Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege and an honour to initiate the discussion of this Vote. I hope that very constructive contributions will be made in the course of this debate. I say this with special reference to the important subject being discussed here today, viz. the S.A. Defence Force, Armscor and the security of our country. It is probably for that reason, too, that traditionally this debate and the S.A. Defence Force are not dragged into the party-political arena.

I think it is appropriate that I pay tribute at the start of this debate to those—members of all population groups—who have given up their lives for their fatherland in the struggle against terrorism over the past year. The struggle is inspired and pursued by a ruthless and unscrupulous enemy, viz. international communism and their fellow-travellers. These young men, these security forces, did not die in vain. They fought for the preservation of good order and for the survival of their civilization and a system which has been built up over the centuries here on the southern tip of Africa. I also hereby convey the sympathy of the Government to the next-of-kin of these young South Africans and to those who have suffered as a result of wounds, injuries and other inconveniences they have had to endure.

A special word of sympathy goes to those who died in the flying accident in which an aircraft of the S.A. Defence Force was involved on 14 July 1982. Here I should like to mention the names of Genl. Buks Crafford and Genl. Dirk van Niekerk, both of whom lost their lives in that accident. They were highly regarded and extremely able officers of the general staff’s top management in the S.A. Defence Force. It is also appropriate that I should convey the thanks and appreciation of he Government to the S.A. Defence Force and to Armscor and to members of both organizations for their contribution over the past year in keeping this country free of terrorism and terrorist penetration.

The people of South Africa are at all times showing their appreciation in a tangible way of these two national institutions which do more than their share to counter successfully the communist onslaught or the communist war on our land.

I also wish to convey a special word of thanks and appreciation to the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force, Genl. Viljoen, and his top officials and to the chairman of Armscor, Commandant Marais, the directors of Armscor, the directors of the subsidiaries and also the top management of Armscor.

Over the past year the command structure of the S.A. Defence Force has lost due to retirement two extremely able top officers; Admiral Edwards, the former Chief of the Navy, and the Chaplain-General, Genl. Van Zyl. I wish to convey my thanks and appreciation to them and their families. These officers have both made an exceptionally sound contribution of a permanent nature to the S.A. Defence Force.

I now also wish to congratulate Admiral Putter, the new Chief of the Navy, who is unfortunately unable to be present here today, and the new Chaplain-General, Gen. Naude. My best wishes to both of them.

I should also like to convey my congratulations to the hon. member for Standerton and the hon. member for Wynberg on their appointment as chief defence spokesmen of the NP and the PFP respectively. In the short time since their appointment they have already shown that their appointments were sound ones. To me the chief spokesman of a party on defence is a very important appointment and entails heavy responsibilities. Both of those hon. members are well equipped for the task and I look forward to cordial co-operation with them to the benefit of the S.A. Defence Force and for the sake of the security of our country.

I also wish to convey my thanks to the hon. member for Pretoria West and the hon. member for Yeoville. I do so on behalf of myself and the S.A. Defence Force for their contributions as chief spokesman on defence of their respective parties. I thank them for their contributions to defence in general, the organization of defence and the responsibilities that entails. They have always made their contribution in a dignified way. When the hon. member for Yeoville has differed with the Government’s defence portfolio or with the handling of the portfolio he has always done so in a way that has compelled esteem and respect. It has always been evident from his arguments that he was a student of the security of the Republic of South Africa.

The hon. member for Pretoria West—he informed me that he would unfortunately not be able to be present here today—for a very long period was a pillar of strength for the Minister of Defence. In this regard I also refer to my predecessor, the hon. the Prime Minister, during his period of office as Minister of Defence and, of course, during my own. The insight of the hon. member for Pretoria West into defence affairs made him a valuable counsellor and supporter in discussions and decisions relating to defence affairs. However, I am very pleased that the two hon. members in question will continue to serve on the defence groups of their respective parties; despite their many other parliamentary commitments. This attests to their love of and loyalty to the Defence Force and the security of South Africa in general.

Then, too, I wish to convey a word of thanks to the Newspaper Press Union and the Liaison Committee of the S.A. Defence force for their exceptional contribution in bringing about good relations between the S.A. Defence Force and Armscor on the one hand and the internal media on the other. Over the years this committee has always succeeded in resolving all problems. I want to say to them that the challenge they accepted in maintaining these relations between these two groups will continue to grow, and that that committee will be hard put to it to face the challenges of the future. I am aware that efforts are being made by certain far-left newspapers to involve the Defence Force and the leadership of the Defence Force in political issues and that certain newspaper editors are doing their utmost to discredit the Chief of the Defence Force and the leadership of the Defence Force and at the same time are trying to cast suspicion on them. I do not know what is behind that, but these are matters that we shall have to watch and that we shall have to rectify, because it is not in the interests of this country to drive a wedge between the media and the SADF at this point. At present there is an excellent relationship between the Defence Force and the media in general. This committee will have to see to it that individuals do not all of a sudden bedevil this existing very sound relationship that has been built up and maintained over the years; in particular they should not do so by launching arrogant and uncalled-for attacks and displaying a spirit of refusal to co-operate.

The SADF attempts to divide the news over which it has control, among morning and afternoon newspapers, in co-operation with the NPU. For this purpose the co-operation of the media is in any event essential due to the difference in interests.

I also wish to convey a word of thanks to the accredited military correspondents for their contribution in bringing together nation and defence force over the years, and we must not underestimate this effort of theirs. Conflict between them and the liaison officers of the Defence Force does occur from time to time, but that is necessary, because we must all be kept on our toes at all times in the interests of our country.

I also wish to convey a word of congratulation to the chief spokesman on defence of the NRP, the hon. member for Durban Point. This will be the 25th year that he has participated in the defence debate. I wish him everything of the best. The hon. member has always made a very constructive contribution.

Are you going to make him your Deputy Minister?

Mr. Chairman, you heard what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said. I would accept the hon. member for Durban Point as my deputy, but I would never accept the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central as my deputy. [Interjections.]

I should like to report on the situation on the border. The week before last, in order to prepare for this debate, I travelled to the operational area in South West Africa, concentrating in particular on the northern areas of South West Africa, in order to acquaint myself with the situation there. I was accompanied by the Chief of the Defence Force, the Chiefs of the four branches of the Defence Force and the General in Command of South West Africa, Gen. Lloyd. We travelled from Pretoria to Windhoek and from there to Ruacana, throughout the length and breadth of the operational area, ending our journey at Katima Mulilo. We were also on the border between Angola and South West Africa and on the border between Zambia and South West Africa. Name any place anywhere in South West Africa—in the operational area as such—we were and you will probably find that we were there. Everywhere I spoke to members of the security forces and civilian personnel and local inhabitants of the territory.

I visited all battalion and sector headquarters, where I was briefed, and I therefore have first-hand knowledge of what the true situation in the operational area is. I was particularly impressed by the new initiatives of the security forces in those circumstances. One must take into account the fact that our security forces have been deployed in South West Africa for the past 17 years. We still find that there are persons, officers and members of the security forces who are prepared to come up with new initiatives and to bring about development in an effort to improve on stereotyped doctrines so that they will be absolutely successful in their operational action; in other words, to increase productivity even more. This is an indication to me that the security forces have the situation under control, that their actions are motivated and purposeful, with the positive aim of destroying the penetrating enemy. I was impressed by the enthusiasm and dedication of these well-trained security forces.

Another factor which I found very gratifying was the sound co-operation among the various defence forces, and here I refer in particular to the S.A. Police and the S.A. Defence Force.

†I have referred to our security forces. The members of our security forces reminded me of a quotation by Gen. Sir Walter Walker, KBC, CBE, DSO, former Nato Commander-in-Chief of Allied Forces, Northern Europe. This is what he had to say after a personal visit to the operational area in South West Africa/Namibia a little while ago—

They are the men who wear the Pro Patria medal, and we as South Africans should be proud of them.

*I wish to report that the security forces have acquitted themselves very well of their task. Over the past two months they have successfully countered one of Swapo’s strongest campaigns. Most of those Swapo members—they call themselves the “special forces”, and should not be under-estimated; they are experienced, trained, mature terrorists—who took part in this excursion, were either shot dead or driven out of South West Africa. A small group is still present in South West Africa but the security forces are engaged in mopping-up operations and the pressure on these terrorists is being kept up.

While we were there, Swapo attempted a second excursion in order to regain the prestige they had lost with their previous one. The presence and effective action of the security forces, however, hampered this second campaign as well. Swapo’s second campaign was in fact aimed to coincide with Cassinga day. Cassinga day is 4 May, and they wanted something sensational to take place in the operational area on 4/5 May. It will be recalled that Cassinga day is connected with that exceptionally successful airborne operation of the S.A. Defence Force on Cassinga on 4 May 1978 when more than a thousand Swapo terrorists were killed and we lost one member of the S.A. Defence Force.

The possibility must not be excluded of the terrorist movement attempting to conceal its absolute incapacity by making some effort to gain publicity by, for example, sabotage, long-distance bombardment or some other desperate action. One of the characteristics of the communist onslaught on South West Africa/Namibia is the support given to the terrorists by the Angolan forces. An increasing number of incidents are being reported in which Swapo operate in Fapla uniforms in southern Angola—Fapla is the military arm of the MPLA—and of bases and base areas of Swapo and Fapla being integrated. You will recall, Sir, that just after Operation Protea I reported to Parliament that this was a form of integration in terms of which these forces were being mixed. I want to state that the degree of integration that is now taking place is far greater than in the past.

The so-called Special Forces of Swapo that took part in this excursion were taken as close as possible to the border along Fapla’s logistic routes and given the necessary logistic support. Due to this situation prevailing in southern Angola, it is going to be increasingly difficult for the security forces, too, to act against Swapo alone. Swapo realizes this and is abusing this situation. It will be unfortunate if as a result, Fapla becomes involved in an action against Swapo. However, it is on record that we have warned Fapla that they must not continue with this process of mixing with Swapo.

Another remarkable development which is taking place in southern Angola is the effort to replace white Cubans with black Cubans. I do not know what the reason for this is, but I think that the white Cubans are less acceptable than the black Cubans. There is another possibility too. Say, for example, due to developments in the future, the idyllic situation were to occur that Resolution 435 were implemented—I sincerely hope that will happen. However in such a case we would have a camouflage action that could take place and we should have to be vigilant not to be misled by such facets.

