announced that he had called a joint sitting of the three Houses of Parliament for Monday, 17 March, at 14h15 for the delivering of Second Reading speeches on certain bills.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The main object of this amending Bill, as set out in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill, is to authorise the Minister of Foreign Affairs to conclude agreements in terms of which loans or other financial assistance to a particular country are granted for development projects in the country concerned.

The procedure at the present time is that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, determines the conditions upon which a loan or other financial assistance is made available to such a country. In order to make these conditions binding on that country it is necessary to conclude an agreement in which the conditions are embodied.

Since the principal Act—the Economic Co-operation Promotion Loan Fund Act, 1968—contains no provisions regarding such agreements we have, until now, had to conclude an agreement in terms of section 6(3)(e) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983.

In terms of the amendments proposed in clause 1 of the Bill, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is authorised to conclude the necessary agreement with the country concerned. The conditions upon which the loan or other financial assistance may be granted will still be determined by the Minister of Foreign Affairs acting in consultation with the Minister of Finance and will be embodied in the agreement. In terms of section 6(3)(e) of the said Act the State President is normally required to conclude such an agreement. No substantive change is thus being made in the existing method of making moneys available and determining appropriate conditions therefor. The legal and administrative procedures required for the conclusion of such agreements will, however, be simplified and expedited.

*The other amendments contained in the amending Bill, are of a technical nature. Firstly, reference to the “Secretary for Foreign Affairs” and the “Controller and Auditor-General” is substituted by references to the changed designations of the said posts. In the second place provision is made for any unexpected balance to be deposited in the Loan Fund of the Corporation for Public Deposits as established by an Act of Parliament in 1984 instead of the Public Debt Commissioners which have now been abolished.

Mr Speaker, this Bill has been to a standing committee and its effect is simply to simplify the procedures regarding the granting of loans and financial assistance to foreign countries, usually the TBVC countries in South Africa. We have no problem in this regard as it will make the procedure more simplified and, we hope, more effective. This side of the House will therefore support the Bill.

There is, however, growing public concern in regard to the manner in which funds made available to the independent states are utilised, and the priorities being given to certain projects in those countries. The priorities which are sometimes set in these states show a frightening lack of reality when one takes into account the abject poverty and very low standard of development in those countries. If in the future the Government is going to conclude agreements in terms of which it will lend money to these countries, it ought to specifically take into account the priority which such a state is giving to various development projects. Strict conditions should be laid down so as to ensure that the projects that are being tackled do in fact fit into the development pattern of that country.

The amounts which have been made available from the Economic Co-operation Promotion Loan Fund have increased substantially. One is therefore not talking of small amounts. The first amount which was deposited into the fund in the 1968-69 Budget was merely R5 million. That amount increased to R75 million in the 1985-86 financial year. This R75 million was loaned in terms of the Act.

When one looks at some of the priorities and some of the projects which are being tackled by those countries it becomes clear that stricter scrutiny and stricter conditions by the Government are necessary.

One could look at Venda for example. Last year the president of that country bought a new luxury car for R120 000. It is bullet-proof and it has its own oxygen supply, public address system and fire extinguisher system. One can also look at the Ciskei. The president for life of that country is according to the Cape Times erecting a mansion for himself costing R1 million. It will have eight parking bays, a swimming pool and a guest cottage. Apparently the cupboards alone will cost R50 000. Those are not the kind of priorities on which this money or any money should be spent.

I concede that there is no evidence that moneys obtained from this fund have been spent on those projects but it is nevertheless in my view essential for the Government to satisfy itself that any moneys which are made available to Ciskei are not spent on such projects.

One is also aware of the new airport at Bisho in Ciskei which is under construction. Despite misgivings by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs this project is continuing. Originally it was going to cost R25 million. It has a tarmac runaway of 2,5 km to accommodate even Boeing 747s. As a result of the dollar-rand exchange rate, the eventual cost of that airport at Bisho will be far higher than the initial R25 million which was budgeted for. It is quite clear that that airport was initially planned in order to accommodate the President’s private plane which could only land at the East London airport. It represents extravagance at its worst.

One is also aware of problems in Transkei. The Auditor-General in that country reported during May last year that actual expenditure had exceeded budgeted expenditure by approximately R13,8 million. In his report to Parliament, he stated the following:

There are therefore clear indications that in the TBVC countries there is an unrealistic assessment of priorities. We therefore believe that in granting these loans from the fund under consideration, the Government ought to address itself to that problem. After all, the moneys from the fund and the moneys which this House, in addition to the loans, votes for those countries is provided by the South African taxpayer. We have the right, therefore, to obtain assurances from the Government that that money is spent in the most productive and effective way in these countries.

Mr Speaker, I have again listened with interest to the hon member for Durban Central. Half-way through his speech he stated that he was aware of the fact that the type of spending he objected to did not fall under this legislation because this legislation dealt only with projects. The hon member was therefore exploiting the opportunity to deal with other expenditure in a debate on this Bill. In a moment I shall come back to one or two of the objections he raised.

The view I should firstly like to state concerns the fact that in looking at the Bill we should look specifically at the provision about the State President no longer having to sign the loan agreement.

Why not?

I would very much like to explain it to the hon member. If he would give me a chance by keeping quiet, I would gladly do so. We should look at the historic development of the convention.

In terms of section 6(3)(e) of the old Constitution, of course, the State President had to act. This also meant that he acted in counsel. That is a legacy from British constitutional law that also applied here. When we look at the present legislation, it would appear as if the President still signed on the advice of the Minister. If we remove that provision, the Minister is apparently acting without reference to the Cabinet. In Britain the development of the convention was also such that a Minister could act on his own initiative—that was also adopted by us—without the Cabinet necessarily having any knowledge of it, but also without the Cabinet being able to sidestep the responsibility attendant upon the actions taken by that Minister.

An example of this was decided in our courts recently in an application Dr Boesak brought to the Supreme Court in connection with the return of his passport on the basis of the fact that the hon the Minister of Home Affairs had acted on his own initiative. Hon members will recall—the matter has not yet been reported, but there were articles in the Press about it—that the decision was that the prerogative implementation of the functions of granting and withdrawing passports did, in fact, rest with the Minister, without the President or the head of State having to append their signatures. The point I want to make is that although the legislation in regard to the requirements of signing is now being changed, this does not alter the liability or the responsibility. [Interjections.]

Whose responsibility?

The responsibility of the Cabinet, of the Government. In any event, when we look at the Act itself, we see that the Minister of Home Affairs must act in conjunction with the Minister of Finance. They determine the conditions. The question which then arises is whether the head of State would in any event, in terms of the constitutional prerogative, be able to refuse if the Act expressly provided that the conditions be determined by two specific incumbents. I do not want to elaborate on that in this debate, but one could make out a good case for the fact that in practice it makes no difference and that we consequently do not have to concern ourselves about it.

I want to come back to the matters the hon member for Durban Central was actually addressing. It is certainly true that these loans relate solely to project aid. As a result of the practical situation that has developed, feasibility studies are now being done on projects before funds have been made available for the purpose. These studies are carried out very thoroughly, and the projects must comply with certain norms before their feasibility is assessed. The norms that have been laid down include a test to ascertain the necessity of the project, whether it enjoys priority, whether it is development-orientated and whether, as a whole, it makes a contribution to the development of the country concerned.

In my view it is important, in future, for the department and the Ministry to investigate not only the revenue-generating projects, but also projects such as housing projects which make a great contribution to the prosperity of a community. So indirectly this does, in fact, contribute to prosperity and generate revenue, even though the project itself may not appear to be financially rewarding if one merely considers it in terms of financial returns.

There is something else we should also bear in mind. Many States are extremely sensitive about being seen to receive development aid from the Republic. It is understandable that this would specifically apply in the case of States to the north of us. That is why no great fuss is made of this and why we maintain a low profile, although we carry out proper feasibility studies and keep these projects properly under control. In fact, in practice the situation has, in any event, developed in such a way that the monitoring of the projects is such that the money is not being made available in advance, only being paid on production of a receipt.

I therefore gladly support this legislation, in particular the underlying idea, as contained in the principal Act, that we shall be continuing with project aid, because the “north-south dialogue” with which we are involved will, under these circumstances, become a reality. We shall have to investigate the actual development aid that the wealthier and more privileged countries and communities can furnish with a view to granting assistance to those lagging behind.

Mr Speaker, unfortunately we cannot support this Bill, not because we are opposed to aid aimed at promoting economic co-operation. We have no problem with that principle which is contained in the existing Act and is not affected by the Bill.

The hon member who has just spoken should have told us a little more about what this Bill is actually about. It is concerned with secret funds which are loaned in secret to certain States. Does he disagree with that or not?

The Auditor-General reports on it.

We are coming to the Auditor-General.

No, steady on now, I shall be replying to that.

Do not jump the gun. We are coming to the Auditor-General.

These are secret funds. He now calls it project aid. I want to say at once that we do not object to project aid either, but if it is for a hotel project in the Central African Republic, what then? What if the money is spent on housing aid in Gabon or elsewhere a project that ends up a mess or in regard to which losses are incurred? That is why I question the Bill.

The hon member for Randburg said this matter was a sensitive one. We do agree with him that there is some sensitivity, but sensitivity should not be dealt with in such a way that we become apologetic about the sensitivity of people or countries that are apologetic about the fact that they accept loans from South Africa! [Interjections.]

It was a full-fledged liberalist talking. He is sorry that he is White and that he speaks Afrikaans, but what he is actually most ashamed of is the fact that he has an NP seat which he has no right to have. [Interjections.]

This is a far-reaching amendment, because it removes the responsibility for the decision on the granting of loans from public funds from the executive authority and places it in the hands of one man. [Interjections.] Before the hon the Minister tells me that this takes place in consultation with another Minister, let me tell him that I know this. For that reason we cannot support the legislation. As things stand now, we already have own affairs and general affairs, but it seems to me as if this Bill also makes provision for ministerial affairs.

Sleep is also an own affair!

Is that the hon member for Brits who has just spoken? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Brits is standing, why is he doing that?

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Soutpansberg referred to me. I was working and paying attention to the debate in the House when he suddenly looked at me and made an insinuation that I found unacceptable.

Order! Does that justify the hon member’s standing up? I think the hon member has been in the House long enough to know that that is not the procedure that is adopted. The hon member should rather confine himself to the existing procedure and sit down when he should sit down, rising only when he is called upon to speak. The hon member for Soutpansberg may proceed.

Firstly, what this Bill amounts to is a circumvention of the principle of Cabinet liability. With great verbosity the hon member for Randburg tried to indicate that that was not the case.

There are many unpleasant memories, in the recent history of the Government of this country, of how cabinet liability was circumvented. So if there is some sensitivity about this at this stage, I think that such sensitivity should, amongst other things, be aimed at avoiding any semblance of anyone wanting to avoid Cabinet liability by way of legislation. [Interjections.]

If it is necessary to go via the State coffers in order to grant aid, the Cabinet must accept joint responsibility for that. What is more, it must bear the responsibility, particularly in abortive instances. From a theoretical and practical point of view, the amendment to the legislation boils down to the fact that the Minister of Foreign Affairs can even go and dish out millions of rands in the case of deficient projects. One would like to accept that he would attempt to avoid this, but a project does not always, on a cursory evaluation, necessarily appear to have any deficiencies. The deficiencies perhaps only manifest themselves at a later stage.

