Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned yesterday evening I was explaining that the Defence family consisted of two legs, i.e. Armscor and the S.A. Defence Force, that these two organizations were equally important and that they supported each other in order to be successful in attaining their objectives. I stated that I was going to discuss Armscor in depth today. For those who are interested I just wish to mention that a very interesting article appeared in the April 1982 edition of South African Panorama. The Official Opposition will agree that the caption is very appropriate “Armscor: South Africa’s Shield”.

You are learning, you are learning.

Before I discuss Armscor in detail I feel that it is important, since I am discussing a Vote of this nature, that one should consider the operational forecast or, put in a different way, the threat analysis. However, since many hon. members on the Committee have referred to this aspect—and I am thinking here in particular of the hon. members for Pretoria West, De Aar, Roodepoort, Benoni, Umfolozi and the hon. members Messrs. Vermeulen and Theunissen who in my opinion did this very well and very realistically—I am not going to refer to this matter again. But the hon. member for Yeoville asked me what the present operational situation in South West Africa was, and how I saw the course of the operation there. Consequently I intend coming back to this aspect later. Besides the excellent contributions on the threat which were made by the hon. members to whom I have referred, I should also like to refer to the contributions on the same subject made last week by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg and the hon. member for Simon’s Town during the debate on the Second Reading of the Defence Amendment Bill. During that debate the hon. member for Simon’s Town raised a point, and I hope hon. members took cognizance of it. He emphasized the fact that South Africa had sometimes entered previous wars with divided views, but that all of us knew that the present threat was aimed at our entire way of life and that it was aimed at curtailing the freedom of everyone within our national boundaries. I agree with this statement and I am also certain that everyone present in this Committee at the moment will agree with this statement.

I have just said that we all know that the present threat is aimed at our entire way of life and that it is aimed at curtailing the freedom of everyone within our national boundaries. With reference to this I should like to state that although differences may exist among political parties on the defence of this country, one of the finest things which emerge time and again in this Parliament is that we do not dispute the fact that this lovely country of ours must be defended against any onslaught with everything we have. The strength of our country lies in its very diversity, its differences in colour, political thought, faiths and differences in many other spheres. This country must be defended by every inhabitant, whether he be Afrikaansor English-speaking, whether White, Brown or Black, or whether he stems from other minority groups, whether Greek, Jewish, Asiatic or whatever group it may be. These are cultures which may differ from one another, but which do differ greatly from that of the Black people. However, they are all held in mutual respect because of the one compelling thought which we all have in common, viz. love for the common father-land. For our faith and the preservation of our culture we shall defend our borders together against neocolonialism and the expansion of the communist revolution. We realize that the onslaught is not aimed at a single skin colour, origin or culture, but at our entire population and the survival of the Republic of South Africa.

Before I continue with this subject it is now necessary for me to give attention, arising out of the request made by the hon. member for Yeoville, to the present incursion by Swapo terrorists into the northern area of South West Africa. This occurrence has received widespread publicity and is still doing so. It is consequently necessary for us to view this matter in its correct perspective. As a result of actions by security forces against the terrorists last year and earlier this year as well, the logistical capabilities of this terrorist organization in Southern Angola have been paralyzed. As a result the so called strong man image of the terrorists among their present supporters—particularly in the outside world—was destroyed. It has been confirmed from reliable intelligence sources that the Soviet Union reprimanded the Swapo leader, Sam Nujoma for his poor image and that of Swapo and he was told that he should try to restore that image since the local population in Ovambo was beginning to co-operate to an increasing extent with the Security Forces, and that speaks volumes. In order to achieve the correct perspective the latest effort must be seen in the light of the desperateness with which it was carried out in an effort to satisfy their masters. Hon. members would find it interesting to know that this operation was one of two which were launched from Cassinga. Hon. members will recall that in the past my predecessor reported in the House on that very successful operation which the S.A. Defence Force launched against Cassinga, against camps called Moscow and Vietnam. One of these groups had to move westward through Kaokoiand and the other had to penetrate South West Africa through East Ovambo. According to instructions both groups had to commit acts of sabotage and murder the local population. I found this very significant, because Sam Nujoma had up to that stage always said the following: He had said that he was not fighting against the Black people in South West Africa/Namibia. He said that the Whites should be retained in South West Africa/Namibia. What are they doing now? He instructed them to murder whomsoever they came into contact with. White and Black, man, woman and child. I cannot see how the local population can ever believe Swapo again. These murders are being committed to create fear among the inhabitants and to try to win back prestige for Swapo. Because the enemy was expected to move downwards from Mossamedes, the group which had to enter from the west were wiped out in the course of Operation Super, while the eastern group split into two and crossed the so-called Red Line.

I hope that my observations were incorrect, but in the reporting of Operation Super I noticed that in certain local newspapers there was little appreciation for the success achieved with that operation. The Security Forces are now hot on the trail of the remaining members of the group, after approximately 30 were shot dead. They are now moving in small groups, and where possible they are trying halfheartedly to commit acts of sabotage and murder as far as they go. This is the eighth incursion of this type since 1976. Swapo, through the Angolan news agency and radio, is alleging in the outside world that it is a “major operation”. It is true that these terrorists were better armed than those who infiltrated into South West Africa in the past, and that they were also better trained and to a certain extent were possessed of a suicide philosophy and a degree of fanaticism. As the hon. member for Pretoria West indicated, this kind of infiltration always occurs at this time of the year, as a result, of course, of sufficient cover and water after the commencement of the rainy season in Ovambo. The area in which the follow-up operation is now taking place is an area which is usually free of terrorists, and therefore few if any forces of the S.A. Defence Force or of the Security Forces are deployed in that specific area. It ought to be mentioned, however, that shortly after the cutline was crossed in Ovambo, the groups were tracked down by the Security Forces. An organization was quickly brought into operation and it is this organization which soon gained control of the situation—within a few days.

However, there are two important conclusions to be drawn from this entire situation. I do not wish to make use of this debate to discuss the amending Bill which is at present before the House. I do not think that this is the right or appropriate time. However, it is necessary for hon. members to take earnest cognizance of the fact that such an incursion into the Republic of South Africa cannot be excluded in future. Surely that is clearly the reason why the concept of a locality-bound territorial force for the Republic of South Africa is so essential. It will result in such a terrorist group being tracked down more easily and quickly, and eliminated rapidly with the aid of a reaction force, consisting of Citizen Force elements. To me it also underlines the important part which members of other population groups could play in such a system. I hope that this complies with the request made yesterday by the hon. member for Yeoville, and I hope that I will be able to engender greater support from him for the new national service system when it comes before the Select Committee.

In addition it is also necessary for the outside world to take cognizance of what these terrorists seek to achieve with their operation. It ties in precisely with Swapo’s tactics at the present negotiations which are in progress on South West Africa/Namibia. They can hardly be in earnest when they allege that they are trying to seek a solution if they make this kind of incursion and send people on suicide missions at this sensitive stage of the talks in which we are now involved. I must sound a warning now and point out that operations of this kind by Swapo will lead to us seeing this situation in a different light, with a view to launching pre-emptive operations even deeper into Angola. I hope that these will also have the approval of the hon. member for Wynberg.

I do not want to give any further attention to this matter, but prefer to deal with another facet of defence in which this country has steeled itself and strengthened its resistance to the onslaught. I am referring to the munitions industry and the development in this sphere during the past decade. Hon. members must not take it amiss of me for again wishing to pay tribute here to my predecessor, the present hon. Prime Minister, by briefly saying the following. If it had not been for his farsightedness in this sphere, hon. members would not have been able to meet so peacefully in this Committee today and conduct such a restful debate on how best to combat the threat. Nor would we have been able to negotiate from this position of strength in the world. In recent months there has been speculation on various levels and in various quarters that the arms embargo is likely to be relaxed by some Western countries. It is important to make it clear here that there is no question whatsoever of a relaxation of the arms embargo against the Republic of South Africa. In fact, South Africa will make no effort to influence countries to apply the embargo less stringently. There are clear signs, supported by various pieces of evidence in the form of reports from the UN, that great pressure has to be exerted on all member countries to maintain the embargo as stringently and even more stringently than before. The organization which exists to monitor the UN’s embargo is still being reinforced and expanded and it must be accepted that it will act more effectively. It must be accepted that owing to the present division of power in the world, any attempt to have the embargo repealed in the Security Council will be vetoed by the communist countries. In view of this the further expansion of the armaments industry in South Africa must continue to receive the highest priority in order to ensure that the country can be defended. As matters stand at present it would definitely be irresponsible for the Republic of South Africa to rely in any way on any possible provision of weapon systems and ammunition from other sources. During the past year Armscor made progress with its task and various milestones were achieved. These milestones were passed in the form of objectives determined according to priorities during the previous decade.

†It must, however, be accepted as a fact that no country in the world can ever become totally self-sufficient in the production of armaments. Even the biggest powers in the world, including the USA and Russia, will always in some respects rely on imported components even if only on raw materials. This fact is generally also applicable in South Africa for armaments in general. When it became clear nearly six years ago that South Africa would be faced with an armaments embargo and that the country would have to embark on the road of self sufficiency as far as armaments are concerned, the limitations of manpower and funds necessitated Armscor to determine priorities. The first priority was for the production of ammunition. The goal was set to become totally self-sufficient. The regular import of ammunition in a clandestine way is today virtually impossible. Ammunition is an expendable product and every round used in training and in operations must be replaced. This is in contrast with durable items such as rifles, guns and other weapon systems which, with careful maintenance and upgrading, could be used over and over again and remain in service for many years. Furthermore the best weapon systems can be brought to a complete standstill through the lack of ammunition. It therefore became quite clear that with the adoption by the UN of the arms embargo, the most vulnerable aspect of armaments in the Defence Force was ammunition. For these reasons Armscor gave the production of ammunition a high priority and embarked on an expansion programme for the manufacture of the various types of ammunition required by the South African Armed Forces. This resulted in the erection of many new plants in various locations throughout South Africa as well as the expansion of existing plants. A total, but relatively limited, amount of R625 million was invested over this period to achieve this aim. These various plants and facilities erected in South Africa are of the most modern and advanced types and will not only serve the present generation but, according to experience, will also produce ammunition for the generations to come. This was the main reason why a large portion of the financing of expansions was done by way of long-term loans on the capital market. This will enable the coming generations to also contribute to that from which they will benefit. Mr. Chairman, benefit they will, because we are going to succeed. During the past year this expansion programme was rounded off and completed with the commissioning of two further plants namely the quick-firing ammunition plant at Pretoria and the Kranskop Plant for the production of propellants in the Western Cape. Armscor is now in a position to supply 141 different calibres and types of ammunition to the Security Forces from these plants. I can give hon. members the assurance that the ammunition referred to is not only of the correct grade and quality, but could also be produced in sufficient quantities to enable South Africa to deploy all its available manpower under arms and even to export ammunition. A further outstanding feature of these facilities is that they can be adapted for other types and calibres of the future. If we add to these facts the availability of raw materials in South Africa. I firmly believe that as far as ammunition is concerned South Africa will not be affected by an embargo situation in the foreseeable future and for many years to come. Mr. Chairman, hon. members can rest assured that the Security Forces of our country will have no need to look over their shoulders to see if ammunition is forthcoming. To further illustrate this point it is worth noting that during Operation Protea in Angola the ammunition used by our forces was accounted for in millions of rand while the loss of weapons and other equipment was only accounted for in thousands of rand.