The situation in southern Angola is the same as it was when Gen. Prem Chand was in South Africa years ago when he was appointed chief of the military forces of UNTAG there. We took him to the operational area in South West Africa and showed him the whole area. He then asked whether he could cross the border to southern Angola. We said that we would take him with pleasure. Then, at the last moment, he said that he was unable to do so because that would be a violation of diplomatic rules. Subsequently he went to Angola, and Angola told him that they could take him as far as 350 km from the border, after which they could not guarantee his safety. That situation is the same today. I would say it is chiefly due to the civil war that is taking place in southern Angola.

The Defence Force and the South West Africa territory force are in full control of the situation south of the international border between Angola and South West Africa. Now the terrorists are contending overseas that they have freedom of movement in Owambo and in the other operational areas. They are also supposed to have access to the towns in the northern part of South West Africa, and even as far as Windhoek. The South West Africans of the various population groups regard that as ridiculous and as wishful thinking, of course.

As far as the medical services in the operational area are concerned, I can say that they are in glaring contrast to the collapse of the infrastructure I tried to sketch here that has taken place in southern Angola, due to the civil war there. Civilized standards prevail in Owambo and in the other regions. 58 doctors, plus dentists and veterinary surgeons, are available in Kaokoland and Owambo alone. If one compares that number with the position in the rest of Africa, one finds that in fact it is unheard-of to have this number of doctors for such a relatively small population. The military doctors alone have treated approximately 200 000 patients of the local population 26 clinics in this operational area over the past year. The medicine alone cost R3,4 million and this is borne by the State. You see, therefore, Sir, that the security forces acquit themselves well of their task. On the military front we are winning this communist war.

I should now like to say a few things about the implementation of the new system of national service. During the discussion of the Bill on the new system of national service last year and in subsequent speeches I stated very clearly that one of the chief characteristics of the new system was the economic utilization of manpower. I should like to repeat once again: The chief characteristic is the economic utilization of manpower in a fluctuating operational situation. I said that one could not determine in advance what the operational situation would be, but that we should see to it that we had manpower available so that the manpower would be available in the event of the operational situation escalating. If the situation de-escalated, the manpower would continue to pursue their own occupations. Other hon. members, in particular members of the official Opposition, emphasized this aspect and suggested that this was one of the weak points of the system, in that it was not possible to apply the system with the necessary judgment and that the country’s economy would be harmed thereby. In my opinion these fears have been effectively eliminated by the implementation of the area defence system by the Northern Natal Commando.

I do not think that hon. members who accompanied me on a visit to that commando on 2 May still harbour any doubts as to the need for this new system of national service. I believe that they were all reassured that in terms of the new system, manpower is being utilized far more economically and effectively than under the old system.

I also wish to take this opportunity to thank in particular the Chief of the Army, Gen. Geldenhuys, the commanding officer of the Natal Command and the commanding officer of the Northern Natal Commando on the pioneering work they have done and on their fine achievement in implementing the system in such a short time with such success. However, at the same time I must convey my thanks and appreciation to the City Council of Vryheid, particularly for their assistance to and support of the Northern Natal Commando. This city council and this community realized very soon that as regards the implementation of this new system, every community would have to prepare itself to be self-supporting as regards the operational challenges facing them. In other words, they have to utilize their own manpower resources to deal with their operational responsibilities. I wonder whether the key to this success was perhaps that the majority of the members of the city council were members of the commando. For example, the mayor is a captain in the commando. The next area where this system of national service will be implemented is the Nelspruit, Carolina and Piet Retief commando areas. All White male South African citizens in the age group 18 to 54 years permanently resident in the Nelspruit, Carolina and Piet Retief commando areas must register at their nearest police station or commando headquarters during the period 13 June to 1 July 1983. Subsequently the members allocated will undergo six days of commando training in their local areas during September 1983 and January 1984.

The details of the registration procedure will shortly be published in all areas. I should like to stress briefly the principles relating to these new members of the commandos. In the first place, although all White men between 18 and 54 years must register, only the number of men that is in fact required to strengthen further the existing area protection system and the information network, will be involved. Secondly, the men involved will be trained and utilized in their local areas. This is a very important point. Many people think that they will have to go to the operational area. However, they will be trained and utilized in their own local areas. Thirdly, where at all practicable, the local commanding officer of the commando will consult with employers with regard to the employees to be involved, in order to determine which people can and cannot be used in the commando system. In respect of the Citizen Force, too, the policy of calling up only those who are really needed and of calling no one up for longer than is absolutely necessary, applies. To take the policy another step further and to further promote the conversion from the old system to the new system, I have decided to make a further concession with regard to the intakes of 1973 and earlier who still have service obligations. After the 1977 legislation with regard to national servicemen, there were two requirements which members of the part-time Forces had to comply with in order to qualify for transfer to the reserve. The first qualification was that they had to serve in the Force in question for a period of 10 years. The second qualification was that they had to build up a credit of 240 days. Therefore their accountability was 10 years’ service plus a credit of 240 days during that period of 10 years. If the 240 days had not been served within a period of 10 years, they had to perform service for a longer period than 10 years. All persons of the intakes of 1973 and earlier have already complied with that first requirement of 10 years. However, there are several who have not yet gained the necessary credit to qualify for a transfer to the reserve. In most instances this cannot be ascribed to the member in question but to the fact that he was not called up annually. In this regard it must be borne in mind that the service commitment of these persons before 1973 was such that they could not be called up every year. Therefore it is due to circumstances beyond the control of the S.A. Defence Force that they were not called up. It was also this group of persons that was hardest hit by the increases in service commitments, initially in 1974 and later again in 1977. It would therefore be unfair to them to make the increased service obligation which will apply in January 1983, applicable to them as well. I have therefore decided to exercise the powers vested in me in terms of section 22 of the Defence Act and deal as follows with these persons: Those who on 31 December 1982 have already performed service for 10 years or longer and who were members of the Citizen Force at that date, will be transferred to the Active Citizen Force Reserve. Those who had performed service of 10 years or longer on 31 December 1982 and who were members of the commando force at that date will be retained in the commando force, but their service obligation will be reduced to 12 days per annum, as required by the new system relating to commandos. This is a non-recurring concession and only applies to the intakes of 1973 and earlier.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half hour.

In the first place I want to associate myself and my party with the hon. the Minister’s expressions of sympathy with the families and next-of-kin of members of the Defence Force personnel who have made the supreme sacrifice during the past year. We on this side of the House also want to wish those person who have been wounded everything of the best and a speedy recovery. We are also thinking of all those innocent civilians who died violently in a struggle they possibly wanted no part of. We want to tell their families that we are also thinking of them.

I want to refer briefly to the announcement made by the hon. the Minister in connection with those persons who did their national service in 1973 or prior to that, and who now are certain of their future national service obligations. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we welcome the announcement. As a matter of fact, I feel sure that everyone, including the persons involved, welcome the announcement. I feel that every person, with the exception of those persons to whom the hon. the Minister referred, who is undergoing service or will undergo service in the future, has the right to know exactly what his future obligations will be. Only then will he be able to plan his career or business undertaking properly.

I believe it is necessary for him to know not only how many days of military service he has to perform, but also, within the bounds of reason, when he will be expected to attend camps or when he will have to do border duty. Having said this, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I realize that waging a war is not the same as running a business where one can plan everything neatly and can predict exactly when one will be called upon to help. I accept this. However, I want to say that within bounds, within the possibilities as the Defence Force is able to do with good planning, the Defence Force should keep these young men informed so that they can be sure about how much time they have to serve and when they will in fact have to serve it.

I believe, and here I have a word of criticism to level at the hon. the Minister’s department, that at present the planning is not good enough and that insufficient information is now being made available to young men, or was made available to them in the past, as to exactly what their obligations are, how many days of duty they have performed and how many days they will still have to perform in the future. In many cases the respective units were asked, through members of Parliament or directly, how much duty had to be performed, and frequently that information was not made available or it was not possible to make it available.

In the Defence Force there is no excuse for poor planning. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to give us the assurance that in future there will be an improvement with regard to these matters. Not only will this improved planning make it easier for the person who has to do military service, but it will also be far easier for the employer to co-operate with the Defence Force and in his turn to plan his business to the advantage of the undertaking itself as well to the advantage of the employee, and not, as is at present frequently the case, unavoidably to the disadvantage of the employee or the man who has to be called up.

The announcement made by the hon. the Minister proved to a major extent that much of the criticism we raised last year when we discussed the Defence Amendment Bill, has been proved to be correct. Hon. members will remember that we on this side of the House asked that the legislation be referred to a Select Committee prior to the Second Reading so that we could obtain all the information regarding the necessity for additional manpower and its economic implications. It just so happens that the hon. the Minister’s announcement today greatly satisfied this side of the House, but if we could have done our work on a better basis last year, we could have worked out then already that these persons, viz. the persons who did their training in 1973 and prior to that, could have been given this concession which was announced today. But I want to thank the hon. the Minister very much for this.

There was a few other matters I want to raise today. The first matter is the De Hoop affair in which Armscor is involved. When the news leaked out round about 15 March that Armscor intended to establish a test site in the De Hoop area this was greeted with surprise and disbelief by everyone who is serious about nature conservation.

I realize that thus far the public has generally taken cognizance of the role played by Armscor in our defence set-up with a great degree of appreciation, and for that reason the public is prepared to try to understand Armscor’s problems with great forbearance. In other words, Armscor is treated with a degree of sympathy by the public. But I want to tell you, Sir, and I am choosing my words very carefully now, that the almost hole-and-corner and underhand way in which they tried to obtain the land, leaves a bad taste in the mouth and creates the impression that Armscor’s own interests are sometimes placed above those of the public. I am choosing my words very carefully.

But that is not true. Surely it is a lie.

I wonder what would have happened if the information had not leaked out that afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries entitled to say that the hon. member for Wynberg is lying?

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

Sir, I withdraw it. What I actually said was that the statement he made was a lie.

Sir, as I was saying, I wonder what would have happened if the information had not leaked out that afternoon and the public and the Press had not reacted so strongly to it. Up to that stage the entire matter had been kept secret. It was not advertised so that people could come forward with objections either. At that stage no attempt had been made to ascertain what the effect of such a test site might be on the ecology of the area. As far as I could ascertain no serious attempt had been made to find an alternative site and up to that stage there had not as yet been any contact between Armscor and the Cape Department of Nature Conservation, at least not as far as I could ascertain. When Dr. Hey was informed of the plan, he said—

As far as I could ascertain the land-owners in the area were not consulted either. I know that the only man—according to the hon. the Minister himself—who negotiated with Armscor, namely the Administrator of the Cape, was himself extremely upset about the possibility of a test site in that area. I do know that.

I just wonder where this leaked out.

That I cannot tell you. [Interjections.]

