Mr. Speaker, an agreement has been reached in regard to the hours of sitting of the House. I therefore move without notice—

1. (1) Today:
   10h00 to 12h45;
   14h15 to 19h00;
   20h00 to 22h30.
2. (2) Friday:
   10h00 to 12h45;
   14h15 to 19h00;
   20h00 until such time as the House adjourns upon its own resolution.

Furthermore an agreement has also been reached in regard to the suspension of the business of the House. However, I shall move an appropriate motion in this regard at a later stage.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter affecting the privileges of this House. I refer to statements made in this House by the hon. member for Randfontein— then the hon. the Minister of Information— that the Government had not given any financial assistance to the newspaper known as The Citizen. The relevant Hansard references are, inter alia, col. 918 of 1976 and col. 232 of 1977 relating to Questions and col. 6626 of 1978 relating to the debates. It appears from the Erasmus Commission’s report that these statements were untrue. I therefore respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will allow precedence to be given to a motion calling for the appointment of a Select Committee in this regard.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur indicated to me yesterday afternoon that he might raise this matter today. I have listened to him now and will give my ruling in this regard tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, before I move a motion in connection with the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Irregularities in the Former Department of Information, I want to elucidate certain matters pertaining to the motion.

At the outset I want to point out that the summoning of Parliament on this occasion is an extraordinary step. However, it is also an essential step. The Government did this with deliberate purpose because it wanted, by so doing, to tell the country that the Government considers Parliament to be the highest authority in the country and that, humanly speaking, it is accountable to Parliament for its deeds from beginning to end. That is why we saw fit to take this extraordinary step and render an account of our actions to the country in this way.

We are passing through troubled times, troubled times for our country and for all its people, troubled times for civilization, troubled times for the standards of a civilized way of life, which we have maintained in South Africa over many generations. There is no doubt—only the blind will be unable to see and the deaf unable to hear—that South Africa is being threatened, and that South Africa, through this Parliament and through its Government, has to take steps to maintain these civilized standards and to erect walls behind which this country and all its people will be able to seek a safe refuge, as far as a Government is able to provide them with one. All around us is the evidence of States which have fallen before the tremendous onslaught of the radicals in the world, before the onslaught of the leftist revolutionary movements in the world, before the onslaught which is being led by Russian militaristic imperialism and which is directed also at South Africa. This Government does not wish to underemphasize the seriousness of this struggle. This Parliament may not lose sight of the seriousness of this struggle. That mistakes will be made in the will to oppose these forces, is only human, but the Government accepts that we must have the will, when we have made mistakes, to rectify them in a civilized way.

As I have said, we are passing through troubled times, and it is right that we should try to ensure the greatest possible unity and co-operation in this country to deal with those forces which are bearing down on us. The Government is prepared, in so far as the security of the State allows and in so far as it will not jeopardize the security of our country and its people, to state its standpoints in public and to adopt its measures, but when it comes to the security of the State, the Government is not prepared, whatever the criticism levelled at it, to rip everything open before its enemies and hand South Africa to them on a platter.

Hear, hear!

If there are people in this country who wish to play the game of our enemies, they are free to do so as long as they do not come into conflict with the law. But let me also warn them in advance that as long as this Government is in power, it will not hesitate to take steps to safeguard South Africa, even against traitors.

I want to mention five reasons why Parliament was summoned. Parliament was summoned to afford it an opportunity, in the first place, of debating the report of the Erasmus Commission. That is the right of this Parliament. Parliament has been properly elected and properly constituted to deliberate on the facts in connection with a report such as this. Secondly the standpoint of the Government must be spelt out clearly and with finality to Parliament. The Government has a duty to Parliament, when a matter such as this report presents itself, to adopt a clear standpoint concerning it. In the third place the Government intends to refer to another inquiry as well, viz. that of the interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Pretorius, a committee generally known as the “Pretorius Committee”. I shall have a few words to say about that later. I now come to the fourth aspect. In view of the Christmas season, Parliament must, as far as possible, be afforded an opportunity to deal with this unsavoury matter so that we can enter the Christmas season in a different spirit.

Some of us.

Apparently there are people who do not like to enter the Christmas season in a good spirit. [Interjections.] I am not talking about them. I am talking about those people who do have a feeling for it. With those who do not have a feeling for it, I have sympathy …

Then you must stop paying for The Citizen. [Interjections.]

That hon. member must stop making a fool of himself every time. I come now to the fifth aspect. In view of the important work which this Government wishes to proceed with, the Government wishes to get this matter over and done with because there are future tasks which are waiting for solutions and we have to accept our obligations in that regard.

I now intend to furnish a factual survey of steps taken by the Government and by other State bodies to deal with this matter before I state the standpoint of the Government by way of a motion. I hope the debate will take place against the background of what was said in the opening address on behalf of the Government. I hope that we shall debate this matter in that spirit.

Let me begin in the first place by saying that the disclosures which are dealt with in the Erasmus Commission report had their origin in steps taken by the Auditor-General. On page 27 of the commission’s report, paragraph 5.104, it is stated:

It was the Auditor-General, therefore, as instrument of the State, who began to question the activities of the department. It was the Auditor-General who began, not as an instrument of the Government, but as an instrument of the State and of this Parliament, to question the activities of that department. The report of the commission deals in quite some detail with what followed, and I do not intend repeating it now. Incidentally I also wish to say—this is referred to at an early stage in the report of the commission—that I...

You must give notice of your motion.

When I rose to speak I said that I was going to move the motion. Mr. Speaker, are you the Speaker or is the hon. member for Yeoville the Speaker?

I am only trying to be helpful.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Prime Minister has now taken this view, I want to raise a point of order. It was not my intention to do so, but in view of the attitude which the hon. the Prime Minister now adopts, I raise the following point of order: There is no notice of any motion before the House and no member has the right, whether it be the hon. the Prime Minister or anyone else, to get up in the House to speak without giving notice of motion and indicating what that motion is. Therefore I ask you, Mr. Speaker, that you rule that the hon. the Prime Minister gives notice of his motion and that he indicates to the House what the motion is that he is speaking to. If that is not done, he is out of order.

Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that when I stated at the beginning of my speech that I first wished to elucidate a certain motion which I wished to introduce, you allowed me to proceed. However, if the hon. member has any objection to that, I shall now send him a copy of the motion and I shall first read out the motion. I have no objection to satisfying the curiosity of the hon. member by doing so.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It is not I, but the House that is entitled to know.

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville has already stated his case.

Mr. Speaker, apparently the hon. member for Yeoville is very nervous, and in order to satisfy him, I now move, on behalf of this side of the House—

1. (a) expresses its gratitude to the Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Irregularities in the Former Department of Information;
2. (b) expresses its appreciation to the Pretorius Interdepartmental Committee for the work it has done;
3. (c) accepts the findings of the Commission and the recommendations as set out in Chapter XIV of the Commission’s report;
4. (d) expresses its appreciation of the fact that effect is already being given thereto;
5. (e) states its conviction that secret funds should be at the disposal of the Government, as is the case with the authorities of other countries;
6. (f) requests the Government, in consultation with the Auditor-General, to institute a practical and satisfactory system of auditing of and reporting on such funds;
7. (g) expresses its confidence that it is the Government’s earnest intention to combat and punish irregularities in the administration of the country; and
8. (h) expresses its confidence that the vast majority of public servants are continuing to maintain the traditional clean administration of the Republic.

I just want to add that I was prepared to be of assistance to the hon. Opposition yesterday and offered to let them have the motion.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: There has been no suspension of Standing Orders and, if it is proper, I would like to suggest that the Standing Orders be suspended so that the hon. the Prime Minister may move his motion today and then speak to it. Mr. Speaker, with respect, those are the rules and therefore we should obey them.

Rules apply to everybody.

I accepted that the hon. the Prime Minister would move his motion and wished to move it without notice …

It has not been done.

There was no objection to it then, and now I am again asking whether there is any objection. If not, the hon. the Prime Minister is to proceed. [Interjections.]

You will have to learn all over again.

Order! This debate cannot begin on such a note. I shall not allow it under any circumstances. The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

The Auditor-General, as an instrument of the State, therefore began to question activities of the department. The report of the commission deals with this in quite some detail and it is not my intention to do so as well.

I refer next to page 70 of the report. According to paragraph 10.323 the Auditor-General informed the then Prime Minister of irregularities. After he had, on two occasions, informed the then Prime Minister of alleged irregularities, the then Prime Minister, according to the report, requested the Auditor-General to continue his investigation. Further information in this connection is furnished on page 71. In addition my predecessor immediately announced that he had instructed Mr. Reynders to institute a further investigation. At the same time, virtually at the same time …

An election was called.

… he asked the Public Service Commission as well as the Treasury to investigate and report on the matter of the structure and activities of the department. In this connection I refer to Hansard, 15 June 1978, col. 9511, in which a full statement by my predecessor appears. This request had led to the Public Service Commission instituting a very thorough investigation into the former State department. The Public Service Commission, the appropriate body of the State to deal with such a matter, furnished a certain background sketch of its view of that department in a long report consisting of quite a few volumes— though I shall only quote a summary from it. On the basis of its view which it sketched in that report the Public Service Commission recommended that—

1. (a) the Department of Information as such be abolished and be replaced by the Bureau for National and International Communication which will be lower in status than a State department;
2. (b) the chief post of the new organization be created on a grade lower than that of a Secretary of a State department;
3. (c) the secret activities of the department be entrusted to the then Bureau for State Security; and
4. (d) the new Bureau for National and International Communication fall under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but not under the Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

This report—it was quite a thorough piece of work—was accepted by my predecessor and the Government. The dissolution of the department and the creation of a new instrument in its place was made possible by the proposal put forward by the Public Service Commission.

However, there was another step which the Government took. I am referring now to steps which followed on the disclosure by the Auditor-General of certain irregularities to my predecessor. Towards the end of 1977 the Minister of Finance prepared legislation which was introduced during the session earlier this year and by means of which greater control over secret funds was effected. With that my personal objections, to which the commission refers in its report, ceased to exist.

While I am dealing with this, I want to dwell for a moment on my personal position in regard to this matter. In the first place I was never opposed to the making available of secret funds. I realized the necessity for such funds at all times, and still do so today. A matter on which I did differ with the then Minister of Finance and my department with other departments, was the way in which such funds were budgeted. There was nothing disgraceful about funds being made available. The only fault was that we thought that the Department of Information should have come directly to Parliament and stated that it was requesting secret funds and that the Special Defence Account should not be utilized for that purpose.

It happened nevertheless.

Really … I am dealing with adults now, not with nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I had the assurance of the then Minister of Finance that it would be a non-recurrent amount. I recorded my objections and when it came to my attention for the second time that that item would be budgeted for, I requested that it should not be done as part of Defence funds, but as a separate item. Consequently it was budgeted for in this way, as a secret item under a code name, viz. “Project Senegal”.

You get some funny names.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask you whether it is possible for me to give a factual account of the Government’s standpoint and of my own actions, or is that not possible?

Order! I want to remind hon. members of the official Opposition that what they dish out they might receive back. Surely they expect a fair hearing when their leader speaks and therefore I expect them to give the hon. the Prime Minister the same opportunity.

I am prepared to treat this House of Assembly candidly, but then I must receive decent treatment in return.

Don’t be so self-righteous.

We insisted on this, and we have written proof that the Treasury undertook to budget for it as a separate item and not to make it part of the total amount which we requested under the Defence Account for defence purposes. Even then I was still not satisfied. My department took the next step and said that we wanted proper proof that the money had been utilized for the purpose for which it was intended. We insisted on that until the necessary certificate was submitted to us. After that we were still not satisfied and we continued to object. When the present Minister of Finance emerged as the Minister who would be responsible for the budget, I immediately went to discuss the matter with him, and together we decided that it should be stopped. At the very first opportunity he had of devising a plan for changing the situation, he began to prepare legislation with the approval of the Cabinet and I succeeded in the previous year in having that amount removed from the Special Defence Account. Let me add that I also succeeded in having that amount removed from that account during the 1976 budget.

1976?

Yes. In that year as well I refused to budget for that amount in that way. That is how some of the difficulties arose.

I want to go further. I have now dealt with the inception of the new legislation which was introduced here, legislation which satisfied me and which removed the responsibility of making provision for these funds from the Special Defence Account.

I need not repeat the history of the appointment of the departmental committee by my predecessor to investigate and evaluate the projects connected with this department. During the months since my predecessor retired as Prime Minister and I took over his post there has been confusion and a measure of stagnation in a large portion of our State machinery as a result of circumstances over which none of us had any control. My predecessor was taken ill, and it is generally known that a degree of paralysis set in the State administration. But immediately after I became Prime Minister, and in spite of an overwhelming amount of other work which I had to do, I held talks with certain officials, i.e. Mr. Reynders and Mr. Kemp. I tried to familiarize myself with the work they were doing. I decided not to leave matters as they were and consequently I suggested that a more comprehensive committee should be appointed to establish the facts in regard to the matter, facts which were at that stage not yet at my disposal. We then constituted a comprehensive committee consisting of the Secretary to the Treasury as chairman; Mr. Kemp remained on the committee; the State Attorney was represented on the committee; the Chief Law Adviser of the State served on the committee; and the Secretary to the present Bureau of Information served on the committee. This committee commenced its task on 23 October of this year and brought out a report, from which I shall quote in a moment. It was an interdepartmental committee which was of tremendous assistance to the Government in gaining an understanding of the matters with which we were confronted.

†This committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Pretorius, commenced with its work on 23 October, as I have said. We instructed the committee to investigate and report, after evaluation, on the different secret projects of the dismantled department. Furthermore, they had to advise the Cabinet on ways and means to safeguard the funds and assets of the State which might have been affected by the actions of the said department. I want to quote in full from the Pretorius Report.

When is it dated?

30 November 1978. I shall let the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have a copy of the report.

*I quote—

1. (1) die geheime projekte van die voormalige Departement van Inligting te ondersoek, te evalueer en om aanbevelings te maak in verband met—
   1. (i) die projekte wat na die oordeel van die komitee sonder meer gestaak moet word en dié wat voortgesit moet word;
   2. (ii) die wenslikheid dat projekte wat wel voortgesit word, in die geheim gefinansier en hanteer behoort te word en of dit openlik gedoen behoort te word; en
   3. (iii) die instansie deur wie die projekte wat voortgesit moet word, gehanteer behoort te word;
2. (2) te verseker dat enige bates wat namens die Staat bekom is deur frontorganisasies en/of persone deur middel van die aanwending van openbare fondse volgens die reg en ten behoewe van die Staat verseker is;
3. (3) te bepaal of enige persoon of instansie by wyse van onregmatige hantering van openbare fondse verryk is.

I quote further—

†The committee found that at that stage there were 138 of these projects. Of these, 125 have to date, i.e. up to 30 November, been investigated and evaluated. After the committee had considered and evaluated these projects, they came to the State Security Council and these projects were dealt with one by one. The State Security Council then took the final decision as to whether the various projects should be proceeded with or not. They reported in detail to the State Security Council. 57 projects were terminated for various reasons, such as having become redundant or totally unacceptable. 68 of these projects are to be continued. Of these, 56 will be dealt with as secret projects. Eight will be openly financed. Two will be referred to the Department of Economic Affairs, one to the Department of Foreign Affairs and one to the Department of National Security.

As a result of the recommendations made by the committee, R4 million will be saved by discontinuing certain projects.

I shall now proceed to quote from this report of the committee as to their further work.

*I quote—

1. 3.1. alle verdere bydraes aan South Africa Today te staak;
2. 3.2. ’n kontantbedrag van R450 000 wat as waarborg gedien het vir die drukkoste van die koerant, te onttrek;
3. 3.3. aan die eienaars van South Africa Today die geleentheid te bied om die koerant vir eie wins of verlies te bedryf; en
4. 3.4. die eienaars aanspreeklik te maak vir die betaling van die bedrag van R360 000 wat deur South Africa Today verskuldig was aan ’n oorsese maatskappy.

On 17 November 1978 the cash amount of R450 000 was repaid and deposited for the benefit of the State. In addition the necessary written undertakings were obtained from the owners of South Africa Today. At present The Citizen belongs to them and the State has no further interest or liability in the matter. Copies of the relevant documents were attached to the report and are in my possession. To date the State has spent a total of approximately R19 million on The Citizen.

Furthermore an investigation was instituted into the circumstances under which Mr. Louis Luyt was provided with an amount of R10 million for investment purposes so that support could be given to South Africa Today from the return on such an amount. The loan was valid for 10 years, but as a result of the termination of Mr. Luyt’s association with South Africa Today, after having remained effective for only two years, Mr. Luyt furnished cheques for the repayment of the amount plus interest which would extend over a period of eight years. This did not happen in consultation with the committee, but on an earlier occasion. When this amount has been returned to the State those matters, too, will have been disposed of satisfactorily.

To date the committee had therefore investigated 125 secret projects, with the consequences which I have set out. Inter alia, it terminated the State’s association with The Citizen.

However, there was another matter which the committee also had to deal with. It found that by means of the utilization of State funds by persons and companies acting as fronts for the department, the State had acquired rights in the following immovable properties: 11 flat units, four residential dwellings, one vacant plot and one business premises. Of these properties the flat in Cannes was sold recently for an amount of $500 000, which therefore does not represent a loss to the State. This amount will be deposited in an account for the benefit of the State.

What kind of house was that?

The hon. member will know better than I. The residential dwelling in the USA was sold for $320 000 and this amount as well will be channelled into an account for the benefit of the State. The title deed in respect of the remaining 10 flats and one residential dwelling are in possession of the State, so that the proprietary rights of the State to such properties have therefore been assured. The Department of Public Works is at present engaged in investigating the flats with a view to their utilization by the State. The assurance of the interests of the State in a third residential dwelling is receiving active attention and we hope to dispose of the matter soon. The fourth residential dwelling is situated in South Africa and the loan of R17 500 granted for that purpose is being cleared up with the department concerned.

It was also found that through people who acted as fronts the State had acquired shares in 49 different companies, both in South Africa and abroad. Before hon. members laugh at this, I want to say at once that many of these cases can be justified. It is not only we who do it; other countries do it as well. Secret funds are being utilized for this purpose throughout the world. It must be ensured, however, that this is done in the right and a controlled manner. The companies concerned are all connected with the task of information or served as cover for the secret channelling of funds, particularly to and from overseas countries. In regard to those companies connected with projects in respect of which it has already been decided that they should be discontinued, arrangements have been made to sell the shareholding. We are engaged in this and I have full confidence in the activities of this committee. I have already referred to the budgetary saving of R4 million which has been accomplished.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question?

No. [Interjections.] Irregularities which were disclosed in the spending of State funds, particularly under the project “Anonymous Collaborators”, were brought to the attention of the Erasmus Commission by Mr. Reynders in his evidence.

Because the committee realized, when it was found that irregularities had in fact occurred, that it did not have the statutory authority to summon witnesses or to hear evidence under oath, the committee recommended, on 3 November 1978, that the Cabinet appoint a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate the alleged irregularities. With the appointment of the Erasmus Commission, that portion of the committee’s terms of reference ceased to be applicable.

Further suspected irregularities in the investigation of the Morgan Grampian and Hortors projects were brought to the attention of both the Erasmus Commission and the Van der Walt Commission. I do not wish to comment any further on this at the moment, because the investigation is still in progress.

May I ask a question now?

No! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to hand over these reports now to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to the hon. member for Durban Point and to the hon. member for Simonstown. [Interjections.]

Order!

Immediately after the chairman of this committee, Mr. Pretorius, came to see me and informed me that the committee had got bogged down because it was unable to summon witnesses, we began to adopt the necessary measures for the appointment of a judicial commission. Consequently the commission was appointed and it is the report of that commission which is now being discussed here. I thought that I should also make the report of the committee known in order to provide hon. members with comprehensive information on what the Government has done so far.

I believe the conclusion one arrives at after the statements which I have made since my predecessor began his investigations, and since the Auditor-General brought these matters to his attention, since the Public Service Commission gave attention to them, since my predecessor caused an evaluation of the matters to be made and since I established a comprehensive committee, is that the South African State structure and our parliamentary institution has a built-in mechanism for establishing and dealing with irregularities.

It is owing to the existence of the Opposition!

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition is an inevitable part of this mechanism. I do not dispute their right to exist. Occasionally the hon. member for Yeoville makes the Opposition appear just a little foolish. [Interjections.] Orderly government …

The people will decide who is making a fool of himself today! [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to give the hon. member for Yeoville the assurance that I shall still come to the people. Orderly government and pure national administration require that allegations of maladministration and misappropriation be investigated in depth. This is South Africa’s tradition. It makes no difference whether one bums documents, as happened during the Second World War, or whether one conceals documents. It is South Africa’s tradition that irregularities be made public. If it is found on the basis of comprehensive evidence, tested and weighed in terms of fair procedures where each side was afforded an opportunity to put its case—which forms part of South African law and its traditions—that there were grounds for such allegations, steps must be taken against the persons and bodies that are guilty of such irregularities. That is the standpoint of this Government. To this the Government once again commits itself.

Tell us about Mostert!

Yes, I am coming to him. The hon. member need not be afraid. [Interjections.] The Department of Information was established with the best intentions and it did very good work. It set up projects which are still doing good work for South Africa today. In so far as it acted in accordance with the rules of the State and in accordance with the rules and the policy of the Government, no criticism can be levelled at it. Numerous projects launched by the department over the years have been and still are sound projects. This was shown to be the position after we went into it very thoroughly and it would be the utmost form of irresponsibility to terminate those projects or to make them public, because South Africa’s highest interests would be harmed by doing so.

I repeat: It is regrettable that malpractices and irregularities were allowed to tarnish this good work. If the Cabinet had received information at the right time from the responsible persons—and here I am referring to the Minister concerned—the harmful practices would probably not have occurred.

This brings me to the question of collective Cabinet responsibility—which will subsequently be dealt with thoroughly by others—about which I just want to say something in passing. The commission referred in its report on page 80 to the matter of collective Cabinet responsibility. I must emphasize it here as a fact—and I am doing so without bitterness—that Dr. Mulder never informed the Cabinet in regard to these activities of the Department of Information; not me, nor any of my colleagues.

Yet you provided him with money!

Sir, I can help the hon. member to see the facts, but I cannot help him to understand them. After the scope of these activities gradually came to our attention after the end of September …

September of what year?

In the year 1978. After it came to our attention, the State Security Council as well as the Cabinet gave collective attention to these matters. We are responsible for collective action. However, the question of collective responsibility does not arise when a Cabinet does not have information or when the information is withheld from it. The greatest authorities on this matter can be consulted and it will be found that Cabinet responsibility has to do with decision-making and the refusal of a Cabinet member to abide by the decisions made. That is where Cabinet responsibility comes in.

The making of decisions to pay.

If that hon. member were ever to join me in the Cabinet—something which I hope will never happen—and he were to be guilty of some terrible offence or other, for example by paying a subsidy to hostile newspapers of South Africa, I shall most certainly not need to accept responsibility for what he does.

Who decided to buy The Citizen?

Who decided?

The Cabinet.

Surely you are talking absolute nonsense now!

Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that we are discussing irregularities, and if that hon. member is making the allegation that this Cabinet decided to buy The Citizen, I am asking right now for a Select Committee. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Prime Minister may take this matter further now by way of debate.

Let me tell you, Sir, that the Cabinet did not take a decision to buy The Citizen, and anyone who says that is telling a public lie.

Was there a committee of three?

Secondly, the fact that The Citizen received assistance, is dealt with in the facts furnished by the Erasmus Commission, and if those hon. members have any respect for the findings of judges, I suggest that they accept those facts.

But the judge says that it is the Government’s newspaper.

Order! I should just like to tell hon. members that everyone looked forward to this assembly, that the country looks up to us and that we should be worthy of Parliament in our discussions and should consequently try to keep the debate on a high level. I am to a very large extent in the hands of hon. members. If they want to turn this matter into a political squabble, I shall hardly be able to prevent them from doing so, but it will be South Africa that suffers harm, and for that reason I request hon. members to try to keep the debate on a high level.

Immediately after these facts came to my attention—I am now dealing with the period since I became Prime Minister—I convened several Cabinet meetings and meetings of the State Security Council at which the reports of the Pretorius Committee were considered. As a result of that I took a further step. I asked the then Minister of Information to reconsider his position, which he subsequently did. I told him that I would have to say this in public. I do not do anything behind his back. In the first place I told him that I would have to state in public that it was my standpoint that the financial assistance which the State granted to The Citizen could not be defended. That was the first point. Secondly I told him that I could not condone the loan to Mr. Louis Luyt and would have to repudiate it. Thirdly I told him that I could not justify the R850 000 which had been made available to Mr. André Pieterse. Fourthly I told him that I could not accept as justified the fact that he had not informed his colleagues. In the fifth place I told him that I would say this in Parliament, together with the communication of the fact that I had opposed from the start the method by which the funds had been made available. On the basis of these statements of mine, my colleague honourably accepted the responsibility and resigned from the Cabinet. Subsequently I said in public at a meeting that he had adopted the honourable course.

Sir, it is not easy—I am saying this here in this House; there is nothing I want to hide— to request a senior colleague to leave the Cabinet. Nor is it easy to request a leader of one’s party to leave the Cabinet, particularly not in the sight of one’s enemies and at a time when we in South Africa found ourselves under the greatest tension as a result of international pressure on us. We were struggling to have the doors of the Western World opened to us and we were faced with very critical decisions in regard to South West Africa. In view of this it was not easy for me to take these steps, but I nevertheless took them because my colleagues and I believed that the only course to follow was to act honourably in the eyes of South Africa.

A little late in the day.

No. It was not late in the day.

It was.

The Auditor-General—he is an officer of this Parliament— only began to identify irregularities in 1977.

That was because they were concealed.

Surely the Select Committee of Parliament which had to investigate the matter did not deal with it years ago; surely they were engaged on it this year. Surely I was not Prime Minister years ago; I only became Prime Minister this year. The hon. member for Houghton should confine herself to the facts; she is not overseas now where she can do as she pleases.

There is a danger which we in this country should guard against. We should not create the impression that the Government can manage without secret funds. Furthermore it appears indisputably from the report of the commission that this judicial commission also accepts that there has to be secret funds. I do not want to go into any further details myself; this will be done by others. Reference will also be made to the control over these funds. I should still like to refer to the following.

Recently quite a number of articles and publications appeared which I think are worthwhile quoting here. One of them is an article written by Prof. Max Belof, entitled “The Conscience of the West”. It is very interesting to take cognizance of what he maintains in his article. He says, inter alia—

We also know such people. Another very interesting report appeared on 14 November 1978 in one of our local newspapers. I quote—

I recommend to the consideration of hon. members that there is something deeper underlying a great deal of this agitation against secret funds. I hope that hon. members of this House will not be guilty of this. That is why I am sounding this note of warning.

The West is taking a beating and unrest is being created in the West. An onslaught is being launched on the ability of the West to defend itself against the forces unleashed against it. Here we have it from an authority such as Prof. Belof. We also have it from an authority writing on the tendency in Britain. After all, we know what happened to the CIA. The West is being paralysed because the instruments which it is able to employ against the Russian forces are being destroyed. That is why the responsibility resting upon us is so much greater: To ensure that the secret funds which we create are controlled and administered in a proper manner. [Interjections.]

We said that over and over again.

But you have not been very effective.

In the final instance we appointed a judicial commission of inquiry. We said from the start that we did not intend to conceal anything. I said this on television and on the occasion of a Press conference. In fact, I said repeatedly that we would hide nothing. Here the report of the commission is now before this House. I said we would look the country in the eyes; we are now doing so!

But there is something else I want to say as well. When one reads the headline: “R64 million shock” in a morning newspaper such as the one yesterday morning, one asks oneself: Where does the truth lie? Surely the fact of the matter is that it is not a R64 million shock. Surely the fact of the matter is that a great deal of that money was and is still being correctly utilized. Surely it is a blatant lie if that morning newspaper blazons a headline of such a nature abroad. [Interjections.] There are hon. members here who will condone anything as long as South Africa can be harmed by it.

Who has now done South Africa harm? [Interjections.]

Let me also state clearly in this regard that there is a dangerous tendency to have a “public trial by the Press” in matters of this nature. Last year the Government, compelled by public opinion, wanted to take steps against the Press. This is a matter which goes back many years, and the Press must please listen carefully to what I now have to say. I believe in Press freedom.

It does not sound like it.

I believe in Press freedom. I do not think there should be any tampering with the freedom of the Press. When steps were being considered by the Government, under the compulsion of public opinion, I, inter alia, personally intervened to put a stop to measures against the Press with which my esteemed predecessor agreed. I want to tell the Press today that they should not underestimate the resentment of their methods by a large sector of the public. Let me say this now: The recklessness displayed in connection with The Citizen was partially—I am not saying wholly—attributable to it being a reaction against the unfairness of a large section of the South African Press. I am not condoning it. I maintain that no State funds should have been placed at the disposal of The Citizen. But I am also saying that the psychological reaction was partially based on the unfairness which we are experiencing. I am now going to furnish a few examples.

In the first place I am referring to the time when I appointed this judicial commission and a conflict arose over the Mostert Commission. At the time a leading article appeared in one of the most important English-language dailies in the country on Wednesday, 8 November. Listen to what was written—

What are the facts? I myself never appointed Mr. Justice Mostert. He was appointed in May.

By whom?

By my predecessor and by the State President who has since passed away. But that is not the point. Think for a moment. Set what you have there in your skull to work. I shall read it again—

I never appointed him. The newspaper went on to state—

Sir, surely this is a blatant lie. When I attacked the newspaper on this point, it stated the following day—

You see, you cannot win.

Not when you are wrong.

When I had this man in my office, he kept his eyes fixed on the carpet. He stood there before me like a fool.

But I want to point out another lie. They referred as follows to the appointment of Mr. Kemp, a member of the Department of National Security, who had to undertake certain investigations—

He was engaged in an investigation. He could not do so at that stage. The newspaper, however, went on to say—

I never summoned Mr. Justice Mostert. That is lie No. 2. I never summoned him. The public has to swallow this stuff. If a Cabinet Minister utters an untruth, he must leave the Cabinet, but when a newspaper editor blazons lies of this nature abroad, there is no power that can say to him “You must not lie”.

The Press Council.

Here it says: “Mr. Mostert was summoned by the Prime Minister.” Sir, I never summoned him. Then it says: “He asked him not to publish.” That is also something which I never did.

What did you do?

Now wait! Just keep your big mouth shut! I am coming to that. Mr. Justice Mostert asked to see me, but I could not see him because I was busy with other matters. My colleagues can testify to that. I could not see him and I fitted in an appointment for him after the representatives of the five Western powers had left. He then came to see me in the presence of the hon. the Minister of Finance and told me that he had certain evidence at his disposal, the gist of which he conveyed to me in brief. I replied that I had appointed a committee i.e. the Pretorius Committee, which, as soon as it had established the facts, would be at his disposal to share those facts with him and to see what should be done with them. That is what I told him. I also told him that I promised him the co-operation of the chairman of that committee. Then he got up and told me that it was the first time that a Prime Minister had prescribed to a judge how he should do his work. He then turned his back on me and walked out. An additional fact is that, before he kept an appointment with me that morning at his request, he had already convened his Press conference. [Interjections.] My question is: What did he mean by convening a Press conference before he kept his appointment with me? In the second place there were journalists who already had some of his statements in their possession before he came to see me in my office.

Which journalists?

Substantiate your last comment.

Because Mr. Justice Mostert had different terms of reference and because a definite recommendation had been made to us that we should deal with specific matters, we immediately appointed the Erasmus Commission. However, the cry “This is a cover-up!” was immediately raised against me throughout the country. If one judge is allowed to make things public, it is in order, but if a judicial commission is appointed, it is a “cover-up”. These are the kind of double standards which are being applied against us. It seems as if these people learned their methods in the company of South Africa’s enemies at the UN. [Interjections.] This Government did not refuse to accept its responsibilities and to take action. When money of the State was at stake, we stepped in and we are still doing so at present. We cannot abandon secret projects which may still be abandoned without a thorough investigation because there may be money involved which must first be salvaged. That is responsibility on the part of the Government. In the second place I asked my colleague to leave the Cabinet, which he subsequently did. In the third place we appointed a judicial commission. In the fourth place I want to say that surely we did not hide anything; we were open and above-board with the country. Can this hue and cry against us be substantiated by facts? I want to ask my friends of the Press what they have gained by presenting South Africa in this way simply because they want to get at the National Party Government.

It is the National Party Government which makes all the mistakes.

They will not break us.

You people cause the scandals. [Interjections.]