*It is an achievement that the goals set for the production of ammunition approximately six years ago, were achieved within the specified time limits and the amounts budgeted for the purpose. Hon. members, and the country as well, ought to pay tribute to Armscor and its co-workers for this achievement. Although this enormous enterprise was carried out by the Armscor group as a whole, and the management teams of head office as well as the subsidiaries made a commendable contribution, it could not have been achieved without the contribution of the private entrepreneur in South Africa. I want to say once again that the private entrepreneur in South Africa made a tremendous contribution to the country in making this achievement possible. The civil contractors in particular accomplished exceptional achievements in regard to the establishment of these facilities and were primarily responsible for making it possible to keep within the specified framework of time and funds. This contribution which the civil and other contractors made with great dedication to the Republic of South Africa, deserves our thanks and appreciation.

Although the production of ammunition was accorded a high priority, the development and manufacture of weapon systems did not remain in abeyance. Since 1979 my predecessor has announced several new weapon systems. Apart from smaller weapon systems, and the development of a range of vehicles for the S.A. Defence Force, viz. the Samil range of vehicles, the development of the G5 artillery system was probably among the most important developments. Here I should like to say this: Please note that this entire artillery system is manufactured locally in the Republic of South Africa.

Other important developments were the R4 rifle, the 127 mm rocket system, together with its ammunition of various types, as well as the V3, an air-to-air missile. Incidentally, although the Samil vehicles are already an almost everyday sight, very few people realize what an achievement they were and with what exacting requirements this series of vehicles has to comply.

In the first place I want to point out that these weapon systems were specifically developed to counteract those made available by the communist countries for use against South Africa. In addition these weapon systems were developed by Armscor for use under South African conditions. Each of these weapon systems contains unique features and confers upon the S.A. Defence Force a decided advantage over the abilities of its potential enemies. What I can tell hon. members in connection with these weapon systems today is that all of them, with their ammunition, are a successful part of the South African armaments industry. Some are already coming off the production lines in large numbers and have been integrated into the S.A. Defence Force. Then, too, there are others which have already been successfully employed in operations which we undertook during 1981. In addition it is important to mention that these weapons, as well as the ammunition, are manufactured entirely in South Africa from South African raw materials and that in this regard the arms embargo, as in the case with other munitions, has been successfully neutralized.

From the Opposition side, accusations are frequently levelled that the Government is exaggerating the threat and that funds for defence could be far better spent on improving the standard of living of our people, that is if the Government is prepared to accept their constitutional solutions and political philosophies. However, I now wish to say to those who venture to make these predictions that the size and extent of the ammunition facilities that were established, the weapons which have been developed in South Africa and the sophistication and cost of all weapon plants which came into existence, were dictated and necessitated by the weapons which were available to our enemies and which were supplied by communist countries. The costs which have been incurred, as well as those that have to be incurred during the ensuing financial year, are essential to enable South Africa to defend itself in the face of what is already being utilized against us. If we bear in mind that the enemy, whom we do battle with every day, is being provided with ever more sophisticated armaments, and if we bear in mind that the arms embargo is there to stay, for as far into the future as we are able to determine, it is necessary to look beyond the present financial year, and the funds that have been earmarked for this year. In the armaments industries of the world it is generally accepted that a period of eight to 10 years elapses between the conceptual stage of a new weapon until it can be successfully utilized by the security forces. It is unfortunately the case that the development work, the industrialization phase, the production phase, the integration into the logistical system of the S.A. Defence Force and the training of the Defence Force arm concerned, cannot be accomplished in a shorter space of time. Our own experience in this field confirms that this time span is correct.

I can mention the development of the R1 rifle as an example. It took five years from the time the need for an R1 rifle was identified and stated by the S.A. Defence Force until the first production model was delivered. At that stage, however, there were still insufficient rifles to enable the Defence Force to equip itself with these weapons, and this alone took five years. Consequently there is a tremendously long preliminary period. As a result we are still compelled to plan for what we will need in 10 years’ time. Consequently we have to plan at this early stage for those weapon systems with which the S.A. Defence Force of 1990 onwards has to be equipped. Consequently, constant studies have to be made to determine what the enemy will have at its disposal in those years, and hon. members will realize how difficult it is to obtain that information in respect of one’s enemy.

The philosophy of weapon development and of Armscor is not to try to produce superweapons. It is aimed solely at supplying weapons with which the S.A. Defence Force can successfully counteract the weapons of the enemies of our country. Consequently, if we do not plan in advance, detrimental deficiencies will develop which cannot be made good by purchases from other sources.

In the latest estimates, in which expenditure had of necessity to be pruned to the bare essentials in order to continue the present programmes, less provision was made for research and the development of future weapon systems. With reference to the question which the hon. member for Yeoville asked me yesterday, I can say that the amount budgeted for research and development was increased from R18 million to R20 million. I would not say that that is sufficient. However, the present economic climate in South Africa necessitates this step. In years to come, however, increased provision will definitely have to be made for the development of new weapon systems. If this is not done future generations will undoubtedly have reason to reproach us. By that time South Africa may find itself in just as weak a position as it did a few years ago when the effects of the arms embargo began to be felt and when our dependence on imported armaments could have led to our downfall in the military sphere.

Therefore the challenge to provide South Africa with the necessary armaments to cope with the escalating military onslaught which is also becoming increasingly more sophisticated, is becoming ever greater. The armaments industry, and specifically the capacity of Armscor, have developed to the level where I can state with full confidence that this challenge will be successfully met.

The strong technological and managerial ability of Armscor leave little doubt that any new weapon systems which may be required in future will also be developed and manufactured in our own country. Today it is also a great privilege for me to pay tribute in this House to the board and top management of Armscor for their farsightedness and thorough planning in providing the S.A. Defence Force with the means with which to take on our enemies. When I refer to means I mean the timeous provision of the best means. However, it is not only the top management of our armaments organization which deserves to be praised, because without the loyal, dedicated and inspired service of the lower echelons of Armscor, its subsidiaries and sub-contractors—I am referring here to every employee, from the executive committee member down to the humblest employee—all the planning of the top managements and boards would have come to nought. It is these people who had to convert those plans into effective products, and they did so in such a masterly fashion that the quality of our armaments today is everywhere commended as being among the highest in the world. Equipped with a vessel, an aircraft, a vehicle, a radio, weapons or ammunition, or whatever it may be of South African origin, our Defence Force personnel can approach the task with confidence.

I also want to thank the families of each member of the armaments organization for their support, assistance and inspiration of their husbands, wives and friends so that they were able to accomplish their task so effectively.

To return to the Board of Armscor, I want to point out that the Armaments Development and Production Act provides that Armscor shall be controlled and managed by a board of directors appointed by the State President. The numerous industrialists, businessmen, financiers, scientists and many others, some of whom have been giving of their time on a voluntary basis for more than 14 years to serve on the boards of these companies, bear the total responsibility for the development and successful continued existence of Armscor. This technique of assembling rare talents, knowledge, experience and qualities of leadership from the private sector and placing them in control of armaments production, is unique to South Africa, and as far as I know, unique in the Western World. Those who have over the years made, and are still making, such a great, selfless contribution to preparing South Africa to meet the challenge of the United Nations arms embargo, have shown patriotism well worth emulating. Consequently it is fitting that I should on this occasion express my thanks, and the thanks of the S.A. Defence Force, to the Executive Vice-chairman of Armscor, Mr. John Maree, who retires from service at the end of June this year, after he agreed to place his managerial skills at our disposal for a period of approximately three years. I should like to convey our best wishes to him and his family and thank them for the sacrifices they have made for our country.

Hear, hear!

At the same time I should like to wish Mr. Fred Bell, who succeeds him, a happy and rewarding period of office in this important post.

These Armscor people, in other words, all the employees of Armscor, are also people of a divergent nature. They are people of various colours, cultures and creeds. However, they are people who are joined together to make only one contribution, namely a contribution to enable our country to defend itself for the sake of Western-orientated civilization in this very important part of the world. Mr. Chairman, while I am paying tribute to these people, you must also allow me to express my thanks to the members of the Defence Advisory Board, whose period of office expired on 31 March 1982.

Hon. members will recall that on 1 May 1980 the hon. Prime Minister announced the appointment of a new Defence Advisory Council. On that occasion the hon. the Prime Minister said that an excellent relationship existed between the Defence family and industrial leaders in this country. He also stated that he had appointed a Defence Advisory Council a few years ago, which met from time to time, as members of Parliament do, to be informed and to consider the internal activities of the Defence Force in an objective way. It is clear that these people, who represent the entire South African economy, are nothing but a liaising mechanism to maintain relations with the Defence family. You will realize that they, in exactly the same way as we do, make use of our most important commodity, viz. manpower. For this very reason I issued instructions to the effect that there should be liaison with employers’ organizations on an even wider level in order to promote mutual understanding. This led to the restructuring of the Defence Manpower Liaison Committee under the chairmanship of Chief of Staff: Personnel, of the S.A. Defence Force. Representatives of all employers’ organizations on a national level serve on this committee and the duplication which this entails in respect of the activities of the Defence Advisory Council has made the council redundant as a liaising mechanism with the industrial sector. For that reason I have decided not to reappoint the council. However, hon. members will realize that defence is a matter which affects the entire national economy and that such liaising bodies contribute prodigiously to mutual understanding. If one reads the White Paper on Defence and Armaments Supply one will find more information in it on the Defence Manpower Liaison Committee. I think it is paragraph 93. In this White Paper reference is also made to other committees which, in a decentralized way, bring about points of contact between the S.A. Defence Force and the private sector. I think the hon. member for Ladybrand referred to the Defence Research and Development Council, which is mentioned in paragraph 120. Then, too, there is the Defence Planning Committee, on which representatives of the private sector serve. In this way there are many others as well.

In conjuction with all these things I wish to pay tribute to the S.A. Defence Force. To be involved in a war, whether it is a conventional conflict such as the two World Wars, or an unconventional conflict as at present in South West Africa, requires sacrifices, perseverance and hard work from every member of the S.A. Defence Force, full-time or part time, and in uniform or in civilian clothes. The same applies to the families of these people. It is not only the soldier at the front who is exposed to deprivation and who has to make sacrifices. Most certainly the demands which are made on him are greater than on those at home, but it is not unusual to find that even typists have to work throughout the night or on Sundays and holidays to finish a task in time. There are people who are separated from their families for weeks or even months, and where the mothers have to stand in for the fathers, sometimes under difficult circumstances. If the positive attitudes which emanate from these people, men, women and children, are taken into consideration, they surpass by far the negative criticism to which the S.A. Defence Force is exposed. It is my greatest pride to be in charge of such an organization as the S.A. Defence Force and Armscor. The attitude of all these people make my task so much lighter and a true pleasure. In this connection I wish to convey a special word of thanks and appreciation to the Head of the S.A. Defence Force, General Viljoen, and to the Chairman, Commandant Marais.

Hear, hear!

In the White Paper special reference is made to Defence Force Women’s Associations. However, it cannot tell the full story of these wonderful organizations and their achievements. They are the quiet workers behind the scenes who make a huge contribution, without acclamation, to the uplifting of the morale of our Defence Force members, whether in the operational area, or here on the home front. I think it is time appreciation was expressed in this House for their work.

During the past year many families were once again plunged into mourning by the loss of someone they hold dear in the execution of his military service in order to protect our beloved country. We know that military service is accompanied by loss of life, whether there is a war in progress or not, but to me and the Defence Command Council, as well as to every member of the S.A. Defence Force and Armscor, every life is precious. Wherever it is lost, it is of personal importance to each one of us because that person was one of us. To the next-of-kin of those who gave their lives for our country, we wish once again to express our sincere condolences. We join you in honouring their memory.