With whom did your negotiator negotiate? [Interjections.]

All that I know, is that the Administrator of the Cape was extremely upset about the possibility of such a test site. [Interjections.] From the reply to the question I put to the hon. the Minister of Defence on 18 March of this year, one gains the impression that at that stage already—three days after information had leaked out—it had been decided that the test site would be established, in spite of the fact that no one had been consulted.

That is untrue.

When that hon. Minister says that it is untrue, I am compelled to read out to him the hon. the Minister of Defence’s reply to me. I put a question to the hon. the Minister of Defence, and in his reply to me he said the following, inter alia (Hansard, 18 March 1983, column 734)—

The hon. the Minister therefore did not say that it would possibly be done. He said that it would definitely be done. There was therefore no doubt in the hon. the Minister of Defence’s mind that the decision had already been taken. At a later stage—three or four days later—when I put another question to the hon. the Minister, he said that as long as negotiations were taking place, there was still hope, or words to that effect. It was therefore clear that doubts had already arisen as to whether the correct decision had been taken. [Interjections.]

I maintain that it was only after the official Opposition and many other organizations had expressed strong opposition to this …

That is not true either.

Mr. Chairman, according to the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries everything I am saying today is not true. Is he going to participate in this debate? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I want to know from the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries whether he is going to participate in this debate so that he can clear up this matter with us; if not, he must please keep quiet. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, it is my submission that only after the official Opposition and other organizations had expressed strong opposition to the announced plan, was it decided that an impact study should be undertaken to ascertain what the adverse effects of such a step would be.

That is also untrue. That is the third untruth you have uttered.

Mr. Chairman, that hon. Minister should rather participate in the debate. [Interjections.]

Order!

When one looks at the questions put and the replies to those questions, it is in fact quite clear that I am speaking the truth.

You are speaking utter rubbish.

If the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries alleges that this is not true, how is it possible that only the Administrator of the Cape, and no one else was aware of the plan?

That you will still find out. We shall discuss this matter again during the discussion of my Vote.

I shall definitely discuss it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Only then was it decided that an impact study would be carried out on the envisaged test site. One would expect that by this time the project would be far advanced; the impact study which was to be undertaken. I should therefore like to know from the hon. the Minister of Defence what progress has been made with that study. The hon. the Minister can tell me whether they are half-way through it, or whether they are almost finished, or whatever the situation may be. [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon. the Minister if any progress, of whatever nature, has actually been made. As far as I could ascertain, the truth of the matter is that to date the chairman of that organization has not yet been provided with a definition either by Armscor or by the hon. the Minister himself or by the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries, to indicate exactly what the research should be done on. That is the information I have at my disposal. [Interjections.] Is that true or not?

Ask Hulley. After all, he gets all the information. [Interjections.]

Is that correct or not? The impression I get, Mr. Chairman, is that at this stage the work has not even started yet. That is why I am asking the hon. the Minister to tell us what the position is. [Interjections.]

Order!

Now the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries is whispering in the hon. the Minister of Defence’s ear. No, they must not sit there whispering to each other. The hon. the Minister of Defence himself must reply now. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, now the hon. the Minister of Defence suddenly needs help. I know why. It is because a start has not yet been made with that work. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries’ department should have given orders for that study to be undertaken long ago. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, spokesman of Armscor said that the research project would be completed within two months. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether that is true. Can we expect the work to be completed within two months or not?

†You see, Sir, a further proof of the cynicism of the department—and I am now referring to Armscor—when it comes to conservation is the scandalous series of events that took place last Tuesday at St. Lucia and subsequent to that date. I want the hon. the Minister of Defence to listen to this very carefully. I think that the House and South Africa should be informed that a number of journalists were invited and travelled to St. Lucia to attend a demonstration as to what the effect of the firing of missiles or projectiles would be on the environment of the area. That was what they were invited there for and, in theory, they would then have come back and have written beautiful articles to show just exactly what had happened.

I want to deal in some detail with what did in fact happen there. What happened there was that when the first shot was fired and whatever had been fired landed, it cause a massive fire, a fire which took hours to extinguish. As far as I know, no further shots were fired after that.

It was high explosive.

It was high explosive? Well, whatever it was that was fired, the idea was to demonstrate how these missiles operated in practice. I can well understand that the unpredictable sometimes does happen and that even the best laid plan sometimes come to grief. However, what I cannot accept and find really despicable is the fact that an embargo was imposed upon the publishing of information in regard to what had taken place on the testing range that day. That is what I find very difficult to understand. [Interjections.]

The embargo that was imposed upon journalists had absolutely nothing to do with the security of the State. It had absolutely nothing to do with arms production. It had nothing to do with the location of the testing range either. In fact the only purpose of the embargo was to prevent the public of South Africa from knowing that whatever tests are carried out with military hardware, damage must of necessity always be caused to the environment. I believe that the embargo that was imposed was a cover-up. It was an attempt to hold back vital information that could have had a bearing on the impact studies that are to be conducted near the De Hoop centre in this regard.

May I ask a question, please?

No, I do not have time for questions now. I want to say that with regard to the De Hoop centre we have now reached a watershed. I want the hon. the Minister to take this very seriously indeed. I should like the hon. the Minister either today or tomorrow to give this House the clear undertaking that sufficient time will be given for the impact studies to be completed. I should very much like to have that assurance from the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister of Defence does not make a decision in that regard.

Sir, actually I have a lot of time for that hon. Minister because he and I have always got on fairly well. You see, Sir, what we are dealing with here, is the fact that the hon. the Minister of Defence is responsible for Armscor. He is responsible for the test site. It is because of that department that it has come about that the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries has to undertake that impact study.

My department is undertaking the impact study.

I am asking the hon. the Minister to give this House the assurance that no further steps will be taken to establish the test site until sufficient time has been given for the study and the research to be completed. [Interjections.] I think the hon. the Minister will discuss this matter in private with the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. Armscor just happens to fall under the Defence Vote, if the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries does not know that. In fact, the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries is merely a spectator today, and he must please not sit there making such a noise.

†I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give the undertaking that sufficient time will be given by the Ministry of Defence for that department to complete the task which has been given to them.

I shall decide on that. [Interjections.]

As far as these things are concerned, I think the hon. the Minister of Defence should take the decisions.

†In addition to that, I should like to have an undertaking from the hon. the Minister that the findings of the body to which that hon. Minister has referred will be made public and that the hon. the Minister of Defence and then also Armscor will abide by the recommendations which are made by Dr. Hey’s study group.

Mr. Chairman, I shall come to the hon. member for Wynberg later on in my speech.

As collegues on this side of the Committee we want to welcome the hon. member for Worcester back in our midst. We are particularly glad that he can again reinforce our ranks.

We on this side want to associate ourselves with the hon. the Minister’s words of sympathy to members of the SADF, their next of kin and civilians who suffered bereavement in the operational area. We also associate ourselves with the words of congratulation expressed by the hon. the Minister in respect of achievements of the SADF and Armscor. We on this side, too, want to congratulate the sportsmen of the SADF on their exceptional achievements on the sportsfield this year. [Interjections.]

We also want to thank the SADF for the fine task they are performing on the front for the country and all its people. Here we include a special word of thanks to the wives of the men who sometimes have to work in those border areas for very long periods. Great sacrifices are made on the home front in this regard so that our men can be available on the border. We thank them.

A further word of thanks to the SADF for making grazing available to our farmers in the drought-stricken areas. This is a gesture which is appreciated very much; it helped our farmers a great deal. Another word of thanks to the SADF for making vehicles available to provide water to consumers in some areas where emergency conditions prevail. The country appreciates these offers on the part of the SADF very much.

We also thank the hon. the Minister for the message he brought us from the operational area. It is a good message about the preparedness of our men, but containing also the warning that the activities of the enemy are still increasing on the borders. We must therefore, to use his words, be ever on the alert. We appreciate the trouble the hon. the Minister took to convey this information to us.

The hon. member for Wynberg restricted himself to a small area in discussing this Vote. I think he missed an opportunity to make a real contribution. What I do appreciate, is that while he mentioned an issue which makes for heated debating at the present time, he did not descend to the level of playing politics in this regard. We appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Wynberg appreciates and respects the Defence Force and makes his contribution on that level. It is his right to criticize the hon. the Minister, but I shall come to that in a moment.

The hon. member for Wynberg said that there was not enough planning in the Defence Force, or that the planning was not incisive enough. Many of our men, too, are involved in the Defence Force and, in my experience, when they inquire about the periods they still have to serve or the number of service days they still owe the Defence Force, they actually do so in order to re-affirm what they already know. They only inquire to prove that they are right. It is not a question of their not knowing. In my experience they all know exactly what they must do and how many days’ service they have left.

Then the hon. member also referred to the announcement by the hon. the Minister, which we appreciate very much, to the effect that the pre-1973 intake in terms of section 22, be credited with service rendered. The hon. member professed that the criticism he expressed during a previous debate was therefore justified. Surely this is not true. With this arrangement the hon. the Minister is merely streamlining national service.

We thanked him for it.

Yes, and we appreciate it. I am not saying this on account of any criticism as such.

The hon. member also advocated a Select Committee. We on this side of the House know what hon. members of the official Opposition think of the proceedings of Select Committees. We have repeatedly experienced what happens to the unanimous decisions of a Select Committee once their caucus has considered them. The hon. member for Wynberg should know that. [Interjections.]

I just want to come back to the question of the De Hoop, a matter the hon. member touched upon. I want to put a question to the hon. member and I want to say to him that I shall accept his word in this regard: Does he, or members of his family, or any company or organization with which he is involved, have any land, property or interests in the area concerned?

There is a My-burgh who has land there. That is correct.

I accept the hon. member’s word. As far as this matter is concerned, the hon. member used two particular expressions. If he were to feel his neck now, he would feel an abrasion there. It is not his collar which is chafing him; it is the albatross of the “slave labour” of a previous debate which is chafing him. He said that the system of national service the Defence Force wanted to introduce would create a situation of slave labour. The hon. member also knows—and I know it hurt him—that foreign media quoted him to lend substance to their accusation against South Africa and the S.A. Defence Force about diabolic forces being harnessed in respect of its young men. The hon. members knows it. Now he actually comes—I cannot believe that he is so ignorant—and uses the words “agterbaks” and “onderduims” here. The hon. member will receive an adequate reply to that in a short while. I simply do not have enough time to deal with it fully. If one uses such terms in Afrikaans one should know that these words have a specific connotation. A person who does “agterbakse” and “onderduimse” things should be locked up because such “agterbakse” en “onderduimse” things are very ugly things. This is a very ugly accusation to make. The hon. member will pay for it. I am sorry that he used these words.