The Government accepts the findings and the recommendations of the judicial commission. The commission also recommended that the question of secret funds should not be raised in Parliament and also that no questions should be asked about such funds. I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House whether they are prepared to accept that recommendation of the commission. Let them tell us. In chapter XIV of its report the commission recommends that this issue should not be raised here. It is also stated in the report of this commission that although the English-language Press writes a great deal about these matters, it omits to give evidence. When it is called upon to give evidence on this matter, we have to deal with a case such as that of a certain Mr. Katzen.

Who is the Mr. Stirling who gave evidence?

I did not know who Mr. Stirling is.

He is from the English-language Press.

Quite possibly the hon. member knows him better than I do. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members will each be given an opportunity to speak.

This is a painful experience for the Government, something which must as far as possible not happen again. As Government we wish to dissociate ourselves from malpractices of this nature which were exposed by the commission. I want to add that we deplore the fact that an otherwise esteemed colleague has been prejudiced by the events. I deplore our having lost the services of Dr. Connie Mulder.

It is not the standpoint of the Government that the end justifies the means—nor will it ever be. On the other hand, however, a request must be made to other elements in this country today that if South Africa is to follow the path of peace and better dispositions, the initiative cannot come from the side of the Government alone; it must also be demonstrated in public by other people. We, as people who represent a large sector of the population, are sick and tired of being represented in our own country as hoodlums, as people who cannot be trusted. We are issuing a friendly warning to those people today that they will unleash forces in this country the end of which they have not foreseen if they continue on that course of calumniation. So, be warned today. I am one of those people who believe in better relations. I have devoted my life to better relations inside and outside the Defence Force. I have devoted my life to having better circumstances created for other population groups. But if this calumniation of the people who represent us does not cease, forces will be unleashed, the end results of which it will not be possible to control.

Just eradicate corruption and then you will be able to continue undisturbed.

That interjection comes from an hon. member who represents the progeny of a party that burned documents in order to conceal certain things. [Interjections.] They burned their intelligence documents. We submitted ours to the judges.

In conclusion I want to deal with a certain other matter. Usually the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gives one advance notice of his speech. He does not wait until he is able to make it in the House, but makes it available to the media the day before. The other leader even presents it on the BBC. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech that the Government should go to the country; we should now resign.

Immediately!

We shall go to the country …

When?

That is one of the prerogatives which I happen to possess. However, let us now carry out a test to see whether the need for this exists. This morning we swore in three new hon. members here. Nomination day for the electoral division of Nigel was on 24 October. The election took place a few days ago, on 29 November. Nigel is the electoral division of the former Prime Minister, an important semi-urban constituency, where the standpoint of the population on these matters could be tested. Surely all the information was already in the possession of the Press of my hon. friends. Nomination day for the by-election in Boksburg was also 24 October, while polling day was 29 November. It is an urban constituency. After that it was the turn of Swellendam. Nomination day for the by-election in Swellendam was 6 November, while the polling day is 13 December. Therefore it has not even been finalized yet. However, a complete silence prevails. There is only the rustle of a gentle breeze of people whose consciences are so sacrosanct that they cannot even participate in by-elections. An audible silence prevails. One of the leaders of the Opposition parties is a good friend of mine. Who can be angry with him? No one can be angry with him. He referred to Swellendam and announced that his party was not going to fight the by-election in Swellendam.

It is untrue. I did not say a word about Swellendam.

All the newspapers said that the hon. member’s party had issued a statement that they were not fighting the by-election in Swellendam because the farmers were harvesting their crops. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is absolutely untrue. You are stating a complete untruth.

Let us accept that it is not true. Then I still ask why neither of those parties, which are kicking up such a fuss now, participated in these three by-elections. One of them is a semi-urban constituency. Another is an urban constituency, while the third one is a rural constituency. The Government stands accused of corruption. The Government must be sent to the gallows; must resign. Now I ask why the Opposition parties, in those three by-elections, did not test the opinion of the people to convince us that we have lost the confidence of the people.

Sad as the circumstances are, tragic though they be, there is another by-election coming.

In Randfontein?

Mr. Speaker, I now want to ask the Opposition parties: Let us make this a test. [Interjections.]

Order!

To come into office the Opposition must surely capture constituencies from the Government. How else are they going to come into office? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I want to maintain that the Government has fulfilled its duty to the country. That money which can still be salvaged, we shall salvage. However, we refuse to allow a slur to be cast on the name of the rest of the Public Service. The vast majority of our officials are honourable people, people who uphold the highest principles of honest administration. We shall, with the necessary dedication, devote attention to incidents such as the present incidents, and restrict and eliminate them. However, we shall not allow the structures which have been created in this country to ensure honest administration to be jeopardized. Because those structures are still unsullied, because those structures and instruments are still effective, the future can be left with confidence in the hands of this Government, which is also to be trusted with the security of South Africa.

Order! Prior to the suspension of business, I should like to make a brief statement for the information of hon. members.

The Parliament of South Africa is engaged in one of the most important debates in its history. It contains elements for which there are no precedents in our country, and very few, if any, in other countries which have the same form of government.

Parliament is the most important and highest forum in South Africa, and hon. members will be afforded every opportunity by the Chair to make their contributions in this debate.

The Erasmus Report is before this House, and what is contained therein, is relevant. It will therefore be in order to refer to the predecessor of the hon. the Prime Minister, as is in fact done in the Report.

Factual findings and evidence on his administrative handling of his own department, and relevant decisions taken by him as the then head of the Government, may be discussed and fair comment may be passed thereon.

Any general criticism must be directed at the previous Government and not at Mr. Vorster, who is after all our present head of State.

It is my duty to protect not only Parliament with all its rights, and this I do from conviction and with all my power, but also South Africa and its highest symbol, the head of State.

I feel convinced that hon. members will support me in this.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Business suspended at 11h50 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before I deal with the uniqueness of the occasion, I have to comment on the fact that we have listened this morning to the maiden speech in this House of the hon. member for George as Prime Minister of South Africa. I should like to congratulate him on his election. He takes over at a time of almost overwhelming national problems. For those problems which come to him from outside and over which he has no control he has our sympathy and understanding, but as regards those which result from the policies and administration of the National Government, I must say to him that they are a legacy of the past in which he played a very important part. Our attitude will be, as it has been in the past, to attack and to criticize him and his Government where necessary, but to support him and his Government when in our opinion it is acting in the interest of the people of South Africa.

While I congratulate the hon. the Prime Minister on having delivered his maiden speech, I cannot congratulate him on its contents. While it shed some new light on the tensions which have obviously existed within the Cabinet and the Government over the whole Information issue, it did nothing to explain away the disgrace that occurred nor to minimize the Government’s responsibility for what took place.

The hon. the Prime Minister in his introduction dealt with a few matters not directly related to the Erasmus Commission. He posed the question of dangers to South Africa, the onslaught on South Africa from outside. He spoke of “’n muur wat hy sou oprig waaragter die mense skuiling sou kon soek”. That may be important, but what the Government tends to overlook is that inside South Africa it must apply policies and administrative procedures which will not destroy the security of South Africa from within.

Then he dealt with the issue of secret funds. He stated that he believed that governments in this day and age should have access to secret funds. This matter was dealt with at some length in a previous debate during the last session of Parliament. On that occasion the hon. member for Parktown set out the point of view of the Official Opposition in South Africa. Quite clearly, Sir, in any country there is a case to be made out for having some form of secret funding of activities which relate directly to the issue of national security in what I will call the orthodox sense of the word. That is a legitimate area for which to have secret funds, but there has to be a very clear understanding between Parliament and the Executive of the purposes for which those funds can be used and of the interpretation which can be placed on the words “national security” so that never, never again in the history of South Africa will Parliament or the public have to endure the scandal we have had to endure over the funding of The Citizen. It should be made quite clear that, whatever else those funds may be used for, they cannot ever again be used to promote the interest of one political party as was done in the case of The Citizen, nor should it be possibly ever again to use such funds to subvert the very democratic process and the democratic institutions which, it is claimed, they ate there to protect. That is quite fundamental as far as the purposes for which those funds may be used are concerned. However, what is equally important is the status of Parliament in this field and the question of parliamentary control. Parliamentary control of secret funds is vital. I must say quite frankly that in view of the experiences we have had during the past few years, during which the Executive has shown that it is not to be trusted with secret funds, we in these benches believe that parliamentary control will have to be tightened and not relaxed in any way.

The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the Pretorius Committee. I have no doubt that the interdepartmental committee has been of valuable assistance to the Government, but basically the hon. the Prime Minister was telling us that the Pretorius Committee was busy closing the stable door after the horse had bolted, a horse with R64 million on its back. That was what happened. [Interjections.] What a pity that it was not put into effect a year ago.

That is a lie!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I heard at least three hon. members saying that that was a lie.

Order! The hon. member must riot use those words in this House. He must please withdraw them.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that there would have been no need for a Pretorius Committee if a few years ago the Government had not started its own merry-go-round with secret funds.

The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with a few matters relating to The Citizen. I understood him to say that it was decided to allow The Citizen to continue to operate under its new owners at whatever loss or profit there was to their account. That is how I understood him to explain it to this House. We in these benches believe that the only honourable thing which the Government can Jo in connection with The Citizen, is to close it down. It is the only way in which the Government will remove the blot on its record. It is the only way to put an end to the saga of deception which so far has cost the taxpayer R32 million and has cost South Africa much more in shame and humiliation. In this connection the hon. the Prime Minister said that they had received cheques back from Mr. Louis Luyt involving repayment of moneys over some number of years. It has not yet been said what action the Government is taking to try to retrieve the R19 million which he said had already been paid out and, I assume, has been lost by The Citizen. What is the Government doing in respect of the R19 million? We understand that there are now to be new owners. I want to know from the Government whether these new owners are going to reap the benefit of R19 million of promotional costs which have come out of the taxpayers’ pockets. I ask the Government, in particular the hon. the Minister of Finance, whether steps are going to be taken, if necessary by legislation, to ensure that whoever takes over this loss of R19 million, will not get any tax benefit as a result of that, because that will merely be compounding the loss to the taxpayers of South Africa. These are questions the hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues should answer.

The hon. the Prime Minister then went on to deal with the doctrine of joint Cabinet responsibility and he referred to page 80 of the report of the Erasmus Commission. In countries which have a parliamentary system of government this doctrine of joint Cabinet responsibility is an essential part of that whole system. However, the hon. the Prime Minister went on to say that in respect of the previous Cabinet the Cabinet was absolved from this responsibility as far as the secret funds for the Department of Information were concerned, because the previous Minister of Information had not told the Cabinet about The Citizen and therefore nobody in the Cabinet had any collective responsibility on the issue of The Citizen. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he is saying across the floor of this House that nobody in that Cabinet other than Dr. Connie Mulder had knowledge of The Citizen.

Until it was raised …

The hon. the Prime Minister said that not a single person sitting there and none of those people who had previously been in the Cabinet had any knowledge whatsoever. [Interjections.] Let us take the issue right back to 4 December 1975 when there was that meeting somewhere in Pretoria which included Dr. Mulder, three or four officials and General Van den Bergh. Must I understand from the hon. the Prime Minister that Gen. Van den Bergh went to that meeting and did not tell anybody, his superior or anybody in the Cabinet, what was decided on and discussed at that meeting? What is he there for? What is his job? What he says is that no member of the Cabinet was aware of this operation until later, round about September 1977. Let us accept for the purpose of the argument that this is so, but then I say that the Prime Minister of the day failed. As the man responsible for the Bureau for State Security and for secret projects, and the man who said that he accepted full responsibility for the allocation of secret funds, I believe that he should have asked and should have known of this.

The hon. the Minister of Finance, who I believe was present at that meeting, annually presents the budget to Parliament. He should have known what is included in the budget he presented to Parliament, and that is why I say there was a failure on his part to find out what was the meaning of the figures.

The hon. the Minister of Defence, from whose secret account for Defence purposes the money was taken, also carried a responsibility in this respect. It is therefore no use saying that collective responsibility is negated because one member of the Cabinet does not pass on information. I believe that all the members of the Cabinet who had anything to do with the funding of that operation had a responsibility to find out from the Minister of Information what he was doing with their money. That explanation was far from satisfactory.

I wish to return to the gravamen of the debate, namely the discussion by Parliament of the report of the Erasmus Commission. I believe that Parliament meets today in what I consider unique circumstances. Our meeting today is unique not only in the history of the Republic of South Africa, but it is probably unique in the annals of any country in the world where a parliamentary system of government still obtains. The uniqueness of today’s meeting as we sit here in the sovereign Parliament of South Africa lies not so much in the fact that it is a special session of Parliament, because there have been special sessions before. Its uniqueness and importance lies in the fact that this session of Parliament is being held not through circumstances forced on us from outside, but because of the feckless and deceitful behaviour of people inside Government in whom the public and Parliament had reposed their trust. For those South Africans who have always been proud of the integrity of Government, irrespective of whether they supported the policies and the party of the Government of the day, this session will be seen as a session of shame. It is a session of shame which follows on the exposure of one of the ugliest, and I believe even members opposite will agree, one of the most distasteful chapters in the history of Government in South Africa. The exposure is not complete, but it has already made its mark on our national life.

The issue of the secret fund scandal goes beyond personalities and goes beyond political parties, for those who in one way or another, through their deceitfulness have become part of the secret fund scandal, have succeeded in doing from within the Government of South Africa what all South Africa’s enemies combined could not achieve from outside. They have destroyed the faith of millions of South Africans in the integrity of government in the Republic of South Africa. That is in fact the enormity of the action which they took. These people have upset the sensitive and critically important relationship which must exist between government and people. They have done this by destroying a bond of trust that must exist if our parliamentary system is going to function. By doing this the people concerned have weakened the fabric and have undermined the whole structure of democratic government in our country. More effectively and more destructively than any outside agency could have done, they have sabotaged the image and the status of government in South Africa in the eyes of the world. The enormity of what these men have done to South Africa makes their excuses that they did it in the interest of South Africa even more pathetic and in some instances even more distasteful.

We meet in Parliament today as South Africa stands before a crisis of trust. It stands before a crisis of integrity, a crisis of honour. In these circumstances we in this House, we in this sovereign Parliament of the Republic carry an awesome national responsibility. I believe that we will have to rise above personal and party loyalty. At all times we will have to avoid the temptation of looking for scapegoats. We will have to so conduct ourselves that in the place of the havoc which has been wrought by the executive arm of Government, Parliament, this institution, will make it possible for the people of our country to regain some trust and some confidence in the structure of government in the Republic of South Africa. We are considering a report on an investigation of a chain of events which makes the information debacle much more than just an administrative or a financial scandal. Over the months almost every arm of government has been brought into the ambit of the information issue, viz. the issue of the judiciary and its relationship with the Executive, the issue of the Executive and its accountability to Parliament and the issue of Parliament and its position of trust vis-à-vis the people. Then there are the unique circumstances surrounding the former Prime Minister, today the State President, to which you, Mr. Speaker, referred in your ruling earlier today.

The Information scandal, as we all know, has formed the background of South African politics for some time. Hon. members, I know, complain that it has been fed by rumour and by speculation. It has also been fed by statements, statements from the other side of the House and statements made by senior Government officials. However, the Information scandal assumed a new dimension of political importance towards the end of September this year when untested evidence, which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs subsequently described as “atrocious if it were true”, became an issue in the infighting among members of the NP during the election of a new Prime Minister. This changed the whole dimension of the Information scandal from an internal Government problem into an internal political one for the governing party.

Then the Information scandal burst wide open when Mr. Justice Mostert pricked the bubble of deception and made public some of the evidence given under oath before his commission. I believe that, for purposes of the record, it is important to state that Mr. Justice Mostert’s evaluation of this evidence was—and I quote …

It was his own evaluation!

It was his own, yes, as all commissions make their own evaluations. His evaluation was—

However upset the hon. the Prime Minister and others may have been by these evaluations which Mr. Justice Mostert made a month or so ago, these evaluations have been totally vindicated by the evaluations of and the evidence before the Erasmus Commission. However, what happened here—as has happened before and as is happening again today—is that the hon. the Prime Minister has taken umbrage. He has gone off again. He has taken umbrage at Mr. Justice Mostert on the one hand and at the Press on the other hand. I want to state that whatever the hon. the Prime Minister intended at the time, the circumstances surrounding his summary dismissal of Mr. Justice Mostert as a commissioner, with all the outward evidence of pique and temperament on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister, did much to undo the positive impact of the appointment of the Erasmus Commission at that time. We believe that the hon. the Prime Minister did a disservice to South Africa by putting an end to the Mostert Commission in that way. It was a disservice, in relation both to the work the commission was doing and to the relationships between the Executive and the judiciary of this country.

The reasons which the hon. the Prime Minister gave—and he touched on them again today—were quite unconvincing. Two essential reasons emerge from the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister’s office. The one was that a continued investigation by Mr. Justice Mostert could result in an overlapping of investigations which would now be carried out by the Erasmus Commission. Secondly, there was the so-called untenable difference of opinion over the right of the Mostert Commission to make public the evidence which was given before it. Those were the two reasons which were publicly given for the dismissal of Judge Mostert as a commissioner. I find it ironic that there is now a commission under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, the Van der Walt Commission, which replaces the Mostert Commission and which has been authorized to conduct investigations which will overlap with the work of the Erasmus Commission. It has also been authorized, if it elects to, to take its evidence in public and to publish it. Therefore, the very two reasons for which Judge Mostert’s commission was dismissed have now been accepted as the basis of the commission under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke.

The second thing the hon. the Prime Minister did was to attack the Press. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is a distortion of the facts.

It is his hobby-horse to threaten the Press. What he was saying today can only be seen as a threat to the free Press in South Africa. [Interjections.] If I were the Government at this stage, I would be a little humble when I spoke about the role of the Press in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that the Press has been an important factor in exposing or helping to expose the whole corruption scandal. It was a very important factor. If I were the hon. the Prime Minister I would be grateful to the Press because had it not been for the work of the Press he would not have been the Prime Minister of South Africa. The hon. member for Randfontein would have been the Prime Minister of South Africa. Of the hundreds of thousands of centimetres of news items and comment which appeared in the free Press he chose one or two examples to try to justify his broadside on the Press as a whole. The one example that he took was a headline which read “R64 million shocker—Erasmus rips open scandal”. The hon. the Prime Minister said that he was shocked at this. Why should he be? The report reads as follows—

It is a gross distortion of the facts.

It is quite correct. R64 million has been channelled from secret funds to the Department of Information. [Interjections.]

Order!

The reason why the Press was shocked was not so much the disclosures of the Erasmus Commission, but this was a flat repudiation of a statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister during a Press conference only a month ago. Only a month ago he was asked at a Press conference whether he was aware that money was being used in this way and that it was being funnelled to the Department of Information.

[Inaudible.]

Read it carefully. He said the following—

[Interjections.] Do hon. members not know the meaning of the words “were allotted to the department”? Is the hon. the Prime Minister seeking refuge behind the word “allot”? I want to say to him that there is such a difference in the meaning of words that no ordinary person reading his words would see them as anything other than the Prime Minister of South Africa saying “no defence money went to the Department of Information”.

It is a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, that is what he said and I believe that the Press in opening the report of the Erasmus Commission at page 8 and reading paragraph 2.26 was entitled to be shocked because it was a flat repudiation by the Commission of the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa only a short while ago.

In this whole distressing affair I believe that there have been three redeeming features. One was the courage and the independence of Judge Mostert who, in refusing to be browbeaten by the Executive, upheld the best traditions of the South African judiciary. [Interjections.] That is what he did. Secondly I believe that the tenacity and the expertise of the free Press in their exposure of the Information scandal is a credit to South Africa. Finally, one’s phone has been ringing with telephone calls from all over South Africa during the last few weeks because people from the National Party and from everywhere … [Interjections.] That is to the credit of South Africa.

I am quite satisfied that the revulsion of the ordinary South African citizens of all parties to the smell of corruption in government has been to the credit of South Africa. That has been tremendously important.

Let me now deal, in specific terms, with a few aspects relating to the Erasmus Commission and its terms of reference. I do not want to quote the terms of reference again; the hon. the Prime Minister quoted them this morning. They involved looking for irregularities and malpractices and suggesting what should be done to stop them. That was the essence of those terms of reference. I believe, however, that Parliament has a different and an ancillary function. It is important that Parliament should take note of the commission’s report. Parliament, however, has as its function and responsibility to make a wider assessment in the light of all the evidence, including the evidence before the commission. I say this because, unlike the commission, Parliament has the right to call the Executive, the Cabinet, to account. It has the responsibility to guard the money appropriated for the Government. It is also the duty of Parliament, as opposed to that of the commission, to assess, on the basis of information it can get or have available to it, whether there was any misdirection of executive authority, whether any members of the Executive defaulted in the exercising of their responsibilities, whether there was any deception of Parliament by any member of the Executive, or whether there was any attempt to cover up and whether appropriate and timeous remedies were forthcoming to try to protect the public interest. That is Parliament’s function as opposed to the function of the hon. commission.

For all that, however, we believe that the report which has now been received is a valuable public document. We want to congratulate the commission on how much it has managed to compress into a very short space of time and express our appreciation for the way it has tackled the job in the short time available to it. There is no doubt that the commission has ripped off the lid. It has exposed the can of worms, but it has not yet managed to get right down to the bottom of it because the report is not yet complete. The commission has dealt essentially with procedures adopted in the inter-relating departments dealing with secret funds. It has also dealt with evidence which flowed from the exposure of the Van Rooyen evidence. It has not, however, dealt with the whole range of issues, of which I shall mention only a few. There is the alleged loan of R10 million to Mr. McGoff, the alleged bid to take over the Washington Star, the Club of Ten, the Foreign Affairs Association, Mr. Red Metrowich and the South African Freedom Foundation, the activities of Abrahamson and Heinrich in the Hortors empire and the activities and status of To the Point. Not only is the commission’s report incomplete in that way—and the commission has indicated that it wants more time to complete its report— but it is also incomplete in that there is not available, to Parliament or to the public, the annexures which are referred to in that document, nor is there available, to Parliament or to the public, the full record of the evidence which was laid before it. We want to make it quite clear that without that evidence and those records it is impossible to evaluate some of the conclusions the Commission has come to.

So you do not trust the report?

I am saying that Parliament has a responsibility to make its own evaluation, and if Parliament is going to make an evaluation, it must have the evidence. Some issues, the whole chain of events involving the misappropriation of funds, are relatively easy to follow, but in the issue of the alleged involvement of the former Prime Minister in the secret funding of The Citizen, the conclusions are far from obvious. I believe that the public is entitled to have that evidence. I want to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that he should release to the public any evidence which does not deal with State security. I put it to him that it is essential that all of the evidence, just as in a court case, should be seen and heard. We have asked the hon. the Prime Minister for the evidence. It is now in his possession. The evidence is available and he can issue it. At the request of our caucus, the hon. member for Yeoville approached the hon. the Prime Minister to try to obtain access to that evidence for a couple of members of our caucus.

Are you criticizing the commission now?

We were told that the evidence was going to be made available to us, but subsequently we were told that the commission did not want the evidence made available to us. I believe, however, that the responsibility for deciding about what evidence should be released, lies with the Government. It is not the responsibility of the commission. The commission can make recommendations, but once the evidence is in the hands of the Government, it is the Government itself which must decide whether that evidence is going to be released or not. I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that it is especially important to play open cards with the people of South Africa. They have seen the report. They have seen the conclusions. Surely it is proper for us now to have the evidence on which those conclusions were based.

Mr. Speaker, two issues arise out of the report, to which I believe I must refer, firstly because I believe there is a degree of contradiction between certain items in the report, and secondly because I believe there is a serious inaccuracy. I raise these points not in a spirit of animosity towards the commissioners, but because I believe it is essential that the record should be put right. In this report, when dealing with the Defence Special Account Act of 1974, the impression is given that expenditure from the Defence Special Account is automatically exempt from audit by the Auditor-General. If you look at paragraphs 2.19 and *3.44, you will find that it says that moneys from that account are not subject to audit. In paragraph 5.113, however, it says that these moneys are not necessarily excluded from audit. It must be clearly understood by this House that if they are in fact excluded from audit, or if there is a limitation on the auditing of those funds, it has nothing to do with the Auditor-General; this is the responsibility of the Minister of Defence on the one hand and of the Minister of Finance on the other. There can therefore be a complete audit of all secret funds, provided this is arranged between the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Finance. The impression should therefore not be given that these funds could not be audited. They can always be audited. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will know that his secret fund too can be audited in exactly the same circumstances.

The second issue to which I referred is to be found in a reference on page 69 of the report, in paragraph 10.316. This deals with the question of the arrangements for canalizing secret funds. It points out that Mr. Vorster had denied that he was involved in these arrangements, but that he had in this House admitted responsibility. The commission says—

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is just not correct on the facts. Mr. Vorster released his statement on 8 May, and there was a debate on the Information Vote here on 9 and 10 May. I must quote from Hansard to rebut the allegation that the Opposition parties did not object to it. I quote from my own speech, made on 10 May (Hansard, 1978, col. 6555)—

This was the attitude of the Official Opposition. I continued—

In a later paragraph, dealing with the same issue, i.e. the issuing of certificates by the three Ministers in charge of special funds, I said (col. 6557)—

That is a clear rejection of the concept of the financial merry-go-round which was put to us by the former Prime Minister.

The report contains four specific recommendations. They are to be found in chapter XIV of the report. It is necessary that I should refer to them very briefly. The first one is to be found in paragraphs 14.464 and 14.465, and deals with the reference of certain documents to the Attorney-General, and the securing of the State’s interests in relation to taxation benefits.

We agree with these recommendations, but we do not see why only documents relating to two people should be available. We believe that all the evidence should be available for scrutiny by the Attorney-General to see whether any prosecution should take place. It is entirely correct, however, that once the investigation has taken place the law enforcement officers should now take over.

The second recommendation to which I wish to refer is contained in par. 14.482, which states inter alia—

This is something which we have been arguing for across the floor of the House all the time. We have been arguing for this and I hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance will agree to change the various Acts to make this possible and that there will be no Ministerial restriction on the auditing of secret funds.

The third issue is whether there should be questions in Parliament with regard to secret funds. In the light of our experience in recent times and in the light of the kind of answers and treatment which we have received we do not believe that there should be a limitation on questions, except where matters of national security in the strictest and orthodox sense of the word are involved. However, on such matters as the funding of The Citizen, we believe that Parliament is entitled to know. There should be no restriction whatsoever, except in matters of national security in the orthodox sense of the word.

Finally, there is the question of the commission asking for an extension of its powers to inquire until 30 April 1979. Let them get on with that task. In the meanwhile I believe that the evidence that is relevant to the document before us should be released to Parliament, and it should be released to Parliament before the next session of Parliament which commences on 2 February 1979. Secondly, if this investigatory process is going to go on we ask the commission for a further interim report on their activities, work and findings in the course of the next two months. I think it is important that Parliament should not meet next year without having before it the next report of the Erasmus Commission.

So much then for the identification of misdemeanours and malpractices for the law enforcing officers now taking over, but we all know that this report reveals not only a massive misappropriation of public funds; it reveals something which is much, much more disturbing, viz. an on-going deception that took place of the public and Parliament. It reveals a process of on-going deception, a systematic cover-up of the Citizen scandal and a breakdown of Ministerial control and collective Cabinet responsibility. It has revealed in certain instances an arrogant abuse of executive power on behalf of the Government. These features together point to a subversion of our system of government and with that the undermining of the authority of this House, the sovereign Parliament of South Africa. This state of affairs is perhaps the inevitable consequence of a Government which has been in power for too long. I believe that the whole of that Government must accept its share of the blame. The issue of Ministerial responsibility for a department and Ministerial responsibility and accountability of the Executive to Parliament are the cornerstones of this parliamentary system. The system would not work unless this Parliament had the right to call the Executive Government to account.

Much has been said about Dr. Mulder in this report, and I believe he should receive no sympathy whatsoever for the role which he played in what I believe has been a sordid affair. However, I do not believe that Dr. Mulder should be the scapegoat for a Cabinet which must accept collective responsibility for what took place. That is the danger. I am distressed that Dr. Mulder is not here today to explain his side of the story. It is not appropriate for this Parliament to accept Dr. Mulder as a scapegoat for the collective responsibility of the Cabinet of the day. The whole Government of South Africa must accept the responsibility for having created, without the knowledge of Parliament, behind the backs of Parliament, a system of finance which made it possible for this abuse to take place. That is the root of the whole matter. It is for that reason that we in these benches believe that the three other Cabinet Ministers mentioned in the report must share the responsibility for the situation that has developed. They must share responsibility for the situation that has developed through the creation of a system of funding which allows abuse and exploitation by other people. These three Ministers are the former Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Defence.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal briefly, in terms of your ruling today, with the actions and activities of the former Prime Minister as revealed in this document and as commented upon by the commission. Let us deal with it in terms of his Prime Ministerial and his Ministerial responsibility—Prime Ministerial for the Cabinet as a whole, and Ministerial in so far as his own department was concerned. We have to accept the fact that the start of the whole operation was a procedural device designed to channel funds from various secret funds, without the authority of Parliament, and to put them beyond the scrutiny of the Auditor-General. That was the start of the procedure which was referred to in a letter from the Treasury in 1973. That was the start of it. In 1974, after the first R293 000 had come from the Bureau of State Security, falling under the Prime Minister’s authority, money started coming through from Defence. What did the commission itself say about this arrangement? It is important to note what is said on page 5, paragraph 2.18, about the transfer from the one department to the other. Paragraph 10.316 on page 69 refers to the former Prime Minister’s responsibility. I quote—

He was, in fact responsible for this arrangement. On page 69, paragraph 10.316, the commission finds that he was responsible … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the commission found also, in par. 10.318, that this arrangement was in fact constitutionally incorrect and also incorrect in so far as audit was concerned.

Read paragraph 10.316.

“The commission finds that Mr. Vorster was, in fact, responsible for this arrangement. It would, however, point out that the Opposition parties never questioned this arrangement in Parliament.” But I must explain that we did question it in Parliament. We questioned it very much indeed. This is what the commission has to say about this arrangement—

Were it not for the decision to adopt this device, which the commission condemns, we would not have had the situation which developed, where outside of the control of the Auditor, avaricious people could use money to their own advantage and South Africa had to endure this total scandal. So there is a responsibility on the people who designed this and the people who introduced it.

The second point is the question of Cabinet responsibility. Here you are aware, Sir, that in respect of Dr. Connie Mulder the commissioners on three occasions say that Cabinet members are responsible for the activities within their departments. They are responsible for the decisions, for the administration and for the actions of the officials within those departments. Dr. Mulder had to accept responsibility for Dr. Rhoodie. That is quite correct. He was the head of the department. But equally, then, I believe that the previous Prime Minister had to accept responsibility for key people in his department. I want to mention just two. I mention Mr. Reynders. Mr. Reynders was personally appointed by the Prime Minister on 7 August 1977 to do this investigating task. The Prime Minister described this person as a capable and well-equipped person. He reported regularly to the Prime Minister and in the end produced two reports to him, one which the Prime Minister released to this House on 15 June and the other one which he released to the Press round about 23 September.

These things happened. The commissioner finds that this was an untruthful report and that this man was a “broken reed”. I say that whoever selects a person who is going to tell an untruth, whoever selects a broken reed, must accept responsibility for a serious error of judgment.

Let us look at the issue of Gen. Van den Bergh. Not only was he appointed head of Boss, but he was appointed at the request of the Prime Minister and he was brought back from retirement to do an evaluation of the secret projects of the Department of Information. It appears from the evidence that, far from doing a proper evaluation of that, Gen. Van den Bergh was one of the original conspirators and spent much of his time covering up or preventing an exposure taking place. This is what happened. Gen. Van den Bergh frightened Reynders at the threat of his life into issuing a false report. One of the disturbing features of this report is the frightening revelation of how Boss, with Gen. Van den Bergh at its head, has been allowed to grow into a monster, with Gen. Van den Bergh putting himself beyond the law and attempting to manipulate the Government and the administration to suit his own desires and ambitions. This is what the commission finds on this. Whatever else the new Prime Minister, the hon. the Prime Minister opposite, may do, I believe that as the man who is going to be responsible for the new Department of National Security he should make it quite clear that he will not tolerate any individual or clique of individuals getting together to use that secret department to manipulate it in their own interests. I believe that before this debate is over the hon. the Prime Minister should pledge himself as a guarantor to the people of South Africa that the new department with its new head will not degenerate in the way that Boss degenerated under the leadership of Gen. Van den Bergh.