I should now like to reply to proposals and ideas expressed by hon. members during the course of the debate. In this connection I wish to begin with the Official Opposition.

†As usual the hon. member for Yeoville made a very positive contribution which started the debate on a high level. I have already replied on the incursions into South West Africa. Regarding the Falkland Islands, the hon. the Prime Minister has already stated the Government’s attitude on this issue. I fully subscribe to the hon. member’s views on the lessons to be learnt from this conflict. With regard to the question of an armed services committee, my view is that the defence of our country has been delegated to me as a member of the Cabinet and that I cannot share this responsibility with any other person or a committee of this House. The way we handle defence matters between parties at present is, to my mind, quite satisfactory. In any event, I do not think that the hon. member would like to share membership of such a committee with the hon. members for Constantia and Jeppe. I am certainly not prepared to do it.

I share the hon. member’s concern about civil defence, so much so that I wrote to the Administrators of the various provinces on 27 January 1982 about this matter. Already there is a marked improvement in the Transvaal and Natal as quite a number of civil defence organizations have been up-graded since the beginning of this year.

With regard to the acquisition of new vessels for the S.A. Navy, I want to say that this need is dictated by the task of the Navy, which is based on the nature of the threat it has to deal with. A project study on this matter has already been launched and we will decide on the type of vessel for the Navy when the results of this study are at hand. This also applies to maritime aircraft and helicopters. The hon. member must keep in mind that there is an arms embargo against us. We have already unsuccessfully tried to convince some of the major powers that the supply of maritime reconnaissance aircraft to us is to their advantage as well. The same applies to naval vessels.

The hon. member also raised the question of research. The position is that there is an increase in the allocation for this important function from R18 million to R20 million in the current financial year. The Research and Development Board of the S.A. Defence Force has been appointed specifically to place research and development on a sound footing and to determine what could be spent on this function, having regard for the capacity of research and development institutions within and outside the Defence family.

With regard to the question of national service for immigrants …

Before you leave that, can you perhaps deal with the question of mines? Is further research into this field being done at the moment?

Yes, we are constantly busy developing new mine resistant vehicles and other equipment.

And seamines?

I am not quite sure about that. I shall have to go into that.

With regard to national service for immigrants, I stated during the Second Reading debate on the Defence Amendment Bill that an investigation into this matter is under way. I do not want to enlarge upon this, except perhaps to thank hon. members on that side for their strong views in this regard, namely that immigrants should contribute their part towards the defence of our country.

The hon. member also raised the question of control over foreign weapons. This is a matter which has caused the Defence Force some considerable concern. During the last few years vast quantities of weapons have been flowing into Southern Africa from communist countries. In operations in South West Africa and Angola large quantities of small arms and ammunition have been captured. While everything possible is being done to ensure that proper account is given of these weapons and ammunition to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands, hon. members will appreciate that this is a most difficult task. There is also the situation with regard to Zimbabwe where weapons are smuggled across our border by fugitives. Detailed instructions have been issued within the S.A. Defence Force on this matter and strict measures are applied to ensure that such weapons are not brought to the Republic of South Africa from the operational area, such as the searching of baggage of troops returning to the Republic at airfields before departure and on arrival. All cases of unauthorized possession of such weapons and ammunition are immediately reported to the S.A. Police for investigation and the necessary action. A S.A. Police and Military Police investigation is at present being conducted into certain irregularities in South West Africa and in the Republic and it is expected that this will in due course culminate in a court case.

I did reply to the speech of the hon. member for Wynberg yesterday. He mentioned the lack of interest in the commandos and consequently presented one of the better motivations for the legislation presently under consideration. I trust that he will fully support the measures envisaged in the Select Committee.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout has once again demonstrated the value of the training he received in the S.A. Defence Force by his excellent exposition of the logistical requirements of the Defence Force. His contribution has proved that he is well versed on the subject and I wish to thank him for the professional way in which it was presented. Logistics are of course the lifeline of any military force and it is to be welcomed that the hon. member focused the attention on this important aspect of our fighting machine.

Cognizance has been taken of the attitude of the hon. member for Bryanston regarding the position of immigrants in relation to military service. I can well accept that in his specific constituency there must exist several such problems and we are, as he well knows, looking seriously at this problem.

The hon. member for Parktown focused attention on the sterling services rendered by the Medical Service, thereby negating the objection of the hon. member for Jeppe to this service being an independent arm of the Defence Force. The way the hon. member spoke, he could just as well have been sitting on this side of the House. I am sure that all of us on this side and the S.A. Defence Force, especially the South African Medical Services, have appreciation for his positive contribution. As I have already indicated, the hon. member is a welcome guest of the S.A. Defence Force in the operational area.

*After I have dealt with hon. members’ requests I shall deal with what the hon. member for Constantia said. I want to begin with hon. members of the NRP.

†The hon. member for Durban Point once again raised the matter of pay, but this time in a positive way for which I want to thank him. I think the Chief Paymaster will feel relieved to hear that he has at least been able to satisfy the hon. member for Durban Point. There will, of course, always be problem cases, but if the hon. member brings them to the attention of my staff or the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force, I am sure that they will be dealt with speedily, just as the other cases referred to by him have been dealt with. Stock control is receiving urgent attention at the highest level. Two projects were launched at the end of last year to improve the situation and already there is a vast improvement in the position with regard to controlled items. On 31 March 1982 a 90% verification was completed in some of the armed services. The hon. member also referred to manpower utilization. I have already announced that an investigation into this matter is being conducted, but I wish to add that this investigation is receiving the personal attention of the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force. Positive results have already been attained. I am sure that this matter will also be fully debated by the Select Committee on the Defence Amendment Bill and I therefore do not want to expand on it. I hope that the new national service scheme will induce employers to be more lenient on the question of the paying of salaries during periods of military service.

The hon. member also referred to the rail and air concessions of the S.A. Transport Services for national servicemen. The scheme is still in the process of being introduced and I fail to see how the travel arrangements over the Easter weekend could have been in shambles. This is a major undertaking and I think we should allow the S.A. Transport Services a bit more time to get organized for this scheme. The vast benefits to be derived from this concession for which members of the S.A. Defence Force are most thankful to the hon. the Minister and the S.A. Transport Services are well worth waiting for.

The hon. member for Umhlanga proposed that the future careers of national servicemen be taken into account and matched up with the military mustering. Autobiographical questionnaires which are completed by each national serviceman whilst he is still at school indicate the member’s choice of arm of the service and the unit in which he wishes to serve. Furthermore, he indicates what his field of interest is. This factor is indicative of his intention after completion of his national service. Other additional factors are the member’s academic qualifications and his medical category. With regard to professionally qualified national servicemen, they are accommodated according to the supply and demand for specific musterings. The reallocation of national servicemen after initial allocation can become unrealistic and uneconomical. It is the general consensus of opinion that more than 80% of all allocations of national servicemen to a specific mustering find general acceptance. However, I do think that we can try to improve on this percentage.

The hon. member for King William’s Town made some interesting remarks with regard to the commando system. I can inform the hon. member that certain urban commandos for which an urban area-bound role could not be envisaged have already been converted into citizen force units. His proposals that all troops must initially be trained as infantrymen and perform operational service before being utilized in their true musterings, is unfortunately not feasible for a variety of reasons which I cannot expound at this stage.

*Mr. Chairman, last night I congratulated the hon. member for Jeppe on his election as spokesman of the Defence Group of the Conservative Party. The hon. member kicked off with a few positive statements and I almost began to hope that he had turned over a new leaf in his new party. Alas, a leopard cannot change its spots. His injudicious, unsavoury and arrogant attitude in asking me and the Defence Force to prove to him that we wish to co-operate with him, was a discordant note. Who does the hon. member think he is?

That is a good question.

Is it not his responsibility to ensure co-operation, if he is a patriot? His statements about coups and other gossip-mongering had no place in a gathering such as this. Apparently the Conservative Party also has its Hulleys.

I think that is disgraceful.

However, the hon. member for Pietersburg, in turn, almost restored the balance with positive standpoints from the new party. The balance was then in fact properly restored by the positive contribution made by the hon. member Mr. Theunissen. His plea for functional training and his concern about one-man businesses and the manpower situation in rural commandos was an expression, as he is already aware, of some of the reasons for this new national service system. Attention is already being given to the citizen force at army headquarter level, and I think that for the time being we should leave it at that. Later on we can take another look at this representation on the DSC in connection with which the hon. member for Pietersburg made representations.

The request made by the hon. member Mr. Theunissen for key posts to be abolished is being accommodated in the new system.

The hon. members for Pietersburg and Bryanston asked for a statement on the Defence Force policy for dealing with other population groups. The Defence Force acts under difficult circumstances, with a great diversity of manpower, in the daily performance of its operational and other tasks. The circumstances are perilous. The question I now want to ask is whether petty requests, made from party-political angles, should be acceded to, thereby harming the effectiveness of the S.A. Defence Force. On a previous occasion I provided hon. members present here with the existing guidelines, although the party affiliations of some members have changed since then. I took hon. members to the operational area and to units in the Republic, where they could see with their own eyes what that policy was, and how it was working. There were no problems and no complaints. Today, with all the responsibility at my disposal, I want to make an appeal to hon. members to leave this issue in the hands of the S.A. Defence Force. It involves the security of our country and our continued existence, and frequently it is a matter of life and death, as the hon. member for Jeppe will know. We cannot afford to drag this question into the party-political arena. On 27 March 1981 I made a statement in this connection, and I need not elaborate any further on it, because it was a comprehensive statement.

It is always pleasant to listen to the hon. member for Pretoria West and observe the exceptional momentum he gives to a debate such as this. As always, the hon. member acquitted himself very well of his task as chairman of the National Party’s study group, and his congratulations to the S.A. Defence Force for its success during the recent operation are sincerely appreciated. The hon. member spelt out the realities of the threat, and referred to the bear cubs that are proliferating in Africa. I associate myself with what he said and trust that this Committee will take cognizance of the study which he has made of statements of people such as Dr. Chester Crocker and others, to which he referred when he said we should not fight with diplomacy against hardware such as Russian tanks. The hon. member endorsed the statement of policy which I gave you a moment ago in respect of Armscor. I fully endorse the logic of his statements that the economy in South Africa is dependent on an effective defence system, because it is one of the cornerstones of a State. He also conveyed his thanks to Armscor. He referred to the spiritual ministration to the S.A. Defence Force and gave an assurance in this House with which no one could differ. He said: The S.A. Defence Force must know that the politicians support them. The Defence group of the National Party is fortunate to have such a chairman as this hon. member. When the hon. member for Roodeplaat replied so effectively to the hon. member for Jeppe, he made an important statement and said that, when it came to defence, we needed the support of all those who were not subverters. That statement has never been as true as it is at this very moment, with the escalation of the onslaught. He also referred to changes in the S.A. Defence Force over the past 10 years, and I assume that the references were directed at the enhancing of the efficiency of the S.A. Defence Force, which is attributable to the farsightedness and perseverance of my predecessor, the present hon. Prime Minister.

I want to thank the hon. member for Standerton on an excellent speech, dealing with the chaplain’s service of the S.A. Defence Force. It is appreciated that he was able to convey a convincing and reassuring message to the public on this important aspect. Spiritual preparedness is, particularly in the low intensity war in which we are involved, of the utmost importance, and in this respect the chaplain’s service makes a major contribution to keeping up the morale of our troops.