This whole situation is in the hands of a committee, as the hon. member will know. Dr. Douglas Hey is the chairman of that committee which is making a study of the influence the plans may have on the environment. The members of the committee are knowledgeable people and they will deal with the whole matter and come up with a result. The hon. member put questions to the hon. the Minister in this regard. I think the Government did its duty by referring the matter to an unbiased committee falling under a totally different ministry which has to deal with this situation. But then there is the accusation that apparently not everybody knows what happened. There are certain situations which are sensitive and which simply have to be dealt with as such. Surely it is not necessary for particulars about all matters to be made available to all and sundry. However, the hon. member will receive an adequate reply to this.

We on this side of the House, actually all hon. members of this House, have a particular task and responsibility towards our Defence Force. I want to link up this responsibility—apart from other facets—to the necessity of building up morale in our Defence Force. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member agrees with us in this respect. I trust that further discussions in this debate will be instrumental in building up morale and motivation.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to afford the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip for his kindness.

I just want to highlight only one aspect of building up morale and discuss a few of its components. As far as this matter is concerned, there are various inputs which have to be furnished. The family circle is, in the first place, an input for building up the morale of a young man. His father, mother and family ought to support and motivate him so that he displays a positive attitude towards his task and his duty.

The second extension is the school and all its activities. In this regard my plea is that our school principals and the teaching corps should assist those men. The boys who leave school to do military service for the security of the State should be singled out and honoured. This applies to boys as well as girls. The school has a specific duty in this regard.

The next extension is the university and the college. One could perhaps dwell a little longer on this aspect. Universities and colleges have a special duty towards the young men on those campuses. They must motivate the young met to participate in our defence campaign. I want to express my sincere appreciation towards some of our heads of universities and lecturers who are doing a fine job. The principal of the teachers’ college in Pretoria, for example, has the arrangement that every year, as soon as the first year students enroll at his college, he entertains those young men who have completed their military service at a special function. He welcomes them to the college and expresses his appreciation for the fact that after the two-year period of military service they have come to qualify themselves for their career. As a token of appreciation he entertains them at a special function. This is a fine example of what can be done.

However, there are other university campuses where small, negative groups actively hold demonstrations and try to destroy the morale of our people by spreading the story that our country is involved in an unjust war and that we are living in an unjust community. Let us get rid of these people and introduce a spirit into those universities which would cultivate a positive attitude.

Another component is the church and its role in regard to building up morale. We appreciate the fact that many of our churches have disseminated that idea in a positive manner and are still doing so. However, there are also certain denominations and certain church leaders who are spreading rumours about so-called atrocities committed by our Defence Force on the border. Those utterances are seized upon and published by certain members of the Press. Those utterances are destructive to the morale and motivation of our people for they create a wrong impression.

Another aspect which is important for the motivation and morale of our men involves our employers. Here we must direct a special word of thanks to the employers who keep on paying the men’s salaries while they are doing their service and also grant them fully paid leave—a short period of rest—when they return. We trust that our employers will extend this practice even further so that every employer can make his contribution.

We who have visited the Northern Natal Commando realize that an employer can really do if he is motivated and inspired to join those people in carrying out the task of our Defence Force.

Our community, with its various activities, can also support our Defence Force. In this regard we have great appreciation for the Southern Cross Fund and various other organizations. If we must talk politics, the NP women have a campaign in terms of which they allocate funds from their own ranks. The NRP women also launched a fine campaign in terms of which they have allocated funds to the S.A. Defence Force. The PFP objects to this a little. I do not know whether the PFP women already have a similar campaign. We should perhaps ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she is perhaps the President of such an organization. They are fairly quiet. They keep it hidden. Perhaps they do not do it. The community, with its various activities, ought to receive our men with more of a fuss, make them feel at home and orientate them towards civilian life again when they return from the border.

The next aspect I want to touch upon is the Press. The Press can launch a special campaign. It has a special responsibility or task to deliver the positive message. The Press, the reporters with their fresh, beautiful language, can do a fine job of promoting the Defence Force. The Press must remember that there was a political correspondent who later became Prime Minister of his country. However, there was one requirement he had to meet: He had to swim through the Apies River during the Anglo-Boer War. He later became Prime Minister of Britain.

Finally, I want to mention a particularly important aspect. The best motivation and morale-booster for the soldier on the border is the weapon he holds in his hand. If he knows that his weapon is better than that of his enemy, it is his most powerful morale-booster in fighting the war. However, in order to achieve that aim, Armscor needs funds for research so as to be able to supply the men with arms.

Morale, then, is the sum total of all our actions—also we as politicians—to instil in the men of our Defence Force the ability to apply themselves to the task. It is that same ability which drives the sportsman to become a world champion. It is also that ability which makes Zola Budd a world champion. It is that ability which is going to make Northern Transvaal the Currie Cup rugby champions this year. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude by quoting what two experts wrote about morale. They defined morale as follows—

We as politicians in this House, as well as the community out there, have a bounden duty to motivate our men and to build up their morale so as to afford the officer corps of our Defence Force an opportunity to build this beautiful asset of ours—our young men—up further in the service of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I shall come to nature conservation in due course. The hon. member for Wynberg has asked me some important questions which I should like to answer first. I want to clear the air, especially with regard to certain statements that are being made.

This proposed test site—I prefer to call it a laboratory—which is going to be established in the Southern Cape, in the Bredasdorp district …

Which is going to be established?

Yes, which is going to be established, if impact studies indicate that the area is suitable. Just allow me to finish. I am going to win the hon. member over to my side as well. The need for this laboratory has arisen as a result of technological and scientific development which has taken place. As a result, a team of experts was appointed which travelled all over South Africa over a very long period in order to find suitable sites. They looked at alternative sites. But I do not want to go into these facets in detail, because I think this is the information which should be submitted to the Hey Committee. I think these aspects of the matter are sub judice. Therefore I should prefer to confine myself to the questions that have been asked, more specifically the questions asked by the hon. member for Wynberg. The hon. member made a statement about De Hoop. There has never been any question of De Hoop forming part of this laboratory. De Hoop will not be affected at all. However, the hon. member has made statements in this House implying that we are going to destroy De Hoop or that we are allowing nature conservation in the Cape to be destroyed by Armscor. De Hoop is not even in the background. If the hon. member was informed that De Hoop would be affected, I should like to know where he got this information.

He sucked it out of his thumb.

Can the hon. member tell me where he got it?

Sir, I could produce it here …

Order! The hon. member cannot make a speech now.

Mr. Chairman, I asked the hon. member a question. [Interjections.] It would appear to me that he cannot answer it, but in spite of that, I should very much like to know, because I do not know what grounds he has for making that statement.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will answer if the hon. the Minister will allow it to come off his time.

Order! No. That is not permissible.

I want to deal with these initial negotiations with the various interest groups about the area after the leak had taken place. I think the leak was a tragedy, because it has harmed various interest groups. One would prefer to avoid friction in our country between various interest groups. As far as I am concerned, all these interest groups are equally important, if I may put it that way. I am not taking sides. However, I want to submit that that leak took place after—and now I come to the first question put to me by the hon. member, i.e. whether the Department of Nature Conservation was consulted in this matter. The head of the authority responsible for that area in the Southern Cape is the Administrator of the Cape Province, and he was consulted. The leak took place subsequently, after he had been consulted. He was notified in writing as well as verbally, and talks were also being held. I really regret the fact that this process of negotiation has been bedevilled by a leak. I really regret the fact that we have not been able to go through the normal process, because a great deal of harm has been done by the leak, and I think that in actual fact we all have a common objective, provided that we consider the facts of the circumstances and refrain from taking decisions on emotional grounds. This is what I am trying to bring home here today. I now want to tell hon. members which interest groups are involved. I hope we shall be able to accommodate all these interest groups. In saying “we”, I expect that the Hey Committee, which is actually going to play the most important role here, will take this into consideration in its impact study. The first interest group is nature conservation, cultural and historic conservation, if I may call it that. I think that nature conservation is of vital importance in this country of ours. Here I want to tell the hon. member for Wynberg that the organizations which do most for nature conservation in South Africa are the S.A. Defence Force and Armscor. I shall deal with this at a later stage today. I do not think the hon. member realizes this and I do not think the public is aware of this. I should be very glad if the Press would draw attention to the positive attitude to nature conservation which exists on the part of the Defence Force.

The second aspect is the interest group of the farmers. I sympathize with the farmers, and for that reason I personally visited that area and spoke to people myself. The third interest group consists of the land owners there with their holiday homes, or whatever they may be. The fourth interest group consists of the fishermen; there are fishermen in the area and I sympathize with them. The next group consists of the towns and the holiday resorts. I think that most of these groups can be reconciled, and I consider it important that we should in fact reconcile them. We cannot locate Armscor in a certain area and expose it to censure. Armscor should be integrated into the community in which it operates. And with its expertise and background and the development which it sponsors in the field of nature conservation, it can make an excellent contribution to that community. Who, for example, holds the keys to the Castle and to other historic buildings in South Africa? We must preserve these things for posterity. On that we are agreed.

There are many organizations in this country which have an interest in nature conservation, and I have a high regard for them, for the good work they do. Many of them have contacted me on this matter, but only one of them has approached me and asked for particulars. That was the Simon Van der Stel Foundation. I gave them the particulars, and then they were quite satisfied. They immediately saw what was involved. I invited some of the other organizations that contacted me to come and see me. Then they heard that the Hey Committee had been appointed. Still they keep on making statements. I find this regrettable, because I actually support them. I think they are performing a vital task in our country. Because we all have nature conservation as a common purpose, let us get together and exchange facts so that they can also help us to make progress here in the Southern Cape.

A question has been put to me about explosives that are going to be used there. I have inspected the area and the situation is that no explosions whatsoever are going to take place there. I am not talking now about De Hoop, because De Hoop does not fall in that area. I am talking about the adjoining areas. No projectile or missile is going to be fired which is going to explode. This bears no relation to what has happened at St. Lucia, where a high-explosive bomb was detonated and caused a fire. There will be no explosions whatsoever in this area. The laboratory we have in mind here will accommodate delicate instruments. There are going to be delicate recording instruments in rockets and those things have to be recovered, and surely one does not allow explosions to take place if one wishes to recover anything. Since we are on the subject of intensity, we are talking of perhaps one missile a week, every month, every two months—it varies. What I am trying to say is that it will be of a low intensity. No military basis is going to be established there. No Defence Force vehicles are going to be driven around there, leaving tracks behind them. In fact, that area will very seldom be entered, and when it is entered, it will be done with circumspection. I think we should give the Hey Committee an opportunity to proceed with its investigations. I regard this as a very important committee. It has to undertake this impact study and then tell us whether we shall be able to reconcile these different elements. I am hopeful that this will be possible.

