Order! With reference to the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for Groote Schuur I want to announce that the hon. member has, in the meantime, submitted the following motion to me—

The motion is in the correct form. The only question which the Speaker has to decide is whether it should be given precedence over other business of the House. If it is not given such precedence, the hon. member for Groote Schuur will have to give notice of the motion in the usual way.

As is evident from the State President’s opening address, this session is an extraordinary one, which has been convened for a specific purpose, and it is generally known that it is the intention to conclude the session this evening.

As a Select Committee should be afforded sufficient time to complete its work, it will, from a practical point of view, serve no purpose to appoint the proposed Select Committee. Under the circumstances I am, therefore, not prepared to grant leave for the motion to have precedence now.

I shall allow the hon. member to move such a motion during the forthcoming session, when there will be sufficient time available for a Select Committee to consider it.

I must point out that in the past Mr. Speaker has ruled, when questions of privilege have been raised, whether a prima facie case has been made out. I have, however, decided to adopt the modem practice of the House of Commons and not to use this term in future, as it can be construed as implying a judgment on the merits of the case before me, which is not the function of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is, of course, with various sensations that one participates in this debate. The first sensation is one of regret and sorrow about the matters that made it essential that this House should be convened and that this debate should be conducted. However, I pointed out last night that one cannot escape a feeling of surprise at the manner in which, from certain quarters— from the opposite side of the House—certain things are being said. I expressed my surprise that an hon. member should dispute the findings of the Erasmus Commission in respect of the previous hon. Prime Minister. I want to suggest that if one were in a position oneself to weigh the evidence before the commission, or if one possessed superior evidence in respect of the matter under discussion, one could perhaps adopt such a superior attitude. However, I think that if one does not have those particulars and if one does not have such evidence, one arrogates to oneself authority one does not possess. I am therefore surprised at such an attitude. I also want to express my surprise at a second matter, and that is the ease with which an hon. member implied that he and those on his side of the House were in fact the true South Africans and, by implication, that those sitting on this side of the House—the Nationalists whom he mentioned by name— were not good South Africans. [Interjections.] There was therefore a very clear … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, if they want me in good fettle, they must start making interjections. There was the very clear insinuation that the good South Africans were sitting on that side of the House, whereas the Nationalists should bear the blame for everything that has happened in South Africa in recent times.

Who is guilty then?

I am coming to that hon. member, who has also stood on the pulpit and who, like me, was conceived and born in sin. [Interjections.] There is yet another matter which surprises one, and that is the pure white hands with which mud is being flung at this side of the House, as though everyone in the Public Service—now, I shall have to qualify this—as though so many people who are in this Public Service, and therefore also the Government, were, as it were, consciously and actively involved in irregularities. That surprises one.

No. Just you on those benches. Not the Public Service.

If those hon. members want to qualify that, they must do so in their speeches and not stand on that side of the House so sanctimoniously and condemn everyone who appears before them, almost in a radius of 360 degrees. If only it had been 360 degrees, then at least quite a lot more would also have been convicted, because if one points right around the earth one includes oneself too. The wise Solomon said on occasion: “Do not be too pious.” What we should like to say to the Opposition on this occasion, therefore, is that they should not be too pious when they talk about irregularities that have taken place in South Africa. We are agreed on one thing: What is necessary is probity. However, that side of the House does not have a monopoly on probity. What is also necessary is fearlessness, and that side of the House does not have a monopoly on fearlessness either. What is most certainly also necessary in this regard is circumspection, because what is at issue here is not merely party-political benefit which someone can derive during this session. When all is said and done, we are concerned with the interests of South Africa, and in South Africa the Opposition and the governing party are both involved. And then, of course, I think a large dose of humility is also necessary in this whole situation, in particular on the part of those people who mean to point all the fingers at this side and then merely point one little finger and forget that three fingers may be pointing at themselves. [Interjections.]

There are a few things that cannot be disputed. The first of these is that the irregularities that have been revealed, that have been exposed, are indeed an embarrassment. They are an embarrassment, not only to the Opposition, but to the governing party and to South Africa as well.

An opportunity.

That hon. member regards it as an opportunity, because he thrives on embarrassment as the only opportunity. The irregularities that have been revealed are deplored by all right-minded people. Let me say in passing: Those people who now suggest that this has caused South Africa to fall are the gloomy ones and the pessimists who can not take the destiny of South Africa into their hands either. I spoke to somebody from abroad a week ago and he actually smiled at the “terrible scandal”. He wanted to know: Is this regarded as a scandal? He says such a thing absolutely is normal abroad. [Interjections.] Wait a moment. Before that hon. member becomes unduly excited, I shall tell you what I said to him.

It all depends upon the country one is dealing with and the country one lives in. If one lives in South Africa, one cannot pass off such an event as a trifle, because the people of South Africa have a sense of moral values and are shocked by proven irregularities. What that man wanted to say was that we should not listen to people who think that because a so-called scandal has taken place here, the world now thinks that South Africa has gone to rack and ruin. He said they merely wanted to know whether the Government was still standing strong, whether or not we were going to yield. I told him that as far as I knew, the Government did not intend to yield. In adopting that attitude, we do not mean to imply that we do not want to face up to serious irregularities. On the contrary, we want to do so.

A second matter which is certainly not in dispute is the fact that the newspapers as news media have the right to expose proven corruption. It is part of their function and can be regarded as a purging function that our newspapers and our news media fulfil under our circumstances and under any other circumstance.

You are now adapting your image.

I am not one of those people who are always railing against newspapers, although I have sufficient reason sometimes to strike up an imprecatory psalm against some opinions that are expressed. [Interjections.] However, I do not simply start railing. I concede that our newspapers, our news media, form part of the society to which we all belong. Accordingly, they also have a responsibility within this society, and they are not a super society. It is their duty to guard over the good of society. We say this to one another and we admit this to one another. Nevertheless, there is a difference between a bird that cleans its nest and one that fouls its nest. There is also a difference between people who want to be above the law and those people who want to perform their function in society within the law. That is how, in my view, we should regard the function of each.

Pik does not like your speech. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this hon. member has paid me a compliment. [Interjections.] In our ranks, it has always been known that if certain persons and bodies attack one and are satisfied with one, then one is finished.

In regard to The Citizen, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. the Prime Minister said in a public speech at Sasolburg. He said there in public that he did not agree with the use of State funds for a party-political newspaper. I agree with that. There are indeed many people in South Africa who want to know what is wrong with that. These people argue against the background of the role that certain newspapers play in that they are quoted overseas—they are the only newspapers that are read, because people do not read Afrikaans in overseas countries—and in this way create an unbalanced image of South Africa and its people. The Citizen created another image of South Africa, and for that reason people want to know what is so terribly wrong with that. In reply to people who have used that argument in conversation with me, I have stated in public—this was not quoted in the newspapers—that I do not agree with that. Suppose a leftist Government came into power in South Africa—which God forbid—and this leftist Government decided to establish a leftist Afrikaans daily and to finance it with State funds. [Interjections.] Would those hon. members have done it?

You therefore regard the hon. the Prime Minister as leftist.

That hon. member is not known to talk nonsense. Our standpoint is that just as we should not approve of that, we do not approve of the use of State funds for a purpose such as this.

One asks oneself: What is this terrible fuss all about? If this fuss were about the fact that State funds have been used to establish a party-political newspaper within South Africa to compete with other newspapers, then we would say: “We do not approve of it.” But that is not all that the fuss is about. The fuss is also about the fact that a newspaper was established which expressed a different opinion and which tried to sound a conservative note now and again. The newspaper did criticize the Government, but it also admitted that during the general election last year, it had advised its readers to vote for the NP and, at the same time, had advised those people who did not see their way clear to voting for the NP, to vote for the NRP or the SAP. That was the standpoint of that newspaper. It was so objective even … [Interjections.] Even if it were true that this newspaper was conceived and born in sin, as some people aver, and that for this reason it should not exist, then I want to put the question: If that were to be the criterion, if only people who were not conceived and born in sin could render public service, then surely no public service would be rendered. The world is full of useful people doing useful work, even though all of them were conceived and born in sin. Many of them are even on the pulpit. There sits the hon. member for Pinelands who also stood there. Does he mean to tell me that he was not conceived and born in sin or that he is so innocent? He stood on the pulpit and then he took his seat here.

There is yet another matter which we do not dispute. We do not dispute the right of an Opposition to criticize what it regards as irregularities in the country, and to criticize mistakes that a Government makes. That is the right of an Opposition. Likewise, we do not dispute their right to derive benefit from the embarrassment of the governing party. If we had been the Opposition, we should have tried to derive the greatest possible advantage from the embarrassment of the governing party. However, in many respects the Opposition has a collective responsibility with the governing party. That collective responsibility has not yet been manifested in this debate, especially not from that side. When hon. members come to Parliament, they want to blow everything and pose as the saviours of South Africa. But this is not the only place where an Opposition should manifest its responsibility for what happens in the country.

It is the responsibility of an Opposition, once legislation has been passed here—even though it may have voted or agitated against it—to regard that legislation as the law of the country. Hon. members on that side of the House are very quick to say: “It is the law; it is an Act of Parliament.” In other words, once legislation has been passed, whether they like it or not, they accept collective responsibility for such a law. This is co-responsibility. There are other examples as well. When a budget is before the House, that side of the House has every opportunity of putting questions, of expressing criticism and of obtaining information. Now, if their interpretation of the budget is favourable and they approve of it, but it appears afterwards that things have been approved of which they were not informed, then I ask those hon. members: If they did not have all the information, why do they simply take it for granted that an ordinary member on this side of the House, a member who is not a member of the Cabinet, should have all the information?

Are you a member of the Cabinet?

No, I am not a member of the Cabinet and I do not accept that responsibility as that hon. member thinks I should accept it. If I accept the responsibility, he accepts it with me. If something has been approved here and it becomes a statute of Parliament, then that hon. member is co-responsible with me for it. The Opposition therefore has a like responsibility to act as watch-dog over what happens in South Africa … [Interjections.]

Order!

… over the interests of the country, its people and all its interests … [Interjections.]

Order! We have a long day before us and if so many interjections are going to be made, I shall immediately have to ensure a measure of calm in the debate. Therefore hon. members must please refrain from making so many interjections. I cannot allow it.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. It was only at an HNP meeting that I have found things somewhat livelier than now! I say that the Opposition has a like responsibility to act as a watch-dog over what happens in South Africa, to act as a watch-dog over possible irregularities. To those people who tell us here, “But you should have known,” we might just as well say: But you should also have known! They remind me so much of that motor cyclist, Joe Sarkis, who had a reputation for speeding. There was a Black cyclist who wanted to imitate him and he started calling himself Joe Sarkis. Wherever he rode past Black people he would shout at them: “Joe Sarkis! Joe Sarkis!” One day someone retorted: “Joune ok!” Therefore, to those who say that we should have known, I can only say that they should also have known, because they have the same responsibility in this House of guarding against irregularities.

The Opposition has a responsibility to bring relevant information to the notice of the Government—or is it not their responsibility to bring relevant information to the notice of the Government? The question is, Mr. Speaker, are we concerned here with party-political gain, an attempt to score a point off the governing party, or are we concerned with a true manifestation of healthy patriotism? Those hon. members have a great deal to say about patriotism.

I think patriotism is to be found in drawing a distinction between what one regards as a purely party-political point to be scored, and the interests of the country. If that is one’s approach, if patriotism is one’s criterion, then one does not peddle with secret information; then one does not go and look for one’s tittle-tattle in restaurants, cafés or pubs. Then one does not go and look for them there. If that is one’s approach, one does not participate in attempts to have a trial conducted purely and exclusively by the Press. The Press has its function, but it is not Paul Pry, prosecutor, judge and prison warden all rolled into one. If that is one’s approach, one does not keep reserve information up one’s sleeve and wait for an opportunity to explode a bomb in the country.

We are talking of responsibility and co-responsibility, and I say that that side of the House has co-responsibility in respect of this. If members put on a sanctimonious pose here and say: “There is still a lot of information that may be forthcoming! There is still a great bomb that may explode!” what are the hon. members engaged in then? Are they engaged in a kind of extortion, that terrible information is still going to be forthcoming? Mr. Speaker, in that case, those hon. members must avail themselves of the opportunity of giving evidence so that the evidence can be revealed, so that the matter can be disposed of and so that we can carry on with our work.

We say, furthermore, that it is normal for the Government of any country to launch secret projects in the interests of that country. Secret projects are not intended to be public knowledge. There are hon. members on that side of the House who claim that they want maximum access to everything that is being done by way of secret projects. But I suggest that this is not the intention. I concede that this is a dilemma in which a Government finds itself in the situation in which any country may find itself. Its dilemma lies in the fact that on the one hand it is forced, in the times and conditions in which we live, to introduce secret projects for the sake of the country and its security and all its people. On the other hand, there is the subjection to scrutiny of what is essential, so that corruption will not be tolerated or committed under the banner of essential secrecy. I think we should appreciate that.

As far as collective responsibility is concerned, I want to say that the Government is not shirking its responsibilities. I think hon. members on this side of the House have made it abundantly clear that one can have a long discussion of what is understood by collective responsibility of the Cabinet, and I think it has been clearly spelled out by the hon. the Minister of the Interior, and also by the hon. member for Pretoria West. I do not want to enlarge on that. When we talk about collective responsibility, we would do well also to talk about collective credit. Collective credit is owing to this side of the House for the manner in which it has handled and is still handling a difficult situation.

Our previous Prime Minister has been involved in this by hon. members. I want to refer to the report, paragraph 10.325. It reads—

I am quite content to acquiesce in the finding of the commission. I have no contradictory evidence. I can accept it. If hon. members say that other things are also said in the report, then such other things are said, but they would do well to read what is said in paragraph 10.357. It consists of various sub-paragraphs, the last of which reads—

Can we give a little credit for this too? Hon. members would do well also to read the foregoing part, where the commission expresses its view on the involvement and the responsibility of the previous Prime Minister. In particular, however, I should like to request attention, and also the necessary credit, for the conduct of the present Prime Minister under all these circumstances. Immediately after he had been elected Prime Minister, he expressed himself in favour of clean administration. He left no stone unturned …

He even opposed your election!

… to do what he had promised. Hon. members would do well to read the finding of the commission on the Minister of Defence, our present Prime Minister. In paragraph 10.339, this sentence appears—

Then follow the important words—

For this we request understanding, because such a Minister finds himself in an invidious situation. He has to consider the interests of the Republic of South Africa. In order to serve those interests, he has to put certain secret projects into operation. Now he is confronted with such a question and he sees the possibility that a certain fund that is under suspicion can indeed be put to positive use in the interests of South Africa, not only of the NP, but of South Africa, and this includes the Opposition.

The hon. members who seek collective responsibility should also give collective credit, and here I refer to the conduct of and the commission’s finding on the hon. the Minister of Finance. If hon. members want to read what was said about him, I refer them to paragraph 10.341, where one reads—

Do you accept what they say about your friend Connie?

We can continue in that vein. We can mention various things. All the steps taken by the hon. the Prime Minister redound to the credit of the Prime Minister and of the Government, and the NP must be given credit for this. I request attention and recognition for these steps that he has taken.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to a most remarkable speech from the hon. the Deputy Minister, a most remarkable speech which, I think, embarrassed his colleagues perhaps more than anybody else. What is significant—there are some very significant things in what he said—is that he appears to be one of those who support the concept that the hon. member for Randfontein previously put forward, namely that there are no rules and that one can have The Citizen born in sin. [Interjections.] Then he justifies the actions of that newspaper. What is even more remarkable is that he speaks about a strong Government being needed, and that he says that is what exists. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister apparently did not even listen to his own Prime Minister, who said amongst other things—

*What was said by the Afrikaans-language newspapers, the newspapers which support the NP, in connection with this Information affair? They said that it had paralysed the Government, that there was a crisis of confidence. It is quite clear that when we speak of a strong Government, one need only read the report of the Erasmus Commission to see that the one thing which has been proved is that this Government, which pretends to be strong, is the weakest Government the country has ever had.

†The hon. the Deputy Minister is of course also a humorist, because he talks about collective responsibility of members of Parliament and equates it with the collective responsibility of a Cabinet. I cannot believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister is as stupid as that—I dispute that—because he knows that there is a fundamental difference and that if one is in a Cabinet one has the alternative that one can resign. He knows that the function of the Opposition is to oppose and to seek to bring about change and so he must really not pose as being as stupid as that because he really is not; there is no question about that. I want to quote from a most fascinating document which was sent to me in the post by the Bureau of National and International Communication. I do not know why it was sent to me, but it seems very fascinating, because amongst other things it talks about Cabinet responsibility. It says, and I quote—

I would assume that the things that have happened, would be against the conscience of individuals. I quote further—

Now comes the important passage—

I wonder whose words those were. They were the words of the NP Prime Minister of South Africa immediately preceding the present one. So, Sir, when it comes to joint responsibility, the issue is clear. However, what is even more significant about the hon. the Deputy Minister, is that some of us were under the impression that the hon. member for Randfontein was not in the House. There is, however, a story in the Old Testament— and I am quite sure the hon. the Deputy Minister is familiar with the Old Testament—of Esau and Isaac. It is said that it seemed to be the skin of Esau but the voice of Isaac to their blind father, and here it was the form of the hon. member for Waterberg, but the voice of the hon. member for Randfontein which spoke in this House. That is the truth of it. One of the tragedies of South Africa is that the former Minister of Information, the hon. member for Randfontein, has in his dying political acts done another disservice to South Africa, because he organized and canvassed actively and finally even gave a ruling in the head committee of the NP … [Interjections.]

You’re lying, Harry!

… in Transvaal which was unconstitutional in order to get that hon. Deputy Minister elected.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: An hon. member opposite said: “Harry, you are lying!”

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon. member who said it over here must also withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Yeoville allowed to misquote the Bible? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

It was Jacob in front of Isaac, we know that. However, what is interesting, is that the hon. member who withdrew his words just a moment ago, was one of the main organizers to try to get the hon. member for Randfontein elected as Prime Minister of South Africa. That is why it hurts him and that is why he behaves in that way, because his machinations were designed to bring about a situation where in fact the hon. the Prime Minister would not be the Prime Minister. The meetings to organize opposition to the hon. the Prime Minister took place in this house. Let us get the truth out. The truth is that the ghost of Dr. Mulder still walks in this House in the form of the Deputy Minister who has just spoken.

Where in fact are we after a full day’s debate on this issue? There is no doubt that the information issue will continue in South Africa. There is no doubt that it will hang like a shadow over the next session of Parliament. There is no doubt that this is a festering sore that will continue to adversely affect South Africa and its information effort. These are the facts and the reality of it. One of the things which I believe should have been done is what some of us asked to be done at the beginning of this year. Perhaps it is necessary to disclose some of the things which we asked to be done. I think that today I should disclose them.

At the beginning of this year I went to the highest level in this country and said: “For goodness sake, there is a cancer; expose it, root it out and get rid of it.” I asked for that to be done, and what happened? It never took place. I will tell hon. members what happened. I received a visit from General Van den Bergh and I think the time has come to tell the truth about the matter.

Did you and Hendrik intrigue together?

I will tell you what happened; I will refer to it in a moment, so do not smile about it. On that occasion I asked specifically whether there was Government money in The Citizen. What was I told? He gave his word of honour that there was no Government money in The Citizen. That is the reality of it. What is worse is that after having done that he then goes and boasts to Advocate Van Rooyen and says to him: “Ek het Harry Schwarz om die bos gelei.” He proudly says he deceived me. That is the way in which South Africa is governed. The hon. the Prime Minister laughs. How do you see a situation when in fact one of the highest officials in the land not only tells you a lie on his word of honour, but then proceeds to boast about the fact that he lied to a Parliamentarian?

The hon. the Prime Minister laughs, but I wish to go further. He knows that I never refer to private conversations. I went and spoke to the hon. the present Prime Minister. He gave me his personal assurance that as far as he was concerned he had never enriched himself at the expense of the State and that he was not involved in this. I want to tell the House that I believed him and that I believe him still today. I believe that this Prime Minister has not in any way enriched himself at the expense of the State. I do not believe that he has been personally involved in this debacle and I say it because I think it is necessary to say it, because it is the credibility of the country in its future dealings which is at stake in relation to that situation. I say openly to the hon. the Prime Minister that I believed him and that I continue to believe him.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member addressing the House has just stated that he believes that the present Prime Minister has not appropriated moneys for himself. Must the House infer, because the hon. member referred to the present Prime Minister, that the former Prime Minister did?

The hon. member for Yeoville may continue.

When I make a statement which I believe is in the public interest, because I think it is important that there should be an end to rumour-mongering concerning all sorts of stories that are told, and I do it in public, I take the gravest exception, and I think the hon. the Prime Minister should do so as well, to a member of his caucus seeking to destroy such an attempt to remove rumours in South Africa. One thing is clear, and that is that I will attack this Prime Minister politically. There is no question about it. But as far as his personal financial honesty is concerned I believe it to be beyond question.

I wish to go further and to deal with the hon. the Minister of Finance. He is going to get a going-over in this debate as he has already got, but I do not believe for one moment that it is in the interests of South Africa that there should be any impression that his personal financial honesty is brought into question by anybody.

I believe that he acts honourably in that sense. I believe that he is able to face the bankers and the financiers of this world as an honest man. When one gets a situation such as the one which has developed now, a situation in which there are rumours which tend to hit everybody, I believe it is necessary to make sure—and this is no reflection on anybody else; I can single out other people as well—for the public good that, after this debate is over, the hon. the Minister of Finance can appear in the chambers of the banks of this world and be able to negotiate loans without anything affecting his personal financial integrity. That, I believe, is necessary. I believe the same thing is necessary for South Africa.

Does your caucus agree with you?

I believe my caucus agrees beyond question. [Interjections.] However, I want to go one step further. In this whole dark situation there are a number of flickering candles and some shining lights. I believe there are some other things that have to be said. I want to refer, for example, to the concept of the Public Service being smeared with the brush of the Rhoodies. It is not. I believe that our Public Service as a whole is a sound and honest Public Service. I do not believe that every public servant is smeared with the Rhoodie brush. That is not correct. I believe it would be a wrong and false impression if that belief was spread abroad.

I want to go yet another step further. I believe that the people who come out of this thing better than most are some of the State officials. Let me give some examples. Let us take the Public Service Commission. I believe the Public Service Commission stands untarnished in this situation. Moreover, it in fact recommended—and this is on record— against the appointment of Dr. Eschel Rhoodie. This is something which everybody has forgotten. If their recommendation had been listened to, many of the troubles in which we find ourselves today would definitely never have occurred. I believe we can have confidence in the Public Service Commission.

I shall go one further. There are other things which have saved South Africa and the democratic process. I believe the office of the Auditor-General of South Africa is something we can be proud of. Therefore, to smear everybody with the same brush I do not believe is fair. There are two other things which, I believe, have to be said. There are two other shining lights in this situation. The first of those is the Press of South Africa. I do not only refer to the English Press. There are elements in the Afrikaans Press, in the NP-controlled Press, which, I think, come out of this very well, extremely well. The truth is that if one has a vigilant Press in South Africa it serves as one of safeguards of the democratic parliamentary system in South Africa. I believe that, instead of people standing up here in Parliament today to attack the Press, they should get up and thank God that we in South Africa have a Press which is courageous, which is prepared to be heard, a Press which is prepared to be counted. If it were not for the Press, I venture to ask whether we would have been having this debate here today.

There is another situation to which, I believe, we should refer, a situation about which the public should know. That is the function of the Opposition. I want to make it clear to the hon. member for Durban Point that I, for one, include him and his party in this. I believe they have also played their part in this. They have courageously come forward and they have been prepared to stand up and be counted together with us at this crucial time in South Africa’s history. Unfortunately I cannot say the same about the hon. the leader of the SAP, because his approach is somewhat clouded and somewhat defused in this matter. However, the NRP, together with us—and here I talk about the Opposition—was prepared to be counted when it came to the abuse that has been hurled at us. If it was not for the Opposition in South Africa acting together with the Press, and acting together with members of the Public Service, and—I want to make this clear—acting together with hon. members who sit in those benches opposite—yes, some of them as well… [Interjections.] Yes, they are included in the NP. There are many people in the NP who, when the time comes, will be shown to have been the ones who stood up to be counted. It is not the whole of the NP that is tarred with that brush. There are many examples, but I do not want to embarrass them by picking them out. The hon. Minister of the Interior, for instance, if I were to praise him, would really feel quite sick about it. [Interjections.] One cannot tar every Nationalist with the same brush either.

Let me deal with something that has just happened. I refer to the actions of Gen. Van den Bergh. Let us look at the situation that has arisen as far as Gen. Van den Bergh is concerned. I can criticize the commission because I do not agree with all of its findings. When I said that formally to the hon. judge yesterday, he said: “In the House it is one thing but outside you had better watch yourself.” The same rules must apply to everybody. Gen. Van den Bergh has challenged the authority of the Erasmus Commission, not in regard to its findings, but he has used language which is contemptuous in the extreme. He has issued a challenge which is a challenge not only to the Erasmus Commission, but also to the Government. Very important credibility findings were made where Gen. Van den Bergh’s evidence is material and where the exhibits which were furnished are material. The challenge issued by Gen. Van den Bergh is: “Make public what I said. Make public the evidence.” If it turns out eventually that the evidence does not support the findings, the Government and the commission would be in a very difficult position. I made the request to the hon. the Prime Minister to disclose the evidence and to disclose the exhibits. However, in view of what Gen. Van den Bergh has done to challenge the whole concept of the commission, there is no longer an alternative; the evidence must be made public. There is no question about it. The other question is whether the State will sit by and allow the remarks to be made which Gen. Van den Bergh has made, because the regulations of the commission—which are almost universal for all such commissions—provide that no person shall insult, disparage or belittle the commission. Will the hon. the Prime Minister, when he replies, tell us whether the law will take its course or not? The public are watching to see what the reaction will be.

I make a very simple submission: Even in a court of law there is an appeal. Against the Erasmus Commission there should also be an appeal and that appeal is to this House because those findings are not binding on anybody. There are three men who have formed a judgment, completely bona fide, completely honest, but in certain respects they may be wrong and the only way that we and the public can determine whether they are wrong or whether they are right is if the exhibits and the evidence are made public. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister has no choice whatsoever in the existing circumstances other than to disclose the evidence and to make it public.

Let me immediately deal with another matter and that is the question of what really is the significance of this debate. The first of these points I referred to in replying to the hon. the Deputy Minister, when I said that the image that the NP Government has sought to project to South Africa, was the image of a strong and able Government. What are the real facts as they now appear? Firstly, a departmental head can spend millions and a Minister can say that he had no knowledge of it. Secondly, a Minister in the Cabinet can perform major acts and do major things in South Africa and the whole of the Cabinet can say that they do not know about it. We also have the situation that the present Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Defence, who was regarded as a decisive and strong man, a man with strong will-power whose will prevailed, is now seen in the public eye as a person who, although he disagreed and did not want his vote abused, although he gave an incorrect impression to the House in regard to the Defence Vote, but objected to it, was unable to persuade his Prime Minister at the time to allow him to do what he considered to be the correct thing.

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

No, I am not answering questions at the moment. I shall answer them later. He did not have the strength to force his Prime Minister to do what was right and proper, as he now says.

No, I did.

That is the problem. He never had the power.

No, I did.

He did not. The evidence came before the commission.

No, I did.

Eventually he had to become Prime Minister in order to do it. He could not do it when he was Minister of Defence.

I forced the legislation.

I am coming to that legislation in a moment, because that makes it slightly worse. Let me come first to the hon. the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance signed documents which involved R14 million and then realized that he should not have done so, and he is in charge of the finances of this country. Notwithstanding that, the signs documents which, presumably within days, he realized he should not have signed.

The R14 million had already been approved for the budget.

But the hon. the Minister signed the document. [interjections.] And he said that his signature should be cancelled.

I have the document here.

Then the hon. the Minister must argue with Mr. Justice Erasmus because that is what is stated in the commission’s report. [Interjections.] Then we have the Prime Minister—the former Prime Minister, not the present one—who was a Nationalist Party Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of the party which is still in power. It is the same Government. The cards have only been shuffled a little. That Prime Minister could not get one of his Cabinet Ministers, if his evidence is correct, to toe the line, and he was not strong enough to dismiss him from the Cabinet when he found out that he had done wrong. That is the image of a strong Government!

Then there is an official, the head of Boss, who can so mislead and exercise such an influence over a Prime Minister that the whole process of government is endangered. There were jokes made in South Africa about General Van den Bergh being the real “boss” of South Africa. If one reads the Erasmus Commission’s Report, however, one suddenly says to oneself that those were not such funny jokes after all, because there is no doubt that the influence he exercised over the governmental process was remarkable.

Then we had decisive action. We were told repeatedly to hear the other side. It now appears, however, out of the mouth of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that the very people who said “wait to hear the other side” had already been informed of the evidence of Advocate Van Rooyen, had already confronted the hon. member for Randfontein with that evidence and had received an answer. So, had they not heard the other side? Of course they had heard the other side! To the public they said, however: “Hear the other side. We cannot take decisive steps.” What happened was that the Government was paralysed in its actions, so much so that Beeld wrote in its editorial that here one sees a government which is paralysed and cannot act. That is how one gets strong government and decisive action on the part of this Government!

Then there is another matter. There is the inability on the part of the public—a situation ascribable to this Government—to believe what they are told. I have told you, Sir, what the situation is with General Van den Bergh and myself, a situation he boasted about. Let us take, however, the situation of Dr. Mulder in this House. He stood up in this House and gave his assurance, not once but a number of times, that there was no Government money involved in The Citizen. What do the public say they must now believe when another Minister gets up and says something? Must they say to themselves: “Well, maybe he is like Dr. Mulder or maybe he is not like Dr. Mulder?”

Nonsense! [Interjections.]

Let me go further. When the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs disbanded the Foreign Affairs Association, what did he have to do? He had to phone some of the most important people in the country. For example, he had to phone the principal of the University of Cape Town and apologize to him. What did he have to apologize to him for? He had to apologize because the truth was that he, together with so many more of us, had been mislead and lied to when it came to the issue of the Foreign Affairs Association. I would imagine that it must be of some significance if the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs finds it necessary, in the circumstances, to pick up the phone, to phone Sir Richard Luyt and to apologize to him for having received information which was clearly false.

Let me tell the House what kind of a mesh of lies and deceit has been created in South Africa. I want to read to the House what Mr. Metrowich of one of the front organizations, the S.A. Freedom Foundation, says about the truth. I quote—

He was then asked whether he felt any remorse about these deceits. He said—

In other words, one can lie to and bluff the public. He said further—

With “you” he meant the reporter who did the story. He found it far easier to lie to them. He said further—

That is the treadmill that this Government has created for the public situation.

Let us take a look at the Defence Vote. We listened to the hon. the Minister of Finance, piously telling us here that we needed more money for defence, and we agreed with him. All the time some of the money appropriated for the Defence Vote was being channelled off to the Department of Information and used for purposes over which the hon. the Minister of Defence had no control at all. There is another situation: The whole exculpatory process that has been put before us here, is that the Cabinet did not know about this. In other words, a South African Government which had inadequate control did not have major issues put before them, and in that Government the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. We all know that there are left hands and right hands in the Cabinet. That is the tragedy. The tragedy of South Africa is that although the Government has projected itself as a strong Government, in reality anything but a strong Government is in existence now, at a time when South Africa needs a Government stronger than at any time in its history.

Another matter I would like to deal with is the question of a cover-up. It has been said many times that there has been no cover-up, but I want to look at some of the facts to see whether there was a cover-up or not. I shall only deal with facts that are not in dispute. The evidence of General Van den Bergh, Dr. Mulder, Dr. Rhoodie, Advocate Van Rooyen and a whole string of them, all points to the former Prime Minister having knowledge of the situation very much earlier than he admits to. In the Press conference that General Van den Bergh gave yesterday, he is reported as having said that the former Prime Minister knew of the plans as early as in December, the day after the original meeting took place. [Interjections.] This was in 1975. Let us ignore all that and look only at the evidence of the former Prime Minister. He admits, on his own showing, that, at the latest, by October/November of 1977 he knew about the situation. He knew about the irregularities even earlier and he knew about The Citizen certainly before the last election. What did he do about it? The question is: What happened between the time that a NP Prime Minister found out that The Citizen was being financed with public funds and the time that The Citizen was closed? It has not been closed yet. For a year this went on and for a year we were not told about this. I venture to suggest that if it had not been for the disclosures in the Sunday Express, the Mostert disclosures and the disclosures in the Rand Daily Mail, there may well have been no more than a secret commission or committee investigating the matter. That is the reality of the matter. For over a year it was kept under the hat. I ask the hon. the Minister of Finance: When it is admitted that in November 1977 the hon. the Prime Minister was told about The Citizen, did the hon. the Prime Minister tell him?

I have said “yes”, that I knew nothing whatsoever about it.

That is right, but that is the very point. He admits there was a cover-up even against him. [Interjections.] In other words, the hon. the Prime Minister kept it to himself. He would not even tell it to the hon. the Minister of Finance. But I have even better proof of that, because I have here the records of the House of 9 and 10 May of this year. On 9 and 10 May of this year the former Minister of Information, the hon. member for Randfontein, got up in this House in reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and gave assurances that he had given before that in fact no public money was involved in The Citizen. Hon. members were all present and heard it. Do hon. members know who also was present? The former Prime Minister. The former Prime Minister was present, and I have the Minutes, which show that he voted against our proposal. He was sitting there and listening to the then hon. Minister of Information tell a lie and he knew it was a lie.

Dishonest!

He knew it was a lie, so why did he not then go to his Cabinet and tell them, even if he did not want to tell the public? Why did he not go to his Cabinet and say: “Look here, what Dr. Mulder has just said, is a lie?” Why did he not tell them that he knew this all the time? However, this matter goes much further. The former Prime Minister—and I say the former head of a Nationalist Government, because that is what I am concerned with—issued a statement on the day before that debate. He issued a statement and it was read in the House by Dr. Mulder. In that statement he said that he took full responsibility for the spending of all secret funds. When he said that in the statement, he already knew as a fact, according to his evidence before the commission, that there was public money in The Citizen. How can you have a NP Government facing the country when its leader has done those things?

When it is said that there is no cover-up, let us go a little further. We asked, when it came to the First and Second Reports of the Select Committee on Public Accounts last year, in this House for a commission of inquiry. Dramatic speeches were made on that occasion by some hon. members, who have to eat their words today. The NP voted against that commission of inquiry. Why did they vote against it? Why did the leader of the NP tell them to vote against it? Why did that situation arise?

[Inaudible.]

Another situation arose. The hon. member who is shouting there should remember—and I have brought the documents along—that when we asked questions in the Select Committee in order to elicit the irregularities, the Chairman, the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, disallowed questions. He would not allow them. It was a cover-up, that is why. The NP majority on that committee … [Interjections.] … of whom the hon. member for Newcastle was a party, are on record in this book as having been a party to the cover-up to stop the questioning which would have brought it all out then. [Interjections.] And we came to the House …

May I ask you a question?

No, you cannot. You can speak. They were a party to a cover-up. I challenge them to say what went on behind the scenes. I challenge them to say what part Dr. Mulder played in those decisions.

You concealed the information you had.

I concealed the information because I asked the questions? I was not given an answer. I was ruled out of order. A resolution was taken on the committee to stop the questioning, and now that hon. member says I withheld information. If he says I withheld the information, then he must ask the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. I do not want to disclose the discussions with him. Ask him to say what I told him. Ask the former Prime Minister to say what I told him. Then that member has the audacity to say that we withheld the information! That is an impudent statement devoid of all truth. [Interjections.] Those are the facts. Nobody can say here that there was no cover-up. Of course there was a cover-up. There is no question about it.

Then we come to this unholy doctrine that in fact there are no rules. We come to the doctrine that in fact the end justifies the means, that you can do anything in order to achieve an object. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of the Interior and Immigration a question. That statement was made in this House by the hon. member for Randfontein, not once but repeatedly, and not a single member of the Government on that occasion, including the present hon. the Prime Minister, was able to get up in the House and say: “We do not agree with what the hon. the Minister of Information has said.”

I told him myself. [Interjections.]

Not one of them said it in the House. What went forth into the world was that South Africa was fighting this fight without regard for the rules. I appreciate what the hon. the Minister of the Interior and Immigration says now. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Education and Training does not agree with him. That is unfortunate. But why did he not say it then? Now we talk about unconventional methods. Just to let us understand each other, when we talk about unconventional methods, it does not involve lying, it does not involve deceit, it does not involve theft, it does not involve corruption. I want to make that quite clear so that we do not get another statement before the commission that we have agreed to something. We agree that unconventional methods can be used if they are in accordance with the book of rules, but we do not agree that you can indulge in this kind of nefarious practice as part of unconventional methods in order to deal with a situation.

One of the things which we have to remember is that when the history comes to be written of this Information debacle, it will be shown that it was actually a watershed in South African politics. It will be shown that we have in fact escaped one of the biggest dangers that has faced South Africa. The findings of the commission in regard to the head of Boss are there for all to see. The findings in regard to the ability to use money for illegal purposes without accountability to Parliament or the Cabinet are there for all to see. The ability to set up a private secret service with payments to collaborators to indulge in all sorts of activities which are close on police and security activities, is there to see. In all of this there was a sinister triumvirate, namely Gen. Van den Bergh, the “boss”, Dr. Rhoodie, the Minister of Propaganda, and Dr. Mulder, the leader. There were machinations, some of which are disclosed in the commission’s report, others which for instance the hon. member for Jeppe can tell us about, in order to make Dr. Mulder the Prime Minister of South Africa. There were machinations in order to do that. The opinion had already been expressed by Dr. Mulder that in fact the democratic process was not suitable to the period which we were entering. There is little doubt that that is a philosophy that pervades a section of the Nationalist Party as it is today. The question that I ask—and I ask it of this hon. Prime Minister—is this: What would have happened if Dr. Mulder had become Prime Minister of South Africa? It is indisputable that Dr. Mulder was a party to these irregular actions. It is indisputable that the Prime Minister of South Africa had known about them since at least November 1977. It is indisputable that they were not made public before the general election. But the hon. the Prime Minister also has to tell us why in fact the members of his caucus were not told what he was aware of, what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs was aware of, and what the hon. the Minister of the Interior was aware of. Why were they not told and why was the risk taken which might well have led to this triumvirate taking over South Africa? I believe that South Africa escaped from a most serious situation. I believe that it also marks a change in the whole political structure of South Africa and I believe that when the history comes to be written some questions are going to be asked that members on that side cannot answer.

I now want to deal specifically with The Citizen, if I may. When the hon. the Prime Minister held a Press conference, he was asked—

I quote the response—

At that time the hon. the Prime Minister was the owner. The Government still owned the paper. He was talking to the owner but the hon. the Prime Minister told him to go and talk to somebody else. He was the owner.

No.

Who owned it?

In theory I did. [Interjections.]

Yet he told him to go and talk to the owner. However, what has been done now? I want to refer to what I think is a scurvy, rotten thing that is happening.

In theory I owned other things too, you know!

Yes, I know. I shall tell you about them just now too. In a tiny obscure little comer of this Government newspaper one finds a little announcement relating to the Insolvency Act. I quote—

There was no public announcement; only a little obscure advertisement in this rag.

What is more significant, and here I specifically address the hon. the Minister of Finance, is that I telephoned the Minister of Finance a week ago today and said to him that there was talk of alienation of The Citizen and of selling it to Perskor, and that I believed that he should take steps to safeguard the Government’s interest and that he should ask in fact that nothing should happen until the Government had considered the position and until the Erasmus Commission had been reported on and, if not, that he should consult the Government law advisers to obtain an interdict.

That is not the full story.

That is the full story. He then sent me a message …

You said “sell it by tender”.

Yes, I said that if it is to be … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, let him play the tape recording he took of my conversation.

Yes, I have got it Are you denying …

Go on, play it! The hon. the Minister has got it, so let him play it. You see, Mr. Speaker, he has now admitted that he took a tape recording of my conversation. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister did not telephone me back. What happened is that his secretary telephoned me after I inquired …

You said: “Sell it by tender.” You wanted to buy it!

Play your tape recording! [Interjections.]

Order!

I am coming to tenders. Sir, I got a message from his secretary who read a note he had written out to say the Government would do nothing until it had received and considered the Erasmus Commission’s report.

Correct!

Correct! The truth is that when the hon. the Minister said that, he in fact misled me because the truth is that, in accordance with a report tabled by the hon. the Prime Minister, on 17 November 1978 The Citizen had already been abandoned to Mr. Jussen and other gentlemen.

Why did you mislead the House by not saying you wanted it sold by tender?

You see, Sir, the hon. the Minister misled me and he cannot run away from it. I shall read the whole of it. It says that on 17 November 1978—

The hon. the Minister knew that because that must have been a Cabinet decision.

You wanted to buy it.

Order!

I did not want to buy it. That is a lie! I never wanted to buy it. For you to suggest that I never said it, is a downright lie.

Order!

It is a lie, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

You said …

Order! The hon. the Minister cannot debate this matter across the floor of the House in this way. He will have to ask the next speaker or some other speaker on his side to put the record straight if he wants to put any record straight.

Mr. Speaker, I want to put it quite clearly and coolly to the hon. the Minister, if he says that I told him that I wanted to buy the newspaper, that I challenge him to play his tape recording. It is utterly untrue; there was no such suggestion ever made.

I never said it. I said I made that conclusion … [Interjections.]

The tape will also make it clear.

I now want to turn my attention to the hon. the Prime Minister. As has clearly appeared in these documents and in the report of the Erasmus Commission, there is no question that in these circumstances money which was on the Defence Vote was used for the Department of Information. For some reason it was called “Operation Senegal”. No doubt somebody will explain that in due course. There are some important issues in regard to which the hon. the Prime Minister needs to answer.

It was not my choice, I can assure you.

It was not your choice?

What would you choose?

Who chose it?

General Van den Bergh?

Was your choice “Annemarie”?

What do you mean by that?

I am asking you in jest, if you do not appreciate it.

I shall ask you a very difficult question if you keep on in that way.

Please ask.

Order!

I made a joke. If you do not appreciate it, I withdraw it. I want to deal with the hon. the Prime Minister. He can ask me as difficult questions as he likes; I do not mind. I want to deal with the Act which the hon. the Prime Minister was responsible for as Minister of Defence. Firstly, I want to refer to the utilization of moneys in the account. It is specifically provided in the Act that the Chief of the Defence Force is, subject to the provisions of the Act, responsible for the administration of the account. I therefore ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether not every penny that was in that account was the responsibility of the Chief of the Defence Force acting under him. Secondly, the Act provides that the moneys in the account shall with the approval of the Minister of Finance—I specifically refer to him—be utilized to defray the expenditure incurred with such special defence activities, and purchases of the Department of Defence and the Armaments Board as the Minister of Defence may from time to time approve.

In other words, any money in this account which was under the hon. the present Prime Minister’s control could only be dealt with together by him and the Minister of Finance. What they did, on their own admission, was to include amounts which had nothing to do with defence and which were not included in the three categories in terms of subsection (2) (a). They transferred it out of their control into the hands of another person without exercising any degree of control at all. That is not doing your job in terms of the Act; there is just no question about it. Subsection (3) stipulates that payments for the special defence activities and purchases for the Department of Defence shall be made by the department. In other words, the only one who was authorized to make a payment in respect of money on this Vote was the Minister of Defence and the people under his control. Yet they gave the money away to other people and acted contrary to this Act. Subsection (4) states—

In other words, it was improper and illegal to have all of these other accounts where it was money which was voted in terms of this account. Then we are told that some provision was made for a separate allocation. In so far as the printed budget which was presented to this House is concerned, the money was included in the Defence Special Account and we in this House were deceived. There is no question about it. I believe that if we look at all of this there is no question about it that the functions which were due to be exercised by the Minister of Defence at the time were not exercised or adequately exercised in the circumstances. These are questions which the hon. the Prime Minister has to answer. He cannot avoid them now. He cannot now say that he has a clean bill of health. I accept his personal honesty and integrity, but he has to be honest enough to get up in the House and say: I erred in what I did; I may have acted under pressure, but I erred, and I tender my apologies to the House. In exactly the same way the hon. the Minister of Finance, whose personal financial integrity is not at issue, should now get up and say: I am sorry that I presented printed Estimates to this House which were misleading; I am sorry that I created this wrong impression. Then we can deal with this matter in the correct manner and in the proper form.

I also wish to deal, if I may, with the issue of the threats which the hon. the Prime Minister made and the issue of the Press. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister a very simple question. Are those who have done wrong the ones who are to be condemned or those who have exposed the wrong? The way in which he is approaching this matter is that there is some kind of guilt on the Press because they have done their job and exposed the wrongs. To attack the Press in these circumstances is utterly wrong. Then the hon. the Prime Minister did something which I very much regret. He said—

I will reply to you.

I want to challenge the hon. the Prime Minister on this. An attack on the Nationalist Party Government is not an attack upon Afrikanerdom. He arrogates that to himself.

No.

Secondly, I wish to tell him that as far as the Afrikaner is concerned I hold the belief on my contact with Afrikaans-speaking people, and he must correct me if I am wrong, that the Afrikaner in South Africa disapproves of what has happened in the Department of Information. I do not believe that the Afrikaner in South Africa accepts the doctrine that there are no rules. I do not believe that the Afrikaner in South Africa believes that the things that are covered up should have been covered up.

I happen to believe that the Afrikaner in South Africa is appalled at what has happened, that he has been let down by the Nationalist Party and that the Opposition has a job to do, even though most of the Afrikaners may not vote for us. One of the failings of the former Prime Minister was that he put Nationalist Party unity before South Africa. That was one of his failures and I want to warn the hon. the Prime Minister not to make the same mistake. South Africa comes first and comes far ahead of the Nationalist Party in South Africa. If the hon. the Prime Minister wants to divide the White community at this stage, with the threats that face South Africa and wants to do another Oudtshoorn in South Africa in this situation, I wish to tell him that history will damn those who seek to divide White South Africa at this crucial time.

I invite you now to come to Beaufort West.

That is not the issue. The hon. the Prime Minister thinks that the answer to all of this is to go and fight a by-election, but the answer is a question of morality.

You want to fight a general election.

Yes, I want to fight a general election and I will tell the hon. the Prime Minister why. What we have had is merely the shuffling of a pack of cards. It is the same Government that was elected in November 1977. It was elected without the public being told what the true facts were. He has no mandate and he is in fact a member of that same Government. No change has taken place. If the hon. the Prime Minister wants to cast off the slur of what has happened in the past and wants to cast off that image he should be his own man. He should go to the country and say: Here I am, P. W. Botha, and I want a mandate from you for my policy.

That opportunity will be afforded to you at the correct moment.

At the earliest opportunity, is what is required. The hon. the Prime Minister must be his own man, he must not be Vorster’s man. He must not be a past Government’s man.

I will decide on the date.

That is his prerogative. I hope that the hon. the Prime Minister will not choose the date the way the last one was chosen. Its purpose was to cover up. Now the hon. the Prime Minister has that problem and finds himself in that difficulty. I wish to ask, and I want to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister, whether the Nationalist Party can survive the credibility crisis that has existed in regard to itself and its Government. Until now the NP has had credibility in many directions amongst its people. I do not dispute that. However, that credibility has been destroyed. It has been destroyed because of a cover-up situation which has been going on over a period of many months, particularly before the general election. It has been destroyed because of a web of untruths and of lies that have been told. It has been destroyed because people were not prepared to stand up and be counted when the doctrine that there are no rules was put forward in this House.

I believe that South Africa requires a different kind of political movement in order to save it in future and to solve its future problems. It needs a new image. It needs a credible image. It needs to be part of the Western democratic scene. I do not want to allege that the whole of the NP is tarred with the Mulder-Treumicht brush. It is not. There are people in the NP who have the correct ideas, people who have the correct philosophies from a political point of view, people who have credibility with the public. There is no question about it. However, there are others who are in direct conflict with the hon. the Prime Minister and with those who support him. There are those who still believe that the end justifies the means. There are those who do not forget the allegation that their colleagues leaked aspects of the Information debacle to the Press. There was the spectacle yesterday of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs having to speak to his caucus in this House, to tell diem he had not leaked the information to the Press. He had to do this because they know and they have suspicions about what some people are alleged to have done.

A man created by the hon. member for Randfontein sits as his successor, elected as a result of Dr. Mulder’s last implementation of his belief that there are no rules. He even bent the NP constitution in the head committee in order to make sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister was elected chairman of the NP in Transvaal. [Interjections.] The reality is clear. The reality is that the NP can no longer solve South Africa’s problems. It has a wrong policy. It has a wrong philosophy. It has a wrong image and it has no credibility whatsoever. [Interjections.]

Order! Before calling upon the next hon. member to speak, I shall give the hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and of Education and Training an opportunity to furnish a short explanation concerning a matter in which he alleges that he has been misunderstood.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity. I reacted to an interjection and said: “You are paying me a compliment.” I understood the interjection as follows … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. the Deputy Minister a chance to explain.

I honestly understood the hon. member for Bryanston to say: “I do not like your speech.” [Interjections.] I am sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville occupied the House for almost an hour. He will appreciate, therefore, in the nature of things, that I cannot reply to all his statements.

In any case it is not worth the trouble.

As the hon. member rightly remarks, in any case it is not worth the trouble. I just want to say two things to the hon. member for Yeoville. We are aware that he plays a very special role in the PFP. He has, namely, to lend that party a cloak of respectable patriotism, while the other members of the PFP proceed to harm South Africa. [Interjections.] The second proposition I want to put to the hon. member is that it does him no good to compliment the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance in such very pious terms and to extol and praise their integrity because they have to act on South Africa’s behalf abroad, and at the same time to advance arguments which break down the image he is constructing.

The hon. member must realize that the Government side is sick of that sort of contradiction in the attitude of that hon. member.

I shall come back to the points made by hon. members. I assure them that this I shall do. In forming an impression of the contributions made by hon. members so far, there is one specific impression I cannot escape and that is the bewildering inability of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and of his supporters, to understand and interpret the circumstances of the time in which we live, and his complete inability to evaluate the totality of the threat—not only against South Africa, but against the Western World as a whole—and his inability to help formulate a strategy to counter it. I think the hon. member for Yeoville has at least an idea of this because he referred to the total threat against our country. Because the Leader of the Opposition cannot do this, he cannot identify the causes for the threat against South Africa and, because he cannot do it, he is not in a position to help formulate a counter-strategy for South Africa.

The second impression I gained from the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and from his contributions generally, is that he has a simplistic solution to the circumstances of the country. In this he is supported by the hon. member for Parktown and other hon. members. Do you know what this over-simplified analysis is, Mr. Speaker? It is that the threat against South Africa is the result of the internal political policy of the country. I now want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Is the total onslaught and threat aimed only at South Africa?

No, but it is a very important factor.

Is it only aimed at South Africa?

It is a very important factor.

I ask him again, Mr. Speaker: Is it only aimed at South Africa? Did the threat arise the moment this party came into power or did it just increase in intensity and sophistication and become more diabolical in its formulation? I also want to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition this: When will they cease—no matter how well-meaning they say they are—playing along with those people who are also seeking their downfall? [Interjections.] We have had to listen to a number of hysterical tirades. One of their speakers has just sat down. That is what we have to listen to, Mr. Speaker.

Let us consider for a moment why we have come together. Let us look at who has brought us together and what the circumstances are. I am prepared to accept the hon. member’s word that, like us, they only wish to serve the best interests of South Africa. I am prepared to argue on the basis of that supposition, albeit a far-fetched supposition. [Interjections.] I shall do that, Mr. Speaker. This House, as the highest authority passes judgment on the executive authority because the executive authority is subordinate to it. It also passes judgment on all the parties represented in the House. But this House is not the only democratic institution in the country. Apart from this House there are also other bodies, for instance the Press and the Bench, and each of these bodies has a specific function to fulfil. I now want to come to the role of the Official Opposition and in association with this I want to say that the role which they play cannot be separated from the role which that section of the Press they control has to play.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can put a question to me if he thinks I am summarizing it incorrectly. My charge is that the Opposition stands accused of the crime of misrepresentation, and this is what I should like to deal with. They stand accused on a charge of misrepresentation in regard to the role which the Government has played regarding the cover-up or otherwise of irregularities and/or crimes. They stand accused in respect of the allegations of the role a section of the Press has played, and they stand accused in respect of misrepresentation of the actions of this Government vis-à-vis the Bench.

It is true that this is an extraordinary session. When we study history and try to ascertain under what circumstances a similar special session has been held, we find that a previous session of this Parliament convened under similar circumstances was in regard to a war situation. This accentuates, as I see it, the serious light in which this Government, the executive authority, evaluates the circumstances that arose under the former Department of Information. It places us in a unique position. I want to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Does he not agree that the world is in a state of undeclared war? Does he not agree that this war is not being waged by conventional means, and does he not also agree with me …

There are no rules.

I shall reply to the hon. member for Parktown. He is the last one to talk to me about rules.

Why?

I shall explain now. Just give me a chance. I am talking now to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition but if the hon. member for Parktown thinks it is useless talking to him, I shall desist immediately. Let me put one point. This Government’s attitude has never been that no rules apply in an unconventional struggle. The attitude of the Government is in fact…

So why did you keep quiet when Connie was sitting there?

That hon. member had an hour to speak. I have much less than that. I want to repeat for the benefit of that hon. member that it has never been the Government’s attitude that no rules apply in an unconventional struggle. Its viewpoint is that rules apply in an unconventional struggle which differ from those which apply in peace time.

That is not what Mulder said.

I am not interested in that. That is why he is no longer in the Government.

He was in the Government.

But he is no longer there. [Interjections.] Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not listen to the hon. the Prime Minister? [Interjections.] I want to ask that high priest, who is now an hon. member …

No …

I said “who is now an hon. member”. I am pleased that the church has at least been relieved of that, although we have to carry the burden now. Will he declare himself in respect of all the funds with which he is involved? [Interjections.]

Which funds? What do you mean?

Let me motivate my accusation. Who initiated the inquiries into these irregularities and/or crimes? According to that side of the House it was the Press and the Opposition who were responsible. I accuse them directly that that is untrue. If a well-founded charge can be made in this regard, then it is the fact that those hon. members apparently had information in their possession which they did not make available. They were therefore prepared to see South Africa villified so that they could gain politically from it. Not only did they allow the gossip to take place, they themselves participated in it. They were co-gossipers. Let us test my statement.

