercourse in virtually every sphere imaginable.

This brings me back once again to what I asked at the outset: What does one expect from the Department of Information? Naturally this expectation will differ from person to person and from party to party. This also holds good for myself and the hon. member for Parktown, because our points of departure and our policies are different. I do not want to make a political football of this, but the department must concentrate pre-eminently on those aspects which evoke most criticism against South Africa abroad. In this regard too the hon. member for Parktown will disagree with me, because then I must refer to separate development, which allegedly forces countries to be hostile towards South Africa and to look the other way when South Africa becomes involved. If this disposition is based on ignorance of South Africa’s multi-national situation and of the fact that the Zulu the Xhosa and the Tswana differ, as far as language, culture and traditions are concerned, as much as the Dutch, the Germans and the Hungarians do …

Hear, hear!

… and that Black in South Africa does not mean unity, then there is no excuse for this ignorance abroad and consequently our department must eliminate it with dispatch. This is its task, and in this regard I differ from the hon. member for Parktown. If this disposition exists, however, contrary to the knowledge and experience which all overseas politicians have—in this regard I differ from him once again—that Europe is not a unitary State and that its White populations do not form a so-called White majority government for Europe merely because they are White, but that things in South Africa must necessarily be different in respect of a so-called Black majority government and a so-called Black unitary State purely to oblige the millions of Africa, then the Department of Information has a great deal of work to do. In that case, surely this disposition is not based on political, anthropological or even historical facts. It is not even based on elementary fairness, but purely on selfish motives inspired by a petty desire to derive benefits for themselves. We make no excuse for the fact that a Venda people, a South Sotho people and Shangaans exist here in South Africa as an irrefutable political fact. They do not exist as the result of our policy of separate development. On the contrary. Our policy was derived from the legitimacy and the reality of their existence, a multi-nationalism which is an historical fact, a multi-nationalism which has been retained and perpetuated by the policy of separate development. What we do object to—if the hon. member for Parktown said this too, I agreed with him—is the failure of overseas politicians to appreciate the reality of a Zulu, a Xhosa and a Tswana people who have nothing more in common with one another than the mere fact that they are Black. It is on the basis of this that the world now insists on a so-called Black Government and a Black unitary State which, however, South Africa is not or cannot be. The Department of Information has a great deal of work to do in respect of this matter, because the world fails to appreciate and ignores the reality and the legitimacy of these peoples’ separate existence. The time has arrived for each one of the peoples to protest against this sinister action themselves; that is, if they are proud of being distinguished and recognized as a separate people with its own nature and character. I believe that the various peoples are indeed proud of these facts and will prove this to the world by convincing it of the separateness of their existence. Therefore, I am very pleased that the Department of Information has already started training Black information officers from various peoples, because this will serve not only the cause of the various peoples and be to their good, but also the cause of Southern Africa so that the hon. member for Parktown will not have to say once again that it is not the task of the Department of Information to explain our policy of separate development abroad. Every one of the Black information officers of the various peoples themselves will then be able to explain the separate existence of each people to the world.

Mr. Chairman, standing with the department’s report in one’s hand and listening to the hon. member for Parys, one feels like rubbing the report under the nose of the people on the opposite side of the House. One feels like reading out the whole report, because they do not seem to have read what is written in it. Many of the things which have been said, and which I shall come to shortly, are simply not true. A clear thread runs right through the report, a thread which indicates the battle which one Government department is fighting abroad to show the outside world what South Africa really is, what the National Government has made of South Africa. Therefore one is grateful to read in this report, as well as in so many other available sources, that a constantly improving and increasing understanding for South Africa is developing overseas. It is clearly revealed by this report that the hostile strategy which is pursued against us is constantly expanding. In this regard one recalls the numerous quotations which the Secretary has included in this report. Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout criticizes the reference to one particular person, but after all, reference is made to many other people as well. What I find so tragic is that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout did not indicate what was wrong with the views expressed by the German author, Schelsky, but blamed the Secretary for using a particular quotation, a quotation which is correct and which is used to prove what we are engaged in here. Why did the hon. member not refer to Hilton and other writers who are quoted in the report, saying where they were at fault and what therefore should therefore not have been quoted? However, the hon. member is conveniently silent on that.

Allow me to quote only one short paragraph from the report of what Schelsky said (page 9)—

This is a truth which is self-evident, a truth which the hon. member should accept. After all, Schelsky is not the only person who has expressed this thought in recent times. Then why is the hon. member denying this? In view of the positive things one comes across in this report, it is a pity that one very disappointing and sad little paragraph also appears in it. Initially I wondered whether I should raise this matter here, but when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke, I knew that I should. I am referring to the paragraph in which the Secretary says (page 6)—

It struck me that nowhere in the report does the Secretary mention who says these things. In my notes I wrote that I did not intend naming newspapers, people, parties and party leaders, but then the hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Parktown rose as witnesses. What did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout do in regard to his reference to the Chinese? He wanted to create the impression here, again in the eyes of the outside world, that there was a group of people in South Africa that was simply disregarded. The hon. member knows that this is not true, even though the Chinese are not mentioned in this or in the official Yearbook, South Africa 1975. Why did the hon. member highlight this one small matter? Why did he not highlight some of the other matters which are stated in the Yearbook in a million words? Why did the hon. member for Parktown, who is normally not an acrimonious person, say here with so much bitterness the very thing which the Secretary warned against? The Secretary points out in this report that it is simply not true that the department promotes only the policy of separate development.

What does the department do? It is the department’s task and function—hon. members will find this in the report as well—to tell the world what the products of separate development or multi-national development are. The department does not present a plea to the world to tell us what we should do here, which laws we should pass, etc. The department makes it very clear that it is telling the world what the fruits of this Government’s policy and its implementation are. The message is not only directed at foreign countries, but at our own country as well. We are living in a very difficult period. We are suffering from the consequences of the Second World War, a war which gave the communists a foothold in the West. This has been the result of the World War. In the second place we are living in a period in which we are feeling the effects of rapid scientific development and everything this entails, scientific development which has, as it were, wiped out time and boundaries between people, between ethnic groups and nations. The disappearance of those boundaries caused ethnic and human relations to take on a completely different pattern in South Africa from the one that existed in the days when the UP was in power. During the UP’s last years in power it had already begun to suffer the consequences of the wrong human relationships which then existed. When the NP came into power, established a new policy, new legislation and the like, a policy which we do not hesitate to present to the outside world today through a department with numerous officials and numerous publications. We are not ashamed of it. We bring people to South Africa to see the fruits of the work of this Government for themselves, and the hon. member for Parktown praises us for it.

On the other hand we are living in a period of economic instability, a period in which rich and poor should be made more aware of one another, precisely by means of scientific experience and television. Do hon. members ever consider, when a poor family—of which I have several in my constituency—watches television broadcasts at night and sees the luxury of nightclubs and many other things, what effect this may have on the minds of those people? How does this influence the mind of a man who is not intelligent, who has not received any training and who has not had the normal opportunities in life? We are living in a period in which the economic circumstances of the world are creating uncertainty on the part of the rich man, because he is afraid of losing his wealth. Similarly, it creates uncertainty and instability on the part of the poor man, who is not so certain of what tomorrow may hold for him.

We are living in a time in which we must normalize our human relations in South Africa. This is another very great task which this department is performing on our behalf. Therefore I am grateful to read these words at the end of this report: “The Department of Information will have to dismantle and expose any foreign criticism of and attack on South Africa …”

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by congratulating the Department of Information on a whole series of achievements during the course of the year. These are clearly revealed by the report of the Secretary of Information, by the films and various publications which the department issued during the course of the year, as well as through my personal connections with the representatives of the department overseas. It is quite clear that there are great improvements in the information service, that there is also a more sophisticated approach to many of the problems of today as well as to South Africa’s foreign relationships. I must frankly concede all these things to the department.

Nevertheless one feels disappointed about the fact that, in a discussion of this kind, hon. members on that side of the House have persisted, for the sake of duty, in constantly defending, praising and justifying the Department of Information, while it would actually have been the suitable occasion today to put forward recommendations, hints and constructive criticism, by which the department’s activities may be promoted in general.

When one listens to similar debates overseas, it is striking that Government members make use of such opportunities to be critical of the country’s own services, of the services which are under the control of the Government. They do this because they do not regard it as their only duty to praise and extol everything which is done by their Government. It is only natural that there should be shortcomings and mistakes, that it should be possible to effect improvements somewhere. Or is everything perfect? In the world inhabited by the hon. member for Sunnyside, everything seems to be perfect. There seem to be no mistakes. Everything must be praised and nothing must be criticized. I say this is extremely disappointing.

But it is your task to criticize. You are the Opposition, after all.

Very well, then allow me to do so. I still say it is extremely disappointing that members of Government side make no critical contribution to a debate like the one we are dealing with.

I should like to refer to the report of the Department of Information. Right at the beginning we read—

This is something we very much wanted to see. The question is of course whether it is really true and realistic to say something like this. A little further down on the same page the following is said—

Therefore this means that South Africa had by the end of 1975 made great progress in its efforts to normalize its relations with the rest of Africa, but that the Angolan problem had had the ironical result that just as things were beginning to improve, everything collapsed again. It is particularly interesting that the hon. the Minister of Information recently said that the result of the events in Angola had been that South Africa’s balance, in its relations with African countries, had improved a great deal.

I said they were not less favourable.

As I recall it, you said that it had in fact been advantageous. However, I shall come to that. As hon. members know, a very big conference is being held in Nairobi at the moment, i.e. the conference of the United Nations on trade and development throughout the world. Since the conference is being held in Africa, it is of exceptional interest to South Africa, because South Africa is obviously the country which has the greatest interest in the trade and the development of Africa and which can make the largest contribution to it. Economically South Africa is the strongest country in Africa, and it ought, in the long run, to play the decisive role in a conference of this kind as far as Africa is concerned. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister: Since the balance is so favourable, or at least not unfavourable, where does South Africa stand as far as this conference is concerned, why is South Africa not present there?

But you know why not.

I should like to know the reasons for this. The hon. member for Carletonville will remember that it was said that our position was becoming very favourable as far as our relations with Africa were concerned. Then who is keeping us away from a conference of this kind? Why can we not be properly represented at a conference of this kind, where we can make a tremendous contribution?

You know the reason for that better than I do.

It ought to be our aim and our duty and it should further our interests to be able to make a contribution of this kind. However, why were we not invited? I think I know what the reasons are, but they are not consistent with what is stated in the report or what was said by the hon. Minister of Information, namely that the balance of our relations has improved as a result of the Angolan incident. I cannot accept this. There is a contradiction, is there not?

You are now advancing a purely political argument. You know what the truth is.

It is that hon. member who does not know what the truth is. For that reason I shall say what it is. Let us think in terms of the economic council for Africa. A tremendous effort is made in Africa to establish a banking system and to bring about better communication in respect of trade and the economic development of Africa. South Africa used to be a member of the economic council for Africa. We did take part as a member many years ago. However, we no longer take part. I should very much like us to participate in the organization once again. We have a right and a duty as well as opportunities there. The fact is that we do not take part for the very reason that something is wrong with our relations with Africa. The Department of Information has a role to fulfil. However, if one looks at the report, one sees that it mainly concentrates on the Western European countries and America. What is actually happening in Africa? We hear about secret relations with African countries, but the results are meagre. One cannot see what this is all leading to and where there is any improvement. Why can we not make a contribution in those fields in which our position is strong? We may safely ignore politics in this regard. However, why can we not be a member of the economic council for Africa? Why are we not yet part of Unctad, the conference which is taking place in Nairobi?

The fact of the matter is that we have not achieved any break-through yet and that the optimistic predictions which we find here are actually not the whole truth. This does not mean that I prefer it this way, for I should very much like to see an improvement, because we have a role to play in Africa. However, we have not yet achieved it, and it is no use coming to this House with unrealistic ideas and wishful thinking. Let us face the problems squarely. It is the duty of the hon. members on that side of the House as well, just as it is our duty, to notice the mistakes and to bring them to the attention of the Department of Information if they can be rectified.