The hon. member for De Aar referred to Swapo atrocities in SWA/Namibia and pointed out that these atrocities were primarily aimed at and had a disruptive effect on the innocent local population. I thank the hon. member for an enlightening contribution.

The hon. member for Roodepoort deserves thanks for his speech which, inter alia, dealt with the magnitude of the struggle and the vital need for expanding the manpower resources of the S.A. Defence Force. As I indicated earlier, this was an excellent contribution.

The hon. member for Simon’s Town asked me to make a statement about the inquiry into the collision between the Paul Kruger and the Tafelberg. All that I can say at this stage is that the appointed board recently disposed of its inquiry, and a provisional copy of the report was handed over to the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force yesterday morning by the chairman of the board of inquiry. A cursory study of the board’s finding indicates that the collision was the result of an incorrect and injudicious manoeuvre, caused as a result of the non-maintenance of standards, the injudicious composition of the watchkeeping organization, and also as a result of the lack of application of good seamanship. As far as responsibility is concerned, it is not possible to elaborate on this now since the board’s finding requires further study and consideration by the convening authority, namely the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force. I trust that this information will satisfy the hon. member for the time being. A further statement in this connection will be made at the proper time.

As far as the frigates are concerned, a project study on replacement ships has, as I indicated to the hon. member for Yeoville earlier, been approved. Consequently I cannot now give any undertakings as to the retention or otherwise of the two frigates. In this matter, too, we must allow ourselves to be guided by the recommendations of the project study.

Durban’s interest in maritime defence and maritime operations, as well as the general role of the S.A. Navy, was conveyed in an interesting and informative way by the hon. member for Umlazi. His speech testified to an intimate knowledge of the fleet situation in Durban, and it was clear that this matter is of major concern to him. The accommodation situation is being looked into, but as the hon. member probably knows, finances are an inhibiting factor.

The hon. member for Kroonstad—himself an ex-pilot of the S.A. Air Force—made a thoroughly prepared speech on the S.A. Air Force, with special reference to flying efficiency and the excellent standard of South Africa pilots. I thank him for his sturdy contribution.

The hon. member for Beaufort West emphasized the importance of sport and physical training in the S.A. Defence Force, and how these aspects are being positively promoted in the Defence Force. He also spoke informatively on the re-utilization and conversion of obsolete vessels and armaments into modern, redoubtable instruments of war. I thank him for his contribution.

The hon. member for Ladybrand discussed everything that was being done for the commandos, and he was speaking from his own experience. I appreciate that, and no one can differ with the hon. member that we have some of the best soldiers in the world. The hon. member was, pre-eminently, one of our best commando leaders and for that reason he can speak with authority on defence matters.

Mr. Chairman, I always enjoy listening to the hon. member for Benoni and once again he made an excellent contribution on the onslaught which is being waged on our country in all spheres. I appreciate his statement—I hope all hon. members took cognizance of it—that motivation is not only the task of the S.A. Defence Force, but our task as well, the task of the politicians on both sides of the House. I believe that each and every one of us is able to put a shoulder to the wheel.

The hon. member for Brentwood, by way of tribute, spelt out the role played by women in the S.A. Defence Force. I should like to associate myself with what he said and also assure him that there will also be a place for women volunteers in the commandos of the new area defence system.

The hon. member for Pretoria East spoke with insight and knowledge about Armscor and its activities, and I should like to thank him for his enlightening speech and associate myself completely with its tenor and content.

I want to congratulate the hon. nominated member, Mr. Vermeulen, on his appointment as secretary to the Defence Group of the National Party. In the short while he has occupied this position, he has already demonstrated—and I believe the hon. member for Pretoria West and the other hon. members of the group will agree with me—that he possesses all the qualities of a good organizer. I wish him everything of the best in his task and look forward to a long and fruitful period of co-operation. I also thank the hon. member for having emphasized in his speech the nature and extent of the danger which the Republic of South Africa is facing and also that the interests of the Republic have become a target for hostile forces.

The hon. member for Middelburg, in his contribution, demonstrated a healthy interest in a unit in his constituency. Such interest must be encouraged and serve as an example to all of us. In fact, I am disappointed at the general waning interest of various communities these days in military units in their areas. The aspects in regard to housing and training which the hon. member raised will be looked into.

I believe that the tribute which the hon. member for Swellendam paid to all national servicemen served as a timely and welcome message to this extremely important component of our Defence Force. The positive spirit displayed in the hon. member’s speech was extremely gratifying, and I thank him.

I have great appreciation for the positive and purposeful spirit with which the speech of the hon. member for Umfolozi was imbued. I want to congratulate the hon. member, particularly on his remarks about hostile politicians who sow dissension through their ignorance, and sometimes through their deliberate conduct and statements.

The hon. member for Maraisburg dealt very thoroughly with the school cadet organization, particularly the aspect of subsequent military service. I believe that the thousands of school principals, cadet officers, as well as all the young cadets, boys as well as girls, will thoroughly appreciate the fine things he had to say about them.

Mr. Chairman, I requested the hon. member for Constantia to be present in the House today, but unfortunately he cannot be here. I am not being personal now, I am reporting on a very important aspect, i.e. what happened in this House yesterday evening, and I am going to try to analyse the truth of the matter objectively. Last night the hon. member for Constantia referred to 32 Battalion as the “Foreign Legion” of South Africa. As hon. members know, the concept of “Foreign Legion” is the same as that of mercenaries. The S.A. Defence Force has never found it necessary to hire people from another country to do its fighting for it, and there are very good reasons why this has never been done. These are reasons for which the hon. member for Constantia apparently has no feeling or understanding. South African soldiers, in fact all members of the S.A. Defence Force, are motivated by their love for their country, patriotism and make sacrifices for those things which are dear and sacred to them. For that reason these men and women are prepared to make the highest sacrifice for their country. During the course of this debate hon. members from both sides of the House paid tribute to these men and women. I want to put it simply and clearly to the hon. member for Constantia that these qualities of our fighting forces cannot be bought with money on the world markets in the form of mercenaries and members of “Foreign Legions”. I hope that the hon. member for Constantia will not discover too late in his life that there are many things, in fact the best things in life, which no money can buy. Love for one’s country is either in a person, or it is not. One cannot buy it with money, and for that reason South Africa does not buy or hire soldiers.

During the debate so far, various speakers have expressed misgivings over the patriotism of the Official Opposition, because previous statements had placed it under suspicion. It is understandable that some members of the Official Opposition objected vehemently to this and until yesterday evening, this situation was very unclear to hon. members in this House. However, in his speech last night the hon. member for Constantia eliminated all doubts about where he stood. In the first place the hon. member did not have the courage to inform this House in his own words about the barren spots which exist in his heart when it comes to love for his fatherland. He preferred instead to do so by way of quotations from various periodicals and newspapers. As he has already been told, he could, if his concern about those articles was genuine, have brought the matter to me first for discussion and clarification. Or he could have taken it for clarification to hon. members of his party who, together with him, visited the operational area, and also this specific battalion, on 4 and 5 September 1981. One must remember that the hon. member quoted from newspapers which had appeared prior to that visit, namely on 23 and 25 May 1981. However, he chose to give further publicity to the matter by raising it approximately a year later in this House and giving further credence to the matter as though it were authoritative throughout the Republic of South Africa.

The hon. member went much further. He saw fit to quote from another source as well, a certain individual by the name of Edwards. I consider it my duty to inform this House thoroughly as to who precisely this source is. Edwards is a person who fled to and from South Africa because he did not have the courage or heart to defend his country and who still had to fulfil certain obligations. However, that was not good enough for him. No, after that Edwards acted in a hostile way towards the Republic of South Africa at every opportunity and maligned this country. Edwards can without doubt be accused of high treason. Edwards is a liar, he is a deserter, he betrayed his country and he is a renegade who is at present in collusion with the South African ANC, the enemies of the RSA, who are supported by Moscow. However, the hon. member for Constantia quoted a man like Edwards in this House, not to point out his failings or what he did to his country, but the context in which the hon. member quoted was such as to indicate that he was an example of unhappiness prevailing in the country. He quoted him in a debate that was being conducted on the security and the survival of South Africa. He quoted him while contributions were being made from hon. members on both sides of this House on the protection of South Africa. He quoted him while hon. members on both sides of the House were speaking with the greatest praise of the sacrifices that were being made by the men and women of South Africa. Let us understand one another clearly: He did not quote this person in a negative sense, but in the total context of his speech Edwards emerges in a positive light. It is very clear that the hon. member for Constantia prefers the course taken by an Edwards, and it is time hon. members of the House, as well as the voters of the RSA, take thorough cognizance of this. All doubt has now been eliminated as to where the hon. member for Constantia places himself. He has qualified himself as an Edwards of the House. It is now the duty of the PFP—I am pleased the hon. Leader of the PFP is also present here—to indicate to this House how they view the deeds of the hon. member for Constantia. The hon. member for Constantia is a betrayer of our S.A. Defence Force by disseminating the Edwards story.

Mr. Chairman, I want to just deal with two, perhaps easy, matters at the beginning of my speech and that is, firstly, that I want to associate myself with the remarks concerning Armscor and in particular that thanks expressed to Mr. John Maree in regard to his services to Armscor and to the country. May I be permitted to say—I am sure he will forgive me—that I probably know him longer than anybody else sitting in the House and that I hold him in very high esteem. He is a person who I think Armscor was very lucky to have to serve it and I am sure that he will make further contributions to the welfare of not only the economy of South Africa, but to South Africa as a whole. We do appreciate his services and I also join in the expressions of congratulations on his appointment to his successor, Mr. Fred Bell, and also to Comdt. Marais and the others who are associated with that venture.

Secondly, I want to make one point in regard to the question of the balance which has to be achieved, the resources, both in respect of manpower and otherwise, which are applied to the defence of South Africa, and those which are applied to the economy of South Africa. I think nobody is suggesting and nobody has suggested in this debate that we should not apply our resources to defence, but we on these benches believe—I am not ashamed to say that, and I actually believe the hon. the Minister agrees with me—if every person who lives in South Africa has a good job, a decent home to live in, education for his children, and has hope for the future, it is in fact one of the best defences that South Africa can have. That is why we believe that we have to spend money on those things because they are actually essential in the whole structure of South Africa.

When it comes to the question of political solution, I am going to deal a little later with a somewhat old article which was printed here on what was alleged to be a coup d’etat by the generals, which the hon. the Minister has not dealt with and which I propose to deal with. A whole lot of things are quoted which to my mind are nonsense, but they also quote a lot of things which are perhaps not inappropriate. Let me tell the hon. the Minister what they say about the present Chief of the Defence Force. They say—

I quarrel with that statement because I have seen him smile—

I could not have put it better if I would have tried. The politics of it are as important as anything. I said yesterday, and I want to repeat it, that we as politicians cannot afford to let the Defence Force down.