The Controller and Auditor-General had already started an inquiry in June 1976, and from then on it was a continuous process in terms of the mechanism created by Parliament. Thereafter the executive authority appointed various committees. For what purpose? They also had to examine the actions of the executive authority because they too are subject to control like anybody else. Do we get any thanks for this? No. The motivation of those hon. members lies in their frustrations because they know that never, on the basis of their political philosophy, will they ever govern this country. They know that they will never be able to govern the country because the voters of the country will not vote for them. I want to emphasize that they do not care what happens to South Africa in the process. Their hatred of the NP is greater than their love for their country.

You did a disservice to South Africa.

The report of the Erasmus Commission also passes judgment on a section of the Press and on the whole of the Opposition. The report does not only pass judgment on the previous Prime Minister, and the present hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues, but also on hon. members on that side of the House. What is the judgment that is passed on the section of the Press concerned? According to the hon. member for Parktown, the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the Press did a splendid job in the implementation of their function to inform and to focus attention on people. The commission found that the English Press preferred to write stories rather than to give evidence.

That of course is wrong.

It is not wrong; that hon. member is wrong.

That is proved by this letter.

I shall come to that letter later. I now want to reply to the hon. member for Parktown. It is strange that the hon. member for Parktown becomes extremely sensitive when one speaks of the Press. I wonder if it is not because, when we speak of the Press, particularly that section of the Press now under discussion, we are talking about his interests. I wonder too if he is not a little too sensitive because we are speaking of his masters. Not one of the hon. members on that side of the House, including the resourceful hon. member for Yeoville, advanced a single argument yesterday or today that had not been supplied to them by their Press. Those hon. members are not capable of new thinking. They are just motiveless yes-men of the money over which they exercise control and by which they in turn are controlled.

You used to have an editor in your caucus.

If I had to have one in my caucus, I should chose one of the National newspapers and not one of those newspapers. The section of the Press to which the commission refers has the Official Opposition in its power. It dominates their lives, and do hon. members know why? There are a lot of Press-perverted people sitting on the other side. But they do not know how destructive it can be, and I want to warn the hon. member for Yeoville. What have we heard about the evidence? The hon. member for Parktown says he disputes the finding of the Erasmus Commission in regard to that section of the Press because Mr. Stirling did give evidence. That is very interesting. But do you know something, Mr. Speaker? Of all the witnesses who gave evidence before the Erasmus Commission, Mr. Stirling has been the only one who up to now has had to be subpoenaed. [Interjections.] Now I ask the hon. member for Parktown, that hon. member who is so pious and moral: Why does he mislead the House? The hon. member for Parktown implied directly that that newspaperman in a flush of patriotic outpouring gave evidence before the Commission. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: A report has been tabled, the Erasmus Commission’s report, in which there is no reference to Mr. Stirling having been subpoenaed. The hon. the Minister therefore appears to have had access to information which this House does not have. If that is so, then that information must be placed before the House. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members need not pass judgement on my behalf. In any case, I do not think that is a point of order. That is a matter which can be pursued in some other way.

The hon. member surprises me. He alleges that I have secret information. But are we not here to uncover secrets? Where did the hon. member for Parktown get the information that Stirling had given evidence? Is that also secret information? If he is the messenger of that section of the Press, next time they must tell him the whole story. I must of necessity conclude that he is using the fact that Mr. Stirling gave evidence to refute the Commission’s finding. [Interjections.] In all fairness, Sir, I did not interrupt the hon. member for Yeoville.

You said you would answer questions.

Is not one of the major arguments, one of the most important and most sensitive methods in this strategy, the elevation of the so-called right to inform and the right to know to an absolute right?

Do hon. members know what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says? He says he is also in favour of a form of secret funds but for the orthodox definition of security. But do we live in times of an orthodox struggle? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition claims to be the alternative Prime Minister of this country.

No, Harry is much better!

I want to motivate that second charge. The hon. member for Musgrave together with the hon. member for Yeoville held protest meetings in regard to Judge Mostert, and what they had to say about the judge and about the Government was in complete accord with their masters’ voice. I challenge any one of them to deny that they interpreted the action against commissioner Mostert—it is in that capacity I refer to him—as a reflection on the Bench by the Government. I challenge any of them to deny that. [Interjections.]

Particularly Kowie!

That hon. member, with great respect, should know better, because he once occupied the exalted position of a judge. He is the one man who should be able to understand the subtle distinction between a commissioner and a judge.

If you insult a judge you insult the Bench. [Interjections.]

The hon. member must please understand when I say—I do not intend to be insulting—that, just as I am grateful that the hon. member for Pinelands is no longer in the pulpit, I am grateful that the hon. member for Johannesburg North is no longer on the Bench. I want to ask him a question. If a judge is accused of murder, must he then not be charged because that would be attacking the Bench? I ask this again: If a judge commits a crime, must he not be charged because one would thereby be insulting the Bench? I say that anybody who maintains that dismissing the commission under the chairmanship of Judge Mostert was a reflection on the competence of the Bench is telling a blatant, public lie. I should like to discuss on commissioner Mostert further and refer to his role. He was appointed commissioner on 22 December 1977 and went ahead with the implementation of his function which dealt with exchange control and practices connected with it.

He could only investigate the private sector; he could do nothing about the Government.

That is the third blatant lie! For nine months, while, I take it, he was carrying out his terms of reference, he felt no need for publicity. Then he did not think it was necessary to expose people who had committed economic sabotage. But then, just before the election of the Prime Minister, the commissioner found that he suddenly had an opportunity, not to carry out his terms of reference, Sir, but to play a part in the election when in fact he had no such part to play. I maintain that commissioner Mostert’s conduct was intended to influence the election of a Prime Minister.

That is an atrocious accusation.

Would you say that outside?

I shall say it outside as well. I would not have mentioned it, but the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already referred to it. The fact is that Judge Mostert telephoned me …

[Inaudible.]

Don’t you want to have a bath? Perhaps then your mouth will also be clean.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Surely the hon. the Minister cannot say what he has just said about the hon. member for Bryanston? [Interjections.]

Order! I must tell the hon. the Minister that that is an offensive remark.

Sir, in all fairness I maintain that if those hon. members do not want to give me a chance to speak because they are guilty …

Withdraw it!

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister a chance. He has very little time left.

I can understand why all the mongrels are yelping outside. Judge Mostert telephoned me on 27 September at Jan Smuts Airport where I was waiting for an aircraft. He then told me he had certain evidence …

At whose request did he telephone you?

Will the hon. member please keep quiet? He is like a fish that is not getting oxygen but is breathing and nothing comes out. In all fairness the hon. Leader must give me a chance …

Order! I do not want to forbid interjections but hon. members may force my hand.

Judge Mostert telephoned me at the airport on 27 September and passed on certain information to me which later proved to be the information he published on 2 November, if my dates are correct The information he gave me I, as a responsible member of the House, passed on to the hon. member for Randfontein, although it was difficult because he knew he was not my candidate. I also passed it on to the then Prime Minister, and that was even more difficult. However that may be, the intention was to influence the outcome of the election. I have no quarrel with commissioner Mostert or anybody else in their choice of who should be Prime Minister of the country. But he does not have the right to decide that. We have the right to decide that.

Now I want to deal with the further charge, the charge that we covered up information. Anybody who maintains that this Government covered up information does not appreciate the fact that we are meeting here today with hon. members in privileged circumstances to rid ourselves of the poison with which they have kept us occupied until today.

In the minute or so remaining, I just want to say …

You will be the new Cape leader. You need not worry!

Nobody would ever elect that hon. member, not even as an “agterleier”. Judge Mostert’s commission made various findings, and I want to ask hon. members if it is not possible for them at least to reconcile his findings with their own proposals which we are now considering. A recommendation that where there is prima facie evidence that a crime has been committed this should be placed before the Attorney-General is after all not irreconcilable with those hon. members’ amendments. Why then did they not incorporate this? A proposal that in respect of State property the matter should be referred to the State Attorney for restitution and safeguarding is surely not irreconcilable with the proposals? Why then has it not been incorporated? The recommendation in regard to the auditing of secret accounts is surely not irreconcilable with the viewpoints of those hon. members? Why did they not incorporate that? Sir, do you know what the answer is? They are not interested. They are only interested in sensation.

Look who’s talking!

For the first time hon. members think they are on the winning side or the road to victory. Let me declare myself as a member of the House and as an individual. I am not prepared to condone any criminal action or crime. [Interjections.] That hon. brother and judge, the hon. member for Johannesburg North, is laughing.

Aren’t you a brother?

Yes, but not that kind. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I feel that we have been watching a performance which had another purpose than merely speaking in the House. The hon. the Minister has been putting on a performance which one can only interpret as being an election speech, because it is quite clear that he is running for the leadership of the Cape, a post which has become vacant. That was the sole purpose of his activities. He has made a speech which I regard as being totally irresponsible and unworthy of the hon. the Minister himself. I am sure that when he goes home tonight and looks at his Hansard, he will have some very serious thoughts about what he has said here today. [Interjections.] I could not take it; I am ashamed for the hon. the Minister. I am afraid he has done himself irreparable harm in this House. He is quite a nice person really behind the door, but now he puts up this facade of “kragdadigheid” which is put up by every NP Minister. He now wants to put his ideas across in the old way.

He said that Mr. Justice Mostert had made certain revelations which were designed to influence the choice of the Prime Minister in South Africa.

He intended to.

He said that these revelations were intended to influence the choice of people in the caucus. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal explanation: I did not say that the judge disclosed that information to influence the election, but that he took steps to influence it.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that whatever he has said by way of a personal explanation, I understood him to say very clearly that those revelations were designed to influence the choice of Prime Minister.

Yes … [Interjections.] but the revelations took place after the election.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister what situation we would be in now if that had not happened. What would be the situation have been if the man sitting in the Prime Minister’s bench had stood accused before the whole of the country as a result of a finding by the Erasmus Commission that he was not only incompetent but also dishonest in the handling of his portfolio? I think we have been saved from a fate, one might almost say, worse than death, to use the quaint old phrase, by the activity that took place in that department. However, the hon. the Minister went further and said categorically that somebody who appeared before the commission had to be summonsed to do so. Does the hon. the Minister have information that is not contained in the report tabled in the House? How does he know all this? Why were we not told about it? Why does he cast it like a bomb in the face of the hon. member for Parktown that that person had to be called before the commission? [Interjections.] How does he know it when it is not in the report? [Interjections.] The source of the information could only be somebody on the commission. The hon. the Minister has exposed this here, and has done the commission a great deal of harm.

You are making insinuations now.

I am not insinuating anything. I am saying directly that the hon. the Minister has released something which can only be to the detriment of the commission. The information must have come from somebody within the commission, because it is not contained in the report. I think he should be taken to task for it. [Interjections.] I am making a direct accusation. The hon. the Minister went further and said that we were continually harping on the part played by the policy of the NP in drawing the anger of the world against our country, something which, on its part, is instigating this “totale aanslag” which, as we hear from everybody, is threatening our country. He asks whether it is the policy of the NP only which draws upon us the enmity of the world or has it not gone further so that the whole dispensation of power in this country is at stake. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that I believe we would have been in a far stronger position facing, as we are, today this “totale aanslag” which we admit we face, had we had something which we could sell to people outside, something which was not based on organized discrimination which is the way in which the party’s policy is based.

What about malicious reporting?

Malicious reporting cannot obscure the truth about the policy of the Government, a policy which is based on a system which is unacceptable to the total outside world. In fact, it is unacceptable to certain members of that party itself. It is unacceptable to members of my party and the other party on this side.

What has happened to your party?

What is happening to your’s? [Interjections.]

What has happened is that our country is in the grip of a professional political organization, an establishment of the NP with people inside and outside this country and inside and outside this Parliament. Those people are dedicated to maintaining a party in power which has nothing further to say and no message to the people of South Africa at all. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister says that we are faced with the enmity of the world. He asks whether this is drawn upon us by the policy of the NP. Of course it is. Had we been in a situation to put something else forward, something which would put us in the real position of leadership in which we ought to be in Africa, how much easier would our position have been? How much easier would it have been for us to wage in the world outside the sort of psychological campaign to which the hon. the Minister of Finance referred to yesterday? We could have waged that campaign in order to improve the image of what we really basically are in South Africa, the image which is being obscured by the policies and attitudes of the NP.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and of Education and Training says that there are many people who are prepared to condone what has been done. They ask: What is wrong in having spent on a newspaper such as The Citizen?

He did not condone it.

I did not say that he condoned it What he did say was that there were many people who condoned it and who asked: What is wrong with it having been done? I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the problem does not arise from the fact that what was done was done behind the backs of the people in secret, without anything being revealed. What then happened was that a Press organ was brought into being with the public’s money, an organ which was designed to influence the mind of a section of the public which is by definition opposed to the governing party.

But I repudiated it.

Exactly, but then if there are people who say there is nothing wrong with it, the hon. the Deputy Minister must repudiate them. I am glad that he has repudiated it, because what we say is that the whole gravamen of the complaint is not only that this was done, not only that it happened, but it took how much strife inside the NP to force the hon. the Prime Minister to take the step which he took when the day before the hon. the Minister, who is no longer with us announced he would retire, made a statement in the Press to say that he was not considering retiring from the Cabinet.

What is the point?

My point is that the NP tried its level best to get away with this situation and I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what the situation would have been if The Citizen had been a success. Let us suppose that it caught fire immediately and went all through the comers of South Africa with the result that somebody bought it. Would that not have been a feather in the cap of the hon. the Minister who is no longer with us? He and every hon. member would have thought that that was a magnificent show, a really smart plan: “’n Lekker ou Boere-truuk wat op die mense gespeel is om die Engelse reg te kry met hul eie geld.” That would have been the attitude were it not for the fact that it went wrong. That is where the problem lies: It went wrong and it drew the party into discredit and the department further and further into debt month by month until the stage was reached where they could no longer control it. That was the problem the NP got and no other problem at all.

I want to say a few words to the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and of Forestry.

*Reference has been made here to the Public Service. The hon. the Minister of Forestry has acted here as the champion of the Public Service.

I have always been a champion of the Public Service!

Yes, always. Now I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what has gone wrong in our country that has caused members of the Public Service, people within Government departments, to fear for their lives, to render it impossible for them to reach their own Ministers to broach matters they believe to be wrong in their departments with their Ministers.

†There are members of the Public Service Commission who have been terrorized, broken into tears …

Where?

It is in the report of the Erasmus Commission.

That person is not a member of the Public Service Commission.

He is a member of the Public Service. There are members of the Public Service, people in the service of the State, who have felt that they could not even approach their own Ministers.

There is only one such person.

What about Mr. Fourie? Mr. Fourie was appointed internal auditor of the Department of Information, a department which was handling the funds in the hon. the Prime Minister’s own department. If that is the sort of way in which that hon. Minister is a “kampvegter vir die Staatsdiens”, what an absolute failure he is! What a failure the total administration is when people can be put into that situation which prevents them to go in complete confidence to the Ministers of their own departments, because somewhere between them and their Minister there is somebody who blocks their way. In the particular case to which that hon. Minister referred the Public Service Commission refused in two instances to appoint the person about whom we are talking here, Dr. Eschel Rhoodie. Therefore, I do not believe that hon. Minister should tell us any type of story about the Public Service Commission. His record and the record of his Government is not one of which they can be proud.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister must understand that there are cases which come to the attention of the public. These are things which show a situation which nobody thought about very recently. Some little while ago when the story was going around, every hon. member on the Government side said: “Dit is mos skinderstories.” They refused to accept the truth of any of the stories that were going around. Now, a commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of a judge verifies the truth of those stories. I do not believe the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs should hide behind the fact that there are only three in 40 000, or 80 million, or whatever the case may be. He has failed entirely, and his department and his Government have failed. [Interjections.]

Various commissions have been appointed to deal with this unfortunate situation. There was a commission appointed by the State President and under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. I was simply informed that I had been appointed a member of that commission. I want to make it clear that I object very strongly indeed to simply being told that I am now a member of a commission, that I have been appointed willy-nilly, whether I want to be or not, whether I am asked to be or not, or whether I have any say or not in the terms of reference. I am simply shoved into a commission that was appointed to take the place of a judge whose commission had been disbanded. I do not regard this as the correct way in which this sort of thing should be done. It is usually done by way of consultation between the parties and their Whips in order to establish who the members are who will serve on a commission. We as a party took our stand. We said we would not serve on that commission, for certain reasons. One of the reasons I gave was that I wished to consult with the chairman of the commission to clear up certain points before I was prepared to accept an appointment to the commission.

I also said I wished to see the report of the commission of Mr. Justice Erasmus so that we could know what had been covered in that report and what was left which we as a party might feel might still need investigation. In terms of the terms of reference of the commission under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke we might find that there are still areas which fall between the terms of reference of the Van der Walt Commission and the terms of reference of the Erasmus Commission. There might be ground in between which we felt deserved investigation and which the terms of reference of those two commissions did not cover. I have had the chance to discuss the matter with the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke and I want to say certain things about it. I have established from the chairman that this commission is to be what I took it to be in the beginning, namely a technical commission of Parliament. It is to be a commission of Parliament which will investigate certain activities which are taking place in regard to the evasion of exchange control which hon. members of this Parliament might quite rightly investigate and make recommendations on to the House for whatever action may be necessary by way of legislation or otherwise. It is not going to be a commission which is going to prosecute people, punish people or which is going to institute proceedings against people. It is a fact-finding commission and matters will be referred to that commission which are stated by the people who are referring them to the commission to be evasions of regulations or irregularities in some form or other. The commission is not to be in any way a body which chases people around or brings them before the courts or which throws them into gaol or anything like that. I think it is very important that this point should be made. I made the point to the hon. member—and I am pleased that he said I could mention it here—that one of the first things that I would request the chairman to do would be to call Mr. Justice Mostert to appear before the commission which is under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, because I believe there may be in the mind or in the hands of Mr. Justice Mostert certain matters which this commission could very profitably investigate. He might have access to information inside the files of his commission which were taken away and in some cases referred to other commissions and to this commission, which may lead to some very interesting facts emerging during the investigations of this commission. The hon. member has indicated that he is quite prepared to accept that as a point where we may start the investigations to be undertaken. I want to say that I would not take part in the work of a commission if it were intended as a cover-up in any way.

What makes you say that? Where is the cover-up?

I am saying that I am not going to take part in one which is a cover-up. Why do you not listen?

Then do not take part. Do not make a false statement.

Why do you not listen?

Why do you say that?

If we give you the chance to talk 15 times a day in this House you will make an absolute boo-boo of yourself every time. [Interjections.] That is what you do. You should be made to talk every day in this House. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

If you want to talk to an empty House, that is not my problem. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that I would not take part in a commission if it were a cover-up, I do not regard this as a cover-up and I hope that people in South Africa who have any information which they may regard as being relevant to the work of the commission will come forward and lay it before the commission or before members of the commission. The chairman has indicated that should it not fall within the terms of reference of the commission, we will have immediate access to the hon. the Minister of Finance, which we would have normally anyway, to leave it with him to take whatever action might be necessary. Under those circumstances I will serve on the commission and I will be pleased to do so because I regard it as something which can very well be in the interests of South Africa.

Everywhere that Mary went, her lamb was sure to go!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member here talks about lambs. If there was ever a lamb which was being led to the slaughter by the NP, it is that hon. member. He spends his time walking behind the NP and echoing them. To everything they say he says: “Ja, baas”. [Interjections.] Having been, as he was, one of the independent-minded hon. members of this House, a person who took a great deal of pains and trouble to establish himself and to make points and cases here, he has now simply become a “handlanger” of the Government.

I now want to ask a question of the hon. members on the other side. Have any of those hon. members thought it significant or strange that although funds were voted by this House for the Department of Information and entrusted to the Minister of Information and his Secretary to wage what the hon. the Minister of Finance has called the “psychological war” on behalf of South Africa in countries overseas, the major effort of that department should be conducted within South Africa in an effort to influence the minds of the English-speaking population of South Africa, who are the bastion of anti-Government thinking? Surely this is an extraordinary thought. Is this regarded now as being the most important sphere of activity that the Government side and its agencies have to undertake to influence the minds of the English-speaking population to support the Government? I say this because that is what it boils down to.

They support us on a large scale.

The hon. the Prime Minister has admitted himself, and other hon. members have admitted as well, that The Citizen did them invaluable service in the last election, and this with public funds! I therefore asked the hon. the Prime Minister directly whether it is the proper function of a State department to go out of its way, when fighting a psychological war …

Did you listen to my speech?

Why does the hon. the Prime Minister not listen to my question?

Did you listen to my speech?

I have asked the hon. the Prime Minister a question. Is it properly the function of the Department…

Did you listen to my speech?

Yes, I sat here and listened to the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech, and that is why I am asking him the question. Is it the function of the Department which is waging a psychological war on behalf of the people of South Africa to come into South Africa in an attempt to influence the minds of the people who are basically, rightly and instinctively against the NP Government, because that is what is happening? [Interjections.] Let me say something else. Let us just look at the opinion-forming media in South Africa. What do we have? We have the South African press which is owned by the Government.

Oh, nonsense!

It is owned by the NP. It is in the hands of those people. The hon. the Prime Minister has just resigned as a director of one of the companies, not so?

You are very ignorant.

Not a murmur.

Will you give me a chance? I shall reply to you.

I am reminded that the Administrator of the Transvaal, who is a director of one of these companies, has not resigned. [Interjections.] I want to ask a question. Would Die Burger ever come out and say that the NP has to be destroyed because it is the greatest enemy of White South Africa that there is? [Interjections.]

They are not such fools.

But of course it is true! It is the absolute truth.

There is a problem we face in this country today which should be analysed. Let us therefore analyse the situation. What have we got? We have here a party under that Prime Minister, a party which is totally immobile. It is incapable of moving. It can do nothing. It cannot even decide what power-sharing is. It cannot even decide whether its policy is power-sharing or not. It has come forward with a constitutional proposal which leaves the Indians, the Whites and the Coloureds in total isolation, with no links with the Black people at all. This is what they are trying to sell now to the people of South Africa. But what happens? We get from the English press the story of the hon. Minister over there, that nameless wonder, whatever he might be, ex-Minister of Bantu Affairs, ex-Minister of Plurals, ex Africa semper aliquid novi or whatever he might decide to be in the future. He and Minister Janson are put forward as being the new verligte wing in the NP. What is going to happen now, has happened before. The Minister of Sport will stretch himself out to the very limits in moving the NP in a certain direction, but he knows that his tail will stretch only so far before it is whipped back by the elasticity of its instinct for survival. And who is standing on his tail? That hon. Deputy Minister.

Robin Hood.

Yes, the Hood who came in from the cold, the lump in the Prime Minister’s stomach. As everybody said, the Prime Minister had already refused to appoint him to the Cabinet, and now suddenly he is the leader in the Transvaal and all this kind of thing.

Dr. No.

We have a government in this country which is totally immobile, which cannot move. The initiative is passing out of the hands of that government and is passing into the hands of the Black man day after day, and the ability of the White man in this country to cope with the situation is crumbling. And I am perfectly entitled to say that. When we should be leaders in this country, meeting the continent of Africa and creating something which is viable and great and rich in this country, we are not able to move because of the internal struggle that goes on as a result of the polarization inside that party, a situation which makes it impossible for them to move. They cannot go forward and they cannot go back. They can go nowhere. This is a very real complaint that I have as far as the NP is concerned. Members on the other side talk about the value systems that we defend. Surely one of the value systems that we defend is fairness, with every party having a chance to put its point of view. I therefore want to put the question to the new Minister over there, my very great friend, the Minister of National Education.

Why did you not apply that in the Mostert Commission’s case?

I am talking to my friend there, the hon. the Minister of National Education.

Why did you not apply that in the Mostert Commission’s case?

Why am I to apply it to the case of the Mostert Commission? The hon. the Prime Minister demolished the Mostert Commission overnight and appointed something else in its place.

One-sided evidence was published. [Interjections.]

Who was on the other side?

Why could the other side not put its point of view? The hon. Minister over there controls the television service and I say to him that the television service in this country is a scandal. [Interjections.] That is what it is. It is designed deliberately to obscure the contributions that other political parties might be able to make to the solution of a problem that affects all of us living in this country. Other parties might just happen to have an answer which could fit the present situation. If that hon. Minister wants to earn the approbation of the people, he will ensure that an open forum is created in which all parties can put their points of view, discuss them and bring them to the attention of the public. During the last election the television medium was for the first time applied to the minds of the voting public of South Africa.

To what paragraph of the report are you referring?

I am dealing with whether the hon. the Prime Minister knew about this or not. The hon. the Prime Minister, knowing about the events, went before the public on the television service and he did not deal with anything that is now evident from this report. He did not say “mea culpa” or that they are sorry that this had happened. He said that they were going to appeal to the people to support them against the enemies of South Africa.

Deceit!

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Prime Minister and everybody else of a very famous man in the history of Great Britain, Dr. Samuel Johnson, who had a few words to say about patriotism. He said that patriotism, in the minds of noble men, is a noble and uplifting thing, but that patriotism in the minds and the mouths of ignoble men, is the last resort of the scoundrel. We in this country have to be careful that patriotism does not become a watchword and a catchword to obscure the real issues or that it should simply become the last stock in trade of the NP when the policies that they put forward become “uitgedien”, out of date, outmoded and fastened in the old days of Dr. Verwoerd. History has caught up with them completely, and that is the danger we face. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations must watch out that patriotism does not become a commodity to be trafficked in by the governing party and used against other parties who are just as patriotic and as attached to the Republic of South Africa as anyone who sits on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, in the normal course of events I should not have participated in the debate because of the fact that I am chairman of a commission which is enquiring into certain matters. Unfortunately, for purposes of the record, it has become necessary for me to make certain matters clear. The hon. member for Mooi River will understand if I do not reply to what he said in his speech. At the same time I want to take the opportunity of welcoming the hon. member to the commission. I want to put it very clearly today, as I have already put it to other hon. members, that the discussion we had did not deal with an alteration to the terms of reference of the commission. The terms of reference remain the same. Our discussion covered, inter alia, certain explanations. I am grateful that the NRP has decided to serve on the commission and I am particularly pleased that the hon. member for Mooi River himself is prepared to serve on the commission.

I should like to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Yeoville when he said that the NP members of the Select Committee were engaged in a cover-up when we started investigating the previous Department of Information’s public account. The hon. member referred to me specifically and said that I had prevented him from putting certain questions. That is 100% correct. I stopped the hon. member from putting certain questions. But for the purposes of the record I must also state what is at issue here. In the first place the Select Committee on Public Accounts is an instrument of this Parliament. The terms of reference of the Select Committee are to deal with the report which this Parliament refers to it. The report submitted to Parliament by the Auditor-General was referred to the Select Committee and the Select Committee did not cover up or conceal anything—I repeat anything—in that report which had a bearing on the former Department of Information.

Do you admit that, Harry?

You did not allow secret funds to be discussed.

I could not allow the secret funds of any department to be discussed there if the matter had not been referred to the Committee by Parliament for discussion.

But it was referred.

It was not referred.

You say it was in the budget and then you still argue.

It was not the budget which was referred to the Committee.

Of course not!

It was the report of the Auditor-General which was referred to the Select Committee. I am really sorry that that hon. member has dealt with this matter in that fashion here today. I am really sorry that the hon. member has done that. The hon. member must remember that he himself, the hon. member for Parktown and even the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, congratulated me publicly in this House as chairman of that Committee. The hon. member for East London North also congratulated me. The hon. member for Walmer also did so.

I also expressed criticism because questions had not been allowed.

I want to deal with that matter now. What happened? The report of the Auditor-General was before the Select Committee. Parliament referred that report to the Select Committee. By then it had already been announced that certain inquiries were to be made. But I am not prepared to permit any discussion in a Select Committee of which I am chairman in the case where a member of that Select Committee relies solely on newspaper reports.

They were proved to be factual.

That they were later proved to be factual is not at issue now. The question is what the position was at that specific stage. Do hon. members opposite want to tell me that if one is investigating a matter in any Select Committee—whether it is the Select Committee on Public Accounts or any other committee—one can work solely on newspaper reports in that Select Committee?

Why did you vote against a commission of inquiry?

That is the only reason I told the hon. member that we could not discuss the secret funds of any department. At that stage we were dealing with Information. It is a committee on public accounts.

We did not discuss it.

Order! I cannot permit a dialogue on this matter. The hon. member for Yeoville must give the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke the opportunity to finish his speech.

As the hon. member has told us that those facts have been proven he must also tell this House whether on that date, when those things appeared in the newspaper, he knew that it was true …

That the information was true.

Order!

If the hon. member had information, the hon. member or somebody in his party must tell us what that party did with that information at that stage. I accept that the hon. member had certain information and, had I known that he did have the information—which had nothing to do with me—the question is …

He went to Gen. Van den Bergh.

Let me tell the hon. member for Groote Schuur that while the Select Committee was sitting I was prepared to arrange to consult the former Prime Minister in regard to certain objections which the hon. member for Yeoville had, and I shall say no more than that. He can tell us himself whether he saw the Prime Minister.

In other words, you are fully aware of what I did with that information and to whom I gave it?

Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said. The hon. member asked me if he could consult the Prime Minister on a certain matter. I said that I would arrange a meeting for him with the Prime Minister. I do not know if he discussed this with the former Prime Minister. The hon. member must tell us.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to comment on the report presently before the House because I do not want to make my position untenable as regards future work. But I should like to say that if we find ourselves in a situation where one of the instruments which we used uncover the situation which arose with regard to the former Department of Information is disparaged and a member of the Select Committee says to the chairman of the Select Committee: “You are a man who covers up”, then the Speaker of this hon. House will have to decide how we are to operate on the Select Committee if that is the attitude we adopt to the Select Committee. Then too those hon. members must stand up in this House and withdraw their congratulations. They should also talk to some of the English-language newspapers who said I was brave to allow such a report to be presented. It was not I who submitted the report; it was the Committee’s report. Sir, we shall be talking to one another again across the floor of this House.

Yes, we shall.

We shall have to talk to one another again but I am afraid that if this is the attitude we adopt to one another in our approach to this very important work that has to be done, it will be difficult for us to do the best we can for the democratic system in this country in a spirit of co-operation.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, we can well understand that the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke wishes to defend himself. We did not intend any attack on him personally and he knows that. It has happened in the past. We are concerned, however, and have shown this concern from the word “go” …

Harry can make his own apologies.

Listen to the reply!

It is not an apology.

It is no apology whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. What we are saying and what we are trying to show and will show is that certain disreputable facts were actually covered up and that that hon. member, as chairman, and his committee were also victims of that cover up. I want to give just two examples of that Firstly, I want to refer to pages 290-1 in the Third Report of the Select Committee. At the top of page 290 one reads that the hon. member for Yeoville said the following—

Thor Communicators, the Pretoria mystery company, which the Sunday Express linked four weeks ago with the Department, is financed out of the Department’s secret fund.

The chairman then asked—

To this Mr. Schwarz replied—

The chairman then interrupted Mr. Schwarz, saying he was unable to allow further questions in that area. So it goes on pages 290-1.

What is your point?

The point we are making is a very simple one. We are not concerned with petty cash. We are not concerned about people who undertake trips overseas with their wives. We are concerned with the wholesale robbery that went on. That is what we are concerned about. We are concerned with millions of rand, not hundreds of rand or thousands of rand.

In this regard let me finally refer right to the beginning of that report where Mr. Schwarz moved as follows (page xxxi)—

This was turned down and the committee divided. Those who voted in favour of that motion were Mr. Aronson, Dr. De Beer, Mr. Malcomess and Mr. Schwarz. I do not have to read the names of those who voted against that. Once again we were not able to get to the heart of the matter.

You know the question was out of order.

That is the only point we are trying to make and I believe that my colleagues have made it very well.

I want to return now to the major thrust of the debate. I want to underline a point which has been made in passing and which I believe needs to be made again. All this is as a direct result of the methods adopted by this Government. A number of people have been involved, but we do not know how many. That is what we mean when we say that there is more to come. The commission has not yet completed its work. We do not know and I suppose no one will ever know how many people have been involved, but we do know that people in Government and outside of Government have told lie upon lie upon lie because of the system. One can mention names. The commission mentions them by name. We had it again and again when allegations were made, even in this House. I am sorry that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens is not here. When my colleague, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout … [Interjections.] I could refer to half a dozen people. I am giving just one single example. When the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made an allegation in this House and asked the question of the then Minister of Information whether there were any State moneys in The Citizen, that hon. member attacked the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and asked how he, as a senior member of this House, could dare to suggest that there were public funds involved. Let us face it; we were all taken for a ride. However, the big thing to ask—and this is the fundamental question—is: Who took this House for a ride? Was it only the hon. member for Randfontein? That is the big question and the purpose of this debate is to find out the truth.

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had an opportunity yesterday to explain his own involvement in this matter—I do not use the word “involvement” in any derogatory sense. I mean that he explained how information came to him and what he did with it. I think he did the absolutely right thing with it.

You asked a question?

No, I am saying that that hon. Minister had that opportunity in this House. I think that he should quite rightly have had that opportunity; I have no complaints about that. What concerns me, is that a former Minister of Information has not had that opportunity in this House. Was that his choice? Did the hon. the Prime Minister tell him not to come to this House during this debate or was it his own decision? I think we have a right to know, because the previous Minister, the hon. member for Randfontein, has made it very clear that he wanted to have a chance to explain exactly his own role in the matter. What better place is there than this one? This is the place where it all began and where all the deceit started.

It has nothing to do with you.

It has everything to do with me. As a member of this House I have a right to have an explanation. I want to issue an invitation to the hon. member for Randfontein, who is now watching me on closed-circuit television, to come into this House. We will give him time if that side of the House does not want to do so. Let him tell us how he sees the whole matter. [Interjections.] Why is it nonsense? What is wrong?

Now I understand what happened in paradise.

Why do you not want him to speak? Am I to understand that hon. members on that side of the House are scared of what he might say?

I want to ask a few other questions. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development a question. I have a great regard and respect for him. When he nominated Dr. Mulder for the highest office in this land, did he know of what we are discussing now; if so, why on earth did he do so?

I shall reply to that.

We look forward to it as it was quite a remarkable thing. I want to put a second question to him. Is it true that he was one of those involved in the alleged take-over of the Natal Mercury? His name has been mentioned. I assume he was not called before the commission. I may be wrong. Unlike the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, we are not privy to all these things that have been going on. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us that too, because that is where it all began. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice, of Police and of Prisons a question. When he seconded the nomination of Dr. Mulder, did he know whether Dr. Mulder was involved in the irregularities? If he did know, then I believe that this was the height of irresponsibility and that once again we have seen the NP becoming predominant over the interests of South Africa, something we have seen for 30 years.

That is absolutely not true.

It is absolutely true. We are not concerned about the bickerings and quarrellings within that caucus, but with the Prime Ministership of this country. [Interjections.] No, you have all the time in the world. The hon. Minister has said across the floor of the House that he will reply and I am quite satisfied with that. I hope the hon. the Minister of Justice will do the same. Then I want to go on to another very important issue.

You have raised a lot of questions.

Yes, I have a great number of questions. The Government is in the dock and that is why I have so many questions. [Interjections.]

Order!

I refer to the remarkable performance of Gen. Van den Bergh before the commission and the even more remarkable performance of Gen. Van den Bergh as reported in the newspapers today and yesterday and on TV. This performance is astounding. We find it very difficult to believe that this can happen. As my hon. colleague from Yeoville has said, if any one dares to call a commission into contempt, he must be dealt with.

Who told you that it will not be done?

I assume the hon. the Prime Minister is going to tell us what he is going to do.

Don’t you think the commission can look after itself?

Well, that may be so. We shall be satisfied if we know that some action will be taken. The question arises, however: Who took action against the Rand Daily Mail? Was it the commission or the Government? [Interjections.] We shall leave it there, but I must say that once again there are no answers. The story of this entire debate is that there are no answers, no satisfactory answers from that side because there are no satisfactory answers.

The next attitude we want to take is to take a very careful long look at this report and the very disturbing factors which arise out of that, because if Gen. Van den Bergh has any substance in what he has said, it makes it even more disturbing reading than before. I am in no position to decide whether or not Gen. Van den Bergh is correct in his allegations. There is, however, one thing to which he draws the attention of all of us who have read the report. All of us have noticed it. If one looks at the evidence given by Mr. Reynders which is there for all to see, one notices an apparent conflict which exists: Time and time we are told by the commission that Mr. Reynders had spoken many times with the then Prime Minister. That is what is said in the report. In fact, when they asked Mr. Reynders a specific question, he replied that he could not remember when he told Mr. Vorster because he saw him so often. It makes very strange and disturbing reading on the one hand to have the point made that he was too scared of the general and therefore could not speak to the then hon. Prime Minister, while on the other hand he told the commission that again and again he saw him repeatedly and told the then Prime Minister of the irregularities step by step. It is all there in the book.

Which one?

This one, the report of the commission. The hon. the Minister is probably so busy with other information that he has had no chance to look at information about himself and his Government.

Is it a theology book?

No, it is a theology book; it is a perfect story of corruption. [Interjections.] Well, it is the kind of theology of the hon. the Deputy Minister who sits there looking at me now. I see he is putting on his spectacles; now he can see. [Interjections.] It is the kind of theology which is based on a premise, according to the hon. the Deputy Minister. However, it is a most dangerous theology which says that one is conceived in sin, born in sin and therefore after all, one is a sinner and so, as Luther would say, one should sin bravely. [Interjections.] The upshot of it all is that one can defend anything at all if one bases one’s life and philosophy on that. It is almost like saying: No rules apply.

The point I want to make is that delicate as it might be, if one reads the report as it stands here, again and again one is told that the then hon. Prime Minister knew and had been told. Certainly, one thing is true: He was sitting in this House when the then hon. Minister of Information got up and told us across the floor, in reply to a direct question, that there were no State funds in The Citizen. [Interjections.]

It is very important, because we have had no reply. [Interjections.] I must ask this House what is the implication of that. Are we really to understand that the then hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, did not take the Cabinet into his confidence? Are we to assume that, although we in these benches and countless numbers of people outside have heard speculations and rumours—as we thought then, and therefore could not substantiate—that he silently acquiesced in the lie that was told in this House? So strongly does one feel about this that we say to the hon. the Prime Minister—the present hon. Prime Minister—and we say it here in this House, that not only do we challenge him—he has already replied to this but I ask him to think again—not only do we say to him, for his own sake and for the sake of his Government and that of South Africa, that he should resign and go to the country, but, more than that, we ask the hon. the Prime Minister and the Executive to give the most serious consideration to asking Mr. Vorster to stand down in his present position. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am not criticizing him, Sir. I am trying to defend the highest position in the land.

That is typical of the sadistic methods you resort to!

Order! I gave my ruling on this point and the hon. member should abide by that.

Mr. Speaker, I shall obey your ruling.

Is there no limit to the depths to which you are prepared to sink? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, finally there is another matter that has not been touched on yet. This will probably arouse the indignation of the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members opposite almost as much as my previous suggestion did. I want to refer now to an interview, details of which were published in the Rand Daily Mail of 17 November 1978. Being interviewed was the Deputy Chief of the CID, Gen. Kobus Visser. This had to do with the allegations and the rumours that had been spread concerning the death of Dr. and Mrs. Robert Smit. This is the question—

Another question!

This was a question put to Gen. Kobus Visser.

Where did the newspaper get that from?

That was said in an interview with Gen. Kobus Visser. I am quoting from the newspaper report of the interview conducted with Gen. Kobus Visser. [Interjections.] This is what Gen. Visser replied—

Then the question is put to him—

Gen. Visser replied—

Then, the next question—

Gen. Visser’s reply was—

Yet another question—

Gen. Visser’s reply was—

The next question—

Gen. Visser replied—

The only point I want to make … [Interjections.] … is that we have heard from a number of very senior Cabinet Ministers since yesterday, including the hon. the Prime Minister, that one of the things that has to stop is the “skinderstories”, the rumours and the allegations. Hon. members know that it is true that there are people all over South Africa who are asking these questions. [Interjections.] Let us make sure as soon as possible, and the best possible way is for the Police to take the public into their confidence. Let the hon. the Minister himself speak to this. Let us hear now that there is no possible link whatsoever between the Information scandal and the death of Dr. and Mrs. Robert Smit. That is the question. I hope we will have an answer before this House adjourns. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, before I react to the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands I would like to address myself briefly to the hon. member for Mooi River and the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Mooi River made a very strange and disconnected speech this morning. Listening to him I found myself wondering whether the hon. member was related to Rip van Winkle. After a good start, during which he explained why he would now participate in the proceedings of the Van der Walt Commission, he suddenly started to dwell upon a wide range of political subjects totally unconnected with the Erasmus Commission’s report and with the former Department of Information. He inter alia made an attack on the hon. the Minister of National Education about SATV.

I did not attack him …

In order to be relevant in my reply to him and the subject under discussion, namely the report of the Erasmus Commission, I want to remind the hon. member for Mooi River that there have been panel discussions in regard to the former Department of Information and Government action in that regard for two consecutive nights on SATV.

How long did we have to wait for it?

During the first of these discussions all three panelists adopted the attitude that the Government must call for a general election and they criticized the Government in the strongest of terms. Is that, Mr. Speaker, a cover-up? Is that misuse of the SABC? [Interjections.] During the second discussion one of the panelists likewise took up a strong attitude against the Government’s point of view, and was allowed to state his case. [Interjections.] We do not mind being attacked, but we are getting a little bit worried about the credibility of the Opposition. In the words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, we need good, strong foundations for our democracy in South Africa. One of those foundations, Mr. Speaker, is a credible Opposition. However, when we have this sort of attack while the facts show the opposite, then we become extremely worried about their credibility.

Before the hon. member for Yeoville attacked those parts of the report of the Erasmus Commission which do not suit his party-political purposes, he tried to enhance his credibility by saying a few positive things. I wonder whether it would not have been appropriate for him, while saying a few positive things, to also tell the House of the good work of the Foreign Affairs Association. I believe he was a member of a recent delegation sent to a Western European country by the Foreign Affairs Association.

I was bluffed.

I am glad that he went, and I am not alleging that he knew at that stage that it was being financed by Information money. Whether he knows or not, is his affair.

I was bluffed.

However, I think his evidence in this House as to the good work which he and others did there on Information money for South Africa, should have brought some perspective to his colleagues.

Have I not said publicly what is good about the work done? I said it publicly in the Afrikaans and English Press.

The hon. member for Pinelands again today recalled with great indignation the millions of rand which have been misappropriated. He said: “We were taken for a ride”, and asked: “By whom?”

*Mr. Speaker, he then proceeded to launch a vicious attack on the former Prime Minister. We think he should look for his answers in the report of the Erasmus Commission. That report has been produced by a commission under the chairmanship of a judge, assisted by two senior legal men, all three of whom are held in high esteem by the legal profession and the public outside. Those three lawyers heard the evidence of various people. They weighed that evidence and even recalled witnesses where they found that necessary.

Where is the evidence?

There was cross-examination, therefore, and after that, by following the proper processes, they came to certain conclusions. The lawyers in that party will tell the hon. member for Pinelands …

All I want to see is the evidence.

… that a judge of appeal, as far as the credibility of witnesses is concerned, does not interfere with the verdict of the judge of the first instance because he knows that the evaluation of evidence depends on many factors. It depends, for instance, on how the person gives his evidence. It also depends on his reactions to questions and the impressions gained by the judge on the Bench. What the hon. member for Pinelands and both the PFP and the NRP have been doing for more than a day now, has been to undermine the authority of the Erasmus Commission and to cast doubt on its integrity. [Interjections.] I shall give further proof of that. [Interjections.] In unseemly haste they have practically made a national hero and martyr of Judge Mostert in his capacity as commissioner on the strength of evidence which has not as yet been proved.

He was dismissed before that evidence could be tested.

Now that they have received the report of three lawyers, a report which was drawn up after serious consideration and testing, they accept only those sections of the report which it suits them to accept.

[Inaudible.]

I shall return to that. The hon. member for Pinelands tried to make a third point. That theme has been evident throughout the debate. The accusation has been made that in its handling of the former Department of Information and in general, the NP has regarded the interests of the NP as synonymous with the interests of South Africa.

Placed them above.

They say further that we are deliberately placing the interests of the NP above those of South Africa.

That is very obvious.

That is the charge. He then pointed a finger at us—I am tempted to say a priestly finger but you, Mr. Speaker, will probably not allow that—and said that we were the people who stood accused. That is a convenient political slogan, one which rolls easily off the tongue of those who hate the NP.

But surely the NP is South Africa. [Interjections.]

Let us test…

How can one have a South Africa without a National Party? With nonsensical people like you?

Out of the mouth of babes.

Order!

Let us test this accusation against the facts and let us apply the test in both directions. Let us also test the role of the Opposition in connection with the same matter, namely the former Department of Information, and their handling of it We can then decide who is placing party interests first and who is placing South Africa first. What would be in the interests of the NP if we wanted to serve the interests of the NP only as against the interests of the country? If we were to adopt that slanted attitude it would, in the first instance, be in the interests of the NP that the problems of the Department of Information be covered up and remain covered up.

That was the position for a long time.

It would not have been in our interests to institute investigations. It would not have been in our interests to have the former Prime Minister instruct the Attorney-General to carry on; it would not have been in our interests to appoint two inter-departmental committees; it would not have been in our interests to extend the terms of reference of one inter-departmental committee; it would not have been in our interests to appoint the Erasmus Commission, a judicial commission; it would not have been in our interests—and we had the power not to publish the report—to publish the report and, had we only considered our own interests, it would not have been in our interests to convene Parliament. But in spite of everything we did all this. The hon. the Prime Minister has spelt it out to the House. We took all these steps in order to get at the true facts and we respected Parliament in that we authorized the discussion of the report of the Auditor-General, a discussion which is now being questioned.

We have served the truth by taking steps to expose those responsible, irrespective of who they may be. We have taken effective steps and steps are still being taken in order to get to the bottom of any maladministration and to expose it. Hon. members are aware of the chronological sequence of those steps and nobody can say anything that will detract from the truth of what I have just said. The steps taken are there for the public to see so that they will know that the Government has concealed nothing from them as far as this matter is concerned.

If one wants to be reasonable in one’s evaluation of the steps taken—the hon. member for Mooi River also pleaded for fairness—one aspect must be borne in mind viz. that at a certain stage only certain facts were known. It is very easy now that all the facts have been made known to say in retrospect that this or that should have been done a long time ago. Surely things don’t happen like that in real life. Firstly one hears a rumour—in this instance the ripples were started by the Auditor-General—and the appropriate steps are then taken. That results in the revelation of further facts and the next step follows on that. That is the history of this matter. I can vouch for the fact today that as the facts became known the steps taken were more penetrating and intense until we realized that there was something seriously wrong. Then followed the final step, namely the appointment of a judicial commission of inquiry. If hon. members opposite say that it is with a sense of shame that they stand here today, I say that even if I too stand here with a sense of shame I also stand here with a sense of pride because democracy has been triumphant and because the principles of honesty and justice have been upheld by the Government in this matter.

Had we wished to place the interests of the NP above those of the country, surely we would not have allowed a senior Minister to withdraw from politics in such a way; he was after all the provincial leader of a province which has the most seats in this Parliament. We would not have asked him—as the hon. the Prime Minister put it—to reconsider his position. We would have allowed him to side-step the issue in some other manner. But the NP did not do that. The hon. the Prime Minister had the courage of his convictions and he followed the correct constitutional road in the interests of South Africa. By doing that the NP did something, for the sake of clean administration and in the interests of the country, it would have preferred not to do, had it wished to serve only its own selfish interests. That is why we as the NP can look the world, the nation and the Opposition straight in the eye today and say to them that if we were faced with a choice between the interests of South Africa and the interests of the NP we would decide on the interests of South Africa, no matter how injurious it might be to the party.

Then you should resign.

How did the Opposition handle the problem regarding the Department of Information? Let us put their attitude in this connection to the test. Other speakers have already referred to their approach to this matter in the past, and I wish to confine myself to their attitude and their approach during this debate. We must ask this question: Are the actions of the PFP and the NRP designed to promote the interests of the country or those of their respective parties? Sir, one need only analyse their amendments—my hon. colleague has already referred to this—and compare them with the motion of the hon. the Prime Minister and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Walmer, to realize that nowhere in the amendments of the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon. member for Durban Point is there a positive suggestion discernible. They have tried to introduce positive overtones in their speeches but in their amendments they seek one thing only and that is the resignation of the Government. [Interjections.] There is only a slight difference between those two parties. The hon. member for Durban Point is clever enough not to admit in (b) that he knows (a) will be voted down. The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition added a point (b). Because he knows point (a) will be voted down, he asks for the appointment of a Select Committee. But if the Government were to resign, which Parliament would have to appoint that Select Committee? Surely in that event there will be an election.

I now return to the report of the Erasmus Commission. I want to ask the hon. members opposite whether they agree with the following statement: It is in the interests of the country that the integrity, objectivity and sound judgment of the Erasmus Commission be evident and very positively acknowledged and confirmed. The people must have faith in the Erasmus Commission.

Why did they not see their way clear, also in their amendments, to give expression to those aspects? On the contrary. They denigrate the report, as I have already pointed out At the moment this commission is more informed on this matter than anyone in South Africa and as a result can speak with authority. But that party is not prepared to accept those findings which do not suit them. They are only too pleased that the Erasmus Commission has passed judgment in the case of the hon. member for Randfontein, in the case of Gen. Van den Bergh and in the case of the Rhoodies because that has eliminated those gentlemen. They are now looking for their next victim but they find that the Erasmus Commission is standing in their way. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir. The Erasmus Commission now stands in their way. Now they are not only enemies of the NP; now they are also the enemies of a properly constituted judicial commission of inquiry. As I have said, they have accepted those portions of the report which suit them very well. As far as those findings are concerned, they say the commission was quite right. They have acted correctly, they have correctly found that this one has sinned and that that one has sinned. They do not query the figures given by the commission. They do not query any of the findings of the commission, except the finding that the integrity and honesty of the hon. the Prime Minister, the former Prime Minister, our present State President, and the hon. the Minister of Finance, have emerged untarnished. It is in respect of those three that they take it upon themselves to say that this judicial commission is wrong.

On the strength of the evidence …

Then we have theologians and others not at all qualified to do so, arguing about the matter. Suddenly they find themselves in the company of Gen. Van den Bergh who has also now deemed it necessary to condemn the commission because of certain of its findings. What he said on television they repeat here in Parliament.

You were very proud of him for 30 years. [Interjections.]

Every reporter, every member of the public and every Member of Parliament who has listened to this debate, knows that the PFP and the NRP are continually insinuating that the judicial commission of inquiry of Judge Erasmus has erred on these three points. Whether they like it or not, that is so.

I did not insinuate that! I said it straight out.

That is perhaps the difference between the hon. member for Durban Point and the members of the PFP. He has the courage to say something stupid; they try to say it in a subtle way. They have tasted blood and now they are looking for further victims. They cannot make any impression at the hustings with their policy and they have now decided to follow the advice given at that time to the old UP: “If you have no policy, go for the man.

Let us add to that the further scandalous insinuation that there may be other departments whose affairs are in the same parlous state as those of the former Department of Information. Surely we have ample proof of that, Sir. I want to ask the hon. member for Musgrave to listen to what the hon. member for Yeoville said. He said—

What did the hon. member for Musgrave say last night? He said—

Then he went on to say—

Here comes the worst—

We would ask those members, if they have such information at their disposal, to be more judicious in their handling of it than they have been in respect of the Department of Information, and to come forward and give evidence should they know of any other instances of maladministration. Is the hon. member for Musgrave insinuating that there is maladministration and corruption in other departments, either in the broad or narrow sense of the word? Is he insinuating that? If he says “yes”, we will have to subpoena him to give evidence. Otherwise he is indulging in what the hon. member for Yeoville has described as “rumour-mongering”.

I want to give a final example, Sir. Numerous Opposition speakers had a great deal to say about the necessity for secret projects, that they believed in them, and so forth. However, not one of them has lifted his hand in blessing over the Pretorius Committee. Before we come to the end of this debate, we should like to know from them whether they accept the authority and integrity of the Pretorius Committee. Yesterday at half past eleven the leader received a report from the hon. the Prime Minister.

I did not see the report.

I am not to blame if you did not see it.

Mr. Speaker, the Pretorius Committee has identified 56 projects that have to be proceeded with as secret projects. We want to know from the PFP whether they accept the authority and finding of the Pretorius Committee, or do they wish those 56 projects to be made public?

You see, Sir, as soon as we want to put them to the test as to whether or not they really believe that secret projects are in the interests of South Africa, they are not prepared to commit themselves. Then they are not prepared to accept the findings of senior Government officials, officials with a proud history whose findings they have come to after a thorough investigation. Then they say: “No, we do not accept that those 56 projects should be proceeded with. We want to be enlightened.”

The point is that a year ago you had the same faith in Rhoodie. [Interjections.]

That is a fresh insinuation. In the first place this committee comprises more than one member. In the second place it is an inter-departmental committee on which members of various departments serve. In the third instance, any decision taken by them will be implemented under Cabinet supervision which did not happen in the case of the activities of Dr. Rhoodie. Surely hon. members have been told over and over again that the Cabinet was not informed about certain matters.

Yes, it is an unenlightened Cabinet!

Order!

It will not happen again. Hon. members have that assurance and the public has that assurance.

Order! Hon. members must be aware of the fact at this stage that I have already on numerous occasions called them to order. I do think they should observe my ruling more explicitly. There are other members who also have to speak. Hon. members should realize that I cannot make flesh of the one and fish of the other. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

If we are so concerned about the interests of the country, the time has arrived for us to say to one another: Thus far and no further. These insinuations must stop. Everything possible has been done to rectify mistakes and everything has not as yet been finalized. Hon. members know, however, which commissions have been appointed and what they are to investigate. They are carrying on with their work. We shall have an opportunity of discussing the reports. There will be an opportunity in the future to debate the final cleaning-up operation across the floor of this House. The time has arrived, however, for the kind of insinuation made by the hon. member for Musgrave, and now again by the hon. member for Pinelands, to cease. What did he do today? Once again he dragged names across the floor of the House. I want to ask him whether he knows anything about the Smit murder.

No, but I want to find out.

Why does he keep on making speeches about the Smit murder?

It is very important. [Interjections.] Are you not concerned that two people were killed?

They were not friends of that hon. member. They did not know him.

They were South Africans. That is the important thing. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I wrote his pamphlets for him. I saw him only the day prior to his death.

Well, you should be asking the questions.

I knew him and that is why it upsets me when for party-political purposes his name …

That is nonsense!