The hon. member for Wynberg implied that a decision had already been taken. But this is not so. No decision will be taken before the result of the impact study are known. [Interjections.] The hon. member’s party has the same problem with reform. They cannot go beyond a certain point, while they should actually proceed from there. We should consider the fact that this project would boost the economy of the Southern Cape. The people of Bredasdorp, Caledon and Swellendam and the surrounding districts would benefit by it. We would be able to preserve the area for posterity the way it is at the moment. The hon. member asked when the recommendation concerning the impact study was made. This recommendation was made long before the leak took place. The hon. member need not worry about that.

The people involved in this matter are people who care about nature conservation in our country. I have already said that before the leak took place, we had been in contact with the Administrator of the Cape Province. As a result of the leak, however, we were unable to continue the normal process and contact the various bodies. That is why I personally went to see the farmers in that area and personally invited the people to come and see me, and I have not met a single one who was dissatisfied after the matter had been explained to him.

I want to say in all sincerity that the people who are going to lose out in this connection are the people who have sentimental interests in the area, and I feel very sorry for them. My heart bleeds for them, and I really mean that. I pity them more than anyone else.

I come now to the question: Who leaked this matter to the newspapers? I see that Die Vaderland of yesterday says—

Has the hon. member for Constantia been in contact with Mr. Morsbach?

Of course I have. What is wrong with that?

Sir, we are now approaching the source of the leak.

This is disgraceful!

Now we can see how politics has been dragged into this. That is the tragedy. That is why the hon. member for Wynberg spoke about nature conservation this afternoon. He was afraid that the hon. member for Constantia would let the cat out of the bag.

There is one more question asked by the hon. member for Wynberg to which I must reply. He asked me how much progress had been made with the impact study. I do not know how much progress has been made. The necessary instruction was given by the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs. But the instruction has been issued. I know this because there are members who have received it and who have told me about it. Commandant Marais is also a member of that committee and he has just told me that he has also received the instruction. The hon. member also wanted to know within what period, if any, the committee had to report back. I am not going to put pressure on the committee. To me it is much more important to rectify and bring about reconciliation with regard to a very ugly matter.

The hon. member then referred to St. Lucia and alleged that an embargo had been imposed on the newspapers with regard to reports on the fire there that had broken out at St. Lucia. It is untrue …

The newspapers only reported on it yesterday, while the fire broke out last week.

There was no embargo with regard to the fire itself. There was an embargo on reports on its consequences for nature conservation. As a result of the publicity which the fire at St. Lucia received, there was tremendous interest and pressure from newspapers and other quarters. It is quite right that this should be so; I agree with it. But I do not think we should single out this incident and give a tremendous amount of publicity to it while the Hey Committee has not even sat. All we have to do now is to see to it that the Hey Committee commences its activities. But on the fire itself all the newspapers have reported, and I have no objection to that.

They only carried reports on it yesterday, while the fire had broken out last week.

Then there was a misunderstanding. There was no embargo on information concerning the fires. A high-explosive bomb was detonated there. But allow me to say that there were other fires as well. At. St. Lucia, the veld was set on fire by that projectile, and there was a fire on the Makatini Flats, although we do not know what caused it. At Duku forestry station there was a tremendous fire on the same day. I hope it has since been extinguished. It is dry in Natal, so there is a great fire hazard. One should expect, therefore, that if one detonates high-explosive bombs under these circumstances, one is going to cause fires.

Mr. Chairman, may I just ask the hon. the Minister whether Dr. Hey, the chairman of the committee of inquiry, has received precise instructions as to the task which he and his committee members have to perform? Has he received such instructions?

Unfortunately, I have not yet been in contact with the chairman, but what I can say is that Commandant Marais, a member of the committee, has received those instructions. In them everything is spelt out. He told me so five minutes ago. So the hon. member may take it that the committee has received its instructions.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by referring to the speech made by the hon. member for Standerton. He spoke about the morale of the men in the Defence Force, and I should like to associate myself with the fine sentiments he expressed. In particular, I want to tell him that there is one method in the operational area for anyone who wishes to become a very important person. This is to be wounded, for then one is taken care of by the medical services of the S.A. Defence Force. Nowhere could one receive better treatment, and nothing does more to boost a soldier’s morale than to know that if something happened to him, he would be well cared for.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to request the privilege of the second half-hour.

The CP would like to convey its sincere thanks and congratulations to the S.A. Defence Force on this occasion for the successes it has achieved, especially during the past difficult year; and in particular its successes in the operational area. In this connection, the achievements and inputs of Armscor should not be overlooked. Therefore we include Armscor in our good wishes. We also congratulate those soldiers and officials of Armscor who have been promoted or who have had honours conferred upon them, or who have been successful in their careers in some way or other. We convey our deepest sympathy to the wounded and the next of kin of those who have been killed in action. We thank those who have retired and we wish them a very pleasant retirement. We pay tribute to the memory of those who made the supreme sacrifice for their father-land in the operational area. The CP conveys its most sincere appreciation to him in particular, to the unknown soldier of the S.A. Defence Force. We also wish to convey our special thanks to Gen. Viljoen, Gen. De Wachter and Brig. Bosman for the assistance we have received from them over the past year, for visits they have arranged, and I have also been asked by the ladies of the CP to thank them very sincerely for the educational tour which was arranged for the ladies. Thank you very much, too, for this morning’s meeting.

I now want to come to the essence of this debate. I want to make it quite clear that in my opinion, this debate is concerned with politics this year. [Interjections.] Therefore it is necessary to make it quite clear that this debate is not concerned with the S.A. Defence Force, but with its political head. We have already conveyed our congratulations and good wishes to the S.A. Defence Force. For the rest, this debate is a political debate between political parties. [Interjections.] We want to cross swords only with the hon. the Minister, as political head, and not with the S.A. Defence Force or its other members. There must be no doubt about this, Mr. Chairman. It is not concerned with the S.A. Defence Force and its members, but with the political head of the S.A. Defence Force.

You have said that three times now.

I know I have made this statement three times. However, hon. members will soon see why I keep repeating it. [Interjections.] Our experience of the hon. the Minister of Defence is that he runs away from his political responsibilities and that he takes refuge behind the S.A. Defence Force and his generals. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, we have not forgotten this year’s no-confidence debate. In that debate we specifically addressed the hon. the Minister of Defence. In this respect I want to quote what I myself stated unequivocally in this House on 2 February this year.

Indeed? You are quoting yourself, are you? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I quote what I said (Hansard, 2 February 1983, col. 267)—

I went on to say—

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Ermelo must be very worried about his majority of 469. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, in spite of the fact that there was not the slightest doubt in that debate about the question of whether if this was a political matter, and about the fact that our criticisms were aimed at the hon. the Minister of Defence, that same hon. Minister ran away and took refuge behind the Head of the Defence Force, Gen. Viljoen. [Interjections.]

In his reply during the no-confidence debate, the hon. the Minister very cleverly devoted his half-hour to various other matters, indicating in reply to interjections that he would eventually get round to the Seychelles affair. When his time had almost expired, he reacted by pretending that I had attacked Gen. Viljoen. Even hon. members of the NP were ashamed to hear this. [Interjections.] Many senior soldiers came and told me personally that it was an embarrassment to the Defence Force that its political head had acted in such a way. In doing so, he becomes an embarrassment to South Africa, and he harms South Africa’s image as a powerful country. [Interjections.] For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the hon. the Minister to give a better account of himself this time. I repeat that our quarrel is with him alone and not with the S.A. Defence Force.

Do not be hypocritical!

Mr. Chairman, I now wish to ask the hon. the Minister a number of questions. I hope he will accept my reproaches against him, because he knows that they are valid. [Interjections.] I now want to ask him a few questions. In this connection I want to reproach him for not having answered our questions last year. I do not want to say any more about this, except for appealing to the hon. the Minister to answer the questions that are put to him. I receive questions from my voters and my study group and I put those questions to the hon. the Minister. I want to say with all due respect that it is then the duty of the hon. the Minister to answer those questions.

The first question I want to put to the hon. the Minister is the following: What is his policy in respect of the use of military transport by NP politicians for purely party-political purposes? Is SADF transport made available to Ministers, for example, to promote purely political matters relating to their party politics? In this connection I have asked the hon. the Minister a question arising from a specific matter. It appears in Hansard, col. 169 of Wednesday, 21 April 1982. I put the question to the hon. the Minister and I take it rather amiss of him that he did not answer that question. Therefore I repeat the question.

My second question is this: Now that the Coloureds and the Indians are going to have equal parliamentary status with the Whites under the new dispensation, what is the Government’s policy concerning compulsory military duty for Coloureds and Indians? We believe that the Government finds itself in a dilemma here. If compulsory military duty is not introduced with regard to the Coloureds and Indians, it would be blatant discrimination against the Whites. The Whites would therefore be compelled to defend the country’s borders, with enormous sacrifices and possible loss of life, but the Coloureds and the Indians would not have to make those sacrifices, although they will have equal status with the Whites under the new dispensation. Of course, the Government’s dilemma lies in the fact that Coloured leaders, have already made it clear that they will not accept compulsory military service. Now we ask: Is the Government going to introduce compulsory military service for Coloureds and Indians and what is the Government going to do if they refuse?

As far as my third question is concerned, I understand the problems that are being experienced.

What about compulsory military service for the AWB?

The hon. member for Innesdal will have his turn to speak. My third question is. What progress has been made in the investigation concerning the alleged spy who was discovered in the Navy? I am not going to discuss the matter, because I know it is sub judice, and I certainly understand the hon. the Minister’s problem in this connection. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for calling me in on that occasion and giving me the facts so that I could inform my caucus. This was most conducive to a proper understanding of the matter. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that he could perhaps have achieved much better results with regard to the Seychelles affair if he had taken the same course there.