It would be one Minister who makes decisions in consultation with his hon colleagues. Hon members will recall the evasions in regard to some recent unpleasant experiences; they will also recall how the question of how the consultation took place was sidestepped. [Interjections.] One does not want to go into past failures, but there were failures. As the hon member for Durban Central said, look at what is being done with the money. If money is being borrowed for hotels, whilst the father of the State and his son deck themselves out in gold and give diamonds to another Western Head of State—by the handful—one asks oneself whether it is not one’s own people’s money which is being used for that purpose but which could be better employed on the home front. One also asks oneself whether the initial granting of that loan was properly evaluated and controlled. Legislation makes provision for a Minister in consultation with his colleague, but let us—with apologies—take the present hon Minister and his colleague as an example.

In his absence.

In his absence. These millions are being left to his discretion. We have problems with the discretion and objectivity of both these hon Ministers who decide about this. There is the hon the Minister of Finance. Last year, on 9 April, in his budget debate, he proclaimed loudly to all who would hear (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1985, col 2972):

A few paragraphs later the hon the Minister says (col 2973):

That was an unsolicited announcement made here with tremendous bravado. A few months later a humbled South Africa had to go, hand in hand from one capital to another, begging for the rescheduling of its loans. What value can one attach to such a Minister’s power of judgement?

Now we come to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and let me tell his pathetic columnist that the motives they ascribe to me …

Man, you are pathetic! Your performance is pathetic!

Oh, Mr Speaker, if that hon Whip had the same ability to make sense as he has to make a noise, he really would mean something. [Interjections.] Unfortunately the ratio between sense and sound and that between sound and sense are just the opposite. [Interjections.]

Let me tell that little columnist that I am unfortunately in the position of having to talk about the hon the Minister and judging him for what he is. We are saddled with an hon Minister of Foreign Affairs to whom we are being asked, in terms of the provisions of this legislation, to grant powers in regard to which discretion is extremely important. Less than a month ago, that hon Minister had himself devastatingly repudiated by the State President of South Africa. The hon the Minister does not have any credibility, because he was regarded by his own State President as not having any credibility because he has both a personal opinion and an official one. Since we have to grant him this power, we want to know what discretion he is going to exercise at any specific time—his personal discretion or his Cabinet one. [Interjections.]

As far as the promotion of economic cooperation is concerned, for a State like South Africa and this institution of ours it is not a question of whether we should be sympathetic to loans of that nature. The post-colonial history of African countries to the north of our borders is, in my opinion, not a history they themselves would like to have had. In the process millions and millions of pounds, dollars, marks, guilder, francs, and I think rands too, have been pumped into those States in the form of aid. Unfortunately not much has come of that.

Down the crocodiles’ gullet. [Interjections.]

I do not think that the fact that not much has come of it should be ascribed to a lack of potential in Africa. I do not think it is so because human aspiration fall short of the mark. I think the reasons for the failure probably lie in the fact that the money-lenders were not sufficiently concerned about what the money was going to be used for and the way in which it was going to be used. They were too eager “to please, to buy favours, to buy a vote in the United Nations” without any real concern and with a lack of seriousness about granting real assistance.

I am afraid—there are such abundant signs of it—that South Africa is going to approach Africa with the same mentality, both further from home and nearer home.

That is a very significant truth. [Interjections.]

As it is it is problematical for Parliament to examine how loans open to public scrutiny are employed. If, to crown it all, money were loaned clandestinely, it would be impossible. One therefore has to rely merely on the accountability on the one person or persons or bodies who are responsible for that. That is why we believe that a satisfactory degree of responsibility should be displayed and a satisfactory degree of control should be exercised.

The hon member for Randburg spoke of the fact that the Auditor-General could exercise control. In this specific case the legal provision for control by the Auditor-General is not identical to that of his normal control. In the normal control that he exercises, the Auditor-General can call for documents, subpoena witnesses and so on. He can therefore carry out an intensive investigation. In this particular case provision is only made for the fact that the Director General of Foreign Affairs must keep a proper record of all payments into the Fund and payments made by the Fund, drawing up an annual statement of revenue and expenditure and a balance sheet—in both cases as at 31 March—for auditing and investigation purposes. So the only aspects that can be investigated or audited in this connection are the annual statements of revenue and expenditure and the balance sheet. That is all.

That is not enough.

I do not think it is even necessary for us to talk about that today. If one just thinks of it, however, one can, in one’s imagination, conjure up a wide variety of opportunities for the uncontrolled uses to which this money could be put, as past efforts have attempted to ascribe actions of this nature to certain people, of course not very successfully.

I think that loan funds are a good means of promoting co-operation. I do believe, however, there should then be provision or guidelines according to which the so-called projects, mentioned by the hon member who spoke before me, should be judged. I think that the aspects that should be examined are the viability or usefulness of, or necessity for, the objective at which the loan is aimed. Secondly one must look at the feasibility of the project, and specifically at whether the borrower is in a position to carry out the project. Thirdly one should look at the stability of the borrower. Yesterday I quoted what a Swiss banker told Dr Verwoerd about their approach to the granting of loans. We must also ask ourselves what impact the loan is going to have. In other words, will the population benefit or will the ruler benefit from such a loan? Is a single group going to benefit from it, or is everyone going to benefit?

I do not think that a country like South Africa, which is in a position to grant assistance and is desirous of promoting economic co-operation, does not thereby need to extend and bolster its sphere of influence in Africa. I do not think, however, that a State like South Africa should be paternalistic. On the other hand I do not think that it should knowingly permit its money to be wasted. It should not be tightfisted, but in loans involving State funds I think it should be very meticulous in observing the criteria I have mentioned.

Perhaps I could give a very good example to the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, although I do not know whether there is any delegation in this connection as far as he is concerned. Let him go and learn from the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure about applying their criteria and tests to loans of this nature.

I do not think this legislation is actually intended for our neighbouring States, and I think the hon member for Randburg has said as much. These neighbouring States also need assistance and it is granted to them, not only by the State. In this connection I should like to commit to record a project which, in my opinion, ought to serve as a fine example of co-operation to everyone in this country. It should also inspire co-operation.

There is a small place called Levubu in my constituency. I think there are hon members on that side of the House who do not have the pleasantest of memories about Levubu. [Interjections.] I shall, however, leave the matter at that.

There is a co-operative which, judging by the large co-operatives in South Africa, is not very large at all, but it is a very dynamic and sound co-operative. In conjunction with a body in Venda this co-operative tackled a project involving co-operation, establishing as they did a joint company. This company shells macadamia nuts and packs them for export. Levubu contributes the expertise and a portion of the finance. Venda contributes finance and labour. Last year, in their first year, they processed, for the export market, approximately 600 tons of macadamia nuts in their shells. The value of that product, perhaps insignificant in another context, was R1,4 million. There are 200 Venda women employed in this factory. The factory led to Venda starting to plant macadamia nuts, and I think their target is something like 120 ha.

Last year I attended the opening of this factory. Really, from the moment I arrived to the moment I left, I was impressed by the spirit of goodwill on both sides, and also the respectfulness and the high degree of expectation relating to such co-operation. I therefore think that great things can be expected of this undertaking in the future.

The following results have already been achieved: A development committee was established between that corporation on the South African side and the Vendas. That development committee is going to do a survey of the production potential of Vendaland as a whole. Then there is another subcommittee which is going to carry out an investigation into how the products produced by that country are to be processed. They are going to make a study of the requirements for the necessary type of processing. There is also a subcommittee that will be responsible for marketing. Here I am not talking merely about marketing in the sense of the selling of the product. They must also, in fact, intensively seek markets for specific products which they must subsequently bring under cultivation.

Tom, that partition works well.

As our venerable front-bencher says, it is a fine example of partition and, what is more, it works! If another speaker were perhaps to tell me—as was said to the hon member for Durban Central—that these examples do not quite hit the mark, let me tell him that this kind of co-operation, this kind of promotion of economic co-operation, also serves as an example, in my view, of the kind of project that is not so widely blazoned abroad.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Soutpansberg is concerned about the Minister’s accepting sole responsibility for the granting of the loans. The hon member surely knows that no ministerial decision is divorced from Cabinet responsibility and that no Cabinet can divorce itself from ministerial responsibility. [Interjections.]

He is a new chap in town!

The legislation also provides for this Minister to act in consultation with the Minister of Finance. They also have a discretion. How would this country be governed if a Minister were not entrusted with discretionary powers? What would happen if he had to consult the Cabinet on every decision he had to take, or if the State President had to intervene on every occasion?

In passing the hon member also aimed a few political brickbats at the hon member for Randburg and launched a personal attack on the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Finance. I do not blame the hon member, because if he was thinking that his party could possibly come into power, and was bearing his shadow Ministers of Finance and of Foreign Affairs in mind, one could understand why he would not want to give any discretion to such people. The hon member is probably making provision for such an eventuality. [Interjections.]

As hon members have said, this legislation does not affect the principles of the principle Act. It merely contains amendments making the practical implementation of the Act more streamlined.

Speaking about the promotion of positive attitudes across our borders, we must remember that dialogue is not the only way to bring this about. We shall engender much better attitudes by way of palpable action. There is nothing that results in better relations than economic aid. The loans to which reference is made are not granted randomly. I have gathered that hon members are concerned about that. They are only negotiated in accordance with conditions acceptable to the hon the Minister. In the principle Act specific mention is made of development projects so that these funds will be productively employed.

South Africa is in the privileged position of today being a leader in the economic sphere in Southern Africa, and that is why South Africa can, from a position of strength, act in an advisory capacity and grant assistance to underdeveloped countries.

We are very grateful for the open spaces in our neighbouring countries. There is living space and space for development. The greater the economic prosperity that can be achieved in these countries, the better are our chances of being good neighbours and living in peace with our neighbouring countries.

What would happen if South Africa withdrew its support and left those countries, caught up as they are in an economic struggle, to their fate? The result would be that those countries would not be able to tackle any new projects. They would become unproductive, unemployment would increase, there would be economic decline and famine. What would happen then? The people in those countries would become dissatisfied and there would be an uprising. One would also find those people spilling over from those countries into South Africa.

I am not talking through my hat now. We saw this in the bushveld last year when in one day a group of 70 people, the majority of them women and children, crossed the border. They had walked for three days, had had to get along without food and their feet were bloody.

If we allow this situation to persist without doing something about it, we shall have to accept the consequences. The result will be that the enemies of the Republic of South Africa will intervene in an endeavour to establish their ideology here. This embodies a great threat to South Africa. That is why I believe that we should simply extend a helping hand to these countries, thereby making a contribution towards peace and development. On that basis I should like to support this legislation.

Mr Speaker, until now we have made very heavy weather of this Bill in my opinion. Offsetting its rather awesome title, it does little more than to streamline the authorisation of agreements in respect of loans or other financial assistance particularly for project developments to other countries. I do not see that this Bill does any more than that. I do not recollect many voices being raised against it when our standing committee met on 4 November last year. Our meeting was attended by certain gentlemen who outlined the current procedures which, to say the least, are long-winded. They then appraised us of the envisaged shortened administrative action that would be required in terms of the amendments contained in clause 1. These administrative actions could be undertaken without any loss of control, in my humble opinion, and without causing any administrative problems. We also do not see any problems in clauses 2 and 3 which are of a technical nature.