The last point relating to the former Prime Minister’s responsibility—I shall only just touch on it—is the question of The Citizen. It is clear from the evidence that the Prime Minister said to Dr. Mulder that he considered spending money on The Citizen as not being morally or ethically justifiable. According to the commission that was the attitude of the former Prime Minister. The question, however, is this: As the man who had the responsibility for allocating the funds and who announced in Parliament that he accepted responsibility for this, surely it was his responsibility to see that Connie Mulder or Eschel Rhoodie knew his view on The Citizen? Surely it was his responsibility to see that he was fully briefed The Citizen and the funds it involved? Why did he permit The Citizen to carry on its anti-PFP propaganda throughout an election campaign? When it became known to the former Government, why did the Government not at least say: “If we cannot close The Citizen down, we are going to come clean with the public of South Africa”? Why did the former Government not announce, as soon as it found out, that The Citizen was actually a bogus Government paper? Why did it not announce to the public: “What you are reading and buying is in fact not the view of an independent newspaper, but a mouthpiece of the NP Government”? What reason is there? I can see no reason. It has come out now.

That is nonsense.

I believe that once the former Government heard of this deception of the public, at the very least it had the responsibility to get rid of that deception. The hon. member for Von Brandis is making a lot of noise. I want to say that, had the Prime Minister done that, it is possible that he would not now be a member of this House. [Interjections.]

He was elected on lies and false pretences!

Once it was known that this was a Government newspaper, that it was morally and ethically not justified, I for the life of me cannot accept any good reason why that newspaper was not closed down. In September 1977 that newspaper had already cost the public R16 million and at the time of the Erasmus Commission it was costing R32 million. While the Government dilly-dallied, while it could not make up its mind, while people were scared to ask each other questions and Cabinet members did not ask each other what was going on in the Cabinet, the public of South Africa was being milked of another R16 million.

I want to deal very briefly with the hon. the Minister of Finance. As Minister of Finance there rests on him a very heavy responsibility, because he has to reflect the trust of this House in the Exchequer. He is the front man as far as dealings with bankers and financiers around the world are concerned. On the basis of paragraph 10.315 of the report, I must accept that the hon. the Minister of Finance did object when he heard about it. He did object to the procedure. However, what I want to put to him, is that it continued nevertheless. I want to ask him what kind of Minister of Finance he is. He takes over from the former Minister of Finance, finds that there is a procedure to which he objects and nevertheless says that he is going to continue with the procedure, at the same time asking for his objection to be recorded. That is no excuse. However, what is even more frightening is that it appears that the hon. the Minister is prone to be pressurized. I quote from paragraph 11.393—

Probably the first of April—

The hon. the Minister says that he was not given an opportunity to go through the documents because the matter was urgent. What kind of Exchequer is this? Nearly R15 million is concerned and he initials a whole set of documents, after which he says to the commission that he did not have time to go through these documents. [Interjections.] One does not have to understand very much to realize that the hon. the Minister has made an admission. He said that he signed a document at which he did not look as he was in a hurry, but that later on he had second thoughts. R15 million of public money was going down the drain, no doubt to The Citizen. It is quite disgraceful. I believe the hon. the Minister should really consider, in the light of that evidence, whether he is equipped and fit to carry on as the Minister of Finance of the Republic of South Africa.

I shall deal with you, my boy! [Interjections.]

The origin of this whole issue was the whole question of the channelling of special funds, particularly special funds out of Defence into Boss and from Boss into Information. That was the pipeline. The hon. the Minister of Finance, more than anybody in the House, has a responsibility in this regard. More than anybody else, he is responsible if this was a wrongdoing on the part of the previous Government. It is no use saying that he did not like it. He did it. He did not withstand the pressures from the Prime Minister of the day. However, what were his responsibilities? He has a specific responsibility to see to it that there is a proper audit. In very similar terms it is stipulated that in respect of each of these accounts there shall be an audit by the Auditor-General. It is not stipulated that there will perhaps be an audit, but that there shall be an audit by the Auditor-General subject to the extent determined by the Minister of Finance in consultation with the Minister of Defence. In other words, that is the man who could determine the extent to which an audit could take place. It was his responsibility as the Minister of Finance of South Africa. However, he had another responsibility. In terms of Defence expenditure he had a control responsibility, because there could not be any money obtained from the Department of Defence without the authority of the Minister of Finance. Moneys in that Defence Special Account could only be used with the approval of the Minister of Finance. Without his express approval that money could not have gone to Boss, to the Department of Information and to Dr. Eschel Rhoodie. If he had not given permission for that money to be spent in that way that pipeline would have been cut off. I believe that he had a responsibility for stopping this situation which led to the scandal in South Africa. It is his responsibility, but he says, and I must accept it, that he knew nothing about The Citizen. Surely he has a responsibility, when he stands up here and says that there is R17 million in a certain fund, that he should know for what purposes that money is going to be used. Did he never ask Mr. Vorster, who allocated the money, or Dr. Connie Mulder, who spent the money, for what purposes it was being used? Did he come to Parliament year after year without ever having checked? Is this correct? When did he hear of The Citizen? [Interjections.]

I wish to know, as far as The Citizen is concerned, what steps the hon. the Minister took when he heard about it. Did he collaborate with those who said it should carry on or did he immediately demand that it should close? Was he also party to the R400 000 a month which was spent on this project? He came to this House with a budget this year with a new account. In that new account there was money for The Citizen. Did he have the effrontery to come to this House without ever having asked about it, although at that time it was well known amongst the members of his Cabinet? Did he tell this House the whole truth about the budget? I believe that he had a very severe responsibility to see that this was not done.

I now wish to deal with the hon. the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence. My attitude towards his involvement is one of real disappointment. I must accept the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement today that he knew nothing about The Citizen and that he did not like money being transferred from the Defence Special Account and funnelled to the Department of Information. The report of the Commission states that he was “totally opposed to it”, that it “went against the grain”, that “he had no option”. Of course, that is not correct, because he had an option.

Do you accept the commission’s findings?

I am saying that the hon. the Minister had a ministerial responsibility not to allow those funds to be channelled through. He has to accept responsibility. [Interjections.]

The hon. gentleman is worried. I am not arguing about the fact whether he did not like what he was doing, but because he did it nevertheless. I have always had very much respect for the hon. the Prime Minister as a strong man.

Harry is one of your people, and you do not want him either.

I know I have touched a sensitive nerve. Here is the strongman of South African politics, knowing that he is doing something wrong. The commission says that this is unconstitutional and incorrect, and the hon. the Prime Minister knew all about it. He knew it was wrong and that it was bad, but somehow he could not stand up to the Prime Minister of the day or to the late Dr. Diederichs. What kind of a Minister of Defence is he?

There is also another aspect. I believe that this kind of behaviour by the hon. the Prime Minister, while I am not arguing that he intended it, has a bad effect on the public when they find they are paying taxes, voted for Defence, which end up in Connie Mulder’s department. I think it is disgraceful. At a time when we are all talking about patriotism and national security, about defence bonds and southern cross funds, we find that the Minister of Defence allows money to be transferred from the secret fund of his department to an account under the control of the Department of Information. He did do it. I know he did not like it, but we often have to do things we do not like. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that the responsibility of a Cabinet Minister cannot be placed on anybody else. He, therefore, cannot blame anybody else. Nevertheless, he was not prepared to stand up. Now, listen to his explanation of this morning. I find it fascinating. He said he had been told it was a “eenmalige bedrag”. The second time, according to him, he did not want to deceive Parliament. He did not want to hide this thing. Therefore it came on the Defence Account as “Operation Senegal”. [Interjections.] Now, can one imagine this! [Interjections.]

You have got hold of the wrong end of the stick, and a very poor stick at that! [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister, looking for an alibi, found the alibi in Senegal. [Interjections.]

Order!

His behaviour, I believe, is reflected in what can almost be termed the agony of Gen. Magnus Malan in a letter from which the Erasmus Commission quotes on page 87 of its report. Here we have the Army Chief of Staff writing to Dr. Eschel Rhoodie. He is writing this about his Minister. I can understand his agony and anguish. I quote—

The hon. the Prime Minister did not like it. It was “oneties en onreëlmatig”, but it happened nevertheless—

This is what Gen. Magnus Malan is saying. He states that his Minister actually tells “onwaarhede” to Parliament. This is what he did. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, this is what the General says. He says …

“Ek is nie bereid …”

No, read further! He says—

†I believe that the hon. the Minister of Defence had this as his responsibility.

He should join Connie in the TV-room! [Interjections.]

The last point I want to make on this is that there was another responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Defence. It was not just the question of the secret fund. Did he in fact make it possible through his actions for his own department to comply with the law? Did he make it possible? I ask this because, in connection with this secret fund, it is specifically prescribed that—

Once that money had gone, was it possible for his senior official to comply with this responsibility? It says that payments for the said defence activities and for purchases must be made by that department. Were they made by that department? Were the books kept in that department? Was the audit done in that department? These are formal legal requirements.

The hon. the Prime Minister said he did not like it, but that, under pressure of the Cabinet or the former Prime Minister he had to surrender; he could do no other. When he heard of this he placed the Chief of the Defence Force in the most invidious position. However, he also has a responsibility in respect of audit, because the hon. the Minister has to determine, together with the hon. the Minister of Finance, the extent of the audit, and if there is any limitation on the audit he is required to give a certificate to the Auditor-General. I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister whether he signed audit certificates during the years to which we are referring. Did the hon. the Prime Minister, then the hon. the Minister of Defence, and now still the hon. the Minister of Defence, comply with the law? Did he issue those certificates? If he did not give those certificates there should, of course, have been a full audit. I want to know from him whether he in fact issued such certificates in relation to the moneys which were channelled to the Department of Information. It is very simple. Did he issue certificates as was required by the law or did he not?

There is a final capacity in which I want to speak to the hon. the Prime Minister. This is that he was not only the head of the Department of Defence, that he not only had an audit responsibility, but that he also had a very special responsibility towards this House. The hon. the Minister of Defence was then the Leader of the House of Assembly. In that capacity I would have expected him, at whatever cost to himself, to refuse to lend himself to an arrangement which surreptitiously weakened Parliament’s control over the funds which it had voted. Whatever the cost to himself, I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister, also the hon. the Minister of Defence, should have said: “I do not mind going out into the wilderness, but as the Leader of the House and as the Minister of Defence I cannot acquiesce or collaborate with that strategy”.

Many of us who were standing near the steps of the Senate on 28 September will recall the cry of “We want Pik! We want Pik!” After that the Prime Minister-elect walked forward. What impressed me was that one of the important elements of what he said on that occasion was his pledge to bring about clean government in South Africa. That is what the hon. the Prime Minister said. We on these benches welcome that statement and we will support the hon. the Prime Minister in any positive steps that he wants to take to clean up government in South Africa. We will help him if he wants us to clean up government in South Africa. In the light of what has happened and in the light of the disclosures by the various commissions, in particular the Erasmus Commission, it is not going to be so easy to satisfy the run-of-the-mill South African that clean government is in fact a reality in South Africa. There is a cloud of suspicion around the apparatus of government in South Africa as the result of the debacle of recent times. Let me say to the hon. gentleman: It will not be enough in your search for clean government to close a few loopholes or to punish a few offenders. I believe you will have to start by getting rid of the arrogance which has become the hallmark of the Government in recent years.

Hear, hear!

If one looks at what took place, one finds that the character definition is one of arrogance, arrogance towards Parliament, arrogance of officials towards the law. I believe that, for a start, the Government has to get rid of the arrogance which has become the hallmark of NP Government in recent years. Secondly, it will have to do more than a Government usually has to do. It will have to play open cards with the people of South Africa. This is the only way that it will regain the trust and respect which this disgraceful chapter has destroyed. The hon. the Prime Minister is the leader of the Government; not just the leader of the NP, but also the leader of the Government and he will have to stop his party trading on party political sentiment. The Government must stop being a party Government. It must be a Government of South Africa sensitive to the needs and the feelings of all the people in the country. He will also have to agree to restore a fundamental principle in our system of government, namely the accountability of the executive to this Parliament. I believe that is quite fundamental. This means no more deception of Parliament or devices to evade parliamentary control. No more deception of Parliament by the executive or devices to evade parliamentary control. It means that Parliament itself—not just commissions, but this House, clothed in all its sovereign status as representative of the people—will have to conduct its own investigations based on all the information available to it.

Let me conclude by saying that the shame and disgrace of the Information scandal hangs heavily over everyone in South Africa. The people of South Africa feel—and they have the right to feel—that they have been cheated. They have been cheated and humiliated. For this the Government must accept responsibility. South Africa, which is going through a difficult period of its history, needs a Government that is cleansed of any taint or stain from the past. This will not be possible as long as we have a Government which was elected at an election when there was subterfuge to hide the Information scandal from the people of South Africa.

That election was, in fact, a fraudulent election, an election in which the truth was not told to the people of South Africa. I believe that it is essential that that should be put right now, and in order to give effect to the points I have made, I move, as an amendment to the motion put by the hon. the Prime Minister—

1. “(1) this House, having taken note of the implications of the Report of the Erasmus Commission and other disclosures and of the Government’s overall responsibility for the disgraceful state of affairs the Report has revealed and for the subversion of our parliamentary system of government, calls upon the Government to resign forthwith; and
2. (2) this House, in order to maintain democratic Parliamentary procedures, further calls for the appointment of a Select Committee to examine all the implications of the Information scandal; all evidence and exhibits placed before the Erasmus Commission and other relevant commissions to be made available to such Committee.”.

We believe that only by the resignation of the Government, only by this Parliament itself, can the status of this House and the integrity of government be restored in South Africa.

Then who will govern South Africa?

The hon…. [Interjection.] Order! If that hon. member interrupts Mr. Speaker again I shall take action against him.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize.

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member is howling even before I have started speaking. It is an indication of what he is expecting. I am rather sorry that the hon. Leader of the Opposition did not say that he wanted to deal with me as well today. I shall gladly afford him an opportunity to do so.

One has absolutely no idea where one stands with the Opposition. When the Government wants to appoint a commission of inquiry with a judge as chairman, they want a committee of members of Parliament. When we then appoint a committee of members of Parliament, they want a judicial commission. I should be pleased if, at some time or another, they could be consistent and decide what they regard as the best means of investigating cases of this nature, because they are merely making greater fools of themselves by blowing hot and cold in this way. I should like to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition when he heard about the allegations pertaining to the Information issue.

[Inaudible.]

Never heard of it! Did he never hear anything in the way of rumours, stories or allegations?

[Inaudible.]

Never! And the newspapers that support him had never previously heard about them either? [Interjections.] Then it is very obvious what game they played. They wanted to make the running with this matter at a time that would suit them best.

†What happened here, however, was that when they tried to hijack the moral issue, the Erasmus Commission foiled their plans. That is what happened. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is frustrated.

Pik, now you are on dangerous ground because you knew it.

There remains very little for them to reveal today beyond what had already been found by the Erasmus Commission.

When did you know?

I shall come to that in a second. [Interjections.] No, you will have to exercise a little more patience.

Order! I ensured a good hearing for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister a chance too.

Mr. Speaker, they are worse than the UN; at the UN they at least have the decency to walk out when one tells them the truth. [Interjections.] Before I give an exposition of what happened towards the end of September … [Interjections.] If the hon. member will keep his big mouth shut, I gladly give it to the House, but I first want to say something about Mr. Vorster. I want to quote a passage from the report of the commission about the former Prime Minister of South Africa. After the commission had examined all the evidence, after all the witnesses had been heard, and after approximately 3 000 pages of evidence had been given, the commission arrived at the following conclusion (page 74)—

That is the finding. The hon. Opposition must now decide what parts of the commission’s report they want to accept and what parts they do not want to accept. The Government stated its standpoint clearly this morning through the hon. the Prime Minister. We said we accepted the report and recommendations of the commission. We made that clear. I now want them, with their typical “nit picking” mentality, to indicate which phrases, sentences, commas, semicolons and page numbers are acceptable to them and which are not, for then we might be able to argue more effectively with one another. Later on, other hon. members on this side of the House will probably have more to say about the role of our previous hon. Prime Minister in this connection. Not only do I regard it as my duty, but it is also a pleasure for me to be able to say that I co-operated very closely indeed with the previous Prime Minister. I co-operated very closely with him on the South West Africa question, the Rhodesian situation and the entire onslaught on South Africa. In my view, the House owes an exceptional debt of thanks to the previous Prime Minister. I often observed him in his meetings with African and other leaders, I often travelled with him, I was with him in the hours when he was extremely tired, sometimes dead tired, and I observed that he never spared himself for a single moment. I often observed the strain of exhaustion around his eyes when he was involved in in-depth discussions late at night, and I also observed how he sacrificed himself for South Africa. I know that he always acted honourably in every respect, with the sole object of serving the interests of his fatherland. That was also found by the Erasmus Commission.

Reference has also been made to the role I was supposed to have played towards the end of September. It is true that the days from Saturday, 23 September until Thursday, 28 September this year were a momentous few days in South Africa. It is also true that as a result of the death of the previous State President and the illness of the former Prime Minister, the months of August, September and October will probably go down in our history as three of the most momentous months. Not only did a new Prime Minister have to be elected during this time; it would also become the burden and the duty of the new Prime Minister, almost immediately after his assumption of office, to negotiate with the five Western Foreign Ministers on South West Africa, a very serious matter from South Africa’s point of view. Almost immediately the new Prime Minister had to give attention to the Rhodesian situation which was, in various respects, deteriorating rapidly. Not only would he have to form a Cabinet; he would also have to devote his attention to all the problems of Southern Africa: from the question of relations with Transkei to the developments that must lead to the independence of Venda. The new Prime Minister would immediately have to devote all his attention to all these matters. Before he could do that, however, he had to be elected. There were three candidates.

That is for sure!

I really do not see why, when one is trying to deal with a serious matter, it should give rise to frivolous jokes on the opposite side of the House. I wonder if we should not appoint a commission of enquiry into the warped, defective mechanism of their thinking. [Interjections.]

What happened, was that on that Saturday, 23 September, before the election, while I was giving attention to the election campaign of my own supporters, I received a telephone call from Adv. Retief van Rooyen. Advocate Van Rooyen informed me that he wanted to come and see me about a serious matter, a matter which, in his view, drastically affected the interests of the Government and of the country. He presented this as a very urgent and serious matter. I did not really want to see him at that stage, because I was of course extremely busy. I was extremely busy with the canvassing campaign of my own supporters in the election of a Premier. I nevertheless agreed to see him that afternoon and he came to my home. When I asked him why he came to see me in particular, he told me that he felt he had to speak to a member of the Government and that except for Mr. Vorster, he knew me best of all. He felt he was entitled to speak to a member of the Government. He gave me more or less the same information that was later published in the newspapers as a result of Mr. Justice Mostert’s disclosures. It was more or less the same information he gave me.

It was clear to me that if that information were to be true, it was obviously very serious and would reflect seriously on this country and on the persons responsible for the things he alleged had been done. I immediately decided that as a member of the Government I was in a very difficult position. On the one hand, I was a candidate for election as Premier and if I were to do nothing, it could subsequently be said that I had heard firsthand and direct allegations and had done nothing about them. Then one would get it in the neck for having done nothing. On the other hand, if one were to do too much about it while one was a candidate in the election of a Premier, it could be said that one had wanted to exploit this to one’s own advantage. I therefore want to make it very clear today that it was not the easiest position to be in.

What I then did, however, was to decide that my colleagues in the Cabinet should bear the burden with me. I then started telephoning everyone in turn, and the first Cabinet Minister I could get hold of that day was my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Health. After I had spoken briefly to him he came over and heard what Van Rooyen had to say. After he had heard him, we consulted with each other and he suggested that I should telephone the senior Minister, the then hon. Minister of Defence, and inform him of the events. At the first stage, Adv. Van Rooyen alleged that he was absolutely convinced that the English-language Press, or some of the English-language newspapers, had already had the information he had confided to me in their possession for weeks. He emphasized that they intended to wait for what they considered to be the opportune moment to divulge that information. They would publish the information at that moment with a view to inflicting the greatest possible damage on the Government.

That was Adv. Van Rooyen’s version to me. I told him that the information he had conveyed to me was his version. He then showed me corroborative documents. On the face of it these were documents which corroborated the worst allegations he had made, although that did not necessarily mean that it was the truth. On the face of it, at least, he corroborated what he had said. On the strength of this, and after consultation with my colleague, I then telephoned the hon. the Minister of Defence in Cape Town. The former Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, was also in Cape Town. That Saturday afternoon there was virtually no Cabinet Minister in Pretoria. Some of them were away, some of them were en route by plane, and others were travelling elsewhere, etc. The Cabinet was busy with work, as usual.

The next day I went to the hon. the Minister of Defence with Adv. Van Rooyen. At the request of the hon. the Minister of Defence, the leader of the N.P. in the Free State and the leader of the N.P. in Natal were requested to accompany us. The Natal leader was overseas, however. The leader in the Free State was then picked up and we went to Cape Town. There Adv. Van Rooyen repeated the statements he had conveyed to me. It was then decided among the few of us Ministers, in the Cape and in the residence of the hon. the Minister of Defence, that we would go and speak to our then colleague, the then hon. Minister of Plural Relations and inform him of the information we had received. That was done by our colleague, the hon. the Minister of the Interior. He did it that very same evening. As a result of that discussion, certain facts came to the notice of the rest of the Cabinet. These are the facts. Mr. Justice Mostert telephoned me on the Tuesday evening before the election. He told me that he had heard that Adv. Van Rooyen had been to see me and Minister P. W. Botha and asked me whether I saw my way clear to informing him of what Adv. Van Rooyen had told me. I said no, I did not think that was the correct procedure, and I asked him why he wanted to know this. He then said that he had summoned Adv. Van Rooyen to appear before him the next day. I said to him: “Look, I cannot prevent you from hearing the man, but if it is important to you to know whether the man is speaking the truth and is consistent in his communications, telephone me after you have heard him. Then I shall ascertain to what extent the details he has furnished you with tally with those he gave me”. I had never met Mr. Justice Mostert before, nor did I know him, and at present we still do not know each other personally. On the Wednesday, he telephoned me here in Cape Town. Hon. members must remember that this was the day before the election of a Premier. He then informed me of certain matters. They were more or less the same as what Adv. Van Rooyen had told me. Then Mr. Justice Mostert told me that he was of the opinion that he then had sufficient evidence before him to have Dr. Connie Mulder summoned to appear before him. The implication was that that fact could be made known in the Press. A summons of that nature could hardly be issued without becoming known. In the second place, he implied to me that some of the evidence at his disposal might possibly be released. Mr. Speaker, I prevented that from happening. I referred him to his principal, the Minister of Finance. He said the Minister of Finance was overseas. I then said there was an acting Minister of Finance. He asked who it was and I said it was Minister Heunis. He said he did not know where Minister Heunis was. I then traced Minister Heunis. At that time he was still in the north of the country where he had commitments. I established the movements of the Minister and telephoned Mr. Justice Mostert and told him where and when he could telephone Minister Heunis and advised him not to act on his own. That is what I did, and if there is anyone who thinks that I should have played a role on that particular day by making those disclosures public, then he is free to think so and it will simply have to be taken amiss of me. However, I did not see my way clear, in the position in which I found myself that day as candidate for Prime Minister, a day before the election of a Premier, to cause pandemonium within the ranks of my party. The election had to take an orderly course. Minister P. W. Botha was elected to be Prime Minister, and that is the end of the story.

Are you defending yourself?

I am not defending anything, neither myself, nor that hon. member. Let me make this clear. I am replying to a question put by the hon. Member for Pinelands, but if the hon. members do not want the reply, I will stop at once.

If you are defending yourself …

No, I am not defending anything. That hon. member will have to defend why he and his henchmen and certain Press groups waited for the right moment to harm this country. Many of them waited for a suitable moment to do this country an injury. After all, there ought to be such a thing in one as pride in one’s country. Why did they wait so long?

But, Mr. Speaker, after the present Prime Minister had been elected—it must be realized that we were then already in the beginning of October, and this is merely seen from my side as Minister of Foreign Affairs, whereas there were still 16 other Ministers— there were urgent problems we had in our relations with Transkei and which I had to go and discuss with Mr. Matanzima at Queenstown on 5 October, and which also required the attention of the Prime Minister. Shortly after that, from approximately the 14th to the 18th, we had the five Western foreign Ministers here for discussions, and this necessitated a few days’ preparation and consultation on the part of the Prime Minister. After that we had the South West Africans, the leaders in South West Africa, who arrived by plane on the 18 th and whom the Prime Minister had to speak to personally. On the 20th there was a briefing of the foreign Press, which I had to undertake after consultation with the Prime Minister. And so it went on. On the 28th we went to George, where the hon. the Prime Minister made a speech, and I had the privilege of appearing with him. On 1 November I had to visit Windhoek and the north of South West Africa, with instructions from the hon. the Prime Minister and the directive that we should remain in constant contact with each other. On 15 November, we had to meet the Rhodesian leaders at the Limpopo. This required preparation and was attended and led by the hon. the Prime Minister personally. On 16 November we had to meet the National Press Union and address them, and that evening from 18h00 until approximately 00h30, we had to interview the Aktur leaders of South West on problems they were experiencing. On 23 November, the Prime Minister had to preside at the discussion with the Venda Cabinet in preparation for their independence. On 25 November, I had to go to New York with detailed consultations which had to be cleared with the Prime Minister in advance.

Just lay your diary on the Table!

Now hon. members can see for a moment what rested on the shoulders of the new Prime Minister, and this was merely the foreign affairs part of his programme. I am mentioning this because some appreciation should be expressed from that side. There should be an expression of thanks. That is what they should do. They should express thanks and appreciation that this country has a Prime Minister who acted in that way, in spite of all these commitments and in spite of all these matters with which he had to familiarize himself and which he handled skilfully and courageously to the great benefit of South Africa. There should be thanks from their side. That motion of theirs should be revised. A word of thanks should be added, or else they do not fulfil their role and they are by no means the honourable Opposition. In that case, they are not facing up to the facts and the truth at all. Everyone in the country now knows what role the Prime Minister played in these matters. Everyone has appreciation for it. Even leaders from abroad have appreciation for the role he played, but not the Opposition. The Opposition only has appreciation for the things that plunge South Africa into the mud. They only have appreciation for that which damages and hurts the country. That is what they strive for and what they stand for, and that is also the reason why they were rejected in last year’s election and why they will keep on being rejected. They will continue to be rejected until they begin to work for South Africa and start placing the interests of South Africa first.

When is Connie going to get his chance?

Mr. Speaker, we must not get bogged down in the position we are now in. The hon. the Prime Minister indicated briefly, succinctly and in a straightforward manner that we accept the report. He did not try to cover up. He showed that in spite of all these activities, not only matters of international import, but matters with far-reaching implications for our survival, he devoted his full attention to the Information issue and read through hundreds of pages of records in between to arrive where we have found ourselves within this short span of time, namely where we have before us the report of the Erasmus Commission which states its conclusions openly and frankly.

Where is the outcry about a covering up now? Now everyone agrees that the findings of the Erasmus Commission have opened things without fear or favour. Those who are or who might be guilty, or who have to accept responsibility, have been identified. What more should have been done during this period by the Government and the Prime Minister than has in fact been done? Shortly after he became Prime Minister he enlarged the committee. As and when the facts and their implications came to his knowledge, he brought in the Auditor-General. He brought in the Auditor-General because it was his resolute intention to see to it that the official responsible to Parliament, was also informed. The committee of Mr. Pretorius was then already on the point of recommending that a judicial commission be appointed. It was in the midst of this turbulence that Mr. Justice Mostert released evidence which he had heard. I can tell the House today that the Prime Minister was about to disclose some of the more serious matters himself. He could not do so to soon, however, because taxpayers’ money was at stake and he wanted to prevent more of it from being forfeited.

That is the way a responsible Government acts. If the hull of a ship is holed, it does not abandon the ship. It repairs the hole. It fixes it and pumps out the water. It does not allow its crew and its ship to sink. That is precisely what the Government and the Prime Minister did, and this is what the public of South Africa expects of the Government. The public of South Africa does not expect us to cover up. They do not expect us to condone the things that are wrong. That is not what we are doing. The public of South Africa expects the Government to operate a clean administration openly and honestly, and this is basically the case. Does the Opposition want to allege that in the rest of the Public Service wrongful things, irregularities, are taking place? If they want to do so, they are committing a gross injustice to all my former colleagues in the Public Service. Basically this country has a clean, orderly, good, thorough and effective administration. The public of South Africa demands that when irregularities occur, the Government should not merely defend them or cover them up, but that there should be a mechanism by means of which the irregularities can be exposed and dealt with in an orderly manner and in accordance with our legal precepts and system of values. This is what happened in this case as well. I want to allege this afternoon that it happened to a greater extent under this Government than in any other Western country.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, under no circumstances do I reply to a question by that hon. member. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, may I speak for two minutes longer to compensate for my time which he has wasted? In no other Western country has there been such open and effective action as there has been under this Government.

Quote us some examples.

Let us compare Watergate with this case. If action had been taken in the case of Watergate as has been taken here, President Nixon would have been president to the end of his term. That is the difference, and the hon. member knows it very well. He is merely trying to take spiteful pleasure out of this now.

Hon. members have heard that there are certain projects that have been transferred to the Bureau for National and International Communication. I should like to inform the House about the present position in respect of those projects falling under our jurisdiction. Mr. Engelbrecht, the Director General of the Bureau, is again undertaking a personal internal study in respect of each of these projects. In this regard, we are being assisted by former Chief Magistrate Lindeque of Pretoria, who has been appointed to analyse certain aspects of the projects. Where there is the slightest hint of irregularities, the evidence will be forwarded directly to the Erasmus Commission. But surely it cannot be expected that useful and efficient organizations that serve the State and all of us—they even serve the Opposition in that they enable them to sleep in safety and live in this country and enjoy freedom of speech— should be disbanded merely because the Opposition thinks that secret projects should not be carried out.

There are a great number of organizations that are active in the field against South Africa. There are more than 80 in the USA alone. I am not even talking about the multitude of UN organizations that are conducting a fierce campaign against us. In sophisticated, virulent, subtle and underhand ways, they are operating against South Africa. They are to be found in Britain, in Germany, in fact, all over the world. They are not being investigated. Their funds and activities remain secret. If we are to stand here defenceless and helpless with our hands behind our backs and everything we do has to be done in the sight of our enemies we shall never attain our goal. Obviously, as the hon. the Prime Minister has said, there are the rules of the game which we shall abide by. One of those is the lawful utilization of funds for effective secret projects. Proper supervision and control will be exercised over that. This Government stands for and has committed itself to that. I am pleased to be able to state that we are making quite a good progress with a study and evaluation of the various projects that are still in operation. One problem which we are experiencing is that the representatives of some of our media telephone officials working on some of the projects and tell them that they know all about them. They exert pressure on the officials. They intimate to the officials that they are merely waiting for the correct moment to release the information. If it has now become the object and the approach of people in our country to carry out witch-hunts on every possible organization, on organizations in the service of the State and of the people of South Africa—also of the Black people, the Brown people and the Asians, because their interests, their salvation and welfare are, in my view, also being served by many of the projects we undertake—we have enemies in our own bosom. What it amounts to then is that there are no complaints about irregularities, and that the object is not to expose malpractices and things that are wrong and irregular, but that we are being opposed simply because South Africa dares to oppose its enemy. Then they are storming the very structure of our society. Then they want to destroy our society as well as our system of values and our structure of order. In that case, surely we are no longer dealing with irregularities or anomalies, but supposed irregularities are used to disparage sound projects that we are operating and which serve to ensure the salvation and welfare of us all. We must guard against that, a counter must be found to that, and it must really be prevented. The former Department of Information, now known as the Bureau, for which we shall get a new name in due course because the present one is too long, consists of officials who serve overseas as well as in South Africa. They love their fatherland and they are making many sacrifices. I should like to make an appeal and ask that in our speeches and in our references to the Department of Information, we should please not create the impression that everyone in our Information service has committed irregularities. That is simply not fair towards our officials abroad and here in South Africa, officials who would like to continue to serve their country honourably. I should like to make this appeal to hon. members.