Let me deal immediately with what must obviously be—I am sure hon. members will appreciate—not an easy matter for me to deal with as spokesman on Defence. I want to say right away so that there is no misunderstanding, that not only do I dissociate myself, but also those members of the Defence group who were present with me last night, from the remarks to which the hon. the Minister had referred, but I also dissociate my party from them and I do so in the presence of the Leader of my party. There should be no misunderstanding about that whatsoever. I think it is appropriate that I should say a little more about it, because I think I have tried ever since I came to Parliament in 1964 and started speaking on Defence matters to achieve the following in regard to Defence: Firstly, that the S.A. Defence Force should be an effective and efficient instrument to protect South Africa’s territorial integrity and to keep South Africa internally free from violence and disorder. Secondly, I have tried during all that period to have good relations between the party to which I belong and the S.A. Defence Force. I have belonged to the UP, the RP and to the PFP and I make no apology to anybody for having belonged to any of them. I want to make that quite clear. I have tried in every single case to ensure that there were good relations between the party to which I belong and the S.A. Defence Force. I have tried throughout to keep the S.A. Defence Force out of the political arena. I have sometimes even fought with the hon. the Minister as he well knows, when he was still Chief of the S.A. Defence Force. I have also fought with his predecessor, now the hon. the Prime Minister, because I was determined to make sure that the Defence Force would not be part of a party political argument in South Africa. I have done this because I believe—I want to make this quite clear—and my party believes that peace must prevail while the politicians, economists and businessmen solve the problems, because if there is no stability and no preservation of peaceful environments then we would not have a society in which we can actually exist. I want to stress that this does not mean that the PFP, myself and the Defence group, have not been vigilant in regard to Defence matters. It does not mean that we have not criticized the Department of Defence when it has warranted it. It does not mean that when incorrect policies are applied we should keep quiet about them. On the contrary, it means that we have to speak because when there is something which we believe to be wrong and which should be put right, then it is our duty to speak, even if it is unpopular to say the things which one says at the time. That is the way in which the parliamentary system works and that is what our duty is in the circumstances. I have tried to see my job as Defence spokesman in that particular light.

I also make no secret of the fact that perhaps I have a personal pride in the S.A. Defence Force. I want it to be tough and effective and I also want it to be right and honourable in the eyes of all South Africans and in the eyes of the world. I want to make it clear that when there are members of the S.A. Defence Force who do things to tarnish its image, then I want those people to be dealt with, whoever they may be. I also do not want the Defence Force to be unjustly accused. When the Defence Force is unjustly accused I think in the same way it is my duty to stand up and be counted at that particular moment in time.

As recently as March 1982 I asked the hon. the Minister a question as to whether he was conducting an investigation in regard to the activities of the S.A. Defence Force in Kavango and certain allegations which have been made in that regard. The question was put in the correct spirit, it was answered in the correct manner and it was dealt with in the correct manner. I can give hon. members lots of examples of people who have done wrong in the Defence Force and who have been punished for it, because the reality is that there is no Defence Force in the whole world in which there is nobody who does no wrong at any moment of time. The truth is: What is the policy of the Defence Force? The policy of our Defence Force is of such a nature that atrocities are not committed and not tolerated and behaviour of the kind described by Lance-Corporal Edwards—that is his real rank—is not tolerated. The test is whether action is taken against the people who do cross the line. I can give hon. members a long list of cases where people have behaved incorrectly and where action has been taken against them. I do not know of one single instance where we have drawn something to the attention, whether it be to the attention of the hon. the Minister, the Chief of the Defence Force or the parliamentary officers concerned, where action has not been taken and the investigation has not taken place. I think we have to look at the incident in the light of that particular picture.

Let us look at the facts of this particular case. I took the trouble to get hold of the articles which appeared in The Argus of 23 May 1981 and The Citizen of 25 May 1981. What I find remarkable about these articles is that they were actually not the beginning of the story. Those were the two articles which were referred to. They were actually the end of the story.

The hon. the member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I am indebted to the hon. Whip in more than one way in respect of this extension of time. What is interesting is that these two articles were the end of the story. They do not refer to the original allegation of this gentleman, Edwards, if that is the right epithet, and I doubt it, but they refer to the visit which was paid by members of the Press to the Buffalo camp where they interviewed not only the commanding officer, Comdt. Ferreira, but also a whole variety of other people in order to demonstrate that these allegations were not true. These two articles which were referred to yesterday were actually the end of the story.

Please permit me to come to the beginning of the story. The beginning of the story in so far as the South African Press is concerned, started on 30 January 1981. On that date there appeared in the Press of South Africa an article which was a reprint of an article from The Guardian in the United Kingdom in which this particular person made these allegations. What is important and interesting is that the S.A. Defence Force actually dismissed those allegations in the same article and they issued a statement. I quote just a short passage—

So the denial did take place. What is also interesting is that the full statement of the S.A. Defence Force was in accordance with a report in Die Burger of 31 January 1981 published in The Guardian and was broad case on British television. What is also important is that the PFP reacted to the statement. On the same day, on 30 January, the following is a report of a statement which I made as the spokesman for the PFP on Defence—

That is the view of the PFP. I quote further—

The hon. the Minister will in fact recollect the discussion that took place between him and myself in this regard. I think the facts are here. There are further newspaper articles which relate to this because the Defence Force took a lot of trouble thereafter to deal with these allegations. The Press is full of a series of reports in which this is dealt with.

I owe the hon. the Minister an apology because when he started speaking last night I was not here. However, I want to tell him now that I was in fact speaking to the hon. member for Constantia and that is why I was not present and he was not speaking in this regard. I have also spoken to him since then. He has now given to me a statement which he has asked me to read to the Committee and which I accordingly do.

He should rather do it himself.

The statement says the following—

I have undertaken that I will read that to the House. I only want to say one last thing on this issue. I am sorry it has happened. I apologize to the extent that I am in any way concerned with it, although I do not think I am concerned with it. I have tried to deal with it immediately. I want to tell you that I do not believe that the South African Defence Force indulges in this kind of activity. I think rather it might be more appropriate if we debated in this House some of the atrocities that are committed by Swapo terrorists in South West Africa not only against the Defence Force but also against the civilian population in that area. I think that would be more appropriate.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Chairman, there are two other things I should like to deal with in the short time available to me. I should like to refer to the speeches of the hon. member for Jeppe and the hon. member for Pietersburg. What they said yesterday also disturbs me. I regard the South African Defence Force as an effective fighting machine. The image that I would like to have projected to the world of the South African Defence Force is that of a South African image, not a White image, but a South African image. That is what the Defence Force needs. The fight, as I see it, is not a fight in Africa between Black and White so far as the Defence Force is concerned. It is a fight between the extremists on the one hand who espouse what I think philosophies of violence, and the moderates on the other hand who want to preserve peace while we try and solve problems in South Africa. I believe there are people of all colours who can be regarded as moderates and people of all colours who would like to find a peaceful solution in South Africa and who do not want recourse to violence. There are different races in the Defence Force. There are people who are Black, there are people who are Coloured, there are people who are Asiatic and there are people who are White in the Defence Force. It is a delicate balance which has to be maintained. I make no secret of the fact that as far as we are concerned we believe that the non-discriminatory action should have moved faster. We have spoken about salaries, we have spoken about other factors in relation to this. However, we accept that there is a delicacy about this matter and therefore it should be handled with delicacy. May I appeal to the Defence spokesman for the Conservative Party that he should approach this matter with delicacy because we cannot afford, in trying to advocate a particular political point of view, to affect the efficacy of the Defence Force as a fighting machine. If we do that, South Africa will never forgive any of us, and we will affect the efficacy of the Defence Force if we do not handle this matter with delicacy and with care.

One last thing I should like to touch on is the question of the coup d’etat and the generals. I got hold of this publication which appeared some years ago and which was referred to here. It talks about this coup d’etat and the fact that the generals apparently already have effected a coup d’etat and probably will effect another one. I do not have time to read the article. I had it photostated by the library but I am told the publication has since packed up, has gone in or something. Be that as it may, I just want to say one word about coups d’etat. I do not believe that the military want to take over the running of this country. I do not believe it, I do not think there is a plan to do it and I think the least we talk about it the better it is for South Africa.

The second thing I want to say is that if I were wrong and if there were such a plan, I do not believe the people of South Africa would tolerate it. I do not think they would. I am not just talking for English-speaking people or the Opposition. I do not believe that the Afrikaner or the Nationalist or anybody else would tolerate a coup d’etat in South Africa. I do not believe it.

You are quite right.

The other thing we must remember is that you can only have a coup d’etat by generals if the men follow the generals. Our army is a citizens’ army. The citizens are the ordinary people of South Africa and they are not going to be led into this. Can I therefore just suggest that we stop talking about it because I think it is a non-issue and that it is not in the interests of our country to talk about it.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, as the hon. the Minister of Defence was concluding his speech I believe I heard him refer to the hon. member for Constantia as a traitor. I want to submit that this is unparliamentary and I would urge you to ask the hon. the Minister of Defence to withdraw the word “traitor”.

Order! I have it that the hon. the Minister used words to the effect that the hon. member for Constantia committed treason with regard to the South African Defence Force. I myself gave some thought to the words which the hon. the Minister used. However, I did not want to interrupt the hon. member for Yeoville who was speaking about the hon. member for Constantia at that stage. However, I am of the opinion that the hon. the Minister could not use the word “verraad” (treason) in that sense, and I courteously request him to assist the Chair by withdrawing the word “verraad”.

Mr. Chairman, as a result of the positive spirit of the hon. member for Yeoville, I withdraw that word.

Mr. Chairman, it was with appreciation that we took cognizance of the standpoint of the hon. member for Yeoville when he very clearly spelt out his party’s attitude towards the behaviour of the hon. member for Constantia here yesterday. Nor could we find fault with his exposition of his own approach and that of his party to Defence matters in South Africa, as well as his party’s responsibilities as the Official Opposition and his responsibility as the chief spokesman of that party. I think his statements on offenders in the Defence Force were also very clear. After all, the Defence Force also consists of fallible people. As he said, the test is whether disciplinary steps are in fact taken against the people concerned.

However, with regard to his exposition in connection with the remarks made by the hon. member for Constantia here yesterday afternoon, I still ask myself this question: How is it possible for that hon. member— and I hear he is the secretary of that party’s defence group—not to have known about the hon. member for Yeoville’s questions, behaviour and actions in connection with this entire matter? Is there no liaison within that defence group?

Is there not a little power-sharing among them?

The hon. member for Constantia’s statement which the hon. member for Yeoville read out here is just not good enough.

He did not even apologize.

The hon. member for East London, who is seated behind me, said he did not even apologize. No, I am afraid we shall still have to lay this matter at the door of the hon. member for Constantia and his party. I want to make an appeal to the hon. member for Yeoville at this stage. When we discuss the Defence Vote in this Committee again I trust that the hon. member for Yeoville will give the hon. member for Constantia a specific subject to deal with, a subject he mentioned himself, namely the atrocities of our enemies. At the same time he can give him a supplementary subject, i.e. what our own Defence Force is doing in those areas—and in fact throughout South Africa—with regard to our civil defence action. Then we shall have a very good test of the attitude of the hon. member for Constantia.

Yesterday the hon. member for Bryanston, who is just leaving …

He is coming back.

… reproached this side of the House and said we could not refrain from accusing his party of having unpatriotic attitudes. He was of course implying that those accusations were unfounded. However, what did that hon. member have to say about those accusations this afternoon? [Interjections.] Does he still hold it against us? Does he still stand by his accusation against this side of the House? After all, he was here when the hon. member for Constantia …

You know what the party’s policy in that regard is. Do not talk nonsense now.

… did the whole of South Africa and the Defence Force a disservice. Does that hon. member still say this afternoon that our allegations and assumptions were unfounded ?

But the party made its standpoint clear, and the hon. the Minister accepted it.

After all, we had proof yesterday that our suspicions were well-founded. Is that hon. member, as a member of his party’s defence group, going to react to this and demand that the hon. member for Constantia resign as secretary of his party’s defence group? He must tell us this.

Did you not listen …

Is he going to insist on this?

Did you not listen to the statement of our spokesman? Did it fall on deaf ears?