The hon member for Durban Central has spelt out many projects that I do not think fall within the ambit of this Bill. He did, however, raise certain points which I sincerely believe this Bill will seek to monitor should they fall within its parameters.

The hon member for Soutpansberg made the speech of the afternoon. He made a delightful speech because he hauled every skeleton he possibly could out of the cupboard, put it down and gave us the old Information scandal all over again.

We have a cemetery full of skeletons.

One thing these hon gentlemen forget is that in the heydays, high days and holidays of the Information scandal they were all sitting in the Government benches. They were all part of it.

That is why we know and you don’t!

Oh, no, my hon friend is quite wrong; he does not know what I know and that is that something will definitely emerge from their cupboard on the day that Dr C P Mulder is elected to this House.

The next election!

I can tell you that when that gentleman enters this House, “dan gaan die poppe dans”, as they say in Afrikaans. The hon members of the CP are wrong when they say that they know something I do not know. Together with the hon member for Yeoville and Dr Zac de Beer, I sat on the commission that sifted every bit of evidence and I submit that we know, as the saying goes, a heck of a lot more than they believe we do.

Why didn’t you take them to court?

What about the State President?

In terms of the Commission’s Act we cannot, unfortunately, say too much about it. One day, however, when Dr Connie Mulder comes here, he will have the protection of Parliament and will be able to sing like a little canary. In the meantime, I just want to remind the hon members of the CP that they were sitting in the Government benches at that time. They must therefore not pretend to be lily-white and innocent of all the crimes of the past. Quite frankly, we cannot see the skeletons that they perceive in this particular cupboard. [Interjections.]

We support this Bill and sincerely hope that it will streamline the activities of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr Speaker, my party can definitely not support this Bill at all. The hon member for Gordonia has just said we should reach out a hand. Anything but. We are not prepared simply to reach out a hand. Two organisations have already been established by the Government to provide money for African states. There is the Development Bank of Southern Africa and the Credit Guarantee Corporation which are authorised to issue guarantees to South African businessmen and industrialists supplying goods to Black African states. Before we know on what gigantic scale the Government, or rather the State, must give its backing in regard to the debt which has been incurred and over which the State has no control—it only enters the picture later, because it provides the guarantees—we are not prepared to support this Bill.

What is more, this Bill aims at facilitating the process of the granting of loans to Black African States. The process should be made more difficult. It should be just as difficult for South Africa to lend money to these bankrupt Black African States as it is for America to enter into a treaty with another country. In the USA such agreements must be ratified by the Senate. This ought to be the case in South Africa too. Let me explain why. Just look at the Government’s record—let me just mention a few examples. In 1974 our Government loaned Malawi R300 million for the construction of a capital, railway lines, etc.

In 1977 this Government helped crown the extravagant Bokassa of Central Africa. How many of those hon members know where Central Africa is? Here is the report that appeared at the time:

Those hon gentlemen are today asking us to support legislation enabling this Government to lend a hand in Africa and plonk a crown on the head of a mad Black Head of State like Bokassa. [Interjections.] Oh no, not the HNP!

Just look at our agriculture. Just look at how the locusts are devouring our farmlands! [Interjections.] That is not the NPs fault, but granting aid to African States at a time such as this is worse than asking for higher salaries for these hon members and this hon Minister. Here I have a report from the Landbouweekblad of 8 January 1982 which reads as follows:

I am not going to delay the House any more than is necessary, but here I have a batch of clippings from English-language, Afrikaans-language and foreign newspapers. I could bring along another batch, because there are piles of clippings in our archives, all dealing with the enormous amounts of money that have been pumped into Africa throughout the years, with these hon members having voted that money. They come along here today and say we should lend a hand to Africa, whilst knowing so little about how the wealth of South Africa is fruitlessly being pumped into Africa. That applies not only to Malawi, but also to Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe and even some others too.

Let us have a look at what, according to the Sunday Times of 12 April 1981, the State President had to say about this:

They syphoned off such a large portion of our resources that South Africa finds itself in its present situation. In the years when we should have built up reserves against droughts, depressions and inflation, with the full approval of the State President they syphoned off, for the development of these States, the prosperity we were enjoying.

Let me refer fleetingly to a situation that has prevailed for two decades now. At the end of last year, according to a report, the following communiqué was received from Washington:

I hope that hon Minister knows who and what the Council on Foreign Relations is, because this was the finding of a panel of this “council” in conjunction with another body. The influential Council on Foreign Relations states that one cannot even imagine how weak a position Africa is in.

In the discussion of this extraordinary crisis, the panel requests Americans to triple their aid to Africa, extend debt repayments and grant every possible assistance with long-term development. They therefore want America to do what we are now being expected to do. We must, of course, help America with that, because in the first place it is America's interests that are at stake higher up in Africa—up to Bokassa and even further north. This report indicates the extent of Africa’s problems. The report goes on to state:

The highest frequency of “penurious” banana republics is to be found in Africa. The population growth rate of 3,2% is the highest in the world. It is their rate of increase that is the highest! They are least able to support themselves, but in contrast their ability to increase their numbers is the highest in the world. Their agricultural production is expected to decrease and, according to the report, Africa has a critical shortage of trained, professional workers.

And now this ACVV-type Government wants South Africa, which finds itself facing the greatest depression in living memory, which is technically bankrupt—with R37 000 million in foreign debt, and Railway and Post Office workers to whom it cannot give more than a 10% increase—to pump even more money into Africa. It wants to make it even easier for the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is not here today, to do so!

In Beeld—there is nothing I enjoy more than quoting Beeld—there was a report on 15 March 1985 about the American Government’s interest in the peace initiatives in Southern Africa being aimed at ensuring that domestic reform in South Africa takes place at an accommodating pace. Beeld went on to report:

He says the peace initiatives fall within their field of interest. The report goes on to state:

What was the superior muscle in Southern Africa? It was South Africa! Now the one superior muscle in Africa has gone slack! The arm can hardly be lifted any more. I could almost say that South Africa can no longer even lift the documentation reflecting its public debt. Now the NP Government is asking us again today to lend a hand.

On a former occasion the State President said about me, a man who was driven from the NP:

[Interjections.] He definitely has Father Christmas on the brain, but if he carries on the way he and his Government are carrying on at present, it is South Africa which will, one of these days, be a clean-shaven Father Christmas. I want to tell the State President—he is unfortunately not here this afternoon—that his having labelled me a cleanshaven Father Christmas is quite in order; it has not had any effect on me. I am back in this House again—without having deviated one iota from the principles of Afrikaner nationalism. The State President, however, is in the process of impoverishing his own people for the sake of American interests, those of the Council on Foreign Relations and international Big Business.

We do not trust the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs at all. [Interjections.] We have no faith in him! I have a great deal more faith in Matanzima’s Xhosa nationalism and his feeling for his own people than I have for the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We do not trust him one iota. Today he is asking us for greater powers—to subject South Africa to greater adversity. Could hon members tell me today, if the Government does not trust its own Minister of Foreign Affairs with its own party’s policy, how South Africa can trust him when it comes to loans to Black Africa? How?

If one does not even know where one stands with the policy of their own party, if the State President has to repudiate him here, how can one be asked to trust him with R100, with R5, with R1 000 of the present tax-payers’ money in South Africa? Never in your life!

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs began his career campaigning in this House for South Africa’s acceptance of the UN Charter which is riddled with a liberalist and communist philosophy. That was how the hon the Minister kicked off in politics. The representative of international Big Business interests, its best representative in South Africa, even better than hon members of the PFP because the hon the Minister is in a position of power, is Pik Botha. The hon the Minister has never advocated the continued existence of the Afrikaner people or the Whites. He has never made a warm-hearted, enthusiastic speech advocating the continued existence of his own people as against the interest of other peoples. Within the NP he is always the mouthpiece of international Big Business and of the approximately 33 supporters he has in that party.

That hon Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is today asking us to pump billions more rand into these “penurious banana republics of Africa” has drawn his party so far to the left that he said in public that we could get a Black State President, that we could accept a Black State President, that we wanted a Black State President. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister is the one person who is prepared to go all the way.

Take note, it is not the content of the statement made by the hon Minister of Foreign Affairs that was repudiated. The State President did not repudiate the content, the meaning attached to what he said. If one reads the statement carefully, one sees that he only repudiated the fact that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs had done it. That is the only repudiation there was. The State President did not categorically repudiate the meaning, the content, the consequences attaching to the hon the Minister’s utterance about a Black State President. That is why I am saying here today, on behalf of the HNP—I know I am speaking on behalf of many more people than members of the HNP—that with Pik Botha one’s future is politically and economically “pikswart”.

Mr Speaker, I shall revert later to the arrogant and foolish speech of the hon member for Sasolburg. [Interjections.] At this stage I merely wish to tell the hon member that South Africa will bleed to death in isolation if he and his friends of the CP ever come to power in this country. I wish to thank members of the standing committee who dealt with this legislation for support from their side.

It surprises one that the hon member for Soutpansberg—he is not present at the moment—did not utter a word in that standing committee. He concurred; we had full consensus there. But the hon member comes and creates an enormous fuss about it here. What are CP members up to? Why do they circumvent the standing committees in this way? Why do they not replace him with someone who can do his work? Why does the hon member agree there but disagree in the House? I shall return in time to the arguments of the hon members for Soutpansberg and Sasolburg. [Interjections.]

The object of the legislation before us is very simple. It does not concern the question whether we should furnish or not furnish assistance to neighbouring states; this is irrelevant to this Bill. The principal Act already provides that we render assistance to them. This was a wise decision which is not changed by the legislation under discussion. The object of the legislation before the House is merely to simplify administrative procedures and to empower the Minister of Foreign Affairs to enter into loan agreements instead of having the State President do this. This function, which has been fulfilled by the State President up to the present can equally effectively be exercised by a responsible Minister—in this case the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I say he is not a responsible Minister!

Mr Speaker, I wish to put it to that hon member that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is one of the ablest Ministers holding that portfolio this country has ever had.

Hear, hear!

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Finance in terms of existing legislation already determine the content of these agreements we are discussing here today. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs already approves these agreements before their submission to the State President; no additional burden is being placed on his shoulders. What is of importance, however, is that the heavy burden already resting on the shoulders of the State President is relieved by this. In future the transfer of functions will also result in an abbreviated administrative procedure which will facilitate and expedite the processing of such agreements.

It is of course difficult to understand, Mr Speaker, that there can be any objection whatever to this. How can one object to the pruning and streamlining of administrative procedures? How can objections be raised when the application of a law is facilitated?

The administrative control, on which the hon member for Soutpansberg spoke, remains just as strict and actually becomes stricter. The same people who decided on the granting of loan aid in the past will still be there to decide on this. In the past the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, assisted by the hon the Minister of Finance, decided on loan assistance. They will continue doing this while the State President is also still there for consultation. This Parliament remains to call these hon Ministers to account in the event of mistakes in the application of this loan system.