Last year I pointed out to the hon. the Minister that numerous mistakes had crept into the Yearbook, a publication which is of great value, and these mistakes occurred especially in the political chapter. I do not want to point out all the mistakes again, because I pointed them out to the hon. the Minister last year. Some of the information in the book was misleading and some of it consisted of half truths. I asked the hon. the Minister to have it reviewed and, if possible, improved. However, the 1975 edition of the Yearbook contains exactly the same mistakes. For instance, where reference is made to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, his name is given as Sir D. P. de Villiers Graaff. To my knowledge, this was the name of his late father. The mistakes are small, but very noticeable. If the hon. the Prime Minister were to be referred to as Mr. B. J. A. B. C. Vorster, surely it would be ludicrous. The initials of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition are not D. P. why can these mistakes not be corrected? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the essential criticism expressed by the hon. member who has just sat down was that according to the report, and in his opinion, we did not seem to be doing enough in Africa. The hon. member wanted to know why we were not present at certain conferences, why we were not yet a member of certain organizations and where we stood with Africa. The hon. member, with his particular background and experience, ought to know that the programme of action which is implemented in Western Europe and in America is different from the one used in Africa. If the hon. member asks us where we stand with Africa, and why certain films have not yet been screened in Africa, then I can answer him by asking the hon. member for Bezuidenhout how many theatres there are in certain Africa states. The hon. member mentioned the thousands and millions of people who had seen the films. However, I want to know from the hon. member how many theatres there are in some of the countries in Africa. There may be only a few in the capital of every country. The whole method and approach to Africa is different. The fruits which this department, in co-operation with the Department of Foreign Affairs, has already reaped for South Africa in Africa have been discussed in debates last year as well as this year. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to a changed attitude at the beginning of his speech. However, I want to tell him that these are breakthroughs which have been achieved throughout Africa and that the department played a special role in this. For those hon. members to pretend here that this department basically concentrates on Europe, does nothing in Africa, achieves no successes here and has no contacts in Africa, is to deny the facts and to overlook the fantastic results which have already been achieved by this department in Africa. The purport of the speeches made on the Opposition side so far is more or less that the Department of Information is not a bad department, but that the fault lies with the product which it has to market.

The hon. members maintain that the methods and institutions of the department are good. However, they are opposed to separate development. Their implication is that if we should try and sell the sharing of power in the conservative dress of the United Party or in the enlightened bikini of the PRP, this department would be able to achieve true success for South Africa. But, Sir, if we want to market a product which is acceptable to our enemies— this is the undertone of their whole approach—then this means only one thing, and this is that we should capitulate and market something completely different from the policy which we and they offer as a solution. A federation in which the Whites have more representation than is justified by their numbers would be just as unacceptable to our enemies in the world as separate development. Their federation in which Blacks and Coloureds are discriminated against on the basis of educational qualifications would be just as unacceptable as separate development has ever been or could ever be. This is where those hon. members are making a big mistake. We have examples of countries in Africa which more or less follow the policy of the United Party or of the PRP and which also tried to market that policy. That policy was simply not found acceptable by our true enemies. Therefore I think they should get rid of that idea and they should recognize the fact that while this department is explaining and motivating the current policy to the whole outside world, as well as internally, it is also creating understanding for South Africa in the process. It is also helping to create a situation in which those hon. members are able to go on trying to sell their policy to the electorate in peace and quiet and in which they may continue to practise democracy in security, peace and quiet. As a result of what this department is doing, South Africa is being made safer, for the UP and the PRP as well, and opportunities are being created for them as well. They should realize this. Sir, our purpose is not to convince our enemies, the communist countries, that our policy is acceptable, that our policy is intended to create a more equitable dispensation, or that our policy wants to give everybody in South Africa the right of self-determination. We address ourselves to our friends in the world. We address ourselves to the neutral people in the world who, under pressure of communism and under pressure of our real enemies, find it difficult to maintain their friendship with us openly. Our policy is to convey to those people the positive message which South Africa has, namely that all political parties in South Africa want to bring about a just dispensation, and that all political parties, including the Government, are successfully promoting peaceful coexistence in South Africa. This is what we want to tell them, and to criticize us for this, in the way in which we have been criticized today, really borders on irresponsibility, I believe. There is an undertone in the statements of the Opposition that seems to imply that the Government is abusing the Department of Information for the propaganda purposes of the National Party’s policy. Sir, this is not the way things are in practice. In practice the Department of Information, like any other State department, is faced with a reality, and this is that as a department of the Public Service, it exists to implement the policy of the Government of the day which has been appointed by the will of the people.

Just as a State department, if the Government should decide—even though the Opposition parties might oppose it—to build a harbour at a particular place and time, would build that harbour at that particular place and time, it is the task of the Department of Information of any country, no matter which Government may be in power, to explain the policy of the Government of the day, although not in the same way as from a party political platform and more from this angle: “These are the facts; this policy is now being implemented; these are the reasons why it is being implemented; this is how it is being implemented; this is the results it wants to obtain.” Party political propaganda is aimed at saying: “This is the best policy, to the exclusion of the policies of other opposition parties.” That propaganda is aggressive, while the Department of Information contributes its share in a very reserved, reasonable and impeccably impartial way to safeguard South Africa’s interests.

Sir, in the short time still at my disposal, I want to direct attention briefly to a few aspects concerning internal information which have not yet been discussed. Against this background I want to advocate the greater utilization, for the sake of promoting good relations between peoples, internally as well, of television as a channel for showing films of the department. I am aware of the fact that a good understanding already exists, but the fact is that in practice we see very few of the products of Information on television. I also want to advocate the increased utilization of ordinary bioscope theatres for this purpose. Here, too, very few of the real products of the department are screened. My colleague and bench-mate, the hon. member for Johannesburg West, tells me that on a visit to Australia, at every film show he attended, he saw a documentary film of the Australian department of Information as well. In the third place I want to advocate a special campaign throughout the country—in Black, Brown and White schools—which should be aimed at improving relationships between the various peoples and at removing that false image which we as peoples often have of one another, false images which are created by our enemies, in particular of the Whites as oppressors, as enemies and as exploiters of the Black people. We should go to the young people and give them the answers to this. I know that much is already being done, but I want to ask whether we cannot display more initiative and launch a really purposeful campaign from school to school.

Lastly, concerning the information actions and the relationships between the various peoples, I should like to ask whether the hon. the Minister will furnish information concerning the progress which is being made with regard to information officers of the Transkei who are being trained and how these information officers will be able to fulfil a role, especially with a view to the events which lie ahead in 1976 in so far as they affect the Transkei.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to return to the remark made by the hon. member for Parktown. The hon. member for Parktown said that apartheid was a non-saleable commodity. I can assure the hon. member that the right of every human being to associate with his own people, the right of every human being to enjoy his own identity and to exercise his own sovereignty, the right of every people to exercise self-determination, and the desire in this troubled world, of a heterogeneous society, like we have in South Africa, to create various homogeneous societies and by doing so to remove friction between people and to create happy communities, are in the 1970s very much saleable commodities.

*Sir, today, in the year 1976, we have reached an important milestone in this regard, one at which this policy of self-determination is going to figure forth in the coming into being of the Transkei as an independent state in October of this year. It is certainly an important occasion for the Government, but also for the people of the Transkei, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister cannot lift the veil on what the department envisages with regard to publicizing the advent of the independence of the Transkei in October.

Today we are discussing the Department of Information and it is certainly the duty of the Government to improve the image of South Africa abroad. But the performance of this duty of the Government, through the Department of Information and also through the Department of Foreign Affairs, is not a task which rests on the shoulders of the Government alone. It is the duty of each and every well-meaning citizen of South Africa to do something to improve the good image of South Africa abroad. The question is very often asked: What can we do? There is no doubt about the answer: The best way to build up the image of South Africa abroad, is to expound the true facts concerning South Africa to the outside world. South Africa does not object to being judged on the basis of what it is, but South Africa has serious objections to being judged on the basis of what it is not or on the basis of what it does not want to be under any circumstances.

Now we come to a practical problem. How are we to bring the real facts concerning South Africa to the attention of the outside world? Today I want to suggest a very practical way. We can do this by means of the South African Yearbook. This Yearbook has been published twice. It is an excellent publication, of a high quality, and one which presents all facets of the country and its development in a comprehensive, expert and interesting manner. The Yearbook provides information on a wide range of subjects, inter alia, immigration and emigration, investment possibilities in the Republic, labour conditions and the circumstances of life of Black, Brown and White people in South Africa. There are many other subjects, actually too many to mention. However, the Yearbook covers every sphere which can possible rouse the interest of people abroad. I do not want to say anything now which will anger my friend, the hon. member for Worcester. It has become customary for us in South Africa, if we want to show goodwill towards acquaintances overseas and send something South African to them, to send them a case of wine. I want to assure the hon. member for Worcester at once that I shall still give my support to those people whose case he advocates here. However, if a South African wants to send something abroad, he should consider sending the South African Yearbook. We can send it to people in the business world, in the private sector, to professional people, diplomats and to people who are attached to the various government bodies abroad. We can also send it to universities and libraries. In this way we can propagate a true, correct image of South Africa. I want to appeal to every well-meaning citizen in South Africa, to large and small business undertakings, to professional associations that have contacts with similar professional associations abroad, to agricultural control boards and sporting bodies. All these groups or people who liaise with the outside world, must send the Yearbook to their contacts there. I must point out that the Yearbook is not expensive. The Yearbook which can be ordered now, will be in English this year and will cost between R23 and R25. When the Department of Information receives a cheque, and the name of the person or body abroad to whom the book is to be sent, the Department itself will send the Yearbook overseas at its own expense.

Here we have an excellent piece of work of which every South African may be proud. It was compiled with the assistance of more than 100 co-workers from the public and private sectors. Their number included scientists, researchers, academics, churchmen, journalists, etc. The co-workers on the Yearbook are generally very well known in South Africa. Some of them are also well known abroad. The book is objective and the facts correct. In order to illustrate the objectivity, I may just mention the names of some of the co-workers. Two co-workers are attached to The Star of Johannesburg; in addition there is Mr. Palmer, the editor of the Financial Mail of Johannesburg. There are approximately 150 photographs in this book, 63 maps and 70 diagrams. It is a book with 56 chapters and three different addenda. The book runs into more than 1 000 pages in gloss print. It is an excellent publication. The Department of Information, the publisher of this publication, may rightly be proud of it and can be congratulated on it. It is a publication which can do our country a great deal of good if each one of us, when we are in this position avail ourselves of the opportunity to send this book abroad. In such a way we shall be able to build up a true image, the correct image of South Africa, and we shall be doing everyone a favour.

Mr. Chairman, I am rising at this stage to reply to the questions which have so far been asked and perhaps I could then, at a later stage, conclude the debate in a different way. I want to begin by analysing the standpoint of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I want to point out to him at once that the introductory sentence of his speech, in which he objected to the amount of time allowed for this Vote, was spoken in the wrong place, as he himself has probably discovered by this time. It is a matter which should have been discussed with his party’s Whips in the caucus room of his party.

But it has nothing to do with us; you are the majority party.

Allow me to furnish the hon. member with the facts, for as is prone to happen with all his information, his information is once again incorrect. The facts are as follows …

I know the whole story.

The Committee Stage of the Appropriation Bill lasts 105 hours. [Interjections.]

I say the whole system is wrong.

The whole truth should be placed on record for once so that the hon. member’s untrue attacks can be exposed. The time available for the Committee Stage of the Appropriation Bill is 105 hours. According to the time allotment, based on the representation of the various political parties in this House and as agreed upon by the Whips, the National Party gave 10 hours of its available time to the other parties so that they could have a more extensive opportunity to launch attacks and analyse the Government’s policy. It was further agreed that each party would divide the time allotted to it among the various Votes according to the importance each party attached to them. The Whips of the hon. member’s party allotted 50 minutes of the total time they had to spend on the Committee Stage to the Information Vote. This is the factual position. Our Whips allotted two hours and 10 minutes to our members to spend on the Information Vote. That shows how important they consider the Vote to be, but the Whips of the hon. member consider it to be of lesser importance, and that is why they only set aside 50 minutes for it.

That is not true.

It is the truth. I have just told the hon. member what the facts are. [Interjections.]

Order!

If the hon. member, as leader of his party in the Transvaal and as principal speaker on the Information Vote, cannot convince his Whips that Information is important and deserves more than 50 minutes, he must not level reproaches at us; he must settle the matter with his own Whips. That is where the responsibility for the entire matter belongs, not with us.

That is not true.

It is the truth.

Order!