There is no language strong enough for any loyal South African, including the hon. member for Bryanston, to express his deepest aversion to the hon. member for Constantia’s disgraceful behaviour. There is simply no language strong enough to do this. We shall continue to lay yesterday’s events at their door. The Second World War had its Lord Haw-Haw and the Vietnam war its Vanessa Redgrave, but our war against Swapo has its Roger Hulley.

Were you not one of Robey Leibbrandt’s men?

Wittingly or unwittingly the hon. member for Constantia proved himself to be an instrument of the propaganda onslaught on South Africa. This is a tactic the Marxists are concentrating on to an increasing extent in their conflict or onslaught against us. [Interjections.] One need only read the newspapers of the past six months or so to see that the tactics used are aimed at accusing the Defence Force of atrocities, and this is being done to an increasing extent in our newspapers. Wittingly or unwittingly that hon. member has made himself an instrument of those diabolical plotters in their efforts to undermine our country. The persons or bodies who blazoned those reports abroad could not have found a better bonus for their efforts than the hon. member for Constantia’s behaviour in this House yesterday. He played right into their hands. [Interjections.]

We do not use your methods.

However, if we analyse the behaviour of that hon. member we come to the conclusion that the remarks he made late yesterday afternoon were the culmination of a series of remarks falling within the same pattern. His negative attitude towards the South African Defence Force shows an upward trend. On 2 April he kicked off with a speech in the House of Assembly during the Second Reading of the Defence Amendment Bill. At that stage he already began an attack on the White Paper which has now been tabled. Under the heading “The Threat”, on page 1 the White Paper begins with the following sentence—

What did the hon. member have to say about this introductory sentence in the White Paper? He said—

With this sentence he began his entire advance towards the culminating events of yesterday afternoon. However, what did he say earlier yesterday afternoon in his first speech? He complained about the lack of equal treatment for the English language in the South African Defence Force. He also had a few gossip-mongering tales to tell about the treatment of English-speaking members in the Defence Force, for example that they are not promoted, that they are looked down on and similar nonsense. I feel it is far-fetched to say such things. As far as I am concerned, there is not a single organization in South Africa which has done so much during the past decade to bring English and Afrikaans-speaking people closer together than the South African Defence Force. No other organization has done more to achieve this. There are innumerable examples of this. I feel the hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself for mentioning these aspects.

However, he then continued to sow the seeds of suspicion against the Defence Force. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville referred to what two of my colleagues, the hon. member for Jeppe and the hon. member for Pietersburg were supposed to have said.

Tell him to put the record straight.

My party admits with gratitude the ethnic diversity in South Africa, as well as the traditional patterns that have evolved in this regard over the centuries. In this connection it is our standpoint that these traditional patterns must be maintained and must also be recognized in the Defence Force. That was my standpoint when I was still a member of the National Party. The hon. member for Pretoria West knows that was my standpoint, as does the hon. the Minister, and I also had occasion to discuss this with the Chief of the South African Defence Force. I want to agree that we in South Africa should harp as little as possible on the standpoints on race, as epitomized by the various political parties, but what applies to our party also applies to the other parties. I therefore want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that up to now I do not think the National Party Government has made any official statement or adopted any other standpoint on integration in the Defence Force than that it would recognize and accept it. However, I shall not pursue this matter. [Interjections.] I shall leave it at that.

In my first speech on this Vote, I shall unfortunately have to use some of my time to reply to something the hon. member for Turffontein said about me last week during the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote in the House of Assembly. I am not going to repeat what he said, but I just want to indicate that I reject his version of what took place with contempt.

Do you accept that there is a total onslaught?

Oh, please! I am now talking about this Vote. That hon. member must leave me to say what I want to say.

But that was what was at issue.

I shall now give my version of the events. The hon. member for Pretoria Central should rather try to see what he can still save in Pretoria Central. [Interjections.]

Pretoria Central will remain Nationalist. [Interjections.]

On 1 April 1982, while I was holding a meeting, a question was put to me during question time on the Bill that was before the House at that stage and has now been referred to a Select Committee, namely the proposed legislation in connection with the extension of national service. I said to myself: This man asked the question in a way which indicated that there was more to it than met the eye. In any case, I simply replied to the question with reference to the Bill. A while later the same question was put again. I do not have my ipsissima verba here, and I did not have notes on this either, but I replied more or less as follows—

I said something in that vein. The questioner then nodded in agreement. I then said to him—

In other words, in essence you said precisely what I said.

That was more or less what I said. In any event, that was the spirit of what I wanted to convey to that person. [Interjections.] Why did the hon. member not also refer to my speech the following Wednesday evening at Louis Trichardt—he must surely have been informed about it as well, because he is a well-known little ferreter in the Soutpansberg—which would seem to have been the first political meeting in a long time that was open to the public? A similar question was put to me there, but more to the point. I then dealt with the Bill frankly. I supported the principle of the Bill. I told the questioner there that I am a member of Parliament who was probably one of the first who referred in group discussions to the fact that there are thousands of men walking around in this country who could also do national service and who ought to be involved in national service in any case. At that meeting I advocated a positive spirit in connection with national service as such and the Defence Force in particular, but I also put my party’s standpoint there, which is that we are opposed to integration, and this also includes the Defence Force.

In this connection I just want to say I received a telephone call a while ago about a recent event, but that the hon. the Minister will not be able to reply to my question in this connection at this stage. For this reason I shall pursue the matter later, when the opportunity arises.

There is something I should like to tell the hon. member for Turffontein. I have links with the South African Defence Force which stretch over 32 years. Until I came to Parliament I did voluntary Citizen Force service.

So did I.

I can wear a tie which only certain members in uniform in the world can wear.

So what?

This tie has assured me of many friendships, etc. I therefore want to tell that hon. member that neither he nor any of his colleagues will succeed in driving a wedge between me and my friends in the Defence Force, or between my party and the Defence Force.

But no one tried to do that.

That is what that hon. member tried to do. [Interjections.]

You must just stop gossiping wherever you go. [Interjections.]

My party stands for a well-equipped—as my hon. friend from Jeppe said yesterday—well-drilled and spiritually and morally motivated Defence Force which is able to defend South Africa to the maximum against any foreign onslaught and is able to resist anyone inside the country who tries to assail the stability of the system or the balance of power in South Africa.

I have said many times—from that side of the House as well—that the South African Defence Force belongs to the South African people, as the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Yeoville said—that the nation is closely involved with the Defence Force through its sons, and that the nation must at all times feel involved in the weal and woe of the Defence Force, that it must celebrate, mourn and pray with the Defence Force.

Where do these stories come from that that hon. member is trying to lay at my door? [Interjections.] I think the hon. the Minister should take cognizance of this. [Interjections.] I shall discuss this with him during the discussion of the Third Reading of the Bill. There are all manner of stories, and those stories come from the editor of the Transvaler and the editor of the Star. They also appear in the Sunday Times and in the South Africa Foundation News. These stories are creating uncertainty among certain members of the public. I shall discuss this with the hon. the Minister later. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Waterkloof said that the Defence Force had not yet expressed an opinion on the question of integration. [Interjections.] He said that the Defence Force had not yet expressed an opinion on that subject.

In favour of integration in the Defence Force.

The Defence Force has not yet stated that with regard to integration …

It has not clearly expressed its standpoint on integration yet.

… it has changed its standpoint!

In this country the Defence Force follows the policy of the Government, and the policy of the Government is opposed to integration. That is why I cannot understand why those hon. members are kicking up such a fuss about this matter.

I am going to write the hon. the Minister a letter and I shall send that hon. member a copy.

Why are they trying to drag the whole matter into the political arena, something which could only jeopardize the Defence Force? [Interjections.] Apparently the hon. member is also angry with the hon. member for Turffontein. He remarked snidely that he was an old Nosey Parker.

And “SAP”.

I see that according to their little newspaper, the hon. member for Waterkloof is now taking it easy in the Soutpansberg district. [Interjections.] I do not know why he has to go and take it easy there, since he is always in a semi-reclining position here. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member made a denial this afternoon concerning a certain allegation …

Do you accept my denial?

I accept the hon. member’s denial, and it is a good thing that we can be honest with one another about these matters. However, there is another allegation which he has not denied, which he has not yet replied to. Did he say at that meeting that the onslaught was being exaggerated?

The total onslaught was not under discussion there.

Why would the man who wrote that report say that the hon. member had stated that the onslaught was being exaggerated? [Interjections.] All he has to say is “yes” or “no”.

Was a report written about it? [Interjections.]

All he has to tell us is whether it is true or not. I have the information about it here.

There is no report about it. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Waterkloof has acquired the habit—and he does it very well—of speaking evasively and not stating directly what he means. [Interjections.] All he need say here and now is whether he personally thinks that the total onslaught on South Africa is being exaggerated.

That was my standpoint on that subject in the past.

The hon. member need only say “yes” or “no”.

That was my standpoint on that subject in the past. [Interjections.]

Why does the hon. member not simply say “yes” or “no”?

That was my standpoint in the past.

Apparently we cannot discuss this matter with one another. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member admit that there is an onslaught on the country?

There is a total onslaught on South Africa.

Is it being exaggerated, yes or no?

By certain politicians, yes.

Yes, by certain politicians. [Interjections.]

Now that is very interesting. [Interjections.] We have now heard from the mouth of the Conservative Party’s chief spokesman on Defence that certain politicians exaggerate the fact that there is a total onslaught on South Africa.

We shall discuss it on some other occasion.

Is this the official standpoint?

It is my standpoint.

This is the standpoint of the hon. member for Jeppe, their chief spokesman on Defence, and we must therefore accept that it is also the standpoint of the CP. [Interjections.]

It is my standpoint.

Then it would seem to me as if the person who sent this report to the hon. member for Turffontein, was correct when he said that the hon. member for Waterkloof had said that the onslaught was being exaggerated.

There was no mention of that at all.

No, Sir, one simply cannot make any progress with those hon. members. [Interjections.]

That one has to argue with you the whole time!

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately there are people in this country, and some of them are members of this Committee, who very clearly do not understand the true nature of the conflict against South Africa. Those who think that there is a conflict between White and Black and that it is only concerned with the survival of Whites as a group as opposed to other population groups, those who wish to give a White/ Black connotation to the conflict in South Africa, do not know what it is about. I am convinced that we are dealing here with a struggle between the Marxist ideology and its conflict solutions on the one hand, and the free enterprise system with its Christian democratic principles of peace and peaceful co-existence on the other. To put it more directly: The conflict is between revolutionary as opposed to evolutionary change. Everyone in South Africa must therefore ask himself or herself the question: Do we want radical, disruptive change, or systematic, logical and orderly change? We need not doubt the fact that change will and has to come in South Africa.

It is the declared aim of the Marxist to drive groups of people into opposing camps and hang labels around their necks so that they may become hostile towards one another. The label which the enemies of this Government and of the Defence Force wish to hang around our necks, is, on the one hand, that we are racists, that we are exploiters and destabilizers of our neighbouring states and, on the other hand, that we are betraying the White man. Those whom this cap fits now, must by all means wear it. We reject with contempt the allegations that we are racist exploiters. Our deeds tell a completely different story. Apart from this, we also reject insinuations and allegations that we are in the process of betraying the White man as reprehensible and wilful propaganda which in no way contributes to making the solutions any easier for us.