… is dragged into the debate by someone who says that he knows nothing about it. The only conclusion I can draw from that, is that the hon. member knows someone who is in touch with the murderer. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to conclude. We in South Africa dare not allow anybody— whoever he may be, irrespective of the party to which he belongs and the position he holds—to carry on like the proverbial “bull in a china shop” ruining South Africa for petty and personal gain. I for my part will plead with the Government to take effective steps to put an end to the spreading of rumours in respect of a matter which is in the process of being finalized. I think the time has arrived for us to afford those people who have been appointed for the purpose, an opportunity to carry on with their work in a calm and collected manner, do not put further spokes in their wheels as the hon. member for Pinelands has tried to do in his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the hon. the Minister who has just resumed his seat that all of us would like to have this matter finalized as soon as possible so that we can put it behind us. But it will depend on the Government— not on us—how the matter will be dealt with in future and whether it will be dealt with satisfactorily. It surprises me that a veteran politician like the hon. the Minister is so upset because the Opposition would like to see another government in power. If we have no confidence in the Government it is not only our right but our duty as well to say so here. I cannot understand why he is so sensitive about it. Even before this report was tabled people who had no connection with the PFP and other opposition parties, expressed themselves most strongly on the evidence they had. The judge who was chairman of the commission himself said in an interview with the Press recently that what had come to his attention was shocking. Judge Mostert, who said that he was and is still a registered member of the NP, felt so seriously about what had come to his notice that he took steps to publish it—no matter what other motives he may have had.

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said—if he was rightly reported—that what he had seen was “atrocious”.

If it was true.

These verdicts, which have come from that side of the House and from other people, have no connection with this side of the House. But we are reproached because we have strongly condemned the malpractices that have come to light. This story of the Mostert evidence that has not been tested is one we have heard constantly. Good heavens, as politicians we surely know how politics works! Any politician against whom a false accusation is made would not wait longer than a day to contradict that false allegation. Is it not strange? How long is it since the Mostert evidence was published? Afterwards, every newspaper approached Dr. Mulder, Mr. Luyt, Dr. Rhoodie and others and asked them for a reply. The newspapers would have been prepared to devote pages to those three and others—and they would even do so today—to enable them to put their case. In spite of the fact that Dr. Connie Mulder said that he would put his case, he did not do so after the Mostert evidence had been published. In fact, he still has not done it. He has had every chance in the world but days have passed and he still has not done it.

That is their own affair.

I should like to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that I accept his word that it is his definite aim to restore “clean and honest administration” to South Africa. Perhaps as the new leader of the NP he should make this his winged word. I do hope, however, that the hon. Prime Minister realizes that when he gave the undertaking to South Africa on his election that he would ensure a clean administration, he himself in fact made the sharpest attack of anyone against the Government of his predecessor, because the implication is clear that in this respect the previous administration had failed. In this respect of course he is right, and both the Mostert and Erasmus Commissions have proved that in this respect he was right.

Corruption is the ugliest thing that can happen in a country, and it is in everybody’s interest that it should be eradicated completely. It is enough to make one sick to see how people in high places, people who spoke day after day of their “beloved South Africa” and how hard they worked in the interests of South Africa, ensured behind the scenes that South Africa worked for them and exploited South Africa for their own ends. They have brought the concept of “the country’s interest” into discredit and made it suspect. When one listens to some speakers on the other side, one finds that there are still people who defend this situation.

But that is not true. Why do you generalize so?

This attitude inevitably means that in future we shall be very suspicious of people who stand up in the House and tell us what great patriots they are, how they always have the country’s interests at heart and what sinners other people are.

So far as it is within the power of the Opposition and Parliament to assist positively, the hon. the Prime Minister can be assured that he will receive every last ounce of support from this side of the House that we can possibly give to eradicate corruption from the country’s administration. But I should add that not only will we help with every effort to eradicate corruption, we shall continually test the hon. the Prime Minister according to the norms he himself has set, viz. clean government administration. I think therefore that in the course of this debate it is necessary that we and the hon. the Prime Minister should understand one another clearly as to what the concept “clean administration” entails, as well as “eradication of corruption”.

What do we really expect of him in terms of his own promise? What we want to see eradicated is not only criminal corruption, not only personal corruption but also the wide field of political corruption. In the first place, should there still be members of his Cabinet, and should there still be people in public office under this Government who were accomplices in the swindle in connection with the Citizen and the misuse and misappropriation of the country’s money for party political ends internally, we expect the hon. the Prime Minister to ensure that they are removed from public office.

Do you have knowledge of that?

Dr. Eschel Rhoodie deposed before the Select Committee on Public Accounts that there were three members of the Cabinet who kept a supervisory eye on his secret activities and to whom he had to report.

There were not.

I am not making that allegation. I do not say that is so; I do not have any proof. But it would really be making a double injustice of one injustice if Dr. Connie Mulder alone has to pay the price. We must make no mistake; the price he will have to pay will be destructive because he will never get back into politics. There is no way he can keep his seat in this House. I say now it would be a double injustice if he alone were to pay the price if there were and are others who are accomplices. [Interjections.] That is why before the conclusion of this debate we want a categorical assurance in this House from the hon. the Prime Minister that his whole Cabinet is innocent as far as direct involvement is concerned and that there is nobody under his control who played the role of accomplice in this plot. That is the first assurance we demand in the effort to ensure that there will be clean administration in the country.

If you have certain evidence, why do you not produce it?

In the second place I should be failing in my duty if I did not tell the hon. gentleman that we are most unhappy about the role of his predecessor in connection with the whole matter. I am purposely putting it moderately. The present hon. Prime Minister gave evidence before the Erasmus Commission and explained to this House how strongly he was opposed to the Defence Special Account being used—perhaps I should rather say “misused”—to channel funds to the Department of Information in secret. We know why it was done. It was done to mislead this House because the Government knows the House always supports the Government when it comes to defence matters and that the House is not inclined to object when it is approached by the Government and asked for extra millions for the defence of the country. That is why the Defence Special Account was used as a convenient cloak. The hon. the Prime Minister has told us that he had serious objections in principle to this and that he opposed it continuously. He got Gen. Magnus Malan to write a letter to Dr. Eschel Rhoodie in which he described the procedure as unethical and irregular. That is quite right too. It was a serious irregularity. Apart from the fact that it was unethical, it was a serious irregularity.

But I do find it difficult to believe that the present hon. the Prime Minister felt quite so strongly about the matter as he makes out, although I accept that. Nevertheless he never went to his Prime Minister, to the leader of his Cabinet, to air his objections in principle and to discuss this irregularity with the Prime Minister of the time. Or did he actually do so? If he actually did so, the then Prime Minister decided against him and in favour of a highly irregular procedure. As Prime Minister Mr. Vorster in any case knew of the irregularity and condoned it. This is a matter which one cannot just shrug off lightly.

There is still another aspect of the matter. On 8 May this year the former Prime Minister made this admission in a statement—

He commenced his statement by saying—

Note the broad concept, “the Government”—

In this debate we have heard quite a lot about the “total onslaught” against South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister and every member who has spoken has reminded us of this. It is not necessary to do so. We are all aware of it Nobody has expressed sterner warnings over the years about the onslaught awaiting us than the Opposition.

But I do not want to argue about that. [Interjections.] What is beyond my comprehension is this: The Government decided to give the highest priority to combating the total onslaught against South Africa and the Department of Information was entrusted with the task. Millions of rand were placed at its disposal—R64 million over a number of years; almost double the annual budget for the whole Department of Foreign Affairs— and yet we have been given to understand that neither the then hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, nor any member of his Cabinet, apart from the Minister of Information, was sufficiently interested to ascertain how the funds were being spent in combating this total onslaught against South Africa. Not one of them made any inquiries to ascertain what success the effort had achieved. That is an untenable situation. It is inexplicable that we were continually being told about the total onslaught, that steps are being taken, but that apparently nobody was interested in finding out what success was being achieved in combating it and how this was being done.

I would have thought that at least the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as well as the Minister of Defence, would have shown the most intense interest and would regularly have ascertained what progress was being made in the efforts to combat the onslaught against South Africa.

We were busy with our own affairs!

So superficial, if we are to believe them, was their interest in the methods used to combat the total onslaught against South Africa that not a single soul discovered that millions were being wasted on publishing local gossip newspapers. If we are to believe that, we know in any case that if the previous Prime Minister did not know from the start of the bizarre undertaking in regard to the Citizen and the farcical methods which people were using internally to try to combat the threat from abroad, then he was informed fully about it later, and he condoned the further irregularities. He kept Dr. Connie Mulder in his post; he kept Gen. Van den Bergh in his post and he kept the Rhoodies and their chums in their posts. By doing that he gave them greater confidence than ever to play around with South Africa’s money as they chose, to try to ape King Farouk; and by their actions they really made fools of the whole Cabinet and their bosses in the Cabinet. When Mr. Vorster called an early election last year—without its being necessary—he knew it was an unjustified election and that millions of rand of public money would be used irregularly in favour of the NP. Nevertheless he condoned that and he did nothing about it in fact, he allowed more public money to be put into the undertaking to cover the continuous losses and the election was proceeded with. No reasonable party or political minds losing if he has to lose, but then circumstances must be such that there is an equal chance for all. At the time of the last general election under the guidance of the former Prime Minister there was not an even chance for all the political parties, and the election was therefore not fair and honest, quite apart from the abuse on the part of the authorities of radio and television—still more public money—to further their own interests. That is why I want to put the following considered statement to the hon. the Prime Minister: Dr. Connie Mulder has to carry full responsibility for the irregularities which took place under his control; he has to pay for them and he has to leave public life. I cannot believe that the hon. the Prime Minister will apply double standards. What is he going to do in the case of the former Prime Minister in so far as political irregularities which occurred under his Government…

Order! The hon. member is going too far from my ruling.

Sir, I have finished with that …

Order! The hon. member cannot simply say, “I have finished with that.” The hon. member is going too far and must please respect my ruling.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, completely.

Order! I am allowing the hon. member to mention facts and to quote the findings of the commission and to comment on them. History is history and it must be dealt with but I want to ask the hon. member please to draw the line at that and to try to move away from the former Prime Minister. He must stop at that.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not disregard your ruling but we cannot act in this Parliament as though twelve years of political history just did not happen. It is a constitutional …

Order! If the hon. member disagrees, he can discuss the matter with me in my office but he must not go any further now.

Very well, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Prime Minister promised a clean administration. I want to ask him if that will also apply to elections in future, because clean elections presuppose that there will be no bias on the part of the State through State media in favour of one party over another. In this respect we shall still subject the hon. the Prime Minister to a test.

Much has been said here about officialdom and Goebbels-wise it has been suggested that the Opposition condemns the whole of officialdom. What nonsense! Over the years I have become well acquainted with many of our professional representatives abroad, with many of the men who do our information work because, as M.P.s, we constantly come into contact with executive officials in our Public Service. There is not the slightest doubt that they are held in the highest regard and our country is not behind any other country as far as its Public Service is concerned. I do wonder though whether there is any other country where the Government would misuse its officials as this one has done. We have the position in our country where Government members are engaged virtually full time with party political activities and do not have enough time left for the administration of their departments. This is a matter to which the hon. the Prime Minister will have to give attention.

What departments?

Where in the world has it ever happened that an official has been allowed to build up an empire as the Rhoodies did, where millions of rand were given to one official to do with as he pleased? Is that sound government? Should one blame the officials when they are tempted to abuse their positions, or does the fault lie with the people who allow this sort of thing to happen? This is an improper and unfair burden to impose on any person, and through the antics performed by Dr. Connie Mulder numerous officials were forced into the improper position where in fact they became party-political agents of the governing party. And what example does a government set by involving its officials who have to sit and listen to how their Ministers misleads the Assembly and are then expected to carry the same untruths further? No, if there is to be clean administration, as the hon. the Prime Minister has promised, there will first have to be new discipline among Cabinet members as far as the administration of their departments is concerned. We will all be watching the showing of the hon. the Prime Minister in this respect.

One of the tragic consequences of the whole affair that is now before us was that so many prominent business people who participated in the founding of the Citizen, and all the front organizations which the department created, lived, as it were, a lie in regard to themselves and their co-workers for so long.

Another matter which merits the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister is the conduct of Gen. Van den Bergh and other members of the security services in regard to the takeover of SAAN for party political ends. That has already been mentioned. But his role in the founding of the Citizen has cast a serious reflection on the security services and the control over our security services. One of the shocking incidents in this whole tragic story is the double role which Gen. Van den Bergh, played, according to the commission, and the pressure he brought to bear on subordinates to submit a false report to the Prime Minister of the time in order to further the cause of Dr. Connie Mulder. These are the people who had to ensure the safety of South Africa, who had power over the lives of thousands of people, and still have, and who abused their high responsibility to put party political interests above the country’s interests. I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister what he is going to do to restore confidence in this important section of our country’s services and to ensure that the influence of Gen. Van den Bergh left in that service is not perpetuated by others.

Much has been said about The Citizen, but I wonder if the plot—or should we really call it a conspiracy—to take over the SAAN group of newspapers with State money was not in fact a far greater misuse of power than The Citizen operation. They wanted to do in secret what Russia does openly, namely to bring all the most important Press organs under the ideological influence of the Government with money the government takes from the taxpayer. I am pleased that a man like Dr. Willem de Klerk has put it clearly that the State may not swindle any of its subjects. That was a direct onslaught on the freedom of the Press. What they wanted in South Africa was a Pravda Press. The national security service and its chiefs fall directly under the hon. the Prime Minister, and in this there is something I find disturbing. Instead of the hon. the Prime Minister, as a new leader, trying to create confidence in his intention to maintain the freedom of the Press completely, he is following directly in the tracks of his predecessor and is promoting precisely the same sort of climate against the Press which was created previously and which, in fact, was the factor which gave rise to the intrique we experienced. The Government will have to accept that if it is right that there should be newspapers which support the policy of the Government, it is also right that there should be newspapers which support the opposite policy. If we have to start with those whose viewpoint has been the most distorted and suppressed, then we on this side of the House have a much stronger complaint against the newspapers which support the Government than Government members have against the newspapers which support the Opposition. As far as mistakes and untruths are concerned, I should like to point out that there is after all a Press Council to hear this sort of complaint. But how often has the Government itself made use of the services of the Press Council? If political bias on the part of newspapers is such an evil, why does the Government not set an example by ensuring that the media like newspapers and other public media under Government control, and those which were set up with Government funds, are objective and thus do justice to everybody? The complaint that the English Press is the only one which is quoted overseas—the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and of Education and Training referred to this today—is absolutely ridiculous in my view. Anybody who has made a study of what happens abroad surely knows that it is the statements of Cabinet members which are quoted there. People judge a country by its Government and not its Opposition or the opinions of its Press. They do it by reason of statements like the one by Dr. Connie Mulder, i.e. that there will not be a Black South African left when the policy of the Government has been fully implemented. There is, for instance, also the case of the statement by the hon. the Minister of Justice that the Biko incident left him cold, and statements like that of the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations when he writes of his views in regard to apartheid in sport, etc. That is what is important, not the opinions of newspapers. One of the things that has counted most for our country abroad is the very fact that we had a free Press. That has meant more for us than all the millions the Department of Information spent so wastefully.

It surprised me that the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs also tried to do his bit in this respect. The hon. the Minister is not here now, but I still want to say that I felt sorry for him when I read about the arrows and the knives in his back. I am pleased to see that in spite of all the arrows he can still sit upright in his bench. The hon. the Minister complained that newspapers chose their own time to publish certain information. The hon. Minister should know better than that. I have not yet come across a single newspaper which possesses information about which it is certain, which would wait until tomorrow, the day after or a week later to publish it. Competition is so great that if one has something about which one is certain, one publishes it immediately and does not wait until tomorrow. The charge that there is an intrigue among the newspapers to publish certain news reports at certain times is absolute rubbish. What is true, is that there are often delays to verify, to avoid libel actions, that what you are publishing are the facts. From my knowledge of the newspaper business I know that the moment a newspaper has certain facts of which it is certain, it publishes them. That is why it is ridiculous to aver that the newspapers should have given evidence before the Erasmus Commission in regard to matters about which they had no hard and fast evidence. What they did do, was to send such evidence as they had, about which they were certain and which they published, to the Erasmus Commission.

When?

By whom?

Some of the English newspapers sent everything they published to the Erasmus Commission.

By whom?

What does the hon. Prime Minister mean?

How did they get the evidence to the commission?

They sent cuttings, of course. How else? [Interjections.] The fact remains that that charge is ridiculous. If we as the Opposition possess any facts, we furnish those facts. We do not come up with hearsay stories and fairy tales; we wait until we have the facts. Those newspapers which did have facts at their disposal took the trouble to make them available to the Erasmus Commission and offered furthermore to supply additional information to the Commission should it be necessary.

Sir, we expect from the hon. Prime Minister’s undertaking that he will ensure a clean administration that he will adopt a new attitude and that he will give us clear proof that he will maintain the freedom of the Press. That is an essential element of a free democracy.

I want to conclude by saying that as we sit here, one thinks to oneself that the role of the Auditor-General was of cardinal importance in the matter we are discussing here today. But he could not get at the secret funds. In fact at one stage he was not even aware of them. The impression we got is that after the earlier session this year the Government thought that everything was over, that the “storm in the teacup” was over and the great “cover up” could be proceeded with, especially as far as The Citizen was concerned. One wonders what would have happened had there not been a fearless Press, had there not been men like Mr. Van Rooyen who, as the Commission puts it, lit the lamp. If there had been no Mostert, would there really have been an Erasmus? How would the Prime Minister then have made the whole matter public? Perhaps he will tell us. How would he have handled the matter? But there is a still more important question than that: What would have happened if Dr. Connie Mulder had become Prime Minister and if the Mulder/Van den Bergh/Rhoodie axis had come into power? There are 74 members sitting on that side of the House, together with the members of the Other Place, who wanted that. Amongst them is the present Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and Development who in fact proposed him as leader of the party. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the whole day today I waited with rapt attention the entry into this debate of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. He owed this House something, and he still does. This hon. member has the habit of making speeches outside this House about matters that are currently being discussed in the House, and to say things outside for which he does not have to give account when he gets the opportunity to talk about the same subject in this House and has to look his opponents in the eye. I am referring now to a report which appeared in The Cape Times yesterday of a meeting the hon. member addressed before the S.A. Institute of International Affairs. There he quite rightly said—

The latter part is of course not correct. He says further—

Then he comes along with this surprising assertion—

I expect Dr. Mulder to resign.

Dr. Mulder is not “some”.

†Dr. Mulder is one. The hon. member said “some” would be forced to resign from Parliament. He said “Much more is to follow”. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, as a senior member of this House, owes it to this House to take the House into his confidence and to tell us what he knows about “much more” that is to follow. I think he should have had the courage, instead of placing the majority of the members of this House under suspicion— which he does by the statement that “some” will have to follow—to name the people whom he believes will have to follow. I want to warn him, however, that we have remedies.

We know that. [Interjections.]

We can ask Parliament to appoint a Select Committee. I think we shall have to consider that.

Do it.

For the hon. member to go before a public meeting of some public association and on the eve of a debate in this House to cast such reflections upon his fellow Parliamentarians and to make allegations that he seems to have information that he does not share with the House during the debate where that very information is the subject of discussion, is an act which the rules of Parliament will not allow me to describe aptly. I defy him, I challenge him, to make public the information which he has, this “much more” that is to follow. I challenge him to say, apart from the one person—he used the plural form “some”—which other members of Parliament will be forced to resign. [Interjections.] He can gesticulate, he can wave his arms about in panic, but the fact remains that he did not have the courage to support the statement that he made outside this House. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to a very interesting fact. That is that before this debate commenced there was more public interest in it than in any other debate I know of. We each had about two tickets for entry to this House to give away. All of us were asked for many more than we could give. The interesting thing is that after the Prime Minister spoke yesterday, people remained to hear the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and then apparently made up their minds that this great drama, this tremendous exposure that they were led to expect, was not to come about and that the hon. the Prime Minister had already dealt with the entire accusation adequately. Public interest has waned ever since. I am not surprised. As always, the Opposition, parties, and especially the Official Opposition, have completely misjudged public opinion, have completely misjudged the facts and have based all their aspirations and hopes on something without true substance. They based all their hopes on the fact that they would be able to come here and expose the Government as a Government that tried to cover up something that should not have happened. That was their hope. They have failed miserably and completely. They have overplayed their hands. They have made wild accusations of which they should be ashamed and of which the hon. member for Musgrave was obviously ashamed. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications exposed him earlier this afternoon. Then we found the hon. member for Yeoville this morning repudiating the two most senior members of his party. He had to repudicate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Musgrave, both of whom suggested that what we had seen was just the tip of an iceberg and that there was general corruption. The hon. member for Musgrave expected to find corruption in all the other departments of State. The hon. member said that this special session of Parliament would not allay the fears and suspicions of the public of South Africa in relation to corruption in South Africa. He went on to say that the Erasmus Commission was an indictment not so much of individuals as of the entire administration of the time. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke in similar terms. He said the people concerned had weakened and undermined the whole structure of democratic government in our country. The hon. member for Yeoville was forced to get up this morning to repudiate those two hon. gentlemen. I admire him for it.

It is the first time you have admired me.

The hon. member had to get up and say that he did not believe that there was general corruption, to say that the administration of this country, the civil service, was to his mind a fine administration. He called them to book, and wanted the world to know that he did not associate himself with the extravagance and wild accusations and utter irresponsibility of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his benchmate. What a flop; what an absolute anti-climax! I see that the hon. member for Parktown is not here now, because otherwise I would have spent a little time on him. In any event, the peroration of his speech was a solemn promise that we would have a miserable Christmas, because they would see to it that further allegations of so-called corruption would be revealed.

“So-called” corruption?

Yes, “so-called”. [Interjections.]

I want to say that when members of Parliament, who speak piously of this body as the sovereign body in South Africa and the highest authority, have such intimate knowledge of corruption, they should surely expose the Government. This was their opportunity. I am now talking about corruption in other departments, to which the hon. member for Musgrave referred, corruption that will become apparent from now till Christmas, according to the hon. member for Parktown, and the general destruction of the fabric of democratic government in South Africa in the words of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Those are allegations and statements without substance or support. It is suspicion-mongering of the worst kind.

That is what you said six months ago too.

Then they are surprised that the people are more and more repudiating them. That is why they moved this strange motion here. They are asking the Government to resign, but not for an election. They ask the Government to resign and what do they ask for then? They then ask for the Parliament, which will still be in force, to appoint a Select Committee to go into matters. [Interjections.] A Parliament without a Government! [Interjections.] If the Government resigns and there is no election, I want to know who will govern South Africa. What is more, if we were to go to the country, which Government would be elected, theirs or ours?

It makes no difference. The point is that we should go to the country.

I can tell the hon. member that it will make no difference because the hon. gentlemen with their extravagance have exposed the hollowness of their charge that there should be any suggestion of corruption beyond that which was exposed by the agencies of this Parliament and by the agencies appointed by this Government. That is the truth of the matter. How can they ask for an election? Can you see, Sir, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout associating himself with a request for an election in South Africa?

Mr. Speaker, what I resent about these insinuations and wild allegations is that they are not directed only against the politicians on this side of the House—we can take it—but that they also talk about the administration. They keep on referring to the Civil Service and want to know what else is happening. I want to say that I sat on that side of the House for many years and that whenever I had the opportunity, I had cause, and was grateful to have had cause, to pay tribute to the quality, the integrity and the incorruptibility of the South African Civil Service. If there have been one, two or three people who have misbehaved themselves, that could happen in any large organization. However, one does not point at one hole in a bowl and call it a sieve for that reason, imagining it to be full of holes.

I want to ask my hon. friends of the PFP— the other two parties are really not important in this debate—why they are so quick to make these allegations of general corruption in the South African Government because of one incident. I concede that it is a major incident and I concede too that it cannot be defended, but why, because of this one incident, make the charge and raise the suspicion that there is general corruption in South Africa? Why do they do it in the case of South Africa? Did they when there was the Profumo scandal in Britain suggest that the whole Conservative Government was guilty of immoral conduct? Did they, when Mr. Bolton revealed the budget secret and had to resign, go around the world saying that the whole Conservative Government at the time was guilty of betraying important Government secrets?

That did not cost R64 million.

When a Mr. Chweidan, or whatever his name was, of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, embezzled millions of rand, did they suggest that the whole Stock Exchange was corrupt? When certain heads of the organization Rennies were found guilty the other day of transgressing the currency regulations, did they suggest that the entire business community of South Africa was corrupt? When recently Mr. Mitchell, the president-elect of Assocom, was found guilty of a crime and sentenced to go to gaol in Switzerland, did they suggest that the entire commercial society of South Africa was corrupt? However, when one has an act which is described by the commission as a form of corruption—I have forgotten the exact words—we immediately have to hear from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the whole fabric of our democratic society is threatened, and we hear from the hon. member for Musgrave that we must look for corruption in other departments and that it is not the end of the story. I want to know the reason for this very selective attention and the selective suspicion of their own country, South Africa, when they do not react in this way to similar and even worse events in other parts of the world. Do they suggest that because of Watergate the presidency of the USA is corrupt in its entirety? Do they suggest that the Republican Party was corrupt because of Watergate? However, because there was one department in South Africa in which malpractices took place, the suggestion is that everything is rotten, that more has to follow, that others have to resign and that the fabric of our democracy is destroyed.

I heard hon. members on the other side of the House speak about the disgrace and humiliation they felt and say that they were ashamed of this session of Parliament. There sits one of them, the hon. member of Pietermaritzburg South. I am proud of this session of Parliament and the fact that this Assembly is sitting here on the initiative of the Government. In this session of Parliament the Government is facing the Opposition, which is wasting our time in a way. We are facing the country, public opinion and a gallery of Pressmen who will tell the story to the world. We are sitting here because we are determined to cure what was wrong in the Department of Information. We are trying to cure the abscess that was lanced by instruments of our own creation and in our own possession.

That is rubbish.

That is true.

It was the Press that did it, the Opposition that did it, and …

I shall come back to the Press. The whole matter was started—I do not know how many times I must repeat it— on the initiative of an officer of this Parliament, namely the Auditor-General. That is where the matter originated and it is nonsense that it was the Press who instigated it. That is another gross exaggeration which I cannot trust. [Interjections.] No wonder the hon. member for Yeoville could not take it any longer this morning and had to speak up for the Civil Service of South Africa, a Civil Service which no Government can corrupt to the extent they are suggesting unless it has the connivance of the senior civil servants in the administration. In spite of the insinuations of hon. members opposite I want to have it on record that we have a Civil Service we should be proud of, a Civil Service which compares with any service of the same type anywhere in the world. It is a Civil Service with high ideals. I had the privilege of reading a speech made by the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Dr. Rautenbach, before the National Management Association quite recently. I want hon. members to realize what the Civil Service sees as its function in our Government. He said, and I quote—

Have we ever considered, when we hear this sort of snide accusation against the Civil Service of South Africa, what peculiar responsibilities the civil servants in South Africa are discharging with distinction in the society of South Africa? They are discharging responsibilities in the field of the upliftment of the emergent peoples of this country such as their education and their introduction into the ways of democracy and Western government. They are giving instruction to those societies day in and day out unselfishly and under strain. They form a minority of a minority of the people in South Africa and yet they are teaching the majority of the people of South Africa how to become Westernized.

We are talking about the Government; not about the public servants.

The criticism they get are those innuendoes which we have heard from the hon. member for Musgrave. I know that I speak for every hon. member on this side of the House when I say that we want to place on record our appreciation and gratitude to the public servants of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I now want to say something about my hon. friends and their attitude towards the Erasmus Report. We on this side of the House have said that we accept the report. The hon. the Prime Minister has indicated that we are also accepting the Erasmus Commission’s recommendations for changes and improvements in the control of such funds. I accept now that my hon. friends on the other side do not accept the Erasmus Report, except where the report suits them.

But you do the same.

Will my hon. friends on the other side tell me whether they accept the Erasmus Report as an authoritative report on this issue although they may differ from the report’s detail? Do they, in general, regard the report as an authoritative document with a high degree of persuasive authority in this matter?

We want to see the evidence first.

Sir, there you have it: They want to be a super court. They want to put themselves above the judges who have heard and evaluated the evidence. It seems to me they want to be a High Court of Parliament. [Interjections.] I say that because I have noticed that whenever the report finds against the Department of Information and people connected with that department, they accept the report, but whenever there is an exoneration of people who have been accused of misconduct, they reject the report. I think the least they owe this House is that where they reject evidence, they should motivate their objection. They say they cannot accept it for lack of evidence, but at the same time they can reject exoneration despite the lack of evidence. Such action is to my mind a contradiction. [Interjections.]

I now come to something which I find absolutely fascinating in the conduct of my hon. friends opposite. I refer to their attitude towards The Citizen. I want to repeat that we think that what happened as regards the financing of The Citizen and the use of public funds to finance a newspaper which is a partisan newspaper as regards the politics of South Africa, was wrong and we do not seek to defend it.

And now it is to continue under Perskor … [Interjections.]

Despite the fact that we do not defend the financing of The Citizen, I want to point out that that newspaper did serve a useful purpose. [Interjections.] In the first place it must cause the members of the PFP to ask themselves a couple of questions. They complained the other day that because of The Citizen, they could not fight a fair election. They are, in other words, suggesting that they lost in the election as miserably as they did because of The Citizen. I now come to the first question they should ask themselves. I think this question should be taken out of the mouth of their major newspaper organ in South Africa. They must ask themselves why The Citizen as a new newspaper which still had to build up a circulation enjoyed greater credibility amongst the public of South Africa than the 11 daily newspapers published in support of the PFP in the cities of South Africa. Is the answer not that that happened because the 11 newspapers supporting the PFP tell a story and spread a gospel which is unconvincing and completely unsatisfactory to the people of South Africa?

This is why I say that The Citizen served a useful purpose in one respect. I would like to tell hon. members how The Citizen was greeted by the PFP Press. There is a certain code in business in South Africa in terms of which people compete, and compete as strongly as they can, against the products of their competitors, but never by denigrating the products of one’s opposition. [Interjections.]

Are you now trying to justify the deed? [Interjections.]

The Citizen was launched … [Interjections.] … and before the PFP Press knew that it was financed by State funds, it was greeted with the greatest hostility and denigration by the then existing English-language newspapers in South Africa, especially the newspapers of SAAN. When The Citizen was launched the Financial Mail stated it was intended “more for naartjie throwers than for decision-makers”. That sort of propaganda was made. [Interjections.] What is so significant, however, is that in their attempt to stop this competitor, which they did not know then was being published with State funds, they did not seek support in South Africa; they went overseas. They went to the USA and they tried to mobilize all sorts of agencies in order to prevent the success of The Citizen. [Interjections.] Let me tell the story.

Who did you think was financing The Citizen? [Interjections.]

On 21 April 1976 the newspaper Die Vaderland reported that there was panic at the Rand Daily Mail over the proposed new paper. Die Vaderland reported that Mr. John Fairbairn, marketing development manager of the Rand Daily Mail, had sought the help of American Press magnates, asking for help “in its war against the new paper, The Citizen”. This story was confirmed in a newspaper which, at the time, was not part of the monopoly. It was confirmed in the Sunday Tribune of 25 April 1976, in which it was revealed that Mr. Fairbairn had written one letter to Mr. Leo Hogarth, vice-president of the Newspaper Advertising Bureau in New York, and that he had stated that The Citizen was being sponsored by an Afrikaans millionaire—note the emphasis on the “Afrikaans”. [Interjections.]

There were also other letters appealing to American agencies to fight South African institutions. Other letters, asking for advice or aid, were reported to have been sent to Mr. Joe E. Coine, assistant promotions manager of the New York News, to the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, to Newsday, to the Columbian Post, the Washington Post and to the New York Times. In his letter to Mr. Coine Mr. Fairbairn said he had opened “a war” to carry out spy plans on the opposition troop strategy and format. In a letter to the research manager of the Euston Chronicle, Mr. Fairbairn asked—

Why did they want to know this? [Interjections.] They wanted more suspicion-mongering, that is all. [Interjections.] Just because one does not want to hide the sources of this, it was reported in the Sunday Tribune that the contents of the letters were sent originally to Die Vaderland by an American gentleman, Mr. John J. Lindsay, who said of Mr. Fairbairn—

[Interjections.] Mr. Fairbairn wrote to Mr. Leo Hogarth, vice-president of the Newspaper Advertising Bureau in New York. This is now the significant part of it. This is the judgment of a senior executive of the Rand Daily Mail of what the readers of the Rand Daily Mail think of that newspaper. He said—

He said further—

This is the marketing development manager of the Rand Daily Mail giving an assessment of the opinion of 25% of the readers of the Rand Daily Mail, White and Black, in regard to the value of that newspaper in South Africa. He also said the following—

They read it under compulsion, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] They read it under compulsion and that is why I find it reprehensible that The Citizen was financed the way it was. One fortunate consequence of the establishment of that newspaper, however, is that we now have a first-hand assessment by an executive of the Rand Daily Mail of its worth and what its own readers think of it. This is also another instance where certain people who take part in the political life of South Africa, like the Rand Daily Mail, run overseas to the United States of America in order to enlist assistance against their own competitors, fellow-South Africans in South Africa. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I take a back-seat to no one when it comes to condemning and expressing disgust for corruption, malpractices and incompetence. The exposure of corruption in the administration of the country is one of the most important responsibilities of an Opposition party and we in these benches shall not fail to discharge our responsibilities in this regard. I am not concerned about the weal and woe of individuals and parties. I am, concerned, however, about good administration and the image of South Africa projected to the outside world.

What is the situation in the Republic at present? In the international field a total arms embargo is being applied against us. The West and the East vie with each other to overthrow the White power structure in South Africa. We are being pressurized into surrendering South West Africa to the United Nations Organization and we are also being pressurized into cutting off Rhodesia’s water supply. In the economic field the picture is not a rosy one either. There is a strong possibility of sanctions being applied, foreign pressure groups are engaged in effecting file termination of investments in South Africa and the representatives of other countries in the UN want to apply an oil boycott against us. In the military field the picture is similar. Not only are there terrorists on the borders of South West Africa, but from time to time they also appear in the Northern Transvaal and on the borders of Botswana and Mozambique. Urban terrorism can break out in the cities of the Republic at any moment. It is against this background that I approach this debate today. Today I do not want to participate in this debate as the political leader of a small political party, but as a South African, and not for political gain, but because of the harm South Africa has been done, harm I should like to assist in undoing. The actions of people who have hurt South Africa, as mentioned in the report, are equalled, if not surpassed, only by what has already been done, said and written by certain irresponsible, dissolute members of the Opposition and their Press …

Here we go again.

… and yesterday’s shocking statement by Gen. Van den Bergh. I am satisfied that the present Prime Minister has put the necessary machinery into operation to expose everything. What more could have been done? The first result has already been achieved, and I believe that hon. members of Parliament owe Mr. Justice Erasmus and members of his commission a debt of gratitude for the work they have already done to ensure a clean administration in the Republic. The work of this commission creates confidence in the quality of our legal system and in the fearlessness of our judges.

I deplore what has happened and I am shocked by and furious about it, but it has in fact afforded South Africa the opportunity to show the world that South Africa is not a country in which corruption can reign unchallenged. In similar circumstances many of South Africa’s enemies, and even some of our friends, would never have allowed a scandal of this kind to be revealed. It would have been covered up permanently.

Like what countries?

Take the Watergate case for example. The American scandal paralysed the whole powerful American nation for years with incalculable damage and incalculable results in the military, economic and particularly psychological fields. In the light of our present precarious position, we in South Africa cannot afford this.

I want to approach this debate in the light of some of the particulars of the report that I find very alarming. Then I want to come to what is to be done to prevent a repetition. The most alarming aspects of the whole Information episode were the attempts at a cover-up and the arrogance displayed by certain key figures. Dr. Rhoodie was given too much power, as was his ex-Minister. Dr. Mulder went far too far. His intentions might have been good, but he had far too much power and he abused the confidence which had been placed in him. Gen. van den Bergh exerted pressure on Mr. Reynders, who was acting on the instructions of the Prime Minister, to draw up a false report. These are absolutely shocking facts, if they are true. For forty years Gen. Van den Bergh was a friend of the former Prime Minister. The former Prime Minister trusted few others as he trusted Gen. Van den Bergh. He also knew few others as he knew Gen. Van den Bergh. To no one else in South Africa did he entrust more power. Gen. Van den Bergh, however, fooled his best friend. The ex-Minister, Dr. Mulder, subscribed to a distorted philosophy. The end never justifies the means. If we in South Africa want to survive, we have to employ the right means. Dr. Mulder’s philosophy of “no rules apply” is indefensible. There must be rules in our national life, otherwise the Government of the country forfeits national unity and the nation’s confidence in its public representatives is shaken. The rest of the world criticizes South Africa for various reasons, but in spite of all these things South Africa’s image has always been one of an honest and respected nation with a national administration that was not corrupt. We have to re-establish that image of the Republic. The Government must take effective steps to bring this about, and the onus in this regard rests on the Government.

†I have a positive approach to the question of secret funds. I believe that it is absolutely essential for any Government in the world to have the use of secret funds and I believe that in expressing this belief I will be joined by the hon. member for Yeoville, who had experience of secret funds as well as by the hon. member for Durban Point, who first of all, helped dissolve his old party and then took over its funds. Therefore the hon. member for Durban Point will also appreciate what I have to say! The question is: Why are these funds needed and how should they be controlled? Some mechanism should be set up and I want to suggest, in all seriousness, that the Minister requiring a fund, assisted by a member of the Opposition—and I would not have hesitated to suggest the Leader of the Opposition if Sir De Villiers Graaff had still been Leader of the Opposition in the House—and a Judge of the Supreme Court should authorise such funds. Their duties would be to report to the hon. the Prime Minister and their workings would be subject to the proposals for control, as set out by the Erasmus Commission. I want to remind hon. members that the public of South Africa already has to pay high taxes and that the public will, as I see things to come, be expected to pay higher taxes in future. Therefore there is need for far greater public confidence and a need for reassurance that money will be properly spent. I maintain that the onus is on the Government to give that reassurance to the public.

I now wish to say something about The Citizen. The Department of Information’s motives in trying to buy SAAN and establishing The Citizen newspaper are understood by most people in South Africa and are acceptable to a great number of people. In passing I would like to comment that the English Press breaks down everything that a democratically elected Government, in its administration of South Africa, tries to execute. That is bad enough, but that is a matter between the English Press and the Government. What is worse, however, is the fact that their attitude and their actions constitute, in my opinion, a real threat to the future existence of the White man in Southern Africa. Having said this, I hope that something will be done about it. The Government has, to my mind, neglected its duties so far by not doing something about it. Then the question arises whether Government funds should have been used to start a commercial newspaper like The Citizen. I say that that cannot be justified under any circumstances. It is an invasion of the sphere of private enterprise and State interference in that sphere must be kept to an absolute minimum. The providing of funds from the taxpayers’ money for starting The Citizen newspaper was wrong and cannot be justified. The indignation of the PFP and their Press is not, however, unbiased reaction to a wrong decision; they have a fanatical hatred for The Citizen because it is a threat to their own security. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the shame and the humiliation that South Africa feels about The Citizen. The hon. member for Durban Point, not to be outdone by his colleagues on his right in the PFP says that the NRP would not dare to collect funds and ask the public to subscribe to shares in The Citizen. We in the SAP and many thousands of people outside this House who think like us, and all patriotic South Africans, I believe, would willingly collect funds and would willingly take up shares in any public company that would take over The Citizen. [Interjections.] The Citizen is not a party-political paper. [Interjections.] It is an independent-minded paper; its editor is an outstanding journalist and a man of considerable integrity.

Do you believe the commission?

The commission suggested that The Citizen was a party-political newspaper. I differ with the commission in their finding. The commission based its finding on what was described in the commission’s report as a reading of three issues of The Citizen immediately before election day, supporting the NP. I believe that the editor of The Citizen was wrong to have taken that line three days before the election. I do not believe that he was compelled to do so and I do not believe for a moment that there was any pressure on him. I believe it was inexpedient and unwise of him to have taken that line. [Interjections.] But let me ask in all fairness: What else was available to the people on the Witwatersrand? The PFP, which stands for Black majority rule, is the agent in South Africa of the Western powers and is the parliamentary representative of the English Press! Then there was the NRP, recovering from an act of self-destruction! In the Transvaal the SAP at that time was not in a position to put up a candidate. So what was the choice? It is in South Africa’s interests that The Citizen continues and grows into a week-end competitor of the Sunday Times and a daily competitor to both the Rand Daily Mail and, I hope, one of these days, to The Cape Times. That is why it is not so much because of a grave misuse of public funds, as the Opposition have referred to it, but because of The Citizen’s competition with the SAAN newspapers that there has been such a fuss in this House by the Official Opposition about this whole issue.

R32 million—a storm in a teacup!

I now wish to deal with issues that I believe are very important indeed that arise from the report, i.e. the questions of inefficiency and incompetence. Most of the attacks that have been made in this House on the Government yesterday and today have been made on the grounds that the Erasmus Commission found that there were irrebuttable indications of large-scale irregularities and exploitations of the secret fund, under the control of the officers of the former Department of Information. The commission said that it was impossible to say how much the State had lost owing to maladministration and irregular actions. I do not propose to itemize further the irregularities and examples of maladministration.

The reason why this debate in Parliament yesterday and today has fallen flat, is because all of these matters have already appeared in the newspapers. However, what is to me an even greater cause for concern in the light of the precarious international situation in which our country finds itself, are the repeated references in the commission’s report to incompetence at so many levels and to downright inefficiency. The motivation for the work of the Department of Information, under a five-year plan referred to on page 14 of the report, is acceptable to me. The need for such work by an information department is obvious and is necessary in the country’s interests. But what is incomprehensible is how such work could be envisaged without proper machinery being set up to execute it. The report is riddled with references to a wholly inadequate framework within which the work of the Department of Information should have been conducted. The commission, after justifying the need for secret funds, states that it is of cardinal importance that control over them be constitutionally secured, and this was not the case at all. Further, the commission states that they should be used administratively only for the purposes for which they were voted in the national interest. And, likewise, this was not done. Secondly, their administration, that is to say the secret funds, should be in the hands of honourable people who have been tried and tested and whose integrity has stood the test of time. This did not happen. Rhoodie was wholly inexperienced in administering such massive funds and was irked by regulations. The report shows us why he was irked by those regulations! Fourie was both accountant and auditor and kept in the dark by Rhoodie who was his boss.

Dr. Mulder was found to be wholly incompetent by the commission, and judging by much other evidence in the report may well have been much worse. He did not concern himself with such details as departmental finances and administration. This led to malpractices and confusion until four years later, that is this year, the Secret Services Account Act was passed in this House. This is a shocking way for a department, dealing with large secret funds, to be run. Under the chapter headed “Loose Links” the report says none of them, that is to say Fourie, Rhoodie or Mulder, knew what was going on or knew what the other was doing. It is clear to me that in the case of the members of the Cabinet, very few seemed to know what the others were doing and apparently they accepted that situation with extraordinary complacency, and that in my opinion is a disgraceful state of affairs. The Government should be under no illusions about the public disquiet that has been aroused and the anger that exists at a state of affairs that has obtained until now in the Department of Information. What has been disclosed is shocking. It is shocking by any standards. But now we have a purging process in operation. What is taking place now is a very necessary purging process. All that can be said is that it is better that it should take place now, before the full fury of the onslaught on South Africa is to be unleashed. Mark my words, Sir, the full fury of that onslaught will be unleashed on us in the Republic. I say to the Prime Minister, who has, as I believe already taken the necessary steps to put his house in order, to make a full job of it, to clear the decks now, to eliminate and deal with all corruption. I would make a suggestion to him. Another department is in receipt of substantial secret funds, and I make the suggestion with a full sense of responsibility of what I am saying, that the Government should re-examine the efficiency of Boss. I believe that the Government would do itself a favour and would do the country a great service if it did a quick and thorough investigative job on Boss as well. I believe that there is readymade machinery for doing this. I believe the Erasmus Commission could do it. I think that Boss should be looked into in the light of what has happened in the Department of Information, especially because there have been special relationships involved between members of the Information Department and Boss, and this in my opinion makes it imperative that Judge Erasmus should also look at this major and vitally important department of ours, which is in receipt of substantial secret funds. I would say, too that Gen. Van den Bergh’s attitude yesterday as disclosed in the Press adds strength to my argument.

Having said this, let me issue a warning: South Africa cannot afford to be lamed and paralysed by a situation similar to that which took place in America in the case of Watergate. The Government has a duty to the people of South Africa to get on with the job of governing the people of South Africa, and this includes the rebuilding of an effective information service which is vital to our future progress.

There is a certain tragic element in what has happened. When the facts referred to in the Erasmus Report started to be unearthed by Mr. Barrie, the Auditor-General, the Government showed signs of panic. The department, I believe wrongly, was downgraded. I do not think that that was the thing that should have been done. I think a general paralysis seemed to have set in during the past year, and this was evidenced in the handling of the Information affair until the new Prime Minister took office. Instead of the Government downgrading the department, I believe that the department should have been reconstituted and given extended and greater powers, but in the field of information and not in those fields in which Boss and the Department of Foreign Affairs should more properly operate.

There has been a call by the Official Opposition for the Government to resign and to have a general election. That is an utterly impracticable solution. It is a pity that under these circumstances a responsible Opposition is not in existence in South Africa to which the people could have turned in their dissatisfaction. The argument of the Official Opposition is that the Government as a whole is responsible for what has happened. If this is so, how can the Government agree to an election when there are still committees investigating the former department until at least 31 May? And only thereafter will they have to take remedial steps. I believe that the Government is to an extent in the dark as to what is still to come out. The public is certainly in the dark. I say we should wait for the findings of the committees and the commissions and then judge the Government on the action it takes to put right what is palpably wrong in the Department of Information. Once the Government has taken action, it will be entitled to go to the electorate to ask for approval and then the electorate will have the opportunity to approve or reject what the new Prime Minister and his Government have done to restore the image and the reputation which South Africa has always enjoyed and which has been so grievously harmed by the scandal in the Department of Information, by incompetence, by too much power and by corruption. If the Government does not take those steps, I will myself be the first to call on the Government to resign and to go to the country and, if I do that, I have no doubt that I shall be followed, as in the case of the Van der Walt Commission, by the hon. members who sit on my right in the PFP, followed by Mary’s little lamb, the NRP.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Simonstown has raised a number of important matters. I shall reply to some of his statements and I want to kick off by referring to the fact that he brought The Citizen into this. In regard to other statements made earlier in the debate, I want to confirm that The Citizen does not belong to the Government. The negotiations that have taken place are between the owners and Perskor.

How did they become the owners?

Anybody is free to negotiate with those owners. I leave it at that.

The hon. member for Simonstown referred further to the handling of secret funds by the Department of National Security. I shall reply to that and show that in the nature of things we need a particular type of control here. I shall deal with that too.

The hon. member for Simonstown also referred to Watergate. I think we owe him a debt of gratitude for having pointed out that we do not have a Watergate situation here. We were asked earlier in what respects this differed from Watergate and in what respects we did not have a cover-up here. In this respect I shall refer to a few points. In the first place, in the case of Watergate, there was the systematic covering up of irregularities. One thing led to another. If any hon. member opposite disagrees with me, he must say if this was not so. In our case we have had a systematic revelation to the extent that we are having a debate on this matter today as a result of fact-finding by a commission. In the second place there was the misleading of the nation after the irregularities had been discovered. Does it look as though we are misleading the nation when we are conducting a debate here today and clearing things up? In our case we have been as frank as possible with the nation and by this means confirm the authority of Parliament above all doubt in these matters. In the case of Watergate there was mala fide action against opponents. There was espionage conducted against the Democratic Party. This was all aimed not only at neutralizing them but at the elimination of their key figures. In our case there was no mala fide action against opponents. In our case we find bona fide action by the hon. the Prime Minister in the national interest because he realized that South Africa’s credibility was at stake in so many spheres. So it had to be cleared up. If people are to deal with us at all levels, for instance the business level, the diplomatic level, etc., they must be able to believe in us. That is why it is necessary to confirm our bona fides beyond all doubt. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if he agrees with this so far. Does he agree that in fact we do differ from Watergate? If so, they must stand up and admit it. I am referring to the various points.

Even more important is the fact that President Nixon used this privilege to declare certain evidence and papers to be too sensitive for publication. I repeat, President Nixon withheld evidence in a systematic fashion by declaring certain papers to be too sensitive for publication. What did the hon. the Prime Minister do? He gave evidence before the Erasmus Commission.

In the case of the Watergate scandal—and this is most important—there was a total collapse of the share market because the public did not believe that the government of the day would be able to handle the situation. I took the trouble to consult the Johannesburg Stock Exchange report for yesterday. It so happens that when this debate commenced, the index which is the most important one for us, viz. the industrial index, rose by 0,9%. The irony is that by the time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had finished speaking, the general index on Wall Street in New York had dropped by almost five points! One of our sub-indices which reflects public confidence here, rose in one day by 5 points. This is a very interesting comparison with the Watergate situation. I thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for giving us the opportunity to compare the situation with Watergate.

In the case of Watergate, President Nixon tried to force his legal adviser, John Dean, to disguise facts systematically and to bring out a report that would protect him. I put it categorically that this was not done in our case and that we have received a report which enabled those hon. members to move an amendment in this House which, interestingly enough, they feel justifies their asking that this side of the House should resign. In other words, they think the evidence in the report is strong enough to warrant this but then they do not accept the report. What an absurdity! It is very clear to me that in this situation we cannot accept any evidence or accusation that we have arranged a cover-up. I have now given hon. members the facts.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has moved an amendment to the motion of the hon. the Prime Minister. As we are dealing with financial matters, one would have expected the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to have been given the greatest measure of support by his main speaker on financial matters, viz. the hon. member for Yeoville. I am sorry he is not here. But what did we see? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has moved a two-pronged amendment. In the first place he asks for a resignation and in the second place for a commission of inquiry.

The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications pointed out an anomaly. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not received the support of his main speaker on finance but in fact a clean bill of health has been given by his side of the House to the hon. Prime Minister for whose integrity the hon. member for Yeoville has the highest regard, an integrity which he does not doubt. He said that when this debate was over, the hon. Minister of Finance should speak on behalf of South Africa in the highest council chambers. That is what he wants. He is not a person who wants the Government to resign. I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if he is in a position here today to stand up before South Africa and say he has a party which is in a position to carry out the provisions of his amendment and to pose as an alternative government. Their main speaker on finance gives us a clean bill of health which is even better and stronger than any commission report could have provided. There were other loose balls too during the debate. In my opinion there were a number of them. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout raised an issue which interests me. He told us he wanted to have political corruption eradicated. He wants political corruption eradicated completely. We share his opinion. I take it that the hon. member meant political corruption within the House. I take it that the hon. member agrees with my interpretation, but I also take it that the hon. member meant political corruption outside Parliament as well. We do know though that certain organizations which are fairly well known to the hon. member for Pinelands are very active and are engaged in political corruption outside our parliamentary circle and outside our constitutional set-up. I want now to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout categorically if they would support this side of the House in an inquiry into political corruption outside our constitutional set-up which envisages the destruction of our constitutional structure. Would the hon. member serve on a commission to make such an inquiry?

What are you insinuating?

You are talking absolute rubbish.

The hon. members on the other side spoke of political corruption which must be eradicated and what I am asking now is relevant. After all, we are concerned with cleaning up and creating confidence. What do we find now? It seems to me the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not want to co-operate. Must we now accept that he has only paid us lip service and is not sincere? Does he want to co-operate with us in our attempts to eradicate political corruption?

Probably the most important aspect was raised by the hon. member for Parktown. He admitted the necessity for secret funds and said that they should be subject to parliamentary control. In doing so the hon. member made a contribution because he has put his party’s standpoint in regard to this whole matter. We wanted to have their standpoint quite clearly. It was considered to be so important that it was broadcast over our national transmitters. I want to tell him immediately that when he adopts a responsible attitude of this nature we can conduct a debate with him. The same spirit was also evident on the part of the hon. member for Yeoville.

I want now to give our view of the matter. We believe that the onslaught against South Africa is characterized by subversion, secret and underground action. I say that such action necessitates our replying with action of a secret nature on our part. There can be no doubt about that. There must be action by State departments, by heads of departments and by members of the executive authority.

As I am now talking about secrecy, I am sorry that the hon. member for Houghton is not present at the moment. She will know what I am talking about because she had secret dealings with Mr. Woods concerning the publication of his book about Steve Biko. It is a fact—and here I quote the hon. member for Houghton—that secret action calls for secret funds. The hon. member for Houghton also knows about this because I think she had a secret fund from which, inter alia, she assisted Mr. Woods. After all, there was no doubt about that. We are all on the same wavelength and we know what we are talking about.

I say certain secret funds are necessary in the interests of South Africa to cover capital goods and running expenses. In conjunction with the hon. member for Parktown I want to put our attitude: These sort of funds require a particular sort of control and action. This viewpoint is acknowledged beyond any doubt and is confirmed by the motion of the hon. Prime Minister concerning the Erasmus Commission. I quote—

This relates, as a matter of fact, to what the hon. member for Simonstown said. We concede that immediately. We state too that it is the aim of this side of the House to deal with such funds in that way. But let us look at what happens in practice. Much has been said here about the Act dealing with the Defence Special Account. Now, it is a fact that when dealing with that specific Act we must ask ourselves what the position is in regard to funds for defence. Because it is so relevant, I should like to illustrate to hon. members precisely what we are discussing. There are three lands of funds relating to defence. There is a fund for current expenses, for management and maintenance, a fund for capital requirements projects, as well as funds from which the Minister of Defence, in terms of a certain legal provision, conducts defence and does everything necessary for the protection of the Republic. Each of these funds can, according to the degree of sensitivity, be classified as confidential, secret or top secret, something which, for obvious military reasons, limits the degree of insight into them, but they can in any event be audited by the Auditor-General. I want to emphasize that in any event these can be audited by the Auditor-General. In this respect the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has done us a service. But he did not take the matter far enough. According to Hansard he said yesterday he merely wanted to make an adjustment from the report of the Erasmus Commission. He said (Hansard, 7 December 1978)—

As far as the legal position is concerned, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is quite right. It is subject to audit, and I shall show in a moment…

But read further!

No, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is correct. In any case, I shall read further. He is quite right. It is subject to audit. But let us look at the factual situation, something which I am now going to deal with. I maintain that each of these funds, therefore, according to the degree of sensitivity, can be audited. But in what cases is there no audit? Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can take note of this. It is only in exceptional cases of sensitivity, in individual cases in which certain of these funds, in terms of the Defence Special Account Act—Act No. 6 of 1974—can be classified as sensitive. This only takes place with the personal approval of the hon. the Minister of Defence and in cases where the use of such funds is so strictly confidential that knowledge of them must be limited to the absolute minimum in the interests of the country. In such cases …

That is not what it says in the Act.

That is what the Act says. Just now I shall refer to the Act itself. I shall now tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition how the Act reads. In such cases the funds are not audited by the Auditor-General but by special internal auditors. That is the situation. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to know how I can say this. But it is very simple. The following is stipulated in the Defence Special Account Act, and I quote section 5 of the Act—

I hope the hon. the Leader of the Opposition follows this. It amounts to this: If any of these projects is classified as sensitive— obviously with the approval of the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Defence—it becomes one of the funds which to some extent is audited in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Finance, bearing in mind its special nature. How is it audited further? By an internal auditor, and there is a special rule in this respect in regard to further individual projects …

[Inaudible.]

Wait, let me finish. The number we are talking about that are audited in this manner by an internal auditor and that are classified as sensitive projects, is very limited and fluctuates from time to time. It depends on absolutely sensitive situations. In this regard the following agreement has been reached with the Auditor-General, and I am now referring to the present position—

They have insight into those projects which are classified as top secret. The classification can differ as and when a project is finalized or not finalized. The percentage of the total accounts of the Defence Force which fall within these special audit regulations amounts to 7,6%, and if that is reckoned as a percentage of the total Defence Special Account, the figure is 14,8%. These are dealt with by way of an absolutely special audit and in fact by security-vetted officials of the Auditor-General. They are not audited in the normal course of his activities. We therefore interpret the relevant section of the Defence Special Account Act to provide that in fact an audit should take place. I have here a letter from the Auditor-General which reads as follows—

Our viewpoint is therefore that a special and definite sort of control is necessary here. In addition, only a small number of those funds are referred to here.

I want to go further and draw attention to the fact that as far as Krygkor is concerned, which is a large user of funds from the Defence Special Account, we also have control measures which in my view indicate that it is an institution which is probably the best audited in South Africa. We are not dealing with a corporation which is audited annually by somebody registered in terms of the Public Accountants and Auditors Act. Krygkor’s regulations also prescribe minimum requirements with which the audit must comply. Secondly, each subsidiary company of the corporation is also audited by a public accountant. Thirdly, the funds made available through the Defence Special Account are also subject to audit by the Auditor-General, and in fact to the extent I have already explained to the hon. member. So you see, Mr. Speaker, in this department we have a series of regulations which demonstrate adequate financial control.

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

I want to finish first, Mr. Speaker. I want to go further and deal with the Department of National Security. The hon. member for Simonstown asked that we should take special steps here. But the hon. the Prime Minister has taken the initiative and has already made adjustments in respect of the previous situation. It will of course be conceded that we need a particular sort of control here. We are dealing with sensitive material. We are dealing with sensitive projects in the interests of South Africa.

In this case we also have an internal auditor who has been security cleared. This internal auditor furnishes the Auditor-General annually, on a personal and confidential basis, with a report. That work is also entrusted to a senior official who has been cleared for security purposes. In the nature of things this must be so. The Auditor-General, in collaboration with this senior official, then reports to the Prime Minister after he has checked the report and indicated if he is satisfied with the appropriation account or report. If he is not satisfied the Prime Minister is entitled to take such steps as he may think necessary after consultation with the Auditor-General.

The Erasmus report contains a reference to section 42(7) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, and that section too is one which should already be well-known. I quote—

That is the Minister of Finance—

One sees therefore that as far back as 1975 there was an awareness of the necessity for a particular control of confidential accounts, and this applied to every possible department. If it is necessary, as a result of the Erasmus report and the proposal of the Erasmus report and the proposal of the hon. the Prime Minister before this House, to make further adjustments in regard to this particular control of secret projects, that will be done. If it is found that the regulations comply with these requirements, hon. members will agree with me that that will be sufficient.

As far as these security services are concerned, it could perhaps be asked what the viewpoint of the Auditor-General is. Is he satisfied? I have acquainted myself with the viewpoint of the Auditor-General in this connection. His viewpoint is that he is in agreement with the audit regulations, as I have just explained them to hon. members, but with this proviso that the whole aspect of audit should be reconsidered after the Erasmus Commission has concluded its work. It will be seen therefore that we are not satisfied with absolutely final viewpoints in this matter but that this matter is being considered in terms of the motion of the hon. the Prime Minister.

I want to conclude by referring to the situation in England in regard to these matters. In England the appropriation of secret service funds is dealt with in the House of Commons at the same time as the normal budget. But there the practice is that the committees which deal with income and expenditure, etc., have no say over these secret services. Neither may they ask questions about them or deal with them in any way. The amount of the secret funds is included in the annual budget and no debate takes place in regard to it. No details are furnished to the House of Commons either on request or in any other manner. I mention this merely to show that the viewpoint which the hon. the Prime Minister has propounded—a viewpoint strongly adhered to in Britain, viz. that there must be no tampering with British secret services—must be seen in this light.

The hon. member for Durban Point attacked the Prime Minister and said that he had tried to appeal to sentiment and emotion by referring to the KGB. But what is really at issue here is the fact that in England there is a systematic attempt to expose the secret funds and in that way furnish the KGB with all the facts regarding England’s secret services. The attitude in this regard is that the KGB will eventually win. I mention this because in the final instance we will have to accept secrecy in our country as part of our answer to the total subversive onslaught against us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, fortunately it falls to me to follow immediately on three NP speakers and I shall try to react to all three of them. I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his maiden speech in that position. I wish, however, that I could congratulate him on the content of his speech. He suggested that there were definite mala fides in the Watergate affair in America in that the Republican Party committed espionage against the Democratic Party, but that in South Africa this did not happen. When the Government took funds from the public, the very funds paid for by Opposition, it utilized them for a newspaper that attempted and did everything in its power to defeat the Opposition in the election of 30 November. If that was not mala fides, then I do not know what is.

The hon. member for Simonstown apparently wants this state of affairs in regard to The Citizen and even the public funds therein to continue, because he says that he is prepared to help with the collection of public funds in order to continue The Citizen newspaper. If ever I have heard an admission that this so-called Opposition party is closer to the Nationalists than their voting public would believe, then that was it. Then I come to the hon. the Minister of Community Development, who suggests that because a member of the Stock Exchange commits an offence, the whole Stock Exchange should resign …

What utter nonsense! [Interjections.]

He further suggests that because the head of Assocom was found guilty in Switzerland, the business community should resign. He equates this and suggests that it is as ludicrous to suggest that the Government should resign because of what was originally called “Rhoodiegate” and what developed into “Muldersdrift”. Who knows what it will ultimately be called?

We have heard mention from that side of the House that because the NP wins by-elections—the hon. the Prime Minister was the first to say it—and because they were uncontested in by-elections, their hands are clean and the public still supports them. They think they can wash their hands in the ballot-box of the South African public. Can one blame the South African public for voting for the NP when, at school age, they are in fact brought under the grip of the NP from those very early days? In a previous debate during the last session an hon. member who sat over there somewhere suggested, in a private member’s motion relating to education, that our children should be indoctrinated. The SABC television services further continue that indoctrination, and R31 million of the public’s money was taken out of the public Exchequer, and handed over by the Minister of Information to a newspaper to further back the Government’s policy. It was not to be used externally and against our enemies, but to propagate the Government’s policies internally in South Africa amongst South African citizens. What therefore can this be but using public funds for propaganda for the NP? Let us not talk about clean hands, because the man who steals for himself and the man who steals for his party are equally guilty of corruption.

Where did this whole affair start? I believe it started many, many years ago during the Second World War when certain people were put into an internment camp in this country, because the Government of that day thought that their activities would be prejudicial to the State. Obviously they spent some time in that camp and they did not have very much to do. In that time I believe they planned a future strategy and a future policy for their point of view, the seeds of which continue to this day. Is it to be wondered at that no less than four of the people involved in this scandal today, four people mentioned in the report of the Erasmus Commission, were in that internment camp? The hon. former Prime Minister, Mr. Van Zyl Alberts, Gen. Van den Bergh and Mr. Reynders—all four of them were there. Where were the seeds more lately planted? I would like to refer to the Erasmus Commission Report on pages 54 and 55 of the English version where a letter is set out— a letter that was sent by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, in December 1973, to the Ministers of Finance, Defence, Foreign Affairs, Bantu Administration, Economic Affairs, Police, Mines, Immigration and Sport and Recreation; in other words, virtually the whole lot. The closing paragraph of that letter reads as follows—

There it is in black and white—

All these hon. Ministers have been telling us that they were not consulted by the hon. the Minister of Information. In view of this letter which was sent to them, why did they not ask for it? They had the letter on their files. They knew that the hon. the Minister of Information should consult with them. The hon. the Prime Minister knew that the hon. the Minister of Information should consult, and yet they are all prepared to wash their hands of this matter. And where did the money come from? Where must the blame for this whole debacle originally be laid? It must be laid initially at the door of the then Prime Minister when he made sums of money available to the Minister of Information through the Vote of the Bureau for State Security. Secondly, it was followed up by the present Prime Minister, who was then the Minister of Defence, who made no less than R56 950 000 available to the Minister of Information, funds which we all know now were thrown into the melting pot of corruption.

Not all of those R56 million were involved in this way; I am not suggesting that, but certainly we know of R31 million. We have been told by the hon. the Prime Minister that in fact 57 projects have been discontinued. Project “Annemarie”, costing R31 million, was but one of those projects. How much did the other 56 cost us? What were they? These are questions which the South African public need the answers to, provided that the disclosure of those secrets does not damage South Africa. And, Sir, let us not equate South Africa with the Government at this point in time.

Much play has been made in the report of the Erasmus Commission of the fact that the present Prime Minister knew that he was doing wrong and that he repeatedly objected, that he repeatedly tried to have the situation altered. But that evidence in my view is even more damning because he knew what he was doing but nevertheless he did it. Then he had to call on his own chief of staff, General Magnus Malan, to try and get him out of the position in which he found himself. This was done in terms of the letter reported in the report of this commission which has already been read out. So, he well knew what he was doing. He did not ensure that R56 million was properly spent by that Minister of Information.

It is no good saying to us in this House that these funds were not voted for defence but were voted for project “Senekal”. How on earth can he say that when the only people in this Parliament who were aware of where those funds were ultimately destined for was that Minister himself, the Minister of Finance, I assume, and the hon. the Prime Minister? According to the evidence we have had there were only three people who were aware of where those funds were going. Parliament voted those funds for the defence of this country, to be spent by the Department of Defence. That was the clear intention of this Parliament and that clear intention was not carried out in any shape or form.

While I am dealing with the hon. the present Prime Minister, let me go through to the end of the road as far as I see his connection with this affair. His next connection was in fact when he became Prime Minister. Judge Mostert indicated that he was going to talk to the Press, and the hon. the Prime Minister spoke to Judge Mostert before that Press report was made public by the judge. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he suggested to the judge in any shape or form that he should not disclose this evidence?

He told you already.

Did you not listen?

I listened to his speech very carefully indeed. I want that point reiterated because it appears to conflict with the statements of Judge Mostert himself. When in fact the judge did then disclose, did make public what had happened, the hon. the Prime Minister fired Judge Mostert from his commission. This report says on page 26, par. 5.98—

Who lit the lamp? It was Judge Mostert who lit the lamp that was to set South Africa and the political discussion in this country alight. Yet there were many attempts to put this light out.

There is another question that I believe the hon. the Prime Minister must answer. That question was reaffirmed yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he told us that he personally was present when Advocate Van Rooyen informed the then Minister of Defence, now the Prime Minister, of The Citizen debacle. That, I believe, is substantiated in yesterday’s Hansard. We therefore have positive proof that the hon. the Prime Minister knew the facts presented by Van Rooyen and the least interpretation that can be put on those facts was that there was a question-mark against Dr. Connie Mulder, the hon. member for Randfontein. At the very least there was a question-mark against what he had been doing. Shortly thereafter the hon. member for George was elected Prime Minister of this country. What happened immediately after that? The Cabinet resigned. Is this true or is this not true? The Cabinet resigned and the hon. the Prime Minister then reappointed that Cabinet and, knowing of the evidence given by Van Rooyen, he knowingly appointed the hon. member for Randfontein as Minister of Plural Relations and Development. I believe that this is a question that is going to be hung, like an albatross, around the hon. the Prime Minister’s neck in the years to come.

Who told you the Cabinet resigned? The Cabinet did not resign.

I believe that the fact that this department, his Vote, provided R56 950 000 is something else that is going to be hung around his neck in the years to come.

I next want to get on to the part that was played by the former Prime Minister in this whole affair. I have read his letter and the evidence of this report. Let me say openly that I do not agree with the conclusions of the Erasmus Commission of Inquiry in so far as it relates to innocence. Let me say that the evidence comes through very, very clearly that in 1975 the then Prime Minister was informed by both Dr. Rhoodie and Dr. Mulder of the attempt to take over SAAN. They have both testified to this. Then, when that failed, there was a further meeting attended by Gen. Van den Bergh and Gen. Van den Bergh also testifies that he informed the Prime Minister of what happened at that particular meeting. The then Prime Minister accepts that Gen. Van den Bergh spoke to him after that meeting. So the sad tale continues. We are aware of the fact that Reynders testified that he had informed the then Prime Minister. I agree with the things my colleague, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, said late yesterday evening in connection with the state of affairs and the part played by the former Prime Minister of this country.

We are asked to believe that that Prime Minister was led by the nose by Gen. Van den Bergh. This too I cannot find that I agree with. Mr. Speaker, you and many members in this House who have been here a lot longer than I have, know that that Prime Minister was a strong man. They know that that Prime Minister was not about to be led by the nose by anybody. So, Mr. Speaker, who was the pawn of whom in this sad affair?

I come to the question of the cover up. We have had commission after commission. We had to start off with the Auditor-General’s report. He could not get to the bottom of the secret funds. We had the Select Committee on Public Accounts on which I served. Every time we asked a question, we came against a blank wall of secrecy. Then we had the Reynders Commission. From June 1977 when the Prime Minister was first told by Mr. Barrie of supposed irregularities right through until Judge Mostert blew the whistle there were many commissions of inquiry, but did the facts of The Citizen come out from any of these commissions of inquiry? No, they did not. It was Mr. Justice Mostert who made those facts available. Once this had happened, it only took the Erasmus Commission one short month to come up with such a damning report, while the other commissions had been sitting and the other inquiries had been continuing for 17 months. Who then dares to suggest that there has not been a cover-up in this matter?

Finally, I want to ask some very simple questions because the concept of patriotism and the total onslaught on South Africa have been bandied across the floor as though that was responsible for the corruption in Government circles. I want to ask who the true patriots are—those who expose Government corruption or those who allow it to happen in the Government? Who are the true patriots? One of the facts of this affair which has done South Africa immense harm, is the fact that Mr. Justice Mostert was fired. He was a man who did more good for the public image of South Africa through his statements through the rest of the world than 30 years of the NP politicians. What happened to him? He was fired ignominiously by this NP Government. Who are the real patriots?

The hon. the Prime Minister has spoken about the enemies of South Africa. He spoke of Bolsheviks and Communists as if they were responsible for this, but who are the real enemies, those who make corruption possible or those who expose it? Who were the true patriots? Those who year after year have taken money from the public pocket in increasing amounts to pay for defence while at the same time millions have been squandered by a sick Government? Who is guilty of offence? That whole Government must take responsibility. Are those members of the NP caucus, who have been listening to their Cabinet Ministers speaking one after the other, not also responsible for putting those Ministers in those positions? Who are the true patriots? Those who now remain in the NP caucus must for ever be tarred with the same brush as those who are responsible for this situation. This issue has thrown a boulder into the lake of Nationalist complacency. And dare I call that lake of Nationalist complacency Vorster’s Vlei? The ripple of that boulder will reach out to the furthest comers of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to state that I take the strongest exception to what the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has said. According to him the stigma of corruption will cling to me as a member of the caucus of this party. As a member of the Government party caucus I knew as little as that hon. member of these matters until they were exposed and the Government appointed a commission of inquiry.

The hon. member for East London North has reiterated something he has said previously the minute they are cornered, and that is that the NP indoctrinates schoolchildren and that we tell them, while they are still at school, to vote Nationalist as soon as they can exercise their vote. I reject that accusation but add that we are not ashamed of telling our schoolchildren about their forebears and that there is such a thing as the defence and love of one’s fatherland. Should that child, having been told these things, decide to vote for this Government the day he becomes eligible to vote, we shall be proud of and grateful for the fact that he is supporting us.

The hon. member has also referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts of which he was a member. He said that whenever certain members of that Committee had asked questions they had come up “against a wall of secrecy” as he put it. I too am a member of that Select Committee and all I can do is confirm what the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, the chairman of that Select Committee, has said. It was not one of the terms of reference of that Committee to investigate the estimates of expenditure of the Government. Neither was it one of the terms of reference of the Committee to determine whether or not the budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance had been correctly drafted. Our task was simply to analyse the printed report of the Auditor-General and, with his co-operation, to question the various departmental heads in connection with it in order to ascertain whether public funds were being spent incorrectly. I regard the hon. member for East London North as being an honourable man and I believe that he will at least concede that the point he made is without substance.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made certain remarks in connection with the election last year. I see a connection between those remarks and a short report which appeared on 17 November of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had said about the election in 1977, because the hon. member for Bezuidenhout also referred to that. According to the report the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is alleged to have said the following—

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said this afternoon that it was unnecessary to have held that election. He added that the Opposition did not have an equal opportunity.

Sir, I know that I am not at the moment confining myself strictly to the report, but I shall return to it in a moment. You will nevertheless allow me to refer to what the two hon. members have said so that I can comment on it.

Prior to the hon. the Prime Minister’s assuming his present office he often said, in his capacity as Minister of Defence, that South Africa was faced with big problems and that there were people and bodies abroad that were bent on destroying us. I wish to point out that we did not fight the 1977 election unnecessarily but because the electorate had to be given the opportunity of deciding the road South Africa had to follow and the political philosophy that had to be subscribed to. However, I leave it at that.

I should like to have the attention of the hon. member for Durban Point because one of his supporters in Natal has levelled an accusation against the present Prime Minister. I shall read out the accusation he made and then try to prove that it is false. I want to know from the hon. member for Durban Point, the Leader of the NRP, whether he is prepared to repudiate that member of his party.

What did he say?

I am coming to that. I refer to Mr. Warwick Webber and I think he is the Natal Leader of the NRP. What he said was reported in the Rand Daily Mail of 8 November, 1978. The newspaper reported as follows—

That is entirely justifiable.

I am addressing the hon. member for Durban Point not the hon. member for Bryanston.

What is the object of the question?

The Prime Minister is being accused of having been party to the cover-up that is being talked about. I just want to quote what The Cape Times had to say in connection with the actions of the hon. the Prime Minister. The Cape Times is not a friend of ours. The Cape Times has no political love for the hon. the Prime Minister. As far as one specific aspect is concerned, The Cape Times at least spoke the truth. I quote from the leading article which appeared in The Cape Times of 31 October 1978. This is what the editor of The Cape Times had to say—

He goes on to say—

He concludes by saying—

I now wish to pose two questions. I want to know from the hon. member for Durban Point whether he agrees with what the editor of The Cape Times has said. I should like to have the attention of the hon. member for Durban Point. He is carrying on a conversation and I should like to have his attention. I want to put two questions to him.

You are talking nonsense in any case.

Oh, now the hon. member says I am talking nonsense.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I have just quoted from a leading article in The Cape Times in which the editor of that newspaper pays tribute to the integrity and probity and honesty of our hon. Prime Minister. Now the hon. member for Durban Point says I am talking nonsense.

Nobody doubts the attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister.

I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point a question.

I am only referring to the co-responsibility of the hon. the Prime Minister in this matter.

I want to know from the hon. member for Durban Point whether he agrees with what I have quoted.

I have never doubted the personal honesty of the hon. the Prime Minister.

I want to know from the hon. member for Durban Point whether he is prepared to repudiate the hon. member of his party when he says that the hon. the Prime Minister has been party to the “cover-up”?

That is what this debate is all about. [Interjections.]

I want to know from the hon. member whether he also accuses the hon. the Prime Minister of having been party to the cover-up.

Yes, the hon. the Prime Minister knew that money was being spent and although he did not approve of it he condoned it.

The hon. member, therefore, agrees that the hon. the Prime Minister was party to a cover-up of irregularities in the defunct Department of Information? The question I want to put following upon that is: Why then did the hon. the Prime Minister appoint the Erasmus Commission? Why did the hon. the Prime that union, he would do so. He also said that Minister convene this session of Parliament if he himself were guilty, as the hon. member for Durban Point has just alleged? Why did the hon. the Prime Minister appoint the Erasmus Commission and why did he convene Parliament? He wanted, in the first instance, to establish whether there had actually been a cover-up. He wanted to determine whether people had been guilty of a cover-up. In the second instance, the hon. the Prime Minister wanted to determine whether certain people had enriched themselves by means of public money. Thirdly, the hon. the Prime Minister wanted to determine whether public money had been misappropriated by people in positions of trust. Fourthly, he wanted to determine whether certain people in positions of trust had abused those positions. Last but not least, he wanted to determine whether there were certain people who had abused the Government’s appeal to patriotism. The hon. the Prime Minister sought answers to those five questions. That was why he appointed the Erasmus Commission and why he convened Parliament. I think the hon. member for Durban Point owes the hon. the Prime Minister an apology when he maintains that the hon. the Prime Minister was party to a cover-up.

We have already said that we are shocked at what has been uncovered. We have admitted that mistakes have been made. Had the Government remained silent—and this is my question—and omitted to take action, what would have happened then? According to my information the Government is in fact going to take action. Let us look ahead. Let us see what the future has in store for us. In the first place, I want to say a few words about our present hon. Prime Minister and the role he is to play in future. I am inclined to look ahead and to ask myself whether we can entrust South Africa to the man who is at the helm today. When we project our minds into the future I think I can compare the hon. the Prime Minister with a very important person in American history, namely the great American president, Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you why I do so. At the time of the civil war in America, Abraham Lincoln said that his first priority was the establishment of a united America. He said that even if he had to emancipate every slave in America in order to safeguard even if it was necessary to emancipate only one slave to ensure that union he would do so. He went on to say that if in order to safeguard that union not one slave could be emancipated, he would also follow that course. For that reason I say that we can entrust the future of our country to our present hon. Prime Minister and for that reason I compare him with that great American President, Abe Lincoln. I say this because the man who stands at the helm today has had the courage of his convictions and has exposed this thing—call it scandal if you wish—to the very bone. This man has said that he cannot go forward into the future while an albatross of scandal is hanging about his neck. That is why he is doing this— because he regards the interests of South Africa as priority number one, not the interests of a particular group, not the interests of a specific political party. He regards it as his prime duty to see to it that the interests of South Africa come first. We shall accordingly yet live to see this man who has been accused by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout of have been party to a cover-up, emerge as the Abe Lincoln of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Worcester. He referred, inter alia, to the Select Committee on Public Accounts and said that that Committee had no other terms of reference than to study the report which was presented to it. That interpretation of the hon. member brings to light a type of attitude with which I want to deal in my speech because I feel that it is proof of a deficiency in our public life and a deterioration in our parliamentary system. If it is accepted that the examination of a report which is referred to it is the only duty of a committee appointed to institute an investigation. I feel that there is a lack of commitment and a lack of public interest in the matter to be examined. I wish to say something tonight about the underlying reasons for what we have already debated here over the past two days and in the course of my remarks I shall again refer to the viewpoint of the hon. member.

†The hon. member has also taken a stand in regard to the integrity of the present hon. Prime Minister. I have listened very carefully to this debate for so far and I have heard no one attacking the integrity of this hon. Prime Minister. One therefore wonders why hon. members on that side find it necessary to defend something that has not been attacked. Listening to the hon. members and to a good many other speeches, I can only come to the conclusion that those hon. members were not talking to the Opposition, but were talking to each other. They are assuming an attitude and are presenting arguments designed to show where they stand within the NP. That is because the NP of today is not the NP of yesterday. There is a new leader, there are new loyalties and there are changes of tension in that party. We have come to this Parliament to discuss the whole Information question, and I propose to discuss what I see as the underlying reasons for the problem. [Interjections.]

Order!

Those members have come here not to conduct a debate with us on those questions so much as to adopt certain postures towards one another in order to prove to one another and to their new leaders where they stand. That is what is happening and that is why so much of the debate we are conducting in this House is so unsatisfactory from the point of view of getting to the root causes and the real remedies for the situation as disclosed.

I believe that we need to look at the basic causes of what is happening in this country, and unless we do so, a great deal of the time we have spent in Cape Town over the past few days will in fact have been wasted. We are faced here with a symptom of a deeper malady in our public life. I think that we need to look at this malady, because if we merely remedy the signs on the surface, the rash or the pimples, and do not look to the underlying causes, we will have more consequences of the kind we are discussing today.

I believe that in the course of this particular century there has been an enormous shift of power within the whole system of parliamentary government. I am not referring only to South Africa. It is a phenomenom of the century which is recognized by constitutional writers everywhere who look critically at the Westminster or related parliamentary forms of government. The shift has been away from the original rights and powers of Parliament towards the Executive. Nobody in this House, except perhaps those gentlemen who are conducting a conversation over there, would doubt, or have any uncertainties about, what the original purpose and powers of Parliament used to be. We all understand the democratic principle and we know, in broad outline, the history of Western Parliaments. We also know why we have a Parliament in this country.

What has happened is that Parliament has been gradually transferring its powers to the Executive. The Executive has gradually been taking powers from Parliament. We have reached the stage today where Parliament has, in fact, very few powers left at all. I regret to say that the main powers which Parliament has enjoyed, and now only enjoys to some extent in the control of the Executive, are firstly the powers of legislation—and I shall examine that aspect in a moment—the powers of financial control and the powers to obtain information and to examine the actions of the Executive. Those are the three fundamental ways in which Parliament is able to exert control over the Executive, in which Parliament is able to exert its authority as the representative of the people who send Members to this place.

Let us examine firstly the question of legislation. It is perfectly obvious to anybody in this House that Parliament does not initiate any legislation at all. The only example we ever see of Parliament introducing legislation, is the occasional private member’s Bill when a member comes here on behalf of a university, a church or some other institution to ask for a change in its constitution. Then he has the big moment in his life of steering a Bill through three stages.

Virtually all legislation comes to this House from the Executive. It is initiated by the Executive, it is drafted by the Executive and it is piloted through this House by a Minister, and it is rare for Parliament to be able to make any substantial changes to the form of that legislation.

But surely that is the prerogative of government!

I am coming to the prerogative of government. This is the form in which legislation comes to this House. What are the remedies if Parliament has any role to play in legislation? The hon. member for Von Brandis said that surely it was the prerogative of government to introduce legislation. It is indeed the prerogative of government to introduce legislation, but it is not an exclusive prerogative. Parliament holds ancient rights to introduce legislation. The question may well be asked, since we have grown so unaccustomed to introducing the legislative process in this Parliament: How do we do it? There are other Parliaments faced with the same question, i.e. the European Parliaments, the Canadian Parliament and a number of other Parliaments. They have developed a system of committees which themselves study matters of the day, produce draft legislation and bring it to Parliament. This is not directly relevant to what I propose to say, but forms part of the story to be told. I believe that in respect of Parliament’s legislative process, we need to look at Parliament’s rights to produce legislation and to pass legislation in this House. It is now the sole prerogative of government, and it is a symptom of the transfer of total power out of the hands of Parliament into the hands of the Executive.

We are now coming nearer to the bone. We now reach the issue of the control of the finances of the State by Parliament. Parliament has been appointed by the people to control the granting of money and the expenditure of money. There is an Auditor-General with certain powers, which are most important powers. Parliament has the right to vote money, to refuse money and to demand an account of the money spent by the Executive. Recently, however, in this Parliament, because of these secret funds, we have seen a rapid move away from that principle or a great weakening in Parliament’s power to control money.

I do not think that is quite right.

I shall deal with that soon. That hon. member must please be patient. I am trying to be fair about this. We recognize that secret funds are in fact inevitable and we do not deny that such funds should in fact be provided to the Executive. The question that arises is: What kind of control should be exercised? We agree whole-heartedly with the Erasmus Commission that the recent forms of control, as they exist in the present legislation, are entirely inadequate, that the House must take them back, look at them again and redraft them. There is no question about it that both in the case of the original special funds and now, in the case of the consolidated fund, there are weaknesses in control, in audit and in Treasury control. These factors are the very essence of the kind of difficulties which this House is faced with. I believe, and I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will agree with me, that if he and his Cabinet had been strengthened by better legislation at the time when he faced difficulties with the transfer of money from the Defence Fund to the Ministry of Information, he would have been in a far stronger position to have prevented the kind of corruption that took place. I believe that the hon. the Minister must look to the laws and that we must not merely blame a small group of corrupt officials. I believe that the remedy lies partly with ourselves, with the restoration of parliamentary rights and with the strengthening of parliamentary control. If Parliament does not control these funds and the actions of the Executive, then it is no good Parliament coming here and simply blaming the Executive or a few Ministers and accusing them of having known what was going on, and expecting them to take the entire blame. We too, as Parliament, have a certain responsibility in regard to this matter. I believe we all share that responsibility.

I now want to deal with the question of information. I believe that one of Parliament’s great rights, built into the whole institution of Parliament, is the right to demand information from the Executive. What we find here, is that information is given to Parliament very often with great reluctance by the hon. Ministers who come here to answer our questions. There was a stage when all information in the hands of the Executive was public property, except those parts of the information which were either designated and classified as official secrets or which could generally be classified as being confidential and could be discussed only with those to whom confidential information may be disclosed. One of the troubles is that when one extends the field of classification or secrecy so widely that practically nothing can be divulged to the public or even to Parliament, then one finds that the whole system begins to break down, because if everything is secret then everybody, sooner or later, becomes privy to that vast secret. If one wants to keep secrets—and we all know this in our private lives—then those secrets which are really secret must be identified as secrets. I believe we need to reconsider our attitude to the question of what information the public is entitled to know. I believe that as far as Parliament is concerned we also need to reconsider this whole question of parliamentary questions. During the last session, this year, 1 270 questions were asked in Parliament. Of those questions only three were asked by hon. members on that side of the House. I say it is the business of hon. members supporting the Government also to be vigilant about their Government. They should also show a real and acute interest in the business of government. Some 120 of those hon. members are not in the Cabinet. Of all those members, who do not participate in government, who are sent to this House by their constituencies, only three asked questions in one whole session.

They put the questions in caucus.

This is Parliament. Caucus is a NP private talking place. The public has a right to hear. The fact that the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations makes a remark like that, shows the extent to which the parliamentary idea has degenerated in the minds of some people sitting on the opposite side. Of course Parliament has the right to know! Does the NP publish reports of what takes place in caucus? Do the newspapers publish what is said in caucus? We are not here on a private picnic. Hon. members are here to represent the people of South Africa. What we say in Parliament is public knowledge and we come here on behalf of the people to ask these questions so that they may be satisfied that Parliament is doing its job.

They dare not ask the questions.

I am sure that many hon. members, like me, have visited other Western Parliaments. During question time there is participation all round the House, not just from the Opposition. Members on the Government side are as eager to ask questions of the Government as members on the Opposition side, and sometimes they ask more questions.

What about allowing us to put questions to the Opposition?

Sure, go ahead. You have got something to learn.

The hon. gentleman, who is involved in drafting a new constitution, has some extraordinary concepts of what it is all about. We in these benches do not govern the country. Ask us all the questions you like, but you must not ask us to answer questions about the government of this country, which it is not our privilege to do.

Actually, that Minister does not govern the country either!

Yes, I am sure he does not. I hope he is not going to make any more constitutional suggestions, because he terrifies me with his ignorance. I believe that we have got to look at this matter very closely, because when we talk about the transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive we talk about a phenomenon which is not confined to South Africa. The South African situation, however, bears a rather special character and I believe that we have to look at the whole question of the Civil Service. There have been some hon. members opposite, notably the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, who spoke about our criticism of the Public Service. I myself was a member of the Civil Service for 20 years. I know the Civil Service consists, for the vast majority, of honourable men. We also know that there are some who are not so honourable, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the shift of power towards the executive, and that power cannot be handled by a small number of Ministers who come and go. The real power which we yield up from this Parliament goes into the hands of the Civil Service. What we are in fact doing is to hand the government of this country from Parliament into the hands of the Civil Service. That is what is really happening. They are a powerful breed of men, highly trained, highly skilled, and for the most part honourable. They are the people who are in fact making the laws. They are the people who in fact are obtaining authority to handle money. They are the people who are keeping the information secret, and this is not surprising because their power to act depends on their power to act silently. It is inevitable so far as the Civil Service is concerned, because if we give them the power, what are they to do? It is in this situation, uncontrolled by Parliament, uninvigilated by the people of South Africa, without proper financial control, without proper information, that the kind of scandal that we are discussing today can arise. We are not blaming the Civil Service for the situation. Let me make that perfectly clear, for the sake of the Minister of Water Affairs and the Minister of Indian Affairs. We are looking at a system which underlies the kind of corruption which we are discussing in this House. It is no use complaining about corruption and putting people in gaol unless we also look at the underlying system in which it ferments and grows. I believe that if the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government are really concerned about what has happened in South Africa in recent months, they must not just punish a few offenders; they must look at the underlying ferment, the rot in the system, the conditions within which these things can flourish, uncontrolled and unobserved. Unless we do that, we will not have truly done our business. We will not truly have solved the problem with which we are faced in this House.

Mr. Speaker, in certain respects the hon. member for Constantia touched on technical and technical financial matters, but he also mentioned that members of the Governing party put only three questions to Ministers during the past session. With regard to this particular issue I just want to tell him that members on the Government side have free access to the Ministers and are able at all times to obtain information they want from them. Hon. members of the Opposition also have access to the Ministers, but their motives are not always those which the hon. member for Constantia ascribed to the questions put by them. For example, I find it extremely interesting that the Question Paper contains questions for reply on 12 December. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether any of the hon. members of the Cabinet will be here on 12 December to give the replies to those questions. I do not know what the object of the exercise is to put these questions and what the motivation is, apart from incurring further costs.

It is a pity that the hon. member for Yeoville is not present at the moment. I expected him to leave as soon as it was my turn to speak. I just want to say in his absence, because it would probably come to his attention, that if there is one person who is not in a position to talk about the matter of the end not justifying the means, then it is the hon. member for Yeoville. I admire the hon. the Minister of Community Development for having so much patience and sympathy with the hon. member for Yeoville, because I cannot share that sympathy. If ever there was a person who believed that the end justified the means in his actions towards the hon. the Minister of Community Development, it was the hon. member for Yeoville. There was mention of military precision, military action to expel the hon. the Minister of Community Development from the United Party and from the leadership of the United Party in the Transvaal. He told the hon. the Prime Minister that he was on dangerous territory when he said that certain things which the Official Opposition were doing, could unleash forces which would not be containable. He also told the hon. the Prime Minister not to come to this Parliament with Oudtshoorn tactics and that the Afrikaner would no longer fall for this kind of action. He is the last person to talk about the sentiment of the Afrikaner or the reaction of the Afrikaner, for if there is one man who will never rid himself of the words he uttered in the Transvaal Provincial Council, it is that hon. member for Yeoville. At that stage he said that his people were civilized at the time when the Afrikaner was still going about dressed in skins. He is the last man to talk about the Afrikaner and the Afrikaner’s attitude.

If ever there was a debate which really presented the Official Opposition with a subject on a plate, it was this debate and the subject under discussion today. If ever there was an opportunity for the Opposition to emerge victorious from a debate, it was this debate. But they failed dismally because they did not expect the hon. the Prime Minister to accept the recommendations of the Erasmus Commission. They expected the Government to defend the actions of the previous Minister of Information. For that reason it was so strange that the speech by the hon. member for Parktown in particular and, to a large extent, the speech by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout were so bad. The wind had been taken out of their sails. In the process they came off second best in this debate too, and the people of South Africa will know that even under these circumstances this Opposition is not fit to take over the government of the country.

There are a few issues which have emerged from this debate. In the first place we have seen the Official Opposition, and, to some extent, the NRP as well, taking diabolical pleasure in the circumstances which gave rise to this debate, just as they took pleasure in strikes and the events in Soweto a few years ago.

That is a shameful untruth!

Just as the staff of the Rand Daily Mail drank champagne when these things were exposed, these people had champagne because of the embarrassing situation in which the Government found itself.

Now you are talking nonsense.

While the Government was deeply moved by the events and was taking urgent action to rectify what was wrong, the Official Opposition drank champagne to celebrate this situation.

Sir, what does the outside world and what do the foreign Press and foreign critics say about these events? The Scotsman, according to The Cape Times yesterday, reported—

This is with reference to these events. And yet the hon. member for Durban Point says he feels the nation has been humiliated by these things. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the Government was arrogant. Is it arrogance to arrange a special session of Parliament to afford the Opposition the opportunity of criticizing the Government for these very events or is it a case of the Government itself being humble because of the circumstances which gave rise to Parliament being summoned to meet? But it is not only the Scotsman in London which reacted in that way to the actions of the Government; in last night’s Argus I read that there was the same reaction in Washington. According to the Argus Mr. Hugh Robertson of Washington said the following—

He went on to say—

This is the reaction of the Press and critics abroad.

A second aspect which has emerged from this debate so far, is that the Official Opposition is not concealing its frustration and deep dismay at the Government’s failure to split because of these events. They have been hoping and praying that the NP would split. The hon. member for Yeoville made a feeble attempt to drag the hon. member for Randfontein into the election of a new NP leader in the Transvaal. They are going round preying on situations which might make them successful in splitting the NP, because they know that after all these things have been said and done and the whole problem has been solved and settled, it will still be policy against policy and then the people of South Africa will still have to choose between the policy of separate development and those new policies of the PFP and the NRP. That is the position. That is what they are preying and basing their hopes on. That is their whole raison d’être.

There is another aspect which is referred to again and again and that is that it was the Mostert action which actually brought the Erasmus Commission into being and disclosed this whole scandal. They are lauding Mr. Justice Mostert for having shown such bravery. In the first place I just want to say, however, that it is very clearly not so, for on 2 November the Pretorius Committee requested the hon. the Prime Minister to appoint a judicial commission. During that same period, however, none other than the hon. member for Randfontein also requested the hon. the Prime Minister to appoint such a commission. Those things would have come to light in any event, regardless of the actions of Mr. Justice Mostert and the Press. But would it not have been much better and more effective if Mr. Justice Mostert were to have published his findings once he had arrived at them instead of merely releasing the evidence? What carries more weight: The publication of evidence without its having been tested or the scientific findings arrived at by the Erasmus Commission? The position is, therefore, that the country, the people, the electorate, will always attach more value to the findings of the Erasmus Commission than to the publication of evidence released just like that by Mr. Justice Mostert.

It is interesting to take a look at Van Rooyen’s evidence. The hon. member for Pretoria West mentioned the fact that advocate Van Rooyen was brought under the impression that everything he said would be said completely in camera. But here we have advocate Van Rooyen’s full evidence—46 pages of it. The only question put to advocate Van Rooyen with regard to exchange control in the course of the full investigation was a question which the commissioner put to him on page 45—

Advocate Van Rooyen replied to that—

One would have expected the commissioner to have pursued this matter but his next question was—

I am pointing out these things merely to show that the commissioner went far beyond his terms of reference.

Finally I want to refer the hon. Opposition to a speech which the hon. the Prime Minister made when he opened the Transvaal congress of the NP. I believe it should be food for thought to them. He told them that they had been in opposition for 30 years, but that there was still one thing they had to learn. In fact, they have not learnt it up to this day. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not learnt it nor has the hon. member for Musgrave. The NP will never be ousted by gossip-mongering.

Mr. Speaker, I want to open my remarks by telling the hon. member for Brakpan that he is talking complete nonsense when he says that the Opposition side rejoices in the disaster which has hit South Africa. On the contrary, we are disgusted. That is the emotion which we feel today. We are disgusted at the exposures of the Government’s inefficiency and at the corruption that has taken place. There is no joy whatsoever. That I can assure the hon. member for Brakpan.

There is a lot of unfinished business, I believe, still to be cleared up in this House, although we have been debating the Erasmus Report now for almost two full days. I want to start off by putting a few questions to the hon. the Prime Minister.

I want first to follow on a question which was put to him a little earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for East London North. It is true, as we know from the speech of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs yesterday, that the hon. the Prime Minister knew all about the misdemeanours in the Department of Information before he became the Prime Minister. He heard about them from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself before the election for the Premiership took place. Yet, despite this, the hon. the Prime Minister, when he assumed the Premiership, appointed Dr. Connie Mulder again to his Cabinet. The entire Cabinet is involved in this. I shall not say the rest of NP caucus, but certainly the entire Cabinet, because as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs told us yesterday, he not only informed the hon. the Minister of Defence, as the Prime Minister then was, but he also informed the hon. the Minister of the Interior who flew down to Cape Town with him to see the hon. the Minister of Defence. He also spoke to the hon. the Minister of Health. All these people therefore knew at that time about the very strong case which had been made out by Adv. Van Rooyen, who told them that not only had he given evidence to the Mostert Commission on those lines, but also that he knew that the English-language Press was in possession of the facts. It is my contention that that is the reason why the Government eventually went ahead and appointed a commission of investigation, and for no other reason. The Government knew that the facts were going to come out quite inevitably. That is the first thing I have to say. Can the hon. the Prime Minister give us any other explanation for his reappointing Dr. Connie Mulder to his Cabinet when he was in full possession of the facts about Dr. Mulder?

Where did you get that story?

I got this from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. [Interjections.] He told us this yesterday. I have his speech here. I do not have time to read out the whole speech. I will send it across …

Is that your sense of justice?

Well, I really like that one coming from the Government side, a Government which has banned, banished, restricted hundreds of people over the years without allowing them to put their side of the case, without even telling them what the charge against them was. However, the hon. the Prime Minister—I should like to have his attention—actually went to see the then Minister of Plural Relations and told him what they knew. In other words, he was given an opportunity to put his case. Evidently the hon. the Prime Minister was prepared to accept what he said. He took the risk—and it was an enormous risk—of reappointing Dr. Mulder to the Cabinet. I will tell him why he did so. He did so for one reason only. He did so because he knew that the Premiership had come up for grabs, that there was tremendous dissension in the NP ranks over the fact that Dr. Connie Mulder, who was the nominee of the largest section of the Transvaal, had not in fact won the Premiership. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister was not going to risk splitting his caucus from top to bottom by not reappointing Dr. Mulder to his Cabinet, and he was still cherishing the hope that maybe, just maybe, the Information issue would not be made public, because at that time he did not know that Mr. Justice Mostert was going to publish and be damned. That, of course, is exactly what Mr. Justice Mostert did. Thereafter, of course, there was all the flurry of excitement, followed by the removal of Mr. Justice Mostert and the appointment instead of the Erasmus Commission.

Now, if taking the risk of reappointing Dr. Mulder, with the knowledge that the hon. the Prime Minister had at the time, is not putting the interests of the NP before the interests of South Africa, I still have to know what is. [Interjections.] It is a clear example of NP party-political interests being put ahead of the interests of South Africa.

And what do you put ahead of the interests of South Africa?

Never mind about me. I am talking about the hon. the Prime Minister. He need not think that he is going to bully me in this House, because he is not going to get very far on that tack. I am very well aware of the hon. the Prime Minister’s tactics, and they do not affect me in the slightest.

That is the one question which I want to put to the hon. the Prime Minister. Then, I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he will tell this House and the country which Government department has been funding The Citizen since 30 June this year when the Department of Information folded up, and until 17 November, when The Citizen, apparently, was no longer funded by the Government. However, for four and a half months the Government continued to fund The Citizen, at a loss of nearly R500 000 a month. Now, will the hon. the Prime Minister tell us which Government department has been doing this? And he should not tell us that he was not aware of this, because he surely must be aware of it. Did it come from the Department of Defence? Did it come from Boss? Where did the funding of The Citizen come from over the last four and a half months? That is the second question.

It cannot be Louis Luyt.

No, it cannot be Louis Luyt. It certainly cannot be Louis Luyt. The third question I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister is not quite such a tricky one, and perhaps he will tell us. Will he tell this House the names of the eight front organizations which have been operating in secret until now, which, he says, will be allowed to continue to operate, but in the open? [Interjections.] Will the hon. the Prime Minister give us the names of those organizations? [Interjections.] Why not?

For you to give them to our enemies? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister makes me laugh. He told the House yesterday that there were, I think, 56 organizations that were going to continue to be allowed to operate in secret, and that there were eight…

If we told you it would no longer be in secret.

The hon. the Prime Minister said there were eight organizations that were going to operate in the open. I want to know the names of those eight organizations. Surely, the hon. the Prime Minister is going to tell that to the House.

You can ask the Ministers concerned.

No, I am asking the hon. the Prime Minister that, because this is really his debate. Besides, I do not know which hon. Ministers to ask because I do not know which front organizations those are. They may be organizations to sell South African goods abroad. They may be organizations to promote South African sport abroad. How can I possibly know? It is the hon. the Prime Minister who must give us this very interesting bit of information.

Now I have a question for my old chum over there, the hon. the Minister of Justice, of Police and of Prisons. [Interjections.] I have just one question, and I hope he is going to listen to this question, because I am very interested to know what steps he has taken in terms of paragraphs 11.387 to 11.391 on pages 82 and 83 of the report of the Erasmus Commission.

What is it all about?

I will enlighten the hon. the Minister. Does he not have his copy of the report there?

Yes.

Well, look it up then. Do not be so lazy. [Interjections.] All right, I will save time and I will tell the hon. the Minister what those paragraphs contain. According to the report of the Erasmus Commission—which the Government has accepted in its entirety, may I point out—both Dr. Mulder and Gen. Van den Bergh brought pressure to bear on Mr. Reynders to make him bring out a false report. I am sure the hon. the Minister has read the report and he knows that this is so. They put pressure on this man to bring out a false report. This amounts to conspiracy to commit fraud and it certainly amounts to inciting to commit fraud. Both these are criminal offences. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has asked the Attorney-General to consider prosecution for these crimes because I think it is very important for the country to know—as the hon. the Prime Minister has told us—that everybody responsible for committing any irregular act will be brought to book. Therefore I assume that some action is going to be taken, but I would like to know that from the Minister responsible.

You can leave it to the authorities.

No, I do not leave anything to the authorities any more. [Interjections.] I have had far too much experience of the authorities and their incompetence, their callousness and everything else to leave it to the authorities. I want to know it from the hon. the Minister.

I suppose if I were asked to sum up my reaction to the whole debate and to all the revelations in the report of the Erasmus Commission I could not do it more aptly than by a quotation from Sir Walter Scott, and many hon. members in this House will be aware of it—

The more one reads through the report, and the more one hears the devious explanations of hon. members in this House, the more one knows that they are enmeshed in a tangled web of deception. That is what has happened to this Government in the last few years. There is a tangled web of deception and right in the centre sits a big black spider by the name of Gen. Van den Bergh. [Interjections.] Because of that, this whole debate is conducted in an air of unreality. It is a bit like playing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark because the principal character is absent. There is one principal character who flits in and out the pages of this report, and he is not with us today. We expect that, because he is not a member of this House. However, there is another principal character, and that of course is the hon. the Minister, or, I should say, the ex-Minister of Information. He is, of course, really the absent prince and it is extraordinary to me that he is not here to answer for his actions in this House, because it is in this House that he perpetrated gross untruths and deceived Parliament. However, he has been exempted and has been let off the hook. He has been told to keep out and he is not here. There is an air of unreality about the whole thing.

The other missing character, as I say, the large black spider, really specializes in playing noises off. He does not really come onto the stage. He likes to stay in murky comers, being the power behind the throne, which is the way in which he was described in the report of the Erasmus Commission— the éminence grise. Indeed, pages 91 to 93 read like a rather bad James Bond thriller. [Interjections.]

This is the man who manipulated the ex-Prime Minister, and I quote from the Erasmus Report. At times, says the report, he made Mr. Vorster’s decisions for him. At times, says the Erasmus Report, he ignored the former Prime Minister’s express instructions. I am absolutely astonished. I now see Mr. Vorster in a very different light. I was in this House with him for 25 years. We came into Parliamement together. Maybe we should have gone out together—I am sure many hon. members think so, but never mind about that. [Interjections.] There are many times when I think so myself, but never mind about that either. As I say, I now regard this gentleman in a very different light. He is malleable, and I never knew it! I missed my opportunities! [Interjections.] To think that all these years I regarded Mr. Vorster as a strong and formidable opponent, when all the time I should have been devoting my attention to Gen. Van den Bergh. That is the extraordinary thing.

You talk as if you would have made an impression upon him.

If that is the way Lang Hendrik managed to handle the ex-Prime Minister, can you imagine how he has handled lesser mortals like the hon. the Minister of Justice, Police and Prisons … [Interjections.] … and his predecessors. That is the important thing. I say this because Gen. Van den Bergh has been in a position of great power for a very long time. He was the head of the Security Branch before he became the boss of Boss, and over all those years he was giving orders and instructions to successive Ministers of Police. The first Minister and …

Louwrens was one.

Louwrens Muller, the hon. the Minister of Transport, was one. Did he tell him what to do too? [Interjections.] Did he also disobey his orders?

If you give me a chance, I will listen to you.

I wonder whether he chose what to tell or what not to tell the hon. the Minister of Transport when he was the Minister of Police. Mr. Vorster was also Minister of Police and Mr. Pelser was Minister of Police. Now we have my old friend, Mr. Jimmy Kruger, who is Minister of Police, and I wonder whether he knows whether Gen. Van den Bergh tells him the whole story or not. This could be a joke but it is not, you see. It is actually a very serious matter indeed, and I agree with the hon. member for Simonstown that we need a commission of inquiry into Boss. He wants an inquiry into funds, and I agree with that, but there is a much more serious side to that, because this man has control over the liberty of thousands of people, and over the years this Government has put away, has locked up without trial, and is still holding people without trial—the hon. the Minister may tell me how many; it was 165 the last time he gave me that information—has detained, has banned and has ruined the lives of thousands of people, many of them our very best young people who are leaving the country in droves as a result of being intimidated and maltreated by this Government. This Government does a lot of talking. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and the hon. the Prime Minister have made a great song and dance about hearing the other side. It was said: “How dare we condemn on the strength of the Mostert Commission’s evidence?” They, of course, have condemned on the strength of the Erasmus Commission’s report when, in fact, they have not seen any evidence, but let us leave that to one side. They have banned, they detain and they restrict hundreds of people without even giving them an opportunity of knowing what the charges against them are, let alone hearing the other side after the charges have been levelled. And who is the man behind all this, pulling the strings and manipulating his puppets? No less a person than Gen. Van den Bergh, and that is why I say there should be a full-scale enquiry into each and every case, every person who is at present banned by this Government.

The big black spider or the small black spider?

The baboon-spider.

Gen. Van den Bergh is South Africa’s very own Heinrich Himmler. [Interjections.] Yes, he operates secret organizations and has ruined the lives of hundreds of people, and I believe that we need a full-scale investigation into every single case of every single person who is at present under restriction in terms of the security laws because we have no idea what he or what the commission calls his dangerous lot of agents, or words to that effect, …

Sinister agents.

… yes, his sinister agents, have been telling the hon. the Minister of Police, thereby causing him to act. [Interjections.]

My leader has correctly stated that the Government’s honesty and integrity are at stake. I believe it is the whole country’s integrity that is at stake, because actions and misdemeanours that are condoned, if only for a short time, as the hon. the Prime Minister condoned Dr. Connie Mulder’s actions by reappointing him to the Cabinet, seep down through every strata of society in this country and they affect the actions of all the civil servants and of private individuals as well. They affect the policemen in this country, the politicians, the civil servants and the businessmen. I wish to quote only two examples of this, one which is from the past and one which took place recently. The past example I wish to mention, is the Steve Biko case and the action of the officials, from the hon. the Minister downwards, in relation to that case. The recent case is the case of the Foreign Affairs Association and the S.A. Freedom Foundation, who brought people to this country without telling them that they were being brought under the auspices of the Government. Finally, will the hon. the Prime Minister tell me whether one of the organizations that is going to be allowed to continue to operate in secret, will be continuing with the operations of the ex-Department of Information (having now been taken over by the new Bureau of National and International Relations), on the campuses of the English medium universities. There is no doubt in my mind that the thousands of rands that have been spent by conservative student organizations, and on newspapers, such as Campus Independent, the Wits University newspaper … [Interjections.] They spent R25 000 in 3 years, and I can assure hon. members that students do not have that sort of money. When the ex-editor, Mr. Rhett Kahn, was asked a year ago why he now needed money from the SRC at Wits, he replied, in rather less elegant language, that “the fertilizer had dried up”. I want to know whether the Erasmus Commission will subpoena Mr. Kahn, who recently denied this and said that he had not received money from Louis Luyt and that he had been joking. I want that young man subpoenaed by the Erasmus Commission so that we can get to the bottom of whether Information Departments money has been siphoned off in order to promote the Government’s views on the English university campuses of South Africa, with taxpayer’s money.

Mr. Speaker, once again it is my doubtful privilege to say a few words in a very short time just after the hon. member for Houghton has resumed her seat. This House assembled to discuss the report of the Erasmus Commission, but I am afraid that after listening to the last few speakers on both Opposition sides—I am referring to the internal wing of the PFP and to the NRP—I find that we are no longer engaged in a discussion of the report of Mr. Justice Erasmus, but in a narrative of the flights of imagination of those people. Before devoting my attention to the arguments of the hon. member for Houghton, I want to refer briefly to the flight of imagination on which the hon. member for East London North embarked. He tried to tell us the thrilling story of plot hatched many years ago at Koffiefontein. This hon. member has discovered that the whole matter under discussion at the moment was planned during the solitary confinement of those people at Koffiefontein for subsequent execution. I want to warn the Official Opposition, the internal wing of the PFP, that there was another character at Koffiefontein. This character dug a famous tunnel in order to escape into the light of day. He continued digging right into the heart of the PFP. He is being whispered about and certain questions are being put about him. At one stage he was a great friend of Gen. Van den Bergh and now I want to know from those hon. members whether they are sure that he was not part of that plot. [Interjections.] The hon. member to whom I am referring, said earlier today when reference was made to the Pretorius report which the hon. the Prime Minister handed to the leaders of all three Opposition parties, that he did not have that report. I find it strange that the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition cannot risk showing the report given to him by the hon. the Prime Minister to all members of his caucus. This just by the way.