I should like to analyse a few of the statements which the hon. member made. In the first place the standpoint of the hon. member is that 50 minutes are insufficient, for the United Party needs more time to analyse and to unmask our policy. The hon. member then took it amiss of me for having spoken for 90 minutes last year to react to the debate.

I only referred to that in order to point out the disparity.

I really believe that matters are clear now as far as the disparity is concerned. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must now give the hon. the Minister a proper opportunity to enable him to proceed with his speech.

What is the position? Why do I take time to reply to debates such as this? I do so because South Africa’s image abroad is of the utmost importance to us. In addition this party is prepared to accept the responsibility for what it is doing. We are also prepared to accept responsibility for what we are, and for what our policy is. However, we are constantly being criticized, attacked and condemned for what other people think our policy is, and therefore we are prepared to debate openly across the floor of this House for the full duration of the time we require to rectify our image overseas. We shall continue to do so.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that our present practice is not the practice in the British Parliament, from whence our rules come? In former years we also had the practice here of equal debating time between Government and Opposition.

You are not in Britain now.

Mr. Chairman, that is a matter which the hon. member must settle with his Whips. They can thrash it out further on the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. This is really not a matter which may appropriately be dealt with here. The hon. member is being overly sensitive now because we have caught him out on the basis of his ignorance. He has been caught out because he is ignorant of how these matters are arranged. [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon. members once again not to interrupt the hon. the Minister so frequently.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that 1975 was a good year for us. Of course it was a good year for us. 1976 will also be a good year, for South Africa is gradually beginning to reap the benefits which flow from the implementation of its policy of separate development. It is gradually beginning to get through to people that this policy, of which only the negative aspects are stated and emphasized by opponents, also has positive aspects and that those positive aspects are leading to real freedoms and to the active recognition of human rights. They also realize that when the policy has been carried through to its full consequences it will be acceptable to the world. The benefits of our policy are gradually being reaped now, and hence the improved situation in the international sphere. There is no doubt about it. Our attempts to effect liaison with Africa, as we as a department and the Department of Foreign Affairs are engaged in doing—I shall elaborate on this in greater detail later—stem of course from the fact that we have thrown in our lot with Africa. We regard ourselves as being an African country, and we believe that we must and will play a part in Africa. We are prepared to make a contribution to the continent on which we find ourselves and in this regard South Africa will not allow anything to stand in its way, least of all the attitude of the hon. Opposition on this matter. That is where this success comes from. It does not come as a result of some or other promise or concession, as the hon. member wants to advance here.

When the Transkei becomes independent later this year—I shall have more to say about this in a moment—and the true position is seen, i.e. precisely what is happening, how the policy of separate development is anything but colonialism, is in reality precisely the opposite of colonialism because it does not have as its object the oppression of people, but the emancipation of people, then the sceptics and doubting Thomases of the world who have been telling us for such a long time that the policy of separate development is not aimed at true freedom, but is merely a camouflage to conceal our supposed policy of oppression for a little while longer, will see the light. When the leaders of the Transkei begin to speak in international forums as the representatives of an independent country, even more pronouncements will be made in this regard. I am convinced of that. The hon. member must simply leave this matter alone. It will gradually further the interests of South Africa.

The hon. member asked me how we saw the road ahead as far as international relations are concerned. He said that he saw nothing in this report of our future aims. There is a small planning division which is constantly cooperating on the highest level with experts to plan the expansion of our policy in future. The Department of Information is not there to serve itself; it is there to serve South Africa. As the world in which South Africa moves changes from time to time, and other techniques and methods are employed to bring South Africa into discredit, the department will have to redetermine its priorities and make adjustments from day to day to organize a counter-offensive. We have already stated a year or two ago—it is recorded in Hansard— that as we achieve success our opponents will become more fanatical in their struggle against South Africa and will succeed in having more money placed at their disposal to continue their actions. Their pamphlets will gradually become more poisonous and their actions more aggressive.

We expect this because we are achieving success. Therefore the planning division of the department is engaged from day to day in making surveys and keeping an eye on the situation to determine what is happening, and is furnishing us from day to day with the necessary guidance and advice to enable us to plan our actions in order to outmanoeuvre our opponents. So effective are the actions of the Department of Information in reality that it came as a complement to us when, some time ago, more money was requested at the UNO for the Apartheid Committee to try on their part, to undo the successful actions of the Department of Information. I do not think there could have been a better compliment for this department than this. It is therefore as clear as crystal that we are succeeding. Advance planning is therefore in safe hands, and I am satisfied that it is being done in the right way.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout stands on one leg only, and that is his negative leg.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred in his speech to the interesting things which are in progress in South West Africa. He wanted to know why we have not yet issued a publication in that regard. Is he not aware that the talks which are at present in progress in South West Africa, and the position there, is developing and is being changed from day to day? In this regard new resolutions are being adopted from day to day. No pamphlet of a permanent nature can now be compiled on what is in progress there because new resolutions are being adopted every day and every week. Therefore one would never be able to keep up to date. However, the logical and obvious thing is being done: In our daily bulletin to our overseas officers and in our weekly bulletins and reports, which are published overseas, all the developments in South West Africa are being given full coverage and conveyed to the outside world. Apparently the hon. member is not aware of this. He is simply looking for another little pamphlet to read so that he can say that the department has written something again. As I have said, this matter is being covered every week, daily if circumstances require it. It is dynamic; it is flexible. It is not something which can be determined in advance and on which long articles can be written beforehand. Such articles will immediately be out of date. The hon. member then went on to refer to Africa in his argument, and asked me what the Government was going to do in Africa. He wanted to know what the Government was at present engaged in doing in Africa and what it envisaged for the future. The hon. member contended that there were very few signs to be seen of the Government’s activities in Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the Government is doing what it can in Africa. That is very clear. The Department of Information is distributing publications in Africa. Approximately 15 or more countries are receiving quite a number of publications on the Government’s policy and on South Africa in general. My department regularly receives letters from African countries in which more information is requested. The department is also distributing films in Africa, for example to the Ivory Coast, to mention only one. Land of Promise has just been exhibited there, and received very good publicity. A great deal more than this is being done. However, if the hon. member were to ask me what further action the department is contemplating in Africa, I must tell him that it is in the interests of South Africa that he is not informed of what is being contemplated there. It is in the interests of South Africa that I do not disclose this.

That is an old argument!

No, it is not an old answer; it is simply a fact. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is well-versed in foreign diplomacy and in foreign affairs. Therefore he ought to know that certain things can be done, that certain things can be disclosed while that is being done, but that other things are done without any information about them being disclosed. If it is therefore in the interests of South Africa—after all, our only criterion is the interests of South Africa—we must act accordingly. There are certain countries to whom we make a many things available and to whom we render assistance in various forms, but these are things which we do not, however, disclose, for the sake of those countries, because it could embarrass them among their own number, their own people. That is why we do not do this.

We do not do this, for the sake of sound relations between those countries and us. But to give wide publicity to matters now, merely to satisfy the hon. member’s curiosity, and in that way cripple the entire attempt, is something which I, as the responsible Minister, am not prepared to do. I can only give the hon. member the assurance—this assurance he has to accept from me because I cannot furnish more detailed particulars—that the Government is making progress is in Africa, that liaison with Africa is at present making satisfactory progress on various levels as is thought fit, that the Government is negotiating with countries in regard to which the hon. member would regard this fact as unbelievable. Evidence of this he will in fact obtain at a later stage, as he has already seen evidence of the progress which has been made to date. However, the hon. member would not believe it if I stated it to him. He would not believe that the Government has achieved success in certain African countries and at the level at which this was achieved if I were to inform him of it. The Government is proceeding with those negotiations, but the time is not ripe now—neither for South Africa nor for any African country—to disclose or blazon abroad the details of those negotiations. The interests of South Africa are worth more to me than cheap publicity, particularly at this stage. Therefore I shall now leave the entire matter in regard to my department’s contact with Africa at that.

The hon. member also asked what progress the Department of Information was making with the training of South African non-Whites. It is very interesting to note that the first Coloured and Indian information officers have already been appointed. They are at present undergoing their training in the department. I shall say something at a later stage in regard to the Transkei, with reference to the question asked by the hon. member for Vereeniging. With regard to the other non-Whites I want to mention that they undergo a full training course of 13 weeks. A complete timetable has been drawn up, on the basis of which the course if offered. Inter alia, visits are paid to places such as Rosslyn, Babalegi and others. In addition the timetable consists, inter alia, of the following aspects: A weekly review of world events, South Africa’s relations with other States in Southern Africa, the USA today, Germany today, England today, interviews with officials on television, appearing on television the balance of power and the great powers, diplomatic usages and practices, effective reporting, South Africa’s relations with the Western World, etc. This is the programme which has been worked out, and which is followed over a period of 13 weeks. After that those people will of course be used overseas, where they will also receive further training before they return to South Africa to continue their work here among their own compatriots. It is therefore clear that the Government is carrying through its policy in this sphere as well, and that policy will work in regard to these recruited officials as well. This is what is being done.

I should like to refer to the question of the Chinese. Why must the hon. member discriminate against the Chinese on the ground of colour? The hon. member is ostensibly so sensitive about petty apartheid. After all, we have numerous people in South Africa who constitute minority groups. There is a large number of Portuguese in South Africa, as well as a large number of Greeks, Cypriots, et al. Why did the hon. member not also ask me why specific mention was not made in the report to the Greeks, Cypriots and Portuguese? However, the hon. member singled out the Chinese for purely political reasons because he thought he could make political capital out of the fact that they are a a colour group. The fact of the matter is that the Chinese as well will in due course, as in all cases, be included. The hon. member would be well advised to discuss the Chinese when the Interior Vote comes up for discussion. It could be discussed more appropriately there than here, and the responsible Minister will gladly reply to it then. As far as this matter is concerned, it was purely, and transparently, an attempt on the part of the hon. member to make politics out of a situation in which there is no question of politics.

In conclusion I want to discuss the alleged conflict or friction, according to the hon. member, between the Department of Information and the Department of Foreign Affairs. I want to tell the hon. member at once that my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and I reject his allegations with the utmost contempt. In fact, co-operation between the two departments is as sound as it could possibly be. Regular discussions— weekly, and even more frequently—take place between the departmental heads of the two departments, and between us as the Ministers concerned, to plan jointly in this way how South Africa may improve its position in the outside world. It is the task of both of us to try to do this. I could mention an example in this regard. On my recent visit to the Ivory Coast I took with me the Secretary for Information as well as the Deputy Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The latter was also a member of the party that accompanied me. On our arrival there we saw to it that interviews were conducted between the Deputy Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Foreign Affairs as well as the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Ivory Coast. The co-operation went off perfectly. This is only one example of co-operation between the two departments. There is co-operation in numerous spheres. The hon. member must understand clearly that these two departments each have their own task and their own instructions to carry out. The instructions of the two departments are not in conflict with one another, but are in fact complementary to one another. In some circumstances the Department of Foreign Affairs is in a key position to do a given piece of work in South Africa’s interests. In other cases again it is easier for the Department of Information to carry out this task, and it is instructed accordingly. In this way the two departments, complementary to each other, are performing a Herculean task for our country, within as well as outside South Africa. To try to echo cheap sensational newspaper stories here, in an attempt to cause friction between the two departments, is conduct not only unworthy of the hon. member, but not to South Africa’s advantage either.

Are the newspapers talking nonsense?

In this connection the newspapers are talking nonsense. The hon. member must accept it in that way. Those newspaper reports have on various occasions already been denied by my colleague and myself on the grounds that they are based on speculative and unfounded reporting. If the hon. member had been more observant he would have seen that Rapport had to apologize on its front page to the Department of Information as a result of its distortion of the story in regard to the periodical To the Point. However, the hon. member likes to echo “his master’s voice”. I am referring to the sensation which the newspapers are fond of seeking in regard to South Africa. I think it is necessary for the hon. member to hear this.

It is an attack on your own newspaper.

It is not my newspaper. Rapport does not belong to the National Party, and even less to me. On the contrary. The hon. member ought to know this. I want to leave the hon. member for Bezuidenhout at that for the time being.