In conclusion, without detracting from the importance of the debate—it is an important debate, it is an important matter, it is a tragic matter, it is a painful matter—I want to point out that the world onslaught against South Africa has not stopped as a result of this debate. Our enemies have not stopped planning and operating because we are conducting a debate here on the report of the Erasmus Commission. They are carrying on relentlessly. At the moment there is an election in progress in South West Africa. After that, extremely momentous decisions have to be taken that may even influence the course of the history of Southern Africa. In Rhodesia, the situation may take a serious turn requiring urgent attention. Then there are also serious situations in Angola, Mozambique and Zambia. A growing economic recession is descending on parts of Southern Africa. At the moment a delicate balance is being maintained in respect of the situation in Southern Africa. Any disturbance of this balance might constitute incalculable consequences. In the light of these facts, it must be obvious that the stage has been reached where we should guard against getting bogged down in the mud and mire of mistrust and impotence as a result of our petty squabbles and politicking. We have to move forward. We now have the opportunity here of discussing the report of the Erasmus Commission, and we must do so. Here the hon. Opposition has the chance to express criticism and put forward suggestions. It is their right, and I do not dispute it. However, I do want to request that we should not remain stuck in the mud and mire of the events. The report has been published and nothing has been covered up. Nothing will be covered up in future either. The hon. the Prime Minister has acted honourably and with skill. It is as a result of his actions that this report has been placed before us, perhaps to the sorrow of all of us, but nevertheless it was essential. We must emerge stronger from this. Whilst one is not proud of the findings, one does remain grateful that one lives in a country where these irregularities are exposed. That is our basic situation. The future is beckoning to us. Southern Africa may take either of two courses. It can take the course of collapse, whereby conflicts will immediately increase, or it can elect to try and reach an understanding in order to conclude international agreements. Here, I include the outside world as well as the UN in respect of South West Africa. In that way a strengthening of our situation can be accomplished, and we will be granted more time to take care of our domestic problems. In this regard I am thinking of our problems in respect of our urban Black people as well as the implementation of the new proposals in connection with the Coloureds and the Asians. On the one hand we can take the course of conflict with its destructive consequences. On the other hand, however, we can avail ourselves of the opportunity of accepting the challenge and gaining the victory. Thereby, we can achieve a greater feeling of solidarity among all the population groups of Southern Africa. We can achieve a victory for stability and progress. These opportunities, too, should be taken into account in this debate. As Minister of Foreign Affairs, I make this appeal to all hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall refer to some aspects raised by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs which have a direct bearing on the report of the Erasmus Commission. However, there are a few things with which I want to deal straight away. In the first place I want to make it very clear that the NRP and I, have repeatedly and in public, on television and in the Press, admitted openly—and we are now doing so again—that certain secret bodies are necessary and in the interests of South Africa. We have repeatedly stated that we support the use of such bodies and organizations on two conditions. The first condition is that they serve the interests of South Africa, and not the interests of the Government or the NP. The second condition is that proper control should be exercised over the money made available to such bodies. On those conditions we acknowledge the necessity of the existence of certain organizations and support them. Therefore, when the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs delivers a plea, or tries to defend himself on that basis, he is not defending himself against this party, because we have never attacked him on this basis.

Another aspect to which I should like to react, is the fact that not all the officials of the former Department of Information are involved. Obviously they are not all involved. Consequently I associate myself with what was said by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We admit it and we do not want to harm innocent people either.

However, there is something about the speech of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs that I do not understand. Against whom was he defending himself during the first half of his speech? He referred to the incident of Van Rooyen’s visit and the visit to the present hon. Prime Minister. But we have never attacked him on that score. As a matter of fact, I believe the hon. the Minister did the correct thing. We have never attacked him; so against whom is he defending himself? [Interjections.]

Against Andries!

I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his leader is peering over his shoulder. He can virtually feel his new leader breathing down his neck. [Interjections.] So now I know against whom he was defending himself. However, one important question arises from the account he has given. That question is this: What was Dr. Connie Mulder’s reply when he was confronted with the facts prior to the election of the new Prime Minister? Did he admit or deny them? He was paid a visit. What was his reply to the allegations made against him?

He explained why he was not prepared to withdraw as a candidate in the election of a Prime Minister.

That was not my question. I asked whether he admitted or denied the allegations against him.

I said he gave an explanation. [Interjections.]

An explanation can be anything. The clear question calling for an answer, however, is whether he admitted or denied the allegations. I do not want to know whether he furnished an explanation, but whether he admitted or denied the allegations. [Interjections.] That is the question to which I want an answer and I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will be able to give me an answer.

While you are about it, Vause, also ask when the NP is going to split. [Interjections.]

Now, Mr. Speaker, I should also like to congratulate the Prime Minister on his maiden speech in his new capacity in this House. I have said before that when he is serving the interests of South Africa, he will get the support of my party and of myself. When there is criticism to be expressed, it will be expressed, as in fact I intend doing today.

†Mr. Speaker, I should feel a sense of satisfaction in this debate today, because after all it was I who called for a commission of inquiry and for a special debate in this House. I called for a special session of Parliament. The date was 3 November—

Therefore, I should be satisfied. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition called for a Select Committee, but I believed that this Parliament was the place where a report from a judicial commission should be received. Today we have 101 pages of ammunition to justify the call I made on the hon. the Prime Minister.

I take no pleasure in entering this debate. Rather do I do so with a sense of anger, anger over the humiliation of the people of South Africa, the humiliation of my country, the humiliation of the institution of Parliament itself as a result of what has happened under the control of this Government and that hon. Prime Minister. I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs that this is a time when South Africa is unde international attack, when particularly—and probably more so than at any other time for a long time in our history—the reputation and credibility of government is vital for the future of South Africa. This is a time when we are supposed to be negotiating a new constitutional dispensation with the other races of South Africa. Therefore it is above all a time when confidence in the integrity and sincerity of government is absolutely vital for the achievement of agreement. What is more, confidence is required in the integrity and sincerity of the Minister who represented this Government in negotiations between this Government and the Black peoples of South Africa, and who represented this Government, appointed by this hon. Prime Minister, as the link—the person responsible for White/Black relationships. The credibility of the Government is tied to the credibility of the Minister who was used as this link and the channel of communication with our Black people.

It is against this background that the credibility of government itself becomes one of the highest priorities of patriotism. The destruction of that credibility is an act of sabotage against South Africa which cannot be forgiven. We are today debating a report on events which, I believe, have strained and destroyed that credibility. We have had a reply from the hon. the Prime Minister which I regret to say does not start to provide the answers. This is an issue so serious that it cannot be patched over by a face-lift or a little plastic surgery. It needs a heart transplant, Mr. Speaker, not a little plastic surgery, the patching or the closing of a few loopholes. What did the hon. the Prime Minister say, Mr. Speaker? He blamed the KGB, the evil Marxist secret organization. Did the KGB inspire corruption and the misuse of Government funds? Were there KGB agents in the Department of Information or did Russian espionage cause the things which are now before this House for consideration? [Interjections.] It is for the hon. the Prime Minister to decide. He said it was a Marxist plot. He talked of KGB agents.

What a distortion!

It was the usual emotional appeal to the heart, the sentiment and the patriotism of people. I believe that patriotism does not mean an emotional approach. The only point which the hon. the Prime Minister succeeded in scoring was against me, and he scored it on the basis of a false and untrue report. That was the total number of points he scored. I want to know what dark powers would be unleashed if criticism against this Government and its integrity continued.

General Van den Berg and his Hitlerites.

What dark powers would be unleashed? What did the hon. the Prime Minister mean when he said that criticism and attacks on the Government and its credibility would unleash powers which would be beyond comprehension? This was a threat, and we are entitled to ask what those powers are and what they signify.

Bring Hendrik back!

One other aspect I want to deal with now, before I come to the report and deal with its contents, is the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement—and I shall come back to the ownership side later—that The Citizen will continue as a private newspaper. This morning there was published, in The Citizen, a report under the name of its political correspondent, Jaap Theron, a report which stated that members of the Government and members of my party had indicated that they would collect funds in order to keep The Citizen running. I want to say, on behalf of every member of the NRP, every MP and every Senator, that this is a downright lie. There is not a single word of truth in it. There is not a grain of truth in it. It is a deliberate lie and it was published in the so-called independent paper, the Government paper which was supposed to be independent. This is the paper that was to give a balanced and independent reflection of events. In passing I want to challenge the new leader in the Transvaal by asking whether the political correspondent of The Citizen newspaper was not, throughout the last election, a public relations officer for any organized group in the NP. Tjoepstil! [Interjections.] It has come to my knowledge that he was the public relations officer for either the head committee or the Transvaal members of Parliament.

Oh, nonsense!

There is the leader, he can deny it! This is the independent newspaper which is going to give a fair and independent reflection, and my information is, and I got that … no, I shall not say where I got it from … [Interjections.] … because he might be identified. I got that from a member of the Government sitting in this House. [Interjections.]

Order!

What I want to say is that what has now been revealed by the report we are debating cannot be atoned for by simply re-stabbing one political and three administrative corpses, corpses which were already politically dead to all intents and purposes. They have all retired. They are all out of the picture. It is not going to atone for the responsibility of government by simply stabbing and re-stabbing those corpses.

The report deals adequately and ruthlessly with them, as was its task and its duty. It was its task and its duty to wrap up the allegations which were already public knowledge. That task has been completed and now the responsibility moves to Parliament as the watchdog of the people. It was the commission’s duty, which it carried out, to consider any personal involvement in irregularities or corruption by those ultimately responsible for government. I want to say, without reservation, that I accept its findings that there was no personal enrichment by, or stain on the personal integrity of, Messrs. Vorster, P. W. Botha and Senator Horwood in the context of the report—i.e. the context of irregularities, personal gain or corruption within the scope of the investigation of the Commission.

It was not, however, the task of a judicial commission to determine political responsibility, blame or innocence. That is the duty of this Parliament. The NRP rejects the findings of the commission in regard to the political responsibility for what happened under the control of those gentlemen. We accept the findings in regard to their personal integrity, but not in regard to their political duties. We accept the commission’s recommendation, or obiter dictum, in regard to collective responsibility. The matter has been dealt with and I do not intend expanding upon it, but we believe that this is a fundamental facet in our accepted system of government. I refer to the concept of collective responsibility, that every member of a Government or a Cabinet shares equal responsibility …

Where is your authority?

If the hon. member had read the report of the commission, he would know where the authority comes from: Verloren van Themaat and others.

Quote them.

I have no quarrel with them; I am supporting that view. In the light of collective responsibility, as confirmed by the commission, every single Minister shares joint responsibility for everything that was done by Dr. Connie Mulder and for everything that was done under his control as a member of the Government. I totally reject the hon. the Prime Minister’s claim that lack of knowledge and ignorance of what has happened absolves him or his Government from collective responsibility. Ignorance is not an excuse. It can be a mitigating factor, but it does not absolve the Government from its responsibility. It shows, moreover, that the Government failed to carry out its duty when it failed to establish the facts. It is therefore not a mitigating factor, but an aggravating factor in their responsibility and their culpability for what went on. It is an aggravating factor that they failed to obtain the information—knowledge—which it was the duty of the Cabinet, and particularly that of the Cabinet subcommittee of three, to obtain.

I want to look at the whole tragic situation in the broader national perspective. I said publicly on Monday night, and I wish to repeat it, that I can see no Nat knights in shining armour on white chargers, waiting to ride out into the political wilderness to defend the collective integrity of Government. I also said that Government members would rally behind the hon. the Prime Minister and that one could forget about any imagined split in their ranks as long as they could find some credible sacrifices to slaughter. If they could find some credible sacrifices to slaughter, there would be a rallying of the ranks and they would all back the hon. the Prime Minister. I am not suggesting any implications or parallels, but it is an interesting fact of history to note that this very week, 44 years ago, on 5 December 1934, South Africa found itself with a new political dispensation when the UP was born. I have been reading the debates and it is interesting to note that less than a year before that, the then Nationalist Government members were rallying solidly behind then leader, screaming that they would have nothing to do with a new party and pledging undying loyalty to a lost cause. Some of them may remember that if one pledges one’s loyalty to a lost cause, one goes down with the cause. What is significant now, however, is the fact that this report which we are now debating has justified the 30 years which that party, born 44 years ago, spent in the wilderness, keeping alive the cause of opposition. That party and its successor, to which I belong, the NRP, have been in the wilderness for 30 years, keeping the cause of opposition alive. It kept alive a responsible alternative, a second dimension to politics. Through all our crises, our breaks and our troubles, it kept alive a second alternative, a second dimension, so that if the NP ship went down, everyone would not have to go down with it, and so that if the hull of the Nationalist ships credibility was holed it would not take all South Africa down with it. We have kept alive that alternative. This is not the occasion to debate it, but I must say frankly to my hon. friends on my right that, however, well that party may and does perform in an issue like this, it cannot keep the system alive by offering an alternative acceptable to the broad mass of South Africans. What has happened is that the Government has gone for one-dimensional Government.

It has striven for too long for one-dimensional Government, and this is the weakest point in our international armour. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs should know that one-dimensional Government, for which his party strives, is the weakest point in our armour against the total onslaught on South Africa, because once a political party becomes identified as the State, once it becomes synonymous with the country, the failure of that party destroys the country with it. That is why there is such a great danger in a one-party system—in one-dimensional politics—which is this Government’s objective. It is the strength of our system, its superiority over Marxism and dictatorship. In a democracy, if a political party fails, then there is another party to take its place. Then the system, the State and the country survive. This is our strongest weapon. I believe the Government has been proven in this debate to have let the country down. However, that the scandal has been revealed is itself a triumph for democracy, a triumph for the parliamentary system and parliamentary scrutiny. Although I do not associate myself with all their objectives, it is also a triumph for a free Press, both Afrikaans and English—because the Government-supporting Press has also played its part as a free Press—in exposing and reporting what has been going on. If we had been a Marxist State these revelations would never have emerged. Where there is no parliamentary scrutiny and no freedom to report openly what people have a right to know, things can be suppressed. It was the existence and the operation of Parliament, its system and the Press, which eventually brought to light what was going on. I believe this is what forced the Government to take action. Where there is no independent judiciary the same situation arises, but where there are courageous judges who refuse to be silenced, like Mr. Justice Mostert, who made his disclosures and who was relieved of his task, and Mr. Justice Erasmus, who followed him, then again the system triumphs. I believe we have got to keep our perspective with regard to this matter. These findings are only a symptom of a Government which has become so powerful that it thought it was above the law and above the people who elected it.

Nonsense!

No, Mr. Speaker, it is not nonsense. The commission has looked at criminal responsibility. I am concerned with parliamentary responsibility, the responsibility of the political party in power, in which and under which a Minister who has been found by this commission to be incompetent over many years, only two months ago almost became Prime Minister of South Africa. There are some of his supporters who believe that had it not been for the hon. the Foreign Minister, he might have been the Prime Minister of South Africa. He came within 20-odd votes of being elected instead of this hon. Prime Minister. When this can happen in a party, then it has been in power too long, and there is something totally wrong.

I am concerned about two succeeding Prime Ministers who were the two leaders of the Governments in power. At least one for a long time, and the other for a short time, were aware of allegations and evidence of indisputable irregularities. Irregularities were first reported by the Auditor-General about June/July 1977, some 18 months ago. It was known then that there were irregularities. According to the report, the former Prime Minister, when he was told this, commented wryly—and the commission mentions it— how strange it was that people found strange reasons to come and visit him in the game reserve. In a matter of this seriousness this indicates to me a lack of understanding and appreciation for the fundamental feel for parliamentary government and financial control. I am concerned that a former Prime Minister could appoint a man to evaluate secret projects when he knew that that man had himself been involved and participated in the planning and initiating of one of the projects. He had ordered that man not to get involved, and therefore knew. Why did he order him not to get involved? Because he knew and he had had a report confirming that he was there. Yet he appointed that same man to investigate the same secret projects in which he had been involved. I am concerned about a former Prime Minister, who nurtured and trusted as a security adviser a person whom the commission found to be a double dealer, one whose organization and power made people fear for their very lives, whose power could create terror in people and who himself claimed arrogantly that if he wanted to do something, nobody would stop him and he would stop at nothing. I refer to paragraph 11.386 of the commission’s report. I think, however, that there is something much more serious. Today, 7 December, in the Beeld there appeared on the front page an article, “Lang Hendrik skiet van die heup af”. I want to quote what he said today: “Sê die generaal: ‘Sien, dit is wat ’n man kry oor jy kommunisme in hierdie land uitgeroei het. Hulle kan vergeet. Hendrik van den Bergh sal hulle nie breek nie’.” Our Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs talked about the danger of communism. Here a former Security Chief says he has “kommunisme uitgeroei”. Then he says this: “Luister nou mooi, aan die kommissie se bevindinge steur ek my weinig. Tewens, ek verwerp dit met die minagting wat dit verdien”. He continues: “Wat my betref, is die Erasmus-kommissie ’n klug. Hy maak horn aan dieselfde vergryp skuldig as die Smuts-regering gedurende die oorlog toe ek en John Vorster en ander op hoorsê-getuienis gevang en geïntemeer is”.

Shame!

Then he says: “Al verskil is dat mense nie nou weggesluit word nie, maar erger, dat die kommissie sy bevindings openbaar maak om mense te breek en reputasies tot niet te maak”. I suggest to the hon. the Prime Minister that this is a blatant contempt of a judicial commission. It is contempt of this Parliament on the morning that we are to debate this very matter. This is the man on whom the former Prime Minister, who has been exonerated from all blame, counted as his head of security, his security adviser and the head of the Bureau of State Security. I am concerned about a Prime Minister who can so place his reputation at stake in the hands of an auditor described in the report as “a broken reed”, a man who was so afraid of this same security officer that he went behind his back to report to the Prime Minister and who was finally terrorized into issuing a false report of his findings.

Then there is the question of the election itself. It was called after the former Prime Minister was aware that there were investigations in hand and that there had been evidence of irregularities. Yet the facts of those investigations, of even the existence of the inquiry, were withheld from the electorate. That is something that is totally unforgivable.

It is incredible that the former Prime Minister should have reappointed Dr. Mulder to the portfolio of Information and allowed the whole sorry mess to continue. I want to ask the present Prime Minister whether he supports and approves of these actions by his predecessor which I have listed. He must tell this House. If he accepts and supports those actions then we can expect that they can be repeated. Alternatively, will he say to the House that he rejects the things I have quoted, that he does not agree with his predecessor and that they will not continue or recur?

Were you here this morning when I spoke, or were you asleep?

The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with some of them, but he did not deal directly, positively and specifically with most of these allegations.

It seems incredible to us that both Prime Ministers, the present Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister, knowing that a total of R64 million had been allocated to Secret Services, did not bother to find out what it was being spent on and how it was being controlled; that they could carry on year after year objecting but not knowing. In the face of all this evidence the report finds that the only criticism of Mr. Vorster was that he had “done nothing for nine months”, that he had “erred unwittingly” and was “then a sick man”. We do not accept that this excludes the former Prime Ministers from personal and collective responsibility to Parliament. Although the evidence of several witnesses has been summarily rejected, we believe that in his responsibility to Parliament he has not been exonerated. It is beyond my comprehension that all that happened after the Auditor-General reported, despite all the whispers down the corridors of power in Pretoria—in every restaurant and every tea-room the whispers were going on, whispers which have been proved true by the report we have in front of us—despite all the whispers and particularly those in Pretoria, neither the Prime Minister nor the former Prime Minister nor any member of his Cabinet ever heard …

When did you hear them?

I heard the first rumours round about August/September last.

What did you do about it?

He is not the Government.

I am not in control of the Government. [Interjections.] I demanded that the Government make inquiries in order to determine whether the stories were true. I can quote passages from my speech—if I still have it here with me in the Cape—where I challenged the Government to investigate in order to determine whether the stories were true or untrue. After the Robert Smit murders the rumours became worse. They were spread all over the country.

†There was talk of millions of rands in Army steel trunks, numbered bank accounts, farms and stashed millions in Paraguay and yet none of this appears to have reached the ears of any member of the Government. One hears it every day. People talk to you in the street or over meals and ask you if you have heard this or that. Rumours were floating all over South Africa but they never reached the ears of the Government. I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister what is being done about clearing these rumours. We have a commission going into currency control regulations and we have one dealing with Information, but these are other matters. What is being done to establish the facts and put an end to these rumours?

Let me now deal with the present Prime Minister. Again, I accept without question his personal integrity and exclusion from any corruption. I cannot, however, accept that he is absolved from political responsibility. It is claimed that he inherited the situation and it is true that he objected to the use of the Special Defence Account. However, if as a matter of conscience one is at odds with one’s own Government and one’s own leader—and I am not going to requote what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has already quoted—and if one believes something is wrong, then one is not entitled to stand up in this House and pretend that one knows nothing about it. Our political system demands that if one is faced with a responsibility which one’s conscience forbids one to carry out, one must take remedies, either by relinquishing that responsibility, by publicly stating one’s objection to it or by getting out if there is no other way. No duty and no party loyalty overrides conscience and duty—to yourself and to Parliament. The very least the hon. the Prime Minister should have done, was to make sure that, apart from a simple certificate, he personally was satisfied that the money he did not want to transfer from the Special Defence Fund was properly handled and that he knew what it was being used for. If he was not satisfied, why did he not demand an explanation from the hon. the Minister of Finance and the former Prime Minister? Why did he go on for two or three years before he eventually put his foot down? It is claimed that he inherited a situation and refused to continue with it. I believe that his first responsibility when he became Prime Minister should have been to satisfy himself regarding the expenditure and what the money was being spent on. After all, he became chairman of the Cabinet subcommittee on secret funds. When he became Prime Minister he was serving on the Cabinet committee.

What was that?

I am talking about the Cabinet committee of three. [Interjections.]

I never served on a Cabinet committee of three.

You did not?

No.

Was there no such committee—[Interjections.]—of three which dealt with secret funds? [Interjections.] I have it on record that the hon. the Minister of Finance says that there was no such committee. We shall deal with that. [Interjections.]

Order! All the hon. members need not answer.

The only action the hon. the Prime Minister undertook, was to expand the departmental committee. However, his most unforgivable action was to dissolve the Mostert Commission. I am not going to deal with that as it has been dealt with by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Again, as in the case of the former Prime Minister, we cannot accept that this Prime Minister, although absolved from personal irregularities, can be absolved from his parliamentary responsibility.

The third person to be absolutely absolved, is the hon. the Minister of Finance. On 16 March 1978, when all that has now been revealed, was being investigated, the hon. the Minister of Finance deliberately stated in this House when dealing with the secret funds— and I quote from Hansard, 16 March 1978, col. 3173—

That is an untrue statement because the hon. the Minister knows that the hon. the Prime Minister as Minister of Defence refused to give any money and so he had to create this fund. The hon. the Minister of Defence refused to continue funding the Department of Information through the Department of Defence. There had been rows and confrontations about it. The very Act which was then being debated, was to evade difficulties, but the hon. the Minister of Finance stood up in this House and deliberately said that there had been no difficulties and no irregularities. Did he not know that the Auditor-General was then investigating the funds?

Why do you not read that properly? [Interjections.]

I read it very carefully. I can give other quotations, but I do not have the time. In reply to me he committed himself completely. He gave assurances about audit. He bluffed us and we accepted those assurances. That hon. Minister is excused by the Commission, but we do not accept that he is absolved from responsibility. He has to show how he came to Parliament and stated that there were no irregularities and no difficulties; he must prove that he did not know that there were irregularities and difficulties. That is why I talked earlier about the humiliation of Parliament and the humiliation of South Africa, when that sort of thing can happen in the sacred name of the Nationalist Government.

To put our stand clearly on record I am going to move a further amendment. I wish to make it clear that we use Parliamentary terminology in criticizing “the Government”, but that in fact our criticism is aimed at those in charge and therefore responsible for these irregularities. I move as a further amendment—

1. (1) misappropriation of vast sums of public money;
2. (2) maladministration and lack of control over secret funds;
3. (3) administrative abuse and arrogance by certain Ministers and senior officials; and
4. (4) an apparent reign of terror under the former Head of the Bureau for State Security;
   and calls for the resignation of the Government forthwith.”.

I have established our standpoint so that there can be no doubt.

May I ask the hon. member a question? If we resign who will take over? [Interjections.]

I am going to answer that later. I believe in a new political dispensation in South Africa. In the few minutes left to me it is my duty to make some positive suggestions. I have dealt with our criticism and our amendment embodies it, but I believe that we must also make positive proposals.

There must be a complete review of the financial control and administration of all secret services and funds and of the powers of the Auditor-General to control the accountability thereof. I welcome the acceptance by the Government of the recommendation on Auditor-General’s powers. I am pleased that the Government has accepted that. However, it does not go far enough. The whole system of secret funds must be reviewed. To achieve this we accept that a select committee of the House is the correct way of considering this. I have already said that we accept and recognize the need for covert activities and I need not elaborate on that.

In regard to The Citizen, which has been widely debated, we of course totally reject the use and misuse of the taxpayers’ money to publicize and support the interest of a political party, any party, Government or Opposition. It is totally unacceptable to us that this newspaper which has been financed by the taxpayer and has made everyone of us a shareholder to the tune of R32 million should be allowed to be sold to another organization. We believe that it is a state-owned business until it has liquidated its liability to the State. Since it has been established and funded by the State, it is the property of the State, morally if not in terms of any agreements into which the Government entered. We believe that a judicial manager should be appointed to control the newspaper until its affairs can be properly wound up and any liabilities settled.

Losses which the Government may have suffered in the process must be atoned for or re-paid. The pension benefits, gratuities and pensions, of those persons who are found guilty of corruption or irregularities should be forfeited to and made recoverable by the State to compensate for their actions. This is the case in respect of any other public servant who is dismissed for dishonesty. Any Railway servant who is dismissed for dishonesty also loses his pension and his retirement benefits. I believe that anyone who is found guilty in proceedings which may follow should be deprived of any benefit he has had, because it is totally wrong that the taxpayer should have to contribute to the privileged retirement of people who have irregularly used the taxpayers moneys.

Are you not passing judgement at the moment?

I referred to those persons found guilty. I am saying it now in the proper place, because it is in this House that such a decision will have to be taken. It will have to be taken by this very Government. However, by the look on the face of the hon. the Prime Minister I can see that he thinks it is quite in order that tens of thousands of rand in gratuities and pensions will be paid and will continue to be paid to people who have defrauded the taxpayers of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Most important is that South Africa needs a new political deal, that South Africa needs something which can restore credibility and confidence in government. That is the answer to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. The fundamental justification for what the Government has allowed to happen, for its extraordinary methods, is based on a false premise. They are not trying to sell South Africa. They are trying to sell NP Government policy. [Interjections.] It is because the Government is trying to sell an unsaleable product that it has had to use increasingly desperate means in what is itself a lost cause. If the whole structure of race relationships, of grand and petty apartheid and of all its parasite policies could be re-examined and adapted to South Africa’s modem needs we would never have had this situation. South Africa could have sold itself legitimately to the whole Free World.

This is not germane to the debate, but I want to make it clear that one of the reasons all this has happened is that the Government has been forced into this type of operation because it has lost touch with and is no longer able to provide solutions appropriate to the time and the age in which we live. What is relevant is that a new deal is inevitable. I forecast that there will be a new way of judging politicians. People will be classified as clean or unclean, no longer as verkramp or verlig. The clean will be those who are frank with the public and the unclean will be those who believe they are above the people. The people have the right to demand frankness and the higher a man is, the greater is his accountability. That is why we aimed, and why I said our amendment was aimed, at the Prime Ministers in charge, because they have the highest responsibility and therefore also the highest accountability. One cannot separate irregularities and personal corruption from public responsibility. To use money to propagate and advance the policies of a political party, whether Government or Opposition, is public corruption. The individual may not benefit, but if the party and the cause it serves benefits, then it is as much corruption as the swindling of an expense account. This whole monstrous, power-drunk super structure which sees itself as South Africa, if allowed to, will destroy South Africa as it has destroyed the credibility of the Government. If the party is destroyed, however, South African can still survive.

*That is why we in the NRP believe that the inner conflict raging in South Africa at the moment, the inner conflict between the sense of honesty of the vast majority of those supporting the NP and their loyalty to their party, must now be brought to a head. Everybody must choose between their blind loyalty to their party and their sense of honesty, fairness and justice. It cannot take place within the framework of the party in power when these things happened.

†One cannot restore confidence within the framework of the same body, the same organization, virtually the same Cabinet, with the exception of one member, which allowed confidence to be destroyed. How can that same Cabinet be expected to restore credibility? It is the role and the aim of the NRP …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Durban Point say that the choice the voters have to make is between their honesty and this Government? The implication is clearly that this Government is dishonest. May the hon. member make that insinuation?

Order! I see nothing wrong in the hon. member’s argument. The hon. member may proceed.

I want to conclude by stating the role and the aim of the NRP.

†We see ourselves as the nucleus and the catalyst on which a new South African credibility can be built. When the hon. the Minister of Agriculture asks who would form the next Government I want to say that we will be at the heart of a new flood of feeling …

Before or after the harvest?

… reminiscent of what has happened before in South Africa and which I believe the people who take honesty and morality seriously are looking for. When they hear the laughter of these hon. members … [Interjections.] …

Order!

… when I talk of morality, it is a message to those people outside who take morality in public life much more seriously, that they are out of touch with the people they think they represent. That is why I believe …

Why do you not fight by-elections?

We will pick our time. That, Mr. Speaker, is why we are here and that is, I believe, our duty.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for having this opportunity to participate in the debate, because there can be no doubt that this is a very important debate. I am not one who likes to speak at length, but if ever there was an occasion on which I should have liked to speak for two hours, it is today. Unfortunately the rules of this House do not permit of this. Therefore I shall have to do my best in a relatively short time.

The main purpose of this extraordinary session of Parliament is, firstly, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, to discuss the report of the Erasmus Commission. I want to say at once that I think that what this commission— with Mr. Justice Erasmus, as chairman, and Adv. Lategan, S.C., and Adv. Smalberger, S.C., as his fellow commissioners—has succeeded in doing within a month, is something really exceptional. Therefore I want to associate myself with the standpoint of any other colleague who may speak from this side of the House that not only this House, but also South Africa, really owes a sincere word of thanks to this commission for what it has done in such a short time.

†How different was the so-called Mostert Commission. Judge Mostert is now, of course, the hero of the Opposition and the leftist Press, and the martyr not only of that Press, in particular, but also of the Opposition. What did he do? He was asked to inquire into exchange control malpractices. That was the crux of his inquiry. Judge Mostert went very wide. I am not going to comment on that any further, but he did go very wide in interpreting his terms of reference.

He had to root out the cancer.

It came to the point where Judge Mostert summarily published entirely one-sided, untested evidence for which he was hailed as the great saviour of this country’s morals.

Has it been proved correct or not?

The point is, as my. honourable friend knows as well as I do, that it is the tradition of this country’s legal system that one does not accuse a man in public until one has heard his side of the story. However black the deeds may be of anybody named there—and I am not wishing to vindicate or justify anybody who may be guilty of any kind of irregularity—I say that Judge Mostert had no business to publish that evidence without testing it and without giving those who were criticised and attacked in that evidence an opportunity to put their case.

[Inaudible.]

What remedy did he have?

Where is Connie?

He had a perfect remedy. He should have published a report—it could have been an interim report—virtually immediately. But that interim report would have required of him to publish balanced evidence. He did not do so. He did what he did after asking to see the Prime Minister. I am the Minister immediately responsible for that commission, and I state today that the hon. the Prime Minister never asked or invited Judge Mostert to see him. Judge Mostert asked to see the Prime Minister, and just as soon as the hon. the Prime Minister could possibly find the time, with the heaviest list of commitments any Prime Minister could ever face in the first few weeks of assuming that high office, he arranged a meeting. I say to you today, Sir, to this House and to the country, that I was absolutely appalled at the conduct and behaviour of Judge Mostert in the presence of the hon. the Prime Minister. I have already stated this in public, though I have not given the full account. There is a saying of Frances Bacon that a much talking judge is like an ill-tuned cymbal. I think Judge Mostert might like to consider the weight of those words. Let us, however, leave him there for the moment.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I ask your ruling on the extent to which an hon. member may criticise a judge in this House?

Order! The point is that Judge Mostert acted as a commissioner, as we know, and I shall only intervene when I think that the criticism of him as a commissioner is such as to intimate clearly that he is unfit to be a judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa. That has not yet happened. The hon. the Minister may continue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is perfectly obvious that I was talking of Judge Mostert as a commissioner. The inconsistency of that hon. member is breath-taking. For some time today we have been listening to criticisms by the Opposition of the distinguished Erasmus Commission. The hon. member then sat quietly and never raised any point of order.

In the second place I would like to pay tribute to the hon. the Prime Minister. Since he assumed his high office I have been very closely associated with him in dealing with these matters which are the subject of debate today. If anybody remotely suggests that the hon. the Prime Minister, either in this period or before, was trying to engineer a cover-up or was associated with a cover-up, I say that it is a blatant lie. I can describe it in no other way. The hon. the Prime Minister has tried to do precisely the opposite all along. That is absolutely clear from the facts, which are undisputed. In the light of all the slurs that are being thrown about, I would like to say that our Civil Service stands absolutely unblemished and loyal in its stature and reputation. A small handful of people would appear, from the inquiries that have taken place and from the reports that have been made, to be guilty of irregularities of certain kinds.

I immediately want to state my viewpoint in this regard, as I have stated it throughout, that I condemn any irregularity of that kind, be it within the Civil Service or outside. I condemn it absolutely, and in respect of people who are guilty of the misappropriation of public funds and of other irregularities such as those that we are discussing, the law should take its course. That is my absolutely unequivocal and unqualified standpoint. A small handful of officials have erred, and we should not extend the debate to casting suspicion on the administration of the country, either in so far as the Government is concerned, in so far as the Civil Service is concerned or in so far as the total public administration of the country is concerned. Their standards are of the highest.