The Bill under discussion also places great responsibility on the shoulders of the Director-General who will now—naturally subject to instructions from the Minister—control this fund and submit a detailed statement of income and expenditure as well as a balance sheet to the Auditor-General annually. There can therefore be no question of mistakes creeping in here.

Mr Speaker, hon members have no cause for concern that good South African money will be squandered in this process. Finance is not handed out left and right; applications are considered strictly according to merit with consideration of the value to South Africa. South Africa’s interests always take precedence in this. This South African loan aid—in spite of what the hon member for Sasolburg said—has a fine track record. Bad debts hardly exist. Can the hon member for Sasolburg cite examples to us of any bad debts?

Loan agreements entered into with countries like Malawi, Swaziland, Lesotho, Paraguay, Mauritius, the Comoros and the Central African Republic all represent sums of money well spent which gained dividends for South Africa. Amounts granted to these countries were generally small. Malawi received the largest amount—R33 million. Hon members can visit Malawi to see what has been done in that country and to what maximum use South African aid has been put there. It is a pleasure to see how Malawi has developed but now Opposition members are opposed to our granting aid. What did this assistance furnished by South Africa mean to us? It fostered good relations and more trade with Malawi. In many of these cases South African assistance enabled these countries to enter into contracts with South African undertakings. If we had not provided assistance, these contracts could perhaps have been granted to other countries.

One cannot believe there are members sitting in this House with reservations because we grant economic aid to neighbouring and other African states. [Interjections.] South Africa has become the economic powerhouse of Southern Africa. We cannot permit Southern Africa to perish because it will rebound on us. There has been an enormous increase in commercial traffic between South Africa and African countries situated further from us.

One-sided trade!

Our trade with Africa, excluding the TBVC countries, has increased by 76% over the past year as against the year before. How can the hon member for Sasolburg say that is one-sided trade?

Six thousand of your railway wagons … [Interjections.]

The hon member should correct the distorted pamphlets he distributes outside this House. [Interjections.]

It is in the interest of South Africa that we stimulate and encourage this trade especially in this time of disinvestment actions and boycotts against South Africa. It is in the interest of our future in the long term to expand our economic interaction with states in Southern Africa which we can do as we are prepared to render assistance to these people. We are already reaping the fruits of this and will do so in greater measure in future. We should not be shortsighted and foolish, however, like the hon member for Sasolburg who wishes to close his hand and isolate himself. He wishes to sit in a laager until he is shot there.

I shall ensure that we are repaid.

The cold front which existed in Southern Africa is fragmenting; more and more doors are opening to South Africa; there is an increasing awareness that South Africa and the states of Southern Africa cannot live in isolation from one another. They need us and we need them.

You need a great deal of assistance.

The South African economy demands that we cannot live in isolation but should open all possible economic doors and keep them open and that we should establish as many trade links as possible with Africa and countries surrounding us. Surely it is obvious that in this time of intensified economic onslaughts against South Africa from abroad we should turn in increasing measure to the markets of Africa. These are markets situated nearby where we can act very much more competitively. Can one be so foolish as hon members who say we should sever links with our neighbours?

Who said that?

The hon member for Sasolburg implied that. Hon members of the CP think it too but merely do not wish to admit it.

You are dreaming, man!

Because states about us are becoming increasingly aware that it is in their interest to co-operate with South Africa, the interaction between South Africa and countries of Africa is escalating in various terrains. Surely it would be foolish and shortsighted of us not to assist these people where we find it possible; neither are we going to hand out money left and right. The assistance we render these people is bread on the water of South Africa’s future.

Can you afford it now?

That hon member will also benefit from it.

Can you afford to do it there now?

The hon member asks whether South Africa can afford it. Can South Africa afford to perish in isolation?

We should not lose sight of the fact that a large part of the assistance to African states emanates from the private sector. We wish to praise the private sector for the good work it does in this regard in the interest of South Africa. I wish to tell the hon member for Durban Central he would do well to encourage his circle of friends and party members with powerful capital resources to invest money in our independent states as well as making further investments in Africa. This can only redound to the interest of South Africa.

I think it is outrageous for hon members to allege here that assistance to these countries is a waste of money. Hon members arguing in this way have no grounds for it. As I have indicated, the money we furnish these countries under loan assistance is well spent and definitely not squandered. I therefore support the legislation before us today with enthusiasm.

Mr Speaker, it was a revelation to me to listen to hon members of the NP especially when one looks at the standpoints they adopted. The hon member for Gordonia said there could be revolt in our neighbouring countries as there was no food or work; he said this could erupt and be carried to our country but I think we are a greater danger. People—that is Whites and Blacks—who at present are without food and others without decent work at the moment in our country could become a problem to our neighbouring states. Are hon members aware of that? [Interjections.]

Do hon members realise that financial assistance could be put to very good use in the constituencies they represent. I am thinking of farmers in times of drought, White and Coloured children in hon members’ constituencies and Black people who go to work there. Hon members could perhaps speak on behalf of those people on occasion.

The hon member for Bloemfontein North reminded me of a certain incident. Once two functions were taking place simultaneously: There was a function in the church and a fancy dress ball in an adjacent building. The wind blew down the building in which the fancy dress ball was taking place and someone dressed as a devil ran into the church for refuge. The people in church nearly died of shock and all except one lady ran out. This old lady was very fat and could not get away so she said to the Mephistophelian figure: “I have attended this church for 60 years but for the past 35 I have been on your side and not with them.” [Interjections.] The hon member for Bloemfontein North reminds me of that story. For 36 years he belonged to a party and made pronouncements totally contrary to what he is saying today.

What does the legislation before us require? We have a history of secret funds behind us and I wish to refer to that briefly. The history of secret funds shows that the entire Cabinet refused to accept responsibility for them later. Hon members should listen to this: That Minister and his Department of Information did not appropriate a single cent of that secret fund in this House. The Minister of Defence at the time budgeted for it. [Interjections.]

Yes, he wrote out the cheques.

Yes, the hon member is right.

In other words, problems arose as regards a matter of which the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Information were aware. Now, after Government experience of those problems, we nevertheless find we are being asked to empower the Minister of Foreign Affairs to carry out these duties.

It looks very suspicious.

Yes, it looks very suspicious. The Government wants to shift the responsibility onto a single Minister. [Interjections.]

Is it not possible that the election of the next State President may have something to do with this? [Interjections.] Is it not possible that the responsibility for something which has already taken place is being placed on the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs to eliminate him in the election for the next State President because he could otherwise have emerged the winner? [Interjections.]

Now I am going back a few years. How was the secret fund constituted and how was it handled just before the Information debacle? The fund was established with the knowledge of Ministers Botha, Diederichs, Vorster and Mulder. All funds for Information were paid into the secret Defence fund. Funds for Information were never paid into an own Information budget. As regards the method of payment, one amount was budgeted for secret Defence funds and paid from the Department of Defence to the Bureau for State Security from which it was paid for projects as these were approved by four different people and as they progressed. Now this is being left to one person.

Auditing of the secret fund in the Department of Defence was not done by the Auditor-General but by two internal Defence Force auditors. The only say the Auditor-General had was that the Minister of Defence had to issue a certificate to the Auditor-General at the end of each financial year in which the Minister declared that the funds, as provided by Parliament, had been used for purposes as voted by Parliament.

There are hon members who say they would like to see Dr Connie Mulder here. I should also like to see him here and I could tell hon members why. He was actually not the Minister responsible for the debacle because the Department of Defence budgeted for those Information projects. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member a question?

I do not have the time just at the moment. Will the hon member wait just a while longer?

*I shall refer next to a letter written by the present Minister of Defence to Dr Rhoodie. I am quoting from the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Irregularities in the Former Department of Information (page 87, par 11.408):

The following quotation is from that letter:

That was PW.

Yes, that was the man who is the present State President. He was the former Minister of Defence.

Now this Government comes and wants to upset all these processes and a single Minister …

Do you want …

I beg your pardon?

You are broadcasting untruths here. [Interjections.]

The hon member should read the report to which I am referring.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member Mr Van Staden said the hon member for Langlaagte was broadcasting untruths. I request your ruling in this regard.

No, that is not unparliamentary. The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I am quoting from the Erasmus Report. I shall read it to you and the hon member could do well to obtain a copy. [Interjections.] I shall read it again in case there is any misunderstanding as regards its exact content. Hon members should also recall that the Minister of Defence at the time—who is the present State President—as well as all on the Government’s side accepted this Erasmus Report. [Interjections.] I must honestly confess to hon members I was so misled that I did not realise it at first. [Interjections.] What emerges very clearly from this to my mind is that the present hon Minister of Defence—in conjunction with the State President—owe us an explanation of the reasons for this letter and why certain monies of the Department of Information were incorporated in the Defence Vote under the code name “Senekal” and later withdrawn. They should also explain why these letters were written because nobody wished to assume responsibility for this. No one wanted to assume the responsibility and the then Minister of Information was relieved of his post whereas the Cabinet as a whole should have assumed responsibility. [Interjections.]

We request today that the present hon Minister of Foreign Affairs should not be placed in a situation in which he is crucified in this way.

History has shown that after these problems had been experienced, they were used in sections of the Constitution and arrangements were made in that way as regards the responsibility for every expense. The method is incorporated in section 6(3)(c) of the Constitution. Now it is being circumvented again. According to law the State President has to sign the document. In the new provision in the legislation before us the custom for the State President to sign falls away.

He has already told an untruth once.

In this regard the report runs as follows:

The State President was the Prime Minister originally and he complained about the first measure. This legislation has surely been brought about with his collaboration but now they wish to abolish it. [Interjections.] There is something sinister in this.

Economic loan aid can never be opposed for any country unless it is in the lender’s interest. This is impossible—one simply cannot do it. One can only ensure that the method used yields a return on one’s loans. One should ensure that one gets one’s money back and that there is Governmental responsibility or Cabinet liability in each case—then one can accept it. [Interjections.] That is what this is about as I wish to tell the hon member for Bloemfontein North. We went to America to ensure that disinvestment would not take place. Going by what that hon member said, they would never have invested. [Interjections.] The hon member told them there that in South Africa we would dismantle apartheid. Is that true? [Interjections.] He said we would dismantle apartheid.

He pleaded with them.

Yes, he said: “You must dismantle disinvestment and we will dismantle apartheid.” Then he said something to them in everyday language: “We rub naked shoulders together.” That was not a wise comment to make, especially not at that time in America. The lady from the CBS News then said something such as that they rubbed shoulders with her in the daytime and sent her to the location at night. They totally misunderstood what the hon member had wanted to say. What he had wanted to say was: “We rub shoulders.” But he put his foot in it again! [Interjections.]

The hon member said here today that the hon member for Soutpansberg had said nothing in the standing committee. The hon member knows as well as I that, when the hon member entered, he said he had not received his documentation. An intelligent man does not vote for something he has not yet read. He stated clearly he had not yet received his documentation so why did the hon member make that statement as if the hon member had agreed with everything? If the hon member had been in the standing committee, he would have known that the documents were handed to the hon member for Soutpansberg only at the meeting. They were not sent to him beforehand. [Interjections.]