I want to refer to the hon. member for Parktown. That hon. member attacked me in the first sentence of his speech on the standpoint which I adopted overseas, i.e. that South Africa, in a specific manner, has “one man, one vote”. South Africa also has “majority rule”—also in a specific manner. Herein lies the difference between the approach of the hon. member and my approach. The hon. member sees South Africa as one multi-racial unitary State. When a person has a single multi-racial unitary State with “one man, one vote”, then one must have “one man, one vote” in this Parliament and for all the people in South Africa. If one wants to implement “majority rule” one has to implement “majority rule” in Parliament as well, according to the hon. member’s view of South Africa as a multi-racial unitary State. The hon. member knows just as well as I do that our view differs fundamentally from his, and that we do not see South Africa as a multi-racial unitary State. He knows that we see South Africa as a sub-continent in which various peoples were artificially joined together under the colonial policy of the British. The object of the policy of separate development is in fact to unravel and to disentangle the situation and to allow each nation on the sub-continent to come into its own and, in such a situation, in fact to have “one man, one vote” by giving each nation its own Parliament. This can happen in terms of the policy which we advocate, and consequently I am not proclaiming untruths at all when I adopt such a standpoint. We have “one man, one vote” in the Transkei, we have it for the people in Lebowa—in fact, for each of the homelands, except Zululand, not because Buthelezi, with whom the hon. member is on such friendly terms, cannot have it, but because he refuses to allow a free election to be held. After all, he believes in a one-party state. That is why there is no “one man, one vote” there. It is the friend of the hon. member for Parktown who is doing that. In each of the other homelands we have “one man, one vote”, and therefore South Africa in its entirety also has it. That is my argument, and the hon. member will not put me off my stroke in that way. It is exactly the same as in Western Europe where the Germans have “one man, one vote” for their Parliament, the French for their Parliament and the English for theirs. It has never happened in history that the whole of Western Europe had one Parliament with “one man, one vote” for every one jointly. In South Africa we also have “one man, one vote” on the same basis. Everyone has one man one vote in his own country, and there is no overlapping.

What about the Coloureds?

The Coloureds also have “one man, one vote” in the political institution which was created for them.

But we are making the laws for them.

The Coloureds make their own laws in regard to matters affecting them. [Interjections.] Is it really asking too much now of the hon. member for Parktown and his party just for once to acknowledge something positive in regard to South Africa? Must they always be negative?

We acknowledge everything that is positive.

On the contrary. The hon. member attacked the department and me because it is our standpoint that the criticism against South Africa and against its policy is all part of a leftist, communist world plot against Southern Africa. I should like to quote the following passage from the annual report of the department on this specific matter—

We are illustrating very clearly here that we have to distinguish between two specific concepts. The hon. member, in his wisdom, accuses us …

What is the positive and what is the negative? Do you acknowledge that?

The hon. member says that we regard everything as being leftist. Mr. Chairman, you will not allow me to refer here to the hon. member’s attitude in regard to communism, and I am not going to do so either, but I want to tell the hon. member that I am certain that the communist countries and the communist propagandists of the world will exult in the speech he made this afternoon. The hon. member wants to create the impression that these people have no ulterior motives, that they do not want to undermine South Africa, but that it is only South Africa’s policy which is unacceptable to them. This is the same belief which there was in the heart of a man by the name of Gen. Spinola of Portugal. He believed in precisely the same things in which the hon. member for Parktown believes. He also thought that they should rebel against certain things and that if those things could be eliminated there would suddenly be a paradise in Portugal. In the meantime he was merely the instrument for causing the chaos which has been prevailing in Portugal for more than a year now. The hon. member for Parktown is in precisely the same position. Is the hon. member aware of the fact that the UNO report, signed by almost 100 countries, refers to us, the Whites, as a colonial settler group? Does the hon. member agree with that?

No, of course I do not accept it.

If that is not then the case, the hon. member must at least say that the criticism is not only aimed at the Government. After all, he is also one of those settlers. The Political Committee of the UNO alleges that the Transkei has no right of existence because it is a desiccated super ghetto that is being maintained by the Whites. Does the hon. member agree with that?

No.

This is the kind of criticism of South Africa which we have to repel, and in regard to which the hon. member criticizes us, for he says that if we change our internal policy the country will suddenly become a paradise and that South Africa will suddenly become acceptable. I think it is time we got away from this now. The hon. member must not for a single moment think that he and his party has the sole right for an opinion on South Africa in regard to these matters.

No, I am not a Nationalist.

Thank heaven for that! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Von Brandis. He referred to the achievements of the department, for which I want to thank him. However, he also discussed the question of participation in Africa in conferences, etc. He said that the position had changed completely and that whereas we had previously participated in these conferences, etc., we were no longer doing so now. He felt that the position had deteriorated considerably as a result of this. Sir, surely the hon. member is not so naive. Surely he knows that although South Africa was previously—years ago, in the time of the colonial powers—very welcome to participate, and indeed played a very prominent role, the entire picture has changed as a result of the independence of the African states, and that South Africa has therefore been placed in a completely new position. Surely he knows that South Africa, as a result of propaganda and as a result of the actions of certain people, was not regarded or accepted as an African state, but was seen from the point of view of the African states as a state which really belonged in Europe. We were foolish enough to call ourselves Europeans for many years, as though we were part of Europe and not part of Africa. This is a fact.

Now, the position has changed drastically in Africa since 1960, and in recent years we have been making an attempt to gain a new place for South Africa in Africa. This is not something which one can accomplish overnight, particularly not if such a great deal of dissension is being sown, as has been done in past years. That is why we are doing this from day to day. But now the hon. member says that it does not seem to him as if we are making much progress, and that he is disappointed about the entire matter. Sir, what are the facts? The time is certainly not ripe for us now to try to join the OAU. This is logical, and everyone knows it. But that we have made progress is not to be doubted. I want to mention two examples as evidence of progress. Formerly South Africa was disposed of in five minutes at OAU meetings. Within five minutes a motion was very neatly drawn up, in which it was simply stated: “We condemn South Africa and its policy as totally unacceptable, and we reject it.” With that they had disposed of South Africa, and it was a unanimous resolution. During the last OAU meeting of foreign ministers they met for 48 hours behind closed doors to draft a motion on South Africa which was acceptable to all. That motion was everything but a complete condemnation and rejection of South Africa. The positive notes were heard there. Another example is the vote at the OAU meeting in Addis Ababa earlier this year, in January. The votes cast were 22 to 22 in regard to a matter in which South Africa was directly involved. Does the hon. member not wish to display that much patriotism towards South Africa as to regard this as progress and to applaud this? That is all I am asking of him. Of course, we have not succeeded in achieving what we should have liked to achieve, and of course there is still a Herculean task which has to be disposed of, but the fact of the matter is that with the methods we are employing at present we are making progress in Africa. The African states make it very clear that they do not like our domestic policy, but I can also say that I do not like their domestic policy. I also have the right to say that I do not like their one-party states, the fact that they do not grant people in their country political rights, and their military dictatorships, but should this now prevent us from co-operating with one another in respect of common interests in Africa? That is the approach one adopts. Then one talks to them as man to man. Then one is not on the defence. Then one is in a strong position, as man to man in regard to these matters. Each of them have their own weak places, as we also have in our policy. It is logical and it is human. In that way we can make progress.

The hon. member also said that we cannot sell apartheid as a commodity because it is totally unacceptable. Sir, we are not selling apartheid. The PRP still refers to apartheid, but this party no longer refers to apartheid. On the contrary. Apartheid as such was a concept for internal consumption with which we began in 1948, but we threw that term overboard a long time ago because it was misunderstood. [Interjections.] The hon. member said that the commodity which we want to sell cannot be sold.

I did not say that.

In any case, the fact remains that we are in fact able to sell the concept of separate development, or of equal freedoms, which is really the policy, to people who are prepared to listen to it without doing so emotionally. We shall continue with this and succeed in it.

I should like to react to a few hon. members on my side, and in the first place thank the hon. members on this side who spoke. Two specific questions were put to me to which I should like to react. The one was put by the hon. member for Vereeniging and was in regard to the training of information officers of the Transkei. I think it would be a good thing for hon. members to hear precisely what was done. It will be recalled that we announced the year before last that we were going to train Transkeians as information officers in the Department of Information to prepare them in that way to be able to take the lead in the Transkeian Department of Information. I can state without any fear of contradiction today that this training has been a very great success. These people were jointly selected and screened by the Transkeian Government and ourselves. After that they were trained in quite a number of fields. As part of their training they also had to learn certain other languages. Apart from English and Afrikaans they also had to learn French and German, political science, social anthropology, radio and television techniques and appearing on these media, the making up of periodicals and the writing of reports, etc. Together with the White training group they travelled throughout South Africa and visited various places in South Africa and acquired first-hand knowledge of all the various facets of South Africa which they will have to elucidate overseas.

In July of last year they were then stationed in four countries, viz. Germany, France, the United Kingdom and the USA. They were sent there, with their families, for a further training period of one year. During this year of training they are actively employed abroad, and act on behalf of South Africa and in the interests of their own people, as full-fledged officials of the department. Their colleagues there, those who were already there, arranged contact tours for them and in this way they met members of Parliament, academics, trade union leaders, journalists, and others. They made radio broadcasts and television appearances, and held lectures before audiences. Wherever they went they stated South Africa’s case as loyal South Africans. The intention is to bring them back in August of this year, for they are Transkeians who are being prepared for the Transkeian Information Service when the Transkei becomes independent. They will return here to experience the last phases of the independence of the Transkei, attend the proceedings on and before 26 October, and afterwards, as a result of their thorough training, they will be able to make their influence felt as worthy information officers of the Transkei. The Transkeian Government will be at liberty to use these men wherever it wishes. I am convinced that they will be appointed within and outside the Transkei, where they will be the leaders in the field of information and that they will serve the Department of Information of the Transkei with great honour and distinction, both at home and abroad, as a result of the sound training they have received and the valuable experience they have gained. This is how one helps a neighbour in a practical, positive and useful way, and not with an outcry and a lot of noise.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central inquired about publicity with regard to the independence of the Transkei. I think it is necessary for me to inform hon. members and the country of what we are prepared to do and what we intend doing in this regard. In spite of all the publicity which has already been given to the development of the Transkei, it must be borne in mind that a fierce war of words is being waged against us. For example, the Transkei is being described as a desiccated patch of earth, a kind of super ghetto or concentration camp for labourers. The Antiapartheid Committee of UNO, the World Council of Churches, Unesco, leftist student organizations, trade unions, leftist newspapers, periodicals and radio-television networks are even today still denying the Transkei’s right to exist. They are throwing everything into the struggle to persuade their governments to deny the Black inhabitants of the Transkei their right to self-determination. What is our task in this regard? Our task is to point out that in the Transkei we have a position which is the result of development over a period of years. Let us consider the facts in a level-headed way and in its historical perspective. Towards the end of the previous century and the beginning of this century a natural evolutionary development began here in Southern Africa as a result of which countries were placed on the road to independence, independence as full-fledged states. Three of the eight Black peoples in South Africa already had nucleus areas by that time, i.e. Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland. Each of them already had a nucleus area, the embryo for becoming a full-fledged nation. In 1910, with Union, the British Parliament made provision for these three areas to become protectorates, or High Commission Territories. The other five Black peoples in South Africa, who were at the same stage of normal development, or just a little behind, were all incorporated in the Union of South Africa and placed under the control of the Union Parliament of South Africa. Must the colonial decision of that time now dampen and destroy all future development of these five Black peoples while the other three, who happened to be separate at that stage and who were not incorporated in the colonial dispensation, have in the meantime received their freedom and have been recognized as full-fledged African states and members of UNO?

Let us take the clearest possible example. In surface area the Transkei is larger than two of those three, its population exceeds that of all the others, its per capita income is greater than any of the three, its standard of education and training are higher than any of the three and its budget is also larger than that of any of the three. Because the Transkei did not, in 1910, as did the other three, happen to become an independent High Commission Territory,— British Kaffraria—must it now be denied its freedom while this is granted to the other three? What earthly logic is there in regard to this matter? Our present task is to bring these facts specifically and clearly to the attention of right-minded people in the world. The true position must be revealed to them and it must be pointed out that we are now reaping the benefits of our actions. It must be shown that the policy of separate development, as we are applying it, is not a policy of colonialism, and that we are in fact doing everything in our power to undo the former colonialistic actions in regard to the Transkei, and give them their freedom. This is the kind of thing we have to do. This is the kind of publicity that has to be given to this matter.

Because it is necessary to bring this matter to the attention of the world, it has been decided to spend R1 million on publicity in this regard, R500 000 from the previous financial year and R500 000 from the present financial year. We are doing this because we are dealing here with the crux of the matter.