The hon. member for Brakpan told this House that the Official Opposition had come to this session filled with joy. We on this side of the House, who experience the events surrounding Information and the matters which have emerged as a painful experience—let us admit this frankly—read the joy on the faces of the hon. members of the Opposition, and this holds true particularly the Official Opposition, at the commencement of this session. However, everyone from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the last speaker we have had up to now experienced one problem which marred that joy of theirs, for while certain findings by Mr. Justice Erasmus and his commission suited them—it suited them as being to the advantage of their party—they did not get the real findings for which they had been hoping. The finding that the former Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, acted correctly under the circumstances, does not suit the Official Opposition. For that reason they do not want to accept this from the judge. What is even more important, the finding by Mr. Justice Erasmus that the hands of our present Prime Minister are clean, does not suit the Official Opposition either. That is why they refuse to accept also that finding by Mr. Justice Erasmus. The finding by Mr. Justice Erasmus that the hands of the hon. the Minister of Finance are clean, is another one which does not suit the Opposition. For that reason they do not want to accept that finding either. So what have we found in this debate? Flights of imagination by the Opposition. They do not have the evidence led before Mr. Justice Erasmus. They did not hear the evidence, but in spite of that we have had to hear from speaker after speaker on their side what the judge’s findings ought to have been.

But you have not got the evidence either and you have accepted it all.

No, I shall reply to the hon. member immediately. I do not have the evidence, nor do I have the evidence of every court case being heard in South Africa. But we on this side of the House are not paying lip-service only when we say that we believe in the independent administration of justice and the integrity of the judicature in this country. For that reason we are prepared to accept without qualification the finding of a judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa, after he has heard evidence and has weighed that evidence. That is our standpoint, but the Official Opposition who waxes so lyrical about the rule of law and the sanctity of the judiciary, is not prepared to accept a finding if that finding does not suit them.

I think the most outrageous statement we heard from the side of the Official Opposition today, came from the “by the skin of his teeth” member for Bezuidenhout. To be precise, he put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister. If I heard him correctly—and I think I did—he wanted to know whether there were to be other Ministers in the present Cabinet who were guilty of corruption and malpractices, whether the hon. the Prime Minister would dismiss them. What an ugly remark!

I never accused hon. Ministers of corruption.

No, that was not the way in which the hon. member did so. He asked the hon. the Prime Minister: If there were Ministers. In other words, by asking that question the hon. member threw suspicion on the present Cabinet of South Africa as a whole. That was his intention; otherwise his question was senseless. But then I want to concede at once that the hon. member’s actions are senseless most of the time.

Japie, I have stolen nothing; I promise you that.

Mr. Speaker, now at last I want to come to my favourite in this House, the hon. member for Houghton. She put many questions and I have a minute or two to deal with them. She came here as the effective leader of the internal wing of the PFP. Then she wants to know from the hon. the Prime Minister the names and the details of the front organizations of the secret services of South Africa. Is it not outrageous that that hon. member in particular wants those details? I want to put one question only. What does that particular hon. member want to do with those details?

She is going to New York tomorrow.

Is the hon. member going overseas again before long? Is the hon. member going to receive instructions from her external wing before long? Is that why that hon. member wants that information?

Mr. Speaker, these people are so deeply concerned at the moment. I concede that it is the right of an Opposition to be concerned and that it is their duty to see to it that there will be decent and clean administration in a country, but the action of the Official Opposition in the past was one of the main reasons why the State in South Africa was obliged to undertake secret projects to safeguard South Africa’s interests abroad. That is the factual position in South Africa.

We on this side of the House are distressed and concerned about the events which have come to light, but we know that our Government under our present hon. Prime Minister will leave no stone unturned to do what is necessary under the circumstances in order to rectify the administration, where mistakes have been made, in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes at my disposal this evening I am not going to comment on what the hon. member who has just sat down has said, other than to say that I thank him for having raised the question of the credibility of Government members in respect of what has been said in this particular debate. As this debate proceeds we find member after member in those benches standing up and pleading their innocence of knowledge of The Citizen affair. Yet, as this debate continues, we find an increasing credibility gap, a credibility gap which is increasing not only in this hon. House, but I do believe also in the country as a whole. People in South Africa today are asking who can be believed. They are asking: Can this Government be believed? Nearly two years ago rumours were being spread in South Africa that The Citizen was being funded by the Government. As has been said over and over again here today and yesterday in this House, a bare six months ago the then hon. Minister of Information stood up and denied that The Citizen was being funded by the Government. This was a Minister of State lying to the House. Yet the Erasmus Commission’s report, which we are now debating, clearly proves that that Minister lied. I believe that this fact has set the tone for the credibility gap which has now …

Order!

He told an untruth.

Order! The hon. member is now referring to another hon. member of the House and he is therefore not entitled to use those words.

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw them. This untruth which was told has, I believe, led to the credibility gap which now exists as far as the Government is concerned. So far every member on the Government benches who has taken part in this debate has denied that he knew of Project Annemarie, viz. the State-funded Citizen newspaper.

The report clears the former Prime Minister, it clears the present hon. Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance of any involvement in Project Annemarie. Yet, Sir, the evidence as it appears in this report clearly shows that there is a conflict between what the then Prime Minister had to say and what the then Minister of Information, the head of Boss and also Dr. Rhoodie had to say. The question is: Who was telling the truth? I want to make it quite clear that I personally would like to accept that what the former Prime Minister said was correct. However, as a result of what Gen. Van den Bergh had to say just yesterday, I find—I cannot help it; I try to look at this thing in an honest way—I find that I am beginning to question the findings of this report in this particular regard. One wonders whether—I say this after some thought—what has been said in this report in respect of this issue is really correct or not. However, I believe that that is up to this Parliament to find out in time.

When the hon. member for Durban Point spoke yesterday, he put a question to the hon. the Minister of Finance, namely whether or not he was a member of a special Cabinet Committee of Three. Unfortunately, the hon. the Minister is not here at the moment. In any event, I have the Hansard of the hon. member for Durban Point here and it clearly indicates that both the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance said that there was no such committee. Yet, if we study this report, we find that there was such a committee set up. In fact, in a letter from Dr. Rhoodie to Admiral Biermann dated March 1975 it clearly states that every project of the Department of Information was approved by the then Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Information.

That surely does not make of them a committee.

Well, it may be termed a committee. It very clearly states here that every secret project of the Department of Information was approved by those three Ministers and for the sake of terminology, we shall call it a Cabinet Committee of Three. If that was the case, did the hon. the Minister of Finance not know about the project of the newspaper, The Citizen, and if not, why not? This is the question to which we would like an answer. Why did the then Prime Minister not know about it? If there was such a committee—and I believe there was in the light of this evidence—it must be quite clear that this committee must have approved that particular project of the then Minister of Information. The hon. the Minister of Finance is not here but I believe that this letter again raises the question as to when the then Prime Minister first knew of Project Annemarie, the project involving The Citizen? Was it brought to the attention of the Committee of Three in 1975?

I should also like to refer to another letter from Prime Minister Vorster dated December 1973. It is discussed in paragraph 9.239 in the report. This particular letter, to which Dr. Mulder refers in his evidence, is a letter which according to him more or less gave him the authority to undertake a project such as the Citizen project. According to the report this particular letter was distributed to nine Cabinet Ministers. If the past Minister says that that was a reason for starting the project, surely when this evolved over a period of time, the other Ministers must have had some inkling of what was going on?

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development a question. I believe that he is the member who, according to Press reports, nominated Dr. Mulder for the premiership in that particular election a few months ago. I should like to ask him whether he knew about The Citizen project at the time of that nomination. According to paragraph 9.230 of the report this particular hon. Minister was as early as 1973 involved in a project to take over the Natal Mercury. [Interjections.] I want to ask him whether in 1973 he was aware that there were plans to take over the Natal Mercury and whether he was a recipient of the Prime Minister’s letter just a few months later. Was he, as time and events progressed, totally unaware of the attempt to take over SAAN and later of the formation of The Citizen! Was he totally unaware of what was going on in this regard?

I had nothing whatsoever to do with the takeover of SAAN and the formation of The Citizen.

Were you aware of it?

I was not aware of a takeover of SAAN and the formation of The Citizen with State money.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he was aware of the fact that R220 000 was taken out of the secret fund and given to Mr. Louis Luyt to enable The Citizen to sponsor the 1976 Grand Prix. Was he aware of that?

I asked Mr. Louis Luyt to assist with it and I thought he was doing so out of his own free pocket.

It seems hard to believe, in the light of this evidence, that no one had any inkling of what was going on. Was it a case of “see no evil, speak no evil and hear no evil”? Must we believe that this is the case? The study of this evidence leaves a tremendous credibility gap to my thinking in this regard. Just how deep does this lack of credibility go in South Africa today? Let us examine the scene during the 1977 election. It was called by the then Prime Minister and he gave three reasons to do so, namely the proposed new Constitution, the threat from the outside world and the divided Opposition. Yet, if one studies that election campaign, the main thrust was the need for unity of all South Africans behind the NP in the defence against the enemies from outside. In looking back at that election campaign, in which we were all involved, it seems today to have been a farce. The NP was presenting itself to the people of South Africa as South Africa’s super patriots. “Vote for us and we will save you”, they said. The then Prime Minister appeared on TV. He was a most powerful TV personality. He was presenting himself in appearance after appearance as the guardian of South Africa’s honour and integrity in the face of the onslaught from outside politicians. The hon. the Prime Minister, then the Minister of Defence, did exactly the same thing. Time and time again he was on TV. Oh, if only the Opposition had the opportunity to use the TV! There he was, presenting himself and his party as the defenders of South Africa against her enemies. However, all the time—and I believe this is the credibility gap—the Prime Minister of the time knew of the goings on concerning The Citizen. He knew that The Citizen was being financed by State funds. We know that this newspaper, according to the report, was persuading people in South Africa to vote for the NP. Looking back on the fact, can one be blamed for the credibility gap or for questioning the credibility of the Government?

I want to submit that the reason for the election last year was not the threat to South Africa; it was the threat to the Government because of the gathering storm of this scandal. That is why the election was called. That is why I say the 1977 election will go down in South Africa’s history as having been a fraud.

The credibility gap goes even still further. I think it was The Citizen of yesterday or perhaps the day before that said my party would assist in raising funds to buy that particular newspaper. The leader of my party has already indicated that that was not true. Can The Citizen be believed in view of these circumstances? This also raised doubts about the credibility of the SABC and its TV service. Just how much of its propaganda is designed to indoctrinate South Africans towards the NP? The 1977 elections clearly showed the devastating effect which TV, the SABC and The Citizen had on the results of the election. The election resulted in a massive win for the NP. [Interjections.] Those hon. members may say “hoor, hoor”!, but they were hoodwinking the public. I should like to submit furthermore that they were hoodwinking not only the public, but also themselves as well as the Afrikaner people. Yesterday the hon. member for Bloemfontein North, the information officer of the NP, enthused about the morality of the NP as if he believed his own propaganda. I should like to say this does happen. People do believe propaganda. That is why the advertising budgets of many firms are so enormous. However, this is indoctrination.

Let us now look at what has happened in the NP itself. The NP has its great heroes. Just up to two months ago Dr. Mulder was a great hero of the NP. He was the heir apparent to the Prime Minister. He was nominated by the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations …

74 members voted for him.

How many NP members are shocked today at these revelations? How many good Afrikaans-speaking South Africans are shocked at the revelations of Dr. Mulder’s actions? What about the members of the NP caucus? Have they been hoodwinked by their own propaganda and by their party machine? It staggers the imagination to think that Dr. Mulder came within 24 votes of becoming Prime Minister of South Africa, a man who is today accused of total incompetence and guilty of many irregularities in his department involving corruption and the misappropriation of millions of the South African taxpayers’ funds. Did the NP caucus members know that this was going on when they voted for the new Prime Minister? Was there a credibility gap within the NP itself? These are questions which the people of South Africa are asking today.

My time is running out, but I should like to point out that the Opposition has been but hammered today about the Civil Service. We were criticized by about three or four Ministers of having criticized the Civil Service because of this scandal. We have been challenged in this regard. I should like to say to the hon. Ministers that we are no longer afraid of these tactics. We know that they seek many of their votes within the Civil Service. The facts are, however, that there was corruption in the Civil Service. It was not at the lower level; it was not at the management level, but right at the top in the hallowed halls of the Prime Minister’s office; right at the level of the Cabinet. That is where the corruption was. This report clearly shows that it was the man in charge of South Africa’s State security who was involved in this corruption and who was hoodwinking not only South Africa, but also the Prime Minister. That is what the evidence shows. It also shows that the man in charge of the Secret Service of South Africa was misappropriating millions of South African taxpayers’ funds. Can the Civil Service be proud of such a fact? Certainly not! Any self-respecting civil servant today will be angry about this. They were not let down by then-own commission …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it within the ambit of your ruling of yesterday for an hon. member to say that it was right in the Prime Minister’s office where the corruption was and in saying that, to refer directly to the previous Prime Minister who is now the State President?

I did not accuse the previous Prime Minister.

But the hon. member did say it had happened right at the top in the Prime Minister’s office …

I said right at the top in the hallowed halls of the Prime Minister’s office.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking your decision.

I am sorry that I did not listen carefully enough. I was looking at the watch thinking whether it was time to suspend proceedings. I think however, that a valid point of order has been made. What did the hon. member say?

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the remarks I have made. I have made them unintentionally.

I should like to conclude by saying that it was not the Opposition which had let down the Civil Service; it was the Government.

Business suspended at 19h00 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate, I listened to the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In my view, he made some very interesting allegations. He referred, inter alia, to the hon. member for Von Brandis and told the House that the hon. member for Von Brandis would probably not have been in this House if The Citizen had not come into existence and been supported with State funds. This side of the House accepts the report of the Erasmus Commission as well as the fact that it is not right to use State funds for the purpose of a party political newspaper. However, I differ with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in respect of his reasons why they did not do so well in the election. I do not agree with him that it is as a result of the establishment of The Citizen. One should see the matter in perspective. The PFP has, inter alia, the services of the Star, the Rand Daily Mail, the Sunday Express, the Sunday Times, the Sunday Tribune and many other newspapers. Therefore they have enough newspapers to state their case. The reason why the PFP took such a drubbing in the election is, in my view, the television appearance of the hon. member for Sea Point. The question of the influence of The Citizen is perhaps debatable, but the influence of the hon. member for Sea Point—he is not here now and I apologize for the fact that I did not advise him in good time that I was going to refer to him—through his television appearance is very plain. I now want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Parktown that they must not oust that man as their leader; they must retain him there, because he is the right man in the right place. On behalf of that side of the House, I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister of National Education please to afford the hon. Leader of the Opposition more opportunity to appear on television. I make a very serious appeal to the hon. the Minister in this regard. I also want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs to use some of the skilled people in his department to help with the make-up, the appearance and the performance of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. On behalf of this side of the House, I want to thank the hon. member for Sea Point for his television appearances and I wish him many more such appearances for the future.

It is very interesting to listen to this debate. Anybody who was in the public gallery above and did not follow the entire debate from the beginning, would have become quite confused. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, for example, said the PFP had come under fire because they had sharply condemned the infringements. But whereas this side of the House accepts the report of the commission, it is in fact that side of the House that does not accept it. The hon. member now alleges that they have come under fire because they condemn the irregularities mentioned in the report. Yet it is this side of the House that accepts the report with all its consequences. I should like to try and indicate to the House what the standpoint of those hon. members is. Unfortunately I have not the time to refer to specific recommendations, but we would do well to look at what that side of the House does accept. The hon. member for Parktown has said that they cannot accept a report of 105 pages, paragraph by paragraph and sentence by sentence. I should like to know: What do the hon. members on that side of the House accept? They accept the condemnation of the former Minister of Information; they accept the condemnation of the two doctors Rhoodie; they accept the condemnation of Gen. Van den Bergh, and I do not want to quarrel with them about that, because we also accept it. We accept the report with all its consequences, however painful it might be to us. Hon. members on that side of the House are bitterly disappointed. They could cry, because they do not want to accept the entire report. Do hon. members know what those hon. members cannot accept? They cannot accept that in paragraph 10.340 the commission makes the following finding—

I am now referring to the hon. the Prime Minister—

Why do they not accept that, too? They do not accept what has been said about the previous hon. Prime Minister either. The commission states unequivocally that—

The hon. the Minister of Finance, is also referred to, in glowing terms. The commission accepted his evidence and he is exonerated of all blame in respect of the irregularities the commission had to investigate. Hon. members on that side of the House accept people’s evidence only when it constitutes an embarrassment to the Government, but they do not accept the evidence which indicates that the present Prime Minister, his Ministers and the previous Prime Minister acted honourably. It is an accepted practice in our legal system— and they wax lyrical about the legal system and the courts—that the court of trial evaluates the reliability of the evidence. The courts of appeal in this country accept the evaluation of the courts of trial of what evidence can be believed, what is reliable and what is not. We therefore accept the findings of the commission. However, I want to state what is going on here. The hon. members of the Opposition are bitterly disappointed because the Government as a whole has not been convicted. So now they are engaged in gossip-mongering in this House.

Gossip involving R32 million.

They are spreading scandalous stories about good officials, good Ministers and good members of the Government. Now I challenge those hon. members, including that hon. member with the big mouth over there, and I want to refer in particular to the hon. member for Musgrave. The hon. member for Musgrave had the audacity to state in this House (Hansard, 7 December)—

In other words, they say they are continuing. The hon. member further says—

He further states—

He further says—

Smearing! Mistrust! Hon. members then asked: “Tell us.” And then the hon. member said—

Now I want to test those hon. members who are indulging in gossip-mongering in the House of Assembly. They cast aspersions and refuse to accept the recommendations of the Erasmus Commission. I now challenge the hon. member for Musgrave, and all the other hon. members who join him in scandal-mongering, to go to the Erasmus Commission and to lay their complaints against all the officials, against the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance, before the commission and to bring their proof.

†Is the hon. member prepared to give evidence before the Erasmus Commission? I think it would be only honourable of the hon. member to go to that commission and make his allegations before that commission.

*Sir, I consulted one of the members of the commission. I asked him whether people could still come and give evidence in connection with possible irregularities that may exist. He confirmed this. I asked him what the position would be if they did not have proof. He then told me that even if one had only a suspicion that irregularities existed, one was still welcome and the commission would see one and listen to one’s case. If these members keep on scandal-mongering and they do not go to that commission, they will be participating in a “cover-up”. I want to tell those members that when this Prime Minister came into power, one of the first things he said was that he promised this country a clean Government and an honest administration. He said this, and he said it with an open-minded attitude. Now I want to tell hon. members on the opposite side today that they also have a duty. If they know of dishonesty or abuse of power, they must go to the Erasmus Commission. They still have time until May.

Mr. Speaker, to these members—including the hon. member for Mooi River—who speak so sanctimoniously in this House about clean government, about dishonesty and about ministerial responsibilities, I should like to put a question: Do they think that Gen. Smuts would have allowed what is now taking place here?

Never. Forget it!

Mr. Speaker, do you know what he would have done?

He would have thrown the whole caboodle into gaol!

Correct, Sir. Thank you very much. He would have thrown all of them into gaol. I now want to quote from Hansard, volume 65, 17 September 1948. Gen. Smuts was subjected to cross-examination in this House about his ministerial responsibility for the actions of the secret military intelligence service. In col. 2689, Gen. Smuts said—

Then the Minister of Defence said—

Then the Field Marshal said—

Sir, now you must listen to what he said about secret reports. Hon. members expect the entire Cabinet to know about everything that goes on. I quote from column 2690. He said—

In other words, Gen. Smuts withheld quite a great deal from his Cabinet. He continued—

Now I just want to indicate how that military intelligence service operated. I quote from Hansard, volume 64 of 1948, column 650. The espionage service of the Defence Force is referred to. This is the clean government and the honest administration in respect of which hon. members on the opposite side have condemned us. They all come from that earlier administration; they are all offspring of that regime.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, the hon. the Minister of Community Development can testify to that, because he knows what went on. He knows their innards. I quote—

These are the people who speak here so sanctimoniously about honest administration.

I want to state categorically tonight that this is a painful matter. I also want to say that the R64 million which was allocated and used has not entirely been wasted. A great deal of good work has also been done. One has to be fair. There are few countries in the world where the procedure would be followed that has been followed here. To prove that there is no question here of a cover-up, I want to point out that the moment the hon. the Prime Minister announced the appointment of this commission, he also announced that there would be a session of Parliament. He did so before he had this report before him.

That was after Mr. Justice Mostert had spoken.

That hon. member simply does not know. He should do his homework. He should look at the Pretorius Report which was handed to his leader. Purely for the record, I want to quote from the Pretorius Report—

If the hon. member will take the trouble to look at the date of this report, he will find that the hon. the Prime Minister appointed the commission on the very same day. I want to say again that we are not the ones who are standing in the dock. One will find few places where there is such an honest administration as we have in South Africa. I want to conclude and challenge the hon. members on the opposite side to testify before the Erasmus Commission and not to gossip here behind closed doors.

Mr. Speaker, during the recent election of a Prime Minister, the hon. member for Lydenburg travelled all over the country to canvass votes against his Transvaal leader. I should like to put this question to the hon. member across the floor of this House: Did he do so because he knew what the share of his Transvaal leader had been in the Information scandal, or did he do so owing to his disappointment and his frustration on account of the fact that he had not been appointed as Deputy Minister of Plural Relations and Development at the time? We should very much like to know this. I leave it at that. Perhaps the hon. member can give us a reply to that question at some later stage.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is in the House at the moment. This afternoon while he was courageously trying to take up the cudgels for the NP, I recalled certain speeches made by him in the days when he used to be in the UP. On occasion he used these words, “the NP Government under Mr. Vorster is the worst Government with which God has ever cursed any country”. [Interjections.] Sometime thereafter he said with reference to the NP Government, “Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad”.

Look at you. You are on the way.

At the time I thought it was very rash on his part. I did not realize what prophetic insight that Minister was displaying when he talked about the NP at the time. Today we are faced with facts, evidence and events verifying those predictions. In South Africa, we are experiencing an enormous problem at present as a result of the corruption for which this Government is responsible and which has dragged the good name of South Africa through the mud all over the world. We have heard very few honest replies from that side of the House. As is customary, however, it was the “Babe in the Woods”, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, who furnished an honest reply. He said that the NP was South Africa.

Of course.

One can expect all sorts of things from him, but from time to time he comes up with the truth. He admitted openly and frankly that the NP saw South Africa as the NP. For that reason there has been covering up and attempts have been made to prevent these things from being exposed and those responsible from being brought to book. This has happened because they see South Africa in the same form and spirit as the NP.

I have listened attentively to everything said on that side of the House, but not one of the spokesmen of the NP has had the decency to apologize to the people of South Africa for what they have done to this country.

This debate has been one of the clear questions, one in which no replies have been given in certain respects or in which unsatisfactory replies have been given in other respects. Many more questions are going to be put. One can give the NP some sound advice. It will not help to keep quiet, to conceal, to put up smoke-screens, or to go about like thieves in the night. If the NP is not prepared to come forward with the whole truth, it will not solve these problems.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member say that the Government goes about like thieves in the night?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

At the beginning of this debate, there was an enormous question mark hanging over the credibility of this Government and now, at the end of this debate, that question mark is considerably larger. The Government has not contributed anything towards removing the question mark hanging over the credibility of this Government. I shall begin with the fundamental causes. It is a simple question. One of their colleagues is the key figure in this entire drama. He had the right—and South Africa had the right to hear him—to state his case and to give his side of the story here, but he has been deprived of that right. We should like to know where is Dr. Connie Mulder. Where is the hon. member for Randfontein? Why has he been denied the opportunity of exercising his democratic right and stating his side of the matter here? Who has denied him the right of stating his side of the matter here in the company of his colleagues? [Interjections.]

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that this is the fifth time I hear that same argument. [Interjections.]

But he is not capable of thinking up a fresh argument

That question will be asked five times, ten times, of twenty times, until the NP displays the courage to furnish a reply to it. South Africa demands to know what the standpoint of that hon. member is. I think hon. members on the opposite side have done him an injustice. If it is true that the NP has requested him not to put in his appearance here, they have done him an injustice. I read in the paper this evening that he was probably going to resign. In other words, the NP has denied him his last opportunity of stating his side of the matter here. To think that there are hon. members on that side of the House who used to call themselves Connie Mulder supporters! Today they do not have the courage to stand by him.

Why did the previous Prime Minister, after he had been fully informed of the part of Dr. Connie Mulder, retain him in the Cabinet? Why did the present Prime Minister include him in his Cabinet? [Interjection.]

You heard that from Helen.

But are you going to furnish the reply to that? Do you have the courage to furnish replies, or do you not?

I also have a question to put to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. For many years there have been rumours of the Department of Foreign Affairs being dissatisfied and unhappy with the activities of the Department of Information. Has he heard of rumours of these anomalies, and has he done something to investigate those rumours and do something about them? Has he given evidence with regard to those rumours? Has he done anything about them?

I had no information, but if the hon. member did have information, why did he not submit it to me?

He must not ask me, I am asking him. Did he hear no rumours at all? Was there never any dissatisfaction? It is fine that we have now received a reply of a kind.

My time has almost expired, but I should like to put a few more questions. It is stated that the projects of the Department of Information are mainly concerned with foreign matters. They mainly concern the influencing of people abroad and the information that has to be supplied to them. Now that these projects are being reallocated, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs gets only one of them, believe it or not. May we deduce from this that these projects are perhaps more concerned with internal matters?

Then there are also two questions I want to put about The Citizen, questions to which there has been no reply up to now. The department was summarily abolished in June. The Government said it was being abolished not because there were things that had gone wrong, and not because of offences or anomalies, but purely and simply because the department had been criticized to such an extent that it was no longer effective. Who paid for The Citizen after June this year? What department and what Minister paid The Citizen the money it needed to cover its losses? Who signed for it? Was it the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or the Minister of Finance? Who signed for the payment of those moneys?

Mr. Reynders conducted investigations for more than a year and reported to the previous Prime Minister umpteen times. He said he had fully informed the previous Prime Minister of all the anomalies and offences. However, after more than a year he could only produce a report of three paragraphs. This House and South Africa have the right to know who told him that he was not allowed to report in full. What I should very much like to know, is how the previous Prime Minister could accept such a situation after he had been fully informed of all the scandals and anomalies. But the previous Prime Minister accepted that report just like that.

What has become of the three-man Cabinet committee? The former Secretary for Information, Dr. Eschel Rhoodie … [Interjections.] No, please answer me. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs can answer me. Dr. Eschel Mostert Rhoodie … there are of course a whole lot of Rhoodies and consequently it is difficult to know which one is dealing with at a given moment.

There are only two.

Three! Three! [Interjections.]

Yes, that is how we know him. The Rhoodies were all civil servants, one way or another. In any event, in an article or statement written by him, Dr. Eschel Rhoodie said—I think it was during May this year—that a Cabinet Committee of three members had been appointed. His statement reads as follows—

Mind you!—

Now, months later, the Government alleges that such a committee never existed. When it was published, at the time when this information was conveyed to the public of South Africa, they remained silent, there was not a single hon. Minister who performed his duty and told South Africa that there was no such committee. If we do not believe them now, it is because of the fact that they failed to do their duty at the time when they owed it to South Africa. There are, of course, many other questions.

The hon. the Minister of Finance looks so tired and exhausted to me. However, there is a small matter that he can possibly clear up for us.

The hon. member need not concern himself about me. I feel very well.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Finance can help us here. Surely he knows a little bit about finance; not much, but at least a little bit. After all, he readily signs cheques for amounts of R15 million or so. [Interjections.] However, what I want to know from the hon. the Minister of Finance is this: How come the Government lets the stand on which the Holiday Inn Hotel at Jan Smuts Airport is situated, for an amount of R400 per year— not per week or per month, but per year—to certain individuals, people who figure prominently in the present scandal? We should like to know that. [Interjections.] We should also like to obtain information with regard to the house in Miami, Florida. The Government’s Department of Information purchased houses in various parts of the world. Heaven alone knows what has been going on in those houses. [Interjections.] In any event I should like to know. Certain officials visited all those houses from time to time. There were hostesses … [Interjections.] There certain people naturally … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. member for Bryanston an opportunity to make his speech. We cannot all speak simultaneously. Consequently I appeal to hon. members to give the hon. member a fair chance.

Mr. Speaker, at some stage I heard them say—

Now I am just wondering on what basis and in what way that was done. But let us leave it at that. Now we have ascertained, however, that the house in Miami is registered in the name of the brother of Mr. McGoff. That is a name that has cropped in this matter from time to time. [Interjections.] There is, however, a serious question I want to put now. On page 100 of the English version of the report by the Erasmus Commission, in paragraph 14.491, the following appears—

Now, Mr. Prime Minister, have you done so? Have you released the report in its entirety?

Yes.

He says “yes”.

Please address Mr. Speaker!

If that is so, Mr. Speaker, then you, Mr. Prime Minister, must issue a statement at once, because I want to draw your attention to the following announcement in this morning’s Transvaler—

Na betroubaar vemeem word, het genl. Van den Bergh se getuienis voor die kommissie reeds vir die Regering probleme geskep.

Well, as they say, this is an understatement—

The hon. the Prime Minister, however, says that the report has not been tampered with at all. Die Transvaler is the mouthpiece of the NP in the Transvaal, and Die Transvaler says that it has been learned on good authority that censorship has in fact been applied to this report. I just want to know whether or not this is so. Please, Mr. Prime Minister, come forward with a reply to one of these questions! [Interjections.]

Do not address me; please address Mr. Speaker! [Interjections.]

He does not have a reply. Mr. Speaker, there are still many questions, but may I put the following question to the hon. the Prime Minister? We in South Africa desperately want to know the following. Surely the hon. the Minister of Finance—there the hon. the Minister of Finance is sitting—and the hon. the Prime Minister, at the time as Minister of Defence, the senior Minister in the Cabinet, were top men. Who forced him and the hon. the Minister of Finance to contravene the rules and regulations of Parliament and the legal provisions surreptitiously when secret funds were appropriated for the Department of Information? Who forced them to do that? They must tell us. The hon. the Minister of Finance spoke about “level” and he referred to “low levels, high levels” and “his level”. Who forced him and the then Minister of Defence, and who was the boss? Was it the previous Prime Minister or was it Dr. Eschel Mostert Rhoodie, or was it perhaps Gen. Van den Bergh? I see he sits with an automatic rifle on his lap while he conducts an interview with the Press. Is he the type of man who can force a person to do these things? [Interjections.] South Africa at least wants an answer, Mr. Speaker. Can we not get the answer?

It seems to me you have not yet recovered from the fright.

But the most important question of all remains. I do wonder whether the hon. the Prime Minister cannot show the necessary courage and make an attempt to help us and South Africa by furnishing a few replies. He must show South Africa what he is really worth and that he wants clean government in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister will never be able to obtain clean government in South Africa as long as the black ink of The Citizen clings to his fingers.

Now I want to put this very important question: Why did the previous Prime Minister—this question has often been put, but as yet there has not been any semblance of a reply—keep quiet when the then Minister of Information in this House told a blatant lie to South Africa and to the House in respect of the funds utilized for The Citizen? Why did he keep quiet then, why did he keep quiet the day after that, and why did he keep quiet for months? Why did South Africa have to be deceived for months on end as a result of those lies? Why has there been nobody up to this day on that side of the House who has had the courage to come forward with a reply on behalf of him or the Cabinet or the Government? Must South Africa do without a reply until the end of time? Is that how arrogant this Government acts in respect of the real interests of South Africa? No, until such time as the hon. the Prime Minister shows the courage and the sense of responsibility to answer every question fully, we shall continue knocking him into a cocked hat and South Africa will never forgive him for that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston came along with his usual thundering and roaring stream of hysterical, anti-government standpoints and he told us tonight what his party had been trying to tell us over a period of two days. He tried to indicate how corrupt we were, how dishonest we were, and he tried to indicate, through insinuations made by a back-bencher against the hon. the Prime Minister, that we did not have the courage to say certain things. Just as he put a number of questions, we too have repeatedly asked simple and elementary questions. If he wants to show some decency, he can answer only one elementary question for me while we are on the subject of people’s courage. I want to ask him whether they accept the recommendations in this report. Does the PFP accept these …

We have said this more than 17 times …

No, I want to hear it again. Does the PFP accept the report of the Erasmus Commission? Mr. Speaker, I will tell you why I ask this. I have tried to read through the speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and in the whole speech, from the first to the last word, he tried to move between the lines. He does not want to state unconditionally that they accept the recommendations in this report, for they cannot say so. If they say this, they have to stop their gossiping and they cannot afford to stop their gossiping. For the first time in donkey’s years these people have seen a little light on the horizon, light to conceal their own mysterious motives concerning South Africa’s future behind alleged irregularities and corruption on the part of this Government. Let us put it to these people in the clearest language imaginable: Here we sit, the full caucus of the NP, a mighty Government. We represent thousands of voters throughout South Africa. They are insulting those voters—also those voters who for the first time during the last election decided that we could be trusted more than the PFP—by trying to fling insinuations of corruption and dishonesty at us. The hon. member for Bryanston talks about the former Minister of Information, the hon. member for Randfontein, and produces all kinds of silly arguments to the effect that we did not give the hon. member for Randfontein an opportunity.

The member for Bryanston should know that the NP is an orderly party. We are not a disorderly party. The NP is an honest party. It is a party that is prepared to admit it when errors and corruption have taken place in its administration. Everyone of us, as a politician, accepts that responsibility which may still be waiting for us should something go wrong. Then we take the honourable course, as the then hon. Minister did, and we retire from public life. We are not a disorderly group of people who wish to stretch freedom to the utmost point of foolishness, but that is exactly what they want to do.

They should look at the country which they always hold up to us as the country with the greatest concept of freedom in the world. I am referring to the USA. Should they do this, they will see how one can stretch to the utmost the concept of freedom, and the concept of guaranteeing the freedom of individuals, to the point where one has the foolish situation where a man is sitting in Congress with a number of criminal convictions against him.

Not so fast, not so fast.

I will speak more slowly. I want to tell the hon. high priest of Pinelands that the virtue, honesty, integrity and irreproachable uprightness of the hon. members of the NP, and the hon. Ministers on this side, are not to be scorned, in spite of the contents of this report, and I shall come to this in a moment.

Yes, “in spite of”.

Do you not accept the report?

The nation outside knows that it is not to be scorned. They are our people who know us. The hon. member for Yeoville tried to have it both ways. He saw that the hysteria which came from the hon. member for Musgrave last night was misplaced. He could see this from all kinds of insinuations which were flung in our direction. Then he tried to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. He said that the hon. the Minister of Finance could be trusted, that he was an honest man. He said the hon. the Prime Minister was an honest man and could be trusted. However, while they are saying this, they are making all kinds of insinuations that the people here cannot be trusted. How on earth can one say two contradictory things at the same time while expecting to be known amongst the people eventually as an honest person, a person of integrity? How can one send the lie into the world with insinuations from morning to night, for months on end? How can one tell oneself one will continue besmirching this Government with lies and then expect, as the Opposition party, to be regarded as honest by the people? Now I want to tell them something in simple, straightforward and clear language. I am referring in particular to the hon. member for Bryanston, who said that we wanted to prowl about like thieves in the night. The report of the Erasmus Commission is an expression, in fact, a mirror image, of the NP, of us as Afrikaners and of the English-speaking members in the NP. It is an expression and a mirror image of our attitude and standpoint towards any form of mismanagement and corruption. We are not prepared to accept or tolerate mismanagement. We are not prepared to tolerate or foster corruption in any form. Every politician in this party knows that should it be his lot—i.e. should he be accused of mismanagement—the honourable solution for him would be to stand aside. Every official of this Government knows that should he be guilty of corruption, the only honest solution for him would be to stand aside. In this country where we as the Whites should set an example to the various Black nations, we cannot afford to accuse one another as the NP is being accused by the Opposition. The hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Johannesburg North held multiracial protest meetings in the city hall of Johannesburg …

Were you there?

No. I was not there, but this is how it was reported in the Rand Daily Mail. The fact is that this newspaper, the mouthpiece of the PFP, is constantly broadcasting the standpoints of the PFP towards the Government. I am astounded at the fact that there can still be a single Black man in the Johannesburg metropolitan area who, after having read this rubbish, can have any respect for the integrity and the honour of the White man, particularly in view of the accusations which those hon. members have flung at us recently. This is a disgrace and a blot on the name of the White man and also on the name of Christianity. Should the hon. member for Pinelands continue with his insinuations—he even dragged murder into it today—it will and should be a blot on his Christian conscience.

Hon. members of the PFP argued in many directions during this debate. We have repeatedly said that we accept the report unconditionally. Those hon. members have, however, completely missed one basic fact of life. Perhaps, at the next opportunity for private conversation in the caucus room of the PFP, the hon. member for Pinelands should tell those people about this simple truth, i.e. that emotion can never win the race against facts. Emotion and facts usually start off together and for a short while emotion is in the lead, then it tires and then the facts win. The facts and the truth will also triumph with regard to this Information affair.

Let us look at the language in which the hon. the leader of the PFP slanders us before the outside world. He says, inter alia—

The hon. member refers to a mask of honesty and integrity. I challenge those hon. members to try to convince even the conservative English-speaking voters in South Africa that the Government is wearing a mask of honesty or integrity. The voters of South Africa have long been familiar with the policy and the method of that party. I have said this to the hon. member for Pinelands before and I am doing so again: He is the white smile of Black Power in South Africa. By this I mean that, in his travels in South Africa, he has come into contact with all kinds of underhand organizations and all kinds of underhand individuals …

Order! The hon. member may not say that another hon. member is underhand and therefore he has to withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that the hon. member is underhand; I am saying that he finds himself in an underworld of underhand subversion of South Africa. I do not believe I can go back on that, for the hon. member for Pinelands knows that himself. However, I want to tell him that we question the intentions of the PFP in the light of the fact that they do not want to accept this report. We also question their intentions with regard to the whole Information affair. In the backs of our minds we have the idea and in our hearts we have the feeling that the standpoint of these people has absolutely nothing to do with Information and that they are trying to erect a screen of integrity for themselves. For a long time they have been rejected by the voters of South Africa as a result of their dishonest political standpoint and they are now trying to obtain a measure of integrity. The NP and the Information scandal are now their instruments which they want to use in an attempt to obtain integrity for themselves. They will not succeed in this; it cannot work in this way.

The hon. members of the PFP should realize that South Africa finds itself in a delicate situation from every point of view, as the hon. the Prime Minister also said. Last year I told the hon. member for Parktown that the PFP could use the following words as their political slogan: “The name of the game is confidence”. This is one of the most positive things which has ever come from the PFP, when the hon. member for Parktown said “the name of the game is confidence”. Therefore I want to tell the Opposition party that “the name of the game is confidence”, including confidence in the White man. We are living in a Black Africa with Black peoples and Black States all around us. Confidence in the White man is of supreme importance. Confidence in the integrity of the White man and confidence in the integrity of the Government is of the utmost importance.

And you behave like this!

The hon. member for Orange Grove is the last person who should speak in his customary bitter manner about this matter when I have told him in the clearest language imaginable—and let me spell it out to him once again—that we accept this report. Therefore we reject all forms of corruption which have been revealed in this report. We reject it whole-heartedly. We also reject the arrogance—let me put it to him clearly—of certain officials mentioned in this report. The NP is not a party that likes an empire mentality amongst officials and politicians. South Africa’s future cannot be built on empire mentalities. South Africa’s future is being built with a joint accountability and a joint responsibility towards those ideals which we all want to foster. These include the ideal of stability. Having said that, we say that we accept everything which is wrong and which is condemned in the report. We will reject that for all time in this country with the disdain which dishonour, corruption and poor management and poor administration requires.

Whom did you vote for in September?

The hon. member asks whom I voted for during the election in September. In this way he is trying to make an insinuation. He is trying to insinuate that there is division in the NP. In this party a large number of people voted for the hon. member for Randfontein, the former Minister. In this party a large number of people voted for the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and in this party a large number of people voted for the present Prime Minister.

I asked whom you voted for.

In this party there is not the slightest indication of the division or tension which they have tried to indicate to the outside world. This is not the party that argued about something as basic and elementary as national defence at its congress. This party can differ in a democratic manner, it can express its opinion, and then we support the leader unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether the hon. member for Sunnyside agrees with him when he says that there is no division in his party?

Let me just correct the hon. member for Pinelands. As far as philosophy is concerned, as far as policy standpoint is concerned, we have two extreme poles in the NP as in any other political party in the world; as in that party too. If the hon. member wishes to insinuate that this means that we have tension in the party, I want to tell him that he is foolish. I just want to reassure the hon. member for Pinelands, neither the hon. member for Sunnyside, nor I, nor any other member of the NP is experiencing any tension, any problems which hold any difficulty at all for the stability of the NP at this moment or in the future.

Mr. Speaker, without asking the hon. member for Innesdal whom he voted for, I hope he will forgive me if I do not reply to what he said. I should like to use the short time available to me this evening to once again confirm the attitude which has been put so clearly by my two colleagues. Let there be no doubt that we in this party most strongly disapprove of what has happened over the past few years. Words fail us when we come to express our disapproval and dissatisfaction. That this should have happened to us in South Africa who have always been able to hold our heads high. We want to express the hope that this will be the last time this sort of thing happens. One thing stands out very clearly. That is that we in this party believe that maladministration, dishonesty and neglect of duty must be eradicated completely, particularly in the public service, because the conduct of a few makes their colleagues suspect, no matter how unjustified that may be.

It is not our task to defend the Government here and neither do we intend doing so. It is with deep gratitude that we admit that we live in a country where such a thorough investigation can be instituted into matters such as this, a country where disciplinary steps are taken regardless of the person’s standing. I am convinced that the general public outside are grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister for the immediate steps he took to eradicate the evil completely and we are thankful to the Erasmus Commission for the enormous task it did in a short time and under particularly difficult circumstances.

But, Mr. Speaker, let us come to this debate. It is an opportunity for which we are also very thankful, but I am sorry to say that I am disappointed with this debate, especially after the cavalier fashion in which the PFP and the NRP, and of course, the Press, have treated this special session. Those parties even held joint protest meetings. You see, Sir, they are together under the one blanket. South Africa waited tensely for 7 December. South Africa waited for the Waterloo of the NP, but what did we find yesterday and today?

It is just because your Nat. friends will not have you …

I am proud to have Nat. friends. I prefer Nat. friends to other friends.

*Mr. Speaker, instead of the roar of the cannon, what did we get? We had a murmur from two so-called alternative governments. But I do want to say that there was one exception in this debate. I want to pay honour where honour is due …

Thank you very much.

… and that is to the hon. member for Yeoville who made a sincere effort…

Oh, sorry.

No, I am not speaking of the hon. member for Pinelands. His collar is the wrong way round today. I am speaking of the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member tried to give us what was promised. I want to say though that I noticed that while he was speaking on the leadership struggle among Nationalists in the Transvaal he spoke with feeling, with conviction and from experience. I detected a large measure of nostalgia in him because it must have made him think of all the intrigue that was so evident in the Transvaal when he became leader of the United Party in the Transvaal. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we agree with him when it comes to the loss of large sums of money. But I want to tell him that even in banking circles it sometimes happens that reorganization is necessary when there are losses of large sums of money. As far as I as a backbencher am concerned, this debate which was specially asked for, and, I say again, about which we are pleased, could just as well have taken place in 1979 judging by the speeches made yesterday and today. This would possibly also have given the Erasmus Commission more opportunity to complete their work. What is important is the spirit in which this debate has been conducted at a time when South Africa’s image internally and abroad is of greater importance than ever before in the history of our country. I ask: Is the spirit in which we approach such a matter one of seeking political advantage for the one or other side, is it an opportunity to oppose or support the Government although South Africa is to be harmed in the process, or is it a particular opportunity to express disapproval and disappointment? Of course we must express disapproval and disappointment, and this we are doing, but that is not enough. We must recommend steps which will speedily repair the harm that has been done, and prevent a repetition of similar scandals, even perhaps when the Official Opposition is the governing party one day—and may the Lord forbid that that should ever happen! That sort of thing must never again be allowed in our history.

Let us look at what happened yesterday and today. On the one hand we have the Government’s motion. Although most of the points it contains are acceptable and in order, and are all matters which must obviously enjoy immediate attention, we in the SAP cannot support this motion by reason of the fact that in paragraph (g) is included in the motion. That paragraph reads—

There is nothing wrong with that.

I agree with the hon. member that there is nothing wrong with that. But whether one wants to know it or not, the Government was in the dock yesterday and today. But I am not passing judgement. The Government was in the dock. I find it incredible that the Government, after having been in power for 30 years and with 30 years’ experience, should have allowed a small group of people, no matter how difficult the situation may have been and no matter what the problems may have been, to take them for a ride and to embarrass not only the Government but South Africa as well. For us it is a sign of over-complacency and misplaced confidence which is the result of their having been so many years in power. When one reads the report and notes the amounts involved one grows cold thinking of what was going on and what could possibly have happened had it not been discovered.

Obviously secret funds will in future, in certain respects in particular, be suspect, no matter how necessary those funds may be. I am convinced that the Government will take the necessary steps to ensure that the funds will still be available and will be used for the right purpose. Anybody who has a little experience of the Public Service and who has been involved with it, will know how careful the Public Service is with each cent that is spent. They are actually painfully precise in making reports. I ask myself then how it could have happened that some amounts of this magnitude were paid out without any documentation. I realize that, when it comes to secret funds, this may be difficult, but I go so far as to say that even secret funds can be properly accounted for, and must be so accounted for, without detracting from their secret purpose. Far be it from the NP to speak, as is done in paragraph (g), of being confident that it is the sincere intention of the Government to combat and punish irregularities. We do not ask for this approach as an intention, we expect it as a duty of the Government. It should have been so, and it must at all times remain so, because doubt now exists in South Africa and that we cannot allow. South Africa expects a solemn undertaking from the Government. That is important. We want the Government to say that they undertake that it will not happen again. In other words, what I want to say is that the motion of the Government is not positive enough for us in this Party. Therefore we shall not support it and we shall only support our own amendment.

On the other hand, however, there are the amendments of the Official Opposition and the NRP. I want to give the assurance that when we vote against the Government’s motion later on, we shall definitely not vote for the two amendments of these two parties. We shall vote for our own amendment because we believe it is the only positive amendment that has been moved. In both the amendments of the PFP and the NRP there is only one positive aspect, if one can call it positive, viz. that the Government must resign. With reference to their amendments I ask myself: Where are the years when my colleagues and I would have supported such a motion with great fervour and would have voted for it? Those were the years when the once mighty UP would obviously have been a strong alternative government for South Africa. In such a case we would have been able to talk of resigning because then we would have given the nation a choice in regard to whom to vote for. But I am afraid that if this Government resigns there will still be no choice. [Interjections.] We are completely acceptable as a group. I am glad that the hon. member has anticipated me somewhat, but it will be realized that we are a small group. But just give us time, because all great things have small beginnings.

But what will be the alternative should there be an election? Must we ask the people to vote for the PFP, the party which actively destroyed the UP, the previous Official Opposition, the party which wants to negotiate with the inhabitants of Robben Island and which shows a lack of loyalty, or for the NRP, the people who passively carried the UP to its grave and do not know whether they are coming or going, like the hon. member for Mooi River who does not know whether he will serve on the commission or not? [Interjections.] Yes, I listened to the hon. member but I thought it strange that the hon. member informed the Press immediately and with much ado that he would not serve on it before he knew what it was all about. When we look at the record of these two parties and at the history of how they came into being, I ask that South Africa should at least be spared that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude.

Thank the Minister.

No, I need not thank the Minister but neither do I have any reason to thank the Official Opposition or the NRP. Some of my colleagues in the House recently had the same opportunity I had to listen to one of our Black leaders in South Africa when he addressed us. Knowing we were M.P.’s, he told us we must not stare blindly at the scandal surrounding the Department of Information and thus fail in our duty. He said there were also other important things which should enjoy our attention, particularly in the times in which we live. South Africa has not come to a standstill as a result of this scandal. South Africa cannot come to a standstill. We must solve the problems once and for all. The Government has already frankly admitted its mistakes and appointed a commission with the result that we can conduct a debate today. Now we ask: Right the wrong that has been done. Do not speak of confidence but suit action to the word and show South Africans that they can be confident. I call on the Government to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Walmer, even though they have their own motion, because I feel that the amendment of the hon. member for Walmer contains positive aspects and that the recommendations contained in it should be implemented as soon as possible. I also ask that what has happened over the past few years should not only be a lesson to the NP and the Government but to all parties in this House, and to future parties as well.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to enter into a debate with the South African Party because its members debate in this House on their knees. It is quite clear why they cannot support the amendments moved by the other Opposition parties in this House which call upon the Government to resign and to call an election. It is because they know that South Africa has found them out. They got into this House on the back of the National Party. They know that the minute the National Party resigns and calls an election that will be the end of the political careers of the three gentlemen sitting over there.

We have had much disclaiming and exclaiming by Government members here today. However, we have not had very many answers. So, with your permission, Sir, I should like to put a few more questions.

Firstly, I should like to direct a question to the hon. the Minister of the Interior. I wish to speak about one of the victims of this corruption and scandal. One of the victims, as all South Africa knows, is a certain Mr. Waldeck. Mr. Waldeck was dismissed from the Public Service some months ago when the scandal first reared its head. To date no answer has been given in the case of Mr. Waldeck.

That is not true. I answered you under my Vote.

No answer has been given which I find satisfactory.

Well, that is another matter.

It was stated by that hon. Minister that his dismissal was part of a ‘restructuring’ of the department. No golden handshake for Mr. Waldeck, no justice for him or the right of appeal. He paid the shoddy price that had to be paid for the dismissal of the first Dr. Rhoodie. Mr. Waldeck is dissatisfied, something which is quite clear from some of the press reports we have read. He has asked to give evidence before the commission which is presently sitting. The fact that Mr. Waldeck has been wronged and was a victim of those who are today condemned is today clearer than ever. I wish to ask that hon. Minister whether this Government wishes to remain a party to that injustice. If not now is the time for the case of Mr. Waldeck to be reconsidered with a view to his reinstatement in the Public Service. I believe it is not unreasonable to ask this hon. Minister what is going to be done about that.

I wish to ask another question and direct it to the hon. the Minister of Finance. We have heard and read in the report of the commission that a loan was raised overseas by Dr. Rhoodie of some R16 million. However, very little else is stated in that report relating to that loan and almost nothing has been said in this debate about it. I believe that that loan of R16 million raises certain questions which as yet have not been answered. Firstly, we would like to know from the hon. the Minister of Finance where that loan was negotiated. We would like to know who provided the loan. We would like to know on what terms that loan was negotiated. What terms did South Africa and the Department of Information have to meet? We would like to know on what documentation the loan was provided to South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Finance—I am certainly not a financier— should know that even when one goes to the bank for a minor overdraft security has to be given, documentation has to be signed and after certain formalities money is provided and transferred. I would like to know what documentation authorized that loan to South Africa. On whose security was that loan granted? What guarantees were provided? Which foreign bank would provide R16 million to a South African State department or a sub-department on the single signature of a secretary? I honestly believe that that could not be the case. If it were not only the Secretary for Information who signed at that time, we would like to know who else signed for that loan. Was it a real and genuine foreign loan or was it perhaps South African funds just being rechannelled back into South Africa in another way? I believe that answers are called for in this matter.

I should like to ask another question and should like to put it to the hon. the Minister of the Interior and to the hon. the Minister of Justice, of Police and of Prisons, sitting there talking with the hon. the Minister of Finance. I should like to know from those two hon. Ministers why in heaven’s name, was Dr. Eschel Rhoodie allowed to leave South Africa? I believe that the very strange behaviour of the hon. the Minister of the Interior in calling for the surrender of the passports of the two Drs. Rhoodie while one of them was outside the country, is peculiar, to say the least of it. Long before the report of the Erasmus Commission was issued, in fact over several months, and more exactly, since the release of the evidence of Mr. Justice Mostert, a prima facie case has been made out against Dr. Rhoodie, a prima facie case of misdemeanour, of irregularities, and I believe that that prima facie case should have been discerned by the authorities. Virtually the whole country knew about what had happened in so far as Dr. Rhoodie and the department were concerned. Yet, from 7 November to 19 November this year, even after he had given evidence before the Erasmus Commission and was known to be implicated, he was allowed to wander freely around South Africa, perhaps to fix up his affairs, and then, once again, to leave the country, perhaps for Switzerland, for Miami or for one of those tax or financial havens, for example Paraguay—one of those havens of which we have heard so much. Only when he was safely out of South Africa, only when he was safely out of the country, were steps taken to call in his passport. Is this not further negligence on the part of the Government and on the part of those two hon. Ministers, negligence in the extreme? Is Dr. Rhoodie’s South African passport the only passport he possesses? I merely ask a question. I have no knowledge. Has he asked for, in the past, and perhaps received, permission to hold another passport?

Most important, what steps are being taken at this moment to bring Dr. Rhoodie back to South Africa to face the consequences of his actions?

Let us ask another question of that hon. Minister. Are there any other persons connected with this scandal, persons perhaps mentioned in the report or perhaps not mentioned in the report, whose passports should be withdrawn at this stage? Has consideration for instance been given to the passport of Dr. Denys Rhoodie and perhaps others? I read in the Rand Daily Mail of this morning that Mr. David Abrahamson has flown to London in the past few days. He seems already to be outside the country. Will he come back? Will Dr. Rhoodie come back? Will they be brought back? If they do not return, whose fault is it that they were allowed to leave the country when this cloud was hanging over their heads?

We have listened to many speakers tonight, to many hon. members in this House. We have heard criticism of this party for not accepting the report of the commission of Mr. Justice Erasmus in its entirety. We have had this criticism from the hon. members for Mossel Bay, Innesdal, Lydenburg and Pretoria West. They wanted to know: “Hoekom aanvaar julle nie die verslag van die Erasmus-kommissie nie?”

The NP is always “aanvaar”-ing things. They “aanvaar” Dr. Rhoodie’s explanations. They “aanvaar” Dr. Mulder’s explanations. They “aanvaar” the Reynders Commission’s explanation. They “aanvaar” the word of Gen. Van den Bergh. And look where they sit today! It is because they are not critical, because they do not try to look deeper than the words that are printed, that they find themselves in the trouble in which they are today.