There is one aspect one should never link to any assistance: One should never assist someone because one wishes to be subservient; neither should one lend assistance in an attempt to gain votes. Show me just one vote gained for us at the UNO in consequence of our so-called assistance to Mr Bokassa—to cite only one example. In how many of those aid projects are great financial problems being experienced today and how many of these are now becoming the responsibility of the Minister of Foreign Affairs who will land unwittingly in that problematic situation?

Do hon members realise how dangerous it is to allow one Minister to deal with such a matter? Long ago a Minister of Economic Affairs served on the directorate of the Triomf fertiliser firm. R19 million of the Citizen was spent and he, a director, knew nothing about it. [Interjections.] Can hon members therefore understand what type of trouble a Minister who does not have an economic bent, like the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, can bring upon himself? [Interjections.]

It remains a certainty that no country can refuse economic assistance to other people because such assistance provides a person with more business opportunities in the course of time. If one is clever, one is going to win. It just takes time because such matters provide a process for expansion and trade. One will win.

We cannot support this matter because decision-making is being left solely in the hands of the Minister. Suppose the Minister flees. [Interjections.] Because of all the problems in this country he may attempt flight and perhaps not return. How long has the hon member for Bloemfontein North been learning French? [Interjections.] Yes, that is yet another member who is attempting to escape. He knows it. He said this country was no longer safe and he was learning French. He knows the whole of North Africa is French-speaking. [Interjections.] No, we cannot support this legislation.

Mr Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon members who took part in this debate and by joining the hon member for Bloemfontein North in thanking the members of the standing committee who perused this Bill and dealt with it.

I am grateful to the hon member for Durban Central for supporting this Bill on behalf of his party. He and the hon member for Umhlanga, together with the hon members for Gordonia, Randburg and Bloemfontein North on this side of the House, correctly identified the facts. The essence of this Bill, which is described in the explanatory memorandum and was explained to the standing committee, is to streamline the administrative procedure for the authorisation of agreements which were previously authorised by the Ministers of Finance and Foreign Affairs in conjunction with the State President. The only real change which has taken place in respect of that objective is that it is now possible for the two hon Ministers referred to authorise the loan or project help without having to seek the signature of the State President. The hon member for Durban Central was quite correct when he identified this as the essence of the Bill. He went on, however, to raise the question mentioned by most speakers on the other side of the House and quite adequately answered by certain members on this side. He asked how one controls these funds and how hon members may be sure that they have been well invested. Taking these questions seriatim, we can deal first with the control of the funds.

*I should like to make very specific replies to the allegations of the hon members for Sasolburg, Langlaagte and Soutpansberg. They made a great fuss about the fact that the State President’s signature is no longer required. They make the assertion that there is a great possibility that it could give rise to corruption that was not there before. This, of course, is pure nonsense. Hon members should take note of the facts before they stand up here and make a great fuss about this measure and the Government.

†The hon member for Durban Central expressed concern that some of these funds may go into TBVC countries or as project aid to other foreign countries and be misused or employed in projects which are not in the interests of South Africa or even, in the long run, of the country to which the loan or aid is given. I would like to give the hon member the assurance that the Government, and in particular the Department of Foreign Affairs which administers this fund through one of its branches, goes to considerable lengths to ensure that norms and standards are used which conform with the highest international standards.

It should be pointed out to hon members that without applying the established models of international institutions arbitrarily, the Development Co-operation branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs follows the system of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in respect of project aid and loans as envisaged in terms of this Bill. That is the World Bank criteria. The procedure is closely related to the so-called project cycle in which the phases I am about to mention are distinguished. Very thorough feasibility studies are done prior to the giving of approval for any such projects. One of the complaints made against South Africa, in fact, is that the granting of aid takes too long because of the cumbersome procedure involved in the undertaking of these feasibility studies. It is, however, due to the thoroughness of these studies that so much time is taken.

I must point out that there are six specific stages of analysis before there is any question of project aid being approved. The development project must first be identified. The hon member for Durban Central asked if it was always in the interests of the requesting country that this aid be granted and if it was also in the interests of South Africa. Very thorough analysis is done of the identification of development projects. They must be appropriate to the needs of the times in which they are made.

Secondly, in regard to the preparation and planning of development projects we have a very large and extensive team of specialists who know the subject matter, and we bring in the help of other specialists when needed to do an analysis of what specifically would go into the planning of a development project in order to ensure not only that it operates cost effectively but also achieves the objective for which it was originally designed.

Thirdly, the development project is appraised, and fourthly, we enter a negotiating phase. This is the fourth step to ensure that the receiving country understands very thoroughly what the project is about and specifically what the aid is for and what conditions are attached to it—particularly when it comes to repayment, percentages of interest attached to the loan and conditions of control. I may also mention that in most of these project aid cases the host country is also required to make a considerable investment from its own funds. We do not make a 100% contribution to these projects.

Then there is the question of the maintenance of the project, if that is required, and the cost of running and maintaining that project, which the host country in most cases has to provide. We then go very carefully into the question of the implementation of the development project; we look at the specialists required to run that project and in many cases we second our own people to be the administrators and the controllers of that particular project. Of course, finally, we do what every sound businessman does—we do an evaluation of whether the project was successful and whether it conformed to the norms and standards which were set originally.

*I just want to draw the hon members’ attention to the fact that, unlike the CP and the HNP, we do not tackle anything without having the necessary facts and a sound plan. [Interjections.] I also want to point out to hon members, particularly the hon member for Durban Central, that we naturally cannot be held responsible for all the transgressions of everyone in the countries to whom we give project aid. I want to give the assurance, however, that the project aid we give is very thoroughly investigated and that the investment is very well and very carefully safeguarded by agreements that are concluded between those countries and us.

†I should like to conclude with the hon member for Durban Central by saying that we are as concerned as he is that in fact the project aid should be appropriate; that there should be no extravagance and, above all, that it should be a good investment.

I want now to come to the question of the feasibility of the study as well as the question of the control of funds. A number of hon members here, especially the hon member for Langlaagte and other members on that side of the House made a fundamental mistake in their speeches here today by calling this a secret fund.

*It certainly is not a secret fund, and I do not know how those hon members would define a secret fund. I would say a fund could be defined as secret if one did not know how much money there was in it, where that money went to and how it was being spent. Those hon members were incorrect in all three of these aspects.

You still have a lot to learn!

It would not be difficult to learn more than that hon member has already earned. [Interjections.]

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

Mr Chairman, as soon as I have completed this reply, the hon the member may put his question, but I should first of all like to reply to this irresponsible allegation.

I just want to point out that the project aid and loans that are granted in terms of this legislation, come from the loan fund as such. That loan fund is subject to being audited by the Auditor-General in the same way as all other budgetary funds. This is entrenched in section 4 of the original Act—hon members should just go and read it.

Yes, money given and money spent.

I am saying this to the hon member for Langlaagte in particular, because he quoted from it but does not understand what is written there. I should also like to draw the attention of hon members to the fact that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has access to the Auditor-General’s report on these project funds. Of course we could not go and do those hon members homework for them. How they set about things when they carry out an investigation is therefore their own responsibility. It seems to me those hon members are not familiar with the procedures regarding the control of available money. That is why they do not have much success in the standing committees. [Interjections.]

I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Randburg who drew our attention to the fact that an hon member of the CP does in fact serve on the standing committee. That hon member agreed with all the other hon members that this was a good piece of legislation, and that it should be passed by Parliament. I do not know why the CP has changed their standpoint all of a sudden.

Speaking of changing one’s standpoint, I think we should just point out that the virulent attack that the hon member for Langlaagte made on the hon Minister of Foreign Affairs, really does not deserve a reply. The hon member ranged so widely in his speech to make personal allegations about the hon the Minister that it does not deserve a reply. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte has already had a turn to speak.

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

No, I shall reply to those questions a little later.

I particularly want to give an example of how foolishly the opponents of this legislation set about things. The hon member for Sasolburg made a great fuss about us not having certain facts not available to us. We supposedly cannot control the situation because we do not have the facts. From the very first allegation he makes, he gets into trouble and makes the greatest mistake. He stands up here and says we poured more than R300 million into Malawi for the construction of Lilongwe and the railway line. The hon member for Bloemfontein North pointed out that Malawi only received R33,7 million—not more than R300 million, as this hon member alleged. [Interjections.] The hon member should really get his facts straight before he attacks this department!

As far as a second allegation is concerned, I want to point out that taking away the authority of the State President does not at all affect the control measures in this legislation. Those hon members—perhaps not the hon member for Sasolburg—were all here in 1968 when the control measures which are still contained in the legislation and remain so, were passed. They then approved them.

I was not here in 1968!

I am sorry; then we excuse that hon member, Sir. [Interjections.]

The hon members are confusing the control measures, as contained in section 4 of the Act, with the fact that the State President has to give his signature. The control measures have not changed at all. Incidentally, the control measures are actually much better than they were in 1968.

Then why does the State President want to change it? Is he still having a trauma about it?

We now have standing committees and these hon members serve on them. They can put as many questions as they like. The balance sheet that the Director General has to draw up every year is available. The hon members may examine it. They may summon the Director General to the standing committee and question him—left, right and centre! [Interjections.] This facility was not available in 1968 when they passed these things.

†However, to put this matter into perspective, may I just point out where we stand with the project aid funds. In the case of Venda, in 1985-86, project aid funds represented only 2,4% of the total budget of Venda. In the case of Ciskei it was 4,3%; Bophuthatswana, 4,3%; and Transkei, 3,3%. It is not that the size of the loan is the material aspect here but one must put this matter into perspective.

Furthermore, the hon member for Gordonia and other hon members on this side of the House very carefully pointed out that what South Africa does with project aid and loans in this respect is in fact to assist our neighbours in Southern Africa to develop their economies, largely also with the help of the private sector. However they are also investments in stability and economic growth which can only be to the benefit of South Africa. One only has to look at countries such as Ethiopia, Uganda and other African countries to see what happened when the economies of those countries collapsed.

*The hon member for Soutpansberg indicated how important it was for South Africa as the largest and economically most developed country in Southern Africa, to give aid to the rest of the developing countries. I would not say that this is an obligation, but it is a responsibility one has. We have the technicians, the expertise and the capital to assist people with their development. This will be to our advantage in the long term.

I should very much like to ask the hon member for Sasolburg and the hon members of the CP if they were to come into power, whether they would give project aid to neighbouring states. [Interjections.] The hon members say they are not opposed to it. To what extent would their control measures differ from those being applied at the moment? Where do they draw a dividing line between the personal credibility of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and that of the State President? It is in the hands of one person in the one case and in the hands of another in the second case. Now, however, much is being made of us placing so-called control in the hands of one Minister, which is not true of course; there is also the hon the Minister of Finance.

What is the difference in principle? They want to place the decision-making in the hands of one person, the State President, but we want to leave it up to two Ministers—the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Finance. The principle is exactly the same. There is absolutely no difference between the method those hon members want to employ and the method we want to employ. It looks as if dust is being kicked up. If the hon members of the CP will not bear the responsibilities that South Africa does at present—concerning the development and viability of our neighbouring states—there is a fundamental shortcoming in their policy. This would be the case if they do not see how essential it is, for the survival of our country as well.