This brings me to the Seychelles affair. I think we should try to ascertain which factors in connection with this debacle are not in dispute. We should then try to discover the truth concerning those facts with regard to which there is consensus. As far as I am concerned, the first fact is that that Seychelles affair was an international embarrassment for South Africa. The good name of our country was dragged through the mud. That is the first fact. The second fact is that members of the SADF were involved. Brigadiers and weapons of the SADF were involved. We cannot deny this, because it is a fact. Senior officers and weapons belonging to the Defence Force were involved. I think the third fact is that money was spent. There can be no doubt about the fact that the taxpayer lost many thousands of rands. The fourth fact I want to suggest is the serious nature of this matter. The serious implications lie in the fact that members of the SADF and Defence Force equipment were involved in an attempt to take over a foreign State through violence. The fifth fact I wish to suggest is that the hon. the Minister says he knew nothing about the matter. This is a fact. The final point I want to make in this connection is related to Government conduct. The hon. the Minister merely announced that some departmental committee or other had investigated the matter and given its findings. As far as I can remember, the only finding that has been published so far is the fact that no authorization was given by senior officers and that no State funds were involved.

I submit that these factors and facts cannot be in dispute. The question is what conclusion I draw from them. I conclude, in the first place, that the so-called departmental committee which was to investigate the matter made the most ridiculous findings in our parliamentary history. The two findings, that no responsible officer authorized anything and that no State funds were involved, cry to high heaven.

Two brigadiers were involved and thousands of rands were spent. Therefore the hon. the Prime Minister’s astonishing statement must be completely ignored and further penetrating questions must be asked.

The first question I want to ask is this: How does the hon. the Minister defend himself? I know he finds himself in a very difficult position. How does he defend himself against the charge—I level this charge at him with great respect—that as Minister of Defence he has become a risk for South Africa because he was blissfully unaware of this thing which was going on in the SADF? In the second place: What happened? Surely someone must have given instructions? What action followed and what steps were taken to prevent it?

I submit that the SADF is innocent as far as the Seychelles affair is concerned. I make this statement although I have no proof. [Interjections.] However, I have sufficient knowledge of the functioning of the Defence Force—I have said so in the past—to believe that the Defence Force would not have embarked upon such an enormous project—the invasion of a foreign State—without political sanction. This aggravates the mess in which South Africa finds itself.

Has the Government no respect for the electorate and for South Africa? What has become of the beautiful promise which the hon. the Prime Minister made on 28 September 1978 when he said that he was giving South Africa a clean public administration? There is only one honourable course for the Government to make, and that is to dismiss the hon. the Minister of Defence. The CP demands the resignation of the hon. the Minister of Defence. [Interjections.]

The next aspect I should like to discuss is the consequences of the new constitutional dispensation as they affect the SADF. The Constitution Bill has now been approved in principle. The hon. the Minister indicated earlier—during the course of the discussion on the legislation relating to conscientious objection—that he would inform us more fully at a later stage concerning the implications of the legislation. That moment has now arrived. The CP wishes to inquire of the hon. the Minister—I do not know whether he wants to listen, but if he does not want to listen, I can leave him alone. [Interjections.]

The CP requests the hon. the Minister to give us a preview of the nature, scope and structure of the SADF under the new dispensation. There is a parliamentary Select Committee which is giving further attention to the proposed constitution. Two members of our party are serving on that Select Committee, and for them to be fully briefed, it is expected of us as the parliamentary study group on defence to furnish them with information in this connection.

Under the new dispensation, defence will be a general matter, and under the new dispensation, Coloureds, Indians and Whites will have equal status. We want to know whether there will still be any measures to bring about separation between Coloured, Indian and White under the new dispensation.

While we are dealing with the Defence Vote, it is appropriate that the CP should once again state its policy with regard to defence. The CP does not believe in an integrated Defence Force, but in a Defence Force of its own for each people. [Interjections.] The hon. members are raising a hue and cry now about concepts; they can be as noisy as they like.

Order!

The hon. members are making a terrible fuss here about concepts such as “people” and “nation”. For years we have been using those terms as if they were interchangeable, and certain connotations have been given to “nation” and “people”. We have spoken of the Zulus, the Xhosas—the 10 different Black peoples or nations—about the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. The hon. members cannot get away from that.

Now my standpoint is this: Compulsory military duty is indissolubly bound up with full citizenship. One cannot compel a man to do military duty if one is not prepared to give him full citizenship rights. The CP is not prepared to give the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians full citizenship rights in what is known as White South Africa. They can acquire these rights in their own geographical areas. This is also the Government’s policy in respect of the Blacks. So the CP differs from the NP only with regard to the position of the Coloureds and the Indians.

Because we, the CP, are not prepared to grant full citizenship rights to Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in the White area, we accept the inevitable consequence that we cannot compel them to do military duty.

What about the Black policeman who protects us all?

Oh, Sir, that is the hon. member who is afraid; I am not the one who is afraid. [Interjections.] We do encourage voluntary military service for them, in accordance with the present position.

That point of departure leads every people to a situation where it will eventually have its own Defence Force in its own territory. The four independent Black States have grown militarily in this way. Today each has its own military unit. Already this is relieving the S.A. Defence Force of the extremely important task of assisting those countries militarily. In future we may be able to achieve the objective of having those countries fight on an allied basis with the S.A. Defence Force against a common enemy.

The CP believes that the same position should apply to the Coloureds and the Indians.

Now, however, there is going to be a material change in the status of the Coloureds and the Indians. The Government has now brought about equal status for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians in the three chambers, the three Houses, or the three hotels. Therefore it differs materially from the Government’s policy in respect of the Blacks. Now we are asking for a political survey of what the Defence Force would look like under such a dispensation.

I wish to conclude. I had the privilege of visiting the USA and South America on a parliamentary tour in November last year. At several Embassies we met South Africa’s representatives. I should like to put in a good word in this House for the military representatives. Without giving offence to anyone else, I think one could best refer to those soldiers and their wives as the first team of the Defence Force. I think that the South African Embassy in Chile functions brilliantly. The reason is that it is headed by a soldier. Things are done there with military precision and this makes a South African feel very proud indeed. I should like to pay tribute to Lieut. Gen. Jack Dutton and his wife and to wish them success in a foreign country.

I conclude by expressing the wish that the S.A. Defence Force and Armscor may receive God’s richest blessings.

Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago, when we were discussing the Defence Amendment Bill, the so-called Religious Objectors’ Bill, I also had to speak just after the hon. member for Jeppe had spoken. On that occasion the hon. member for Jeppe disguised himself so well that one could not recognize him. On that day he draped himself in such a holier-than-thou cloak, with a view to the by-elections that were still in the offing, that I was obliged to congratulate him by saying that he had made a reasonably responsible speech. This afternoon the hon. member came to the House wearing the same mask, but unfortunately he only had it on for a very short time before it slipped off and his true aspect was once more revealed. In this respect we have, this afternoon, again had proof of the proverb that a leopard cannot change its spots. As a matter of ceremony the hon. member congratulated certain members of the S.A. Defence Force and, in regard to certain people, expressed his condolences. I want to thank the hon. member and accept his word, as an hon. member, that he really meant what he said. The hon. member went further, however, and said that he was excluding the S.A. Defence Force in what he had to say in his speech since he did not want to get at the Defence Force. He wanted to line the hon. the Minister up in his sights. He made the mistake, however, of saying that the hon. the Minister hid behind the S.A. Defence Force and its generals. If that was not an insult to the S.A. Defence Force, I do not know what an insult is. In doing that the hon. member for Jeppe threw all pretension of credibility and decency, which he possibly had in regard to defence matters, right out of the window. What did the hon. member do today? The hon. member for Jeppe took the reprehensible step of ignoring a convention or tradition that has been in operation in this House for almost 16 years now. In the first place he did so by criticizing our previous Minister of Defence, who is now the hon. the Prime Minister, and also the present hon. Minister, about the fact that the defence of our country should be above party politics. Today the hon. member did everything in his power to destroy that convention completely. [Interjections.] The hon. member may make as much noise as he likes, but he will have to take the hiding he is getting. I want to assure the hon. member for Jeppe that today he is going to get a lot of hidings from this side of the House for what he had to say here.

The hon. member went further and tried to use the S.A. Defence Force and the hon. the Minister as a football in an effort to justify the political deceit that he and the members of his party are trying to perpetrate in this country at present. We remember quite clearly how heartily those hon. members laughed the other day when the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs again painted the picture of the total onslaught against South Africa. Then the hon. member for Rissik and other hon. members, like the hon. member for Langlaagte, split their sides laughing. During the recent by-elections the members of the CP went from platform to platform—I include Dr. Connie Mulder, a head committee member of that party, in this—saying that when we speak of a total onslaught against South Africa, that is merely NP scare-mongering. I wonder whether those hon. members are fast asleep. What are they playing at? I should like to quote here what was said by Sam Nujoma at an Afro-Arabic conference held in Luanda in 1981. I quote—

The enemy of South Africa is sitting here spelling out the onslaught for us.

In terms of this total onslaught, we say that there is also a spiritual onslaught. The greatest present-day spiritual onslaught on this country and its people comes from the hon. members of the CP. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Jeppe also made the statement that some NP members of the S.A. Defence Force were alleged to have said that the hon. the Minister’s conduct was an embarrassment. I wonder whether the hon. member knows what the word “embarrassment” means?

I said he was a risk. That is even worse.

I do not think the hon. member knows the meaning of the word “embarrassment”. Nor do I think hon. members of his party know the meaning of the word, because they apparently do not realize that that hon. member is an embarrassment to their party. The hon. member for Jeppe is also an embarrassment to South Africa. He was also an embarrassment to the S.A. Defence Force when he turned up on the border as an uninvited guest and imposed himself upon them there.

You are a liar.

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe must withdraw that.

I am not going to withdraw it, Sir. He stands there telling lies, and I am not going to withdraw it.

Order! If the hon. member does not want to withdraw it, he must withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting, having disregarded the authority of the Chair.

(Whereupon the hon. member for Jeppe withdrew from the Chamber.)

The hon. member for Kroonstad may proceed.

He must stop telling lies.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the door of the Chamber is still in one piece, but now that the air in the Chamber is quite a bit fresher … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Rissik say that the hon. member for Kroonstad must stop telling lies?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Now that the air in the Chamber is quite a bit fresher, let me repeat that the hon. member for Jeppe did visit the border as an uninvited guest. We can offer proof of that. The hon. member may react to that in whichever way he likes. It is the truth.

You are telling untruths.

The hon. member for Rissik is very fond of saying that we tell lies or do not speak the truth, but on members on that side would not even know the truth if they saw it because they do not know what the truth looks like.