The Government is not guilty of corruption. Tomorrow I shall have the privilege to introduce a motion in the Other Place and if I cannot, through lack of time, substantiate some of these issues, I hope to have a further opportunity to do so before Parliament adjourns. I want to state further that the Government has not practised a cover-up. The facts, to any reasonable and fair-minded man, speak absolutely for themselves. Hon. members have also referred to the question of joint Cabinet responsibility. I want to know whether any hon. member of the Opposition can name any authority of status that states that a member of a Cabinet is responsible for something another member of that Cabinet has done when under no circumstances whatsoever did he have any information about the other member’s conduct or activities and could not obtain that information despite sustained efforts to do so?

Why not?

I shall prove it. Hon. members should not talk loudly now. They will have an opportunity to speak. I have been listening to their interjections long enough. To say that no matter what any member of the Cabinet does, whether his colleagues in the Cabinet had an opportunity or not to know what he was doing, that man’s actions immediately commit his fellows to equal responsibility, is a doctrine that I have never seen stated by any authority. I would like to hear where that doctrine is stated.

Mr. Speaker, allow me immediately to deal with a most distasteful happening in this House a few moments ago when the hon. member for Durban Point was talking about this Information “scandal”. He used those words and referred to how the Auditor-General had raised these questions of irregularities in relation to this matter. He then read from Hansard. I have the Hansard in front of me. It is col. 3173 to which the hon. member referred. This was in relation to the debate on the new Bill regarding secret funds for which I personally was responsible. I need not read the whole paragraph, but I shall start where it states—

That has nothing to do with Information—

They still are—

In other words, in relation to those three Acts. However, the hon. member gets up here and accuses of me of lying to the House. That is what he said. [Interjections.] Here it is.

The Prime Minister refused to pay the money. [Interjections.]

I believe the hon. member might wish to make an apology at the very first opportunity.

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

Order! Is the hon. the Minister of Finance prepared to reply to a question?

No, Mr. Speaker. I shall come to my own position, but I first wish to make one or two other remarks. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition at first gave the impression that he accepted the Erasmus Commission report, but by the time he had completed his speech he had made a whole number of qualifications. I therefore want to ask him now whether he accepts the report or not.

Not on ministerial responsibility.

Does he accept the report or does he not? Let us have a straight answer. What is it?

Not on ministerial responsibility.

Do you see the equivocation, Mr. Speaker? One will never get a “yes” or “no” as an answer. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is so concerned and so sensitive about all the rules and regulations governing everything in public administration, yet he supported Judge Mostert when Judge Mostert made evidence public in absolute conflict with the regulations governing his commission.

That is not true.

Is it not?

Order!

I must say one thing, Mr. Speaker: Thank heavens I have never employed the hon. member for Musgrave as a legal adviser. May I read paragraph 12 of the regulations governing the Mostert Commission? It reads as follows—

You know that did not apply to the commissioner.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, it so happens that I have consulted senior counsel whom I regard as some of the most competent and distinguished I know in this country. I have consulted two senior counsels separately and independently and both have said that there is no doubt whatsoever in their opinion that this binds every member of the commission, in other words the judge as well. That was not a matter that worried the hon. the Leader of the Opposition however.

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wanted to know all sorts of things about me in so far as the auditing of these accounts is concerned. May I just draw the attention of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to a report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts of 1966, a report which was accepted by this House and which therefore has the force of law as far as our financial affairs are concerned. The committee refers to a decision taken in 1944. Who was in command, who was in Government, who ruled this country in 1944?

You were. [Interjections.]

Do not worry. Talk for yourself. I saw the light long before you did.

I want to quote from the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts [S.C. 3-’66]. The heading is “(2) Uitgawe aan Geheime Dienste en Militêre Inligtings-diens”. It reads as follows—

1. (a) bedrae wat vir die doel benodig is, afsonderlik aangegee word in die begroting van uitgawe van elke betrokke departement, met ’n verwysing by wyse van ’n voetnoot na die ander departemente (met uitsondering van die Departement van Verdediging) waarvan die begrotingsposte ’n soortgelyke voorsiening bevat; en
2. (b) die Kontroleur en Ouditeur-generaal in sy jaarverslag aan die Parlement die totale bedrag meld wat onder elke betrokke begrotingspos aan geheime dienste bestee is, asook die feit dat die betrokke Minister in elke geval gesertifiseer het, onder meer, dat die bedrag wel bestee is vir die doel waarvoor die Parlement dit bestem het.

It states further—

*That report was accepted by this House. Who was then in office? Let us analyse that position now. Let us hear now what we should have done under those circumstances. When did it arise? In 1944, the issuing of certificates.

†Mr. Speaker, I want to come to my own position, which I think has been raised extremely irresponsibly in this House. The hon. member will not—he cannot—unequivocally say to this House whether he accepts this report of the Erasmus Commission or not. May I say that when I heard that this commission was taking evidence and I listened to all the rumours and gossip, it occurred to me that I should make quite sure whether my name had possibly been mentioned in ways which I might like to react upon. I thereupon contacted the commission and asked whether if that was the case I might give evidence. That was arranged. After hearing me, the commission reported (paragraph 10.341)—

*I interrupt my account here merely to say that these negotiations naturally had to take place. I am, after all, the Minister of Finance. However, the negotiations always dealt with the aggregate amount only and every year I did everything in my power to reduce that amount and I did succeed in reducing it by millions. I shall come back to this and indicate why I am now referring to that. I read further from the report of the commission—

†You cannot have your cake and eat it. I ask again: Does the hon. member accept the commission’s report or not?

It is a question of ministerial incompetence.

He will not say; he cannot. He has tied himself in a complete knot. If he says he accepts the commission’s report, he has talked nonsense for 15 minutes at least. [Interjections.]

I became Minister of Finance early in 1975. On 21 February, Dr. Diederichs, who at that time was destined to become State President officially very soon, asked me if I would call on him because he wanted to talk about certain matters. We talked that afternoon. It was quite late in the afternoon. We talked about the budget. He had already committed himself to the expenditure in the next budget. I remember very clearly saying I thought some of the amounts were rather high. While we were talking about the budget, Dr. Diederichs said to me: “I must inform you that a decision was taken a couple of years ago that, because of the total onslaught on South Africa—which he explained at some length as he saw it—a decision had been taken at the highest level that there would be secret moneys used for a psychological warfare effort on the part of South Africa.” He went on to explain how it had been decided that this being part of the whole defence effort, there would be an amount in the Defence Account earmarked for this psychological warfare. “Sielkundige oorlogvoering” are the words he used. [Interjections.] I am just giving hon. members the facts. He then mentioned that this was of course a matter which Dr. Mulder, the Minister of Information, would have to direct. I asked whether Dr. Mulder could immediately come in so that we could discuss this and I could know exactly what it was about. We could not find Dr. Mulder, but we found Dr. Rhoodie, and Dr. Diederichs asked him to come in. Dr. Rhoodie then came in and Dr. Diederichs told him exactly what he had told me and went on to say that there were full and satisfactory arrangements made for the auditing and control of this part of the ‘‘totale aanslag”. Then Dr. Diederichs said: “But I have committed myself for five years—and we have already started—to a minimum of R15 million a year”. Dr. Rhoodie said this was absolutely essential because there were contracts and it was a long-term effort. I said I regretted but I could not accept that. I said that the budgeting programme was an annual exercise and that I could under no circumstances bind myself to five years or any period beyond the next year, nor to R15 million per year. That was absolutely categorical. In fact, after that I succeeded on two occasions in reducing the amount to below R15 million, on another occasion to below the R20 million that was strongly asked for and on yet another occasion to R15 million from R23,9 million. I did everything in my power to reduce the amount and said to Dr. Rhoodie and to Dr. Mulder: “We have got to phase this thing down”. I was never given any indication of any details whatsoever. All they told me was that the thing was called “Projek Senegal”. I said that Treasury must surely have some details as to the expenditure. They said that it had been decided at the highest level that no details could be given as it was so secret; that we must abide by it and simply talk in terms of a total.

Within a matter of months the Department of Information approached me and asked me whether I would immediately instruct the Treasury to pay out a considerable amount, running into a few million rand, for the purchase of a newspaper in Europe. I said that I could not under any circumstances do that. I was not prepared to authorize it. The thing fell through. I reported it to the hon. the Prime Minister and he supported me. That was the only time—with one exception, which concerned a very similar matter in respect of which I also refused to authorize payment by the Treasury—when I was given any detail of any kind concerning this account. I have here a whole record in writing—the Erasmus Commission refers to it—of how the Secretary of the Treasury, at my request and also on his own initiative, asked the Department of Information time and time again to give us some indication of the amounts and for what purposes they were used and that we were told that it was absolutely secret. It is in writing. It was said that the Minister of Information could report only to the Prime Minister. The point of the matter is that this is the system I inherited. I knew nothing whatsoever at any time about The Citizen, in no shape or form.

Did you go to the hon. the Prime Minister and ask him?

Why and when would I have gone to the hon. the Prime Minister? What did I know about it?

Because you were not satisfied.

I spoke to more than just the hon. the Prime Minister. I spoke to the hon. the Minister of Defence and he spoke to me. I also spoke to the hon. the Minister of Information. I can confirm what the hon. the Prime Minister said. Neither of us was happy about this arrangement I inherited. One must remember that I inherited this system. I was told that the auditing was absolutely satisfactorily arranged in accordance with the prescribed procedures. The Auditor-General never raised the matter. How could he do so in the light of what has happened since? He knew nothing about It. He did not know the details. I heard about The Citizen after I came back the other day from the USA where I attended a conference of the International Monetary Fund. I heard about it at the beginning of November. That is when for the first time I heard of anything which had to do with The Citizen. [Interjections.] How must I know about The Citizen if everything is absolutely withheld from me and from every other member of the Cabinet? [Interjections.] Do not talk rubbish and nonsense. I am giving hon. members the facts. I have with me part of the record of how I tried to obtain some information and was repeatedly told that it could not be done, that it was so secret that it could only be reported to the hon. the Prime Minister.

Who told you that?

Regarding this matter my hands are absolutely clean. I heard about irregularities—not concerning The Citizen or these big amounts—for the first time during the second part of last year when the Auditor-General uncovered certain irregularities regarding expenditure and the ignoring of Treasury instructions. When I learned about that, the then Prime Minister already knew about those things. I went to the hon. the Prime Minister and he said that he knew about these things. I said to him that the Auditor-General should continue and he agreed. He said that he wanted to assist the Auditor-General and that he was going to appoint another auditor as well. It was Mr. Reynders who was then appointed. Is it the Government’s or my fault if Mr. Reynders broke down under pressure?

Yes.

Whose fault is it?

Who appointed him?

I am talking of the attack made on me. Hon. members must not ask me stupid questions. [Interjections.]

There is a good deal more I can say to show that I knew nothing whatsoever about these so-called secret projects and The Citizen. In 1975 when a single project was put to me and I was asked to instruct the Treasury immediately to pay an amount running into a few millions to acquire a newspaper in Europe, I immediately said I would have nothing to do with it. Would I under those circumstances have had anything to do with a similar sort of thing involving far more money, to buy a South African newspaper with Government funds? Of course I would not. I condemn that. The commission accepted that and the commission had all the facts. But this—I almost called it half-baked—Opposition that sits here in judgment from a high moral pedestal, which it is not qualified to do, has the effrontery to attack the bona fides of the Prime Minister and the previous Prime Minister … [Interjections.] I heard what was said. There will no doubt be further attacks, but fortunately I shall have an opportunity of talking in the Other Place tomorrow. There are other things I have to say in defence of this Government.

I conclude by saying that this Government is not corrupt, that it never has been corrupt. I conclude also with the statement that a small handful of officials have apparently made themselves guilty of serious irregularities—no matter whether they be senior or junior … [Interjections.]

I condemn it out of hand at all levels. The law will take its course, legal proceedings will take their course and this commission will continue and we shall see how matters proceed. Nothing will be covered up. Our whole record proves it, and therefore I suggest to the Opposition that if they want to perform a service to the country which they profess to love—I wish I were convinced of that—they would act with a greater sense of responsibility and fair play, things that we hear so much about. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I understood the hon. the Minister of Finance to say in his concluding remarks that only a handful of officials were involved, but I want to add that a very senior member of the Cabinet was also involved. I think the hon. the Minister will be in accord with me on that point.

Mr. Speaker, my time is limited, and I shall do my best to be constructive. In the course of my remarks I want to deal with matters resorting under the portfolio of the Minister of Finance, and I hope he will stay here because I do not intend speaking for very long. The Minister of Finance, I think, has made out a very good case in relation to secret funds, and why they should in fact be audited in detail by the Auditor General. I shall motivate that point later on.

In the world we live in the standard of government required of South Africa should be higher than in most countries in the world. There are two inescapable facts; the one is that in South Africa we have one of the finest judiciaries in the world. The second is that we have a quality of Press freedom that most other countries in the world do not have. The Erasmus Commission in record time has produced a report which comes to grips with the main issues and on this they are to be highly commended. It is no use beating about the bush. South Africans are shocked and seriously disturbed at what has been revealed. I think however that South Africa can be pleased at the fact that there has been complete disclosure of the Commission’s report. Notwithstanding the predictions that the whole report would not be published and that there could be a cover up, the Prime Minister has done his duty to make a full report available and has given Parliament and the country an opportunity of debating the contents. This is what South Africa is entitled to expect from the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister will need every ounce of his wisdom, strength, skill and ability to achieve solutions to the many problems that face this country both internally and externally. The Prime Minister has taken over the premiership at the most difficult time in the history of South Africa.

Where he now seeks to cut this matter open to the bone and to expose those responsible he will have the support of every right-minded South African in doing just that. The magnitude of the gross abuse of funds has reached staggering proportions and has shocked, as I have said before, all South Africans. Our stand against corruption of any form is well-known. It should be flushed out every time and the people responsible must be prosecuted without regard to person or position.

We as a party strongly deprecate any wastage or abuse of public funds or expenditure which is found not to be in the best interests of South Africa. We live in difficult times, in times in which our very existence is at stake. As such we can understand that there must be secret funds to accomplish those matters that cannot be accomplished in public. Secret funds have to be spent with even more care and more circumspection than public funds. Public funds are regularly subjected to the scrutiny of the Auditor-General and to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The Select Committee on Public Accounts has the opportunity of not only examining the report of the Auditor-General, but also of probing in depth expenditure by departmental officials concerned. Thereafter the report of the Select Committee is laid upon the Table of this House where it is possible to conduct a debate on it and to make the public aware of its contents.

Secret funds, by their very nature, do not have the built-in safeguards of public scrutiny that public funds have. It is for that very reason that the people in control of those funds have to exercise a far greater degree of control, care and responsibility in the expenditure of those funds, something which did not happen in this particular case. This places a tremendous onus and responsibility on the shoulders of those people who are in control. There is a tremendous responsibility to ensure that there is justification for every cent which is spent under such secret fund. The Erasmus Commission has proved beyond any doubt that money was spent as though it was going out of fashion, that it was spent in a reckless and irresponsible manner, in a manner which was most prejudicial, and in a manner calculated to harm the taxpayers of South Africa in certain respects. We have to ensure that we take every precaution to prevent any repetition of this. For those reasons we should like to see the hon. the Minister of Finance propose early in the 1979 parliamentary session that, subject to section 42 (7) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, accounts belonging to secret funds be audited in full by the Auditor-General, the Auditor-General first to submit his report to the hon. the Minister of Finance, who, after consultation with the Auditor-General and the hon. the Prime Minister, will decide which findings the Auditor-General may disclose to Parliament in his report.

This request that we now put to the hon. the Minister of Finance is in accordance with the recommendations of the Erasmus Commission and will be in the interests of orderly and sound government. It will place additional responsibilities on the Auditor-General, on the hon. the Minister of Finance and on the hon. the Prime Minister.

I should also like to deal with the possible recovery of State funds. This morning I understood from the hon. the Prime Minister that there was approximately R19 million owing to the State by The Citizen or by the holding company of The Citizen. As such, it is imperative that The Citizen be sold. I believe, however, that it should not be sold without trying to safeguard some of the moneys outstanding and owing to the State. I believe that the shareholders should pledge their shares in safe-keeping and that those shares should only be released in agreement with the State once it has satisfied itself, in relation to the sale, that the interests of the State have been safeguarded at all costs. I believe that the shares cannot now be held by individuals without being pledged and held in trust in the meantime.

Secondly, there was the investment in fixed property. The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with that at some length. The amount involved totals R934 000. This must be properly investigated and properties not required must be disposed of in such a way as to ensure that as little loss as possible is sustained.

I may mention in passing that I have been told that in the case of one of the properties that have been bought, known as Valhalla, the State should not suffer a loss, and may even make some profit on the sale.

Thirdly, every payment relating to a “werkloon”, as it was called, the payment for a box at Loftus Versfeld and other payments mentioned in the commission’s report, must be subjected to the most detailed scrutiny and, where possible, the money must be recovered. Any payment from secret funds to a South African citizen which would have been taxable had it been paid from open funds, must be referred to the Commissioner for Inland Revenue. The unauthorized loan of $16 million—and here I direct myself again to the hon. the Minister of Finance—made by the department should, I believe, be fully investigated. The hon. the Minister has probably investigated it, but I believe we should be told all the details in relation to that foreign loan as well as the terms and conditions. If there is a clause in that loan agreement that anticipates payment, the amount of $16 million should be repaid immediately. The loans to Mr. Pieterse and his companies amounting to R825 000 and the loans to Mr. Luyt’s companies amounting to approximately R12 million must be carefully examined, and if the former Secretary of the department did not have the necessary authority to bind the State, if the recipients should have known that it was not a deal done at arm’s length, or if these deals can be set aside for any reason whatsoever, I believe they should be set aside and every effort should be made to obtain repayment of those amounts immediately. The investment of R12 million of Government funds in Mr. Luyt’s company cannot ever be justified under any circumstances, as the hon. the Prime Minister said this morning. On 8 June 1978 the former Secretary of the department gave authority for this loan to Mr. Luyt’s companies to be extended over a seven-year repayment period. I would further like to know how the former Secretary of the department could possibly have had the authority as late as 8 June 1978 to bind the Government in respect of the extension of a seven-year loan because at that point in time the Department of Information was under investigation by all sorts of bodies. As hon. members know, the former Secretary of the Department of Information actually resigned from his position very soon after that date. Therefore I do not believe that at that point in time, namely on 8 June 1978, any person dealing with the former Secretary could in good faith have allowed a situation where an extension of a loan was granted for seven years, because I do not believe that the former Secretary could have had the power to bind the Government in that regard. I believe that this matter must be urgently investigated as it would seem as if the R12 million which was placed there as call money, has now been turned into a long-term loan. Furthermore, it was done immediately prior or very shortly prior to the Secretary for Information retiring from the department.

The writing off of R2 million’s worth of interest must be fully investigated and one would want to know on what date such decision was taken and on whose authority the R2 million was written off in respect of that loan. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am questioning the Department of Information’s actions here and for all I know—because I do not know enough of the matter—Mr. Luyt may have been a victim of circumstances. As such it is not my intention to cast suspicion or reflect on Mr. Luyt or to harm him or his group of companies as I do not have all the facts at my disposal in regard to the extension of the loan or the rate of interest. If the hon. the Minister would give me all the facts, I would be in a position to comment. This was a matter on which the commission pertinently focused our attention and I feel that we must be told what the answers are or the commission must tell us what the answers are in its next report if the Government is not in a position to give us the answers now. The commission has certain investigation proceedings and has referred irregularities to the Attorney-General. They have also referred certain matters to the State Attorney and to the Police.

We believe that the Government must, as soon as possible, submit interim reports about recouping funds, but in any event, the first report should be not later than after the start of the next session of Parliament in 1979, and thereafter the Government should come out with periodic reports to keep the public informed of what has happened. I believe that that is in the interests of the public of South Africa.

All investigating parties realize the urgency of reaching finality in this matter and it is hoped that no stone will be left unturned to bring matters to a head as soon as possible. In saying that, I must stress that although we want matters brought to a head speedily, there can be no sacrificing of thoroughness. It is obvious that South Africa needs a full-fledged information department which must deal effectively with urgent problems connected with the dissemination of information, both internally and abroad. This department or bureau is going to need a lot of attention, time and expertise. The hon. the Minister in charge of this department who is the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs as well, must make an assessment if he has the time to cope with this portfolio in addition to his present portfolio. This is naturally a matter which must enjoy top priority as far as he is concerned, and if necessary, as far as the hon. the Prime Minister is concerned.

The hon. the Prime Minister has taken upon himself an almost superhuman task. On the one hand he has the special situation in South West Africa, Rhodesia, Angola, etc., and on the other hand he has to cope with pressures from the UN and others. Internally he has to seek solutions whereby all the peoples of South Africa can live in peace, harmony and prosperity. In addition to those pressures he is responsible for the proper administration of South Africa, and it is a priority that this information debacle be resolved expeditiously to enable the hon. the Prime Minister to play the part in South Africa and Southern Africa that all South Africans expect of him.

The general spirit of the motion introduced by the hon. the Prime Minister is acceptable to us, but there are certain clauses which we do not agree with, and we shall therefore not support the motion. Some of my colleagues will deal with the amendments introduced by the Opposition parties. Unfortunately my time has expired.

Some of your colleagues?

Both of my colleagues will be dealing with those amendments, not that there is much in the amendments to deal with. I should like to move, if I may say so, the first positive amendment from the Opposition side this afternoon. I therefore move as a further amendment—

1. “(1) the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Irregularities in the Former Department of Information be accepted; and
2. (2) this House calls upon the Government to undertake that, inter alia—
   1. (a) the necessary legislation to amend the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975 (Act No. 66 of 1975), relating to secret funds will be introduced during the 1979 session of Parliament;
   2. (b) all irregularities in connection with moneys utilized from secret funds will be referred to the Attorney-General;
   3. (c) as a matter of urgency, such of the assets purchased from secret funds as are not required will be disposed of to the best advantage of the State;
   4. (d) all irregular transactions will be set aside and the State money involved will be recouped;
   5. (e) the Department of Inland Revenue will levy taxes due on all moneys expended from secret funds;
   6. (f) in view of the money owing to the Government by the newspaper The Citizen or its holding company, the Government will take steps to ensure that the interests of the State are safeguarded;
   7. (g) the Government will as soon as possible issue an interim report on efforts made to recoup funds and will thereafter issue periodical reports in regard to the recoupment and disposal of assets and a final report not later than 31 May; and
   8. (h) the Government will create an effective information service under the auspices of a full-fledged department to deal with the urgent problems connected with disseminating information, both internally and abroad.”.

Mr. Speaker, firstly, the hon. member for Walmer will forgive me if I do not deal at length with his speech. In my opinion he made an objective speech, one which contained many constructive facts. Consequently I react to the main theme of his speech by saying that the hon. the Prime Minister has already made reference in his speech to the fact that the Government, with the active assistance of the Pretorius Commission, is giving serious attention to the recovery of as much of the money spent on certain projects as can be recovered. The hon. the Prime Minister quoted some fine examples in this regard.

I should also like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to Mr. Justice Erasmus, Advocates Smalberger and Lategan and the advocates who assisted them with the preparation and leading of evidence, and also to the entire staff for the exceptional work performed by them. As one who headed an important commission of inquiry at one stage, I am amazed at the thoroughness and the unbelievable speed with which this commission performed its task. I think the members of this commission deserve our special thanks.

I want to deal chiefly with the matter of collective responsibility, a matter about which the Opposition has talked a great deal of nonsense so far today. I confine myself in the first instance to a paragraph from a leader in The Argus of 6 December. This paragraph reads—

Do you disagree?

Please, Mr. Speaker, hon. members who have already talked so much nonsense about this matter must give me an opportunity to put my side of the case. In the first place I refer to page 69 of the report of the Erasmus Commission where they quote Verloren van Themaat as follows—

I want to say, not in a critical spirit, but in a constructive spirit, that it is a pity that the Erasmus Commission did not argue this matter in more detail. I say this purely because of this quotation they have included in their report and because Verloren van Themaat in the chapter in which he deals with this aspect, is actually concerned with the formulation of conventions, and merely refers formally to this as one of the conventions and does not deal with the matter in depth. In this connection, however, I should like to refer to a most authoritative book on this matter, that of Wade and Bradley, Constitutional Law, the seventh edition. In the first place I refer to page 87, where the authors maintain, inter alia, the following—

Of course, I agree with this wholeheartedly, and this is how the Government sees it too. This is why the Minister of the former Department of Information tendered his resignation to the hon. the Prime Minister. On page 86 of the same book we find, however, the following important quotation—

This is the crux of the matter. I want to make a further quotation from page 88 of the same book—

I can quote you no better authorities in this connection. But what has the Opposition done today? They have flung wild statements, without any authorities, at us in this connection. After all it is clear—and I want to summarize—that to be able to involve a particular Minister in terms of the doctrine of collective responsibility, in respect of the acts or omissions of a Cabinet colleague, he must have had prior knowledge. Surely that is clear. It is evident from this. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the attacks we have had on this point up to now from the Opposition have been so much hot air.

Therefore, do you reject the commission’s reference to collective responsibility?

I do not reject it. I say I am sorry they only referred to it superficially and did not argue the matter in depth.

In other words, you reject it.

I do not reject it. I am not prepared to answer any further questions, because I have very little time.

So far there have only been innuendos that four previous or present Cabinet members were in the know, namely the previous Prime Minister, the hon. the Prime Minister, Minister Horwood and Dr. Mulder. All of them have been exonerated in the report, except Dr. Mulder who has already paid a high price in this regard, and I do not want to dwell on that. I want to say, however, that what is striking in the Erasmus Report is the manner in which the Erasmus Commission decisively and unconditionally exonerates the present Prime Minister. I want to say to the joint Opposition that by reason of their flippancy and cynicism today, tomorrow and in the future they will founder against the integrity, leadership and statesmanship of the hon. P. W. Botha, the present Prime Minister.

I want to say further that I and a few other Cabinet colleagues—their names are not relevant here because I do not want to deal with party matters today—first learnt about these Information debacle disclosures the weekend before the selection of the new Prime Minister. As far as I know I am also convinced—of course I cannot say for sure, but as far as I know—that apart from those other Cabinet members to whom I have already referred specifically, the rest of the Cabinet had no knowledge of these shocking facts either. The argument in regard to collective responsibility therefore is totally null and void.

Then the question of the resignation of the Government has also been raised. It is really just a waste of time raising this matter.

Why?

The hon. Opposition knows that if this Government were to resign and hold an election, it would be returned to this House with an overwhelming majority. I shall say why we would be returned. This in fact is a Government which admits with humility today that certain mistakes have been made, and which is taking and will take remedial action with a strong hand to correct those mistakes.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to confine myself to a few of the dramatis personae. In the first instance I want to refer to the two Rhoodies. I want to refer to them because they have been specially singled out, and because they have been specially singled out in a specific sense, I cannot say much about them without prejudicing any proceedings which may in future be instituted. As the Minister in charge of the Public Service Commission I want to say—and I probably speak on behalf of the whole Public Service when I say this—that the Public Service would like to forget in future that they were part of the Public Service.

We have a Public Service with a proud record and with unequalled integrity. When the world outside tests a country, it does so on the basis of certain standards. One of the standards or norms in terms of which it is measured is whether it has a Public Service which, humanly speaking, is one of high integrity. I want to say that we have such a Public Service and we are proud of it. Our Public Service is one of the reasons why foreigners place such a high premium on this country and confidently invest so much money here.

I also want to refer to the former Secretary for State Security, Gen. Van den Bergh. I do this with some hesitation, because here I have to speak in agreement with the Opposition and I should not like, politically speaking, to be seen in their company. It is clear, as far as the report of the Erasmus Commission is concerned, that Gen. Van den Bergh was the master-mind who in some respects had a lot to do with this major debacle. In the light of what the Commission had to say about him after it had duly weighed up the evidence, I am sorry that the general now seems to be resorting in public to questionable cynicism and unbalanced statements. I should like to advise him as a person who—I readily concede this—in his field has done much for South Africa, to stop talking.

Mr. Speaker, I should like—and here too I unfortunately find myself politically speaking in bad company—to put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister specifically. It is clear that the former Secretary for Security Information possessed tremendous powers. Mr. Speaker, what I am about to say must definitely not be regarded as an insinuation against the present incumbent of the post, or the incumbents of related posts connected with our security. They are all people for whom I have a particularly high regard. My question to the hon. the Prime Minister is the following—and I shall be pleased if he will say something about this in his reply: Should such powers, as far as they concern Cabinet control or Government control, not be controlled in some way?

In my capacity as Minister in charge of the Public Service Commission, I now want to make a short statement. I do this entirely on my own responsibility. This is not an official Government statement and I am not binding my Cabinet colleagues in this matter. This is simply something I should also like to put to the hon. the Prime Minister as a suggestion and on which either the hon. the Prime Minister or the Cabinet as a whole can give a decision. The statement reads as follows—

I want to admit that as far as this matter is concerned, the Government still has many problems to solve, but solve them we shall. We will not allow ourselves to be stampeded by leftist liberal elements and a leftist liberal Press. Our record is—and here I mention the names of our hon. Prime Minister and other leaders of this party—that since these disclosures were made, we have not allowed deviations on any aspect from the highest political morality. The hon. the Prime Minister and other leaders have said at all times that we do not agree that a local newspaper which propagates party politics should be purchased with the taxpayers’ money. Some of the leaders have also said that they do not agree with the maxim that when one’s country is in danger, no rules apply. We have consistently maintained a high political morality. We have consistently admitted in all humility that mistakes have in fact been made. I want to tell the hon. Opposition that they should beware of a party which is humble in the presence of an arrogant Opposition and an arrogant liberal Press. The very time when a party is humble and divests itself of all emotions is the time when it is able to equip itself with the necessary will-power, energy and the necessary perseverance to take it and the Government in this country to great heights in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to comment on the party-political portion of the speech by the hon. the Minister. In regard to his standpoint on establishing greater efficiency and better control in the Public Service, I congratulate him. I want to react briefly to what he has said about collective Cabinet responsibility because this is also one of the themes of the debate as a whole. Obviously we accept that every member of the Cabinet cannot share responsibility for every administrative action by everyone of his colleagues in their various departments. The argument that has been used throughout by this side of the House today, and which I shall also use later is that, not in respect of the action of individuals within the former Department of Information, but in respect of the voting and the making available of the funds for those people to utilize, the Cabinet as a whole bears the responsibility. I shall come back later on to the drafting of the budget and the making available of funds.

†Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words with reference to the speech a little while ago by the hon. the Minister of Finance. First of all, the hon. the Minister repeated with very considerable fervour the question which has been asked earlier today. He thumped away at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, demanding to know, in the form of a yes or no, whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition accepts or does not accept the Erasmus Commission’s report. The motive behind this was that the Erasmus Commission’s report makes certain relatively complimentary remarks about the Minister. Now he wants to know whether the hon. Leader accepts that or not. To ask any reasonable man whether he accepts a document of 105 pages of fairly small print is of course childish. This is a “are you still beating your wife” question of the worst kind. The hon. the Minister wants to know what we think. We think there is a very great deal in this report which we can accept at once and that there are certain opinions—I will come to some of them later on—which we do not accept. If hon. gentlemen on the other side are accustomed to reading reports of this length and either rejecting every syllable of them or accepting every syllable of them, then they are very much more the automaton than I have ever judged them to be.

Secondly, the hon. the Minister of Finance thought it proper to do something of a hatchet job on Judge Mostert. I am not going to follow him through all the intricacies of that, but I am going to respond to what he said about section 12 of the regulations which govern the appointment of commissions. I think, and I gather from my friends who are lawyers, that it is generally accepted that the interpretation of section 12, as it applies to the responsibilities of a commissioner, is a very wide open question in law indeed. I certainly know that an eminent commission, the Cilliers Commission, which has been inquiring for two years now into the Soweto disturbances and surrounding matters, has taken all its evidence in public and that it has been freely commented on and discussed in public by individuals and by the Press. I also know that in the very short life to date of the Van der Walt Commission, presided over by the hon. member for Schweizer Reneke, this principle has been followed subject to some understood limitations. But that commission has sat in public and what it has said has been reported and has been debated. I would suggest, and I go not further than this, that there is certainly no ground for automatically contending that Judge Mostert was wrong in what he did because of section 12. There may be a possible opinion in that direction, but there is certainly no proof as such.