The policy of separate development and its positive aspects are perfectly illustrated in the coming into existence of the Transkei, and the world must be made aware of this. I have already referred to the fact that in so many countries in the world, in so many conversations we have with people, it is being said that one would first have to wait and see how this policy will bring about the independence of countries. It has been said that we are merely dangling a carrot in front of peoples’ noses and that independent States will never become a reality. Now, after 30 years’ labour on the road of separate development, we are reaping the first benefits in the form of an independent Transkei. We are going to disseminate this to the world on a large scale and for that purpose we have received R1 million, although the times are difficult. I even wonder whether this will be sufficient. What exactly are we going to do to disseminate this knowledge? Our efforts include the making of films in various languages and the preparation of special articles, pamphlets and photographs. Suitable advertisements will be placed in the most important of the world media, and comprehensive assistance will be given to foreign radio and television teams. In addition to this the Department of Information will bring to the Republic 220 special guests from abroad for this occasion. These include approximately 120 foreign editors and journalists from more than 18 countries, as well as 40 overseas radio and television representatives, and 60 members of Parliament from 12 different countries.

Have the invitations been sent out yet?

We are in the process of completing that task. I do not know precisely what progress we have already made. If the hon. member wishes to submit the names of a few persons to us, we shall consider inviting them as well. I invite him to submit a few names to us.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether the Transkei itself is playing any part in the propaganda which is now being prepared on the Transkei, and does the Transkei approve of the form which this propaganda is taking?

All the work is being done in the closest co-operation with the Transkeian Government and the information service of the Transkei. The co-operation in this regard is 100%.

I have already referred to a number of different countries, and I should also like to tell you now what arrangements are being made for the Press to cover the independence celebrations on 26 October this year. I am furnishing these particulars in reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Pretoria Central. The Department of Information has been working for months to make arrangements for dealing with and accommodating the overseas Press, as well as the members of Parliament and other guests which the department will bring to the Transkei in October. If the established, accredited foreign Press crops in the Republic of South Africa is included, the Department of Information has to make arrangements for approximately 250 people. Most of the guests arrive from overseas on the same day, and will be taken to East London on two special flights of the S.A. Airways. Here the City Council will welcome them, after which the guests will depart for Umtata on two special trains. The trains will also be where the guests will be accommodated over the four days of the festivities. Special telephones and telex communications are being arranged, and in co-operation with the Transkeian Information Service a special Press centre is being established.

The department is even building a special darkroom so that photographs may be developed immediately. A light aircraft will take mail articles and photographs to East London daily. The trains, besides sleeping coaches, will have special dining saloons. Thirty or so information officers, who between them speak no less than 15 languages, will be on permanent duty. There will be two-way radio and telephone communications between the Press centre and the trains. The facilities which will be available to the foreign Press will also be at the disposal of South African journalists, but they will have to provide their own accommodation. It is felt that our own newspapers can reach Umtata very easily and make arrangements for accommodation far more easily than would be the case with overseas newspapers.

And our own members of Parliament?

The hon. member will know where to make himself at home in the Transkei. It would be an almost impossible task for the department to make arrangements for the accommodation of an additional 120 South African journalists and editors. Nevertheless, liaison is at present being effected with the Transkeian Government, through the correct channels to ensure that there are seats for members of the Press, for the construction of special platforms for photographers, and for adequate facilities in the Press centre, as well as for sleeping accommodation for our own people. And a statement in this regard can be expected within the next month, after we have negotiated with the Transkei in regard to it.

As far as our own approach to the Transkei is concerned, I should like to point out the following. We regard the Transkei as being the first benefit, in the international sphere, of the policy of separate development. The development process, which was nipped in the bud in 1910 by the colonial policy, was subsequently continued through the policy of separate development, and now we are reaping the first benefits of it in the form of an independent Transkei. We want the world to see and know that this is the positive aspect of our policy, for we believe that it will help the world to look at southern Africa and South Africa and its policy with new eyes. We have no intention of economizing, for in spite of Opposition standpoints we think that the product we want to sell is good enough.

In conclusion I want to say a few words about the other speeches which were made. I heard good speeches from hon. members who, philosophically and ideologically, have a pure perception of our position in southern Africa and the necessary love for South Africa. This radiated from their speeches. I am grateful for the positive ideas which have been expressed so far, and I shall listen eagerly to the remainder of the debate.

Mr. Chairman, in the limited time remaining to me, I cannot possibly reply to all the points raised by the hon. the Minister. It is for this very reason that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to the lack of time which this side of the House experiences and which does not enable it to go reasonably and fully into all the points raised in a discussion like this. The hon. the Minister replied fully to all the speeches and we thank him for that. For us on this side of the House, however, because of the limited time available to us, it is completely impossible to reply to all the points made by him. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was in fact referring to the general principle and not to the particular arrangement made for this specific debate. We accept the present arrangement because it is what has been agreed on. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was concerned with the general principle of the Opposition not being afforded an adequate opportunity to go properly into all the details which emerge in a debate of this nature.

The reason is that the Opposition is becoming progressively smaller and as they become smaller, less time is allotted to them. It is the Opposition’s own fault after all. [Interjections.]

Since there is so little time, I shall be able to refer to a few points only. The hon. the Minister referred, inter alia, to the vote in Addis Ababa on the Angola affair. He accused me of a lack of patriotism. I want to tell the hon. the Minister with all respect that I do not accept his dictating to me what my patriotism ought to be. There are differences between the hon. the Minister and myself, but I shall never accuse him of a lack of patriotism nor do I expect this from him. Let me simply point out the facts. The result of the a vote in Addis Abba, was 22 for and 22 against. However, the vote was not on South Africa’s domestic policy.

I did not say it was.

The hon. the Minister said that I should be pleased that 22 voted for us. However, they did not vote for us; they voted on the question of whether they should condemn only South Africa for its presence in Angola, or whether we should be condemned together with the Russians and the Cubans. This was the point at issue. His reference to this had nothing to do with patriotism.

Earlier on I spoke of the Official Yearbook and requested the hon. the Minister to check various things in it. I referred inter alia, to the spelling of the name of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well as to a number of other points in respect of which corrections might be effected. One of them I pointed out on a previous occasion. The hon. the Minister referred to the Transkei and the proceedings which would take place there. The following is said in the Yearbook—

In the same context, federation is referred to in the Yearbook as a sort of integration model. Many arguments are used against the integration model. Nevertheless it is said that the sort of development which is taking place in the Transkei and which will lead to independence, has the great advantage that it leaves the option for the countries concerned to return to a federal system. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he intends rectifying that passage before the proceedings in the Transkei terminate in independence.

The following is also said in the Yearbook—

Before long we shall have to consider a constitution for an independent Transkei. I should like to see whether that constitution will not necessarily have to be based upon a Western model. If it does deviate from a Western model, we shall be able to ask ourselves: “Is it compatible or is it not compatible?” These are all matters one shall be able to consider. I believe that there are other chapters, especially those dealing with our internal policy and relations between Black and White in the urban areas, which have been drafted somewhat too superficially, and that these may be looked at again to good effect.

In the few moments remaining to me, I want to touch upon another matter briefly. I am of the opinion that the Department of Information also has a great task to perform in connection with certain internal matters. I shall refer to two of those matters only. In yesterday’s debate on transport, reference was made to the extremely high death rate on our roads. On another occasion the hon. the Minister said that this was a problem which should be tackled chiefly by the Road Safety Board. I agree with this. It is their duty in the first place to investigate this matter. However, I believe that, nevertheless, an immense information campaign should be started in South Africa to make people aware of the tragic loss of human life which South Africa suffers as a result of recklessness on our roads. Such an information campaign can best be directed by a department which is especially equipped for this, a department which has the contacts and the special knowledge to undertake something like this. In the light of the shocking figures which were quoted yesterday by the hon. members for Maitland and Welkom, I think that the hon. the Minister will agree that the death rate on our roads is the highest, percentage-wise, of all the developed countries in the world. Indeed, the figure with respect to South Africa is shocking. Road accidents have been referred to as a new epidemic in the world, an epidemic which is more serious and causes greater losses than any epidemic which the world has yet known. Our country’s losses in Angola, during the military activities there, were not nearly as large as the loss of life which we suffered during that same period on South Africa’s roads. These are matters which must be taken into consideration and once again I want to address a request to the hon. the Minister, if his department does not want to accept the full responsibility for this, at least to co-operate in reducing these losses to a certain degree with the aid of an advertising campaign aimed at combating the senseless wastage of human life on the roads in South Africa.

In conclusion I refer to one other matter. We often argue in this House about the desirability or otherwise of separate development, of a federal system, even of integration and other matters. However, I want to make the statement that not one of these policies will succeed, unless basic care is taken to ensure common courtesy between our country’s nations, common courtesy between one person and another and between one nation and another. There must also be goodwill and kindness between all. Without these things as a basis, nothing will succeed. No policy is good enough on its own to succeed without these things as a basis. In this sphere the Department of Information can perform a tremendous task. Since it has access to the appropriate media, since it can prepare propaganda or information, and can do so in the way most likely to penetrate people’s minds, the department can apply itself particularly to that sort of propaganda, instead of the mere political information which is provided at the moment. By doing this, I believe, the department would be making the greatest contribution towards the advancement of the various political systems in South Africa and their ultimate success. As far as the internal information services are concerned, this would be the greatest service which could be provided by a department like this, a service which is aimed not only at explaining Government policy, but also at improving human relations and the general quality of our standard of living in South Africa. In my opinion this is part of the department’s general duty. Therefore we should be very pleased if more attention could be given to this particular aspect.

Last but not least, we do realize that there are also other bodies concerned with these matters. I believe that, since this department does serve as a Department of Information, it could be the co-ordinating body of all organizations responsible for information. Here I am thinking, for example, of the Defence Force or the Road Safety Council as well as other organizations that all have a contribution to make. However, there must be some coordination so that everyone can co-operate in the same direction instead of perhaps contradicting one another or moving in separate directions, so that the work which is done by one organization may be undone by another. I shall not allege that this is indeed the case, but I nevertheless believe that an attempt must be made to co-ordinate the arrangement of the whole information service in South Africa so that it may function purposefully and for the common benefit of everyone in the country.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not reply to the speech of the hon. member for Von Brandis. In the very limited time at my disposal I should like to make a few positive remarks myself. For that reason the hon. member must please pardon me.

I want to say in the first place that when one considers the annual report we have here, one can only have admiration for the hon. the Minister and his department for the enormous task they are fulfilling abroad on behalf of South Africa. One can only speak with the highest praise about the task they have taken upon their shoulders and have fulfilled with such great success. Indeed, we are living in times of crisis today. I recall that the hon. the Minister himself said on occasion that we are living in a watershed year. When one considers the manner in which the Western world virtually capitulated, when one considers events in Angola and in Mozambique, when one considers everything that is going on in the world, the manner in which communism is systematically gaining ground, the manner in which communism is setting its sights particularly on South Africa, one feels depressed. Then it is particularly clear that the following three to five years will be a watershed period, not only for South Africa, but for the entire Western world. I am sure the hon. member for Mooi River will agree with me.

For that reason I want to say quite categorically that we can spend as much money as we want to—even our entire budget—in respect of the Department of Information but if we—every individual and especially every member of this House—do not make a contribution, we are not going to succeed; then our endeavours are very definitely going to fail. I do not want to say that there should be fraternization in this House. However, I want to stress that every party in this House has a responsibility, an important responsibility, the responsibility to hold up South Africa’s good name abroad so that the outside world will accept us as we are.

I want to refer in all modesty to what happened to the hon. member for Houghton. A very good friend of mine in America told me that the hon. member for Houghton, on occasion, addressed a very liberal group in America, a liberal group dripping liberalism. Ultimately, when question time came, someone asked her whether she could also make the speech she made there in South Africa. He wanted to know whether she had the opportunity to make this speech on a platform or in the Parliament of South Africa. To this the hon. member replied in the affirmative. After the meeting had adjourned, so my friend told me, the hon. member’s fellow-liberals were very disappointed, because they then had to realize that South Africa was not a police state as has been suggested. The hon. member broke a lance for us. For that reason I want to say that even the PRP can break a lance for us if it should be necessary. I want to give this compliment to the hon. member for Houghton.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to the fact that we should “sell” South Africa abroad. He said it was the task of the Department of Information. The hon. member must please forget about that. It is not the task of the Department of Information to sell South Africa abroad. As a matter of fact, there is no need to sell South Africa. I want to say categorically that, if we were to present to the outside world only the true, correct and undisguised political, social and economical facts in connection with South Africa and if everyone were to make his contribution to this end, we would be able to resist the forces being mustered against South Africa. I regard it as an important task of every member of this Parliament to convey the true and accurate facts about South Africa abroad. In this way we shall facilitate the task of the Department of Information considerably.