Much play has been made of the fact that we do not accept in its entirety the findings of the Erasmus Commission. It has been said to us that by not accepting it we are guilty of a breach or, at best, a misunderstanding of the rule of law. Of course, we cannot accept this report in its entirety. As the hon. leader of my party has said, we have noted the contents.

Judges are to be respected and obeyed, but judges and commissions are not infallible. They make mistakes although they are totally sincere in what they do. What they produce is not necessarily the final writing of the law. It is the opinion of a man—or men—who have honestly weighed up a situation and presented, as their findings, their opinion. We have not attacked the judiciary or been guilty of a breach of the rule of law. Only on that side of the House have we seen that, Mr. Speaker. Only on that side have we seen the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs accusing a judge of taking political action instead of making a judicial finding.

We believe that much which is stated within this document is irrefutably correct and absolutely right. For instance, there is the main finding that there are irrebuttable indications of large-scale irregularities and exploitations of the secret fund. We accept that finding, that finding is correct. It is also stated that Dr. Mulder was incompetent and acted irregularly on several occasions. We have been saying that for years. The commission has merely reiterated what this party has been saying ever since Dr. Mulder was first appointed. We accept that a Minister must accept responsibility for the actions of civil servants within his department. We accept that Dr. Rhoodie acted irregularly, perhaps even dishonestly. We accept the findings on The Citizen. We agree with some of the recommendations, namely that the actions of the Rhoodies be submitted to the Attorney-General for possible criminal proceedings, that steps be taken to recover State assets and that secret funds be properly audited in future. We agree with all these things, but we certainly do not agree with the recommendation that Parliamentarians should be limited in their right to ask questions in this House. We certainly do not agree with the finding in the last paragraph of paragraph 10.337, which reads as follows—

Certainly there are no aspersions cast on the question of personal gain as far as I am concerned, but as for the rest of that, I differ from the hon. Commissioners in their findings. If I may put it most respectfully, I do so for three reasons. At the very best the former Prime Minister sat for at least 10 months in that bench in this House and went through a general election while The Citizen operated with his knowledge to the advantage of the National Party at the rate of R400 000 per month, which I think is about R20 000 per day. While knowing that, he did little that was effective to stop that. Secondly, the former Prime Minister sat silent while the hon. member for Randfontein, the then Minister, issued to this House what can only be described as a blatant lie. He sat silent … [Interjections.]

Order!

I withdraw the word “lie”. I should have said “untruth”. He sat silent and did nothing about it and allowed this House to continue in its ignorance. The third objection I have relates to page 76 of the report, and I quote from paragraph 11.346—

This has been applied to the hon. member for Randfontein, then the Minister. That hon. member is no longer a Minister. He found himself responsible for the actions of Dr. Rhoodie and the people around him. General Van den Bergh was the Head of the Bureau of State Security and it fell under the Department of the Prime Minister. As the report unfolds, General Van den Bergh’s role emerges. He emerges as the mastermind. He emerges as the manipulator, as a man who was arrogant and who had sinister connotations. He was a man who did damage to the Public Service and who has done damage to South Africa.

The former Prime Minister, as did the Minister for Information then, must accept responsibility for actions of civil servants in his department. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations asked the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South early this morning how he could reject the findings of this report when the evidence was not before him. This is not the fault of the Opposition. We have asked for the evidence to be shown to us. My hon. leader asked, in the very first address, that the documentation relating to this report be made available to those taking part in the debate. We even asked for representation in the commission. Subsequently other members on this side of the House asked for the documentation relating to this commission to be released to us. At the request of my caucus, the hon. member for Yeoville wrote a letter yesterday to the hon. the Prime Minister. I am going to quote the letter—

The hon. the Prime Minister verbally said to my hon. friend that this documentation would be made available to members of Parliament, and my hon. friend reported that to the caucus of this party. Shortly thereafter, after the Prime Minister had made his speech in this very debate, a letter was received by my hon. friend from the hon. the Prime Minister. I quote:

In the light of this correspondence, this reversal of a promise, this letter from the hon. the Prime Minister, what is the choice open to an Opposition which is faced with a situation of having to debate a matter here and now? Are we to look critically at this report brought out by the Erasmus Commission? Are we to look critically at it, or are we, like the NP, simply to “aanvaar” it, to accept it blindly, to say yes to everything that is in this document? The fact is that the findings that I mentioned our disagreeing with are, in fact, not in line with that which is even disclosed in the report. That is why the evidence should be released and made available, not only to members of Parliament, but also to the public at large. I am in very bad company on this. In this morning’s Cape Times there is a report of a press conference given by the ex-hero of the NP, Gen. Van den Bergh. I quote—

Thereafter the cross-examination stopped and they continued the rest of the morning with me.

This part is interesting. He says—

I must say, that is very strange, coming from General Van den Bergh. It is a criticism of the procedures of the commission and it is a criticism of the findings of the commission. I and my party do not accept all the findings of the commission, nor do we reject them, but we want the matter cleared up. I certainly do not believe what General Van den Bergh had to say here, but he has raised a public issue. I believe that no judge likes to judge a man in private. I believe that no commission can enjoy judging people and events in private. I believe that justice must been seen to be done; not only done. Therefore I call upon the hon. the Prime Minister here and now tonight to release the exhibits and the evidence relating to this commission. The PFP calls upon the hon. the Prime Minister to release this evidence and to let South Africa decide who is guilty and who is not. In that way the interests of all of us, of justice and of clean government will be served.

Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member for Sandton was couched in the tones of outrage and moral indignation that we have been hearing from the Opposition all afternoon. At the outset I would like to say that the Opposition parties do not have a monopoly in moral indignation and outrage. I too am outraged by some of the things that appear in this report. The Government is also outraged by it and that is why it has accepted the report and its findings in toto. We on this side of the House and especially the hon. the Prime Minister have much more reason to feel outraged, because all of us have been let down and misled by people whom we believed we could trust There is no question of any cover-up in this regard, not even from the very beginning when the previous Auditor-General went to the previous Prime Minister and indicated to him that there were certain irregularities in the Department of Information. He was not told that it was none of his business and that it was a secret fund. He was told to continue with his investigations and thus, step by step, the investigations have been continued until we reached this debate and the acceptance by the Government in toto of this report, including all its findings and recommendations, and especially those in paragraphs 14.484, 14.485 and 14.491.

*For that reason I object most strongly to the type of allegation as the one made last night by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South when he said, “I am proud to be a South African; those hon. members …”—and that includes this hon. member— “… cannot be.” Not only do I object to that, but I find the self-righteous arrogance of that hon. member incredible. For that reason I appreciated it when the hon. member for Yeoville adopted a completely different attitude and also admitted that there were hon. members on this side of the House who could not be slandered by that suggestion. All of us on this side of the House reject the irregularities and malpractices revealed in this report. I am also grateful to the hon. member for Yeoville for having said that it was nonsense that the whole Public Service had to be tarred with the same brush. I am also grateful to him for having said that in the interest of South Africa the rumours must stop now. I agree with him. As he said in his own words, in the interest of South Africa the rumours, the insinuations and the innuendoes must stop now so in order that the hon. the Minister of Finance may without this suspicion …

You should have said that nine months ago.

In any event, I agree with that. He also said that he would like to co-operate and that his party would cooperate to remove this stain from our Government and our country. It is, of course, the duty of a loyal Opposition to do so.

†However, I have certain reservations about this, not because I want to question in any way the integrity of the hon. member for Yeoville, but for completely other reasons. If one wants that kind of cooperation, then there must also be a great deal of trust and one must know that the Official Opposition is in every sense of the word a loyal Opposition, in the sense that in Great Britain the Official Opposition is known as Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

I think you are making very serious aspersions here.

I say this also because the hon. member for Yeoville was at variance with some of his party’s speakers. We had, for example, the exhibition by the hon. member for Musgrave last night in which he said that if this could happen in the Department of Information, he wondered whether it could not happen in any other Government departments. He also indicated that he would continue to wonder and cast these aspersions upon the public servants and upon the administration of this country. I would like to know: Is that the way to help us end this sorry debacle? Is that the way to end rumours?

But there are other things about which one wonders.. One wonders what the implications are when the hon. member for Houghton, who accused this side of the House of putting party before government, calls as her allies members of the administration of the United States and refers to “allies who will keep the pressures up on our intransigent Government”. By what democratic ethic does one call for the assistance of a Government elected by an electorate in a foreign country to thwart the wishes of the electorate of your own country? One wonders whose interests are being put first there—those of party or Government, or those of a foreign Government? One wonders if the same implications are not to be read in the comments by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, when on American television he was asked whether he found the pressures that were exerted on this country by the administration were in order, and in his own Hansard, col. 1880, of 24 February 1978, he replied—

That is the PFP—

I would like to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he considers disinvestment to be in the interests of South Africa, because he says …

Do you know what the subject of the debate is about?

We are discussing loyalty and co-operation with the Government and things like that. He says—

One wonders about these things in the same way that the hon. member for Musgrave wonders about other things. There is more that I would like to wonder about. There have been persistent rumours for years that the Anglo-American Corporation is the main source of income of the Progressive Federal Party.

So what?

So what? Sure, I do not dispute that.

The Nationalist Party steals public funds for their own purposes.

I think we would also like to know to what extent then the PFP is an ordinary political party or a political front for a massive international organization? This question is relevant, because we would also like to know what the shareholding is of the Anglo-American Corporation in the Triomf Fertilizer Company. Perhaps the hon. members of the Opposition would like to tell us what that shareholding is—I understand that it is substantial—and whether they were unaware at the time that a company in which the Anglo-American Corporation has a substantial shareholding, had siphoned off R12 million from the Government into it by illegal means.

If you can understand it, go and look at the company structure and come back and make another speech.

We will talk about the company structure just now. [Interjections.]

I have never signed a document for R14 million ….

I do not know whether you have signed a document or not, but we would like to have the answers to this and the proof of it, and whether, if they did not know it, the Government was informed at the time or whether this information was merely siphoned off again to the English Press in which the Anglo-American Company also has an interest.

You really are making a clot of yourself tonight. They are different companies.

Well, we would like to know.

They are different companies. You have the companies confused.

If you will prove it, that will be fine. I raised the question here of the Anglo-American Corporation, because in The Star, one of its own newspapers, on 28 October, it gives a fascinating scenario expose of its various machinations and manifestations, its octopus-like tentacles spread across the world. The article says that it is fascinating to go through the scores of subsidiaries listed in the Anglo-American annual report and to wonder what many of them do. What, for instance, says The Star, happens in the six finance and investment companies registered in Luxembourg or the ten registered in Liberia? What indeed, Mr. Speaker? It goes on to say that even then you are far from having the whole story. To get that you would have to find out the Oppenheimer family holdings, either held through E. Oppenheimer & Son, or elsewhere, in the Rothschild Holdings, and the relationship, if any, between the Rothschild and Oppenheimer interests. One wonders what the relationship is and what the relationship is via the Rothschild interests with the Rockefeller interests, if any.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is this debate at all pertaining to Rockefeller or Rothschild or is it concerned with … [Interjections.]

Order! I do not have all the amendments before me and therefore I am not at this moment in a position to say whether the hon. member is in order. I presume that I can allow him to continue. That is my ruling.

Mr. Speaker, may I with respect draw your attention to the fact that Rothschild, Rockefeller and Oppenheimer do not occur in any amendment?

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon. member may continue.

The point of reading this article is this: It is a well-known fact that the Rockefeller interests are headed by David Rockefeller who is chairman of the American Council of Foreign Relations …

And he works for the Russians and the international conspiracy.

I have not said that. One would therefore like to ask in this context to what extent through this octopus the PFP and its Press are financed by the secret funds of the American State Department. Denials are not sufficient! We would like to have documentation and that means the full shareholding of the English Press, and not only the secret trustees, the nominees and so forth. If we want to play open cards with one another, let us do it the whole way.

Mr. Speaker, I was not quite able to hear everything the hon. member for Benoni said. However, I did hear him say—I should like to know whether I heard him correctly—that his party and all the Cabinet Ministers including the hon. the Prime Minister accept this report in toto. I presume I heard him correctly. If I did not, perhaps he will nod his head.

He is nodding his head.

I trust that the hon. member for Benoni, unlike certain Ministers here, did in fact consult with the hon. the Prime Minister because in that case he is telling us that the entire NP agrees with paragraph 10.317 on page 69 of the report. I should like to refresh the hon. member’s memory as well as perhaps that of the hon. the Prime Minister and the other Cabinet Ministers. That paragraph says inter alia—

I believe that the hon. member for Benoni had authority to commit the Cabinet and the Government to this, for if he had, he has solved one of the dilemmas we had in this party. That dilemma we had was to find the root cause of the greatest embarrassment in South Africa’s political life. We believe that all the Cabinet Ministers here bar one but including the hon. the Prime Minister must account for their dilatory action in taking steps in this affair. It is the consequences as much as the cause and the detail of administrative failure which, we trust, all members of the Cabinet consider before saying that they do not accept joint responsibility. The hon. member for Randfontein made certain denials in this House and they were unusual denials because it is an unusual event in South African politics for secret funds to be appropriated in large amounts to departments without accountability. It is an unusual question in this House to ask the Government of the day: Are you financing a private newspaper in South Africa? It is an unusual event. One would have thought that at that stage responsible Cabinet Ministers, unless their minds had become paralysed in complacency after 30 years of rule and unless they were depending on the fact that the NP could get away with everything today, would have asked themselves whether this was not an unusual occurrence. Would they not have gone on their own initiative to the Prime Minister at the time or at least to one or two colleagues, including the hon. the Minister of Finance, and inquired why the Opposition was persisting with questions regarding these rumours? They did not ask those questions. However, what do we see when they come to this House to explain their actions? I want to say right now that together with their acts of commission, their greatest sin against South Africa, are their acts of omission, their dilatory actions and their lack of interest. I venture to say that they no longer concern themselves with responsible government in South Africa. Let us look at the effect of this kind of action in South Africa, not only internal, but also external. Hon. members such as the hon. member for Pinetown and the hon. the Minister of Finance must now plead the financial cause of South Africa and promote it as a good investment risk. They will suffer the embarrassment caused by these dilatory actions. I cannot believe that the hon. member for Benoni can stand here and say that they accept joint responsibility. I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether the hon. member for Benoni is correct in saying that this Cabinet, this Government and the hon. the Prime Minister now accept joint responsibility.

Did you hear what I said yesterday?

I heard it very clearly. What I heard, was Minister after Minister saying that he knew nothing and that no one told him of these matters. Worst of all is the fact that they did not even go and ask what was happening here.

†That is not the acceptance of joint responsibility.

I think that this Government is now going to have considerable difficulty in that, in terms of what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said today, the credibility gap, not only of the South African Government but of every Cabinet Minister, will now suffer a considerable setback, not only externally, but also internally in this very country of ours.

It was not so long ago that the hon. Mr. Vorster, the then Prime Minister, berated an hon. member of the Opposition because he did not understand how Cabinet Government worked in South Africa.

He still does not understand it.

I appreciate that he did not understand it. The then Prime Minister berated the Opposition for daring to ask, in terms of the new political dispensation, how the system was going to work in the Cabinet Council. If the way this Cabinet runs its affairs is an example and an advertisement to the rest of South Africa on how Cabinet responsibility works, I should not be surprised to find that their attempt to sell this concept to minority groups falls flat on its face. How, in all good faith and honesty, can we now expect the other population groups of South Africa to accept a political dispensation which has fallen flat on its face and for which nobody in that Government wants to accept responsibility?

I now want to talk about the credibility gap which this Government has now caused. I should like to illustrate what I am saying by referring to the words of the hon. the Minister of Finance in the Other Place on Tuesday, 18 April 1978 during the debate on the Secret Services Account Bill. I should like to refresh the memories of hon. members by saying that the Secret Services Account was a consolidation account to incorporate funds for the other three secret funds. What, among other things, did the hon. the Minister tell hon. Senators in the Other Place? In motivating the introduction and necessity for passing the Bill he did not say one word about the difficulty which the Government was having with the secret funds. This was on 18 April. He also used the red herring about “gevare van buite” and “die vyande van Suid-Afrika in die buiteland”. However, he refrained from telling them about the enemies inside this country. I wish to quote from column 1397 of the Senate debates as follows:

There is no reference to the other places. Presumably they are secret places. He continued—

It is stated clearly here that the whole issue of secret funds was discussed at Cabinet level. In column 1398 the hon. the Minister of Finance had this to say—

I want the hon. the Minister to take note of the date, 18 April, because I am going to come back to that particular statement of the hon. the Minister in a moment. In regard to the question of secret funds and hon. Senator asked the hon. the Minister the following question—

To which the hon. the Minister replied—

The hon. the Minister is responsible for the Treasury. I wish to remind hon. members that these quotations are taken from the Senate Hansard of 18 April 1978. But what do we find in the report of the Erasmus Commission? I refer to paragraph 11.393 on page 84. We read here about an incident which occurred between the hon. the Minister of Finance and Dr. Mulder, the hon. member for Randfontein. This was after the commitment I referred to, namely that after Cabinet level discussion it was decided that the hon. the Minister of Finance was the most competent person to control these secret funds. The paragraph reads as follows—

The story goes on. The hon. the Minister initialled the letter without knowing what the money was going to be spent on. He then gets a quirk of conscience and all he is interested in is to get his signature off that document because presumably it might indict him in some way. He never goes back to ask Dr. Mulder what the money was for. Where is the credibility in the words forthcoming from the hon. the Minister’s mouth? Where is the credibility of a Cabinet who does not accept joint responsibility? It is this kind of thing and attitude towards government which is causing the difficulty we have in South Africa and which is making it difficult internally to convince people that we are sincere. After reading that and after seeing the hon. the Minister’s actions when he makes that kind of commitment who can blame anybody in South Africa and outside South Africa when they say that in all probability our Ministers are only mealy-mouths? I want to state that my own confidence in the word of hon. Ministers has been shattered by this experience that we have had recently. I believe that the principle of joint responsibility and the lack of adherence to that principle is the fundamental and root cause of this scandal which we have in South Africa.

Having said that I want to point out that all hon. Ministers who have spoken, including the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Finance, spend their time in this House justifying their own personal actions. They tell us they have clean hands. There is no justification for the omission of their actions, the dilatory actions on their part, the time lag in the schedule between knowledge and action. It is this kind of activity which is going to ensure that South Africa remains the polecat of the world as long as those hon. Ministers sit there. We have a problem and I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister, when he deals with his reply to the House later this evening, whether he agrees with the hon. member for Benoni who, I see, has taken fright and charged off, presumably to consult somebody in the Cabinet. He tiptoed off.

I should like to deal further with the question of joint responsibility. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs told us yesterday how he came to know about this decision, how he obtained the information from Mr. Van Rooyen. He then proceeded to tell us what action he took and that he consulted various people. However, I would like to know from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs—who is not here at the moment— what he thought the consequences would be of the information he had obtained. I would like to know what he thought he could do to minimize the effect of it on South Africa. This is a question which I pose to every member of the NP who still has a conscience. I pose this question to every hon. Minister. Why is it that when they heard of these things that were going on they took no personal initiative to find out what was going on? I ask this because it is responsible government that we require in South Africa. Even though they have been mellowed by 30 years of soft administration in this country it is, nevertheless, responsible government which we require in order to ensure that we can face the forces from outside about which the hon. the Prime Minister spoke.

If we go into a state of complacency, when the one hand does not know what the other is doing, we are going to find that we do not have the “weerbaarheid” which is required to cope with the forces from outside, let alone the problems which we are going to have internally. I believe the time has come to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he may be able to help us with certain other information.

We understand that perhaps the process of secret funding, the shuttling of funds backwards and forwards to and from Europe, may have occurred quite a number of years ago, and I would like the hon. the Prime Minister to help me with a particular problem which we have. That is to find out whether there is any truth in the rumour that Gen. Pienaar, now retired, was controller of the Defence Force and that he, on the instructions of Adm. Bierman, channelled R10 million through the Special Defence Account to Switzerland. This was in approximately 1974.

That is an outright lie!

Then, the question is why did that money go to Switzerland and why did it come back from Switzerland? That was an amount of R10 million. I know it was before the time of the hon. the Minister of Finance, but he may perhaps be able to help us in connection with this particular transaction.

Will the hon. member be prepared to testify about that before the Erasmus Commission? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I have a problem with which the hon. the Prime Minister can perhaps help us.

It is gossip, and you know that!

It may be historical, but the interesting thing is the question of why that money went to Switzerland and came back again to South Africa. I am not suggesting to the hon. the Prime Minister that this was done fraudulently, that it was done dishonestly. However, the intriguing thing is the question of why that money went to Switzerland and came back again to South Africa. I am, in fact, not sure that it did go back.

It is a serious insinuation.

Not at all, Mr. Speaker, I am asking whether …

[Inaudible.]

Why do you not just answer the question?

It is cowardly gossip.

That is the answer I would like to hear from the hon. the Prime Minister, that there is, in fact, no truth in that kind of statement. I would like to know too from the hon. the Minister of Finance, as he may also be able to help us with this. However, I leave it at that to see what sort of response we get.

Then I think the hon. the Prime Minister may also be able to help us in regard to one or two other matters as well. [Interjections.] I want to ask if the hon. the Prime Minister intends to tell us whether he will continue with a modus operandi in his Cabinet in terms of which the system he will use will be similar to the system used previously by previous Prime Ministers in South Africa or whether he will attempt to enforce or to utilize joint Cabinet responsibility. I believe it is important that we should know the answer to this. I believe it to be important that the public should also know whether the very root cause of the problem in South Africa has now been solved and whether it is possible for a similar scandal or a similarly fraudulent type of activity to take place in the administration of South Africa.

What are you insinuating?

I am only asking a question of the hon. the Prime Minister. I cannot anticipate his answer but I personally believe that the lack of joint responsibility had a lot to do with the origin and causes of the problems which we have here, because it is a braking mechanism on excesses in administration if more than one person is involved with responsibility for a particular function. In special cases, when we deal with secret funds—and secret funds, I repeat, are an unusual method of financing expenditure—it will be of benefit not only to the public of South Africa but to the Cabinet and the hon. the Prime Minister himself to ensure that there is a braking mechanism in that Cabinet which will detect anything that goes wrong at an early stage. Things do go wrong. We are all human and we all err. To err is human, but to continue erring is gross neglect. I would like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister that because I am personally very concerned about the future of this country. In order to ensure a satisfactory future for this country in all respects I believe it is essential that we avoid this kind of scandal. I believe it is also essential that we have responsible government in which every Cabinet Minister is aware of the risk that we face and is aware of the dangers and hazards of politics in South Africa. I think they would also probably welcome the concept of joint responsibility so that we have a braking mechanism on excess in the South African political situation. I believe that we are going to get deeper and deeper involved with the alien forces against South Africa from whichever area that may come. And I would like every Nationalist member of the Government—as I know is the case with my hon. friends in the PFP and the NRP, and perhaps the SAP, although I am not so sure after the speech this evening—to be aware of what the hon. the Prime Minister said, namely that we are being forced into greater and greater risk areas. It is in times like that that one must be able to marshall the resources of every citizen of South Africa in order to get their goodwill and co-operation and, even more important, total confidence in the political system of South Africa. We will not achieve that if we go around increasing the credibility gap of what we say in this House, if we go around and preach a type of government to other groups in South Africa without practising it ourselves. I believe that we are being put at extraordinary risk in South Africa by the actions of the Cabinet. They are increasing and multiplying that risk, and we on this side of the House are not intimidated by the remarks of the hon. the Minister of the Interior and the hon. the Prime Minister who told us of this tremendous force which is going to be unleashed against us. We do not like tremendous black forces against us, but that will not allow us to abrogate our responsibility of being an effective Opposition.

Once any party starts operating in secret, divorced from its senior leaders, it lends itself to the manipulation of the forces within that party. And if I were a member—heaven forbid!—of the NP, I would be so disturbed by the fact that a senior Minister, the hon. the Minister of Finance, charged with the responsibility of the Treasury, repeatedly had to be told that he could not have access to information. The question that would arise in my mind would be: What information is being withheld from me, an ordinary rank- and-file member? I would be concerned.

I am reminded of the 18 little egrets sitting on a branch of a very high tree.

*I think they were actually go-away birds. The 18 go-away birds were sitting on a branch, and the one was sawing the branch off at the trunk. Does one perhaps think the other 17 would not have asked what he was doing there, for when that branch fell, and they were sitting on that branch, would they not all fall together? This reminds me of the Cabinet Ministers in this Government. One is falling off the branch and the other 17 say they do not want to know what is happening.

That is what one calls the special branch!

The trouble is, I do not care whether those 17 go-away birds fall or not, but the branch on which they are sitting, is the political system of South Africa, and I do not want that branch to fall. I think those Nationalist members, particularly in the Cabinet, should think back a little to what they have done in this scandal and ensure that this never happens again in South Africa. I want to make the prediction: If this happens again, I do not believe that this Government or any other Government will survive it in South Africa, for it is a serious matter. We in these benches feel so strongly about this matter because it is a risk which we cannot run in South Africa. The decision now lies with that Government to resign or to say what they are going to do with regard to the matter to prevent this type of thing ever again happening in our country, South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that I do not intend to reiterate all the arguments concerning collective responsibility which have been repeated in this House since yesterday. I thought that by this time he would have learned enough to understand what collective responsibility means. It has been very clearly explained by various members on this side of the House. I want to put it to him once again that collective responsibility can only apply where all the Cabinet members were involved in joint decision-making, but that it cannot apply to the activities of one Minister and his department. I refuse to accept responsibility for something I did not do, and I cannot see how this hon. member can ask in this hon. House why all the Cabinet members do not resign. He suggests that all the members of the Cabinet were involved in this matter and must therefore be responsible for what went wrong in the Department of Information.

I now come to another matter. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister of Finance is going to have an opportunity to speak again tonight, but I should like to mention this other matter briefly. I am referring to the criticism with regard to the episode reported on page 84 of the English report and page 87 of the Afrikaans report of the commission. I am referring to the occasion when the ex-Minister of Information went to the hon. the Minister of Finance and requested him to sign certain documents and a cheque connected with them. As I understand it, the relationship between the hon. the Minister of Finance and the ex-Minister of Information was the same as that two partners in a firm; the relationship of absolute uberrima fides, absolute good faith. If one has worked for years with such a Minister and in the light of the fact that such a Minister is, moreover, the leader of the strongest province, as represented in this House, there is nothing wrong with that and I am never going to blame the hon. the Minister of Finance—no reasonable person will do that—for accepting the Minister’s word and signing those documents. It often happens in my own firm that while I am consulting with someone, a partner enters my room quickly and puts before me a cheque which may represent the payment of the purchase price of a farm, e.g. R120 000. I then sign the cheque, he walks out and I proceed with my consultation. It is no use our trying to be pious about this matter here today; we should be practical about it.

R14 million?

It is easier to criticize than to create. What happened here also happens in practice. That is, in fact, what the hon. the Minister of Finance did. Fortunately the hon. the Minister of Finance, being a competent person, subsequently became worried and therefore we have the whole history, as it is set out here.

I would be the last person tonight to deny that we came to this House with a sense of depression and uncertainty. The facts are now known to everyone. Just as every dark cloud has a silver lining, I believe that two rays of light in particular have emerged in this debate we have been conducting since yesterday. In the first place it is clear that our body politic, our form of government, democracy, has triumphed in the debate taking place here. The second aspect which is very clear to me is that we have totally destroyed the argument that we were concealing and covering up certain matters. This debate was called by the hon. the Prime Minister and there were no reservations at all about having the debate. Everything was exposed, facts were laid before this House, as they should be, and the matter was open for discussion by every hon. member who participated in the debate. Those two rays of light will be evident as far as this debate is concerned, i.e. the triumph of the democracy and, furthermore, the fact that the Government did not conceal irregularities when they became known. That was the charge laid against us and that is why we have been arguing for two days in a debate which is now nearing its end.

I should also like to refer to two further aspects. One of them concerns the hon. member for Yeoville and in this regard I am thinking of the accusations he made with regard to the Select Committee on Public Accounts, a committee of which I have been a member for the past year. The hon. member for Yeoville accused the chairman of that Select Committee of not having allowed him to ask certain questions. Because the hon. member for Yeoville was not allowed another turn to speak after the chairman of that committee, the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, had replied to his speech, he requested his lieutenant, the hon. member for Pinelands, to give certain explanations and to read certain things from the report of that specific committee. I also have that committee report and should like to mention an important aspect which was not mentioned by the hon. member. If the hon. member for Pinelands had read further, he would have seen—and that is important—that the hon. member for Rustenburg asked a question in that committee. It is reported on page 290 of that report. The hon. member for Rustenburg asked a question of the Auditor-General, Mr. Barrie, who is regarded as the watch-dog of Parliament and who is responsible only to Parliament. I quote—

That is, other things than those appearing in his report. Then Mr. Barrie, to whom the hon. member for Yeoville showed a great deal of respect, replied:

The hon. member for Yeoville came walking into that committee with a lot of newspapers under his arm. I may say that the following sentence applies to him: “I cast my eyes to the Sunday Express, and the Sunday Times, for they are the powers behind my constant chimes.” He was not forbidden by the chairman to ask questions, but was forbidden to ask questions about newspaper reports which were not part of the report. The report before the committee was phrased in very clear terms and we were limited to that report. In my opinion that matter has been fully dealt with now and I do not think it is necessary to go into any further points.

This brings me to the fact that we were accused of covering up things in this House. Let me say immediately, while I am discussing the Committee on Public Accounts, that the report was presented to us, that we discussed it, that, in the light of the First and Second Reports published by the Committee on Public Accounts, Dr. Deneys Rhoodie lost his position and another official was dismissed. When the committee published its Third Report, the Department of Information was disbanded, Dr. Eschel Rhoodie lost his position as a result of that and the department was replaced by a totally new Bureau.

But at that time you voted for a commission of inquiry.

From that it was already clear enough that nothing was being covered up, that when certain facts were made known, facts which indicated irregularities, this House took steps, this House of which all of us are members, including the hon. member for Yeoville. Because of that our decisions were respected and the Department of Information stopped existing. I remember that debate of 16 June. I remember that I asked hon. members on the other side: What more do you want? Dr. Deneys Rhoodie is out, Dr. Eschel Rhoodie is out, the Department of Information has been disbanded. What was the reply at that stage? I think the hon. member for Groote Schuur shouted at me and said, “We want the Minister.” Tonight, as we are conducting this debate, that hon. Minister has taken the right course in a respectful manner and has already resigned. However, hon. members of the Opposition now ask the Government to resign. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture quite rightly asked them yesterday: Who is going to succeed it? Most amazing of all is that there has not yet been a call for an election. Only the resignation of the Government is being called for. Why do they not call for that? They do not call for that because they know that if an election is called, this party will return once again to form the Government of South Africa. [Interjections.] I am not going to prophesy how many will return, but this party will return stronger than before, after this episode and because it was our policy to reveal everything. We were prepared to reveal everything and we did not conceal anything. Therefore we will return stronger than before and the people and the electorate of South Africa will tell this Parliament: Proceed on the course you have taken; now we have faith in you. This is what was brought about by this.

Mr. Speaker, what else happened? We find that Mr. Barrie went to the then Prime Minister and visited him on two occasions. He told him that he had found irregularities and the then Prime Minister told him immediately, “Proceed with your investigation. It is not for me to tell you what to do. Reveal everything.” He once again visited the ex-Prime Minister on two occasions during which he pointed out further irregularities, and within a week the ex-Prime Minister appointed the Reynders Committee. The terms of reference of this committee are stated very clearly in this report. The Reynders Committee would proceed immediately to investigate irregularities which had been revealed. What finger can therefore be pointed at the ex-Prime Minister? How can he be accused of having tried to conceal something in this regard? He took the correct arid honest course and said, “Reveal what has to be revealed.” That did not suit them, because they had expected that we would want to conceal things. They had expected that they would thus get the satisfaction of a Watergate in South Africa. They did not succeed.

We have a Waterberg.

Then the Pretorius Committee was appointed to examine all the facts and to conceal nothing. The hon. the Prime Minister explained very clearly in his speech yesterday that, for example, he told Mr. Justice Mostert that as soon as that committee had finished its report, he would have the advantage of being able to use all those facts in connection with the report he has to publish. That is further proof that we were revealing everything and concealing nothing. Where does the argument about a cover-up come from? Where does the argument of the Opposition come from, i.e. that we are trying to cover up things in South Africa? Surely the facts prove the opposite. The facts indicate that we have done anything but that. On top of everything, and to satisfy those cries of the Opposition and especially of the hon. member for Yeoville, who regularly asks for a judicial commission, a judicial commission consisting of a judge of the Supreme Court and two senior advocates was appointed. The report was published and tabled, but the Opposition does not want to accept that.

Order! Hon. members are talking too loudly. The hon. member for Aliwal will be hoarse tomorrow.

The fact remains that the various committees and/or commissions have been appointed and that the report of the Erasmus Commission has been tabled. Although there are certain points in this report which do not suit this side of the House and of which we, too, should like to say that we do not accept them, we accept the report, because we have the utmost confidence in the judicial commission which has been appointed. Then, however, the Opposition should not piously allege that they want a judicial commission, and when a report is published by that commission, they accept only what suits them and they do not want to accept that which does not suit them. This will cause us to have reservations in the future every time they ask for a judicial commission.

I only want to mention, as the hon. member for Lydenburg has explained, that briefly this report means that no blame can be attached to the hon. the Prime Minister, the present State President who was Prime Minister at the time and or to the hon. the Minister of Finance. With that we can regard this matter as closed, and since the Whip indicates that my time has expired, I shall also regard my speech as concluded.

Mr. Speaker, the example given by the hon. member for Aliwal is a rather unfortunate one, because he should know that despite the vera fides he is responsible for his partner. If his partner becomes insolvent, he goes insolvent as well. If the hon. the Minister of Information is responsible for the payment of the R14,8 million, then so is the hon. the Minister of Finance because he shares the responsibility of partners. I want to ask the hon. member for Aliwal whether he ever, after his partner had come to him to ask him to sign a cheque, wrote back to his partner, because he then had second thoughts about signing that cheque, and said that he wanted to cancel his signature on the cheque that he had signed for his partner? Did he ever do that?

The hon. member also referred to the Select Committee. He referred to the hon. member for Yeoville, and with him to the hon. member for Parktown, and it is through them, sitting on that Select Committee, that the tip of the iceberg which brings us here today was shown. We have heard of the Profumos of Britain, we have heard of Nixon and Watergate, but I never thought we would be here tonight attending a special meeting of this Parliament in order to discuss our own special scandal, the scandal of Rhoodie or what is commonly known as Muldersdrift of South Africa. We have witnessed tonight, after 30 years of fat cat Nat rule and with the NP enjoying a majority at present of 105, the arrogance of the heads or leaders of that party and through various committees and commissions, a Select Committee, the committees or commissions of Pretorius, Kemp, Mostert and Erasmus, evidence that has shocked and rocked the nation and beyond has been revealed. A story of dereliction of Ministerial duty has been revealed. There has emerged a James Bond surpassing the creation of Ian Fleming. What has emerged is a story of theft and fraud, of cheating and lies, of deceit and intrigue, of captains and kings. We have seen a once-proud party with high morals degenerate into the Sodom and Gomorrah we witnessed here today. Worst of all, we have seen a cover-up of lies and deceit and even of destruction of documents. It is mind-boggling.

What are we discussing principally? We are discussing the report of the Erasmus Commission. Certain findings have been published in connection with a former Transvaal leader, a former Minister of Information and a very senior Cabinet member, a man who stood for the office of Prime Minister of South Africa. What are those findings? I think I must refer to them very briefly. They are that he wrongly interpreted his functions; that he fulfilled them incompetently; and that there was a serious irregularity with regard to the loan of R16 million. The commission found that his activities in SAAN and The Citizen constituted an irregularity; and that he told the then Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, from the start but that his evidence was rejected. The commission made it clear that he went ahead with The Citizen without consultation; that he acted irregularly in lending Luyt R12 million; and that, when questioned whether this was a personal loan or not, he first came with a denial and later, under cross-examination, succumbed and came with an admission. The commission found that he was lax and negligent in allowing unlimited discretion to a secretary to spend approximately R14 million to R17 million a year. The commission found further that he tried to bluff the commission that the editorial manifesto of The Citizen was not a political manifesto. The commission rejected this and found that his argument, in their words, was obviously untenable. Furthermore, the commission found that he exercised improper pressure on others to secure a favourable position for himself. The well-known phrase he used to Mr. Reynders, viz. “Jy het mos niks in my departement verkeerd gevind nie, het jy?” constituted a threat directed at that particular person. The commission found further that there were improper attempts to conceal the true state of affairs in his department for political advantage. He also rushed to the Minister of Finance for signatures.

This evidence is before us in the House. We have asked repeatedly of that side of the House where that former Minister, the hon. member for Randfontein, is. We asked why he was not here. We can only draw one conclusion from his absence. There is an irresistible inference and that is that the hon. member for Randfontein is not here because he does not want to be here. If he had wanted to be here, he could have defended himself, and he could have refuted the allegations and findings of the Erasmus Commission. In view of his absence in the House, an absence of his choice, while he could have had an opportunity to defend himself, we can come to no other conclusion than that he is guilty of the allegations and that he has no defence in the face of the findings of the commission. It is significant that not one hon. member on that side of the House has come to his defence. Not one hon. member on that side of the House, close colleague or otherwise, has risen to defend him against any one of these allegations. On the contrary, the hon. members on that side of the House have accepted in toto the findings of the Erasmus Commission without question. So they have shut out a man who was a leader in their party and have left him standing condemned and undefended in the face of the evidence we have before us.

When we come to the iniquitous question of Gen. Van den Bergh, we see that the commission found that he knew everything that was going on. He was a man who had his ear close to the ground. He tried to manipulate events, even made decisions for the then Prime Minister, covered up material irregularities and tried to influence the election of a new Prime Minister. There is a clear picture of a man who played a double role, particularly in the case of The Citizen. Those findings had been refuted. In a Press conference which he called General Van den Bergh issued a statement in which he disputed it. He brought to this House’s attention certain facts, for example that he was not confronted beforehand with the evidence he was to face, that he was cross-examined, that he had no legal defence and that he had no opportunity to defend himself. The findings and evidence condemned this man eternally, because the commission found him to be the great intriguer, the great master, the man who was controlling the destiny of South Africa. He has refuted it. If that is the case, a very serious position is brought to light. It brings to light the need and the necessity for the evidence led before the Erasmus Commission to be made available in toto to this House so that it can evaluate the evidence and see whether it agrees or not with the findings of the Erasmus Commission. I want to point out one simple thing. I am one of the younger members of this House and older members will know far better that this House is the senior legislative body of South Africa. This is the body which can dismiss judges and impeach State Presidents. It is supreme. I want to submit that the failure of the Prime Minister or the Erasmus Commission, or both jointly, to furnish this House with the evidence, is an affront to the authority of the House and an insult to the intelligence of every single member of this House.

When one reviews the evidence published by the commission, one gets the feeling that the commission has found that a very senior Cabinet Minister has made himself guilty of the irregularities to which I have referred.

*I was very pleased to learn that the purpose of the commission was to flay this matter to the bone. But I should like to ask the commission whether there was only one bone or whether there were three bones.

†I want to submit that there were other people that the commission also had to find. One just gets the feeling that the weight of the onus which has been placed on one person, has shifted the light onto two other people who were involved as well. One gets the feeling that the hon. member for Randfontein is the lamb that has been brought to the altar of sacrifice to pay for all the sins of all those who have been involved in the hope that this would cleanse the others and that public attention would be so focused on this one particular aspect that it will be diverted from the others. Is that the sacrifice this House is asked to make? How many of the 74 people who voted for Dr. Mulder at that stage knew what was going on with regard to the Information scandal? Those who did not vote according to their ideologies and their wishes to belong to one wing of the NP or another or to the south or the north, but who voted for the final cover-up, stand accused in my eyes, because had Dr. Mulder become the Prime Minister of South Africa and was joined by General Van den Bergh, there would have been a cover-up of cover-ups and the Press and this House would have been censored. I want to accuse those who knew at that stage about the things which were going on that they voted not for the ideologies or for the man, but for a cover-up. There is a number of irregularities which have to be cleared up. The money has to be recovered. I want the Government to give an undertaking that it would take urgent steps to recover moneys wherever possible and not only in respect of the houses the hon. the Prime Minister has referred to. I take a small matter such as the R825 000 concerning Mr. Pieterse. The money was lent to him, but the Department of Plural Relations and Development messed him around for so long that he put that money in Barclays Bank for another enterprise entirely, namely the film “Golden Rendezvous”, which was a big flop. That man and his company, the Film Trust Arena, has compromised in terms of the Companies Act and offered to pay 100 cents in the rand over four years. That offer was sanctioned by the court and the payments have to be filed within 60 days. Those 60 days have passed and I want to know whether the hon. the Prime Minister and particularly the hon. the Minister of Finance have investigated whether they have a claim. If they do not file their claims timeously in all those cases they will lose their money by prescription. In this case it is already too late to do anything about it.

I want to refer very briefly to the question of The Citizen and say here and now that I feel very aggrieved with The Citizen. I feel very aggrieved as a taxpayer and I am sure that thousands of taxpayers will share my grief that the money that I worked hard for for 30 years has gone into The Citizen, a newspaper established for the political benefit of the National Party. Every anti-Nationalist and every taxpayer, even Nationalist taxpayers, will resent that their money is being used for that purpose. Perskor will publish the new Citizen tomorrow and all our appeals to the Government to stop the sale of The Citizen have fallen on deaf ears. I want to know what your claims are and why you have not filed your claims. I want to make one further submission in this regard. It advertised a sale within 30 days. I ask the Government to object to the sale in the 30 day period because we have a very vast stake, running into at least R16 million, which we must recover from The Citizen for this Government. I want to raise one interesting aspect regarding The Citizen. We all fought an election on 30 November 1977. There was never any English newspaper in South Africa supporting the Nationalist Government. We have 135 members of the National Party in this House and it did not occur to one of them that suddenly they had an English-speaking newspaper supporting them. Not one of them queried the fact that a Johannesburg English-speaking newspaper supports the National Party. They must have thought this was a gift from heaven. They must not try to tell me that they did not know that The Citizen was Nationalist Party orientated and they cannot tell me the reasons why.

There has been a lot of argument here this afternoon with regard to Cabinet responsibility and that relates to The Citizen as well. The hon. the Minister of Finance is the man who signs the cheques. He is the man who is responsible to see that the budget is approved. He places that budget before the Cabinet and has to ascertain what the requirements of the different departments are. He has to raise taxes and revenues, but he did not find out, and that is an act of omission, what the purposes were for which the R64 million in the secret funds were used. He merely signed. That act of negligence and of omission is the one for which he is responsible. There has been a lot of argument with regard to collective responsibility. This House has accepted the findings of the Erasmus Commission. I ask hon. members whether they accept the findings of the Commission in paragraph 10.317 on page 69 which states that Ministers are jointly responsible for the exercise of executive authority. The Commission quotes the following passage from Constitutional Law by Wade and Phillips—

There are two authorities which I want to submit to this House. The first is Verloren van Themaat in his book Staatsreg who states the following about a convention. The hon. the Minister of the Interior said: it is only a convention, but we obey the convention. It reads as follows—

Then, let us look at a further authority. Let us look at O. Hood Phillips. I quote from page 232 of his book The Constitutional Law of Great Britain and the Commonwealth. In connection with ministerial responsibility he has the following to say—

That is why we call for the resignation of the Government. However, as for the then Prime Minister, and as for the hon. the Minister of Finance, attention should be drawn to another paragraph in the same book, viz. on page 234. There it says in connection with Cabinet Committees—

That is the hon. the Minister of Finance.—

That places an additional responsibility upon the hon. the Minister of Finance, and that hon. Minister has, by a dereliction of duty, by an act of omission, shunned his responsibility. He is responsible for all State finances. Can he, therefore, tell this House that he allowed secret funds to be abused.

We now have the situation that what the hon. the Minister is asking us to accept is that Dr. Eschel Rhoodie was the only man in South Africa, the only State official in South Africa, who could make the decisions in connection with the R14 million to R17 million. If he was responsible to his own Minister, then he was not responsible to the hon. the Minister of Finance. That is an untenable position. With the greatest respect in the world, we cannot accept that the Secretary for Information, Dr. Eschel Rhoodie, could make these decisions and that he was above the hon. the Minister of Finance, that he could decide on Thor Communicators and on all the other front organizations existing in South Africa. We cannot accept that he could control the spending of secret funds, that he could simply commit all these irregularities, such as the purchasing of a private box at Loftus Versfeld, that he could undertake the said trips to the Seychelles, to the United States, to Europe and elsewhere, and that the hon. the Minister of Finance can now try to free himself of this entirely.

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Finance cannot escape from his responsibilities. Therefore, the hon. the Minister of Finance should resign.

I now want to put a few questions to the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to know from him how Gen. Van den Bergh came to be appointed to do the evaluation. He said himself that he could cover it up and save the Government. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister when he first found out about The Citizen. Did he ever ask any questions? Did he sign certificates? Did he ask for an audit? Would there have been a judicial inquiry if it had not been for Mr. Justice Mostert? In reply to his call that the other side should be heard I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister whether he has heard the explanations. Why were irregularities committed in funding The Citizen after the truth had been made known? If there was no three-man committee, why did no one admit it at the time? We debated Dr. Rhoodie’s statement at that time. What did he mean by saying there were no funds? In his widely publicized television interview on 4 November, in answer to a question, the hon. the Prime Minister said that The Citizen was funded by the Special Equipment Fund to which moneys were channeled from the Defence Vote. Was he personally aware of the fact that money was being used in this way? The reply of the hon. the Prime Minister was that he was aware that money was being provided by a vote of Parliament for the purposes of the Department of Information. He added though that no funds voted for defence purposes had been allotted to the Department of Information. What does the hon. the Prime Minister say to that now?

Those are the questions which, I believe, should be answered. In conclusion I want to add that I believe we should state to the satisfaction of everybody in South Africa that the moneys owing to the Government will be recovered immediately and diligently and without any waste of time. Secondly, we should ensure that there will never be a recurrence of this type of debacle in South Africa, and thirdly, we should see to it that this festering sore is rooted out once and for all from the administration in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in the dying hours of this debate I sat here with pencil poised to take some points from the speech of the hon. member for Hillbrow so that I may show him the courtesy of making some observations thereto. However, it appears clearly to me, as I think it appears clearly also to the House, that hon. members of the Official Opposition are now running out of adjectives, out of questions and are reaching the stage of tedious repetition because they refer to the same issues time and time again. Before I go on to deal with what I wish to say here tonight and to discuss the role of the Opposition and the responsibility which they bear for the present debacle, there are some issues which I wish to discuss. The first one is the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands.

Quite right. That was the best speech of the day.

Mr. Speaker, if that speech is judged as the best speech of the day, then we have reached a sorry state in our discussion of matters of national importance to South Africa. The hon. member did what I think is the most despicable thing I have ever heard in this House …

Oh, not again!

Yes. Mr. Speaker, that hon. member attempted to exploit a distressing incident, namely the murder of the late Robert Smit and to use it for political gain in this debate.

That is nonsense.

It is not nonsense. The hon. member took a quotation and read from an interview with certain police officers for what other purpose but to attempt to couple that with what has happened and has been exposed in the report of the Erasmus Commission and to create the impression abroad and amongst the public—as has been mentioned in certain newspapers—that there was some sinister motive for the murder of the late Robert Smit.

Do you say that there was no connection?

That was the hon. members’ intention.

Are you sure that there was no connection?

I raise this matter immediately, because the hon. member wore the cloth of a church at one time. I wonder whether he has asked himself, in his own conscience, what he did here today. I wonder whether he has asked himself what the effect of this will be on people who were friends of Robert Smit and what it will mean to the family that this matter should be raised in this House. [Interjections.] I think it was a despicable action on the part of that hon. member.

Order! No, the hon. member may not say that. He must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that and say it is the most distressing thing I have ever seen in my political life.

You have hardly started and you have already broken the rules.

No wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had to start the discussion of these affairs by describing this session as a session of shame.

Are you not ashamed?

No, I am not ashamed and I will tell you in a minute why I am not ashamed. Any shame there is comes from the attitude and the approach of the members of the Official Opposition. The sort of expression we had in the speech of the Leader of the Official Opposition was made in order that his Press could get the right type of black heading to put over the news report of his speech. I have one here which appeared in tonight’s Argus. It reads: “Subdued Nats in session of shame”.

Quite right!

When one looks at this report, one realizes that the term “this session of shame” will be spread all over the world. [Interjections.] I quote—

Has there ever been a more one-sided report on a debate of this nature on any previous occasion: We have never seen, in our whole life in this House, such an exhibition by an Official Opposition in a matter of this nature.

Give us a few answers and stop talking nonsense!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that this is a “session of shame” as it destroyed the faith of South Africans in the integrity of government.

Which is not true.

Of course it is not true!

Of course it is true.

It is not true.

I shall concede at once that no one with any sense of responsibility can be happy at the circumstances that have necessitated this session of Parliament. [Interjections.]

Ah, come on, Boraine, pretend you are sober, man!

I would violently object to feeling shame, or to any other hon. member on these benches feeling shame. On the contrary, I have a feeling of pride in the fact that as a South African I am a member of a National party which holds high the traditions of Parliamentary government and, without fear or favour, can bring to this House, the highest forum in the land, at the very first opportunity, for open discussion, the report of the commission exposing matters of maladministration in which, in no way whatsoever, has the hon. Minister or the Government attempted to conceal or to cover-up. This, I think, should be proof in itself to the public, and members of the NP, of the integrity of this Government. The fact that the Government accepts, without qualification, the findings of the commission, and is determined that the law will take its course, is further proof of its integrity.

That is more than one can say for the Opposition.

The motion moved by the hon. the Prime Minister clearly indicates the attitude of the Government. It is straightforward and clear.

Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say something else. He said that he believed in this and he believed in that, and the House will recall that every second paragraph of his speech was a belief. All his beliefs indicated that we would have to rise above personal and party loyalties and avoid the temptation of looking for scapegoats. Am I paraphrasing him correctly?

Quite right.

He has forgotten.

I think the House will agree that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in his speech, did not rise above personal and party loyalties. He did not rise above them. He attempted to bring in additional scapegoats, and that pattern has been followed by every one of the members of the opposition parties who have spoken here.

Which scapegoats have you collected?

They attempted to bring in additional scapegoats, for example the hon. the Prime Minister …

Correct.

They attempted to bring in Mr. B. J. Vorster, our present State President, and the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Correct.

This was done, let me add, in spite of categorical statements by the Erasmus commission to the effect that they were completely exonerated from any blame whatsoever. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, however, chose to play party politics.

Nonsense!

He chose to bring in the additional scapegoats after having urged us to be careful in our approach. The Leader of the Opposition plays party politics. He does not trust the findings of the commission, not at all! He does not consider that the commissioners were qualified, as legal men, to evaluate the evidence placed before them. This applies to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and, let me add, to other hon. members in the Official Opposition.

Have you seen the evidence?

In fact, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, throughout his speech, was attempting to create the impression in the public mind that without the evidence being placed before this House—in the hands of the Official Opposition and the Press that supports them—there is an attempt at a cover-up, either by the commission or the Government. If this is not so, why then did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition use these words? The Government must decide whether the evidence is going to be released or not. It is especially important to play open cards with the people of South Africa.

Hear, hear!

The Government has played open cards. It has accepted the commission’s report without any qualifications, but neither the hon. Leader of the Opposition nor any hon. member of his party has stated, in the course of these discussions, that they accept the report. They have rather used this session and this debate not to clear the deck of the problems that our administration has had to face in relation to this debacle, in the interest of South Africa; they have gone further by threatening to drag the dirt out for quite a while. The hon. member for Parktown said very clearly that the matter we were dealing with today, they would carry on with for quite a while. In other words, they wish to make the greatest amount of political capital possible in the hope of achieving some public support outside; what a hope! [Interjections.] Talk about playing party politics! The hon. member for Musgrave did not listen to what his leader suggested he should not do. He attempted to imply that there could be large scale corruption within the administration of other Government departments. Is that not so? I think the hon. member’s speech was scandalous. He implied that our Civil Service was corrupt in other aspects.

Rubbish!

It is no good saying “rubbish” and attempting to run away now, because every member of the House heard what the hon. member implied.

I did not refer to the Civil Service; look at my Hansard.

The hon. member spoke of the administration; and what is the administration? The hon. member went further and said that if it had not been for Commissioner Mostert’s disclosures, he wonders what the position would have been. [Interjections.] He clearly implied that without these disclosures there would have been a cover-up operation. [Interjections.] Those hon. members should not delude the public outside because they must surely know that if Commissioner Mostert had not made an interim public statement of a one-sided nature—and I wonder what the motives behind it were …

What was the other side?

He is not the only commissioner with a conscience in South Africa. Those hon. members all know very well that if he had not done so, nothing could have stopped those disclosures from being made public, but at the proper place on the Table of this House. Hon. members know it.

At whose discretion?

There was no discretion; it was a commission that had to report…

To whom?

Mr. Speaker, hon. members are giving a one-sided impression to the outside with this holier-than-thou attitude.

I want to refer in particular to a remark of the hon. Leader of the Opposition that had it not been for The Citizen newspaper, I would not have been a member of this House. [Interjections.] I immediately want to say that I personally had no knowledge whatsoever that The Citizen in any way was funded by the State Department of Information.

Another one with clean hands.

In any event, if I had known, I would have opposed it because I am fundamentally opposed to anything of that nature. [Interjections.] I am opposed to the use of the taxpayers’ money for the publication of a newspaper, even if it supports the PFP.

What about the TV?

Mr. Speaker, to my fair knowledge my election campaign had two very small reports in The Citizen, none in The Star and two reports in the Rand Daily Mail. In fact, I wrote a letter to the editor of The Star, in which I stated categorically that I did not wish to be a Star M.P. and requesting … [Interjections.] All the others who are Star M.P.’s are sitting in the Official Opposition, made by The Star. I did not wish to be a Star M.P. and requested that I be not reported for the simple reason that any mention of a National Party candidate in either one of these two newspapers, whose circulation in the City of Johannesburg is many, many thousands in excess of those copies of The Citizen, would be the kiss of political death. These two Prog, newspapers, controlled from one financial source, have cried “wolf’ for 30 years against the South African Government, to such an extent that the public no longer believes any of their political prognostications. A National candidate quoted in those newspapers would be immediately suspect if supported by them. The Citizen’s circulation would not have grown to the extent that it has if the English-speaking public had not been sick to death of the Prog. Press in South Africa and their continuous anti-South African theme. The fact is that the Prog. Press destroyed the old UP and created with their financial bosses the present Official Opposition party out of, let me add, the drawing-rooms of Parktown and Houghton. Without any question, the Prog. party that sits in this House as the Official Opposition is merely “His Master’s Voice” for certain sections of the English-language Press in South Africa. It is so evident. There is not a single important debate that takes place in this House without a pre-write-up of what is going to be said by the Leader of the Opposition or any one of the other hon. members who are going to take a leading part in the debate. The copywriters of the speeches of hon. members sitting in the Opposition are the sub-editors of The Star, The Argus, the Rand Daily Mail and others. [Interjections.] It is no good hon. members having that sickly smile on their faces tonight, because they well know my past connections with the Press and they well know how much I know of what goes on behind the scenes.