Thirdly, I want to turn to the really interesting part of the speech by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I want to refer to the part in which he told us how he himself battled, firstly to find out why all this money was going to the Department of Information and, secondly, to get the amounts reduced. He said he did get them reduced, on one occasion from R20 million to R15 million, or something of that sort. Now, the first thing that interests me is that the hon. the Minister of Finance said—if I wrote it down correctly—

The hon. the Minister also said—

Time and time again I was told that the information could not be given to us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. the Minister. I am glad he has corrected me. The hon. the Minister of Finance occupies a very great position in the Government and in this country. He was trying to obtain information, and time and time again he was told it could not be given to him. One wonders who it is that can repeatedly refuse a request of this kind to the hon. the Minister of Finance. Who is it who is telling the hon. the Minister of Finance why he has to produce this money? Prima facie I would have thought that only the hon. the Prime Minister could treat the hon. the Minister of Finance in that way. However, I think the hon. the Minister of Finance has to tell the House because this is one of the most interesting things that has been said all day. Here is the hon. the Minister of Finance who is at least suspicious that something was going on which was wrong, which was undesirable. Here he was trying to minimize the amount, trying to get to the bottom of things, and he admits himself that he was blocked. Was it the hon. the Prime Minister who was blocking him or was it officials? If it was an official why did he not get the official fired? If it was the hon. the Prime Minister why did the hon. the Minister of Finance not resign? This is the kind of thing that this debate is for. This debate is for us to try to find out what has happened to an hon. Minister who says he was well meaning, he was conscious that something wrong was going on, but that he could not stop it and could not get any answers.

One is realistic. One knows that people do not lightly resign great offices of this kind. One does not do so willingly. However, if it goes on year after year one really cannot be satisfied in one’s conscience that one has …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal explanation …

Mr. Speaker, do you wish me to resume my seat?

It is for the hon. member himself to decide whether he is going to give the hon. the Minister of Finance the opportunity of explaining.

In that case I am really going to use the time at my disposal.

All right, I was going to explain it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I have in fact finished with the remarks I wished to make in reply to the hon. the Minister of Finance.

*Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke earlier he said that on the one hand, this debate was an occasion for sorrow and on the other hand, an occasion for gratitude. I concede that in a certain sense this debate is a sorry, and in another sense, a happy occasion. It is a sorry occasion because we are dealing with a report that shows that certain officials, certain politicians and others in our country have dragged this country, which previously had such a well deserved reputation for clean and effective administration, down to the level of a banana republic. It is also sad because the Government and Cabinet Ministers, at least during the most recent months, had knowledge of what was going on, but failed for too long to put a timely stop to it.

It is also a happy occasion, however, because—to borrow one of the colourful expressions in the report itself—the boil that has so long poisoned our system, now appears to have been lanced and as if relief is possibly at hand. However, we would be making a very serious mistake if we were to think that we are going to see the end of this matter today or tomorrow. The commission has certainly done very valuable work and has accomplished a great deal in the short time at its disposal. It is quite clear, however, that much remains to be done. The financing of the front organizations and their acts and omissions are matters about which, until now, we have as yet very little information at our disposal. We need more facts in regard to the more than 100 projects. We shall have to discuss these matters here once again. In this regard, I want to mention two things in particular. In the first place, I want to refer to the projects that revolved around the Morgan Grampian company and Hortors. These are mentioned in the Pretorius report and the hon. the Prime Minister referred to them this morning. Further suspected irregularities found during the investigation into the Morgan Grampian and Hortors projects have been brought to the attention of the Erasmus Commission and the Van der Walt Commission.

I hope you do not take that point too far at this stage.

No, I am not going to take it further, but I am referring to it as an example of one of the matters which will have the result that we cannot be finished yet with the discussion we are involved in today.

In the second place, I should like to say something about the report of the Erasmus Commission in so far as it concerns foreign loans. At some point of time, it seems, the Department of Defence ultimately refused— this was during 1977-’78—to appropriate money for this purpose. I should like to quote from paragraph 11.352 of the report by the Erasmus Commission, which reads as follows—

That is Dr. Mulder—

This was because he could not obtain money from the Department of Defence—

This foreign loan is referred to elsewhere in the report and it is pointed out that the amount of the loan was in the region of R16 million. However, we do not learn where that loan was negotiated, who advanced the money, nor above all, how Dr. Rhoodie was able to obtain such an amount of money. I am not a banker, Mr. Speaker, but I think I know enough about international business to know that an individual will never be able to negotiate such a loan. He will need the strongest guarantees to obtain that money. Where did the guarantees come from? What was the amount of the loan, and what was done with the money? When must it be repaid? Has it already been repaid? These are all questions to which we must obtain answers.

The story later becomes even more interesting, however. The Secretary for Finance gave evidence in connection with the loan and said there was no way whatever in which this could happen. In paragraph 11.355 of the report he says: “ … it was unheard of to negotiate such loans to finance a Government department’s financial needs”. I quote further from paragraph 11.356 of the report—

Evidently the loan was not necessary either. The left hand did not know what the right hand was doing. The hon. the Minister had appropriated R15 million to the secret fund and at the same time the Secretary of the department had gone abroad to borrow R16 million. These are substantial amounts and we cannot afford to have the assets of a country trifled with in such a haphazard way. These are examples, Mr. Speaker, and if I had had time, I could have referred to many more things which will still have to be gone into very thoroughly. We still have to hear even more about these amounts. Today we progressed to the point where the hon. the Minister of Finance told us that he appropriated approximately R15 million for the purposes of Dr. Mulder and Dr. Rhoodie every year. We know that, but the question is how it appeared on the estimates. All of us were involuntarily implicated in this process, because we sat here and passed the budget. Where did it appear in the budget?

Do you hold yourself responsible?

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is going to be necessary for all hon. members—perhaps with possible exceptions for special reasons—to obtain the detailed evidence and the exhibits. One reads through the report—it is very interesting— and every few lines one comes across a figure that refers to a paragraph in the evidence or to an exhibit that we do not have. Unless we can obtain that evidence, we shall not be in a position to judge all these things, whereas it is our duty to pass judgement on them. Much will still have to be heard. We shall want to hear, and the people will want to hear. Although I have said that there is much in the report that one can appreciate, there are two matters to which I should like to react. By the way, it will demonstrate the truth of what I said just now, that one cannot simply accept or reject 105 pages in their entirety.

The first matter I want to mention, concerns the attitude of the Opposition. I refer to paragraph 10.316 of the report, where the following is mentioned—

That is to say, the arrangement whereby the money was made available. I quote further—

With all due respect, this is less than fair to the Opposition, for in the debate earlier this year on the Secret Services Account Bill, we stated our attitude very plainly in fact. I first quote from the amendment which we in these benches moved on that occasion, on 16 March this year (Hansard, 1978, col. 3144)—

1. (1) making it possible for moneys in amounts not divulged to Parliament to be expended by any department of state”.

That sums up our attitude. I also quote briefly from what the hon. member for Musgrave said on the same occasion (Hansard, 1978, col. 3159)—

In the course of that debate, and I think on other occasions as well, we made it abundantly clear that we had to assent to the existence of secret funds, but that we would always insist on the maximum possible parliamentary control over those funds, and that is what we were doing on that occasion.

In fact, our attitude is well in keeping with the recommendation by the commission in chapter XIV where the commission makes it clear that it believes there should indeed be thorough auditing of each such account.

In retrospect it really appears as if we might still have been somewhat ignorant and naïve during March this year. It would appear as if public funds were being expended for purposes other than those for which Parliament had voted them. We tried to prevent it, but we were not sure of the situation. Little did we know that it was already taking place on a large scale. As a matter of principle, and instinctively, we warned against the danger of such a practice, but we did not know that it was already happening.

In this regard I listened with great interest when the hon. the Prime Minister said—and other members of the Cabinet have now confirmed it—that Dr. Mulder, the then Minister, never informed the Cabinet of any of this activities. The hon. the Prime Minister made this very clear, and I accept that this was the case. According to the evidence in the report, Dr. Rhoodie alleges, however, that he worked according to schedules approved not only by his Minister, but also by the then Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. I refer hon. members to paragraph 2.22 of the report. I think the hon. the Minister of Finance denies this. [Interjections.] Well, perhaps it was his predecessor. I do not know whether there is any truth in Dr. Rhoodie’s allegation but he positively alleged, not only in evidence before this commission, but also in a statement he issued round about June this year, that there had been a committee of three Cabinet members who supervised all his activities, and this was not denied, in any event, not at the time.

Let us assume for the sake of argument, at least, that no such Cabinet committee existed and that there was no one in the Cabinet, except Dr. Mulder, who knew anything of what the public servants in that department were doing. According to the evidence it is nevertheless true, however, that a total of R64 million had been appropriated for various projects. I observe, by the way, that the hon. the Prime Minister takes umbrage at the fact that the newspapers published the headline “R64 million shock”. He takes umbrage on the grounds of the fact that, after all, not everything was wasted. With all due respect, Sir, that is not the question. The fact is that R64 million was in fact appropriated for the acts and omissions of the Department of Information. I have said that I accept, for the sake of argument at least, that nobody knew what the officials of that department were doing. Should one not have asked, however? I am not much of a politician, but I do know that if one allocates such amounts to other people in the business world so that they can undertake certain projects, and those people never report and never say what they have done with one’s investment, one at least becomes a bit curious and one is going to try to ascertain what is going on. This R64 million was appropriated over a period of five years or so, and evidently hon. members of the Cabinet did not even become curious during that period. Really, explanations should be forthcoming in this regard. I accept the assurance by the hon. the Prime Minister that Dr. Mulder never informed the Cabinet as such about this, but I want to know why the Cabinet never wanted to find out what had happened to the money. It was not their money, but indeed trust money which they controlled on behalf of the tax-payers of South Africa.

The second paragraph of the report which I should like to comment on briefly is paragraph 10.305. This paragraph levels a word of criticism at the English Press, and reads as follows—

†I find this a remarkable passage, because I have it, on high authority from the Saan group that they sent the commission a collection of Press reports, that they furthermore offered to give any assistance that was required and that one of their men, Mr. J. A. Stirling, did give evidence. Mr. Stirling’s name appears in the list of witnesses. It therefore seems to me as if there really has been a very considerable misunderstanding in this respect. I have already said that I received the information from the Saan group and I wish to add that I have had no conversations with any members of any other group and I do not know, one way or the other, what their attitude was. It would seem to me, however, that the commission has been somewhat less than fair to the Press in that statement. This morning the hon. the Prime Minister thought it right to seize upon two piffling inaccuracies which he could find in certain newspapers. He blew these up into a huffing and puffing sabre-rattling session, which he can do so well. The hon. the Minister of Finance deemed it fit to refer to the leftist Press and there was also an echo of that just now from the hon. the Minister of the Interior. In my judgement, for what it may be worth, had it not been for the Press in general, this debate might well not be taking place and the boil to which the commission has referred might still have been intact, red, hot and throbbing. This is not the only time that the Press in South Africa has played an extremely useful role, that it has shown that there is a fourth estate in this country and that it has an important role to play in securing good Government. Time and again South Africa’s reputation has been saved, when we needed it most, by two institutions, i.e. the free Press and the judiciary. Both have played invaluable roles in exposing this scandal and in saving our name at this time. I think it ill behoves members of the Cabinet to scratch and snarl at the Press today.

I want to refer very briefly to a third matter which is dealt with in paragraph 7.195 in which the Erasmus Commission sees fit to refer to the “so-called Mostert Commission”. The word “so-called” seems to me to be gratuitous and rather undesirable in that connection. The Mostert Commission was a commission and it would be polite and good manners to refer to it simply as the Mostert Commission.

Its official name was not the Mostert Commission.

Having been critical of the commission in some detail, I repeat that I have the fullest understanding of the difficulties of the commission’s task, for the shortage of time under which they have worked and I think a great deal of good will flow from their major revelations of the things that were wrong. The major matter is not the behaviour of the Rhoodie brothers. I trust that they will be dealt with in the proper way. It is not even Messrs. Luyt, Van Zyl Alberts, Pieterse, Van den Bergh or the rest of the cast of characters that are portrayed in the report of the commission, but it is really the control by Parliament of the Executive that is the major issue. Generally speaking the Government’s defence has been that it did not know what was going on until late in 1977. As I have said it is conceivable that the Government did not know what was going on, but it is not conceivable that the Government did not know it was voting the money. Indeed, we have had evidence in the debate that the Government did know it was voting the money. The hon. the Prime Minister has dealt with the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility, to which I referred in replying briefly to the hon. the Minister of the Interior. And I accept what the hon. the Prime Minister says that it relates to decisions and not to administrative actions. But surely the voting of money involves a decision? It is one of the most important decisions that are ever made. The allocations of money by the Cabinet involves a vitally important decision. It involves R12 million to R15 million a year. The other defence of which we have heard, of which I am glad to say we heard only echoes today—it has been a very loud defence when we debated these matters formerly in this House—is that this is done for South Africa, that there is a “felle aanslag”, a “totale aanslag” on South Africa. A few minutes ago, the hon. the Minister of the Interior did us a favour once more by explicitly repudiating the doctrine “that no rules apply”. We are grateful for that. We hope that it now represents the viewpoint of the whole of the Cabinet. It certainly did not a few months ago when it was argued from a Cabinet bench in this House that no rules applied, and no voice went up from that side of the House to take issue. The doctrine was that the end justifies the means.

*Of course, the end may never justify the means. We ought to go further, however, and we ought to ask ourselves why we are in a situation in which we are tempted to say “the end will justify the means”. Why could we feel, only a few months ago, that it was necessary to do these improper things in the hope that the end would justify the means. I state that this happens because the Government is ruling without the acquiescence of the majority of the people who are being governed. That, in turn, means that it cannot rely on the respect and support of its people. That creates a situation in which there is a constant temptation to resort to abnormal methods. It is necessary, in the first place, that this investigation should be continued until everything has been opened up without reservation. In the second place, it is necessary to introduce procedures to ensure that all expenditure is audited so that it will take place in accordance with the wishes of Parliament, and so that Parliament will know what it appropriates money for. In the third place, it is necessary that the Government should revise its policy so that there can at least be hope of the acquiescence of the population.

This morning, the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned among the reasons why this session had been convened, that he desired very much that everyone should spend a restful Christmas season.

I did not say that. Stick to the truth.

Well, something like that; very much the same. Christmas had something to do with the intentions of the hon. the Prime Minister when he convened us here. Evidently it is his hope that by means of this debate he can do something to make Christmas more restful for all of us. I wish that I could share that hope with him, but I am afraid that the matters we are attending to today are going to disturb our lives for a very long time to come, and our Christmas seasons, too.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation: I understood the hon. member for Parktown to say that I was suspicious that there was something wrong and that was why I was trying to get information from the department. It was actually not so. I had no reason at that time to think that there was anything out of order at all. My whole point was—and this has been my argument from the start—that, without my having suspected anything, the Treasury should have, in the normal course of events, some knowledge of the purposes for which money is being voted. I am glad of having been given the opportunity to explain this.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. member for Parktown and I understood him to say that this Republic is now virtually equivalent to a banana republic. People are not keen to invest money in a banana republic. Now it appears to me as if a refrain which that hon. member started a few years ago regarding the investment of money is still continuing today albeit only in his subconscious. South Africa is not a banana republic. South Africa is a country with an honourable Government, as has been proved today. All facts relating to the Department of Information, as embodied in the report, have been submitted to Parliament to be debated in a democratic, civilized and knowledgeable way. That hon. member has asked a lot of questions today. He asked many questions. I think there is a proverb which says: “Fools can ask more questions than wise men could answer.” Questions have been asked. We did not come here today to ask questions. Hon. members have asked questions and then said that they have suspicions here and suspicions there. A responsible member of Parliament will not express suspicion unless he has grounds on which to base his suspicions. When one mentions suspicions merely to create suspicion it is not conducive to the peace and to the confidence of the outside world in South Africa. The hon. member had the opportunity to say what his suspicions were based on, and he did not do so.

That party is not very sure of where it stands. Those hon. members are neither fish nor flesh. In referring to the report, according to them, one is apparently expected to accept every comma and title in the report. This is not what has been called for. The proposal by the hon. the Prime Minister reads that this side of the House accepts the recommendations in chapter XIV of the report. This is the question to the Opposition—and it is a very simple question: Are those hon. members in favour of the rule of law or are they not in favour of the rule of law? Do they accept the report by the judicial commission or do they not accept it? I want to say immediately that no reasonable person can criticize the report of the judicial commission unless he has seen the evidence. I understand why the hon. Opposition expects to be able to peruse the evidence, but if one goes as far as wishing to examine the evidence as well it obviously implies that one distrusts the report of the judicial commission. If one demands the evidence, surely it implies that one does not really believe in the power of judgment of that judicial commission. If that is the case, that side of the House must please stop talking about the rule of law in future, for they are merely paying lip-service to that concept.

But there have also been questions about the Morgan Grampian project. Then the hon. member asked where this money came from and where that money came from. He said himself, however, that answers would be forthcoming. Why then ask these questions? If the hon. member would reflect for a moment, he would realize that these matters are still to be dealt with by commissions and that answers will be furnished, as they have been today. This Government is committed to clean administration. This Government does not go back on its word. That side of the House will not be able to prove one instance where this Government did not keep its word. We are merely asking for a little patience, for these things take time. The answers will be forthcoming.

There has also been talk of the collective responsibility of the Cabinet. The hon. the Minister of the Interior gave an excellent explanation. Those hon. members have heard something but they do not know the rights of it. Since we are on the subject of collective responsibility, surely it is a fact that this Parliament approved the budget. The hon. member for Parktown went out of his way to state that they did not know and that they are therefore not implicated. But surely that is a double standard. If a man did not know what he was voting for in this House of Assembly, he should obviously have asked. If he did not ask, he should keep his mouth shut and state that he accepts responsibility. If something has then been hidden from him and he did not know it and he then declares that he is consequently not collectively responsible, if that is the argument—and I believe it is the argument—I want to know what is wrong with it when the Cabinet advances the same argument? Why not? Where is the fairness now? [Interjections.] The concept of fairness and justice also applies to the Cabinet. It is only fair to use the same standard.

I want to go a little further and refer to a few writers on constitutional law, including Hood Phillips, who wrote the following—

On what page is that?

It is on page 260, if the hon. member really wants to know, and it is the second edition of The Constitutional Law of Great Britain and the Commonwealth. I continue—

It is more clearly set out in Anson’s The Law and Custom of the Constitution, Vol. 2, page 190. I quote—

This means that, if one member of the Cabinet does not share an opinion and does not agree with that opinion, such a member of the Cabinet is not collectively or jointly responsible for that decision. The following authority makes it even more clear. I refer again to Hood Phillips. In The Principles of English Law and the Constitution page 300 one reads the following—and I think that this is very clear—

This is important—

The Cabinet must be consulted—

The mere fact that the Minister of Information had to abdicate his high post clearly indicates that certain matters were not supported by the other members in the Cabinet. If anything could be more clear than this namely that there is no collective Cabinet responsibility in this particular instance, I would like to hear it.

We are not talking about since it became public but before it became public.

I shall try to read the quotation in English very slowly and the hon. gentleman must please listen. If he does not understand English, I shall take him aside, have a cup of coffee and explain it to him. I repeat—

Is that clear? Right!

That is the word! Perhaps the hon. member missed it—

I think that that is very clear.

*Under circumstances like these there can be no question of collective accountability. Collective accountability is in any case a very technical concept and if one becomes technical, one can say that this Cabinet is not the same as the one before. Therefore there is no reason why this Cabinet should resign. It is, after all, not the same Cabinet. It is another Cabinet sitting here. If we want to be technical, let us be technical then and draw the line right through.

Now I want to talk about the Mostert Commission very briefly. There has been talk of the Mostert Commission. The first point which we should understand very clearly is that this commissioner saw himself entirely in the wrong light. He saw himself as a judge and I want to say with the greatest respect that this is where he erred, also in his approach to the report. Why am I saying this? When he went to the Prime Minister, he told him that it was the first time that a Prime Minister wanted to prescribe to a judge. He was a commissioner and not a judge. He approached this matter as a judge instead of as a commissioner. That is the criticism we can level at his approach. It is a fact that this commissioner was appointed round about 23 December 1977 to investigate foreign exchange contraventions. I accept that the commissioner worked very hard. He did indeed submit a report on foreign exchange matters to the hon. Minister concerned, but that report has not been made public. It dealt with foreign exchange and that was actually his assignment. But what has in fact been revealed, however? Things have been revealed which have nothing whatsoever to do with foreign exchange contraventions. Why have they been revealed? They have nothing to do with foreign exchange contraventions. I have read the evidence. I may have erred, but I did not see anything which has the semblance of foreign exchange contraventions. Surely someone who is a commissioner and also a judge, can distinguish between what his assignment is and what is not. I think everyone will agree that our judges are capable people.

[Inaudible.]

I have very little time. If someone can make such a distinction and he still publishes facts after the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has told him to return to his principal to receive instructions, I do not know what to conclude from that. I leave it to others to decide what such a man is doing.

He saved South Africa from the NP.

The regulations state very clearly that a witness can give evidence in camera if he wants to. When giving evidence in camera in terms of regulation 8(2), the commissioner will not, for example, reveal the name of that witness.

I want to read from advocate Van Rooyen’s evidence. He said, inter alia—

Another issue has been whether the Official Secrets Act applied. If somebody states that he believes the evidence should be confidential and if there is a possibility that the Official Secrets Act could be applicable, what is the course of action of a commissioner in such circumstances? Regulation 8(b) reads as follows—

Then the hon. member for Musgrave climbed the bandwagon to say something. What did he say? According to a report in the Rand Daily Mail of 9 November 1978 he said—

Surely this is disgraceful. In the case of Judge Mostert there was no finding. It is a disgrace to stain the name of this Government in such a way. It is unprecedented and I believe that hon. member should apologize.

But what else did the hon. member for Musgrave say? He said—

He said that long before the findings of the Erasmus Commission were available. It is a disgrace and proves the contempt in which they held a judicial commission even before its report was published.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North also had something to say. I want to quote from the same Rand Daily Mail of 11 November 1978. In it I read the following—

The next paragraph tops it all—

Is that not a slap in the face of our judiciary? Is it not outrageous for him to say that a judge would allow himself to be intimidated by the executive and would refuse to exercise his judicial duty and serve as a member of a commission?

The more one listens to the arguments of hon. members on the other side the more one realizes that the people of South Africa can trust only one party, i.e. the National Party.

Business suspended at 19h00 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the business was suspended earlier this evening the hon. member for Pretoria West had concluded his speech and I intend responding later to some of the specific matters to which he referred, particularly the entire reference to the Mostert Commission and to Judge Mostert himself. At this stage I am intrigued by the number of very heated references that have come from Government benches this afternoon and this morning in relation to the operation of Judge Mostert in regard to the duty that had been entrusted to him. I shall comment more fully on that later in my speech. The hon. member for Pretoria West also dealt at some length with the question of collective responsibility of the Cabinet and he also dealt with the attitude that the Government was determined to come clean and that theirs was a clean administration. This has been a feature of many of the speeches that have come from the Government benches this afternoon and earlier during the debate. I want to say to the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister in particular that while it is true that we are having this debate in order to clear the air, and while it is true that the Erasmus Commission has produced a report which has unfolded many of the issues about which there have been public fears in South Africa, I do not believe that we can expect to go away from this special extraordinary session of Parliament with the fears and suspicions of the public of South Africa in regard to corruption in Government circles being allayed.

Not with you in the Opposition.

It is the function of the Opposition to perform a duty to the public of South Africa. Hon. members of the Government must not be too sensitive to the attitude of the Opposition in criticizing what has taken place, i.e. something which is a unique happening in the history of South Africa. If the Government believes that as a result of this debate and as a result of the Erasmus Commission …

You are supposed to be a lawyer; what did you say before you got here?

I shall deal with that as well. If the Government believes, in the light of this debate and in the light of the disclosures of the Erasmus Commission, that the Opposition is going to sit back in a servile fashion and accept that the air has been cleaned, then I want to tell hon. members right here and now that they are making a very great mistake. At this stage in the history of South Africa we see it as our function to be as vigilant as we possibly can and to ensure that whatever else lurks behind the veil of secrecy in South Africa, it is unearthed and is brought before the full glare of the public spotlight.

What do you mean by that remark?

Hon. members must not simply imagine that because this report has been presented, it is going to be the end of the matter. They must realize the extent of the report and they must also realize the import of the report of the Erasmus Commission. The report represents …

One would say you appointed the commission.

I am still going to deal with the whole question of the commission and what the attitude of the Government is to commissions which they appoint. If they like the evidence, they accept them; if they do not like the evidence, they fire them. I shall deal with that later on.

Give us the evidence.

I am talking about the attitude of the Government to the Mostert Commission, but I shall return to that issue later on.

Was it weighed? Was it evaluated?

No. It was a commission that was presumably properly appointed, which operated properly, but which, when it indicated a difference with the Government and disagreed with the Government, had its mandate summarily terminated. I do not wish to be deviated at this stage. The report of the Erasmus Commission represents a chronicle of corruption and intrigue which is an indictment not so much of individuals as of the entire administration of the time. That is what it is. The House and the country cannot be warned often enough that, while it may be inevitable that scapegoats be found and named, the issue here is more than simply looking at individual scapegoats. The issue here is the whole system of administration and the attitude of mind of those who operate it. It is not Dr. Mulder, Dr. Rhoodie or any other officials who are under indictment at the present time. The people who are under indictment are those who were in authority at Cabinet level, who allowed this situation to develop, who knew what was happening and did nothing; or, if they did not know, they ought to have known what was happening and they should have done something. That is really the crux of this whole issue. The story so far—and I emphasize the words “so far”, because the story is by no means at an end— is a thoroughly sordid chapter in this country’s political history. We in the Opposition and, indeed, the public of South Africa, are entitled to ask, and must ask, how much more of this story is still to be told. How much more of this story is yet to be told? How many more sinister chapters are there skulking behind the cloaks of secrecy and stories of national security? After all, this episode, the episode dealt with by the Erasmus Commission, deals with the abuse of power by one Government department only. What about the other Government departments?

Tell us.

I am going to emphasize that where it has been found that there have been gross irregularities in one Government department, it is not unnatural that people should ask: What about other Government departments? [Interjections.] I am not surprised at the sensitivity which comes from Government benches on this issue. However, what we are dealing with at the present time is the report of a single commission, operating within its terms of reference, operating within its mandate which was limited to the whole question of the inquiry into irregularities arising from the operation of the former Department of Information. What has emerged from the Erasmus Commission has confirmed in almost every sense the reports released earlier by the Mostert Commission. The Mostert Commission dealt with and reported on the misappropriation of funds. It dealt with what was termed corruption in the wider sense of the word.

The Mostert Commission did not report on anything; it published unconfirmed evidence.

The hon. the Minister interjects that the Mostert Commission did not report on anything. Evidence was released in support of the judge’s contention that he had found evidence of irregularities and that he had found evidence of corruption on a wider scale. The Erasmus Commission, however, has reported similarly. The Erasmus Commission has reported on “irrebuttable indications of large-scale irregularities and exploitations of the secret fund under the control of the former department”. Let me say that the words “irregularities and exploitations” are masterpieces of understatement when they are considered in relation to the specific conclusions drawn by the commission from evidence before it. These, when reduced to common law crimes, depict almost every common law crime in the book. They are much more than simple irregularities and exploitations. They are a repetition, a catalogue, of almost every common law crime that there is in the book. There is, for example, the direct suggestion of theft relating to what the commission describes in its own words as “irregularities committed by Dr. Rhoodie”. There is the further suggestion, in the words of the commission again, of “complicity and theft and fraud”. It appears in the same chapter. There is a report of a witness before the commission, namely Reynders, being under tremendous pressure from people in authority and, again in the words of the Erasmus commission, “even in fear of his own life”, which can only suggest fear of murder. [Interjections.] What else does it mean? Government members should not exclaim in surprise. What else does it mean when a commission reports that one of the witnesses was so much intimidated that he was even in fear of his own life? Does that not infer that he was in fear of being murdered, or does it infer that he was suddenly going to have a heart attack? There are also numerous references to lying and cover-ups. The hon. the Prime Minister was very sensitive in respect of the word ‘‘cover-up” during his remarks this morning, but there is ample evidence in the Erasmus Commission report of people who were telling untruths and attempting to cover up evidence, people in authority insisting on certain courses of action, again in the words of the Erasmus Commission, “knowing full well that they would not reflect the truth”. Then, of course, there is the overall and undisputed proof of massive misappropriation of public funds by individuals named in the report, but most important of all there is the substantial evidence of complicity of others in the whole affair, either at its inception or during the course of events. So we have a number of accessories who need to give an account of their position. These were people who knew what was happening but who did very little, except perhaps to express their objections or their disapproval, but then they did nothing active to bring these gross irregularities to an end. Apart from any other implications, looking at it at its best, the behaviour of the people who knew and who did very little except to object must amount either to rank bad judgement, to negligence or to simple ineptitude on their part. There is the story of a decision to channel funds for the so-called “sensitive services” of the Department of Information through the Prime Minister’s Budget Vote, provided that such sensitive projects had the prior approval of the Prime Minister. That appears in the report. But there is nothing to indicate whether in fact that proviso was ever complied with, whether in the use of the funds for these sensitive services the prior approval of the Prime Minister was sought or whether it was obtained. Then there was a change in the method, apparently at the request and the instance of the then Prime Minister, to allow for funds of the department to be channelled through the Special Defence Account, which is exempt from audit by the Auditor-General. This is the method which apparently has been in operation since the 1974-’75 financial year. Funds were then deposited by the Department of Defence in an account kept by the Bureau for State Security, a department under the control of the Prime Minister. Then they were requisitioned by the Department of Information as and when that department wanted them. It is true that to the credit of the present hon. Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, he objected to this method being followed. He objected not only to the hon. the Prime Minister, but also to the hon. the Minister of Finance. It is also true that the Defence Department expressed concern and insisted on an annual certificate from the Department of Information. That appears from the report. The report states in paragraph 2.20—

So we have the situation that since 1974 the hon. the Minister of Defence has presumably signed certificates relating to expenditure of funds, some of which have been beyond the control of his department. Did he or did he not issue these certificates?

I shall reply to that.

Well, I would be very honoured to receive the hon. the Prime Minister’s answer. This was the position, namely that he would receive certificates …

I am not here to help you make your speech. Carry on with your story.

At least it might be of some benefit to the hon. the Prime Minister to listen. This was the situation, namely that certificates were then issued year after year relating to funds, some of which were not under the control of the hon. the Minister or the Department of Defence. Mr. Speaker, you did not know this and I did not know this, the majority of the members of the House did not know it and the majority of the taxpayers of South Africa did not know it. We all thought and we had the right to believe that funds allocated for defence by this Parliament and especially funds provided in the interests of security from a special secret fund for defence would in fact be utilized for that purpose.

Not for The Citizen!

Yes, certainly not for The Citizen. But, Sir, while we did not know it, the hon. the Prime Minister, then Minister of Defence, knew it; the then Prime Minister knew it; the Minister of Finance knew it; and the Minister of Information at the time knew it. One wonders who else knew about this situation that was in operation.

Hands up those who knew.

In all seriousness, I would be very surprised indeed if knowledge of this fact was confined only to those four gentlemen. The fact of the matter is that as far as the Minister of Defence is concerned, it is true …

Knowledge of what?

Knowledge that the secret fund for defence was partially being used in order to finance the Department of Information’s secret services. That is my question. The hon. the Minister knew about it; the hon. the Minister of Finance knew about it; the hon. the Prime Minister knew about it; and the hon. the Minister of Information at the time knew about it. Those are four members of the Cabinet who knew about it. It is true that, as far as the Minister of Defence is concerned, the report states that, when he had to accept it against his will, he insisted on an internal accountant and proper auditing of the secret fund by that department. That may be very laudible and it shows at least that the hon. the Minister of Defence had an awareness of the danger inherent in this sort of budgeting, but let me say with all charity towards him that he seems to have been very easily satisfied.

Keep your charity to yourself.

The report says that he insisted on an internal accountant and proper auditing. One wonders what steps he took thereafter to ensure that his insistence on proper auditing had been complied with. The report, the knowledge we now have, indicates that what in fact happened was that there was a departmental accountant in the person of Mr. Braam Fourie who was also the auditor and who was obviously right from the start totally out of his depth in this whole matter.

Intimidated, perhaps.

One wonders whether the hon. the Minister of Defence or his department knew of the nature of the financial control in the Department of Information and what steps they took to find out what the nature of that was.

What about the “werklone”?

For that matter, one wonders what steps the hon. the Minister of Finance took. Did he at any stage inquire what method of working was behind the certificates that were being supplied by the Department of Information to the Department of Defence each financial year? It is amazing that these hon. gentlemen apparently did not apply their minds to this matter. Earlier this afternoon the hon. the Minister of Finance asked how he was supposed to know about these things, but most other people around South Africa and outside of South Africa for that matter knew, for example, of the flamboyant nature of the operations of the then Director of Information.