I have said that in the years ahead a holy responsibility will rest upon the shoulders of every member in this House, not only when speaking in this House, but also when acting abroad. What are the true facts we have to convey to the outside world? One can discuss this at great length, and the time at my disposal is limited. However, I should like to mention briefly a few aspects. The first fact we have to convey to the outside world, is that we have various political parties in the Parliament of South Africa, that South Africa is not a one-party state, but that we are, indeed, one of the two African countries which has more than one party in Parliament. In many African countries the Opposition is in jail and not in Parliament. In any case, this is one of the things we have to convey to the outside world. Hon. members on the opposite side of the House can help us to do this. Another fact we can convey, is that South Africa is a democratic country in which the Press is as free as it is anywhere else in the world. We can tell the outside world that our country is richly endowed with mineral resources and that this is one of the reasons why we have become the target of international communism. We can tell the outside world that we have no aggressive aims against any neighbouring State. We can go even further and tell the outside world about the policy applied by this Government, a policy which I regard as the only acceptable policy for South Africa.

†Perhaps we should take a look at the history of Africa. Hon. members must remember that there are more than 800 nations in Africa. Incidentally, the Bible has been translated into 435 African languages. Every nation has its own language, its own traditions, its own religion, etc. Ages ago, when the colonial powers entered the scene in Africa, they demarcated colonies in Africa not according to nationalities, but in terms of natural and visible landmarks—like rivers, mountain ranges, coastlines, etc. It was not a case of one annexing the Xhosa, another the Zulus and yet another the Owambo. In many cases it happened that they divided one and the same nation into two, three or more parts. Half of the Oukwanyamas live in South West Africa and the other half live in Angola. Half of the Coptic Africans live in the Sudan and half of them live in Ethiopia. What actually happened is that within the boundaries of one colony as many as 15 different nations were enclosed. Today in South Africa one finds the Xhosas, Zulus, Vendas, Tswanas, etc. In South West Africa one finds the Hereros, the Ovambos, the Bushmen, the Namas, the Damaras and others. In Nigeria one has the Fulanis, Yorobis, Ibo’s, etc. In Rhodesia one finds the Mashonas, the Matabeles, the Makarakwas, etc. Name me any country in Africa and I shall tell you exactly what different nations live in it. If one now apply the principle of “one man, one vote” in any one of the African countries, it will mean that the majority nation will be the government and that all the minority nations will be in the perpetual opposition, not because of their policies, but simply because of numbers and human nature. That is why the NP has embarked on a policy of multi-national development. Our policy can be defined as one which aims at the preservation and the promotion of cultural identity, individuality and personality of the various nations in South Africa, and to develop their economic, political and social position until they are able to obtain self-determination and, eventually, if they wish, even sovereignty. Today multinational development can be defined as a charter of human rights. Multi-national development is indeed a charter of human rights, second to none in the world, because if a nation cannot be free, how can the individual be free?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to convey our sincere thanks to the Department of Information on this occasion for the outstanding way in which they have carried out the gigantic task of putting South Africa’s case in the outside world over the past year. They have tackled this task with the small sum of R13 800 000 and a mere 505 officials, only 75 of whom are abroad. The able leadership of the hon. the Minister has contributed greatly towards their having been able to carry out their task successfully. To form any idea of the scope of the task which this department had to perform, one must consider what is directed against South Africa from abroad. If one then asks oneself how we have still been able to achieve success in the face of this onslaught, we shall see that success is due to two things. The first is the zeal and dynamism of the officials of the department. Secondly, we can view the success of the department in the light of what Langenhoven said, viz. “al gaan die leuen ook hoe snel, die waarheid agterhaal hom wel.” Looking at the international actions directed against South Africa and what the Department of Information has to contend with in our interests, we find that with the UN as the main base for the propaganda and terrorist onslaught on South Africa, we are dealing with bodies and persons throughout the world which present South Africa in the most negative light and which, by means of boycotts and various other actions, attempt not only to isolate us in the economic field, in the field of sport and in virtually all other fields, but to paint such an unfavourable picture of South Africa that South Africa will not be able to continue to exist in the way in its present form. If we only consider what is happening in the UNO, then I think we are justified in calling the UNO the base for propaganda terrorism of the enemies of South Africa, because it is in the UNO, with all its bodies such as Unesco, the International Labour Organization, the Anti-Apartheid Committee and all its other agencies where our enemies like the International Defence and Aid Fund, the Anti-Apartheid Movement and a host of other bodies, including the ANC and the PAC, are fed, not only with money, but also with information, in order to blacken South Africa’s name. If, therefore, we say that we are grateful to the Department of Information, then we do so against this background. For example, if we look at the decisions taken during the 28th general assembly of the UNO in 1973, we see a series of far-reaching and outrageous decisions against South Africa. This includes decisions condemning apartheid as a crime, and the extremely important decision in which it is stated inter alia that those liberation movements which are recognized by the OAU as the lawful liberation movements in South Africa, enjoy the support of the majority of people in Southern Africa. Looking at just that one decision, we realize how intense and how serious is the onslaught on South Africa from abroad. Having looked at that, if we come closer home, to Africa, and consider the decisions taken during the ninth Ministerial Conference of the Organization for African Unity then we as South Africans see what is bearing down on us and what the Department of Information, with the help of everyone in South Africa, must counteract. I want to quote just one of those decisions taken during the ninth extraordinary Ministerial Conference of the OAU—

Sir, I do not think the Whites in South Africa have any illusions about what is bearing down on our borders. You will excuse me, Sir, if I say on this occasion that I find it a great pity that in this emotional climate which is being stirred up against us throughout the world and throughout Africa, in which the race situation in South Africa is being pointed to and we are being depicted as the black sheep, South Africa’s praiseworthy efforts to bring about peace and see justice done are being hampered by a speech made in Lusaka on 27 April by the American Minister of Foreign Affairs. I should like to quote from that speech by Dr. Kissinger—

In common with everyone who wishes the communist power to be checked in Africa, too, I ask myself where we stand with the mightiest state in the West, America? I ask myself whether the people who advised the American Minister of Foreign Affairs about Africa really advised him correctly, because I cannot believe that if the American Minister of Foreign Affairs had been correctly advised, and if he had had a detailed knowledge of the realities of Africa, he would still have stirred up emotion between Black and White with standpoints on majority rule. This specific speech on majority rule—and I do not wish to concern myself now with matters which could be dangerous—was held in one of 17 States in Africa with a one-party government. There are 19 States in Africa with military dictatorships. All we ask is that America, as the mightiest state in the Western World, should also consider the fact that what is going on at the moment here in the southern part of Africa is not a battle to destroy White civilization. Furthermore it is a battle to try to check communism and prevent communism getting the upper hand. Consequently it is important that we do not push White/Black emotions to extremes and that we display a sense of realism. I find it ironic that the Americans, of all people, when they talk about human dignity, human rights, etc., are not only out of step with realities in Africa—something which we too would like to see rectified—but that they also forget that they have more problems in their own country than are found in many other countries of the world, in spite of the fact that they have a mere 24 million Negroes as against a White population of more than 214 million. Before those people want to condemn us here, they must also see in perspective the major problems of the world which revolve around the conflict between races.

At this point I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it would not be possible for his department to give more attention to the distribution of information publications in which we could have these universal problems, problems of race conflict, problems of discrimination, problems of conflict among people, injustice and inequality among people, placed in perspective in the world context. Would it not be possible to issue such information publications, whether in book form or by way of brochures, even if only for distribution internally. If we were to do so, we should also be able to show the world that although we have to contend with the race question in Southern Africa and although we have to contend with elements of race discrimination in a complicated society, all those matters, matters like migrant labour, and unequal salaries among people of different race groups, are universal phenomena. I believe that if such publications, in which everything is summarized, and South Africa is placed in broader international perspective, were to be distributed internally, we would not appear nearly as black as our communist enemies try to paint us. I want to ask whether media and propaganda publications of this nature could not be used by the hon. the Minister and his department to furnish the people of South Africa with more specific information concerning what we in South Africa have done in regard to the progress of the non-White peoples on the basis of separate neighbouring communities. At the same time they could convey abroad a simple, clear and well-defined picture of this matter. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of specific issues which I would like to raise with the Minister as far as his department is concerned, and therefore I will only spend a minute or two on the broader issues which have been raised, amongst others by the hon. member for Middelland and the hon. member for Innesdal, who has just sat down. Sir, let me say that of course everybody accepts that we all have an obligation to try to make a contribution towards improving South Africa’s image in the outside world; but what we say is that we can only do that by telling the truth as we see it, and this is precisely what we are doing. To suggest that is unpatriotic is deplorable. It is simply something which we reject with contempt.

The hon. the Minister apparently did not hear that I said in my first speech that the Department of Information had done a good deal of very good work. Without detracting in any way from this I think it would be totally wrong to believe that because of the disillusionment with what is happening elsewhere in Africa, amongst other places, this means that there is greater acceptance by the outside world of our policies. This is just not true and I think we are simply deceiving ourselves if we believe that this is the case. I would suggest that the hon. the Minister would be far better employed if he tried to persuade his Government to do something really “daadwerklik” as far as the elimination of discrimination based on race and colour is concerned. Then he would really find something he would be able to sell in the outside world. Sir, the hon. member for Vereeniging said we would never satisfy our critics in the outside world. I think this is only partially true. There are, of course, people whom we will never be able to satisfy; but the important thing is for us to follow a policy which will make it possible for our friends to defend us. We must stand on a policy that we believe in and that we believe is acceptable to reasonable people. That is all we can do; we can do nothing else.

Now there are a couple of particular issues I want to raise with the Minister. I hope the Minister will make a statement about a letter which the Director of Information at South Africa House wrote to the Financial Times some time ago about Chief Buthelezi. I want to ask him specifically whether he thinks it is part of the function of the Department of Information or of its officers to criticize South Africans abroad when they are abroad, because this is in fact what happened. [Interjections.] Chief Buthelezi may or may not be what this director said, “not remotely representative of Black South Africa”; that is a matter of opinion. [Interjections.] But this is most emphatically not a subject for polemic overseas. This is the point I want to make. This is one of the issues I hope the Minister will deal with. I also want to say that if one gets one’s facts right when one indulges in this kind of polemic, and that one does not do what the director at South Africa House did, and that was to ascribe to the Chief Minister of Lebowa a stance which he promptly denied the following day. But suppose all of us can make mistakes.

Then there is the case I want to raise of the information officer at the Berne embassy and the interview he is alleged to have given to a Swiss journalist. I accept without any reservation the assurance given already by the Secretary for Information, and also repeated by the Minister in this House, that the interview as published was an “outrageous distortion” of what was said, and I accept the Minister’s denials of the accuracy of that report. There is no question about that. I believe nobody who said what this luckless man is alleged to have said and what Rapport called “verstommende onderhoud” should come within a mile of the Department of Information, never mind hold a responsible position. I accept that, but I still say we are left with some doubts and I believe it is in the public interest that these doubts should be cleared up. Die Burger reported on April 12 that this official concerned had been recalled to Pretoria. I want to know whether that is so. If it is so, why was he recalled, and is there any further action that is being taken or will be taken, apart from the denials which I am glad to see have been published in the Swiss Press? I say deliberately that there are still doubts and I think there is an obligation on the hon. the Minister to clear them up.