The hon. member for Jeppe asked whether this Government had no respect for the electorate. He also asked whether, in the new dispensation, there would be no measures to separate the various population groups. It is very clear to me that those hon. members have not even begun to understand the Bill, the Second Reading of which has just been concluded. I therefore want to repeat today that there is no integration in the S.A. Defence Force because it is not Government policy and will not be Government policy in the future either. We want to make that very clear to those hon. members, because they are apparently unable to understand it. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately my time is almost up, but I believe the hon. member for Jeppe’s other questions will be adequately replied to. It is, a pity, however, that the hon. member did not remain in the House to take the hiding he is going to get here this afternoon like a man.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: When you directed the hon. member for Jeppe to leave the Chamber because he had refused, on request, to withdraw certain words, the hon. member stormed out here and literally kicked the door of the Chamber open.

How did you see that?

I could see it from where I was sitting.

Order! The hon. member for Mossel Bay is addressing me on a point of order.

Is it indeed a point of order?

Order! The Chair will decide whether it is a point of order; not the hon. member for Greytown.

He is a real “politieke fieta” (political lout).

The hon. member for Jeppe kicked the door of the Chamber open and stormed out in a way that certainly does not redound to the dignity of an hon. member of this House. But his conduct he has very clearly cast a reflection on the Chair’s ruling and that he owes the Chair an apology for his reprehensible behaviour.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Innesdal refer to an hon member on this side of the House as a “politieke fieta”?

Order! I shall deal with the hon. member’s point of order in a moment. Let me first deal with the point of order of the hon. member for Mossel Bay. The dignity of this House, of which we are all hon. members, must at all times remain inviolable. That was also the standpoint adopted by Mr. Speaker when he accepted the high office of Speaker of this House. If the hon. member for Jeppe has, by virtue of his conduct impugned the dignity of this House, I think action should be taken against him. At the moment the hon. member is not in the Chamber, however, and I shall discuss the matter with Mr. Speaker and report to the Committee on this issue in due course.

This brings me to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Rissik against the hon. member for Innesdal. Did the hon. member for Innesdal say that an hon. member here was a “politieke fieta”?

Mr. Chairman, I said the hon. member for Greytown was a political lout. I withdraw it and tender my apologies.

Order! I accept them as such.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: In the light of the ruling you gave—and I agree with you about the order in the House and the example that must be set here—I want to put it to you that the governing party has been guilty of gross untruths and various other remarks.

Order! That has nothing to do with the conduct of the hon. member for Jeppe. I have given my ruling that he was to leave the Chamber, and as far as that is concerned, the matter has been dealt with.

Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling. May I address you on a further point of order?

Yes.

I should like some indication from you about whether, in future, in regard to debates in this House …

You cannot prescribe for the Chair.

Order! The hon. member for Rissik may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, when members of the governing party refer to the CP—I am now speaking in general—they repeatedly imply, in connection with certain events inside or outside this House, that we speak untruths and that we … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Rissik may proceed. I am not, however, sure whether it is indeed a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, my request to you is that we go into the question of provocation … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the provocation, by hon. members, of the CP in this House.

Order: I have taken cognizance of the standpoint of the hon. member for Rissik.

Mr. Chairman, I consider it extremely regrettable that the CP, after we have tried all these years to keep defence out of politics, has decided not only to drag it into politics, but to do so at a very low level of politics as well. [Interjections.] But I shall leave those hon. members to their Progressive friends like the hon. member for Greytown to defend and protect them.

†I have only 10 minutes at my disposal and therefore it is impossible to deal with the various speeches that have preceded me. However, I do want to associate the NRP with the welcomes, farewells and compliments that the hon. the Minister made and in particular to associate this party with his expression of sympathy to the families of those who were bereaved when family members gave their lives to secure the future safety of South Africa—as well as to those who were wounded and suffered to keep this country free and secure. I think all of us feel the same, and I should like the sentiments of this party to be placed on record.

Furthermore I should like to pay a particular tribute to the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force and his staff, and also to commands and units for the co-operation and help that I have received from them over the past year. I must say that I have never taken up a problem with the Department of Defence without having an immediate reaction; sometimes an incredibly quick reaction. I brought to the attention of the department, for example, a problem late yesterday afternoon and had a reply early this morning. I thus want to place on record my appreciation of the attention and the efficiency with which problems are handled when brought to its attention. I also want to extend our thanks and congratulations to the Forces themselves, to those who have been responsible for some of South Africa’s excellent operations over the last year. I believe this House owes them a debt of gratitude, particularly those who contained the very serious threat of Swapo incursions into South West Africa earlier this year. That was a very real threat, and I believe the country should know that our troops operated with efficiency and courage and that they turned, what could have been a very nasty situation, into a triumph for South Africa and a disaster for Swapo.

Finally I also want to thank the hon. the Minister for his courtesy and for the way in which, after the previous discussion of the Defence Vote, he dealt at length with so many problems raised during the debate, but not answered by him during his reply. In many instances he gave extremely clear replies to the problems that had been raised. I appreciate the way in which he did it, and also the extent to which he dealt with the problems and replied to them in detail. I also want to thank the hon. the Minister for his kind words in respect of this, the 25th time that I take part in a discussion of the Defence Vote. I do believe it is going to be a very happy occasion for me because I hope that this will be the last of the penultimate debate of this kind which will take place here in Parliament. Under the new dispensation, of course, something I have fought for ever since I became a spokesman on defence in 1966, is finally going to take shape. That is namely a Standing Committee on Defence that is going to come into being. Under the new constitutional dispensation that will be one of the Standing Committees. This is something I have always believed is essential because unlike the CP—reckless in their treatment of defence matters—or even like the official Opposition at times, we try to keep out of a defence debate matters which could be twisted, exploited or abused by the enemies of South Africa. Therefore one tends to talk on innocuous issues, on problems which are not really all that important. That is why we also try to mute our criticism. In a Joint Standing Committee, however, we will be able to discuss the things we should really talk about, for instance our arms development programme …

Mr. Chairman, could I put a question to the hon. member?

No, Mr. Chairman, I do not have the time to reply to questions now. I have only 10 minutes at my disposal. The hon. member can make his own speech later. [Interjections.]

Of course, Mr. Chairman, that will be a natural and inevitable part of the process of the new political dispensation. Your three Houses will have to have a joint committee. However, that party does not understand or care just how this is going to work.

Mr. Chairman, I was saying that the sort of things that can be discussed on this type of committee are sensitive matters such as our arms production programme and our arms market and to what extent we are able to sell our arms, sensitive matters of that nature which one would not discuss across the floor of this House. We could discuss allegations of destabilization which I do not believe should be bandied across the floor of this House either. If such allegations are made, they can be dealt with and clarified. We could discuss the most unfortunate Commodore Gerhard affair which I would not discuss across the floor of this House but which could be discussed in such a committee. We could also discuss allegations that are made by certain churches, allegations which I believe have got to be shot down completely. I believe that we should subpoena the people who make those allegations and make them produce their sources of information because I believe that the harm done to South Africa in this regard is tremendous. We could deal with such a matter and work out the tactics and strategy to counter it in such a committee. There are also a number of other matters in regard to which I believe the defence groups could make a far larger contribution on such a Standing Committee than they can do in open debate across the floor of this House. There are also questions of manpower and the utilization of manpower.

I respect the speech of the hon. member for Standerton and the way he dealt with the question of morale. However, we must face the fact that there are problems or “haak-plekke”, and I should like to be able to discuss some of those problems, the problems of the deployment and use of men and the way in which this affects their morale. Some of the reports that I get back from the men who have been demobilized indicate that their military service does have an effect on these young men. These are not matters we can discuss here. However, I believe that these are matters in regard to which we should pool our ideas. I know that the door of the hon. the Minister and of the Chief of the SADF is always open, but then there is only one person making an input. I believe it would be more valuable if we could do this in a committee. Therefore, I want to express the hope that this will be one of the last debates, if not the last, before we have such a body by means of which we can deal with matters of that nature. As I have said, there are many other matters that can also be dealt with.

As I have only a little time left to me, I should like to deal very briefly with one or two matters. Firstly, I want to say that I welcome the restoration of the navy’s blue working uniform. I do not want to quote the hon. the Minister’s reply to a question from one of my hon. colleagues or to remind him of the fight I had years ago when Jim Fouché was Minister of Defence to retain navy uniforms. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Durban Point on his fine achievement of having remained, for 25 years, chief spokesman on defence matters for his party. We know that the hon. member has always made a very positive contribution, and I believe that under the new dispensation he will also be able to make such a contribution. We sincerely congratulate him on his fine achievement and extend to him our good wishes for the future.

Since we are in calmer waters for a moment, let me say that I have always wanted to say a few words about the publication Paratus of the SADF. I have also taken the trouble to get hold of a few copies of that publication and sent them to certain people, some of whom are reasonably knowledgeable in this sphere, in order to elicit their critical opinion. I have received their opinions, and they accord with mine. I want to venture to say that this publication is one of the best of its kind in South Africa. This publication should be an essential item in every household in South Africa. Not only are its reports of a high standard and very professional, but they are also topical and ought to prove very enriching to every family directly or indirectly involved in the SADF, including those who will become involved in the future.

It is not a fiction magazine, a magazine loaded to the brim with cloying love stories, gossip about film stars or photographs verging on the pornographic. On the contrary, this periodical is a sympathetic, bilingual, non-political publication beautifully depicting every possible facet of the conduct and achievements of our fine young boys and girls. Paratus is a source of pride and comfort in every home. Where necessary, it also offers consolation. We therefore want to say a big thank you to this particular publication. It offers abundant scope, in its content, for interesting and educational articles from which every reader can benefit.

I also believe that this publication can make a noteworthy contribution to the good relations already existing as far as the SADF is concerned.

We must take note of the fact that the State, or the SADF, makes no financial contribution to the publication. The number of copies printed is, to a large extent, limited by the funds obtained from advertisements. I believe that many valuable articles are lost as a result of the space taken up by advertisements. So limited are the numbers of copies printed that I have heard that there is only one copy available for every 15 to 20 servicemen. A more ideal state of affairs would be for each serviceman and his parents to be able to obtain a copy. I hope and trust that every MP also receives a copy; if not, I should like to recommend that they do.

Perhaps this is asking a great deal, but my plea is nevertheless that there should be a threefold increase in the number of copies printed. This could only be possible, however, if the State took over the financing in full. This would also ensure the continued existence of the publication. In future a large number of people would then have the privilege of sharing in the wealth of knowledge offered in its columns.

We should like to congratulate Brig. Kobus Bothma as executive editor of the publication, and of course also his staff. We say thank you very much to them for their excellent SADF publication.

There are also other publications that present equally exceptional views of the activities of the SADF. We also extend our thanks and appreciation to them.