In the face of all these things the Defence Force stands guard over and protects the interests of all population groups which are privileged to live in this part of Africa. Members of the Defence Force protect us, i.e. the White, Brown and Black people, all who live in this country, with their lives and their blood so that we may live here in safety and so that we may seek peaceful solutions to our problems. And then there is an hon. member of this Committee who has disparaged these men, i.e. Whites and Coloureds and Blacks in an abominable and disgraceful way. I am referring to the hon. member for Constantia. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Constantia is not here now. I would not show my face in this Committee again either if I had said what this hon. member said here last night. I wish to say at once that we on this side distance ourselves as much as possible from this and that we reject that insinuation with utter contempt.

What has the hon. member for Constantia done? He quoted allegations made by a traitor, Trevor Edwards, which are clearly nothing but communist progaganda, without distancing himself from it. He read out those allegations for everyone sitting here to hear, and what is more, also for the Press to blazon across the length and breadth of this country. It is the task of the Press to do this, and what is said here, is blazoned abroad. Let me say that we take it seriously amiss of that hon. member, since the result is that communist propaganda is spread throughout the country and the world, and in this way the image of the Defence Force is harmed.

Let us ask where this, in fact, began? It began with the insinuations fabricated by the communist propaganda machine, which were subsequently quoted by the hon. member for Constantia in this Committee last night. I say to the voters of the hon. member for Constantia: Your representative quotes communist propaganda allegations in Parliament which are an indictment of the Defence Force. The voters of Constantia must accept joint responsibility for the damage which this causes, since they elected him. We are very pleased that the hon. member’s party, the PFP, has distanced itself from this, but I do not think that there is real remorse on the part of the hon. member for Constantia. This becomes apparent if one has another look at his statement in this afternoon’s Argus. The report reads as follows—

This is the attack by the hon. the Minister of Defence—

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to quote a Press report of a current debate in the House?

Order! I will consider the hon. member’s point of order and give my ruling later. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, we reject the statement of the hon. member for Constantia with contempt and we wish to have nothing to do with that hon. member. Talking of propaganda in the Press, in the final few minutes at my disposal, I should like this afternoon to compliment our internal news media with regard to their reporting on the Defence Force. Naturally, a great deal of publicity and prominence is given to the Defence Force, but objective observation shows that many more positive than negative reports appear on our Defence Force. We regret the negative, but as I have said, there is far more which is positive. A very good example of such positive reporting which was handled with responsibility and the correct degree of sensitivity, was the report about the warning of the hon. the Minister with regard to the so-called front against South Africa. It is an indisputable fact that there are dangers for South Africa, and through the special way in which this was handled, the South African Press built up credibility which could only be to the advantage of us all. We should like to thank the Press for this.

In sharp contrast to this, is the alarming propaganda onslaught being made on the RSA from abroad, particularly by means of the radio. Our people are blissfully unaware of this, but recently it has increased tremendously in extent. During the last six months of 1981 the propaganda broadcasts against the RSA increased by more than 126%, for example, and today there are literally thousands of foreign broadcasts. Then there are people in South Africa who say that we are exaggerating the extent of the onslaught. Let us admit frankly to one another that we who are speaking and quoting here, as well as those who write and report, together have a tremendous responsibility towards the Defence Force and towards South Africa and the people who live in this country. Napoleon said that four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets. Let us therefore try hard not to do anything which could be used as propaganda against the Government and the Defence Force, and against the country and its people. [Time expired.]

Order! Before I see the hon. member for Durban Point I should just like to give my ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

*I considered the point of order raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow. As I interpret the provisions of Standing Order No. 130 I do not feel that the point of order can be upheld. I put the question.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to become involved in the “broedertwis” between the hon. member for Waterkloof and the hon. member for Verwoerdburg and others. I think it is incumbent on me to react only to two matters. The first is to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that I appreciate his clear and unequivocal repudiation and I admire him for it. It is what we expect from the hon. member for Yeoville. He did what I believe is the way he feels.

And the party.

And the party. I only want to say that if it had been a member of my party who had made such a speech he would have been immediately expelled from the party without any further ado. I do not accept that his letter is an adequate explanation, apology or a withdrawal of intention. However, that is not my business. I do not want to become involved; I just say that that is what would have happened.

There is another matter which arose yesterday in regard to which I should just like to get clarity. There were some interjections over the paragraph which I read from the statement by the Leader of the Opposition on conscientious objection. It has been explained to me that what is referred to is only conscientious objection on religious grounds. I just want to get that absolutely clear. It does not appear clearly either in the statement or in the press reports. It does not appear in any of the three different press reports. The word “religious” appears only in the explanatory section and not the proposals. Am I absolutely clear on this matter because it makes a difference in my attitude to the statement?

It applies only to religious grounds.

It applies only to those who are on religious grounds opposed to fighting.

That is correct.

In that case it is a question of interpretation of how they are treated and I do not want to go into that now.

I would however like to read something which I came across last night by accident. There was an article in The Natal Mercury. The heading of the article was “Why I refuse to take up arms”. There was a reply to this in the form of a poem written by a young soldier currently on the border. I quote only two short verses—

He concludes—

I think that is perhaps why people feel very strongly about this. People who justify their unwillingness to fight on the grounds of political conscience get that sort of reaction amongst those who are fighting. However, this is not a matter I want to discuss now, but I thought I should raise it in fairness to get clarity.

What I do want to do is return to certain matters which I had not come to when my time ran out yesterday, matters of detail which affect various aspects of the Service. The first one I want to come to is the question of the deferment of university students and the call-up procedures because I have been in correspondence over this for a long time and there seems to be some crossed lines which I cannot get clarified. I should like to get clear here in this debate so that everybody knows exactly what the situation is. As I understand it, students at university must apply and then get automatic deferment each year. I suggested that there should be provisional deferment of those who are continuing their studies to avoid delays which might cause problems while awaiting their results. I am assured that that is not necessary. Yet I find in some cases there is a provisional deferment granted which, to me, seems the logical thing. If a person has signed up for university, expects to pass and to continue studies then one should provide provisional deferment. If he fails or does not continue with his studies, you then call him up. However, what worries me is the procedure when a student finally completes his studies. Once they have completed their university training some get called up in January and some get called up in July. Those are people of the greatest value to the Defence Force. They are people with skills, they are potential leaders. Half of them lose six months of the year waiting to be called up. Then, from their personal point of view, they lose six months of the year after they have completed their service before they can go on to post-graduate study. The argument used is that you have to balance them out in order to have leadership with each intake. However, they are in for two years and there is an overlap so that you will always have leadership there. I would ask the hon. the Minister to clarify his thinking on this and to clarify the actual position.

There are two other matters to which I should like to refer quickly. Persons joining the Permanent Force and go on a course and fail that course although they may have served for three or four or six months get no credit for national service for that period unless they have done 10 years.

Four years.

All right, four years at present. If a person resigns voluntarily then I accept he has taken the decision to get out, but if he tries and involuntarily leaves the P F because he cannot qualify in one or other field and has to leave I believe he should get credit for that period.

Another matter to which I should like to refer briefly is that Permanent Force pensioners pre-1974 are not entitled to dental treatment whereas post-1974 pensioners are. I ask that this be looked at again. There is correspondence on this matter with one of my colleagues. I do not think it is fair. They have all served in the Defence Force and I do not see why some should get dental services and some not.

Finally, I want to refer to the matter of reinstatement committees. My colleague, the hon. member for Umhlanga dealt with the question of people being used in the army according to their aptitudes. The reinstatement committees deal with them after they come out, but they complain that they get the information on who has been discharged too late to plan properly. They have done some experiments. Where they had the information a year in advance they dealt with the family, tied up the man’s intention, laid on a job for him and had one hundred percent success. However, when they only get the names shortly before the discharge of the person concerned, they do not have the time to follow it through. As a result most of those committees are now moribund. As far as I know there are only two that are really functioning actively, namely those in Johannesburg and in Durban. I do not think we are making the use of them that we should.

In the minute I have left I want to refer to Civil Defence. I suggest that we should run more courses for civil defence so that people can be properly trained. Perhaps when this new Bill has been passed, manpower could be made available for this purpose. At the moment I do not believe we are giving the back-up and the training which would greatly encourage the civil defence organizations.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to go into what the hon. member for Durban Point had to say in detail, since I wish to speak in particular about attitudes towards the Defence Force, and I have absolutely no doubt about his sound attitude towards the Defence Force. The hon. member’s wife proved this to me this week. She came to me and said: “Don’t you want to buy a ticket from me to enable us to buy an ice-cream machine for our boys on the border?” This is the attitude of that hon. member and his wife, and I think, of his party as well. I do not wish to argue with him.

I just want to refer to the hon. member for Constantia as well. Something which has been very clear to me for a long time, is that what has happened with the hon. member for Constantia now, merely serves to prove that the true colours of the official Opposition are showing. I have been expecting these things for a long time. The hon. member for Constantia is not the only member in that party with a negative attitude with regard to Defence Force matters. This is very clear to me. Not even the fine statement made by the hon. member for Yeoville will change the attitude of certain other hon. members of the official Opposition. I am also quite convinced that there are more members than just this one hon. member in the PFP who wish to harm South Africa.

Turning now to the hon. members of the CP, I had a story about integration in the Defence Force doing the rounds in my constituency during the last election. That story was spread at a public meeting by one of the members of the HNP. I told the hon. the Minister that it had been alleged at that meeting that a certain White man had to sleep next to a person of colour in the Defence Force. I then had the matter investigated, and members of the Defence Force declared themselves willing to pay the person in question a visit to give him a chance to substantiate the allegation. The man then asked me please not to let them come, for it was a lie that he had told for political gain. I think the gossip-mongering of the hon. members of the CP is also just for a little political gain. I wish to say to that party that they should simply allow the hon. member for Jeppe to carry on talking, for then we shall see that that hon. member’s slip is not showing, since he is not even wearing a slip.

I wish to say a few words about the evasion of national service which is taking place at the moment. Certain elements are maliciously trying to drive a wedge between the Defence Force and the nation. Certain representatives of the PFP, as we saw just now, and certain individuals and certain people at the universities, as well as some churches are guilty of this. Certain hon. members, for example the hon. member for Jeppe, associate the Defence Force with sinister aims. I have already dealt with this. The nation should regard national service as part of our children’s training so that they may be better equipped for the future. We as parents should be grateful for and positive towards this further training which our children receive from the Defence Force when they undergo their national service. We as representatives of the nation should help to sell the Defence Force to the nation. Our men in uniform should be the pride of our nation. We should accord them recognition for the heroic deeds they perform.

When we come to the allies of the CP, the Kappiekommando, who are trying to drive a wedge between the young women of our nation and the Defence Force by belittling and insulting them. I wish to say that they should rather wear their modern bonnets, viz. the caps of the Defence Force. This is what our nation needs.

South Africa stands by its people in uniform. We appreciate what they are doing for us. We are proud of what they are doing; we shall do everything we can for them. We should motivate our youth; we should encourage them to do military service; we should not help them to devise ways of evading military service. We must allow a spirit to take root among our people so that they will be very proud that they are doing service for South Africa in the uniform of the Defence Force. National service evaders must become the outcasts of society. Society must track down and report national service evaders.

It is a difficult task to locate these people. One may ask oneself what progress the South African Defence Force has made with the locating of national service evaders? There are three kinds of national service evaders, viz. those who fail to register at the age of 16, those who fail to report for training and who hide out somewhere and who sometimes even defect overseas, and those who fail to report changes of address and who then have to be sought. The conscientious objectors fall into two categories, those with religious objections, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and those who refuse to do national service for political reasons. I see that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said: Amend the policy of the South African Defence Force to accommodate these people. I am absolutely opposed to this and the only method of not giving in to these people and of not making heroes of them, is to take extremely strict action to ensure that these people discharge their obligations. Some citizens of the Republic of South Africa, for example, have the attitude which is revealed by what the family of a national serviceman who died recently on the border, had to say. His family said: If Marius could have chosen how he wanted to die, he would have chosen to die for his country. This is the attitude of the family which has recently lost a son for the sake of South Africa. Now one can ask oneself whether all the hon. members of the Opposition would concur with such a standpoint and would be able to make such a statement.