Then, on the question of publications generally, I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he believes that the Department of Information was in fact justified in spending nearly R250 000 on 80 000 copies of this book about African, Coloured and Indian education for distribution overseas. I suggest that 80 000 copies is a lot of book, and I hope he will tell us more about this work. Who wrote it? I see that the people listed as contributors were in fact not contributors; they were advisers or consultants. I do not know who wrote this, and I can tell the hon. the Minister that there is a great deal of interest in the publishing world about the publishers, Erudita, I think it is, of Johannesburg. It is a firm which I would suggest is now well known, but we know that the managing director has been reported to be the wife of Mr. Chris van Rensburg, whose company does extensive business with the Department of Information and which I believe is publishing a 320-page volume on the Transkei at a cost of R300 000, which is a lot of money. I think the public is entitled to know how and where this money is being spent. Generally, I would appreciate it if the Minister could tell us more about his department’s policy in the purchase of books for distribution here and overseas. I know and he knows, or at least his officials in the department know, that there have been bitter complaints about the department’s selectivity in its purchase of these books. We find, for instance, that almost the entire book-buying budget for 1975 was spent on books from almost unknown or certainly little-known publishers, and I am assured by the trade, at any rate, that in many cases the books bought by the department are not even obtainable from South African booksellers. Is this wise? This is what they say, and it has not been denied, but I hope the Minister will deny it. [Interjections.] I know of leading publishers who have tried to get copies of these books, but have not been able to do so. Could the Minister also tell us why established publishers—I do not want to name them across the floor of the House, but I am quite prepared to give the names to the hon. the Minister— seem to be largely ignored or overlooked, and why the business seems to go in the main to slightly unknown publishers? Is there any reason for this? I hope the Minister will tell us.

Now, I do not intend entering the war between the Secretary for Information and Rapport, because this is a war with many ramifications with which we will not bore this Committee. But there is one incident in this affair which I believe calls for comment and explanation, and that is the reported refusal of the department to allow the Press to interview one of the department’s Washington agents, a Mr. Donald de Keifer, the man who is paid $50 an hour for his services in the USA I have no quarrel with that and I believe we are getting him cheap. But my objection is this: I believe the Press is entitled to exercise the elementary right of talking to a man like this. The department head explains that he decides who is and who is not to talk to the Press. There seems to be a degree of arrogance about it.

I will reply to that.

Thank you very much. I hope the Minister will reply to me because as far as the ordinary official goes I accept this, but surely when the taxpayer is paying a lot of money for this kind of service, the public is entitled to know about the man and his work. Surely there can be nothing to hide.

Finally, the Minister has told us something—and I am grateful to him for the information he has given us—about the training of people of colour by his department, particularly the people who have been trained for the Transkei. That is fine, but what I would like to know from him is how soon he intends making use of Coloureds, Asians or Africans as information assistants overseas. I see from replies he has given to me to questions that there are a number of these people in training, but am I right in thinking that none of these people is yet being employed in any overseas office?

I have just told you that a number of them are overseas.

But these are Transkei people, are they not? They are coming back to the Transkei. They are serving, but we are training them for the Transkei. I am not trying to misrepresent the facts, Sir. I am simply seeking information because I believe it would be in the interests of South Africa and it would certainly do South Africa’s image a good deal of good if we could employ people of that nature on our own behalf and not on behalf of the Transkei. I believe that it might even persuade a sceptical world that we are in fact in some ways, at any rate, moving away from discrimination based on race and colour, and that I believe in this day and age would be a tiny triumph.

Sir, the hon. the Minister will in due course reply to the matters raised by the hon. member a moment ago, but I just want to ask the hon. member the following question: Since when is Mr. Buthelezi entitled to accuse an official of the Department of Information falsely abroad and then not to expect any reaction to it? Surely, he knows what the facts were. Surely, the hon. member knows that he accused an official in London falsely. Does he want to tell this House that the Department of Information and we on this side were not entitled to put the matter right?

Did they have to fight it out there?

They did not fight out anything. They put the matter right in the sphere in which the accusation had been made, and if it should happen in the same sphere again, the matter would be put right again in the same sphere.

That is no argument.

I should like to refer to matters raised by the hon. member for Von Brandis and the hon. member for Vereeniging, because these are matters more pertaining to my province, to that part of the department and the Ministry for which I am responsible. The hon. member for Vereeniging referred to a variety of matters. I just want to tell him that as far as television is concerned, very close co-operation exists between the TV service of the SABC and our department and that use is already being made of material we have produced. As far as cinemas are concerned, I should like to refer the hon. member to the annual report, particularly to the passage under the heading “Films and Television” on page 19. I am sure the hon. member is aware of this, but for record purposes I am referring to it in any case. I quote—

According to calculations made by the department, our films were also screened to approximately 13 million people in cinemas in various countries throughout the world.

I quote further from the report—

To my mind this gives a clear indication of the extent of the use that is made of the department’s films and television films.

The hon. member also referred to a special campaign for schools. I think the hon. member will find a full reply in the facts I am going to mention in the course of my speech.

The hon. member for Von Brandis mentioned the fact that it is the task of the department to give attention to the high death toll on our roads, because we are geared to the dissemination of information. He suggested that we should have a far greater share in this campaign. I have great appreciation for what the hon. member has in mind, but I do not think this is a matter for the Department of Information. There are the Road Safety Council and other bodies that are really geared to these matters through their publicity campaigns. Although we could include this matter in our media generally, I do not think this is really a programme we can or will tackle. However, there is one point on which I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member. He said no policy in South Africa would succeed if courtesy was not one of the elements of the approach to such policy. I do not think we can differ on that score.

However, before going into the matter any further, I want to give the hon. member and this House the assurance that the closest co-ordination exists between the Department of Information and all other Government departments concerned with a duty to disseminate information in South Africa, whether it be the Department of Defence, the Department of Police, the Department of Bantu Administration, the Department of Coloured Relations, the Department of Health, or whoever it maybe. The closest and best co-operation exists between all these departments, and there is co-ordination to eliminate duplication to a large extent.

I should now like to deal in greater detail with the internal task of the department. Sound relations between the various population groups in South Africa are more important than any military preparedness and also more important than any sound foreign relations we may maintain. It is a fact that one should first get one’s own house in order. For that reason attention should be given, in the first instance, to matters within South Africa, and this is precisely what we are doing in the Department of Information. We convey a positive message in the interests of all the inhabitants in South Africa. We are aware of the things which disturb relations in South Africa and we are also aware of matters which people complain about, for instance influx control measures and the application thereof, housing problems, the failure on the part of various population groups to recognize one another’s human dignity, the actions of people in authority towards the public, and so on. I can mention quite a few more. The most important reason for the disturbance of relationships in South Africa remains—as has been said by the hon. the Prime Minister—purely and simply unmannerliness. The second important reason is the mutual ignorance about individuals within their own cultural ties. The internal task of our Department of Information also concerns, inter alia, these two spheres. We are doing a great deal in this connection and I should like to mention a few examples. Two capable officials of the department who are concentrating in particular on the promotion of sound relations between the various population groups, but also on the promotion of sound relations between Whites and Bantu on the labour market, have specially been earmarked for this purpose. Both of them have made their mark; they are in great demand and are regularly invited by employers such as large companies in the business, industrial and mining sector to address their staff, both Whites and Bantu. Staff of the department’s head office and regional offices regularly address organizations on these specific subjects. We made a film, the theme of which is labour relations, in conjunction with “The Centre for the Improvement of Proficiency of Bantu Workers” in Bloemfontein, and with the financial assistance of various bodies. The film, will be available in the near future.

As far as our publications are concerned, a special edition of the publication Bantu was devoted to the Transkei, in which numerous facts, knowledge and information are conveyed in regard to the Transkei. The normal monthly edition of 53 000 has been extended by an additional 20 000 copies in English and 10 000 copies in Afrikaans. This special edition was printed for, inter alia, distribution at schools among pupils of the various population and/or language groups. This will be followed up by devoting the entire June 1976 edition of Panorama to information on the Transkei.

Also in so far as information for the Bantu are we geared to the matter I put to you. Apart from the assistance rendered by regional representatives of our department to the newly established information services of the homelands and in some cases on the basis of the secondment of our officials to the homeland Governments, we emphasize the honest implementation of the policy, the assistance which has already been rendered to the homelands by the Government and the goodwill displayed on the part of the Whites towards the various population groups. Information on all these aspects is conveyed to the Bantu population. However, we have also found that it is an impossible task for the department to do all this work itself and we consequently decided to involve other bodies in order that they may help us with this task. Through the department and the Ministry we went out of our way during the past few months to call in the assistance of, for example, the Bantu Administration boards. These are people who are concerned with the administration of Bantu affairs throughout the country and I can assure hon. members that we have received the most willing co-operation from the administration boards. As an example, I may point out that our department and the Bantu Administration Board of Johannesburg are in the process of compiling a splendid, comprehensive article on Soweto. Arrangements will be made for the distribution of the article. Particularly positive attempts have also been made by our regional office in Port Elizabeth in conjunction with the local Bantu Administration board, but it is unnecessary now to spell out more detailed particulars about this matter.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I stand up merely to give the hon. the Deputy Minister a chance to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I am indebted to the hon. member for Mooi River.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether attention is also being given to guidance in the schools? I am asking this since the Deputy Minister will know that, in common parlance and also in the language used by school children in particular, insulting remarks are often made which are extremely detrimental to sound race relations. It is simply a fact that school children often use insulting language towards members of other race groups. To my mind this is something which requires attention.

Unfortunately I am unable to go into great details at this stage. I should like to refer to the publications of the department. It is a fact that in a township such as Soweto publications are distributed in seven different languages. More particulars in this regard are being furnished on page 18 of the annual report of the department. I should also like to mention a few other facts, and I hope I will be forgiven if I do not deal with this matter in great detail. As far as internal information is concerned, I have to point out that the subjects emphasized in our publications involve, inter alia the following: Guidance pertaining to family planning, information about health and other services rendered by the State to Bantu communities and information about matters such as communism and other ideologies. These articles have already been compiled and will be published in the ensuing months. What is further being done in this sphere, is that our high quality films such as Vesting van die Suide, African Power House and others, are provided with sound tracks in various Bantu languages in order that they may have greater impact in South Africa as well. With that I think I have replied to the problem raised by the hon. member.

Allow me just to refer to certain other matters. Hon. members of the Opposition can really not complain about the opportunity afforded them by the Department of Information to put their policy overseas as well. In this regard I want to point out that during the past year, 143 official guests from abroad, from 17 different countries, visited South Africa at the invitation of the Government. Everyone of these guests had the opportunity to liaise fully with the leaders of the UP and the PRP and to have full interviews with them in order to enable them to discuss their policies with those guests. I just want to refer briefly to the success achieved by this endeavour. I am referring, for example, to a report in the Pretoria News of 5 November 1975. In that report we read the following—

There are numerous examples. I am referring, inter alia also to a visit to this country by a Maori doctor from New Zealand, a very fine person. He was one who, in 1960, demonstrated against the All Black team visiting South Africa. Even before his arrival in this country and after he visited South Africa as our guest, he was so enthusiastic about South Africa that he said, inter alia (The Star of 6 November)—

Owing to lack of time I cannot, unfortunately, quote the whole report. I am sorry that I do not have the time to inform hon. members fully. I also want to refer to another publication by a very senior member of the Presbyterian Church in the USA who visited our country as our guest. In this publication, which is distributed among many thousands of people in the USA and the rest of the world, he refers to the change of attitude he found in South Africa among Coloured people, as he had been informed by members of the Opposition party. It is therefore not based on what I or some of our officials told him, and he found the change of attitude which is taking place in South Africa within the policy of separate development and the existing order in South Africa, a very good thing.

There were also many other guests with whom hon. members opposite had discussions. I have here in my possession 19 newspaper reports published in the Netherlands about a particular guest who visited South Africa. These are lengthy articles which are both critical and positive. South Africa could hardly have expected better and more publicity than the publicity this guest gave us. After another guest had visited our country in terms of the guest programme of the department, 20 articles on the visit appeared in Dutch newspapers. This guest programme is a programme in which, inter alia, hon. members opposite also had a share. Let me quote some further examples of how the message to which the hon. member for Parys referred—I am also grateful for the remarks made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North in this regard—is conveyed in a splendid manner. There are no politics involved in the matter. I am now dealing with South Africa’s image, South Africa as she is today under the policy of separate development of the present Government. This we owe particularly to our cultural section. We have in our department a handful of people who participated in 40 different exhibitions and/or shows abroad on behalf of South Africa in the past year. In addition, they also arranged, in conjunction with the National Botanic Gardens at Kirsten-bosch, for proteas as well as other suitable plants and seeds to be displayed at such exhibitions on 23 occasions. This is a special endeavour. I do not want to devote too much attention to details, but I should like to mention to you two examples which recently came to my notice, examples of which my department is very proud. One of our films was shown at the international film competition in Italy. That film was one of 74 which competed in a competition in which 32 other countries and 14 private bodies participated. On that occasion our film was awarded third prize. This was a particular achievement. One of our latest, major achievements occurred at this year’s Rand Easter Show, where the exhibition of the Department of Information was awarded a gold medal. This is the manner in which South Africa and its message are conveyed.