The hon member for Soutpansberg said we should use the Land Bank’s criteria. I have already drawn the hon member’s attention to the fact that we use the World Bank’s standards and I think it works very well. He also drew our attention to the fact that in his constituency very successful project aid has been given. We thank him for the example he mentioned. I actually cannot understand why the CP and the hon member for Sasolburg are opposed to this legislation, because their speeches really did not accord with the changes proposed in the legislation.

†I want to say to the hon member for Umhlanga that he quite correctly pointed out the objectives of clauses 1, 2 and 3 and he indicated there essentially what the position was. That was that the monetary position would improve in the proposed situation compared to what it was before, and that really what we are dealing with here is the streamlining of the procedure. I would like to thank the hon member for his comments and for the support of his party for this amending Bill.

The hon member did point out an interesting fact though, and I do not want to take it very much further. However, he pointed out in regard to the hon members of the CP who made such a great issue of the information funds in 1978, that in fact the chairman of the commission which investigated that matter was none other than the hon member for Barberton. Perhaps the hon members who are surrounding him should have a talk to him if they feel that there were problems connected with that. They of course were all sitting on this side at that time. I would like to say to the hon member for Umhlanga that I am sure he could go back into history and find quite a number of things which were supported by the hon members of the CP which they may not wish to remember today.

I should like to thank the hon members on this side of the House. [Interjections.] I was investigating the same as those hon members were but I never came to the false conclusions that they did.

*I should like to thank the hon member for Bloemfontein North very sincerely for his contribution as chairman of the standing committee and for the responsible and positive attitude in which he undertook those responsibilities on behalf of Parliament. Virtually all the members of the committee have made mention of his competence and how well proceedings went off in the standing committee. I should like to thank him on behalf of all the members of the standing committee.

†I should like to conclude, Sir, by giving hon members the assurance that the question of investing funds in project aid is of vital importance to South Africa’s welfare, as well as to the welfare of those countries to which we give that aid and, when we measure the benefits of project aid, this cannot be done only in terms of profitability or financial return on that investment. It goes far wider than that. It must also be measured in terms of peace and prosperity and goodwill. The hon member for Bloemfontein North mentioned the example of Malawi. One only has to go there to see the stability in that country and to bear witness to the fact that it is one of the few African countries outside South Africa which have an overproduction of food. In fact, this year South Africa is going to import wheat from Malawi. One can see how systematically and orderedly they have developed their agriculture, and what extremely good ties there are, both tradewise and political, between Malawi and South Africa.

Attention was also drawn, Sir, to the fact that trade between South Africa and African countries has increased by 76% over the past twelve months. This is largely owing to the fact that South Africa takes an interest in and is prepared to help its neighbouring countries in those fields of expertise, particularly the capital field, in which they may be found wanting. In this respect we are getting an exceptionally good return on our investment. South Africa is not an island on its own. We cannot live in isolation, as so many hon members pointed out, and one of the most tangible ways of reinforcing this interdependence and of facilitating each other’s needs is by way of project aid. To a very large extent it is apolitical. It is accepted by other countries on the conditions given, and very seldom do we find that the projects in which we have assisted actually turn sour on South Africa. I believe we can be proud of our track record in this respect.

I believe the hon member for Soutpansberg wanted to ask me a question, Sir. The hon member for Langlaagte also indicated that he wanted to put a question to me. If they still want to do so I will give them an opportunity of doing so now.

I do not feel like putting a question anymore. Let us rather forget about it. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should just like to ascertain something from the hon the Deputy Minister. In spite of the state of South Africa’s economy at present, is it nonetheless going to continue to give loans and other monetary assistance to African countries for which the arrangements have already been made, on the same scale, in the same way and to the same extent as during the past twenty years or so? Is the Government going to continue with this kind of policy in exactly the same way?

Mr Chairman, our policy naturally remains the same. Our policy, as far as our willingness to help other countries when necessary, naturally remains unchanged. The necessity of a project is determined according to the existing need. It is not so much a matter of whether the particular country has an adequate growth rate and to what extent our country’s growth rate has increased. We will assist them if there is enough money available to do so.

I do just want to point out to the hon member for Sasolburg that when we do not have the money ourselves, we as a Government—and we do this in many cases—approach the private sector. I want to point out to the hon member that the major portion of money spent on aid to Mozambique, comes from the private sector.

Can they afford it?

But the Government will back it up!

Yes, but of course they should be able to afford it. Proof of this was also provided, was it not? There is also a consortium of companies that provides the guarantees. They are not provided by the Government. But the Government helps them with the identification of the particular projects. We obtain assistance for them from the private sector, and the Government supports the measures for guarantees that are provided by the private consortium. But it appears to me the hon member for Sasolburg is not even aware of this. There are of course, certain projects to which the Government itself contributes money. This happens when it is an aid project that cannot show any profit or make a repayment on grounds of direct profits.

Is that a fact?

Of course it is. Emergency aid is an example of this, Mr Chairman. The hon member for Soutpansberg asked me during the last debate on the additional Appropriation Bill how much money we gave to Colombia during the disaster there. The amount was R50 000. This kind of aid of course does not come from the private sector. It comes from the Exchequer of this Government. As a matter of fact, I think these hon members are emphasising this principle.

I also just want to point out that the amount of money made available by the Government, depends directly on the sum of money we receive from the Treasury every year. We envisaged that there would only be a slight increase in the money that we are going to ask directly for aid projects in 1986-87. Although the need is very great, we have to …

How much?

The hon member can wait for the Appropriation. He really is a very inquisitive man. Let me just conclude by giving the hon member the assurance that we count every cent three times before we spend it and everyone in South Africa can be proud of the dividends that accrue to us.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister if the money that is lent to certain states abroad by the private sector is also guaranteed by the Government?

Mr Chairman, there are two categories. In certain cases, the Government would give guarantees. This would, for example, happen in regard to the purchasing of goods with money from that project and paying for the technical assistance we provide through seconded people and so forth. In a few instances we also give guarantees so that companies would not suffer losses if they were to be nationalised. This is a fine, sound policy. In most instances, however, the guarantees are given by a consortium of companies—private sector companies, assurance companies who themselves calculate the risk involved. There are in fact two categories. But in both cases a thorough feasibility study is made. The risk is therefore first calculated before the investment is made. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister has already resumed his seat.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

As hon members know, 1985 introduced a new era in the electronic media in South Africa. Hon members will recall that the Government appointed a task team under the chairmanship of Dr F J Hewitt to investigate the introduction of a subscription television service. On 25 April 1985 the hon Minister of Foreign Affairs made certain announcements in Parliament regarding the task team’s report. The Government decided to issue a licence to a consortium of the press to operate such a subscription television service. Indications are that this service will become operative during the second half of this year.

Wide news coverage was also given during the course of last year to an agreement reached between the SABC and M-Net, the latter being an operating company established by the press consortium. In the light of this, but more particularly in the light of the necessity to place the SABC in a position in which it can, in the changed circumstances, compete on an equal footing, it has become necessary to amend the Broadcasting Act of 1976.

Important too is the fact that, as a result of the provisions contained in this amending Bill, real progress will be made on the road of privatisation. Significant new powers are conferred on the SABC in terms of clause 3 of the amending Bill. At present the SABC may only broadcast programmes by means of television. It must, however, often purchase abroad all the rights in a programme that is, television, video and cinema rights—in one package, or even purchase, as a package more than one television programme, only some of which may be suitable for television broadcasting.

In terms of clause 3 it will be able to place on the video and cinema market material which it has itself produced or to which it has obtained the rights. Mr Chairman, this will avoid financial losses incurred in having to purchase material which it may be unable to use on television. Moreover, it will be able to market material for video or cinema purposes even before it is broadcast on television, thus avoiding the situation where having broadcast it already, it may be unable to market it further.

Furthermore, the SABC will be in a position to stimulate the production of local material, as it will be able to make higher payments to local producers for such material.

A second new power conferred by clause 3 will enable the SABC to form and incorporate or establish and operate companies or other bodies of persons, eg partnerships, in order to attain any of its objects.

The agreement concluded with M-Net, which has already been referred to, is covered hereby. Some of the shares of companies thus established may be held by persons other than the SABC, a situation which is analogous to the involvement of outsiders in partnerships. These companies or bodies of persons will serve as instruments of the SABC in the performance of its task, and thus also in the realisation of its objects. This will enable the SABC to participate in commercial activities in a normal business manner, which is a step in the direction of privatisation.

*Clause 3(d) of the Amendment Bill is aimed at ensuring that a person who wishes to operate a broadcasting service in co-operation with the SABC can be made subject to the obligations of an ordinary broadcasting licence-holder and, further, that he will not by virtue of this co-operation obtain the rights and powers which the SABC has under any law.

Section 29 of the Broadcasting Act, 1976, makes provision for certain income tax benefits which the SABC enjoys in order to enable it to carry out its information and educational functions. Clause 6 of the Amendment Bill extends these benefits to companies in which all the shares are held by the SABC. This is necessary to enable it to operate a broadcasting service in co-operation with another person without forfeiting the tax benefits concerned, while still being in a position to participate in commercial activities on a normal business basis. Mr Chairman, in addition to the aforementioned amendments aimed at extending the powers of the SABC, certain other amendments not directly related to the evolution of broadcasting, are also incorporated in the Amendment Bill.

At present, all television licences have to be renewed on the same date. This places tremendous pressure on the Post Office in the collection of licence fees. To alleviate this situation, clause 1, read with clauses 4 and 5, provides for the possible introduction of staggered licencing years.

A real need has been identified for the relaying of broadcasting by means of radio to specific persons or categories of persons at the request of such persons. Since the SABC is the only body with the proven means of doing this, clause 2 of the Amendment Bill amends section 11 of the Broadcasting Act, 1976, so as to authorise the SABC to render this service.

Finally, clause 7 provides for the retrospective entry into force of clauses 2 and 3, which extend the objects and powers of the SABC. This is necessary because the SABC has already, as mentioned previously, entered into an agreement with M-Net and this involves the outlay of large sums of capital. I can assure hon members that it is not anticipated that this will be to the prejudice of any person or body.

Mr Chairman, this Bill is a mixture of good and bad. It has a number of provisions which are innovative and good. It has one provision, however, which although it is presented fairly euphemistically as part of a package towards privatisation in South Africa, in its present form is capable of implementation in a manner which we believe would extend monopolistic practices by the SABC.

At the outset and before proceeding any further, I move the following amendment:

I will deal with the aspects of the amendment in greater detail a little later.

Let me first deal with certain other aspects of the Bill. There can be and there is no objection to the staggering of payment of television licence fees. This is obviously an administrative expedient to avoid pressures in the Post Office created under the present system where all licences are due on the same date.

Then there is an important provision which provides for the proposed introduction of subscription television in South Africa. This Bill will obviously enable the Government to legalise the arrangement which the SABC has concluded with a consortium of major newspaper groups. I understand that it is to be a form of partnership with the object of introducing subscription television in South Africa.

We are in favour of that because we believe it is good that the private sector—in this case it is the newspaper groups—is included in broadcasting affairs. We have in the past opposed the monopolistic tendencies of the SABC for years and we welcome the fact that some of the provisions of this Bill reduce that monopoly.