Tell us about it.

Let me give a word of advice to my friend, the hon. member for Durban Point. I have known him for a long time and I have a high esteem for him.

Do you remember that you used to share a bench with me?

He does not mind taking a kind word of advice from me across the floor of this House.

Do you remember when you sat next to me?

The hon. member for Durban Point and his colleagues who sit behind him must not delude themselves that they will receive support from the English-language Press. They will receive no support, and they know this well. The only honourable mention of any consequence whatsoever that they had in Johannesburg in the last election campaign was that which appeared in The Citizen, because Johnny Johnson, the editor of The Citizen, was one of the strongest supporters of the old UP.

Only when we fought the Progs. [Interjections.]

My hon. friends can accept that the order has gone out to the English-language Press of South Africa to kill the NRP. The only reason why the Official Opposition asks for the Government’s resignation and a possible election is not that they think that they can become the Government, but with the thought that they can take over the seats held by hon. members sitting in the benches of the NRP. Mr. Speaker, my time is running out. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not mind interjections, but some of these hon. members are keeping up a running commentary. I cannot allow that any more. The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Speaker, what I have to say now must in no way be construed as meaning that I do not support the recommendations of the Erasmus Commission or in any way condone the shocking incidents of maladministration and misappropriation of taxpayers’ money, as is revealed in that report, but I want to pose the question as to who really carries the prime responsibility that led up to these circumstances and the report of the Erasmus Commission. Who carries the blame for the start of these actions and the chain of events in the former Department of Information as revealed in the commission’s report? The threat to our country and its people does not only come from beyond our borders.

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

No, my time is running out. The threat also comes from certain elements in our midst who are possibly more dangerous than those beyond our borders. They present South African Whites, largely Afrikaans-speaking, as striding the southern half of Africa, whip in the hand, denying even fundamental political and human rights to our peoples of other colour. The English-language Press, which for 30 years has damned this Government, has tried to sow dissension and present the English-speaker as the more liberal and humane element in our society.

It is quite wrong when I look at you.

It is quite true. Aided and abetted by them was their child, the Progressive Party. The hon. member for Parktown, in his speech during this debate, again made the point very clearly when he inferred that we represent a minority Government. From these two sources large volumes of adverse propaganda against South Africa flowed overseas. This is undeniable and I have shown on another occasions—and hon. members well know it—that they were largely responsible for the adverse propaganda that flowed out of South Africa. It was to combat this problem that the former Department of Information embarked on the activities it did. This led to maladministration and wrongful misappropriation of public moneys. It cannot be condoned. However, my submission is that for the degree that the Official Opposition is responsible for the adverse propaganda against our country, to that extent the Official Opposition must accept the blame for what has occurred.

Mr. Speaker, my time is running out, but I want to make a very short reference to an observation made by the hon. member for Yeoville. He concluded his tirade by bringing into question the credibility of this Government and stating that the National Party is not South Africa. We have never claimed that the National Party is South Africa, but if we have to start comparing notes in this regard, then by no stretch of the imagination can the party of the hon. member for Yeoville be considered as representing a South African outlook or giving expression to pride in a national feeling of unity. I cannot even produce a set of principles of the Progressive Federal Party in this regard. The National Party may not be South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Rule 120 of our Standing Orders states clearly that—

Sir, I have reason to believe that the hon. member is speaking from the place that should be occupied by the hon. member for Randfontein and I submit that the hon. member for Von Brandis’s place is the one to my left currently being occupied by the leader of the SAP.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Von Brandis may continue.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude because my time is running out. In reply to the hon. member for Yeoville, I just want to make the point that I agree with him that the NP may not be South Africa, but beyond question its principles give rise to a basic idealism of South Africanism which unites our people in an unbreakable faith in our future and in themselves, something the PFP just does not have. It is with this faith that we say that a NP Government will act honourably and it is with this faith that it will solve the problems that lie ahead. It is, furthermore, because of this faith that the PFP will in the future be remembered as a passing irritation in the history of our country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat is apparently not only in the wrong seat but as far as his speech is concerned, almost every fact he pointed out was incorrect. One of the minor mistakes he made was in connection with his reference to the editorial staff of a newspaper. According to him a great deal was wrong with it. He spoke about subeditors doing things which no sub-editor would ever do. The important error he made, of course, he shares with many members on the other side.

Sentence him!

He insisted that any person who receives this report of the commission and has to pass judgment on it, has to reject it in its entirety or accept it in its entirety. The hon. the Minister who has interjected is a lawyer. He also made this remark. The Opposition has no objection to the procedure followed and has nothing to say about the integrity, the honesty and the amazing thoroughness of the commission. However, the Opposition cannot accept—and I advise hon. members on the other side not to do it either—every conclusion and every expression of opinion without qualification. It is dangerous to do so. I shall tell hon. members why that is so. On or before 30 May that commission will submit a further report or reports after it has heard further evidence, and it can quite easily happen—I am not saying that it will—that further evidence will lead to different insights on the part of the commission and that they, as honest and unprejudiced people, will report accordingly. What then will become of the 135 members who accepted it without comment? Surely that is a foolish decision.

Suppose it does not happen. Will you accept the whole report then?

We will wait until then.

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

I shall answer no questions, especially not questions from that hon. member. I will give you another reason, Mr. Speaker, why we cannot summarily accept this report. The hon. member for Yeoville advanced an absolutely convincing reason for it but hon. members were either not present or they did not hear it or they heard it and did not understand it. This commission is in the first place like a tribunal and it reports its findings to the State President for presentation to Parliament. This Parliament actually finds itself in the position of a court of appeal because it is the highest court in the country. No court of appeal accepts a judgment without taking cognizance of the exhibits and all the evidence, but hon. members with all their smart remarks are credulous enough to accept the position as such.

It has been asked repeatedly during this debate why the Opposition or the English newspapers did not give evidence before the commission if they had evidence or were aware of the facts. I want to make it very clear now that any evidence which any member of this Opposition or any English language Press organ had, would all be hearsay evidence unless hon. members on the other side of the House want to say that Opposition members or the editorial staff participated in crimes. Let them give me a reply to that now. Hearsay evidence cannot be given to the commission for the simple reason that evidence is given under oath. This is not an ordinary commission of enquiry.

But the sources can be made public to enable the commission to subpoena the witnesses.

That hon. Minister now thinks that if a journalist came to me, which has happened, and asked me whether I knew anything about this aspect or that aspect, I would go to the commission and tell them that Mr. X, the journalist, put a question to me and that there was something wrong somewhere. What happened in this House when the matter was debated in February, March and April? Were there not repeated references to Thor Communicators? What was the reaction of hon. members on the other side of the House to this? They cried out that those references were rumours. Is that true? I am afraid that the commission of enquiry …

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

I am not going to reply to a question; not one from that hon. member, either. Unfortunately the commission of enquiry had to work with great speed under the circumstances. They did a phenomenal job. Not for one moment did I expect that three men would be able to complete this job within 30 days. A mistake was made, however, in the unfortunate reference to the fact that the English-language Press did not want to give evidence. If a journalist acquires information—maybe the hon. member for Von Brandis can help me in that regard because he said that he knows so much about journalism—hears a rumour or gets to hear about a possible crime or an evil which might lead to a report, he only publishes it when he is certain that he is on fairly firm ground. In other words, everything the journalists in actual fact knew and of which they were fairly sure, appeared in the newspapers, which were also at the disposal of the commission. The things of which they were unsure and which they were still investigating they could of course under no circumstances blurt out to the commission because they might only have been rumours.

They published things which they could not substantiate with facts.

The hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs is now speaking out of turn because he cannot name me one single case in which that happened. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member does not need help. Hon. members do not have to shout with him.

I am referring to the dismissal of Mr. Justice Mostert as the commissioner of a specific commission. Most of the facts have been mentioned and are generally known but I should like to dwell on two aspects as far as that point is concerned. The first aspect that interests me is the reasons given for his dismissal. I am not speaking at the moment of the tirade of the hon. the Minister of Finance against the person of Mr. Justice Mostert but about the explanation given by the hon. the Prime Minister for the dismissal. The first reason that appeared in the newspapers reads as follows—

In other words, the first reason given on behalf of this Government for the dismissal of Mr. Justice Mostert was that apparently he revealed evidence in a manner or at a stage when he was not entitled to do so, and this was interpreted in a different way by the Government. The issue, therefore, was the desirability or otherwise of revealing evidence. I want to say immediately that this is a totally incorrect premise for the simple reason that it does not hold water to say that it was one-sided evidence. Every court case involves one-sided evidence from day to day and the newspapers publish it from day to day. In due course, if the court case lasts long enough, the other side of the matter is also heard. However, Mr. Justice Mostert could not continue long enough. It is therefore utter nonsense to speak of one-sided evidence, unproved or untested. But that is not all. A second reason was given and once again I quote from a newspaper report—

In other words, a completely new reason was given here. The hon. the Prime Minister is of course not listening to what I am saying at the moment, but that does not matter. He advanced a second reason which did not tally with the first reason and which was even in conflict with it to a certain extent. But that is still not the end of the story. He advanced a third reason, which reads as follows—

In other words, he wanted to widen his terms of reference.

No, it was included in his terms of reference.

In other words, the hon. the Prime Minister says in the first place—

Then the hon. the Prime Minister says that Mr. Justice Mostert impinged on the spheres of operations of other commissions of inquiry. In the third place he says—

Now I want to know which one of these three statements is true. Why were three reasons given? [Interjections.] This matter is so much worse and more serious and harmful because a precedent was created in the steps taken against Mr. Justice Mostert. This is something that has never existed in South Africa. This is the first time that this drastic type of action has taken place. Therefore the people of South Africa are entitled to know exactly what happened and how it happened.

Furthermore we had the extraordinary situation where the hon. the Minister of Finance appeared on television to tell us how Mr. Justice Mostert stormed out of the office of the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] “I was totally overwhelmed,” said the hon. the Minister of Finance. Is this the way to broadcast such matters and so harm the judge’s reputation? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I believe that the hon. member for Mossel Bay should definitely not say anything about the administration of justice after his speech this morning. [Interjections.] This utterly careless way in which the reputation and the prestige of a judge can be harmed … [Interjections.]

He harmed the reputation of the hon. the Prime Minister.

That is what is being done. He might have harmed the hon. the Prime Minister’s reputation, but that happened in private. He did not do it on television like the hon. the Minister of Finance. [Interjections.] That was a calculated humiliation of a judge and therefore it was a humiliating attack on the judiciary as a whole. [Interjections.] I repeat what I said to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs earlier on. When one attacks a judge, even if it is only one judge, one diminishes the reputation of the whole judiciary. [Interjections.] And then the stupid … [Interjections.]

Now you are insulting the judiciary! [Interjections.]

Order!

I say … [Interjections.] What is the accusation of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs against me now?

You are now insulting the judiciary! [Interjections.]

Apparently that hon. Minister cannot understand English. [Interjections.] That same hon. Minister asked this morning—

This he now wants to make analogous to this case. [Interjections.] I think that is absolutely scandalous. [Interjections.] It is my conviction that this Government will be known as the Government which for the first time dismissed a judge as a commissioner. [Interjections.] The Government made divergent and conflicting statements as to why this was done and, in addition, used the hon. the Minister of Finance to launch a personal attack against a judge on television and once again in this House.

And that the ugliest Minister of all! [Interjections.]

This was done in a case where the judge was totally unable to defend himself. [Interjections.]

I told the judge that he had to apologize to the hon. the Prime Minister.

Yes, but then the hon. the Minister should have done so in private.

He insulted the hon. the Prime Minister in my presence!

Then the hon. the Minister of Finance should have asked him to apologize to the hon. the Prime Minister personally. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Finance should not, however, have done that on television. [Interjections.]

Order!

I heard and saw what the hon. the Minister said on television. I also heard what he said in this House this morning. How can he say now that he does not know anything about it? [Interjections.] It is a totally uncaring attitude to something which hon. members of this House do not fully understand, i.e. that if one undermines the reputation of the judiciary in South Africa one is heading for a catastrophe.

That is right. They are just barbarians.

Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of personal explanation?

Not another one!

Who are you to give an order?

Order!

Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of personal explanation arising out of what has just been said about me?

Order! Yes, I am quite prepared to allow it. However it must be short and to the point.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it will be very short. What I want to say is that I did not go on television. It was at a Press conference that I was asked certain questions. That then went on television. I personally did not appear on television. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether hon. members of the Official Opposition have the right to refer to us as “barbarians” (barbare)? [Interjections.]

We said “agbare”.

You said “barbare”.

Order! [Interjections.] If hon. members do not know that they should be silent when Mr. Speaker is talking, they should realize this at once, otherwise I shall rule that no further interjections will be allowed until we adjourn. Who said that hon. members on the side of the Government are barbarians?

I did, Sir.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that at this late hour the speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg North would have banished all inclination to sleep. I think he has come up to our expectations and his neighbour, the hon. member for Hillbrow with his droning voice, will be well-advised to learn a few lessons from him.

If there was one thing I thought the hon. member for Johannesburg North would have avoided it was a repetition of the faux pas he committed a few weeks ago when he said in public that the Government stood accused in the eyes of the people of having dismissed a judge. Yet he actually repeated that statement here this evening, namely that the Government had dismissed a judge. He also referred to the hon. the Minister of Finance who did not even appear on that television programme. He said that the standing and reputation of a judge had been seriously impaired. He spoke furthermore of the humiliating attack that had been launched on the Bench. I am not equipped to cross swords with the hon. member on that score but I should like to ask him whether in saying that he is suggesting that a judge is sacrosanct and above all criticism.

It applies to Erasmus as well as to Mostert.

Mr. Speaker, I have here the South African Law Journal. This is a very recent issue, that of September 1978. It was published, therefore, two months before Judge Mostert—or rather to be correct, commissioner Mostert—was dismissed. There is an article in this book written by somebody whom I believe is highly acceptable to members opposite, namely Prof. Barend van Niekerk. This article was written two months ago and I believe he still holds the same view today. Prof. Barend van Niekerk writes the following and I quote—

Prof. Barend van Niekerk then goes further and says the following—

he is referring to the Bench—

and that did not happen in this case—

And yet that person who was a judge comes with a “shriek” to this House and accuses us of having had the temerity to humiliate the Bench and dismiss a judge who is above criticism. [Interjections.] What I found particularly interesting about the speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg North was what he omitted to say. From Houghton to Hillbrow, with practically no exception, members of the PFP selected one person as. the target of their attacks, namely Gen. Hendrik van den Bergh.

No, not at all.

The only exception was the hon. member for Johannesburg North and I think one can well understand why that is so. Friends do not act like that. I nearly said brothers did not act like that. [Interjections.] When Gen. Van den Bergh gave his Press interview yesterday it appeared from the report in the Argus of yesterday afternoon that he expressed surprise that Mr. Reynders had said that he was afraid of Gen. Van den Bergh. He said it was unnecessary for Mr. Reynders to be afraid of him. He said they were together at Koffiefontein. They were interned at the same time. He also said they were both Broederbonders.

Both of them took radios.

Now I can well understand why the hon. member for Johannesburg North has a particular affinity with Gen. Van den Bergh and does not wish to be party to this campaign of besmirching him. [Interjections.]

Both the PFP and the NRP ask in their amendments that the Government should resign. What strikes me particularly about these motions is that they do not call for a general election. They merely ask the Government to resign. And in order to make it quite clear so that there will not be any misunderstanding, the PFP asks for the immediate appointment of a Select Committee. Surely that cannot happen if there is a general election. One can very well understand why they do not call for a general election because this Government has lately been in a most accommodating frame of mind. This Government has gone out of its way to meet the Opposition. The Opposition asked for a judicial commission of inquiry and they got it. They asked for a special sitting of Parliament and they got it. They asked for a parliamentary commission and they got that immediately. They asked for the closing-down of The Citizen, and even before they had asked for this it was announced that all support for The Citizen had been withdrawn.

That will be the day!

When one deals with such an accommodating Government it is very dangerous to ask for a general election because the results can be catastrophic. They are afraid of a general election because they know that this Government will emerge much stronger from this entire struggle.

Let us try it.

They know that the electorate greatly appreciates the way in which the Government has handled this extremely difficult situation. In the second place, they are afraid of the reaction of the electorate to the extravagant, unbridled language and nationally damaging remarks that have come from that side of the House. Those are the people who have placed themselves on a moral pedestal, they are the high-priests of morality. Lily-white in their purity they have made themselves guilty of the grossest untruths. The hon. member for Pinelands who is looking so fixedly at me, raised his pastoral arm this morning and with great indignation said: “Lies upon lies upon lies.”

That is right: Do you dispute that?

If I may satirize the apostle Paul, I want to say to the hon. member if he hates lies, I do even more. I do not take second place to him, therefore, in my condemnation of it. I believe that only that which is honourable and can conform with the highest norms of morality can succeed. I should like to know from the hon. member why he is so selective in his morality.

You are on trial, not I. [Interjections.]

Why is he not equally indignant about the lies that have come from that side of the House? Or does the hon. member for Pinelands also adopt the standpoint that when it affects the interests of the PFP or when it can harm the Government, no rules apply? There are numerous examples of the blatant untruths that were disseminated last month. Here I have a cutting from the Natal Mercury of 9 November this year. The article is headed “Protest over fired judge.” If I could have the attention of the hon. member for Musgrave for a moment, I should like to quote from this report—

Surely the hon. member knows that at this stage it had already been announced that a judicial commission would be appointed; that a parliamentary committee was being appointed and that for the first time in nearly 40 years a special session of Parliament would be convened. It is the first time in our history that Parliament has been convened to discuss such a matter. Yet the hon. member still tells the world untruthfully that there has been a cover-up. I quote further from this article—

This is a person with a legal background who says the following in referring to Judge Mostert—

We are supposed to have dismissed him because of his findings. The judge did not come to any conclusions; there I differ from the hon. member because one-sided evidence does not constitute a judgment. A judgment is something which is considered …

I did not say that he passed judgment. [Interjections.]

The hon. member said that we did not approve of the judgment of Judge Mostert, but that is not correct. We did not approve of the report of the Erasmus Commission but did we reject it? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Musgrave goes on and says the following in this article—

The hon. member tells the world that we are heading for anarchy in this country. My time has expired but I want to refer briefly to the sentence that crowns everything in this report. It reads as follows—

Then he said this—

I now want to know this from the hon. member for Pinelands: When a diabolically concentrated campaign is being conducted against the country and when suspicion is being cast on the impartiality of our judiciary, is it not a blatant untruth to say “Today we bury judicial freedom in South Africa”? Is that not injurious to the country?

I do not doubt for one moment that the Government will emerge very much stronger from this struggle. We have in fact the ability to convert an embarrassment—and this has been a tremendous embarrassment to us—into an opportunity of transforming the negative into the positive and of learning from our mistakes. One learns one’s most valuable lesson from one’s mistakes and we shall emerge stronger because one gains wisdom from disgrace and privation.

Have you ever heard of repentance?

We are going to roll up our sleeves tomorrow, put our shoulder to the wheel and from a stronger position serve this country with all its peoples with greater enthusiasm and greater efficiency.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to react to one point raised by the hon. member for Port Natal. Like many other hon. members on that side of the House he pointed out to us that we had asked the Government to resign without challenging them to call a general election. Let us put it very clearly: We challenge the Government to fight an election subject to the proviso that we use our own funds to fight the election and that that party uses its own funds to fight the election and not public funds.

Hon. members opposite have created the impression today that the scandal that has hit our country has saddened and disappointed them. It is only right that that should be so. What they do not realize apparently is the tremendous harm this scandal has done to South Africa. It is a fact that the Black population groups of this country already do not trust the Government of the day.

Where do you get that from?

I believe that the scandal we have just experienced will shake the little confidence they still have even further and seriously hamper hon. Ministers in their negotiations with these Black population groups.

I want to refer to a quotation made by the hon. member for Innesdal in which he said “the name of the game is confidence in the White man”. He could very well have added “the White man in South Africa”. A new Minister of Plural Relations and Development has recently been appointed to the new Cabinet Surely hon. members opposite must realize how difficult it will be for the new hon. Minister to, for example, negotiate with the people of Crossroads. Whatever he may say to them they will find difficult to believe. They will not believe the new hon. Minister all the more because he is the successor to the hon. member for Randfontein. The new hon. Minister will have to negotiate with the people of Soweto. Will they believe him after what the NP has done to South Africa? The new hon. Minister will have to negotiate with the leaders of the homelands. Will they be able to trust him after what has happened?

I want to refer to an article which appeared on the front page of Die Vaderland of Thursday 7 December. Once again this article states that there is corruption in Government departments and I quote from this newspaper. This is a newspaper which supports the NP. The report reads—

This is further proof of the fact that the control exercised by the Ministers responsible for these Government departments is unsatisfactory. It is this most unsatisfactory control that has led to the scandal we have been discussing during the past two days in this House.

Then some hon. members opposite try to suggest that it is the first time in 30 years that there has been talk about a scandal in the NP. Numerous speakers have tried to suggest that. That is not so. Those of us who have followed the political history of this country over the past few decades will remember the Babeletakis scandal and the scandals of Agliotti, Marendas and Port St. Johns. When one goes back further into history one also remembers the scandal in connection with the Diamond T-trucks. The history of the NP is riddled with sinister activities. After what happened yesterday and today and after what may still be revealed in future, the public of South Africa will view the activities of this party from a different angle. There was a time when the public of South Africa said that even if they did perhaps differ with that party, the men at the top were at least trustworthy and honourable men. I doubt whether the public will still be inclined to that point of view.

I come now to my more serious charge, namely that against the present Prime Minister who is also Minister of Defence. We have the position that over a period of approximately four years Parliament has been misled by a member of the Cabinet who lacked the courage to say “no”. What does the report of the commission say? In the first instance we learn that over a period of four years a considerable portion of the original amount voted for defence was set aside annually and transferred to another department. It is true and the report says so that the Minister was dead against it. The report states further—and I quote from paragraph 10.339—

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what one’s reactions are if something goes against one’s grain and then, when the Estimates of Expenditure are discussed, one has to pretend to Parliament that something is what it is not? What does one do? Does one keep quiet, does one perhaps tell a half-truth or what does one do? I should very much like to know how a person reacts when he carries that responsibility and something goes against his grain. Does that person leave the Chamber, as the hon. the Prime Minister is now doing, when he has to reply?

Mr. Speaker, it is not only the Parliament of South Africa that has been misled but the entire South African public. Defence matters in this country are approached in a special way. For various and understandable reasons we have had the position where searching questions were not asked when the Defence Vote was under discussion. We know what the reasons were for that. Then when we find that we have been misled in respect of an amount of approximately R43 million, the matter becomes serious. [Interjections.] Thousands upon thousands of young men are prepared to do their share in the interests of South Africa, young men who are prepared to pay the supreme penalty on the borders of this country of ours. Those young men do not regard it as a joke when R43 million has been misappropriated. The mothers of those young men and the wives of the men who serve on our borders do not regard it as a joke when money that should be used for defence and that was earmarked for Defence, is used to establish and maintain a NP newspaper with the object of fighting the Opposition. That is not a joke.

I return now to the question of The Citizen with which I have already dealt. The Department of Information was disbanded on 13 June and I understand that The Citizen was taken over by Perskor on 17 November. Over that period somebody paid for the maintenance and publication of that newspaper. We should very much like to know who provided that money and who paid the account. We should very much like to have an answer to that question. Something interesting is happening. Hon. members will remember that a few weeks ago certain Cabinet members decided to resign from the directorates of certain newspapers. I find it interesting that Perskor should be the company which has now bought The Citizen. In other words, if taxpayers’ money has been used to keep that newspaper going up till now, it means that taxpayers’ money has been used to keep that newspaper going until Perskor was in a position to take it over. I suspect that those hon. Cabinet members who resigned, did so in order not to create the impression that they themselves were taking over the newspapers which they had established and managed by means of Government funds.

The hon. member for Houghton asked the hon. the Prime Minister today which were the eight projects which would now be “open”. This information was refused. I cannot understand why it was refused because a project is either open or secret.

It was not refused.

What is the reply to her question then?

Do you think the reply is so simple that it can be given across the floor of the House?

I should like to have an undertaking that some hon. member on that side of the House will furnish us on this side of the House with a reply to that question. A project is either open or secret. The recent history of that party has proved that they are no longer to be trusted. One wonders whether one of those eight projects will not be used either to keep that party in power or to oppose the Opposition parties in this country.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pity that the two Opposition parties, the Official Opposition and the NRP as well, thought fit to call on two of their junior members to enter the debate in the early hours of the morning. In all fairness, and with great respect to the two hon. members, I think the late night hours were too much for them. I really think that two of the most disgraceful speeches made during this short session have been made by the hon. member for Wynberg, who has just resumed his seat, and the hon. member for Durban North. Ridiculous and offensive go-away birds sounds came from their side. Both these young members saw fit to drag the question of good relations between the non-Whites and the Whites into this debate. I find it extremely irresponsible of them at this late stage of the debate to want to create suspicion among the non-White groups about the goodwill and good intentions of the National Party. I want to tell these two hon. members tonight that these people will definitely not fall for that joke. In the 30 years that the NP has been in power it has succeeded very well in commanding and cultivating the necessary respect and confidence of the various population groups, these very people whose suspicion they want to arouse. It will do these hon. members no good whatsoever to try to run down the new constitutional dispensation by these obnoxious allegations made here tonight.

In the very short time at my disposal, I briefly want to give my impressions of the past two days’ debate, which is now drawing to a close. It is very clear to me that the Government summoned Parliament with the best of intentions. The Opposition newspapers and the Opposition approached this debate with great ado. I am afraid that at the end of this session these people are leaving as politically naked as they came here. It is also very clear to me that the Government has painfully accepted its responsibility. It is not pleasant to accept certain things as put forward in the report, but we are nevertheless prepared to accept them. Hon. members on this side of the House have repeatedly pointed out the course of events which brought us up to this point. The wind has been taken out of the sails of the Official Opposition as well as the other two Opposition parties by the fact that the Government has, from the very first moment that it was acquainted with certain practices which could not be condoned, acted with absolute candour, without concealing anything. I think that has been proved again and again. The Opposition parties have in no way succeeded in proving or substantiating those allegations which they have made. I am afraid that in the process, these Opposition parties have allowed themselves to be caught in the snare they have so often been caught in before in their endeavours to score a few political points, and in so doing they have done this country incalculable harm. I am convinced, as another hon. member on this side of the House has said, that after this debate the NP will emerge stronger than before and that this will be proven by any election which may be held in future. These circumstances have not hurt the NP in any way, but they have hurt the Opposition parties.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is not in the House at the moment. There are a few matters I want to raise which certainly do concern him. This hon. Minister launched an attack of a personal nature on a judge of the Supreme Court today which in my opinion has probably never been done in this House in the history of South Africa.

He was a commissioner.

It does not matter what that hon. member prefers to call him. The Minister has cast an abominable reflection on the man. It is unforgivable, and I challenge him to repeat it outside of this House, which I hope he will have the courage to do eventually.

Let us briefly ascertain what Mr. Justice Mostert has in fact done. What did he reveal? He did not indicate that he was disclosing a decision. He made it very clear that it was evidence. If there is any hon. member on the other side with any brains and with any experience who cares to read the newspapers, he will know that reports of evidence being led in criminal and civil cases appear in them every day. It is evidence as it is presented. That does not mean that it is one-sided for ultimately the verdict is also reported. That would also have been the case in this instance had Mr. Justice Mostert been given the opportunity. What did Mr. Justice Mostert give as his reasons for thinking it proper to disclose this evidence? I want to quote briefly from The Cape Times—

There is of course no doubt about it that there is nothing the NP fears more than “frank disclosures”. Hence this resentment of Mr. Justice Mostert. He goes on to say—

What was the judicial position in this case? I want to concede at once that the judicial position may be open to various interpretations.

Oh, yes?

Yes. But I will not ask the hon. member for Jeppe for his opinion. If I wanted a reliable opinion on this matter he would be the last man I would approach. To the hon. the Ministers who dealt with this matter, I want to put the next question. If they are so convinced that Mr. Justice Mostert did the wrong thing, why did they not take steps against him? What was this little attempt on their part to try to institute some kind of legal proceedings against him, the little attempt about which we read in the newspapers but about which we have so far not received any answers yet? Was it only an attempt at intimidation because they knew that they found themselves on thin ice as far as the judicial aspects of the matter were concerned? I believe that was probably the case. What were the consequences for South Africa of these revelations of Mr. Justice Mostert? There is no doubt about it that they were only for the better. They were only for the better. I believe hon. members on the other side may just as well accept the fact that if Mr. Justice Mostert had not disclosed the evidence at his disposal to the Press we would not have been sitting here tonight. [Interjections.]

That is absolute nonsense!

It is not nonsense. Only two days before Judge Mostert made his evidence known the Prime Minister was still refusing to allow any form of investigation other than that of the Pretorius Committee, just another internal committee which had to report to the Cabinet as all previous committees had done. It would have contributed nothing on earth to clarifying this matter. [Interjections.]

With his disclosure of this evidence Mr. Justice Mostert did South Africa a great favour. If the pressure upon him allows it, I believe that Mr. Justice Mostert can sleep in peace knowing that he treated South Africa correctly in spite of the enormous pressure that was being exerted upon him. What was the Government’s reaction to this conduct of Judge Mostert’s. He was treated like a criminal. Officials of the court were sent to him. The Police paid him a visit. It seemed almost as if the judge was on the point of leaving the country with some piece of precious Government property in his possession. He was treated like a criminal. All kinds of threats were made against him. We were told that even legal proceedings were being considered against him while they knew that he was prepared to make the documents in his possession available to them.

What was the idea behind these actions? It smacks of intimidation, and I shall go on believing that it was until the opposite has been proved. [Interjections.] Now we come to the interesting reasons advanced for those actions. There has been talk of one-sided evidence. What do the hon. members on the other side know about one-sided evidence? How many people have they not condemned on one-sided evidence? Those hon. members do not have the faintest notion of what tested evidence is. They do not have the faintest notion of what balanced evidence is either. I think the NP is the last little group of people to talk about one-sided evidence.

We are not a little group; you are the little group! [Interjections.]

Another very nasty incident in this connection, is the report—which the hon. member for Johannesburg North has already dealt with—of what allegedly took place between the hon. the Prime Minister and Judge Mostert. We have heard versions in this House of what happened and there have also been other versions before. I want to say frankly that I do not believe them. When he was asked this evening whether he had tried to silence Judge Mostert, the Prime Minister said he had not. I do not believe it. Furthermore we have seen a spectacle and an attack on judges here tonight which as I have already said, is worse than anything I have seen in this Parliament before. This is conduct which, in its audacity, compares well with the attitude which General Van den Bergh has shown towards the Erasmus Commission. It was no civilized difference of opinion—and there could be differences of opinion with regard to what would be the correct action to take—but an outrageous suggestion as regards the motives of this judge. It was alleged that he tried to influence the election of a Prime Minister. What rubbish, Mr. Speaker. In fact this insinuation and accusation contains a downright lie and I hope hon. members will convey the things I am saying to that hon. Minister. It is an abominable lie for on the same day on which Mr. Retief van Rooyen gave evidence before Judge Mostert, he telephoned the hon. the Minister. This was a day or two before the election of the Prime Minister. But the publication took place a month after the election of the Prime Minister. Does that hon. Minister now want to insinuate that it had any influence on the election of a Prime Minister?

He said he “wanted” to influence the election.

That is outrageous. There was not the slightest question, Mr. Speaker, of his disclosing the evidence before the Prime Minister’s election.

You did not listen to the Minister.

I did listen to him. If the hon. the Minister were here I would quote to him what appears in his Hansard regarding this matter. His Hansard is very clear about it. If that hon. Minister were to say now that the judge wanted to influence the personal choice of the Minister of Economic Affairs it would be absolute rubbish because the hon. the Minister has probably forgotten that he was at that stage the Acting Minister of Finance. He has probably forgotten that. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs told us that he advised Judge Mostert to go to his employer, the Acting Minister of Finance. When the Judge subsequently telephoned him, that hon. Minister told him that he was trying to influence the election of the Prime Minister. That is a shameful insult and I think he owes the judge an apology. I think he should apologize here because he would not dare make such an accusation outside this House.

I shall make the accusation outside as well.

He would certainly not dare to do it outside because it is totally unfounded.

I shall. Let us go right now.

That is an unfounded accusation, a shameful one. [Interjections.] The Erasmus Commission has reported and has made certain findings. Although my party and I do not support all the findings and recommendations, we approach the findings of the commission with respect and we differ where we do with respect. We appreciate the action they have taken and that is more than that hon. Minister and his cronies can say about their behaviour towards Judge Mostert. I just want to refer briefly to one point of criticism of the commission’s report—and in so doing I associate myself with the hon. member for Johannesburg North—namely that the commission has made findings about innocence so far although it has not as yet quite completed its inquiry. I say this because there is not the slightest doubt that evidence could still be forthcoming which might well influence these findings in another way. I might just mention at this stage the possibility of Mr. L. E. S. de Villiers, who was a key figure in this Citizen issue, giving evidence. He could well influence the findings. [Interjections.] But whatever verdict this commission has given, this House and the public must also give a political verdict on the actions of the Government. [Interjections.]

Order!

And there is little doubt that not only here but also in other countries the disregard among officials for the rules and regulations under which they must work is the direct result of the disregard shown by their political masters for those rules and laws. In this case the problem started with the hon. the Prime Minister of the time and the then Minister of Defence who is now the Prime Minister, people who disregarded the rules by disobeying them.

A very great deal has been said in this debate about the question of collective Cabinet responsibility. But it is not merely a question of joint Cabinet responsibility. In fact, it is not even necessary to mention that question because a Minister is quite clearly responsible for the amounts voted for his own Department. So the hon. the Prime Minister should certainly have been responsible … [Interjections.]

Order!

… but he did not have the faintest notion of the purpose for which it was being spent. Difficult though it is to believe, he alleges that he was not told anything. Secrets are being kept from the man responsible for the defence of this country. That is hard to believe! He could not have tried very hard to find out. The South African public and this House are expected to find consolation in the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister objected vehemently and repeatedly. Those are the words that have been used. The hon. the Prime Minister signed away a few million rand every year for something about which he did not know anything, but he vehemently and repeatedly objected!

Consequently there is a question I should like to ask. If the hon. member for Randfontein had testified that he had objected vehemently and repeatedly to the way in which Dr. Rhoodie was wasting money, would it have saved him and would he have been sitting here tonight? I do not have the slightest doubt that that would not have been the case. So I am afraid that the vehement and repeated objections of the hon. the Prime Minister means nothing. They mean absolutely nothing because in the end he did it.

We are told that he did things against his will and better judgement. What does that mean? How does one do things against one’s wish and better judgement within the Cabinet? Is there any voting? We are told they do not vote on it. What kind of a tyranny is that? What kind of pressure is exerted on people to do something which is illegal, which is unethical and which they know to be such? What kind of pressure is exerted upon them to do something like that within their Cabinet?

Now I just want to refer very briefly to the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Yes, very briefly, please.

He spoke about his dissatisfaction with the arrangement, and the words he used are that he had made “sustained efforts” to find out what the money was for. What were these “sustained efforts”? If one really makes “sustained efforts” over a period of three years and one does not come up with any information, how good could these “sustained efforts” have been? It is ridiculous. It is unforgivable. Even in a small company if such a man were in charge of the money he would be kicked out the moment people found out what he had done. He would not have had any chance at all of being paid a pension.

I also want to ask a few questions. During this debate very strange news has reached us about the tensions existing in that party, news on how wary and afraid they are of one another. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs was even proud to say that he prevented Judge Mostert from subpoenaing the hon. member for Randfontein. He actually boasted of having prevented it because, he said, it would have created pandemonium in his own party. The fact that there was a strong possibility that a man against whom that kind of charge could be laid could be elected Prime Minister carried less weight with him than the possibility of pandemonium in his own party! In my opinion it will be as well for us to take note of that man’s priorities in politics. I should like to know this: If the hon. member for Randfontein had been elected Prime Minister, what would have become of the vehement and repeated objections of the hon. the Prime Minister and what would have become of the “sustained efforts” of the hon. the Minister of Finance? I can assure the House that nothing would have happened. They would not have removed those items from their estimates and we would never have got at the truth of the situation because we would have been governed by the “evil triumvirate” as the hon. member for Yeoville described it.

To summarize I just want to say that when this debate comes to an end tonight South Africa will have little reason to be satisfied. One Cabinet Minister and a few officials have been dismissed but we still have to put up with an hon. Prime Minister and an hon. Minister of Finance who acted nonchalantly with State funds. There are also quite a number of other Cabinet members who have indicated that they did not know anything but I can assure them that there are very few people who would not take that with a pinch of salt. I am convinced that this is not the end of the story and that we are still going to hear a great deal more about it. I just want to issue a warning to those hon. members who now swear that they were not aware of the situation. Once they have sworn that they were not aware of it and it is later found that they did in fact know, the verdict against them will be much stronger than it will be tonight if they decide at this stage to be honest with us and to play the game with South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point has made the same mistake as all the other Opposition speakers have made in the debate up to now. Like them, he completely exaggerated matters, which has begun to detract seriously from their credibility in this debate.

Oh, shame.

That hon. member says, “Oh, shame”, but hon. members must remember that there is such a thing as mental fatigue, and I want to allege that if those hon. members continue in that vein, the public will no longer believe them. The question arises whether it is really necessary to continue this debate on this senseless basis. The Opposition is repeating the findings of the Government investigations, matters about which we are in agreement, and they are trying to create the impression that a tremendous debate is going on here between us and them concerning matters about which we are really in agreement, except, of course, for the fact that the Opposition is dragging all kinds of platitudes into the debate. We have really come to the stage now where the Opposition must make it clear whether they reject this report. If they reject the report, as some of them have already indicated, we shall know what to think when they request a judicial inquiry into any matter in the future. Their credibility is at stake now as far as this matter is concerned.

I do not really want to make a speech tonight, because the field has already been exhaustively covered by this stage. However, there is a matter which I cannot fail to raise. During the debate today, the hon. member for Yeoville made an attack not only on the function, structure and integrity of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, but also on the chairman of that committee. Furthermore, he made a most objectionable statement in connection with my own share in a so-called “cover-up”. I quote from his speech where he says—

This matter has already been dealt with here today by the chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. However, the position is briefly that I never had any knowledge of any information which the hon. member for Yeoville seems to have possessed. The Opposition has conducted the debate here today as if it were doing so in the national interest. I have very good reason to believe that the hon. member for Yeoville—in fact, he has said so by implication—not only knew about certain irregularities, but had documentary proof of them. What did he do with it earlier this year, while the Select Committee was sitting?

Tell us about your post offices.

He was guilty of a cover-up. The hon. member for Bryanston says I should tell them about my post offices. I want to tell him that I shall continue to fight for the rights and problems of my voters. I may have problems in this connection; all I know is that I do not belong to a party which is one big problem itself.

No, there are a thousand small problems.

I think the behaviour of the hon. member for Yeoville is highly questionable. I think it must be placed on record that if there has been a cover-up in respect of information available to that party, this has been the case as far as the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned, and the evidence is there. The reason why they are trying to cover it up is that they want to derive the maximum political benefit from it. They want to squeeze every drop of political blood from it.

The Opposition says that the Government should resign. By implication they would then say that we should hold an election. However, there is one thing I know: Where the NP is standing before the people today and admitting its faults, the people of South Africa would rather vote for the NP with its policy, faults and all, rather than to vote for one big political mistake, namely the Opposition in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member for Newcastle and I must honestly say that I strongly sympathize with him, because I more or less agree with what he has just said, that we have come to the end of a long debate and that we have discussed matters exhaustively. It was more or less in this spirit that I went to have a look at the report. I more or less expected that I might enter the debate at a fairly late stage, and then one begins to wonder what one is actually going to say. I then decided that I should look at the report to see what it contains which could be of political interest at such a late stage in a debate. Then I came upon chapter 8.

I thought one should consider what is in the national interest and not only what is of political interest.

I think the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs should go and rest now. The heading of chapter 8 reads “Investments in fixed properties”. Then I immediately told myself: If there is one thing which is a political factor in South Africa, it is immovable property. The Whites fight about it, the Blacks fight about it, the Coloureds fight about it and everybody fights about it. Immovable property means where one can get a house, etc. It says here in the report that this department acquired the following immovable property—firstly, 10 flats in Clifton, Cape Town, the so-called Valhalla flats. I then thought to myself: Who would like to have a flat in Clifton? So I told myself that every clerk working for the Trust Bank, for Barclays Bank, or for whatever bank, would like to have such a flat, but the people in the Department of Information were able to acquire such flats for themselves.

Then there is a plot in Plettenberg Bay. It immediately struck me, on my one visit to Plettenberg Bay, that the Afrikaner snobs of Johannesburg would dearly love to have plots in Plettenberg Bay to be able to compete with the English snobs in Plettenberg Bay. Then I saw that there were two residences in Pretoria. I must say I find it very difficult to discover who would want houses in Pretoria, and I could not decide about that.

But against No. (4) I saw “a house in Soweto”. I can imagine that there are millions of people in South Africa who want a house in Soweto, but the Department of Information buys a house in Soweto. How many Blacks are able to buy a house in Soweto? For how long have we been struggling to enable a Black to buy a house in Soweto? The hon. the Prime Minister tells us that he accepts the report, and in the report it says that the Department of Information bought a house in Soweto.

Then we read in the report that a house was bought in the United States of America, two flats were bought in France and a house was bought in London. I can imagine that every doctor and dentist who is afraid of the future in South Africa and every blue-haired lady in Bishopscourt and in Waterkloof would like a house in London and in France, but the Department of Information has houses there.

I think it is great pity that a house in Cannes was sold—the hon. the Prime Minister said a house in Cannes had been sold—because I can imagine that Cannes was the network of international communication against the total onslaught on South Africa, especially when a film festival is held there every year. I also see in the report that business premises were bought in Johannesburg. These business premises are of course the desire of every Afrikaner, Jewish and English businessman in South Africa. But best of all is a share in the farm called Vrekver.

Order! Would the hon. member repeat that word?

It says so here, Mr. Speaker. I really do not want to mislead you. “A share in the farm Vrekver.”

No, I just wanted to say that I would give a lot to be there now. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, you have actually anticipated me, because I had hoped that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture would be here tonight, since only a bitter farmer could have given his farm that name. However, the Department of Information saw fit to buy a 50% share in the farm Vrekver. As my theology professor said, given the present context of our political problems, this is a name pregnant with symbolism, for having listened to the debate over the past two days, it seems to me that we are concerned here with a department some of whose officials were not at all “gevrek”. They dashed about all over the world, but it took them a long time to reach their political demise.

Strangely enough, at this very moment, when we get to the name Vrekver, the jokes about this whole debate come to an end. One of the most peculiar things in this whole debate, I believe, is the seriousness, the abandon and the enthusiasm with which those hon. members on the other side are accepting this report whole-heartedly and without qualification. This is no reflection whatsoever on the report. It is just the enthusiasm which I find fantastic. We have had reports by commissions before. I think of the Theron Commission’s report and the White Paper which accompanied it. There has not been a White Paper for this report, but they have accepted it unreservedly. To me as a young politician—and I emphasize this—it was a very valuable lesson to listen to the hon. the Prime Minister, because after I had listened to him, one thing became quite clear to me: In politics there are no friends. There are no friends in politics, because here, for the past 18 hours, we have been attending the political funeral of a man who failed by only about twenty votes to become Premier of South Africa. In this whole debate, however, he had not a single friend. There was not one mourner at his funeral, except perhaps one, more or less. I tried to listen very attentively because this is important to me—friendship is an important thing. To me, it actually rises above politics.

There was only one who perhaps began to speak as if he wanted to help. I am talking about the hon. member for Waterberg, the Deputy Minister. I am not playing politics now, because I have respect for him. Even though my views differ completely from his, I nevertheless respect him. He rose this morning and spoke about collective responsibility. He even tried to say that we were all responsible. We are all conceived and born in sin and misery, and we are all involved in Parliament, and in that way he began to work towards the Cabinet. He tried to say that even the Cabinet was involved, and then the hon. member for Bryanston asked: “But are you not a member of the Cabinet?” Then he replied—and I quote—

What is he saying? Is he perhaps saying to us, “If I had been in the Cabinet, I would have accepted that responsibility”? [Interjections.] No? Very well, I accept that. Then I want to ask the following question: Is there a single friend here who is prepared to say that he is the friend of the former hon. Minister of Information? Is there one such friend among the people who played bridge with him and who occupy positions of authority and status today? “Is he your friend?” I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations. He need not be ashamed to say that he is his friend, because even at a funeral, even though the man has sinned, one does at least say “He was a sinner, but he was my friend”. I pitied him. There was not even a suggestion of that. They all left him in the lurch …

He is “vrek ver”….

And now he could not even get a chance in this House. It is too late. He cannot rise in this House and say what his feelings on this matter are.

You would have liked to have him here.

No. The point is that he said so himself. After the report of the Erasmus Commission had appeared, even as recently as two days ago, he said, “My conscience is clear.” The man who says this is still an hon. member of the House. Why could he not have been afforded an opportunity, half an hour, to explain to us in this House why his conscience is clear? Why could we not have followed the advice given by the hon. the Prime Minister himself? Why could we not have heard the other side of the story? He did not get a single opportunity to address us, because, let us be honest with one another, it would have been the last opportunity which that hon. member would have had as an ordinary member, as the hon. member for Randfontein, to have a public forum before everyone in South Africa where he could say, “Of this I was guilty; of this I was not guilty.” He did not have that opportunity.

For this reason, there is one opportunity left for saving us from having leave this debate with an overwhelming sense of shame—and I am speaking about all of us—and that is for the hon. the Prime Minister, as far as possible, by which I mean in so far as it does not affect the national security in the orthodox sense of the word, to make all the available evidence of that commission available so that you and I can judge for ourselves without making innuendoes here about the Erasmus Commission and without saying here, “The judge could have erred here or there.” Make it public, make it available so that people can judge for themselves. In this report, too, it is made clear to us that this is not the end of the story. We are not saying that this is not the end of the story; the hon. judge is saying it himself. He says that criminal prosecutions are to follow; court cases are to follow. His own commission will be sitting until the end of May. However, let us approach the Christmas season, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, with the knowledge that we have done everything in our power to afford that man the opportunity of saying what he felt, so that we may satisfy ourselves that we have done everything in our power to ensure that everything is being done openly and honestly. However, the final indictment of us all, and especially of the Government, is the fact that shortly before Christmas, we are sitting here for two days and wasting a tremendous amount of money, as it were, in a time in which South Africa is being confronted with the greatest crisis of survival it has yet had to face, for the simple reason that we have become lazy and lax; not only we, but also and especially the Government. They thought that everything was running smoothly and that they had created such fantastic bureaucracies that they could give an ordinary man R17 million a year and then tell him, “Happy go lucky; go and show the world how we can ward off the total onslaught on us.” So seriously did they take the total onslaught, however, that when that man did it in his own peculiar way, everybody was indignant and surprised all of a sudden while no one had known anything about it. Not one friend who had played bridge and tennis with the former Minister of Information, who had sat with him in this House day after day and who had talked to him in the caucus rooms and in the committees, had any inkling of this. If this is really true, it is the greatest indictment of all as far as those hon. members of the House are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have just sat through two of the saddest days in the whole political history of this country. I believe we have seen a tragedy unfolding in this country over the last two days. We have seen a sickness in the arrogance of the people opposite us who have sat here, laughed, joked, smiled and carried on as if nothing was wrong and as though there was no stink in the State of Denmark. As a young member of this House I, as other people in these benches, feel ashamed of the sick, arrogant attitude of members opposite who have spoken in this House over the last two days.

You are arrogant.

I am not arrogant. We have been regaled with tales of how the total onslaught against us was the reason for the corruption, crime and intrigue we have seen over the last few months. I want to make it clear that if one’s house is threatened externally, one’s best defence is to keep it clean within. This Government has not done that. The best bulwark against external threats to this country would be to have a population in this country which will be able to say that they trust their Government and its governing of the country although they disagree with it politically. I do not believe we can say that today. The debate has shown clearly that hon. members on this side of the House, who represent the ordinary, decent South Africans, do not trust this Government. It will be a long time before we are in a position to stand up here and say that we do trust this Government.

I want to say that I agree very strongly with my colleague, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, who spoke in what I believe was a most courageous way last night. I believe that he came close to the heart of the whole matter that we have been debating. I support him very strongly when he indicates that this report shows that the culpability must be laid at the feet of the former Prime Minister. What I intend to do is to quote certain passages from this report to prove what I say, because I believe we were given a clue when Mr. Justice Erasmus told us that we would be surprised at his commission’s findings. I believe that he was giving us a message that there was something to read in between the lines of this report.

Oh, come now.

I believe the more thoroughly one goes through it—and I challenge that hon. member to go through it more thoroughly—the more one will become convinced that there is a message in between the lines of this report.

I want to start off by referring to the origin of the secret fund. I wish to quote just one sentence from the letter of the Secretary to the Treasury to the Secretary for State Security which is contained in paragraph 2.13 on page 4 of the report. He makes reference to the fact that the Prime Minister was in accord with the suggestion. I read the following—

I want to turn from that to page 54, because one has to look for these references as they are not all close together. However, I feel they reveal a web and a thread running through this report, which if one looks for it shows an ugly picture.

In paragraph 9.239 reference is made to the letter by Mr. Vorster in December 1973 to the nine different departments, from which I read the following—

From that I wish to go back to page 5 and paragraph 2.18 to quote the following sentence—

The commission finds that Mr. Vorster decided. From there we go to page 69.

What paragraph?

You will get all the references if you will just give me a chance. I am not used to standing up in this House and making false claims. In paragraph 10.316 it is stated—

From there I wish to go to paragraph 10.321 on page 70, where the commission comments as follows—

This highly unsatisfactory result that they point to followed an arrangement for which the previous Prime Minister was clearly responsible. From there I want to go back to paragraph 10.318 and quote the following—

From there I am going to 10.337, on page 73 of the report—

That was the first factor which was taken into account by the commission when they say—

As regards the point of whether he had knowledge thereof, the commission comments as follows—

This is a very significant choice of words, I feel—

I want to comment here by saying that this seems to have been a case of boss reporting to super boss. Now, the third point. On the point as to the commission commenting on when the information came to his knowledge …

Which paragraph is that?

I am still quoting from par. 10.337. I told the hon. member that, but he seems not to be able to hear. [Interjections.]

Order!

In connection with this third point I find it significant that the commission does not comment on when it is felt the information actually came to the attention of Mr. Vorster. They do say though that the only criticism that can be levelled at Mr. Vorster is that during the following nine months he did not take steps to get rid of the newspaper. I believe that another possible criticism is that it was he who created, maintained and even nurtured the conditions under which these events took place. [Interjections.]

Will you please repeat that?

No, the hon. member is wasting my time. Finally, I want to refer to where the commission finds that Mr. Vorster had acted in an honest and bona fide way and devoid of any trace of personal gain. I want to make it clear that we accept that finding. However, I also believe that we must say that he did gain politically, because one could say that he gained indirectly by winning extra seats in this House under false pretences and through the active support of a newspaper which was paid for by taxpayers’ money. [Interjections.]

I believe I have given good reasons for saying what I have said. [Interjections.] I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister … [Interjections.] I want to make a suggestion to the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to suggest to him that when the first Executive President under the new constitutional arrangement is chosen, if he is honest and earnest in his desire to seek clean administration, he should choose someone who is not tainted in any possible way …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them. However, I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that it would be in the best interests of South Africa to choose as an executive President for this country someone who can enjoy the total confidence of all the people in South Africa.

I now want to deal very briefly with one other aspect which I do not believe has yet been raised. On page 68 of the commission’s report …

What paragraph?

The hon. member sounds like a worn-out gramophone record. Why does he not just wait? [Interjections.] I am referring to par. 10.310, on page 68 of the report. [Interjections.]

Order!

I quote—

The Commission says—

Mr. Speaker, I want any hon. member on the other side to give us an assurance that the figure of R64 million referred to earlier in this report is not going to be exceeded when the final report of this commission comes out. I would like an assurance from any one of those Cabinet members opposite that the figure of R64 million is not going to be exceeded. Is anyone prepared to say that? No, no one is prepared.

I want to make a suggestion regarding The Citizen. The Citizen is like a Greek comic tragedy. I think Winston Churchill might have referred to it by saying that never in the history of politics in South Africa have so few taken so quickly from so many so much to print so many newspapers that meant so little and did so much harm. [Interjections.] If we were to sell The Citizen to the NP members of Parliament every one of them would have to contribute R236 000. If we gave them a discount for the film rights for this whole debacle and if they went to all the people that voted for them they would have to get nearly R50 from everyone that voted for them to buy The Citizen. [Interjections.]

Order!

I find it tragic that although references have been made to the Smit murders, not a single hon. member on the opposite side has indicated that he would like to see the fullest possible investigation into what we accept are rumours, but are nevertheless rumours which are highly damaging to the morale of this country. They are like a cancer eating away at the good name of this country. Therefore I believe those rumours should be fully investigated. I believe that every possible lead should be followed up so that if there is nothing in those rumours it can be said that the issue has been disposed of.

You are a disgrace to Parliament. [Interjections.]

I spoke very, very clearly … [Interjections.] To me it is significant that the hon. member for Randfontein has apparently not been allowed by his caucus to speak in this House this evening. I disagree with the hon. member for Hillbrow. I believe that he has not been allowed to come here, and I wonder whether anyone is prepared to indicate that the reason for this is that he may have been able to implicate someone else. This is a further indication of a cover-up in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, the young hon. member for Berea referred with impudence and arrogance to a jumble of quotations which nobody could follow logically.

Not even he.