When was that?

Through the years. I would think that last year and the year before the apparently limitless source of funds available to the then Director of Information was a popular talking point.

Gossip!

They turned out to be true!

The Auditor-General said that this was what brought it to his notice. He said he was aware from newspaper reports and reports in other journals of the activities of this department which seemed to be quite beyond the scope of the budget to which they were limited. So one wonders what effective steps members of the Government who knew about the situation, or even those who did not know about it, took to inquire into what was obviously a very irregular situation.

This brings me back to my original argument: Why should all the blame now be heaped on Dr. Mulder and the individuals in his department? I want to come back now to the question of collective responsibility which has already occupied the time of a number of speakers in this debate including the hon. member for Pretoria West, who spoke before the dinner adjournment, and the hon. the Minister of the Interior who spoke on the specific issue of collective Cabinet responsibility. It is of course a tradition of the Westminster style of Government that there should be some form of collective Cabinet responsibility. However, I should like to approach this aspect from perhaps a different point of view from that which has been advanced in earlier discussions. I want to look at it from perhaps a cynical angle, an angle adopted by people who have been critical of the Westminster principle of collective Cabinet responsibility. In relation to the British system it has in fact been said that collective Cabinet responsibility is an effective way of a Cabinet covering up for indiscretions of their colleagues. Indeed, one commentator, dealing with the question of Cabinet solidarity in the British system and the executive’s tendency to operate in secrecy, has said these words, and I quote—

One wonders whether it was not perhaps an obsession with this power, spurred on by the knowledge that it had control of secret funds free from the scrutiny and control of Parliament, that enabled this Cabinet to condone, if not to connive at, the malpractices in the Department of Information for so long. They might well have been prepared to hang together through thick and thin until the Mostert Commission revelations made it impossible for them to do so. At that stage they allowed one of their colleagues to hang separately as a scapegoat. [Interjections.] One wonders what might have happened in South Africa had it not been for the Mostert Commission. Had it not been for the Mostert Commission, there is no evidence that we would have had the Erasmus Commission, because the Erasmus Commission flowed from the withdrawal of the mandate of the Mostert Commission.

You are now talking utter nonsense.

The hon. the Prime Minister today told us about the operation of the Pretorius Interdepartmental Committee.

I appointed the Erasmus Commission as a result of their advice.

I must confess that in the light of the track record of that hon. Minister and certainly of his predecessor, the nomination merely of departmental commissions does not impress a great deal, because prior to this we had reference to the Reynders Commission and the investigations which had been undertaken by General Van den Bergh. These were all departmental commissions which were going to unravel this whole situation. One still wonders what might have been the position in South Africa had it not been for the revelations of the Mostert Commission. I again want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. members who have spoken on this subject why the hon. the Prime Minister was so angry with Judge Mostert for disclosing what was so obviously in the public interest and what has now been confirmed by the Erasmus Commission.

I was not angry. Did you see my statement?

If the hon. the Prime Minister was not angry, he gave a very good exhibition of behaving in a manner which was most petulant as a result of what Judge Mostert had done. I want to ask other questions.

You are simply making statements without evidence.

The evidence is there for all to see. [Interjections.] Immediately Judge Mostert had made his revelations in a Press statement and had indicated that he had acted, having given consideration to the appeal by the Prime Minister not to disclose these things, but had believed it was his duty in the public interest to make these disclosures, he was a marked man, and within a matter of hours his mandate was withdrawn because of the disclosures he had made. However, that is not all that happened to Mr. Justice Mostert. I want to direct some questions to the hon. the Minister of Finance. After the mandate of Mr. Justice Mostert had been withdrawn, there were stories that there had been an attempt in the Transvaal to bring an interdict application against him. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance or the hon. the prime Minister across the floor of the House whether there was such an attempt to bring a court application against Judge Mostert and if so, who instigated that attempt. Was it the hon. the Minister of Finance?

I will answer that. [Interjections.] I will in fact answer in detail and in doing so I shall not call other people’s credibility in question. [Interjections.]

May I have the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance? Did you or your department in fact instigate that court action against Judge Mostert? [Interjections.]

I shall answer that fully in public tomorrow.

If it was his department which instigated that action, we wish to know why that application was not proceeded with. I also want to know whether any approach was made to Judge Mostert prior to the bringing of that application on the question of the release of documents or evidence in his possession and, if so, what the nature of that request was and what his response to it was. I think the country needs an answer.

Why are you so sensitive about Judge Mostert?

Because the hon. the Minister and his colleagues are so super-sensitive about Judge Mostert. Here we have a judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa who, I believe, was treated in a most summary way by the Prime Minister and who subsequently suffered the indignity of a report that a court action was being brought against him.

Were you present?

I am asking for information.

I gave you that information.

No, with respect to the hon. the Prime Minister, he gave no information in regard to the interdict application against Mr. Justice Mostert. This is the issue I am dealing with.

Surely that has nothing to do with me.

I am trying to find out with whom he had to do. It must have been with somebody in the Government benches and I hope they are not going to cover this up as well.

All that has been said in this debate indicates again what I said earlier, namely that the danger in South Africa at the present time lies in the system. This is the lesson we must learn from the present debacle. Whatever the need for secrecy in the interest of national security, if there is total secrecy and no proper accountability, there will be inevitable abuse and a threat to the democratic process of government. This is not new and is not unique even in South Africa. It is a problem which has been exercising the minds of political thinkers throughout the Free World who have become alarmed at the growth of executive power and the tendency towards more and more secrecy in the exercise of that power. It is accepted that in recent times the exigencies of modern government have necessitated the transfer of considerable power to the executive from other branches.

Why do you read so fast? We cannot hear?

The hon. the Minister has been sleeping most of the afternoon. Perhaps the exigencies of modern-day administration makes this inevitable, but none the less it detracts from the powers of Parliament to have to have recourse to information in regard to public matters. When in regard to public matters. When in addition to that increase in executive power, that power is to be exercised behind a veil of secrecy and without any meaningful accountability, the conditions for total executive dominance, if not tyranny, have already been created. This is the danger which exists in South Africa at the present time. It is a danger which has been heavily underlined even by the disclosures of the Erasmus Commission. I want to repeat that if the contempt shown by those in the Department of Information for public morality and propriety, operating under a veil of secret funds, is a sample of the attitude of mind of other branches of government, I believe that the executive tyranny to which I have referred is already with us. This is the problem which faces the hon. the Prime Minister. There is certainly a powerful case to be made for a degree of secrecy where the security of the State is concerned. All are agreed on that, but this must place an enormous duty on those to whom the licence for secrecy is given to show the utmost care in the exercise of that licence. Whether the hon. the Prime Minister likes it or not, when he asks for more secrecy, he must realize that the track record of his Government so far on this issue is thoroughly bad. He must realize that they have been given that trust by this Parliament and by the people of South Africa and that they have abused it.

On whose behalf are you speaking?

I am talking on my own behalf and on behalf of members on these benches. The Prime Minister must realize that he will not have a sympathetic reception to appeals for greater secrecy to be exercised in the functions of Government because of the very bad track record evidenced by the purpose of this debate, the purpose of this session of Parliament. This Government must hear, and hear it clearly and loudly. It will not be easy for the hon. the Prime Minister to allay public fears and public suspicions in regard to corruption within the present Government, and it will be a long time before public memories on these matters are erased, even if there are no further disclosures.

It comes as no surprise that the hon. the Prime Minister and speakers on the Government side should rely heavily on the issue of State security to justify their clandestine and secret operations. However, even these considerations are cold comfort when one realizes that the Government itself controls the definition of national security and that there is no limit to what information the Government may decide falls within that category.

My time has run out. [Interjections.] I am not surprised at the relief of hon. members opposite. Nevertheless, I want to point out to them that the public will need much more than this debate and they will need much more than the operation of the Erasmus Commission to allay their fears of corruption under the administration of the present Government.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important occasion, a very important discussion, something which is of the greatest possible importance for the country as a whole, for the administration of the country. Accordingly, we have had an informative discussion today. I now find it shocking, however, to have to say that the most irresponsible and contemptible behaviour we have seen today is that which we have just had from the hon. member for Musgrave. The things the hon. member said!

He made it very clear to us that whatever we do, he and his party will see to it that suspicion continues. [Interjections.] He referred to the entire administration. In other words, he cast suspicion upon the whole Public Service. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Musgrave is not the only speaker to have done so. The Public Service has been repeatedly involved. We also find it in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. There, too, the Public Service is specifically mentioned. Therefore we are dealing here …

Certain people! Certain people!

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with parties which are politically bankrupt, parties which are seizing upon the opportunity to sow suspicion. We are dealing with people who have not been able to produce a policy which would inspire confidence, people who, in election after election, in by-election after by-election, let slip the opportunity to state their case, but who are now making the most irresponsible allegations here, to say the least of it. [Interjections.]

In recent months, quite a dust has been raised as a result of rumours, of reports and of—to give it a simple name—mere stories. The hon. member for Musgrave and his party have done nothing more than to try to contribute to the raising of more dust. They have done this rather than to argue in an honest manner. The hon. the Prime Minister said this morning that we were prepared to accept the report of the Erasmus Commission, a report in which everything has been laid bare. He also pointed out that the commission was continuing its investigation into further possible irregularities. However, those people are not satisfied. Now the hon. member is raising a hue and cry about the Mostert Commission, which he originally alleged had brought out a report. The Mostert Commission was rather a reporter of the Press, nothing else. Mr. Justice Mostert was not acting as a judge either, but rather as a commissioner.

No responsible government can allow someone who has been appointed to perform a specific task, to carry out instructions which were very clearly defined, to arrogate to himself the right to perform other tasks, especially not in the way Mr. Justice Mostert saw fit to do. Surely any government with a sense of responsibility should ensure that the tasks to be performed in terms of its instructions are performed in a responsible way. Already we are being accused of having acted irresponsibly. Now a commissioner comes forward who is allowed to do and say what he pleases, who may publish one-sided evidence, evidence which the hon. member for Musgrave then calls findings or a report of a commission. The most reprehensible thing he did, in my opinion, was to use the words “cover up as well”. He used the words “cover up” a number of times and pretended that we wanted to cover up. What is the purpose of the debate which is taking place here today? This debate is in fact taking place because of the investigations of a judicial commission …

When was that appointed?

… which has here revealed the evidence given before it and made its conclusions and recommendations. What more do the hon. members want? I cannot help coming to the conclusion that whatever we do, we are dealing with a ruthless group of people who do not care what is in the interests of South Africa and its people and what is not, as long as they can harm the Government. In the process they are involving the Public Service in every way and they are sowing suspicion wherever they go.

However, Mr. Speaker, I want to leave the hon. member at that. I do not think we ought to take any more notice of an hon. member who approaches the matter so irresponsibly. There are matters mentioned by him to which other hon. members can reply. I do not think I should give any further attention to them.

I want to refer to the hon. member for Parktown, because he referred here to the remark in the report before the House that the English-language Press prefers to write about evidence rather than to submit it. It is surprising to learn from him that Press cuttings—if I heard correctly—were presented to the commission …

Together with an offer.

… plus one person who gave evidence.

I know of another one.

And an offer.

They did not specify what the offer was, Mr. Speaker. However, I think it is a ridiculous story for us to be told here that newspaper cuttings were submitted to a judicial commission. It is absolutely ridiculous. [Interjections.] However, let us leave the matter at that.

I now want to concentrate on something by which I and all of us ought to set great store, and that is sound administration. In this connection I want to refer in particular, as has frequently been done today, to the good administration we have in this country, provided by a Public Service which often has to contend with staff shortages, which finds it difficult to compete with the private sector as far as salaries are concerned, but which is nevertheless an organization—I shall go into more detail about it presently—which has provided this country with such a sound administration over the years that it has commanded respect all over the world. However, this opportunity is now being seized upon by certain political parties to cast suspicion upon the whole Public Service, which is doing its work with great sacrifice and dedication and with great efficiency. We rely heavily upon officials in this country, and in this connection I want to quote a few matters from the commission’s report which I believe to be very important. That side has a great deal to say about administration; they say how it should be done, that Ministers should know everything, etc. I want to refer to one matter which is mentioned here. On page 76 of the commission’s report— although it is also mentioned elsewhere in the report—reference is made in paragraph 11.345 to Dr. Mulder and it is said that he was not only the political head of the department, but the administrative head as well. Therefore he was also responsible for the misdemeanours of the officials in the department. Then they go further and quote Phillips where he says—

Do you agree?

Generally speaking, I agree with that; I accept it. [Interjections.] However, this means that a Minister who is both administrative and political head of the department must in many cases accept responsibility, together with his departmental head, for the actions and behaviour of many thousands of officials. That is quite right. But how does this happen in practice? Do the Minister and the Secretary to the department have to watch every person? Do we have to watch every person to make sure, because it has been indicated here that certificates were handed in. Is one to distrust every official and to send another one to see whether the certificate concerned is correct? [Interjections.] The accepted procedure is …

But we are not talking about clerks; we are talking about senior officials.

… that when these accounts are examined by the Auditor-General and abuses come to light, these are followed up. One cannot act in suspicion and keep an eye on every official, as has been said here tonight. This is in fact what has been suggested here. The normal procedure is that if one has certainty or evidence that there are misdemeanours or malpractices, one has the matter investigated. The normal course of affairs is that the officials dealing with the matter then have to report on it. For example, there is the accounting officer, who deals with the accounts, and he has to report. In the same way, there are the internal auditors and so forth. However, one cannot keep an eye on every case. Therefore we have to accept that we must to a large extent reply on the honesty and the dedication of the officials, and this is in fact what we have always had in this country.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I have no time for questions, especially questions as silly as those the hon. member usually asks.

I should like to refer here to a speech made by the Chairman of the Public Service Commission this year, and I do so because the Public Service has been implicated here to such a large extent. He said the following on 5 April this year, and I should be glad if the hon. member for Durban Point would pay some attention. Then he might get an idea of the functioning and the problems of the Public Service and he would not sit here making frivolous remarks and talking a lot of nonsense.

Answer my question.

The Chairman of the Public Service Commission said the following, amongst other things—

Tonight we witnessed the performance of a champion in this particular field. The Chairman went on to say—

I think we have had a very good illustration of this in recent times, and again tonight. I quote further—

I believe these words are very true and are also applicable to what we have heard here today—

Then he goes on to say—

I read this quotation because it is very necessary that we take cognizance of the fact that if we have no confidence in our Public Service and if we do not help to build it, we cannot win their confidence and we cannot expect them to have the dedication to render the service they ought to render. I am referring here to the practical implications. I realize the implications. I accept the demand that a Minister should be responsible. But then he must also have officials who inspire confidence and who are not disparaged and placed under suspicion by everyone who wants to express an opinion on the task to be performed. It is necessary for us to get a little perspective on the matter.

According to my information, there were 272 600 officials in the service of the central Government in 1975. The number may have grown a little since then. In the light of this number of officials it is often said that there are too many departments and officials. I should like to make a few comparisons in this connection. In 1955 we had one official for every 25,02 members of the population. By 1975, that ratio had grown to one official for every 30,53 members of the population. If we compare these figures with statistics for the USA, we see that there they have one official for every 27,54 members of the population and that the ratio in Brazil is one official for every 36,67 members of the population. From this it is quite clear that in the light of the particular circumstances in our country, we do not employ an excessive number of officials, and that they perform with great responsibility and competence the task entrusted to them, i.e. the national administration.

In the year concerned, an amount of R6 679 million was appropriated to be spent by the 272 600 officials in performing their task. Last year, the amount was approximately R9 000 million. We must now take a very realistic and objective view of the matter. There are a certain number of people in all the branches of the administration of the country and these people must act as efficiently as possible. What is the result? The result is that the Public Service—hon. members will agree with me—maintains a standard of administration we can rightly be proud of. From this report it now appears now that there are three or four officials who are under suspicion and against whom further steps may be taken. In the light of this, hon. members on that side of the House have implicated the whole Public Service … [Interjections.] It is done, inter alia, in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point, and it has been repeated by the hon. member for Musgrave.

That is totally untrue; that is a lie.

Order! The hon. member …

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “lie”, but I say that it is totally and utterly untrue that that stands in my speech.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize it again …

Read my amendment.

If the hon. member for Durban Point is alleging that he did not say so, I shall gladly accept that, but it has repeatedly been said by other hon. members. It is very important to them, and they have indicated this, that the Public Service, together with the Government, is involved in a so-called cover-up. I want them to furnish proof instead of picking up gossip in the street and then presenting it as if it were proof. If the hon. member for Durban Point has proof of the allegations made by the hon. member for Musgrave, why do they not go to the commission and say that they have proof that a cover-up did take place and why do they not produce that proof? I am therefore accusing the hon. Opposition of using this debate to disparage a very efficient Public Service, a service which renders a particularly high standard of service, and to run it down in the process of argumentation just because there have been a few persons who have come under suspicion out of a total number of more than 270 000 officials. I am frankly accusing those parties, especially the PFP, of being guilty of this and of saying this not only for the present, but for the future as well. They allege that everything the departments do and everything the Government does together with the departments—because one cannot quite separate the two—will be regarded with suspicion. In this way they are undermining the sound administration of the country and inciting the public against the hard-working, dedicated officials who are trying to do what is best in the interests of this country. I want to say quite frankly that this has become apparent today and I should be neglecting my duty if I did not mention it. I myself was a member of the private sector before entering public life, and I want to say quite frankly that the Public Service in this country compares well, as far as the quality of service is concerned, with the private sector. In fact, I think that the Public Service acts as a training centre for providing the private sector with a proper standard and that it is our duty in this country to give credit to these people, people who often render outstanding service under difficult circumstances. The thanks which the Public Service is getting from the other side today is to be reviled and slandered. This is reprehensible, and I do not think we can expect to get anything positive out of them for the rest of this debate, because they are not prepared to accept the report which is before us, because it is the product of people who are in the service of the State. A judge and other officials in the service of the State have submitted a fine report to us, a report we should discuss and analyse objectively. In spite of this, we find that suspicion is being cast on it, that it is not being accepted. We on this side of the House have looked at that report, a report which is a painful one; let us not reason away that fact. However, as the hon. the Prime Minister said this morning, we have accepted that report unconditionally. We have accepted it and we are acting according to it. However, what do we get from the Opposition which first asked for a parliamentary Select Committee and then for a judicial commission? When they get the one, they want the other.

What about Kemp, about Pretorius, about…

What did Kemp do?

What about the committee?

What did Kemp do?

If that hon. member thinks that certain committees were appointed about which he has misgivings, he must not sit there shouting. Nor must he go and say so in the streets or pick it up there. The hon. member for Durban Point was the one who said that one could enter any café and find evidence there. Then that hon. member should submit his evidence. The Erasmus Commission is still sitting, and he must therefore put his allegations in writing instead of making vague allegations. Surely this is not the way to do things. I challenge those hon. members not to use newspapers cuttings, as the hon. member for Parktown said, because the chances are that the newspapers also picked up their stories in the streets. Now we have to listen to vague allegations of this kind and in the process we have to hear suspicion being cast upon an efficient Public Service and thousands of people. There is a party which is politically bankrupt, which is too scared to fight by-elections to put its case to the public. Now they are relying on further suspicion-mongering and slanderous stories in an attempt to build their reputation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister spoke mainly about the Public Service and the Public Service Commission. I want to say in the first place that he was guilty of something reprehensible when he tried to pretend that the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point had condemned the Public Service as such. I shall read it out to him. It states in the amendment that the Government should accept responsibility because the following, inter alia, had occurred: Administrative abuse and arrogance by certain Ministers and senior officials. “Certain”, not the Public Service as such. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am also going to speak about the Public Service and certain problems that may pertain to that service, but it is not going to be about everyone; it is only going to be about certain people. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister: The hon. the Minister waxes lyrical about the Public Service Commission, but how did the Government handle the Public Service Commission in respect of the appointment of Dr. Eschel Rhoodie? Who was it who ignored the Public Service Commission and in the end, made a political appointment? Was it this side of the House that flouted the Public Service Commission, or was it that side? [Interjections.]

†When I walked into my office on Tuesday I noticed on my desk an unopened letter. When I opened it, I immediately recognized it as from the SABC. They usually send a report on Parliament to me. It was a report on Parliament of 17 June 1978, which happened to be the day on which Parliament was prorogued. I think it is necessary to quote some extracts from this in order to show to you that my leader, the hon. member for Durban Point, has said that what has happened in South Africa, this scandal, has humiliated us as patriotic South Africans. I shall quote from passages to show that it has also humiliated some of the hon. members on the opposite side.

I want to refer here to some of the hon. members. There were, in fact, amongst the ranks of hon. members opposite people who, at that time, knew more, but decided to remain silent. On this last day of the previous session we debated the Third Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Let us listen to what was said by the New Republic Party spokesman, the hon. member for East London North—

That is what was said. At that time hon. members opposite lived in a dream world. They lived in a dream world because in the same debate the hon. member for Aliwal had to say—

He believed that the full confidence of the public in South Africa had been restored after the enquiry and the reports. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that was what was reported there. However, while the hon. member spoke of a cover-up, of expectations on behalf of the Opposition of a cover-up, his own Prime Minister at that time was already a part of a cover-up in the sense that he knew that State money was being used to finance a project which, in his own words, and according to the evidence given to the Erasmus Commission, was not “morally or ethically justifiable.”

We do not, however, only have that evidence at our disposal. Obviously the hon. member for Randfontein knew at the time exactly what was going on. Yet he allowed one of the hon. members to use the argument here that, of course, there was nothing wrong. The present hon. Prime Minister was at that time already aware of—and I quote again from the report—“procedures and practices of financing which he too regarded as unethical and unconstitutional”. He knew of such practices of financing going on. [Interjections.] He said that he discouraged it, but he knew about it and it was not stopped.

I had the courage to fight it with success.

I am just dealing with the factual situation. [Interjections.] Surely, the hon. member for Aliwal realizes now that he was humiliated? Who humiliated him? He was humiliated by his own leaders. Let it always be remembered that it was not only Dr. Connie Mulder who humiliated him. We have the evidence here of the letter of Gen. Malan who already had objected that on account of unethical and irregular procedures the present Prime Minister had been forced to resort to untruths in the Assembly to obtain additional funds …

Now wait. You must just quote that letter correctly.

I will come back to it and quote it again later on. It is an interesting letter and I will come back to it again.

†It was not only the hon. member for Aliwal who was humiliated in this manner. Let me quote from the report of the SABC on what another hon. member said here in all innocence—

Those were the things that were said but at the time they were saying them their own leaders already knew better. [Interjections.] If that is not a cover up, nothing will ever be a cover up.

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

Oh, no, man. [Interjections.] Some of the leaders of the NP—I used the word “leaders”—humiliated their own followers but they also humiliated all patriotic South Africans. They humiliated patriotic South Africans of all colours, ages and creeds and for that they will be remembered. That is a historical fact and there is nothing they can do to wipe it out.

I am also glad to say that at that particular time an hon. member like the hon. member for Mooi River of the NRP had the following to say with the evidence available at that time—I quote again from the report—

This is what was said here, but of course they did not listen to that because when it comes from the Opposition, it is pooh-poohed. We had it again from the hon. the Prime Minister today that the criterion between what is right and wrong is whether one can win elections or by-elections or not … [Interjections.]

No.

… and if one is not fighting a by-election, one’s case is wrong. That is not the criterion between what is right and what is wrong.

This brings me immediately to the following point. I must say that it is more than just a coincidence that the greatest scandal and the greatest corruption occurred in South Africa at a time when the NP was at its strongest.

Never before did it have 135 members in this House, but never before have we had a scandal and corruption of this magnitude. When one really analyses the facts concerning the Information scandal, there is just one conclusion one must arrive at, and that is the inevitability of such an event under present conditions in South Africa. The very nature of government under Nationalist rule has made the current large-scale corruption not only possible, but in my view also unavoidable. The hon. the Prime Minister has said that he now wants a clean Government. He must remember that he has inherited a dirty or corrupt Government from a regime of 30 years of Nationalist rule. All of a sudden he announces something new, namely that he wants a clean Government. [Interjections.]

We as legislators must realize that we must avoid certain situations in this country. We must, for instance, avoid a situation which has led to the emergence of a person such as General Van den Bergh. We must avoid a situation which has led to the philosophy of a Dr. Connie Mulder—one can see it for oneself when one reads the report of the Erasmus Commission. One must ask oneself where he acquired the philosophy that what is good for the NP is good for South Africa.

Let us look at some of the conditions which exist in this country, and at those in positions of power in South Africa. I am not talking only about the power of government and I am not only referring to political leaders such as Cabinet Ministers. In the Civil Service one also finds people like Dr. Eschel Rhoodie as Secretary of the Department of Information and General Van den Bergh. They have become accustomed to the loyal support of the NP Government which has become so used to winning all the by-elections. They have become so accustomed to it that through the years they have become more and more arrogant. I want to say that I am speaking figuratively, so that there can be no misunderstanding, but they could get away with murder, so to speak, because everything can be explained in the final analysis as long as they can apply the dictum that it was good for the party, and therefore it must be good for South Africa. Why is that so? The reason is that they know they can be backed up by a slavish Afrikaans Press and by SABC and the TV, which will just flood us with propaganda. Then one has this sort of thing. We know that the previous Prime Minister knew, for instance, what happened a few days before the election. According to the evidence he was confronted with it and then took ill. Yet the TV was used. How can one win when the dice is loaded against you all the way, on both sides? It was not only the newspapers who did this, but also the SABC.

There is also a second condition which is peculiar and which of course is conducive to the fostering of corruption in a society. [Interjections.] One gets a glimpse of this when one studies the evidence concerning General Van den Bergh, namely that in South Africa—perhaps it is easier in South Africa than in most other countries—the real political manipulators need not sit in this House. They need not take political responsibility. We have had examples of this. I am just stating it as a matter of fact; I do not want to have to debate it as it is already a historical fact. One will have Professor Pelser writing an historical book about it.

It is a fact that one has in South Africa a secret organization such as the Broederbond. It is a historical fact. When a person knows that justification needs only to be given to a fellow broeder one must not be surprised at what has happened. The only element of surprise can then be in relation to why it took so long. In respect of the previous Prime Minister, Gen. Van den Bergh and Mr. Alberts there was an additional holy alliance—I am only mentioning this in passing—the Ossewabrandwag connection at Koffiefontein. Can one really be surprised that one of the commission’s findings is that through the person of Mr. Vorster, Gen. Van den Bergh tried to manipulate events in the direction that he wanted them to go? That was stated in evidence before the Erasmus Commission. It was further stated that at times he made Mr. Vorster’s decisions for him. These are the facts. No matter how much we would like to wish these things away, they have happened. It is part of the history of South Africa and we must ask ourselves how we are going to avoid situations like these in future. How are we going to avoid a situation arising that a man such as Gen. Van den Bergh can successfully perform, to a certain extent, a Rasputin role in South Africa. He got away with it because he had, apart from his other qualities, the right political qualifications. In this case he had an additional one, namely his OB membership, but he also had the right numberplate, a BB numberplate. In those circumstances corruption is inevitable.

We must face up squarely to a third condition in South Africa. I say in advance that I am not suggesting that all civil servants fill political posts as such in South Africa. However, I wish to state as a fact that until recently in South Africa we have had an unprecedented growth in bureaucracy and in the multiplication of State departments and the number of secretaries of departments. It can easily happen that “promotions” can be as a result of membership to some or other organization. I am very pleased that the Erasmus Commission drew attention to the fact that appointments must not be made just because of political expediency.

Are you suggesting they are?

Do you accept all the findings and recommendations contained in the 105 pages of the Erasmus Commission report?

I am talking about you.

We know that the hon. the Minister always needs a few hours to decide what he has done. He makes a political speech and then afterwards has to get up on personal explanations. For his sake I will repeat what I have said.

I say that is a disgraceful statement to make.

I will repeat what I said for the sake of the hon. the Minister of Finance.

You do not have to, I heard you.

I said that I am glad that the Erasmus Commission has warned against the appointment of people as a matter of political expediency.

What did you say?

That is what I said.

No, you did not say that.

I said that I personally was glad that the Commission has warned about this.

You are a renegade. [Interjections.]

Order! I call upon hon. members to bring the debate back to a quieter level.

If we do not keep all these factors in mind we will never get a situation in South Africa where we have a government completely free of corruption. There will always be an element of danger.

I now wish to return to what the hon. the Prime Minister said to me just now. He told me to read Gen. Malan’s letter properly. According to the Erasmus Report it went against the grain of the hon. the Prime Minister to have to pretend to Parliament that all the funds in the Special Defence Account were spent on defence activities. In this respect we are also informed that the hon. the Prime Minister consistently objected to the irregular and unethical practice of secret funds being provided by the Defence Vote. Evidence to that effect has not been published. However, what we have here is, of course, the letter written by Gen. Magnus Malan.

*In his letter, dated 4 July 1977, Gen. Malan makes the following quite clear—

I should like to draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that this letter was written on 4 July 1977. I now have a problem, and I should like the hon. the Prime Minister please to help me solve it. The hon. the Prime Minister says that in 1976, no funds were voted for this purpose in the Defence Vote. According to him, it was not the case in 1977, either. In that year, there were no funds available. We knew that Admiral Bierman was still there in 1976 and that he was succeeded by Gen. Malan in 1977. He then accepted responsibility for that for the first time.

Is that now the hon. member’s problem?

My problem is that I have gone through the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech. I have also gone through his speeches in the budget debates. I am referring specifically to the budget debates. I should be pleased if the hon. the Prime Minister would be so kind as to indicate to us specifically—and he must do so on the basis of his reported speeches in Hansard—where he stated these untruths. Where specifically does it appear in Hansard? Will he please indicate to us what specific aspects were involved? I want to place my cards on the table in all honesty. I have gone through the hon. the Prime Minister’s speeches …

Ugh, now you are talking nonsense!

I have gone through the hon. the Prime Minister’s speeches, but I could not find it anywhere. [Interjections.] For that reason, I should like the hon. the Prime Minister to indicate to us specifically where it is to be found.

I am being quite honest in regard to this matter. It is quite simply the case that if we read the evidence further, we find that Mr. Barrie reported to the previous Prime Minister on 27 June 1977 on irregularities pertaining to this matter. I simply do not like the idea that a few days later, all of a sudden a letter is written in which strong objection is raised to something that is taking place, and I am unable to find specific references in the relevant debates to the said untruths. I should therefore like the hon. the Prime Minister to point them out to us specifically. For the rest, I shall leave the matter at that. In conclusion, I should just like to refer to another matter.

The hon. member need not defend me!

No, I am not defending anybody. I merely want to obtain information.

There is an old saying that the thief begins by stealing a cent, but that he later steals a rand and in the end even commits murder. We find here, however, that all the millions stolen, were actually State funds that were ultimately applied to the benefit of the NP. This is money with which we might have been able to increase the pensions of our elderly people … [Interjections.] It is a fact. [Interjections.] Furthermore, we ask ourselves where this type of practice originated and how long it has been prevalent. With the passage of years, the custom has arisen that hon. members rise to their feet here and state that the Department of Information could distribute as many documents as it liked internally and abroad. They could send them to everyone who wanted to read them. That was also the policy of the NP. As long ago as the middle of the ’sixties—I know persons who can testify to that and I also have pamphlets here and some of them, although I cannot say precisely which of them, date back to those days—one found that if one went to an NP election office and asked them what their policy was in respect of certain aspects, such pamphlets were given to one. Such pamphlets are given to one, and on them it is printed that they are issued by the Department of Information. [Interjections.] It is so easy to start with small things, with the 10 cent piece, and ultimately theft is accepted because, after all, one is doing it for the benefit of South Africa. [Interjections.] This is the sort of action that leads to the unhappy events that we are experiencing.

Mr. Speaker, as I sat here throughout the afternoon and this evening, listening to one Opposition speaker after the other, and especially to the hon. member for Durban Central, I was reminded of a remark made by a certain Shakespearean character, which I quote—

That is what you are doing right now:

Throughout the attempted argument presented by hon. members of the Opposition, I could not escape the feeling that here was a lot of noise, a lot of hot air, but no substance.

*We are dealing here today with what may, in a certain sense, be regarded as an autopsy on the corpse of the former Department of Information. For obvious reasons it is an extremely unpleasant task. This task is, unfortunately, all the more unpleasant because the political vultures have already been on the scene and also because certain elements—among which I include inter alia elements of the Press—have fallen on this corpse with a sadistic delight to see precisely how much political capital they can make of it. In this process they have harmed South Africa. [Interjections.] It does not surprise us. In fact, it has failed to surprise us for a long time now, because we have come to expect it of all these elements. The only thing I find interesting is that hon. members of the Opposition have now reacted so violently. It seems to me as if the stone I threw into the bush, has hit its target.