We believe that partnership between the SABC and the newspaper industry is a good thing, that it is in the interests of the public of South Africa and in the long term also of the newspaper industry. I want to stress that I believe the interests of the newspaper industry will be served by this in the long term, and I stress the words “in the long term”.

I say that because I must warn those who see this new M-Net, as it will be called, as an immediate solution to the financial problems of ailing newspaper groups in South Africa in these hard economic times. I believe that the people who think that are wrong. It is not an immediate solution to the financial problems of the newspaper industry. The M-Net is not and certainly in the short term will not be the panacea to cure the financial woes of the print and Press media in South Africa.

We know it will involve a huge sum of money. The capital outlay will be something in excess of R30 million in order to establish the service. The cost of ongoing consumer products, mainly films and entertainment programmes, will be extremely high. If each subscriber is to pay something in the region of R30 per month to hook up into this M-Net service, it will mean of course that a very large number of viewers who can actually afford the service will either have to be found or be persuaded to subscribe to this new service before any sort of financial viability can be assured.

M-Net may therefore represent progress—in fact, it does represent progress—but it is progress at a very high cost and at a high risk. Much will depend on the role that will be played and the stake to be taken by the Government in this entire venture. Perhaps when he replies to this debate at the end of the Second Reading, the hon the Deputy Minister will tell us what stage has been reached in negotiations with the Press consortium and also what capital stake will be taken by the SABC in the new system in terms of the arrangements which have been negotiated. We would like to have that information when the hon the Deputy Minister replies.

I should like now to deal with the aspect of the Bill which causes us in these benches considerable concern the more we look at the Bill in its present form. I refer to the very wide powers granted to the SABC. If these powers are interpreted broadly, they entitle the SABC to form companies and to compete in the normal course of events with private enterprise in fields not usually engaged by the SABC. Our concern relates in particular to the provisions of clause 3(b) of the Bill before the House. It provides that the SABC may, inter alia—

In terms of the rest of the Bill the SABC may form a company in order to facilitate this operation. What is happening in terms of this Bill, then, is that the SABC is now going into the video business. That is what it is doing.

Is this privatisation—one must ask whether this is indeed privatisation—or is it simply the extension of the activities of the SABC into a monopolistic situation in South Africa? While the hon the Deputy Minister is giving me his attention, I might mention in passing that the SABC’s recent excursion into the video business in Natal might perhaps be a pilot scheme. I am referring now to the time that the SABC went into the propagation of pornographic movies. I wonder whether this was in any way a pilot scheme on the part of the SABC in anticipation of this legislation. [Interjections.] One wonders also whether the hon the Minister will tell us how much stocks of such videos the SABC has at its disposal.

The fact that this hon Deputy Minister is handling this Bill might perhaps be the reason why the pilot scheme was first introduced in the province of Natal. He is, after all, a Natal member of Parliament. Perhaps the hon the Deputy Minister could give us an answer on that.

In more serious vein, we believe that these powers given to the SABC or one of its companies are easily open to abuse in competition with the private sector. This is particularly worrying when these powers are considered together with the amendments to section 29 of the Act in which further tax exemptions are granted to all such wholly owned subsidiaries established by the corporation. It seems quite wrong that the SABC is on the one hand being allowed to retain its monopoly on broadcasting through the medium of radio and television, and on the other hand is going to be allowed to compete with the private sector while retaining the total advantage it has in terms of this provision of being exempt from taxation. We believe that this situation is completely bad in principle and that it is contrary to the principle of free competition in South Africa.

For all these reasons that I have motivated in my speech and set out in the amendment I have moved, we in these benches will be voting against the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, it was with regret and a bit of surprise that I listened to the objections of the hon member for Berea. It is true, however, that the representatives of the PFP in the standing committee did not hold the same views. The only real objection in the standing committee was to the present section 4. It was unanimously decided to delete that section in its present form. The hon member does support certain sections of the Bill, yet he decided to oppose it.

In my support of this Bill I shall try to refute the objections of the hon member, viz that the SABC is now getting more extensive powers and will be able to compete with other bodies. I shall try to indicate why, in my opinion, the SABC is entitled to better protection by means of an adjustment in the legislation, so as to meet the requirements of the present time. To do so, it is necessary for us to look at the original Broadcasting Act.

If we think of the Broadcasting Act of 1936, and compare it with today’s requirements, surely it is clear to everyone that it is essential to amend legislation from time to time. If we think of radio’s first shaky steps in the ’thirties and of the introduction of our now very popular television service, we also remember the doubts that existed at their inception. There were misgivings and even strong objections against establishing a television service for South Africa. Today both these services are part of our lives. They are common phenomena. I think we can say they are a must in every home.

What does the SABC look like today?

Yes, what does it look like!

The SABC has 21 domestic radio services which broadcast in 11 languages. Nine of these are Black languages. That is the SABC of today. Approximately 12 million adults listen to the radio daily.

The international service, Radio RSA, began limited broadcasts in 1960. At present Radio RSA broadcasts in 11 languages for about 210 hours per week.

In 1936 the SABC began as a small organisation which broadcast in English for only a few hours. A bilingual commercial service was established in 1950 and the first broadcasts in Black languages took place in 1952. In 1961 the FM service, as we know it today, was started. As far as educational radio is concerned, school radio services for Black listeners were started in 1964.

At present the SABC broadcasts 320 news bulletins in 20 languages daily. The audio service of the news service sent 26 000 programmes to 300 foreign radio stations in five languages last year.

The television service began with test transmissions in 1975 and today there are four television channels. TVl’s average number of viewers per day is approximately three and a half million.

It was recently announced that Radio Metro, which will be directed at the urban Black population, will begin shortly. Another new service, Radio 2000, will be educational. The SABC’s teledata service was begun on 1 November last year, and has already been extended countrywide. As from July this year, a satellite transposer will be used. Since it will affect and benefit my hometown, Walvis Bay, in particular, I should like to make use of this opportunity to convey my thanks for it.

Television and FM services are now placed within reach of almost every remote place in South Africa. Do we ever think of paying tribute to those who were and still are pioneers in this field, however? Do we ever try to be positive and to give recognition? We accept everything as a matter of course. We criticise so readily and so easily. The wonders of the technological age pass us by and leave us cold. Even now, when one of the wonders of this decade, the appearance of Halley’s Comet, is being brought into our homes by radio and television, it still passes us by. The hon the Deputy Minister remarked rightly that 1985 has ushered in a new era in the electronic media in South Africa. We, the viewers and the listeners, expect only the best—the best picture, the best sound and trouble-free reception. We expect news hot off the Press from inside and outside South Africa. To cope with the demands of the present time, however, requires constant planning, research and renewal. To put the SABC in a position where it can be and can remain competitive in changing circumstances, it is necessary to amend the Broadcasting Act of 1976, as moved.

This is no unusual step. Acts are amended in this House daily to adapt to the times and circumstances. The proposed amending Bill will enable the SABC, with its new powers, to take part in the commercial activities in a more normal way. Participation by the private sector is indeed becoming a reality. The hon member for Berea deplored this. This causes the accusation and reproach that the electronic media are a State monopoly to fall away. I remind hon members that the task group under the chairmanship of Dr Frank Hewitt received more than 40 applications for shareholding in subscription television. A Press consortium, the so-called M-Net, was created. Participating parties are the Argus Group, Perskor, South African Associated Newspapers, Nasionale Pers, The Natal Witness and the Daily Dispatch. The corporation and M-Net have already agreed to the joint running of TV4 and STV as two broadcasting services. There is already co-operation and agreement, therefore. The Press consortium will therefore get its rightful share in future. The ideal has been reached. This also cost money and time, however, and to handle this aspect, clause 8 provides that the Act will be retrospective as from 15 June 1985. We welcome and support this, and hope it will enable the daily press to hold its own.

It is a worldwide phenomenon that newspapers disappear as television stations extend. Television is a terribly powerful medium invented by man. That is why the SABC has a bounded duty and responsibility to use this powerful weapon properly and correctly. I have no doubt that this will happen, since the SABC has the insight, the knowledge and the ability at its disposal.

The opposition accuses the SABC of being one-sided and biased.

It is hopelessly biased.

The hon member says “hopelessly biased”, but that is not correct. [Interjections.] The task of the news service is to convey information correctly and to distribute knowledge.

NP propaganda.

Let that be as it may.

The question arises, however: Whose standpoint, whose statements and whose action in this country affect every citizen?

The NP’s.

Naturally it is the NP’s; the hon member is correct. [Interjections.] Of course it is the action of the governing party, from which the hon member has absconded, which is important. Previously he had a share in it. The standpoints of the governing party are newsworthy and it is in the interests of the public to know what the standpoints of the governing party are. This applies to every country in the world.

What about the Opposition?

Not to the same extent as the governing party.

To what extent then?

It has been doctored.

I am listening to the hon members who feel so aggrieved, but strangely enough, if my memory serves me right, the hon member for Soutpansberg and the hon member for Rissik have been members of this House since 1966. They only began to feel aggrieved in 1982.

That was when things changed so much.

Mr Chairman, the envisaged new section 23(3A) stipulates that licensing fees will now be staggered over 12 months. We welcome this and I think it will even help the rightwing people if licensing fees are staggered over 12 months, as is the case now with the licensing of cars. I think it can be done very practically by making use, for example, of a person’s ID number to group listeners into monthly or quarterly groups. [Interjections.] We should like to support this measure and trust it will enable the SABC to continue to fulfil its educational role and its duty to provide information.

South Africa’s greatest enemy is not contact, but lack of contact. [Interjections.] Each of us, including the hon members who see only harm in everything done in South Africa and by the SABC, has a bounded duty to live and work for peaceful coexistence, understanding and prosperity in this country. Let us scale down this personal hatred and enmity.

You all stood at Helen’s feet.

Let us scream and shout at each other less, and show more respect for each other’s standpoints, dissimilarities and lives. Let us act in such a way that it does not become impossible to see eye to eye with one another in future, for we shall simply have to do so. In this respect the SABC and television can make an immense contribution. [Interjections.] We should like to support this measure.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Walvis Bay began his speech by mentioning that the SABC was established in 1936, that is expanded its activities to a very great extent, and that the organisation has enlarged and progressed a great deal in the 50 years of its existence. In this connection I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Walvis Bay in congratulating the SABC on its fiftieth birthday and its achievements during the past half-century. We on this side of the House wish the SABC a blessed next half-century in their continued existence.

In saying that, we do not want to indicate that we are in ecstasy about certain achievements of the SABC or about the so-called impartiality of this organisation.

In addition, the hon member said he found it strange that we in this party became more critical towards the SABC after 1982. It is interesting that if one has been in the governing party first and then in the opposition, one is able to see with greater perception what is going on. One then has a greater perspective to see to what extent SABC television is misused to promote the government’s policy of integration.

Hear, hear!

Yes, that hon member even says “hear, hear!”

Join the club.

I want to put only this point in respect of the hon member for Walvis Bay. The hon member says we should have greater respect for each other and each other’s standpoints. I definitely agree with that. Let us fight one another on our arguments and see whether we cannot convince one another by our arguments. Let us drop the making of personal accusations against people, but “it takes two to tango”. [Interjections.]

If we have to determine who the greatest sinners in this connection are, we shall not convince one another. The fact is we should tell one another we shall try to meet argument with argument and not indulge in personal remarks. We shall get much further in that way.