His father, who was an honoured member of this House, came from Durban to listen to his son’s speech. But the hon. member launched a dreadful attack on the person of the previous hon. Prime Minister. He even went further and attacked the position of the State Presidency in this country. I just want to say the following, because I do not want to spend too much time on him: Had he read his report in its logical progression he would have found that the judicial commission founds the hands of the former hon. Prime Minister to be clean, and that is sufficient evidence. If that party is in earnest, we shall also remember the last but one contribution from that side. That speech was made about 12 speakers ago. We are engaged in a debate which penetrates to the core of the form of government in South Africa and public confidence therein, and that hon. member’s contribution was such that it merely dealt with an hon. member of this side of the House who was supposed to be sitting in the wrong seat. Is that not incredible? But the hon. member for Berea went further. He made much of the rumours about the Smit murder, and in so doing of course he cast a reflection on the integrity of the South African Police. He knows that that incident is being thoroughly and continuously investigated by the South African Police. [Interjections.]

I want to pause for a moment and deal with the hon. member for Johannesburg North who is not here now. He reminded me of the actions of Bennie Boekwurm. It was interesting to hear in this House from a former judge, who should know more about the judicial function, that he is prepared to criticize a judge’s report and, by so doing, the judge too by implication, because of the contents of a report which is based on 1 300 pages of evidence. The hon. member further took it upon himself to criticize the action taken against Judge Mostert in his capacity as commissioner. This side of the House is criticized because of certain actions regarding Judge Mostert. But he took it upon himself to criticize Judge Erasmus, by implication and, in fact, to make a speech here in which he prescribed to Judge Erasmus. In his absence I want to put a question to him. Why did he not go and give evidence if he knows so much about what Judge Erasmus and his commission should have found?

Now I should like to dwell for a moment on the hon. member for Wynberg. He drew an amazing comparison here when he said that over the years there had been similar scandals, e.g. the Babaletakis affair, the Agliotti affair and other matters too. But one cannot compare a situation like this with those of individuals who are criminally responsible because of their own actions. That will not wash! My information is further that some of these people he mentioned in his illustrations were or are members of the PFP as well. I want to add something. Over the past 30 years, in something like 30 departments, malpractices have been found in only one department. They have seen fit to make use of this unique opportunity to try to confuse the public by sowing suspicion and creating uncertainty so that they can call the Government’s bona fides into question and attempt by this means to assist the group of 17 seemingly to come into power.

Now I should like to dwell briefly on the International Association. We know how this sound, positive organization has been broken up by that party’s newspapers. Although that organization did good work, it was broken up because they found that in fact it was conducted as a service of the State. As a result of that that wonderful, positive action foundered. When we think about it for a moment we see what the reason was for this. It is made very clear in The Argus, one of the large newspapers of the Official Opposition. They say in fact that they approve of the actions of the International Association but the reason they want to break them up is that the newspaper does not agree with Government policy. Is that not what the whole debate is about—that they do not agree with the policy of the Government and are not prepared to accept the responsibility of a responsible opposition? Is it not to investigate malpractices and find solutions when those malpractices are revealed?

The hon. member for Yeoville was a member of a group of people who visited overseas countries under the cloak of the International Association in October 1978. Among that group of persons was a member of the CRC, a member of the Indian Council, a member of the Soweto council and members of this party and that represented by the hon. member for Yeoville, and he saw fit to say that had he known that it was a front organization and he was there at State expense, he would not have gone. In fact, he has undertaken to repay his expenses. That party can now reply to this question on his behalf: Has the hon. member for Yeoville not often gone overseas in the past at the cost of other states to represent South Africa? Is that not the case? So if one goes at the invitation and expense of another state or government, that is all right, but seemingly it should not be done in the interests and at the expense of one’s own country. One cannot then promote the good work performed by that group of people. The hon. member for Durban Point who is smiling so broadly there was also a member of a group of MPs who addressed a group of German MPs in the Hotel Boulevard in Pretoria during August 1978. On that occasion the hon. member also had an opportunity to put South Africa’s case …

That was at my own expense.

That is quite correct, but that group of German M.P.’s visited South Africa at the expense of the International Association. Would the hon. member for Durban Point, had he known that, still have attended the meeting?

I have stated publicly that that sort of organization is justified if the money is properly controlled.

That same hon. member also attended a symposium in Germany in July 1978, to which he was sent as a representative by the International Association. The hon. member approves of that too. If the hon. member agrees that positive work should be performed at the expense of the State by a front organization like the International Association then I want to ask those parties: If those expenses form part of the R64 million, why is that large amount of which a major portion was spent in the positive interests of South Africa, also hurled at the Government’s head as a whole? The hon. member admits that he himself would have attended the meeting and he admits that these people should have been here. The expenses in that connection form part of the R64 million but now the spending of that money does not suit them. As far as the negative side is concerned they align themselves against us. It is unbelievable.

The hon. member for Wynberg said that the Government should resign on the basis of the collective liability and responsibility of the Cabinet. I want to refer to the hon. member to history, and particularly to the Profumo scandal. Was it not Profumo alone who resigned? In the case of the Jellicoe scandal and in the case of the Lockheed scandal, was it not just the individuals who resigned and left the Government? In the matter of Willie Brandt and his problems was it not only the individual who stepped down? Why was that so? It is because a government or a cabinet does accept collective liability but only from the moment they have knowledge of the malpractices and if, in spite of that knowledge, the malpractices continue. That did not happen in this case, and that has been proved over and over again in this debate…

This side of the House has tried to prove that everything possible has been done. Accordingly The Citizen was disposed of at the earliest possible moment to keep the costs as low as possible. Fixed property has either been sold or the title deeds have been placed in safe keeping. The Erasmus Commission has been appointed; its report has been accepted; its period of office has been extended; a Minister had to resign and Parliament has been convened so that the Opposition can open their big mouths and say what they want to say. Everything possible has been done, but in spite of all this individuals and rumours have been discussed here.

I want to conclude by saying that as soon as the South African Opposition realize that they must make a positive contribution, as soon as they realize that they will never come into power by negativism or even make progress, and as soon as they realize that they as an Opposition also have a responsibility when a situation arises where malpractice or misappropriation has been revealed to approach the problem as a responsible body and to try to make a contribution to try to solve the problem, they will stop trying to sow confusion among the people of South Africa and will add their weight to promoting the prosperity of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durbanville will excuse me if I do not reply to any of the specific points he raised, because we have now come to the end of the debate and I think that we have to move on to rather more important matters than those that he raised. I think that there is one matter that has not yet been raised in this House which I think should be, and that is that I do not think that hon. members on the other side quite realize the pitch of public anger at the scandal that has broken over South Africa. I gather from them that they are completely out of touch with the people of this country. I want to tell them that Rhoodie, Mulder, Reynders, De Villiers and Metrowich are names which have been on the lips of all South Africans over the last couple of months. And it has been an angry reference to these people. The South African people have been deeply hurt by the fact, firstly, that it almost happened that the Prime Minister of the Republic of South Africa was one of a triumvirate of persons who have been quite clearly shown to be totally unfit for public office.

Do you accept the report?

The actions of those three people, the triumvirate, Van den Bergh, the hon. member for Randfontein and Rhoodie, make the Committee for the Re-election of the President in the days of Nixon look like a lot of amateur bunglers. If one reads this report, one finds that there was a cold, calculated campaign of embezzlement of State funds. Make no mistake, it was not only to promote the interests of the NP; they were having themselves a jet-set life.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member said there was a triumvirate which was involved in a campaign of embezzlement. In the process he also referred to the hon. member for Randfontein, Van den Bergh and Rhoodie. The point I want to make is that no such finding has been made against the hon. member for Randfontein. I therefore want to ask with respect whether the hon. member is entitled, in the circumstances, to detract from the dignity of the hon. member for Randfontein any further in this way outside the context of the report.

Order! I must concede that that is a valid point of order. One of the rules of this House forbids any hon. member from referring to any other hon. member in a derogatory way. The hon. member for Groote Schuur must withdraw those words as far as they apply to the hon. member for Randfontein.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw those words. Public anger is such that both people who have been interviewed in the newspapers and people whom I have spoken to have been at one in believing that the State should move as fast as it possibly can to put behind bars—and that is the phrase that people have used— those people who have been behind all this deception. I am surprised that the hon. the Minister of Justice has not participated in this debate to tell us that he has moved with all reasonable despatch to get the machinery of the law working. He could have done that long ago and not have waited for the Erasmus Commission Report. From the evidence that was disclosed by Judge Mostert it was perfectly plain that prima facie offences had been committed. In fact Judge Mostert said that not only was there corruption in the wider sense of the word, but that in fact there were contraventions of several measures of legislation. The people are angry that there has been no movement in this particular field.

Mr. Speaker, I have not spent a great deal of time studying this report, but I can tell you that at one glance it is obvious to me that there are at least 30 possible charges under the Bribery and Corruption Act. There are at least 25 possible charges of theft and at least 15 possible charges of fraud. This is making the people of this country angry. Secondly, they are angry because they have actually had their money taken away from them. They want that money back. Thirdly, they are angry because on the part of the Government, and as we have seen again in the past two days, there has not been a single act of repentance, no act of remorse. Nobody has said: “We are sorry.” Not a single person. [Interjections.] Just look at the arrogance, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, so far from that not having been done, on the contrary, what was the attitude of the hon. the Minister of Community Development, the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations, and the hon. member for Simonstown, three of them at least? When they were asked: “Do you condemn this deception?”, they said: “Yes, but …” One of them said that psychologically the climate had been created where this was understandable. Understandable? This conduct understandable? In what possible sense can it be understandable? Mr. Speaker, the people are angry about that. The sooner the hon. the Prime Minister says that they erred, the sooner I think he might get some measure of confidence back. But he has got to take that step and he has got to take it soon.

I believe that the people of this country are angry, too, because they see a paralysis of government. Let me just give you two examples. In the first place the Ministers of State under the present Prime Minister have spent the last month making statements about whether they were stabbed in the back or had arrows in the back. They have spent time on statements denying liability and culpability. The people see that this Parliament has to be brought down for the first extraordinary session in the history of this country, apart from war, and the people are angry that government has been paralysed. A second example: After all this time under the present administration, the first thing the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations said was that he did not like the name of his department. He has not even had the time to think about a decent new name. He does not like the name. Let him get down to the job of making up a new name and administering his department properly. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs also does not like the name of his department, this bureau of whatever it is. Why does he not like the “Bureau for National and International Communication”?

Simply because the name is slightly too long.

No, it is because the letters make the word “bunc”! That is why he does not like it. But, Sir, once you are on the Gadarene slope you cannot win, because the suggestion that he then made was that it should be called the “State Information Service”. What are the initials of that? “Sis”! [Interjections.]

497

498

That just shows what an evil mind you have got! [Interjections.]

Sir, they must get back to the process of governing this country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the real kernel of the debate. The crux of the debate is this: Can the people of this country have confidence in the premiership of the new Prime Minister? I want to say that the true test of the next few months is whether the Prime Minister can prove to the satisfaction of this country that he has not been party to a major cover-up. That is the test. If he has been, then it is impossible for him to have the confidence of the people of this country. I want to suggest that there are twenty circumstances which have manifested themselves over the past few days, which heavily cast a cloud over the question of a cover-up.

The first is this: In 1973-’74 the hon. the Prime Minister was approached by his predecessor and then made a fatal decision. He was asked whether he would lend his Department of Defence to a deception of Parliament. The hon. the Prime Minister’s predecessor said: “I am no longer going to allow this deception through my Bureau. You must do it.” That was the moment of truth for the present Prime Minister. At that stage he could have said “No”. At that stage he could have deviated the previous Prime Minister from that particular path. But no, knowing that in fact in terms of the Exchequer Act it was unlawful to do what he was going to do, despite the fact that he knew that in fact he would have to tell untruths to Parliament, despite all that, he acquiesced. What makes it worse is that he knew it was not going to be because of an emergency. It was not because money was asked by Dr. Rhoodie because his villa in Cannes had fallen into the sea and he wanted some money urgently. This was going to be a calculated campaign, preplanned and prebudgeted, in terms of which the people of this country and Parliament would be told: “There is going to be RX million in the Special Defence Account, but that money on a prebudgeted basis is going to go to a secret fund in the Department of Information”. This was not going to happen just once, but it was to be a pattern for the future. That was the mistake that was made and, without that mistake having been made, there would have been no Rhoodie, no hon. member for Randfontein in disgrace and no extraordinary session of Parliament at this particular time.

The second factor is that the hon. the Prime Minister says that at the time when he fell to this temptation he insisted on a proper control, and audit. However, what was he satisfied by in the end? The letter from Dr. Rhoodie to Admiral Biermann in March 1975, virtually at the start of this operation, said that there would be no information vouchsafed to the Minister of Defence on expenditure in the Department of Information. No information would be given as to the allocation of these secret funds. Secondly, it said that Dr. Rhoodie as accounting officer would give a certificate and that that would be final. Thirdly, it said that there would be an internal accountant, one Mr. Braam Fourie, who would also be the auditor. That satisfied the hon. the Prime Minister. Those three things—no information, Rhoodie as accounting officer, and the same man who had been in the department for 25 years being both the internal accountant and also the auditor, satisfied him. So, Mr. Speaker, it is no good his protesting that he did not like the idea, knowing how unlawful it was. It is no good his protesting that he said he must have proper control, when he gets a letter like that which indicates to the most naïve person in the world that the control was nil. After that, not a word was raised. He did not come back again and again, saying: “I do not like that; I do not like having an internal accountant who is also the auditor; I do not like Dr. Rhoodie giving these certificates; I do not like not receiving information.”

It went much further than this. The hon. the Prime Minister actually positively misled the House. He did not just acquiesce. Let me quote from Hansard, 1975, what he told the House. He not only acquiesced in misleading Parliament that the Special Defence Fund would in fact be used for defence purposes and not for information purposes, but he positively postulated that in speeches in the House. I quote from column 4579, where he said the following of the Special Defence Account—

That is the Special Defence Account—

In other words, he told every member of Parliament: “Do not worry. Every single cent that is taken from this particular account is properly audited.” That was untrue, but he repeated it two years later in this House. In 1977 he said, with reference to this fund—and I quote from Hansard, 22 February 1977, col. 1937—

Those words admit of no ambiguity whatsoever.

The fourth circumstance of the 20 I am going to enumerate, is that in 1974-’75 R11 million was channelled out of his special account into the Department of Information. That came out of a total amount of R13 million received by that secret fund. When I told the hon. the Prime Minister across the floor of the House that he had done it five times, he said that he had done it three times. I realized then that I was wrong, and I said four times. He did it for four years and not three. The hon. the Prime Minister does not even know. In 1974-’75 the amount was R11 million; in 1975-’76, R16 million; in 1976-’77, R14 million and in 1977-’78, R17 million. It was done for four years in a row. In the end virtually every cent that was in the special secret fund of the Department of Information had in fact come from the Department of Defence.

I now want to deal with the sixth circumstance. I do not for one moment believe that the hon. the Prime Minister should not have known what was going on in regard to The Citizen. He was, after all, a very senior member of a party that for many years had longed to see an English-speaking newspaper which supported the NP. That was one of the goals of the NP. Is he going to tell this House that he did not have a suspicion when suddenly, after the take-over bid for SAAN had failed, a new newspaper was created? Did he have no suspicion at all? Did he not ask around? Did he not ask the Prime Minister of the day or Louis Luyt? Did he sit there as a senior member of the NP, as the leader in the Cape and the next senior member in the Cabinet, without making any inquiries? And then look what happened. One suddenly found that The Citizen was being dumped in thousands to push up its circulation. It was not being economically run. If one went to a hotel in the Transvaal and asked for a morning newspaper, one was told that only The Citizen was available on instructions. Why? That was not private enterprise. Were there no suspicions raised in the mind of the hon. the Prime Minister? Just this very night we have been informed that The Citizen has in fact been sold and that Mr. Marius Jooste has made a statement. Apparently the sale is final on 9 January 1979 and is made retroactive to the 10th of December this year. Apparently Mr. Jooste waited for the Erasmus Commission Report and for this debate before making the announcement. I want to know, in the light of the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement that in fact the State is the owner of The Citizen …

In theory.

In theory, yes, but we do not have a concept of equitable ownership in this country; one is either the owner or not the owner. The State is the owner. I should like him to tell the House exactly what the implications of this particular sale and purchase are for this country, in particular the financial implications. Where is the money going to go, because the purchase price is R2,3 million? What are the conditions of sale and who is in fact going to make money out of it? I would like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he knows which members of his caucus are shareholders in Perskor, what the shareholding is and whether in fact they have any right to sit in judgment on this particular case. This is a scandal as big as anything we have had so far. We will stay here on Monday and Tuesday if the hon. the Prime Minister tells us that he will introduce legislation to stop this outrageous sale of a State asset. He has threatened with this kind of emergency legislation before. He has often done it and we will come back if he does it. He owes it to the country to do it. In the meantime he must please give us full details of this transaction, the accounting of it and what it means for the State.

The 9th circumstance which is relevant to the cover-up allegation is whether in fact the hon. the Prime Minister ever significantly asked Dr. Mulder and his department what they were doing with this money. Did he ever do it? Did he ever actually ask Dr. Mulder, seeing that he had given him R14 million, whether he would as a matter of friendship give him an idea of how he had spent it? Did he ever ask him? I would like to quote from an interesting cameo in The Argus a couple of days ago. Apparently during the last war the two battleships Repulse and Prince of Wales were sailing down the Straits of Malaya when suddenly the news came through to the British headquarters that a vast Japanese air strike was about to take place. Churchill turned to his Chiefs of Staff and said these words: “I did not know. I was not told. I should have asked.” That is the key. The hon. the Prime Minister should have asked at every possible opportunity what was happening to his money.

The 10th circumstance is that Mr. Vorster, the previous Prime Minister, knew all about The Citizen in November 1977. That is the commission’s finding. Now it appears that the previous Prime Minister never told the present incumbent a word. In fact, the present Prime Minister says he did not know until recently. That raises very interesting questions. What was the relationship between the previous Prime Minister and the present incumbent? He was his next most senior Cabinet Minister, he was a provincial leader, he was the leader of the House and he was never told by Mr. Vorster! He was even Acting Prime Minister for a time and he was never told by his Leader that all this money had been invested in The Citizen. I would like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether after he knew of The Citizen he ever went to Mr. Vorster and asked him why he had not told him and said to him that if he should have told anybody, he should have told him. Did he go and ask Mr. Vorster why he did not tell him?

The 11th circumstance is that the hon. the Prime Minister knew before he became Prime Minister that The Citizen had been part of this deception by Dr. Mulder. Hon. members on this side have asked why he made Dr. Mulder Minister of Plural Relations and Development. Was that not part of a cover-up? There is only one conclusion.

The 12th circumstance is that it is psychologically strange that the present Prime Minister pledged himself on the steps of the Senate to a clean administration. Why? I think the probabilities are that he had a guilty conscience, not personally, but certainly for the past and he had a fear for the future. I say that that is a probability to be put in the scale when weighing the question of a cover-up.

Number 13 is Mr. Justice Mostert. Mr. Speaker, there is no South African who reads his newspaper, who follows the radio or TV, who does not believe that the circumstances surrounding the Mostert Commission represent a deliberate attempt to muzzle that judge and to prevent the publication of evidence.

Number 14 is that the hon. the Prime Minister also tried to prevent the newspapers from publishing the news of the evidence before the Mostert Commission. My time is short. I have to go through these other circumstances very quickly. However, I should like to make this point also. [Interjections.] We have heard a great deal about the hon. the Prime Minister having done everything to uncover the deception. However, what do we have in fact? We have the Mostert Commission, where we have the evidence but no report. We also have the Erasmus Commission in which we have the report but no evidence. Now have you ever heard anything so ridiculous in all your life? What a sort of scrambled egg situation! I believe that all these circumstances indicate without doubt that there is a question-mark over the question of a cover-up by the hon. the Prime Minister.

Finally, the 20th circumstance is this. It is quite clear from this debate that the hon. the Prime Minister is not coming clean with the public of South Africa. He has not come clean about The Citizen. He has not come clean about front organizations in this country. He has not come clean about the university campuses, something about which I know something, and I refer to the University of Cape Town. He has also not come clean on what he is going to do about Gen. Van den Bergh. There is an irresistible conclusion. It is the only conclusion which is consistent with all those 20 circumstances. That is that there was a massive cover-up from the moment that the hon. the Prime Minister knew, in 1974, that he was going to be asked to do something unlawful. For four years he has only been dislodged from a position of cover-up, inch by inch, by the Press and by the Opposition forcing him to abandon one position after another. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, a month ago, that the evidence pointed irresistibly to a cover-up, the hon. the Prime Minister said at Margate—

That was a frantic and desperate attempt to evade the whole issue. It is all very well my talking like this, but we all know what is really the crunch, and the crunch is what history is going to write about us. There is no doubt about what history will write about the hon. member for Randfontein. I do not know what history is going to write about the present State President. That is not my business. However, I know what history is going to say about the present hon. Prime Minister, unless he pulls up his socks and tells the public of South Africa what is going on in this country. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it is already late and I do not think that it can be expected of me to have to reply to all the foolish questions asked by the hon. member for Groote Schuur. The Bible says that one should not answer a fool. The trouble with the hon. member for Groote Schuur is that he is nursing a grievance against life. He is nursing a grievance against life, and because of that he is bitter towards every person with whom he comes into contact. The hon. member was a very pleasant young man when he opposed me years ago as a candidate. He has changed tremendously, and the more one sees him in action, the more one is filled with sympathy for him. Here, in the last minutes of the debate, he went and wrote down a number of questions. What did he want to do with them? His object was to turn things around into a smear campaign against me on the opposite side. I want to assert that he is embittered against life itself, and he must tell us why he is embittered against life. Everyone knows why he is, Mr. Speaker, but I want to show you what we can expect today. He rose to his feet here and said that not one hon. member on this side of the House …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member is dissatisfied because the hon. member for Groote Schuur ousted him as Whip. What did the hon. member for Groote Schuur say when he stood up in this House? He said that no one on this side of the House expressed his regret at the events. Let me quote to hon. members what I said yesterday; then we can test his statement against the truth. According to my notes I said the following, and the hon. member was sitting there—

That hon. member said, however, that not one of us had expressed our regret. That is the value one should attach to the words of that hon. member.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I took special note of the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister sat perfectly still and did not say a word when the charge against him was being made. I now expect the same from hon. members.

I added that we regretted the fact that an otherwise esteemed colleague had been prejudiced by the events. It is not the standpoint of the Government that the end justifies the means. On the other hand we do not want to condemn vengefully without reason. He who thinks to remain standing, must ensure that he does not fall. Those are the words which I used. I did not stand in a spirit of arrogance against the country. I stated in public that this Government would look the people in the eye over what had happened. The fact that we summoned Parliament and appointed the commission proves that there was nothing we wanted to cover up. But here in the early hours of the morning that hon. member now vents his spleen on me. I ask him: What possesses him to be filled with so much hatred?

Let me deal with the second point, viz. my so-called actions in regard to this matter. I am a responsible member of a responsible Government. I was not prepared to break with my Prime Minister or with my Government over a method of budgeting. I was not prepared to do so, and I shall not be prepared to do so tomorrow either, because I break on principles, not methods. However, let me show the hon. member how false his charge is, how absolutely false and groundless his charge is. He is acting here like a high priest of righteousness. The fact of the matter is that, as long ago as 1975, we recorded the strongest protest against this method. I have the letters in my possession. It is stated in writing and part of it is in the commission’s report. In them we said that we accepted no responsibility for this method of budgeting. We stated this in writing. We stated in the time of Admiral Biermann already that we accepted no responsibility for it.

To whom was that said?

To Dr. Rhoodie personally.

That was a great help!

At that time already Admiral Biermann said on my instructions that it was obvious that we would have to submit such a certificate for this project, for the money paid over to the Bureau for State Security. He said—

That was as far back as 1975. Subsequently I objected annually to this method of budgeting. Surely I dealt here with these matters yesterday. Why does that man now rise to his feet here with his vexatious questions? [Interjections.] Should I not say “that man”? Then I shall say “the hon. creature” for I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to address him as “the hon. member”. It is very difficult. [Interjections.]

I just want to say something further. Two years ago I refused to budget for it, and I can prove that with documentation. Last year already I wrote a letter to the hon. the Minister of Finance—there he sits—a letter which I have here in my possession. I am going to quote it. These documents are before the commission, are all in the hands of the commission. I quote—

However, the hon. member rose to his feet here and levelled a lot of loose charges at me.

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

No, I am not replying to your questions. [Interjections.] He rose to his feet here, at the end of the debate …

Do not point your finger.

At the end of the debate he rose to his feet here and made a number of innuendos against my person, knowing full well that he had no grounds for doing so. My question is: What possessed him?

Because you misled the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, may the hon. member for Orange Grove say: “Because you misled the House of Assembly?” [Interjections.]

Order! The word “mislead” is one of the borderline words which give me a great deal of trouble. Did the hon. member mean by it that it was deliberately misleading?

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the hon. the Prime Minister has made an admission in this respect.

Is the hon. member saying that the Prime Minister has deliberately misled Parliament?

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the hon. the Prime Minister said he knowingly put those figures in his budget.

The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, you may allow the hon. member to say whatever he likes.

No, it must be parliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, you can allow him to say whatever he likes about my behaviour in this House.

What does that mean?

Sir, it is at your disposal to allow him to use those grey words.

They have already been used a great deal in this debate.

Yes, but I am stating now that I did not mislead this House. I explained yesterday that I refused to allow defence funds to be utilized for any other department. What is more, I said that they would be budgeted separately. What is more: I have evidence in my possession in which the Secretary to the Treasury stated in writing that it would be budgeted separately.

We are talking about Parliament.

Order!

In other words, the only difference between my Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and myself was a technical point, i.e. whether it should be done in that account. I objected to that most strenuously from the first day. Any accusation that I did not stand up for myself on this point, I reject with the contempt which it deserves. [Interjections.] I did not resign because I adopted the standpoint that I was going to win my case, and I did win it. I did not, like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout— he also put questions to me this morning— run away from my party when I experienced difficulties; I settle the difficulty within my party. I shall leave the hon. member for Groote Schuur at that now in his pettiness, in his hatred and enmity. The only thing I still want to say to him is that I did not expect it, not even from him. He ought to be ashamed of his conduct this evening, because his relationship with me has always been reasonable. I did not expect such behaviour from him and I believe that in his sober moments he will be ashamed of what he did this evening.

Lorimer, you ape!

Order! What did that hon. member say?

Mr. Speaker, I used a general expression and said that that hon. member was an ape.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must listen to the hon. the Prime Minister in silence, and with the necessary respect.

Mr. Speaker, the next time the hon. member for Pretoria East should add the prefix “grey”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: That is a reflection on your earlier ruling and I therefore ask your ruling as to whether the hon. the Prime Minister should not withdraw that.

The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the hon. high priest the assurance that I merely intended it as a joke. However, if he feels bad because I gave the hon. member next to him there a dressing-down, then I understand that as well.

I can see you are a great joker.

Yes. Particularly when I am dealing with a circus such as the one opposite. [Interjections.]

I now want to devote my attention to serious and more dignified matters. The hon. member for Durban Point is always a worthy opponent. That hon. member stated yesterday that the NP had been in power for too long. Did the hon. member for Durban Point realize what he was saying? By stating that the NP had been in power for too long, he cast a tremendous reflection on the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that the NRP in its earlier form tried for 30 years to oust the Government from office. With what result? The Government is still there, and that earlier party now consists of three parties. Surely that is a reflection on the Opposition, and we ask ourselves this question: Why do the people of South Africa not want to afford the Opposition an opportunity to remove the “weak” Government?

Because your party has a campaigning fund of R32 million.

No. That is not the reason and I shall explain to this House …

It is as a result of the exploitation of patriotism, sentiments and emotions. [Interjections.]

In other words, the people of South Africa want a party which tells them that it is patriotic. Hon. members opposite do not succeed in convincing the people that they are patriots. Furthermore they say it is because we established a newspaper such as The Citizen, but surely The Citizen did not exist in the Eastern Cape. Why, then, did we take East London City? Why did we take King William’s Town? Why did we take Albany? Why did we take Newton Park? Surely The Citizen was not there. Surely The Citizen appeared only on the Rand. See how the hon. member for East London North is looking at me. If we had put up a candidate against him, he would not have been here either this evening.

That is not true.

They fell like overripe fruit because they did not succeed in demonstrating to the country that they were patriotic. Consequently the hon. member for Durban Point condemned himself by making that statement.

Reply to the questions.

Surely I am in the process of replying to the hon. member for Durban Point. May I not reply to him?

I come now to the hon. member for Musgrave. The other reason for their remaining where they are is that they exaggerate even a debate such as this one, where they are being afforded the opportunity by the Government side to expose a matter, to act as dignified parliamentarians should act in situations of this kind, to such an extent that they make themselves ridiculous in the eyes of the people. What did the hon. member for Musgrave do?

No wonder the hon. member for Waterberg cannot sleep in peace.

The trouble with that hon. member is that the longer he remains there, the less people take any notice of him.

After all, he is like a golliwog.

The hon. member for Musgrave said—

Now I want to ask the hon. member ask him very courteously—he is a front-bencher and a person who has, on and off, been in Parliament for a long time: What other departments did you have in mind.

It was a fair question which I put.

Surely I cannot walk down Adderley Street and ask everyone I meet: “Which of you people steal”. Surely I cannot do anything like that. I am asking the hon. member for Musgrave what departments he had in mind. Now, I maintain that he did not have one in mind. He did not have one in mind. All that he wanted to do was to create an impression. He wanted to create the nasty impression that our Public Service was rotten, instead of acting like a responsible member of Parliament here and saying: Look, I agree; “The State has machinery for combating corruption. Thank Heavens our Public Service is not corrupt. These people who came in from outside brought a bad spirit into the Public Service and it is a good thing that Parliament is being afforded an opportunity to deal with it.”

If your control over one department is so bad, surely it is a reasonable question to ask?

I said here yesterday that the State had a built-in ability, from the officer of this Parliament, the Auditor-General, right through to the Select Committee on Public Accounts and the Public Service Commission and the constitution of this Parliament itself, to expose corruption. It happens from time to time in any democratic country that corruption occurs, but in South Africa it occurs seldom in comparison with other countries. The hon. member knows that. But what is he after? He wishes to cast aspersions on more than just those who can be accused of corruption, because he has an ulterior motive. He wants to cast aspersions on people and denigrate them. I tell him that ought to be ashamed of himself for doing so, for there are tens of thousands of officials in South Africa tonight who feel upset about these events because they realize that their position has been jeopardized through the irresponsible actions of some people. Those officials do not deserve to have such aspersions cast on them on the part of the hon. member.

I was not talking about the officials.

What did the hon. member mean then?

Departments.

Departments consist of officials, not so? Or do they consist of ants?

Now I want to tell the hon. member what I told the Press yesterday: You have until 30 May to produce your evidence on these matters. The commission’s terms of reference have been extended to 30 May. I hope that those heroes, including the hero from Groote Schuur, will now come forward and make their accusations before that commission. I hope that he will have the courage of his convictions to come forward and level accusations at me. I challenge him to do so. I say that he must come forward and continue his gossip-mongering campaign before the commission so that we can test him. I challenge the hon. member for Musgrave to present their gossip to that commission before 30 May, for after 30 May we are going to put an end to it with legislation in this Parliament.

I come now to the hon. member for Pinelands. What does he do? He rises to his feet here, and with a pious face, with crocodile tears, he does two things. Firstly he is suddenly very sorry and filled with compassion for Dr. Mulder. Ostensibly he wanted him here to be able to speak to him, to be able to hear him, to be able to give him his blessing, to lay his hands on him and heal his wounds. But surely that is not why he wanted him here. He wanted him here to humiliate him. He wanted him here to disembowel him. He wanted him here to crucify him, to ridicule him before the public of South Africa. Now I ask you: Is there anyone who wants to admit that he is a friend of Dr. Mulder? I say: Yes, I am a friend of his. I am a friend and he knows it. I am extremely sorry that he got hurt in this process. He was my opponent, but he was a co-leader of my party, and he is my fellow Afrikaner. I am ashamed that other people caused him to find himself in this position. I am ashamed that he ended up in this situation of humiliation. However, I shall not allow that hon. member to trample on him. That high priest of righteousness goes further, however. Look at him sitting there in this high priestly vestments! He sits there and what does he do? He does one of the meanest things one can do: He takes the murder of Robert Smit and drags it in here in a debate on the Department of Information, knowing full well, he, that honest man, the wonderful character from Pinelands, that the office of the Prime Minister issued a statement in which it was stated—

I have read that statement.

You have read it?

Yes.

And you still come to Parliament and try to connect the Smit murder with the Department of Information?

Because the police themselves have said they were not sure whether there was a connection …

Sir, it was not … [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member will even drag the corpse of Dr. Smit around to try to save his political skin. I say: It is shameless of a person who says that he takes a stand on religious principles to come forward with such reprehensible methods in Parliament.

Those murders must be solved. Do you believe in solving murders?

All that I am saying to the hon. member is that he does not have a shred of evidence for his innuendo. I challenge him to submit the information he has on the Smit murder …

I do not have it. That is why I am asking.

He does not have it. He has nothing, but he connects the Smit murder with the Information scandal. Is that not an eternal disgrace for a person who walks around with a Christ-like countenance?

You should stop talking about it like that.

The third charge is that of a “cover-up”. Was it a “cover-up” when my predecessor instructed the Public Service Commission to disband the department and to down-grade the position of the head of the department so that Dr. Rhoodie had to resign because there was no post for him? Was that a “cover-up”? Was it a “cover-up” when my predecessor asked Reynders to investigate and evaluate the various projects and to see whether any financial maladministration had taken place? Was it a “cover-up” when I enlarged the Kemp Committee, and appointed some of our most respectable departmental officials to that enlarged committee, officials such as the Secretary to the Treasury? Is there anyone on that side who says that the Secretary to the Treasury is not one of the best officials in the country? Then there was also the Chief State Law Adviser, a representative of the State Attorney and now the head of the new body which replaced the Department of Information. Are these not people whom we can use to assemble and evaluate the facts for us?

Why did your predecessor not tell about The Citizen?

I am asking whether it was a “cover-up” when I appointed those officials? Yesterday I handed the report to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Was that a “cover-up”? The hon. member must stop grimacing and tell me whether that was a “cover-up”. It is a disgrace that the Opposition is causing a furore in the country with its cry of “cover-up! cover-up!”, with the English-language Press following in their wake with “cover-up! cover-up!”, while we are standing here before the people and saying that we have a report here which is damning, yet we accept it. We have pricked their bubble, and that is why they are now sitting there in dismay.

I come now to the hon. member for Yeoville. I thank him for always at least being decent to me. I trust the hon. member for Yeoville. I know that I am perhaps giving him the kiss of death now, but he knows that I share secrets with him, secrets which I am not prepared to share with all the hon. members of his party. On more than one occasion I have taken the hon. member for Yeoville into my confidence on defence matters, and he has never acted dishonourably towards me, and I thank him for that, just as I thank the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. member for Durban Point fights hard and hits back hard, but he does not do the kind of thing which the hon. member for Groote Schuur does. He does not sink to that level.

Because the hon. member for Yeoville always acts decently towards me, I want to be decent to him. He asked why I did not resign. My reply to him is that one does not resign from one’s party or from one’s Government because differences exist. One remains on in that party and in that Government and tries to cause one’s standpoint to triumph, as happened in my case. The legislation which was passed here earlier this year, resulted from the joint action by the hon. the Minister of Finance and myself. When he took over the Finance portfolio, he and I sat down and conferred together on how we could change this undesirable situation. If I had resigned it might not have been changed yet this evening. Through his co-operation, however, we succeeded in getting it changed.

I want to put a question to the hon. member for Yeoville—he will be able to understand why I am asking it. At a recent congress which they held, the young Progs shouted him down. Yet he did not resign from the party. The young friends of the hon. member for Houghton shouted him down. However, he did not resign from the party because of it; he remained in that party because he thinks he will still be able to convert the young Progs. I hope so.

There is a big difference between young Progs and R64 million!

I readily admit that. Those young Progs are not worth R26 million. [Interjections.]

I want to point out another example to the hon. member. The other day his leader forestalled him with the announcement on the participation in the commission on exchange regulations. Surely the hon. member knows that he himself was prepared to serve on that commission.

I accept what my leader did.

His leader then forestalled him. That morning, before he knew what was happening—he was in Sishen—his leader issued a statement. Nevertheless he did not resign as a result of that. His leader took a decision, and he submitted to it. In exactly the same way my leader took a decision against me and I accepted it.

That decision which your leader took cost the taxpayers of this country millions of rands.

No, I am coming to that now. I want to state with the greatest emphasis tonight that the former Prime Minister, according to the Erasmus Commission report, and to the best of my knowledge, never accepted that this money had been misused until the Auditor-General warned him. Immediately afterwards he told the Auditor-General to allow his investigations to take the course they were supposed to take. Now, surely all of us know that my predecessor has recently been experiencing problems with his health. I did not hear one of the Opposition members refer to that. I who was close to him know that he had problems with his health. I can state this evening that on two occasions he told the Cabinet that he wished to retire as a result of those health problems. However, our respect for him was such that we dissuaded him from doing so, perhaps to the detriment of the country. I am one of those who dissuaded him, and asked him to stay on because we needed him. However, let us be decent in regard to this matter. Why am I being compelled this evening, through the anger of an Opposition which feels powerless in South Africa, to reveal these things? The commission stated that my predecessor became ill. We all know that there were times when the country was struggling, but his wisdom and his friendship meant a great deal to his colleagues, and still means a great deal to them tonight. I am taking up the cudgels for him, for there are people such as the hon. member for Groote Schuur here who wish to present him as a scoundrel. I find that nauseating, and I protest against it.

I never said it.

When I say this, I am saying the same of Dr. Connie Mulder. He has been destroyed politically, not because he is a scoundrel, but for other reasons.

Which reasons?

The commission states them. Inter alia he placed too much confidence in people who abused his confidence.

Is that all?

Take courage, Pik, the next time we shall win. [Interjections.]

That hon. member cannot understand this kind of thing. I do not think he knows what loyalty means. His face proves it.

That is another personal attack.

I shall come to the judge in a moment. I am going to put a question to him to which he will have to give us a reply even if we have to sit here until 5 o’clock. [Interjections.]

I come now to the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Houghton does not like me, and the feeling is mutual.

I cannot stand you.

The only difference is that she writes about me, but that I have never taken very much notice of her. I do not like the hon. member for Houghton because she is always in the company of the enemies of South Africa. I do not like her because she is one of the causes of that party not being able to make progress either.

I have done more good for South Africa than you have.

The country sees right through her. The country knows with whom she associates and the country knows that she intercedes for people who wish to bring the country to its knees.

That is not true.

That is why I do not like her.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. Is the hon. the Prime Minister allowed to say that I am the mouthpiece of people who wish to bring South Africa to its knees?

Order! On two occasions in the past I, personally, have ruled on that point. On each occasion I asked the member concerned—in the one case it was a Minister—to withdraw the words. I request the hon. the Prime Minister to help me here by also withdrawing them.

I shall help you, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to address you on this. I have before me here a report entitled “United Nations Human Rights honour for Mrs. Suzman”. [Interjections.] These people of the United Nations wish to force this country to its knees, and she receives honorary titles from them. Then you want me to withdraw my words, Mr. Speaker?

Is South Africa a member of the United Nations or not?

Order! Any member may know for a fact that another member is telling a lie, but if he says so, it is unparliamentary language, even if it is the truth, and then he has to withdraw it. Even if it is the truth in the opinion of an hon. member, it still remains unparliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the sentence I used. However, I quote the following from this report—

I say that these people are the enemies of South Africa. These people wish to cast us into outer darkness, and these people who wish to cast us into outer darkness, are honouring the hon. member for Houghton. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Let me go further. It is recorded in writing that the hon. member for Houghton presented her country in the poorest light overseas. She knows it.

That is not true!

That is what she did in Australia.

I challenge the hon. the Prime Minister to prove that. [Interjections.]

I have already quoted it to her here.

And that was nonsense. I challenge the hon. the Prime Minister to prove that.

Mr. Speaker, she is very angry now. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member put questions to me. Those hon. members have been berating me since yesterday. Since yesterday those hon. members have been slinging every possible term of abuse at us. Tonight they must take their medicine. [Interjections.] They spoke about liars, fraud, deception and the worst things people could possibly utter. Tonight I am hitting back at them, and they will have to endure it. [Interjections.]

Trifles do not frighten us! [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! Hon. members must please help me now. They must please afford the hon. the Prime Minister an opportunity to complete his speech.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: You have indicated that you would like the hon. the hon. the Prime Minister to receive a hearing without interjections. It is very difficult, however, to have no interjections if the hon. the Prime Minister is as provocative, with respect, as he is now. [Interjections.]

Order! I have been allowing interjections throughout. However, I request hon. members please not to overdo it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton wanted to know from me why I appointed Dr. Mulder to my Cabinet again. That was the only meaningful question she asked. I shall furnish her with a reply. The reply is this. I requested the entire Cabinet—because I was elected that day and did not have an opportunity to reshuffle or reconstitute the Cabinet—to remain on in their posts. I requested all Cabinet members to stay on. That is the practice. Of course she does not know about that. The world with which she is on friendly terms, does not have Cabinets. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton cannot conduct a running conversation here.

Mr. Speaker, the wise Solomon—and I do not know whether the hon. member for Houghton knows who he was—said that a quarrelsome woman was like the dripping of water on a roof. [Interjections.] Now she is really dripping! I come now to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that on the steps of the Senate I promised South Africa a clean administration. Is that not the object of every democratic Government? I set out eight or nine objectives and said that that is what we should strive for in South Africa. What the hon. member referred to, was only one of them. Why may I not have said that?

We praised you for that.

If the hon. member praised me for that, what fault is he finding with me for now having taken steps to achieve that? The hon. member is fighting with me because I am taking steps to comply with that.

I did not.

Why did the hon. member refer to it then? If only he had kept quiet! In the same breath the hon. member referred to “own (eie) corruption”. He referred to “general corruption”, as well as to “political corruption”.

No, it was “wide-spread (wye) corruption”.

To whom was the hon. member referring when he spoke about “wide-spread corruption”?

I was referring to political corruption.

What else is political corruption if not corruption?

Political corruption is not material corruption.

Is it also political corruption when one does an about-face shortly before a general election in order to find a constituency?

You are a national disgrace!

Order! The hon. member for Groote Schuur! I am not prepared to allow that.

Why not, Mr. Speaker?

Order! I deem it to be unparliamentary and derogatory. The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I regret I cannot withdraw them.

Order! The hon. member is the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition and I do not think he has any reason not to comply even though he disagrees.

Mr. Speaker, I do not regard those words as unparliamentary and I do regard the hon. the Prime Minister as a national disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I would like to address you on this matter. We have listened to the quite remarkable performance by the hon. the Prime Minister during which he has used the most extravagant language and during which he was highly insulting and very personal, and I ask you to reconsider your ruling.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you in a different form on this issue? The word “disgrace” has been applied by a number of hon. members to a number of other members. In fact, it was used during this debate by both sides of the House referring to the conduct of other people. I should therefore, Sir, like to submit to you that the word “disgrace” … [Interjections.] Let me finish, if you do not mind. Therefore I submit the word “disgrace” in itself is not unparliamentary.

The second submission I make is that if one enlarged upon that word by stipulating the degree of the disgrace, it does not make it any more unparliamentary or parliamentary, as the case may be. I therefore submit that if one refers to the conduct of an individual as an opinion of that particular hon. member as a disgrace, it is not in itself unparliamentary and has been used before.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had said “It is a disgrace”, it is one thing. To say, however, that it is a “national disgrace” is in my opinion absolutely unparliamentary, and I do not think it can be allowed.

Order! I find myself in this position that there are many hon. members and hon. Ministers sitting here who said during this debate: “It is disgraceful”; “It is absolutely disgraceful”, and “It is a disgrace”. Since it is now being stated here that a person is “a national disgrace”, I have to decide whether or not it is unparliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, may I please address you?

Order! Yes.

Mr. Speaker, you are correct in your finding that people spoke of the behaviour of other people as “disgraceful” during the debate. That hon. member, however, accused the hon. the Prime Minister of it being “a national disgrace”. In other words, he made it applicable to an hon. member of this House. [Interjections.]

It is a national disaster.

It may be a disaster for you!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Would it be acceptable if the hon. member withdraws the word “national”—in other words, if he just used the word “disgrace” and not the word “national”? [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon. member says that what the Prime Minister has said is a “disgrace”, that is another matter. But if the hon. member is not prepared to alter his expression as it now stands, I must ask him to abide by my ruling.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot withdraw the words. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Just before you make a final ruling, may I just address you further on this point. [Interjections.] Would you please give me a chance? Earlier today—I challenge the hon. the Minister of Finance to deny it—he described me and others sitting to my left as a “disgrace”. He did not refer to my remarks. He referred to me as a “disgrace”. [Interjections.] All I am asking for, Sir, is consistency. If they are saying that I am a disgrace, that is their opinion. I do not say they are accurate. That is all my hon. colleague is saying about the hon. the Prime Minister and I must agree with him.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I cannot recall the words I used …

You did.

… and I would ask that that hon. member obtain the transcript of Hansard so that we can ascertain the truth of that. I am not able to say whether he is correct or not, but before he uses that as a precedent, I should like to ask him to quote the exact words and to indicate when I said that.

Several times.

That is the first point, Sir. Secondly, I took this point immediately the hon. member for Groote Schuur made the statement. He said “You are a national disgrace” to the Prime Minister, and, with respect, you did draw him up on a point of order, which I think was absolutely correct. I think that for any hon. member of this House to call the Prime Minister “a national disgrace” must be regarded as absolutely unparliamentary. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: I contend that the argument of the hon. member for Pinelands is completely invalid because neither the actions, nor the words of the hon. the Minister of Finance are in issue here. What is in issue, however, is a ruling which you gave that an accusation by an hon. member that the conduct of the Prime Minister is a national disgrace, is unparliamentary. I want to put it to you that you should please enforce that ruling. [Interjections.]

Order! May I perhaps just make a last appeal to the hon. member?

Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly happy to withdraw that remark. [Interjections.]

Order! Would the hon. members on both sides of the House please help me now to give the hon. the Prime Minister an opportunity to finish.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask you whether the hon. member for Houghton will please tell you what she has just said to me across the floor of the House, viz. “You are mad”.

No, I did not say that, Sir.

Oh, yes.

No, I did not.

Oh, yes.

I did not. I said you were a national disaster. [Interjections.]

Be careful! Be careful! [Interjections.] You are quick to run away, are you not? The hon. member for Parktown need not be so upset. The hon. member for Houghton is quite capable of looking after herself. He need not come to her aid.

I now want to indicate what level they are sinking to. I have here in my hand a notice of a meeting which was published by them. With this they are calling upon the public to come and listen to them. Mr. Speaker, you are asking me why I have addressed the hon. members as I did this evening. I am convinced that the hon. member for Durban Point would not do anything like this, and I am convinced that if anything like this were to happen in his party, he would put a stop to it, because I know him. I am also convinced that the hon. member for Simonstown would not allow it. The hon. member for Simonstown and the hon. member for Durban Point are civilized people. I am now quoting from the notice of the meeting—

These people now find themselves where the prodigal son found himself. I quote further—

Do hon. members know who is issuing pamphlets of this kind? It is Philip Myburgh, the hero from Wynberg. He rose here in this House this evening and spoke in a mild voice, a voice quivering with decency, but nevertheless he sees his way clear to casting aspersions on his fellow South Africans in this way in order to find a few people to address, people who would otherwise not come to listen to him. I have been in Parliament for a long time, and I have seen many competent young men, men who were full of promise, enter Parliament during the past 30 years. But they disappeared because they began to behave themselves like this hon. member for Wynberg is behaving himself here. It is strange, but one simply does not stay the course in South African politics in this way.

I now want to tackle the Opposition on what they are going to vote for tonight. They have moved their amendments. I have then-amendments in my possession. Hon. members can read through the amendments and will find nothing positive there in regard to the report which is at present before Parliament. In the first place they are going to vote against our request that the Erasmus Commission be thanked for its work. In the second place they are going to vote against our thanking the Pretorius Committee for its work. In the third place they are going to vote against all the recommendations of the Erasmus Commission, as contained in chapter XIV of the report. We place this on our motion as item No. 3—that we approve of them—but hon. members on that side of the House will be voting against it. They will also be voting against Parliament being requested to express its appreciation for the steps being taken to give effect to the recommendations of the report. In addition we express it as our conviction that secret funds should be placed at the disposal of the Government, and they are voting against that as well. We also express our conviction that, in consultation with the Auditor-General, a practical and satisfactory system of auditing and of reporting on such funds should be found. They are voting against this as well.

You are not kidding anyone with that.

I am simply explaining what those hon. members are doing. The hon. high priest should simply listen; I did not interrupt him when he was speaking. I sat listening to that high priest with his cloak of righteousness all day. They are voting against the House expressing its confidence that it is the Government’s earnest intention to combat and punish irregularities in the administration of the country. Those are their amendments; I cannot help it if they draw up such stupid amendments. Finally they are voting against the House expressing its confidence that the vast majority of public servants are continuing to maintain the traditional clean administration of the Republic.

I come now to the judge.

Mr. Justice Mostert?

The hon. member for Durban Point asked me what I meant when I said in my speech yesterday that they should take care because “powers will be unleashed”. I shall tell hon. members what I meant. During the past 30 years we have made a great deal of progress in this country towards creating sound relations between the population groups. That is a fact, and the hon. member will agree with me. He knows what I am talking about. He will agree with me that the relationships between Afrikaans- and English-speaking South Africans have never before been as sound as they are this evening. In the second place he will agree with me that there has never been such an excellent relationship in the South African Defence Force between the various population communities as there is at present. He will agree with me that in spite of 30 years of Nationalist rule—which is supposedly so bad—South Africa is generally-speaking a peaceful country. I shall mention two examples to hon. members. As an example one can take the funeral of the former State President in Bloemfontein and see how many thousands of people stood there without a single incident. In the second place, if one takes the inauguration of the new State President in Pretoria, one can see how many tens of thousands lined the streets there without incident. This is a peaceful country.

How many people are in gaol? [Interjections.]

I referred to “powers that can be unleashed”. When I speak to the hon. member for Durban Point, who is a good patriot, I tell him that this country is peaceful. We may differ on details. But what do I hear from the left? Then I hear from the left the same accusations which are being levelled at this country from Moscow. Then I hear, from a certain quarter, the same accusations which are being levelled at this country from Luanda.

The same from London, Paris, New York and Boston.

What I meant by that, is that we should not elevate an incident which is ugly into a national disaster, because it leads one to the company of people who from one Sunday to the next, week after week, and morning after morning launch attacks in certain quarters which are merely intended to incite racial feelings in this country. All of us, not only the Afrikaans-speaking sector, but the English-speaking as well, the Black man and the Brown man, must also help to build good attitudes. And that is what I meant. Let us not act towards one another in our propaganda, through incidents, in such a way that forces are unleashed which will cause us to sail back into the perilous seas we have left behind. That is what I meant. I think the hon. member will agree with me.

We do not differ on that score.

Very well; then we do not differ on that score.

But that is not the question.

That is the point I made. Do not take these things to such extremes against the Afrikaner in the country in which he is at present in the majority on the Government side. Surely it is no use denying this. Do not give him the feeling that the slightest thing that goes wrong is seen as corruption on the part of the entire community.

I now want to ask the judge something. After all, he is a man of culture. It is true that we laugh at him when he speaks, and so on, but he is, after all, a man of culture. I now want to ask him this question: Why did he not rise to his feet in the ranks of those among whom he finds himself and tell those people that the propaganda that they are making, against Nationalist South Africa, is directed at his own people?

At my own people?

Yes, at your own people. Why did he not say that the propaganda which they were making was also aimed at his own people and that he was taking up the cudgels for them? What did he do? He stood up here and tried to amplify that same impression of corruption, in the same way as the frontbencher here spoke of a “wide-spread corruption”.

I did not speak of a wide-spread corruption.

Like the frontbencher here, he tried to create the impression of a wide-spread corruption, which has only one effect and only one meaning, and that is that we have to read what we read every Sunday: Of the misdeeds, the corruption and the lack of a proper sense of responsibility which exists among those people who are represented by this side of the House.

While I want to say something further now, I am not speaking to the hon. member for Houghton, because she is absolutely beyond redemption; I am speaking to the people who must continue to live in this country. We shall combat corruption, but we can do this in the best way by ceasing to revile the Afrikaner in his own fatherland. [Interjections.]

The Afrikaans Nationalist newspapers criticized it just as scathingly.

That is what I meant yesterday when I referred here to certain Press organs, and they set the devil loose in me if they humiliate my people.

Who are your people?

I shall tell you who my people are. I am coming to that; I am going to speak frankly tonight. Hon. members will never hear a member of this Government attacking an English or a Jewish cultural organization.

What has that got to do with this matter?

It has everything to do with it. Mr. Speaker, I am replying to a question which the hon. member for Durban Point put to me, namely what forces I had in mind would be unleashed. This hon. member, however, with her guilty conscience, is for ever making prattling interjections.

[Inaudible.]

Well, I thank the good Lord that she is not my wife!

I want to tell the hon. member for Johannesburg North that we are now becoming tired, as far as corruption and subversion and misdeeds and secret maladministration are concerned, of having to hear these accusations over a wide spectrum, and against Afrikaans cultural organizations as well.

You mean the Broederbond now?

Yes, I mean inter alia, the Broederbond and the FAK and other Afrikaans organizations. I want to make a confession in this Parliament tonight: I am a member of the Broederbond. And I shall tell you why I am proud of that fact: Because Father Kestell was a member—and something of which Father Kestell was a member, I can also be a member of. Dr. D. F. Malan was also a member, and something which Dr. Malan was a member of, I can also be a member of. Totius was also a member, and an organization of which he was a member, I can also be a member of.

Is General Van den Bergh a member?

General Van den Bergh is quite probably a member. That does not mean to say, however, that if a member of an organization of that hon. member opposite makes a mistake, the entire organization is a mistake.

That is why I am pleading here this evening for better attitudes, for a sense of responsibility and that we should also contain ourselves in this Parliament. I have demonstrated to the hon. members opposite what medicine they will get in return. They are sitting a little foolishly in those benches tonight. [Interjections.] Take with you this piece of advice from me: I shall be in the forefront for better relations, but stop reviling my people!

Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I want to inform you that a proclamation will be issued summoning Parliament to meet on 2 February 1979.

Mr. Speaker, I move—