Let us look at what the Defence Force has done in this regard. In order to facilitate matters for our people in these times, improvements have for example been made, in the conditions of service. The administrative functioning of the Defence Force has also been improved. A complaints office has also been established in the South African Defence Force. The South African Defence Force fund has also been established, as well as the chaplains’ service to which reference has been made. These are all things which have been done to make life more pleasant for the national serviceman and his family.

Now we can also ask what the public, and women in particular, have done for our people in the Defence Force. In this regard, one thinks of the Southern Cross Fund, the Ride-Safe Scheme, the “Bel-en-ry-skema” (Call and Ride scheme), the Concession Scheme, the training scheme and the Defence Force Ladies Association.

In conclusion, I just wish to tell the Committee what the attitude of our people is to the Defence Force. Towards the end of last year, I invited the hon. the Minister and Gen. Viljoen to my constituency at the request of my voters. My voters asked me: Whom must we defend? The hon. the Minister and Gen. Viljoen came to my constituency and there they received a hero’s welcome. The municipality, the mayor and the council members did themselves proud, as did the school children, the 23 farmers’ associations were all represented, the businessmen were there. They asked the Defence Force: What must we do? They said to the Defence Force: Allow us to help you; we are positive; what must we do for South Africa? How can we do our share? This is the attitude we want from our people. The evader should not be a hero; he should be an outcast. If one thinks of cowboys and crooks, one could say that the defenders are the cowboys, and the evaders, the crooks. I hope that the hon. member for Constantia, as well as other hon. members of the official Opposition, will be able to support this statement.

The hon. the leader of the Opposition said that we should alter the policy of South Africa; I say alter the attitude of the South African people, that of the hon. members of the Opposition, the churches, the universities and most important of all, the attitude of the parents towards national service. Our parents must instil in their children a positive attitude towards the Defence Force and the defence of our country.

I wish to conclude with the following statement: One cannot catch a hare with an unwilling hound. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. member for Vryheid with much interest. I must admit that I am very surprised that after the statement made by the hon. member for Yeoville this matter of the hon. member for Constantia has not been dropped. I would have thought that the matter should be dropped. [Interjections.] I think the debate should be carried on about defence matters. To flog a dead horse can serve no purpose. [Interjections.] As I have said before, no man here can hold it against me that I did not serve my country in peace and war. [Interjections.] I will not take any insult from anybody on that side of the House.

I now want to turn to the hon. member for Standerton. He spoke about the chaplaincy. I must say that not only has the chaplaincy served those of the Christian faith but it also served the followers of other faiths particularly the Jewish faith very well indeed. For that we are indebted to the Defence Force. However, there are two little things that come out of Nehemiah which I should like to give to the hon. member for Standerton. The first one applies to the Defence Force and reads as follows (Chapter 4, verse 9)—

The other one should go to every commando and reads as follows (Chapter 4, verse 17)—

I want to refer particularly to two other points relating to the policy of the S.A. Defence Force. I think hon. members, particularly of the Conservative Party, would do well to read exactly what the policy is as stated in the White Paper. It is a policy with which we agree. It says here—

I think it is as well to read this in Afrikaans too, because the Afrikaans is even more clear on this issue—

When the President Kruger was involved in that collision, it made no difference who was in the cabin at the point of impact, because there were people of different colour in that particular area. We mourn the loss of them all, irrespective of their colour, because they were there in defence of their country.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with the very important subject of research and development. I did happen to give the hon. the Minister a copy of this very frightening document, called “Soviet Military Power”, which is published by the American Defence Department and is available to anyone who wishes to pay $3 for if.

You should give that to Hulley.

I take those remarks from where they come. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the question of research and development is very important indeed, and I am just wondering how far one can go with R20 million. I would like to remind the hon. the Minister of how radar was discovered. In 1935 the British Army was very worried about a report about “death rays”, and they referred this to a certain man called Watson-Watt, who then put it to a man called Wilkins. He said that the power involved was far beyond current technology. However, Watson-Watt went on to say: “If we cannot help with the death ray, how can we help them?” Wilkins replied that he knew that post office engineers had noticed disturbances to radio reception when aircraft flew in the vicinity of their receivers, and that this phenomenon might be useful in detecting enemy aircraft. I mention this, Mr. Chairman, because this took place in 1935, and by 1940 they had already devised radar. This was not done by military people or even people whom the military had contacted. However, as a result of this, they were able to produce the radar system. I put it to the hon. the Minister that when the registrations have to be done in terms of the new Defence Act, which is soon to be passed in the House, such registrations should not only involve a man’s name and address, because that this will be the first and the best opportunity to obtain a full, detailed and complete statement of everybody, whether he is serving in the Defence Force or not. Every single person’s qualifications, background, and so on, should be furnished. Together, the S.A. Defence Force and Armscor must go through those lists very carefully to find where there are people available of whom use can be made. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that it is very important that we use “Boffins” for our future research. These are people who would make very stupid soldiers in many instances. If you read the book “The Most Secret War”, you will realize how important it was, during the last war, that research was done and carried out continuously. The attacks on Great Britain were stopped as a result of a great deal of scientific research, and I want to say that there are hundreds of people in South Africa, who are not or have not been in the army, but whose technical and scientific knowledge could be of great use to all of us.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to refer to some remarks made here about civil defence. I happen to come from a town called Sandton. In 1969 civil defence first came to that town, and I happened to be chairman of the management committee in that particular Council who set it into action. The people who are responsible for civil defence are the town clerk and the town engineer. They are the people who should be trained to run the civil defence organization because civil defence means what it stands for—the defence of civil installations and civil organizations. The man who should be trained is the town engineer because he is the one who has to look after the water supplies, he is the one who has to look after electricity supplies, he is the one who has to look after sewerage, and so on. If you do not get your town clerk and your town engineer involved, the system cannot be efficient. Those are the people for whom you need courses. Those are the people who should be given courses at the Military College, in exactly what should be done. They are the people who should be appointed to look after civil defence in every town. I am prepared to say that in Sandton you will find one of the best civil defence organizations in this country, because the town clerk and the town engineer are the ones who do the work. Secondly, as far as the commando’s are concerned, I think the Sandton commando is one of the best in the country. The reason is not that Sandton does not go running to the Government or to the Defence Force or to anybody else and ask them to do things for us. It is because in Sandton there is the voluntary Sandton Civic Foundation. It collected R120 000 from the public to build a mobile hospital. I want to know what other town in South Africa collected money to help build something like that.

That is where all the rich people live!

No, it is not just a question of rich people; poor people gave their money also. It was the Sandton Civic Foundation which decided that colours should be given to the West Park commando. They did not have colours. We made the colours for them, and presented these to them. They will now be called The Sandton Commando.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with one important point, which I have dealt with before. I refer to the question of friction in the Army, and by “friction in the Army”, I mean logistic friction. At the moment all our supplies are obtained from bases in South Africa. It is easy to run our present organization. We have permanent stations throughout the Republic, which are available for training purposes. The operational area has become a well-established static area organization, almost on World War I lines. There is an excellent railhead and there are well-established forward bases, as yet not subject to aerial attack. One must remember that. The successful raids into Angola, based on enemy contacts, took place over comparatively short periods of about one week. Are we prepared for longer combat? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to start with the hon. member for Yeoville. In the second part of his speech he adopted an extremely positive attitude here, and I want to compliment him on this. The statements he made this afternoon on Defence matters made us realize that we do not speak at cross purposes. We speak exactly the same language. The Defence Force is intent on doing its best for the Republic of South Africa, and I know there is unanimity. He mentioned the requirement that a balance should be maintained between manpower and the economy of this country, and I do not think there is a single hon. member in this House who does not realize that this is a delicate balance which must constantly be readjusted and monitored, because both components are variables. Adjustments must therefore be made accordingly. In this connection I again want to make a statement with regard to the new national service system. I feel that with the new system this delicate balance between manpower and economy can be regulated far more successfully than is at present the case.

The hon. member also went on to say that it is important to have a good Defence Force, but that we must also strive to make our people happy in our geographic area, to provide them with food and water and a roof over their heads. I cannot find fault with this. The national endeavour of this country is to improve the quality of living of all inhabitants of South Africa. That is what this Government stands for, and I am sure all the other parties also stand for this. It is only the way in which we are going to achieve this which differs. I want to thank the hon. member for these positive thoughts which he expressed.

†As regards the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, I should like to say again, thank you very much for your second positive contribution today on this Vote. The hon. member referred to research and development and I agree with his sentiments. I think this is a very important aspect, and I doubt whether R20 million is enough, but we have to take into consideration the economy as it is at present. We are trying our best in this regard.

*The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a few statements on Sandton and the commando there. Some of us may not have taken his words seriously, but I endorse everything he said. Civil defence in this country was born in Sandton. The commando there, the West Park Commando, and the Sandton Municipality, are exactly as the hon. member described them. The example that municipality set, we took to Kimberley, where it was held up to all the commando leaders. Then it was taken to the larger cities, like Pretoria, Johannesburg and Cape Town. I endorse all the hon. member’s sentiments in connection with local authorities and the role they must play in co-operation with Defence Force organizations to establish these essential services. I consider Sandton’s co-operation with its commando and its civil defence as one of the models of such co-operation in this country. Fortunately there are other models which have developed equally well here in South Africa.

†The policy relating to deferments, which was referred to by the hon. member for Durban Point, is laid down by the Exemptions Board and not by the South African Defence Force. I shall take up the matter, as far as university students are concerned, with the board again. I shall also look into the other matters he raised, and I shall reply to him in writing.

*The hon. member for Waterkloof made quite a few statements here, and the conclusion I have drawn from them is that he and his party do not intend to involve the South African Defence Force in party politics. I want to thank him and his party for this, because I consider it absolutely essential for the security of our country that the Defence Force should not become involved in party politics. I therefore thank them for this attitude.

I want to thank the hon. members for Ermelo, Verwoerdburg and Vryheid most sincerely for the clear standpoints they put here, and the good contributions they made in this debate. I also want to thank them for the goodwill they displayed towards the Defence family. I also want to thank the hon. members for Verwoerdburg and Ermelo for their speeches, because they left no doubt that they fully support me in this House in connection with the standpoint I adopted earlier today. I think it is a good thing for the world, and particularly those persons who are conducting a smear campaign against the Defence Force, to take cognizance of the fact that this House stands united against them. We shall not allow the South African Defence Force to be dragged through the mud. I also want to state unequivocally that I am very glad that the hon. member for Yeoville and his party, and the hon. member for Durban Point and his party, stated this clearly here for all the world to hear.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Vryheid referred to the question of national service evaders. This is becoming a real problem in the Defence Force, and it is a good thing for us to take cognizance of this strong standpoint. You know, we are inclined to think that everything received in the Defence Force is the best. There are also problems, and one must convert these problems into positive assets. I therefore want to thank the hon. member most sincerely for the contribution he made in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I should like to thank the media, including the South African Broadcasting Corporation, and particularly the military correspondents, most sincerely for the way in which they informed the public on aspects concerning the Defence family and the security of our country and the threats which exist. Thank you very much.

Vote agreed to.

The Committee rose at 17h16.