We have an unpleasant task, but in another sense we have a very easy task. It is easy because not only have the relevant facts already been exposed by the Auditor-General, the Parliamentary Select Committee on Public Accounts and the interdepartmental Pretorius Committee, but also because the Erasmus Commission has already flayed open the matter right to the bone. These commissions and persons have facilitated the task of this House, and as a responsible House we are indebted to each and every one of them in this connection. I want to add that it has always been very easy to be wise after the event. And that is what we also have here in the case of the Official Opposition today. They are now extremely wise, now that they have all these facts at their disposal. Now they are very wise and very sanctimonious, and now they can spell out to us precisely what should have been done and how it should have been done.

We called for Mulder’s resignation in April.

We have got it now.

Unfortunately it is not possible to cover this entire field meaningfully in a single short speech.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I am sorry. The time is too limited. Otherwise I should gladly have argued with the hon. member.

I should therefore like to confine myself to a single aspect of this matter. I want to confine myself to what the Erasmus Commission calls the “blossoming stage” of the matter, and I want to refer to the vagueness of controlling legislation.

It has repeatedly been stated, categorically and unequivocally through the hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. Ministers today, that this side of the House accepts the findings of the Erasmus Commission. However, we are still waiting for an unequivocal reply from those benches. This side of the House does not flinch from the findings of the Erasmus Commission which point out unsatisfactory aspects of this matter. For that reason I feel at liberty to touch upon this aspect of the matter and to say that after it had been decided in 1972 that the Department of Information should undertake delicate secret projects, no appropriate legislative measures were taken to make specific provision for the funding of the intended activities of the department.

Funding was initially done through the instrumentality of a contribution to the Security Services Special Account, which is indeed—and I point this out in all fairness in order to put the matter in perspective— covered by legislation of Parliament, namely Act No. 81 of 1969.

In terms of section 2 of the mentioned Act, funds may lawfully be utilized for “services of a confidential nature”. The Erasmus Commission duly found that funds could lawfully be utilized to this end from that fund. This entailed that the hon. the Prime Minister had to give prior approval for all delicate projects of the Department of Information. In terms of section 4 of the said Act, the Security Services Special Account is also subject to audit by the Auditor-General, albeit a limited audit in accordance with a stipulated procedure.

Funding of the secret projects of the Department of Information through the instrumentality of the Security Services Special Account was therefore indirectly covered by legislation and consequently the necessary legal control mechanism existed in this regard to limit and deal with abuses and irregularities if it was not possible to prevent them altogether.

If we consider the amount allocated in this manner, we find that it was a relatively small amount. During the 1973-’74 financial year it was a total amount of R793 000. I want to state categorically—and any hon. member on that side of the House is welcome to correct me—that there is no indication whatsoever that this appropriation did not take place in an absolutely bona fide way or that any amount from that has been improperly or unlawfully utilized. On the contrary, the reconciliation statement for 1973-’74 indicates that an amount in excess of the amount stated was expended on—and I quote—“projects as per project register”.

Later funding from the Special Defence Account was commenced. For lack of time I shall have to cut short this part of my speech. I do want to point out, however, that at present there is specific legislation on the Statute Book to provide (make provision) for the funding of secret undertakings. What is illuminating in this regard, however, is that earlier this year, during the last parliamentary session, when we placed Act No. 56 of 1978 on the Statute Book, the Official Opposition opposed that legislation. What does that indicate? It indicates that the accusation the Official Opposition and their Press are now levelling at the Government, namely that there was no direct legislation of Parliament to regulate the funding of the secret projects of the former Department of Education is merely a smoke-screen or a useful stalking-horse. It is merely a technical argument to conceal the fact that the Official Opposition cannot tolerate any funding of secret projects in defence of South Africa against the total onslaught being waged on it.

I want to tell the Official Opposition that no doubt whatsoever exists about this matter on the part of the electorate of South Africa. It is not the Government and this side of the House that have let South Africa down in this connection, or are still letting South Africa down, it is in fact the Official Opposition. They come to light here time and again with arguments about the “rule of law” and all kinds of other technical arguments. But when they are placed before a test of accepting the “rule of law”, for example, they remain silent or they reject that particular measure or they try to undermine it in some other way so that it will be totally ineffective. That is consequently their attitude now towards the report of the Erasmus Commission.

I want to conclude by once again challenging the hon. members of the Official Opposition to state outright whether or not they accept the report of the Erasmus Commission: yes or no. Surely one cannot conduct a debate on a matter such as this in this way. Surely it is a terroristic form of debating to be always on the lookout to see whether in the accoutrement of one’s opponent there is not an opportunity for one to get hold of him, get in one’s blow and then run away. They do not adopt a standpoint. They have no base from which they operate. They merely come forward time and again with stabs, innuendos and insinuations, and if one then confronts them with the implications of their insinuations, as was done earlier in the case of the hon. member for Durban Point, then they hide behind the wording they used. The hon. member for Durban Point made insinuations, but when the implication of his insinuations were pointed to him, he shielded behind the wording of his amendment. It is very easy to hide behind the wording of an amendment, but the insinuation has in fact been made. He made the insinuation against the entire corps of the Public Service. One can simply read his speech in Hansard tomorrow. This is a reprehensible form of debating and it is a method of debating which we can least of all afford in an important debate such as this.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mossel Bay challenged the Official Opposition to say whether it accepted the Erasmus Commission report or not. May I just suggest to him that he should have listened to the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Just tell me. Sê tog net vir my.

He went point by point through the recommendations and gave his answers categorically in each case as to whether we accepted them or not. I think that hon. member has now been long enough in the House to realize that he ought to have listened to the debate that took place previous to the time that he spoke.

I listened very carefully.

I am not going to waste time on that hon. member, who made a lot of noise. I think that it is time that the House came back to one of the most important aspects of that report and I think it should examine further the role played by what would be termed the illegitimate child of the NP, i.e. The Citizen newspaper. This illegitimate child, conceived in dishonesty, deceit and total secrecy, was finally born at tremendous cost to the taxpayer, and its life was and is still devoted to furthering the interests of the NP. In all, its establishment was a political fraud without parallel in the Western World. Public money which was misappropriated irregularly and dishonestly was misused to found a partisan party-political newspaper which the people of South Africa were misled into believing was independent, privately owned and non-aligned. In stark terms the report before us sums up the situation. Chapter XI, par. 11.419 reads as follows—

Also in Chapter IX, par. 9.263 it states—

I think it is important that hon. members on the other side should get rid of any ideas they may have that the birth of this illegitimate child was organized for the benefit of the wider South African community. It was organized purely and simply for the benefit of the NP, so much so that its somewhat hysterical bias in favour of the NP far exceeded even that of any other bona fide legitimate Nationalist orientated newspaper. If hon. members in that party really believe that they need the backing of a newspaper illegally founded on fraud, dishonesty and deceit, I think it indicates to South Africa and to the world the abysmal inadequacy of their policies, policies which have to be bolstered up, which have to be packaged and sold from a background of what is probably the greatest confidence trick that South Africa has ever seen. Like the members of the commission, any impartial observer will find it very difficult to accept that The Citizen was and is anything other than a party-political newspaper. Its approach to the 1977 election was a clear indication of this. The leading article published on election day is typical of the type of propaganda that was fed to the voters of South Africa. This was the leading article obviously studied by the Erasmus Commission. It urged the voters of South Africa to support the Nationalist Party. “A vote for the National Party”, it claimed, “is of great political importance. Therefore we commend the National Party to you, the voter.”

Why did the Prime Minister not tell the voters?

Yes, perhaps we should ask the hon. the Prime Minister why he did not tell the voters. It is interesting to note the virulent, almost pathological, hatred it showed for the PFP. It urged voters to vote preferably for the Nationalist Party, or otherwise for the NRP or the SAP. This leading article was the culmination of a long and bitter campaign in which it did everything possible to preserve the dominance of the Nationalist clique. And all this with the taxpayers’ money! Every day taxpayers’ money was used to promote one or other candidate representing the Nationalist Party. Taxpayers’ money was used to promote the policies of the Nationalist Party, to advertise Nationalist Party meetings. Every day taxpayers’ money was used to condemn and smear the Progressive Federal Party. PFP candidates were attacked and smeared. Long editorials expressing the newspaper’s disgust for the leaders of the Progressive Federal Party and their actions were the order of the day. Reading back on the hysterical editorials of that time, when The Citizen was saying that it was disgusted with my party, one is tempted to ask whether it is now disgusted with fraud, with deception, with cheating, with misuse of public funds. Certainly no official pro-Nationalist Party paper conducted a campaign with such virulence and malevolence as this so-called independent newspaper, subsidized almost entirely with money of the taxpayers. The hon. the Prime Minister, then the Minister of Defence, was well reported in that newspaper. They reported the hon. the Prime Minister on many occasions. He and his colleagues, I must say, must have been very grateful for the unbiased testimonials from such an independent source.

It is also interesting to read back on articles and statements concerning the paternity of this illegitimate child. Time and again Government spokesmen, as well as the management of The Citizen, denied that there was Government money invested in the newspaper. They denied that the Government was the father. The day after The Sunday Express first broke the story of how The Citizen was financed, an editorial in The Citizen challenged The Sunday Express, challenged them in the most aggressive terms to publish concrete evidence that The Citizen had been financed by public money channelled through massive and secret State funds. It challenged them to prove that taxpayers without their knowledge had been paying millions of rands towards the maintenance of an English language Government-supporting newspaper. It challenged them to substantiate their claim that it could reveal that vast amounts of secret State money was channelled through the Information Department, whose responsibility it was then to virtually prop up the newspaper’s entire financial operations on behalf of the Government. The report now before us substantiates everything published by The Sunday Express and other newspapers of the English Press since that time.

I wonder whether the editor of The Citizen, Mr. Meyer Johnson, will now have the grace to apologize for his arrogant attack. With respect to Mr. Johnson—I must admit that I have very little respect for Mr. Johnson—I would suggest that if he has any integrity at all he should attempt to put matters right. I am also interested to know whether Mr. Meyer Johnson is in fact a State official at this time. Yesterday, in a leading article he claimed that he was the man who determined the policy of the newspaper. I think that within limits this might well have been true, but Mr. Johnson of course knew on which side his bread was buttered and he probably also knew where the butter was coming from.

And the jam!

If he did not know, all I can say is that he must have been very naïve indeed. I suppose one must give Mr. Johnson the benefit of the doubt and say that he could have been naïve. If, on the other hand, he knew the origin of The Citizen’s financial backing, his conduct has been questionable to say the least. In a leading article on 12 May this year Mr. Johnson castigated the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because he as Leader of the Opposition and of the PFP “gave the weight of his office to the speculation and insinuation and innuendo and false imaginings of his party and its Press”, all of which have subsequently turned out to be true. Of course, everything my leader talked about which occasioned this reaction has turned out to be true.

I think it is worth looking at some of the statements by one of what I could term the foster fathers of the illegitimate child, namely Mr. Hubert G. Jussen, chairman of The Citizen. In May of this year an article by Ada Parker appeared in The Citizen itself proclaiming: “There is no Government money in The Citizen and I will sue anybody who suggests that there is.” Well, Sir, I would very much like to see Mr. Jussen getting down to doing some suing right now. The man who claims to be the real, the legitimate father of The Citizen, the legitimate father of the illegitimate child, Mr. Louis Luyt, is on record on many occasions as having categorically denied that the Government ever had a cent in The Citizen. Sir, the lies and the deceit of these gentlemen, these foster fathers of the illegitimate child, have been revealed for all to see, as well as the somewhat sinister role played by Gen. Van den Bergh whom one could perhaps describe as the godfather of the illegitimate child.

Now we come to the very serious question of The Citizen in relation to the election of November 1977. According to the report before us Mr. Vorster, the former Prime Minister, had received various reports, firstly from Mr. Barrie and then from Mr. Reynders, concerning irregularities in the department. These reports presumably contained some knowledge of the funding of The Citizen and had come to Mr. Vorster prior to the time when the election was called. I think it is a logical assumption that Mr. Vorster knew that the probabilities were that The Citizen was a Government-owned newspaper at the time when he called the election, although I must admit that Mr. Reynders’ evidence is inconclusive on this. Then one asks oneself the question whether this knowledge had anything to do with the decision to call an election. In paragraph 10.337 the commission states as follows—

I think that one should add the further comment that it would perhaps have been correct and honest to make public the fact that The Citizen was not the independent newspaper that it was claimed to be during the election campaign. My leader, the hon. member for Sea Point, has claimed on another occasion that, in fact, it was a phoney election in which the Government received support from a phoney newspaper and in this he is completely correct. There is no doubt at all that the public were deceived during the election campaign and many people were undoubtedly influenced by the line taken …

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

No, Sir, no member on that side of the House was prepared to answer our questions, so I am not prepared to waste my time on members like that hon. member. Sir, many people were undoubtedly influenced by the line taken by the so-called independent Citizen. There will be good reason for many people to believe that they had been fraudulently misled by the stand taken by what has now turned out to be a party-political newspaper. I think, too, that one should examine carefully the results of Mr. Vorster’s decision not to terminate the financing of The Citizen over a period of nine months. The commission’s report states in paragraph 9.288—and I quote—

According to paragraph 9.297 The Citizen cost the State at a minimum over R5 million during the period of Alberts’ management up to the date of the appointment of the commission. This is part of the cost. I must admit to being somewhat confused as to who actually owns The Citizen today. I quote from paragraph 9.289 of the report—

As far as I can recall, the hon. the Prime Minister did not tell us this morning who actually owns The Citizen at present. I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister who does own The Citizen at the moment. I get no answer at all. Perhaps I can ask the hon. the Minister of Finance who owns The Citizen at the moment. Can he tell us? Can I not get any answer from the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Minister of Finance as to who owns The Citizen at the moment? May I ask the hon. the Prime Minister for the third time whether he could perhaps tell us who owns The Citizen at the moment, because I am somewhat confused.

Read that report which I gave to your leader and then you will know.

I am not in the happy position of having seen a report the hon. the Prime Minister has just given the hon. leader of my party, but I do not know who owns The Citizen. If ownership is still vested in the department, I should like to know, and I think it should be the intention of the hon. the Prime Minister to say to the House and not to just pass over reports, as to who owns The Citizen and what the Government’s intentions are about it, because it appears from reports in the Press that the illegitimate child is up for adoption by Perskor. If this is in fact so, it is incumbent upon the Government to stop negotiations between the front men and Perskor immediately. [Interjections.] Yes, we know who pays for it all right. After a caucus meeting of my party yesterday my colleague, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, issued a statement which said, inter alia, that if The Citizen continued under its present name, it would be a victory for everything that Dr. Connie Mulder and Dr. Eschel Rhoodie stood for. He called upon the hon. the Prime Minister to put an end to the matter by closing The Citizen without delay.

It is quite clear that the Government is faced with a crisis of conscience. What is it going to do about The Citizen? [Interjections.] If it should allow a now established newspaper, which has built up its circulation at the expense of the taxpayer, to be taken over by Perskor, it will stand condemned for compounding the fraudulent and dishonest actions of its servants. Can our party also expect a contribution of nearly R32 million towards our campaign funds, perhaps to enable us, for example, to start an Afrikaans-speaking newspaper to sell our party line, also at the expense of the taxpayer?

Having had no answers to my questions, I want to quote from one little paragraph in the commission’s report which I think will probably go down as the understatement of the year. I quote from paragraph 9.275—

It is still a headache, a blinding headache, for which there is only one medicine, namely decisive action by the hon. the Prime Minister. We are waiting to hear what he is going to do about The Citizen.

Mr. Speaker, I can see why the hon. member for Orange Grove is making such a fuss about The Citizen. It is because this newspaper has now become a real threat to one of their most important mouthpieces, the leftist Rand Daily Mail. Their concern does not surprise one, for The Citizen already has a larger White readership than the Rand Daily Mail. We do not approve of the fact that State funds have been used to finance The Citizen, but it remains a fact that many thousands of English-speaking people in this country have begun to see the light since The Citizen came on the scene.

Since Mr. Justice Erasmus comes from my constituency, I should like to congratulate the hon. Judge on the very thorough work which was done in a very short time. The Opposition and their Press raised great expectations of this debate among their supporters. The electorate was given the impression that they were going to break this Government and the Government was going to fall. I want to state this evening that the mountain has not brought forth a mouse. After the hon. the Prime Minister had taken the sting out of their attack this morning, their assault fell flat and it is still lying on its back.

I want to congratulate the South African Press on their smart detective work, penetrating and revealing journalism regarding the Department of Information. It is one of the tasks of a newspaper to get at the truth fearlessly and inform the public of it. I also want to thank those newspapers which throughout this Information drama did not go on a rampage but kept their cool and published balanced reports and commentary. In that way these newspapers did a service to South Africa. There are a few newspapers, however, to which we shall have to talk very frankly during this debate. At the risk of generalizing, I want to mention the newspapers. The Rand Daily Mail, the Sunday Express and the Sunday Times boast of having played a great role in exposing the affairs of the Department of Information. The Sunday Express boasts that its reporter started the disclosure and is still heading it. The reporter of this newspaper is saying that he has several informants and a great deal more evidence. The Rand Daily Mail claims to have travelled thousands of kilometres and spoken to hundreds of people about it. They say that they have a great deal of evidence for a series of articles which could still be written by them. The Sunday Times says it has also played a major role in the revelation from the appearance of the first small cloud until the wall of the dam gave way. The Erasmus Commission expresses its concern about it and calls upon people who have information to come forward in order to give evidence. The commission has found, however, that the English Press apparently prefers to publish its information rather than presenting it as evidence. The commission calls it regrettable. I want to ask these three newspapers why they did not fulfil their moral duty. Why did they not do their duty towards their country by submitting this evidence in their possession to the Erasmus Commission? It seems as if these newspapers, together with the Opposition and other leftist groups in this country, are playing a political game. One gets the impression that they are holding back certain things because they want to continue this game of slander and disparagement which they are playing. When newspapers like the Rand Daily Mail, the Sunday Times and the Sunday Express are playing a game which fits into the techniques of leftist subversive groups, surely one has the right to ask whether the time had not come for an investigation into certain aspects, particularly in order to find out who has an interest in these newspapers and to whose tune these newspapers are dancing when they are saying certain things. [Interjections.]

It really seems as if this could be a very fruitful field for investigation. I am saying this as we are dealing with investigations now. I want to request the Erasmus Commission to subpoena without delay those newspapers which boast of possessing evidence, which they are not producing anyway and to make them submit that evidence to it. It is in the interests of the country that everything should be disclosed, that slander should be shown up too and that the country should learn the whole truth. [Interjections.]

The Official Opposition and its numerous extra-parliamentary arms, and the Liberal Establishment in particular, have, after many years of great political drought, seized upon this Information drama as if their very life depended upon it. It is their hope, their all. Rumours are going round that they and their leftist appendages have spent hundreds of thousands of rand in their process of sneaking, spying, sniffing and prying, and that they have even gone sniffing overseas. [Interjections.]

Scavengers! That is what they are! [Interjections.]

And the Government is corrupt!

When I am talking of the Opposition, I mean the Official Opposition. Those hon. members who are keeping up a running commentary may as well keep quiet. They do not know what it is all about in any case.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member call the Government corrupt? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Bloemfontein North may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, when one considers the image of the Official Opposition in this matter, one notices that it is an image of shouting, fuming and snorting hysteria. [Interjections.] This is something we have been having for months. It is an image of people who are trying to outdo each other in slander and defamation. That is also how the electorate sees them. That is the image they are projecting. I am referring to the Official Opposition in particular now. However, the Official Opposition must not think that it has been successful in this slander campaign. The electorate is seeing right through this transparent game. The Official Opposition had better take note of the fact that they have succeeded brilliantly in slandering South Africa in the eyes of the outside world, and this, be it added, in a campaign which utterly lacked all fairness and decency. Inside the country, however, they have accomplished very little with that campaign of theirs. The loyalty of the NP supporters has not suffered; in fact, there is a fierce doggedness to be discerned among Nationalists because of this shameful suspicion-mongering.

I am not standing here tonight to justify irregularities. The NP Government will not tolerate any irregularities. The NP Government has kept up its achievement of clean and honest administration for 30 years. [Interjections.] It has been a guarantee to the people of this country for over 30 years, a guarantee of orderly, clean and fair government. [Interjections.] The NP is proud of that record and will not allow that record to be tarnished. That is the reason why the NP has disclosed and opened up this matter step by step. It has done so in a calm, dignified and responsible way.

Over the years, whenever there has been a need for an inquiry, the Official Opposition has requested a judicial inquiry. They have clamoured for that. How many times have they not risen here to say just that? But when the Government appointed the Erasmus Commission, it was suddenly not good enough. They requested a parliamentary inquiry, but then they ran away from the Van der Walt Commission. Their leader stated that they would definitely not be participating in the Van der Walt Commission, but then they went crawling back to the Van der Walt Commission because the electorate had said to them: How foolish can you be! They are a cringing Opposition. They cringe before the liberal English Press, they cringe before the Buthelezis, they cringe before the Youngs and the Carters, and then they crawled back to the Van der Walt Commission. A crawling thing is a snake, the head of which one should smash, otherwise it bites one in the heel.

This Opposition has a great deal to say about Judge Mostert. Let me tell them here today that they are the people who insulted the judiciary with their rejection of the Erasmus Commission. After having extolled the judiciary for all these years and after having clamoured for judicial inquiries for all these years, they held protest meetings after the appointment of the Erasmus Commission. If ever there was a party which detracted from the image of the courts and if ever there was a party which discredited the judiciary, then it is that party, the PFP. Their inconsistency is something to be ashamed of and it is a stain on the name of “honourable Opposition”.

The Opposition is trying to give the impression to the outside world that they are the heroes of this political drama. They are completely overrating themselves, because it is not they who are opening up and cleaning up; it is the NP which is opening up and cleaning up. It is this Government which created the machinery for a fair investigation. The revelations which led to the resignation or the dismissal of people are the result of the initiative and investigations of the Government and not of what they have done.

The people does not trust this Opposition because it knows the Opposition sometimes hunts with the hounds. The Opposition and its dangerous external wings have for months been breaking down the Information machine systematically and with it everything else they could get hold of. I want to tell these people who are now taking out white axes for chopping off heads left, right and centre, that they are living in a glass house themselves, for their activities are caught up with the financial powers of this country whose activities could also be a fruitful subject for investigation. The people does not trust this Opposition because it has links with extra-parliamentary bodies and groups whose roots can be found in activist movements overseas and even behind the iron curtain.

You are talking rubbish.

I am not talking rubbish. We are dealing here with a wolf in sheep’s clothing. We are dealing with hidden motives. I do not want to be unfair to the Official Opposition, but surely it is crystal clear that their whole assault is not merely aimed at the Department of Information, but that the Department of Information is to them a means to another end. That is very clear to us. I want to assure hon. members, however, that we are not taking any lessons in morality from them. Within the National Party there is a strong and lively conscience and there exists an allegiance to sound moral and Christian principles. Within the National Party there is political decency and integrity which will not allow breaches of justice and honesty to take place, continue or go unpunished. We have a Prime Minister who feels strongly about the truth, justice, honesty, candidness and clean administration. The truth will prevail in this matter. Our hon. Prime Minister and his proud party, the National Party, will see to that.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein North, bragged a little about the past thirty years. However, the past thirty years have led to this debate, the debate for which we are all here in Cape Town now in December. Those were the thirty years. [Interjections.] This hon. member is very proud of the fact that Mr. Justice Erasmus comes from Bloemfontein. I am also proud of the fact that Mr. Justice Mostert comes from Pietermaritzburg. [Interjections.]

†Many years ago, as a young student at the University of Pretoria, I was very proud indeed of the Nationalist Party.

You have told us that story before.

I then believed in a party which, at that time, had a high sense of honesty, decency, integrity and morality. [Interjections.] Now, thirty years later, had I been sitting in the NP benches, I would have been filled with shame. [Interjections.] Yes, shame, a deep sense of shame and revulsion for what the last thirty years have meant for our country.

Why did you stay thirty years?

I have held discussions with hon. members of the NP in this House, and I can assure you that they feel the same. They are also disgusted with this state of affairs. [Interjections.] I am just deeply sorry that they will not be getting up in this debate and making these statements. [Interjections.] I can assure you that I have sympathy for those members because they are trapped in this situation with a stinking albatross around their neck.

You are now talking a lot of rubbish, do you know that?

No, that hon. member knows what I am saying. Unfortunately the system is such that one will not hear from these people today.

My expression of disgust will not be focussed on those men who have already been hanged in the Commission’s report. I am referring to Rhoodie, Mulder and Van den Bergh. My censure is for the system and the leaders who allowed such a stinking state of affairs to grow and blossom.

I should like to start with the report itself. [Interjections.] Nee, moenie “worry” nie.

Order!

I happen to be the chairman of the information group in our party, and in order to be able to get all the facts for this Parliament, I took it upon myself to write a very long letter to Mr. Justice Erasmus.

I requested that he should look into, and report on a large number of queries and questions that we in this party had.

Where is the evidence?

Here I have the submission with me. [Interjections.]

You are the guilty ones; not us.

What was the result of that submission and the list of queries that was laid before the commission? I received a note from the secretary of the judge stating that the submission had been received. That was all. Apart from that no reference was made in the report of this submission and very little of any of the questions were answered. The commission dealt with very few of the questions which are really relevant to the debate. I wish to list but a few of the 65 questions that I posed, and which are relevant. I hasten to add, however, that I realized that the judge and the commission were working around the clock and they had very little time.

The hon. member should not put the questions; he should furnish the answers.

It is not my duty to furnish the answers. It is the Cabinet who is guilty today and not I. I am proud to be a South African; those hon. members cannot be proud. [Interjections.]

†Since this commission will be an ongoing commission, I trust that all the questions that have been put to them, will be answered in full.

What are these questions?

I would like to table them, because they are long and I am not prepared to spend my time reading them now.

The report of the Erasmus Commission ignored some of the following questions: It ignored the question as to whether any safeguards, sureties and guarantees were obtained for the State funds invested in various individuals. The commission ignored, in its report, key figures such as Waldeck, David Abrahamse, L. E. S. de Villiers and Van Rooyen. These people were not mentioned and their evidence was not recorded. The report of the commission ignored the query whether Mr. Louis Luyt would have had to pay tax on the interest received by him. We all know that the Receiver looks very carefully … [Interjections.] If he did not pay tax, who then authorized the non-payment? That is what I want to know. If Mr. Louis Luyt did not pay tax, who authorized the non-payment of the tax? That is the logic of it. I also posed a question … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria Central must afford the hon. member an opportunity to deliver his speech.

When any major company obtains a major loan like R12 million, it normally has to pay a raising fee. This is normal business practice. If Triomf paid a raising fee, who received it? That is what I would like to know. If they did not pay that raising fee, why not?

The commission further totally ignored the crucial question of which other Cabinet Ministers, if any, were aware and part and parcel of The Citizen project. Was it really only “Connie”? Can file other hon. Cabinet Ministers really state that?

Refer to “the hon. member for Randfontein” and not to “Connie”.

Is he still a member? Where is he?

I believe that it is naive of us to believe—I do not think there is anyone outside the House who believes this— that the hon. member for Randfontein was the sole member that was involved in The Citizen debacle. I certainly do not believe that.

Do not excite your liver.

My liver is excited because I am upset about what hon. members on that side of the House have done to my country. [Interjections.] We have heard speaker after speaker getting up and condemning the Government, but what do we have? A bunch of smiles! It is a big joke and I am sick of it. I am ashamed of this Parliament, as hon. members opposite should be. [Interjections.]

Why do you not resign then?

The report further neglected to probe or answer whether the silencing of Judge Mostert was or was not an attempt to cover up crucial information and facts. The report ignored the fact that an injunction had been sought by a Minister …

On a point of order: May the hon. member say “I am ashamed of this Parliament”?

I should like to assist the hon. member by withdrawing that remark. I meant to say “the Nationalist Party”. The report further ignored the fact that an injunction had been sought by a Minister to further silence Judge Mostert. Could this not be construed as being a cover-up? Why did it not investigate? The man in the street honestly believes that there was a cover-up. I just heard Government members say “What a shame; what a dastardly thing to say!”

After this report, surely no one believes there was a cover-up?

Surely this report should have commented upon a number of these cases. I have only listed eight, but I posed 65 questions. My view on this report is that the commission did not have enough time to do the job properly; that I accept. However, it did seem to single out a few scapegoats and throw them to the wolves, which it did ruthlessly and efficiently. But others, possibly equally involved, were not touched and were left unblemished.

Name them.

All right, I shall start with one. I shall finish up with as many as I have time to deal with, after all these interjections.

I now wish to turn my attention to our previous Prime Minister. I realize I am now treading on very dangerous ground for a back-bencher like myself. However, I feel very deeply about this report and the actions of the previous Prime Minister. If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I shall refer to him, as this report referred to him, as Mr. Vorster. Frankly, this chapter on Mr. Vorster made me very, very sad and disillusioned. I have personally always had a very high regard and admiration for Mr. Vorster.

Do you accept the report?

In this case not. That he could have acted in the way he did, as is described in the report, frankly shocked me to the core. As I stand here, I feel very, very sorry that a man who was loved by millions, saw fit not to take an immediate and honest stand on a very strong, moral issue, and to say the least…

Order! The hon. member heard my ruling today. He is not dealing with this particular aspect within the confines of my ruling.

I understood it was, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members to the left of the hon. member are making it very difficult for him to make a speech and this is making a bit of a joke of the House.

Mr. Vorster’s position is summarized in this report, viz. that the commission’s opinion is that his integrity was unblemished. As much as I would have liked to accept these findings, the evidence actually points to the opposite, and I cannot accept these findings. Let us take the issues. Firstly, there is the question of Reynders. The commission accepts that Reynders is an honest man. Reynders stated that he repeatedly informed Mr. Vorster about the department, and called for exhaustive investigations from August 1977 to May 1978. He furthermore states that he warned Mr. Vorster repeatedly that a cover-up operation would not be possible. Yet Mr. Vorster failed to act ruthlessly. He never called Dr. Mulder in, and thus was prepared to accept the status quo. Mr. Vorster was also warned by adv. Van Rooyen of the matters that were involved in the department. It is interesting to note that no mention of this meeting was made in the report. It would seem that at least six men could testify that Mr. Vorster knew of The Citizen project before the last election. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vorster’s political integrity, as I read it, was in fact actually questioned by the report itself. Paragraph 9.288 states: “This was November 1977. When Mr. Vorster retired as Prime Minister on 28 September 1978 The Citizen was still fully controlled by the State, and the State was still subsidizing a monthly loss of up to R400 000.” These were the words of the commission. Almost a year had passed and the State was still funding a newspaper which was obviously controlled for the sole benefit of the Nationalist Party. How anyone could morally condone or even fight an election, which was, by the way, uncalled for, using a propaganda machine which was funded by the State, is beyond me. The morality of it boggles the mind. Surely the honest thing that should have been done at that stage would have been to wipe the slate clean and to admit that this newspaper could not be condoned.

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

No. No questions have been answered by N.P. members in this debate. Surely honesty and high principles are still more important than any loss of State funds. R32 million has now gone into this involvement. Let us also remember that the hon. the Prime Minister at that stage was not a sick man, as can surely be confirmed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who had the painful experience of bearing the brunt of a frontal attack by the Prime Minister in 1978. Mr. Speaker, what further astounds everyone is that Mr. Vorster appointed Gen. Van den Bergh to evaluate all the projects on June 1, 1978. He appoints the wolf to look after the sheep. The report clearly infers that Gen. Van den Bergh was a sinister man who would stop at nothing, almost implying that he was capable of murder, that is, if you read between the lines of paragraphs 11.384 to 11.386. Yet Mr. Vorster places this man in trust at the head of a commission looking into the affairs of a project such as The Citizen. Was our previous Prime Minister so gullible that he could not see the true character of this man? It is this same man who says in this morning’s newspaper: “Give Mr. Reynders a ‘sakdoekie’. I think that is disgusting. This is the arrogance which I cannot condone, which is so prevalent. It is prevalent here today. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, if the commission was able to find that Dr. Mulder was. lax and negligent, the same findings would really have to be applied to the then Prime Minister. I am certainly not able to accept the opinion that his integrity was unblemished. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to go on to the hon. the Prime Minister at this stage, but time has run out so I will not be able to do so. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think the House has listened with a great deal of astonishment to the speech by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I find it astonishing, because what the hon. member has indicated here is that he himself is in a much better position to consider and evaluate the evidence which was given before the Erasmus Commission and to make certain findings as a result.

That is the privilege of Parliament.

This Parliament has many privileges. Some people can even claim for themselves the privilege of being omniscient and of knowing more than other people.

In accordance with the Resolution adopted today, the House adjourned at 22h30.