I agree with the hon member for Walvis Bay, but I want to tell him he did not meet the arguments of the hon member for Berea. He did not respond, for example, to his argument that the SABC is now going to enter into the private sector, that it can obtain shares in a company which belongs 100% to the SABC and that therefore it can compete with the private sector, but that it is exempt from paying tax. What kind of privatisation is that?

In addition we must also keep in mind that the SABC is a powerful organisation with far-reaching rights and abilities. Radio and television are intimately present in every lounge, in every family room and in every dining room in this country. The SABC has immense privileges. As I have just said, it does not pay income tax. According to this Bill income tax is not paid by subsidiary companies of which the SABC are the sole shareholders. The SABC has the sole right here in South Africa to address our people by radio and television.

Now one asks oneself why the criticism against this organisation is so strong, so hostile and sometimes even so vicious. My answer to that is that the SABC is simply not impartial. [Interjections.] That criticism is levelled at the SABC and the hon the Minister year after year. The SABC listens to one’s problems with the greatest respect and answers one’s letters with diffidence, but continues in exactly the same way. That is the frustration one has to contend with if one is an opposition party member. One watches them carefully and sees the SABC is not unbiased. Sometimes they are blatantly biased and sometimes more subtly, but it is clear to the careful observer that the organisation is dedicated in its involvement in a single-minded brainwashing operation which makes one choke. And this monopolistic body is asking the hon members of the House for even greater powers! The hon member for Walvis Bay says we must remember that a government is the greatest newsmaker and that a government which is in power should get most of the exposure. I am prepared to concede that to him, but why is such exaggerated stress placed on Dr Slabbert’s withdrawal from politics as against the damnatory repudiation of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the political head of that organisation, by the State President?

I want to give the hon member for Walvis Bay only one example. Let us look at the by-election in Port Natal. The hon the Minister of Home Affairs was one of the candidates in that by-election, and in that case he was not the Government. The order in which the candidates for the by-election appeared on television was not alphabetical, nor was it according to the strength of the parties.

The handsome chaps were first!

Yes. What happened? Mr Burne, the PFP candidate, was first. Then it was Mr Smit, the NRP candidate. The hon member for Bellville is all at sea, therefore. [Interjections.] Mr Pat Moore of the CP was third and Mr McNaughton was fourth. The man who followed then was the NP candidate, and there were no grounds for this.

The duration of their appearance is interesting too. Mr Burne of the PFP got 17,8 seconds, Mr Smit of the NRP 20,6 seconds, the candidate of the CP 27,6 seconds and the independent candidate 19,3 seconds. The hon the Minister got 1 minute 19,8 seconds, however. [Interjections.]

That is not what happens in British elections. My friend, the hon member for Jeppe, was in Britain at the time of the last election, and he watched the television programmes with great care. The leaders, candidates and so forth of the three main parties there received equal time on television.

Let us take Network. The other evening Mr Tertius Myburgh of the Sunday Times, Mr Harold Pakendorf—he is a liberal—of Die Vaderland, Mr Raymond Parsons of Assocom and a Black man who represents a Black trade union, appeared on Network. There was no representative from right-wing politics. [Interjections.]

Nor was there a Government representative. [Interjections.]

But these people are Government supporters. Is Mr Pakendorf not a Government supporter? [Interjections.] Surely the Government members are all liberals; or most of them are. [Interjections.]

After the eight o’clock news a few Sundays ago, we sat and watched TV for 50 minutes. First Mr Harry Oppenheimer spoke. He was in ecstasy about the State President’s message. [Interjections.] We listened to him for a while he was questioned for longer than usual on his thoughts regarding the State President’s message. Then there was a BBC interview with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This interview was preceded, however, by a slow flash of the advertisement which appeared in the newspapers and for which the Government paid R300 000.

The taxpayer paid for it.

Yes, it is the taxpayer who paid that R300 000. Free, gratis and for nothing, that advertisement was flashed slowly on Sunday night’s Network. The taxpayer, not the Government, paid for it. The Government derived the benefit, however, since they had the privilege of getting that advertisement—and everyone admits it is an advertisement—broadcast on television during this peak period.

Now I come to Parliamentary Report. We have always had great appreciation for the fact that Parliamentary Report was unbiased to a great extent. It seems that there has been a change here too, however.

With reference to these broadcasts, I want to point out that there are parties on this side of the House who do not have a daily Press. In this connection I shall come to the question of M-Net presently. As I said, there are parties which do not have a daily Press organ. These broadcasts therefore give the listener the opportunity to get a proper idea of what took place in Parliament the previous day.

An objective one.

Yes, an objective one if possible. Approximately two-thirds of the few minutes devoted to this are taken up by a report on the events in the other two Houses. Then sections from the English speeches of Indian and Coloured members of Parliament in particular are given verbatim. During the past few weeks even private motions have been dealt with. We know, after all, that a private motion is simply a debate. It is neither here nor there. Take for example the motion that the day upon which slaves were freed should be made a public holiday. That is a matter which was broadcast and which the representative of the SABC in Parliament regarded as important, whereas both the Liquor Amendment Bill and the Unemployment Insurance Bill had been discussed in Parliament the previous day. These are matters which affect every South African citizen. [Interjections.] One cannot understand that kind of thing. [Interjections.] Is it part of the plot that the listeners and readers as well as the newspaper readers are systematically being kept from the voice of the conscience of the National Government?

And where is Pat Rogers? They gave him his marching orders too. [Interjections.]

Then there is also the subtle brainwashing. More and more stories, episodes and programmes with mixed or integrated motives and themes are being shown or broadcast, as if that is the ordinary, natural way of life in this country. Then this organisation wants even greater powers. It wants to privatise more and more. It wants to compete in the open market, but its territory is being reserved carefully for it alone.

Give this Corporation these powers, but then a competing broadcasting service should be established in South Africa, or there should be an independent board, or an arbitrator or an ombudsman who constantly has to monitor the Corporation’s impartiality. That is what we need in South Africa, with so many different cultural groups and political points of view of people who listen to the radio and watch television.

Willem de Klerk must get out!

Things cannot continue in this way, however. Conservative South Africans have reached a point where they will have to take some or other action.

Switch him off!

Yes, switch him off! That is easy! Then you can continue your brainwashing operation and tame South Africa for the process of integration the Government is engaged in at present! [Interjections.]

Someone who was formerly attached to the SABC told an NP Prime Minister at a certain stage he should give him television and he would ensure that the NP would stay in power for ever. [Interjections.] The hon member for Primrose says: “Hear, hear!”

As far as advertisements on the Afrikaans and English services are concerned, for example, I should like to refer to a letter from Prof J B du Toit of Stellenbosch in Die Volksblad of 18 February. He maintains that at least one cultural medium should be able to function free from the limitations of trade interests. He concludes his letter with the following words:

I should also like to refer to another letter in this connection which appeared in Die Volksblad. The hon member Mr Vermeulen must listen to this.

We are going to thrash you—SABC and all.

The letter in Die Volksblad of 4 March 1986 reads as follows:

I wonder if the hon member Mr Vermeulen is still happy about Die Volksblad.

He is quiet now.

I want to refer to a letter written to the Director-General of the SABC by the Executive Vice-President of the Volkswag. He writes as follows:

[Interjections.]

Was that determined scientifically?

The letter makes it clear that it was. I can give it to the hon member for Johannesburg West so that he can read good reading matter for a change. [Interjections.]

Let us look at the structuring of the SABC. The political head is the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The hon members know who the Chairman and Director-General are.

Please name them!

These two men who are chairman and director respectively—both capable people—perform their tasks conscientiously, but they specialised in the same subject. Coincidentally this subject has very little to do with broadcasting and in addition they share the same school of thought as the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

They are brothers, as it were.

Even the Steyn Commission’s finding on this matter, pleaded for the autonomy of the SABC. I ask the hon the Deputy Minister to look at the Steyn Commission’s recommendations once again. Even the hon the Minister of Finance agrees that there is no such thing as a completely unbiased person or institution. I want to refer to Hansard: House of Assembly, vol 99, col 2211, in which he says:

He comes to the wrong conclusion, however. The actual conclusion one should draw here, is that provision should be made in the Bill for an ombudsman or arbitrator so that objectors can turn to him to listen to their problems. The SABC is a monopolistic organisation; a constant stream of criticism washes over it and it is not a member of the Press Union, and that is why I want to suggest that a Supreme Court judge, or a former judge, be appointed to evaluate the complaints and keep the organisation on its toes. All that happens at present is that one complains to the accused himself and one’s case is then adjudicated by the accused himself. It would be an escape valve and in addition would be in the interests of the SABC.

Secondly, the time has now come for the SABC to come under the control of the right body, and that is the Department of Education and Culture, which controls own affairs in this connection in the House of Assembly. [Interjections.] If the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs will accept the demotion of becoming the Minister of Education and Culture—dealing with own affairs—I want to tell him I have enough confidence in him to try to be impartial. [Interjections.] I want to remind the hon the Minister, however, that that was the commission that inquired into television and broadcasting in South Africa recommended.

Why has the nature of the broadcasting service changed from that of a cultural and educational service to that of a propaganda service? As far as certain aspects of it are concerned, it is a service which would make Goebbels of Nazi Germany turn in his grave—if he is in a grave. [Interjections.] If the SABC was to fall under the Department of Education and Culture as an own affair, we would recover a bit of that right of self-determination which we have lost. Imagine, Sir, it is said we as Whites have the right of self-determination in South Africa, but we do not even have our own broadcasting service! As I said, in many respects this change I am advocating agrees with the findings of the commission that inquired into matters in connection with television and broadcasting.

I want to refer to a third aspect. The additional right the legislation provides for, viz the broadcasting of radio programmes to a certain category of people in a certain area, sounds innocent. It can lead to great dissatisfaction, however. In this connection I just want to refer to that video recording which was distributed among the soldiers before the referendum to try to persuade them to vote “yes” in the referendum. The SABC is now getting the right to concentrate on people of a certain category. It can therefore concentrate these videos or programmes which it is drawing up on those people it specifically wants to brainwash.

This brings me to clause 3(c) of the amending Bill which, according to the hon the Deputy Minister, enables the SABC to take part in commerce in a normal business way without having to pay tax if it has all the shares. We also know that an agreement was concluded with M-Net. That agreement was not submitted to the House, however. We do not know what that agreement says. We are not only being asked to approve the agreement, which the House has not seen, but also to approve it ex post facto—retrospective from 15 June 1985. Surely that is an unfair request.

It is a scheme.

How can the hon the Deputy Minister expect that of us? His followers sitting there behind him, and the hon member for Walvis Bay, are also prepared to approve that agreement, although he has never seen it.

I trust him.

He trusts him! The hon member trusts the hon the Deputy Minister blindly. Can the hon the Deputy Minister tell us what that agreement says? We know with whom an agreement was concluded. The hon member for Walvis Bay told us. It was concluded with Nasionale Pers, with Perskor, The Star and The Argus—all those daily newspapers which are struggling to survive. Are any politically right-wing newspapers represented? Do they receive any assistance, or does only the left-wing or the far-left Press in South Africa derive benefit?