As far as the cultural section is concerned, I want to refer you to yet another splendid occasion which took place in South Africa this year. When South Africa’s new ambassador in Paris handed over his credentials to the French President, the wish was expressed in the course of the conversation that the cultural ties between France and South Africa should be further strengthened. As a result of that conversation, as well as attempts made by our ambassador there—I must mention that our ambassador in Paris is doing excellent work in this sphere—seven senior French citizens were invited to South Africa to participate in what one may really call a French-South African cultural week. That group included, among others, three members of Parliament, under the leadership of Dr. Henry Berger, the President of the Commission for Cultural Affairs of the French Parliament, a very senior member. That group came to South Africa on a very brief visit. The visit was arranged by the Department of Information, the Alliance Française as well as by some of our friends in South Africa, in their personal capacity.

I should also like to refer to occasions of this nature, occasions on which people in South Africa, in their private capacities, and often at considerable personal expense, invite foreigners to South Africa. I am referring to people who bring overseas guests to South Africa at their own expense, people who receive them as guests and make it possible for them to see the country, who bear all the costs attached to such visits, and who do all these things in the interests of South Africa. To those people I should like to express my heart-felt thanks for the trouble and the expense they went to in order to perform such an important task. The cultural week to which I have referred, may serve as one of the splendid examples of how things should be done.

Mr. Chairman, I am mentioning these matters in order to show what is being done and what is really necessary as far as the internal aspects of South Africa are concerned. This also goes to show the necessity of conveying the message through which we may bring about peace and order in South Africa. This is not so easy at all. It is a particularly major task to which a great deal of attention will have to be given in future. I do not know whether we always have sufficient money to do this.

However, this is not the time to ask for more money now. The time will come in future when this hon. House will have to give serious attention to making available far more money as far as this matter is concerned. I hope I have replied to the various matters raised by hon. members pertaining to my province. However, there is one final aspect I should like to refer to. This concerns our films. I hope hon. members opposite have viewed the recent films on Bantu education and the S.A. Police in particular. A preview of both these films took place in one of the local cinemas. At the moment my department is in the process of preparing a film, a film which promises to be very interesting and very good. This is a film on multi-national development in South Africa. A further film, which also promises to be quite interesting, is in the planning stage at present. This is a film which deals with the part played by the woman in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister should forgive me for not commenting on his speech. However, I should like to touch on a different matter. I want to say that I gained the impression this afternoon that Government members are obsessed with information on separate development, and particularly obsessed with information on the independence of the Transkei. I have come to realize that hon. members on Government side are employing the coming independence of the Transkei to distract attention from other, less savoury aspects of apartheid, and that it is for that reason that this fuss is now being made about the independence of the Transkei. I should prefer the Department of Information and the hon. the Minister rather to occupy themselves with the question of discrimination on grounds of colour, and do something positive in that regard. It is late in the day and we need friends. I agree with the hon. the Minister that we need friends in Africa. However, we also need many friends in the Western countries, and we shall be able to make and keep those friends in the Western countries only if we can prove to them that what our ambassador to the UNO had said, was in fact an undertaking, one which will be honoured. At this stage we do not have any friends. We saw that in recent times in Angola. We relied on certain Western countries, but we heard from Government side that we had been left in the lurch by them. Now I wonder whether we really had been left in the lurch or whether all of it was not the outcome of the instruction which had been given to our ambassador to the UNO. Someone instructed him to tell the United Nations that the South African Government was eliminating or moving away from discrimination on grounds of colour. I think the Western countries have come to realize that undertaking has not been honoured and, in fact, that an attempt has not even been made to honour the undertaking.

†Mr. Chairman, there is no time to lose in mounting an information offensive to make firm friends with the West, particularly with the United States. I am alarmed to see that, at this time, when we read on page 5 of the report of the Secretary of Information that there was less coverage of South Africa in the United States during the year under review and that there is less understanding of African conditions in the United States than before, that the hon. the Minister has not done anything about it. If one looks at the establishment, one sees that it has not undergone much change. The 1975-’76 establishment in the United States in regard to other staff was 13. This year it is 15, an increase of two. This is no time to curtail operations in regard to information for the purpose of making friends. Surely this was an opportunity of spending a lot of money in the United States by appointing a great deal of additional staff. I would far sooner have seen that, instead of spending millions of rand on the independence of Transkei, we should rather have spent it on appointing a bigger staff and acquiring bigger offices and doing more work in the United States to make firm friends there. I think that would have paid off handsomely. It would have paid off far greater dividends than making a great fuss and bother about the independence of the Transkei. Those who make such a fuss, know full well that everybody in his full and sound senses must be of the opinion that the big Lord Mayor’s Show in so far as the Transkei is concerned, is nothing more than something to distract the attention of the world outside from the less savoury aspects of apartheid. [Interjections.] Surely I am entitled to say this. Surely if I believe that it is the duty of the Government to make friends with the United States of America and I believe that this is far more important than having a Lord Mayor’s Show in the Transkei, I have the fullest right to say so.

I also believe that there is no hon. member in the House that can point a finger at me and say that I am unpatriotic. I am probably far more patriotic than any of the hon. members sitting on that side of the House, because I am prepared to see what can be done and I am prepared to realize the realities. I am not in cloud cuckoo land like many hon. members on that side of the House who believe that if you build a great edifice like the towering buildings in Umtata, it is the most wonderful thing that one can do. These towering buildings are built, and then it is a said that a wonderful thing is being done with the granting to the people of the Transkei of their independence. Thousands and thousands of people come to see this and millions and millions of rand are spent to get them there. In my opinion it is far better to use that money profitably by wooing friends and making firm friends in the United States of America.

If one looks at foreign affairs, one sees the same thing there. There was a total increase in staff of only six, and that at a time like this.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

I am sorry, but I am not answering questions. At a time like this one feels that the hon. the Minister, who I know is a very energetic Minister and gets around quite a lot, should do a bit of correlation. I believe he should persuade his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to appoint more staff in the United States. I do not have time to go into the figures, but I did mention that there was a mere increase of six in other staff on the establishment in the whole of the United States for the year 1976-’77. The hon. the Minister can use other Government agencies. I believe the hon. the Minister has made tentative arrangements to try to see whether he cannot involve other departments. I believe he should involve the Department of Tourism entirely. I believe that the hon. the Minister should have a friendly chat with the hon. the hon. the Minister of Tourism.

We have one every day.

I believe that they should arrive at some method of promoting the cause of South Africa in the United States, also through the Department of Tourism. This should be quite easy to do. It can be done with great effect.

I do believe the hon. the Minister can embark on an imaginative programme involving South African industrialists, financiers and businessmen, especially those who are popular and articulate, and get them, when they go to the United States, as they do frequently, to arrange to have simposia at which they can inform people all over the United States. I know that one or two simposia have taken place; it is mentioned in the report. But what are one or two simposia in one year? Let us have a whole series of simposia. Many of these gentlemen I have mentioned are very popular, more popular than the hon. the Prime Minister. Many of them can go to the United States and put across South Africa’s cause at simposia. I believe their services should be used. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg referred to the big fuss, as he called it, which we are supposedly making in connection with the independence of the Transkei. He also referred disparagingly to a “Lord Mayor’s Show”. He spoke disapprovingly about “towering buildings” and other matters. When a people becomes independent it is a great day in the life of that people. We on this side of the House are, in common with the Transkei, very proud of their coming independence. Disparaging remarks, like the reference to a “Lord Mayor’s Show”, do our country no good. They do us a great deal of harm. One expects more responsibility and magnanimity from the hon. member. The Department of Information has the enormous task of reflecting the country’s image correctly within and outside South Africa and of putting before the world the correct facts about South Africa. It has been rightly said that even if one were to increase the vote or the staff of the department tenfold or a hundredfold, it would still not be possible to complete the great task which must be done. It is physically impossible for the department to do everything one would like them to do—however well they may do their work. We have here a unique situation while South Africa is being attacked so much by the world. We cannot tell the world that things look the same in South Africa as they do in, say, Germany, and so on. South Africa is in a unique position. This situation hampers the task of the department and this is why private initiative, business enterprises and the man in the street must assist on a large scale to distribute this information. A lot is said about patriotism. I think this is one of the most patriotic things our people could do, viz. putting across our image correctly ourselves. There are literally thousands of personal contacts between our people and people abroad through businessmen, sports teams and tourists. This being so, it is my opinion that every inhabitant of the country must take this great task upon himself. For example, it is said that the National Party came to power in 1948 because every Nationalist was a party organizer. I think the time has come for every South African to become an information officer for his country too.

The task of providing information is a vast one and there are various factors which cause it to be even more onerous. I should like to ask the PRP—and when I speak to them, then I refer to the Progs in both opposition parties—what information on South Africa they put about in the outside world. After all, they are a rich man’s party, from their multi-millionaire “godfather” down. They are always travelling around the world. If one is not in Australia, another is in Botswana; or if one is not in Zambia, another is in Nigeria. I am almost afraid to put the next question to them, because it has been put a hundred times before in the House and consequently you, Mr. Chairman, may decide that I am guilty of too much repetition. I want to know what information the PRP gives those people. Our hon. Prime Minister went to Africa and on his return he said exactly what he had told those people. Although the question has been put to the PRP a hundred times in the House, it has not yet been answered once. If the PRP does not answer this question, then we can refer, not only to an internal and external wing; then the time has come for us to refer to an underground wing of that party, too.

The power of personal contact cannot be overemphasized. Our people must take this task upon themselves, because the public has thousands of contacts and it is these very personal contracts which have great power and influence. I was in Malawi on one occasion and I had a very pleasant conversation with quite a high official in the Railways there. He knew South Africa because he had been here. The information one can give such a person in half an hour can compare well with that provided in the South African Yearbook. On one occasion this particular person and I had a drink together. He told me that he understood that we did not want disorder and that order had to be maintained. But he then pointed out that we could have a drink together in his country but that he was prohibited by law from having a drink with me in South Africa. I then told him that was not true and invited him to come to my house in Krugersdorp and have a drink with me if he should ever return to South Africa. Only then did that man begin to realize that certain rumours he had heard could not be true. The hon. member for Parktown said just now that there was no misunderstanding and that the people all knew what the position was. However, that is not true because these people do not know everything and there are in fact important misunderstandings about South Africa which must be cleared up. There is a vast potential source of information inherent in the thousands of us who go overseas and the thousands of us who make contact with people who come here from overseas.

Another task in the field of information which is of great importance to us, is the question of languages. I have in mind in particular French, Portuguese and German. On one occasion I was in Mozambique talking to a group of people, among whom were some important Frelimo leaders. They were talking Portuguese and someone had to interpret for me. The group then spoke Portuguese for 15 minutes non-stop. When I asked the interpreter what they had said, he said: “They say there is going to be trouble.” Then the group spoke for another full 15 minutes and I was burning to know what they were saying, but my interpreter merely rendered it as “They say there is going to be trouble.” In other words, if one is unable to make personal contact by speaking their language, it is to one’s disadvantage. However, if one can speak their specific language, then one can really make good contact with them. I therefore want to appeal to our people to learn languages like French, Portuguese and German. These languages are important to us when our people visit countries like Africa, South America, etc. In conclusion, I should like to associate myself with the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister and ask whether personal contacts are effective. The hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the department’s programme of official guests. I think that about 150 guests visited the country in that way in 1975. There we have that personal contact, and I want to quote the following to hon. members. J. G. Heitink was one of the guests who visited our country in this way and made personal contact. In his book Zuid-Afrika he wrote very positively about South Africa in Dutch and said inter alia the following—

Speaking of wages, I also want to ask the PRP whether they tell the people they see overseas, and the Black leaders in Africa, that they, as a rich man’s party, can pay their Black workers just what they want to and that the wages of a Black worker in the Union Hotel are not determined by the Government but by themselves. We place no limit on them and it therefore depends on them how they wish to distribute the money they talk about so much.

Many of us who go overseas do not even know how big our country is or how many people live here. These are the things which people abroad want to know. It is the duty of all of us to become acquainted with the matters about which people abroad so much want to know. Another visitor to our country on this guest programme was a Col. Beepe of the USA. According to the Charlestown Evening Post of 20 January 1975 he had the following to say—

[Time expired.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.