There is a second matter about which I want to say a few words. Here I want to link up with an occasion on which the hon. the Minister was the Speaker, i.e. the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of 1 Special Service Battalion in Bloemfontein. We on this side of the House would also like to extend our congratulations to that unit, and also to the present commanding officer, Comdt. Van Niekerk, who is still building upon the fine tradition that 1 SSB has always maintained. We also want to pay tribute to his predecessors who faithfully adhered to 1 SSB’s motto of “Unity makes strength”, thereby leaving an indelible impression in the annals of the S.A. Defence Force. This battalion was called into being at a time when our country was facing a serious crisis. It was in May 1933, the year of the great depression, when drought, poverty and unemployment presented a sombre picture to thousands of young people, especially those who were on the point of leaving school. As its name indicates, 1 Special Service Battalion chiefly aims at furnishing a special service to young men. The service does not only include giving military training, but also giving him some or other vocational training. The task and commission was to prevent a spirit of morale degeneration taking hold of the people and to give these men more than just military training. This unit was also known as the “bob-a-day army” and not only laid the foundations of strict military training, but was also extremely successful in the sphere of vocational training. It was, in point of fact, so successful in that sphere that the erstwhile Department of Labour and Pensions could place the young men in employment after they had completed their training.

Just to illustrate how essential this service was at the time, it can be pointed out that in the second year of its existence, in 1934, almost 10 000 young men applied for enrolment in the unit. Ths battalion was also one of the most sought-after units in the country and also regularly took part in large and important events in Pretoria and Johannesburg so as to add lustre to the widely-famed parade demonstrations and ceremonial displays. The taps which is played at the flag-lowering ceremony, also had its origins with this unit.

During the Second World War this battalion was a very important compenent of the 6th S.A. Armoured Division which took part, with great distinction, in the battles in North Africa and was also part of the Allied Invasion Force in Italy, from which conflict it emerged with great honour. Today this battalion has, I believe, the same quality of young men, Afrikaans-speaking as well as English-speaking, who have, shoulder to shoulder, with great distinction and bravery, contributed to wiping out Swapo terrorists in the operational area in South West Africa, also having contributed to the destruction of enemy bases in Angola. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the newspapers are making a meal of the collision between the President Kruger and the Tafelberg. As this matter is sub judice. I obviously do not propose to comment on it in any detail, but I think it is necessary that a few general observations should be made in order to place this tragic event in its proper perspective.

Naval exercises in peace-time obviously must ipso facto involve a high risk factor. One cannot have ships manoeuvring, changing course and speed, without an element of risk. This is also always subject to human fallibility. It is necessary to take risks in peace-time in order to prepare for war, and war by its very nature is a matter of risk. It would therefore be useless exercising at sea in peace-time cocooned in all sorts of safety nets as though war were not a very real possibility. To prove my point, I have only to look at what has happened in other parts of the world. A few years ago the Australian aircraft carrier the Melbourne collided with an escorting destroyer, resulting in the loss of the ship and a very heavy loss of life. In the Mediterranean the very highly trained American Sixth Fleet suffered a serious setback with an accident when an aircraft carrier sheared off the upper deck installation of the escorting destroyer, the Bellcap, in the course of screening exercises. More recently, two British mine-sweepers collided during exercises, one of them being abandoned although she was eventually towed to port.

These are comparatively recent events, but let us look back at a very well-known accident that took place during the war. Undoubtedly the worst accident was when the Queen Mary struck right through the escorting cruiser, the Carasoa with very heavy loss of life.

What I feel must be said at this stage, is that there is credit due to the S.A. Navy for a very remarkable safety record over a period of many years. In the case of the President Kruger, the prompt and calm manner in which the whole rescue operation was conducted reflects in my opinion the real quality of the Navy and is something in which South Africans can take a very justifiable pride.

In all three of our armed services there are always lessons to be learnt and I have no doubt that the naval top command will learn from the President Kruger collision and take measures to improve general safety at sea. As I have already said, however, practising for war in time of peace will always entail a risk. One should also never forget the unrelenting pressures of sea command, never being off duty for 24 hours out of 24 while the ship is at sea and even always having to be in command of a ship in harbour.

So, speaking generally and not in any way in relation to the President Kruger, I think we all recognize that the true business of naval personnel, other than those earmarked for special counter-insurgency operations, lies at sea. I want to urge the hon. the Minister and his senior officers under him, always to bear in mind that sea time and sea experience are as important today as they ever were. I feel that there may be a natural tendency in peacetime to lay emphasis on courses ashore at the expense of hard won experience at sea. I would recommend that this tendency be watched and carefully checked.

The foolish and unilateral abandonment of the Simonstown Agreement by the British Government in 1974 brought profound changes in the position of our Navy. Up till that time and for some years later the S.A. Navy was possessed of an enviable and rather rare proficiency in anti-submarine warfare. This was freely acknowledged by the British and very much appreciated by the Royal Navy. We must not forget that the British Navy, as opposed to the British Government of the day, was as regretful at the abandonment of the Simonstown Agreement as we were at the time. But the hon. the Prime Minister, then the Minister of Defence, made it clear that the S.A. Navy would henceforth look to South Africa’s problems as a priority and might no longer feel herself committed to the defence of the Cape sea route. The West was and still is the loser. South Africa was on its own. Accordingly the Navy concentrated on the provision of missile carrying strikecraft, minesweepers, submarines and the defence of our harbours, as well as providing effective support to the other arms of the S.A. Defence Force in the form of highly trained marine units. However, recent events in both Norwegian and Swedish territorial waters have once more emphasized the serious threat posed to Western countries by the Russian submarine fleet. In two world wars Germany all but turned the tide of war in her favour by the effective use of the submarine, in fact which certainly did not escape the attention of the Russians. Today the Russians possess great numbers of submarines and they range far and wide across the oceans of the world, including the waters of the South-east Atlantic and of the Indian Ocean. For this reason I urge the hon. the Minister not to allow the anti-submarine capability of the fleet to diminish and as soon as possible to construct corvettes and frigates with anti-submarine capability as one of their main functions, if not the main function.

The House will be fully aware that our coast is notorious among sailors for the stormy nature of the seas around it. Another reason for recommending the provision of the corvette or frigate type of ship is to have ships which are capable of enduring days and nights at sea. By the use of such ships we can monitor the submarine activities of a possible enemy or the incursion of foreign fishing vessels into our economic zone. The corvette or the frigate is the most versatile of ships and apart from its very special functions of anit-submarine warfare, is a most useful maid-of-all-work in both peace and war. That is why I urge the hon. the Minister to bring forward the corvette building programme. By comparison with other beleaguered countries such as Israel our defence share of the budget is comparatively small. I think at the moment it is something like 8% whereas a few years ago it was about 16%. However, what is to me a cause for concern is the low proportion of the defence budget allocated to the Navy. South Africa, after all, I should remind hon. members, has a 3 000 mile coastline.

One of the advantages of the cancellation of the Simonstown agreement, however, is that our Navy has been made more self-reliant and, together with Armscor, it has made enormous strides in the technical field. We are well advanced in the special fields of mine counter-manoeuvres and counter-insurgency operations. Our submarine flotilla remains a source of great pride to all of us in South Africa.

The strike craft have given the Navy a new lease on life and have greatly advanced our ship-building capabilities. Co-operation between the Navy and the S.A. Air Force is closer than ever, and the maritime headquarters at Silvermine function most efficiently both in regard to general operations and air-sea rescue.

It is interesting to note that after the Falkland Islands battle the man who was appointed by the British Government to analyse the event, Lord Franks, stated specifically that the loss of facilities at Simon’s Town was a very serious handicap to the British Forces. Vice-Admiral Putter’s forthcoming visit to Chile—in fact, I think he is already there—is to be welcomed as it indicates that some countries, at least, are prepared to put their money where their mouth is. I would urge the hon. the Minister to be tireless in whatever avenues are open to him to encourage the eventual establishment of a South Atlantic Treaty Organization. The ideal in my opinion would be for Brazil, Chile, the Argentine, South Africa, and possibly Australia and New Zealand at a second level, also to co-operate at naval level. Such an organization would be a serious setback to the Soviet planners. Even if the prospects for the establishement of such a body are not bright at the moment, we must work towards it. It must be our ambition.

In conclusion I want to express a word of thanks to Adm. Edwards for what he has done for the S.A. Navy. I wish him well in his retirement. I think too that it would only be appropriate for me to conclude this short speech in the House today by paying tribute to the wonderful character of Bertie Reed, our lone yachtsman who has just sailed around the world. With men like Adm. Edwards and Adm. Putter, his successor, and men of the calibre of Bertie Reed, there is nothing much wrong with the S. A. Navy.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a relatively unique occasion in that I find myself following the hon. the Deputy Minister and having so little to disagree with in regard to what he has said. I will come back to the subject of the Navy later, but I should like to deal with defence matters rather more broadly.

I want to look at the budget itself and at the financial provisions that are made, and I want to ask whether that budget is of such a nature that it helps to meet the threat that we face in the Republic, whether we are getting the funds and the resources in order to meet that threat, whether we are preparing to fight the right war, whether we have the military hardware in order to fight this particular war and to meet the threat that exists, and whether we are using the manpower that we have available to the fullest possible extent. Lastly, I want to ask whether the population as a whole in South Africa has the degree of motivation which is necessary in order to deal with the kind of threat that the country faces. The major problem that I think has to be dealt with is the question of the understanding by the public of the problems that we have to face and the motivation of the public in order to deal with those problems.

This year happens to be the 40th anniversary of a particular incident that is unrelated to South Africa, but which I personally recall with a great degree of sadness on the one hand and pride on the other and which I think illustrates this very issue. It took the Germans no more than five days to conquer Poland, but it took them six weeks in order to deal with a few hundred starving, untrained and badly armed people who rose in the Warsaw ghetto. It took them six weeks to deal with those people and the reason for it was because the few hundred starving, virtually unarmed people who fought them were motivated, had a belief and in fact understood what it was all about. One of the things which I believe we are not achieving in South Africa is actually to get the people to understand what the threat is all about and to motivate them to act accordingly. There are very few people in South Africa today who are actually willing to make real sacrifices in respect of this problem. I believe the information that has to be conveyed to the public, and the motivation of the public, are matters that need greater attention by people not only in this House but also in the SADF as such. I therefore want to make an appeal that we devote more time to the motivation of the public to the task of the SADF.

The second matter I want to deal with is the question of the hardware that is needed. Here I draw attention to the comment that is made in the explanatory memorandum relating to the budget. It states in this explanatory memorandum—

I regard that as a highly unsatisfactory situation. I believe that we have to debate here, within the limits of what security permits, the refurbishing of much of the equipment and the re-equipment of the arms of the services that we have. We have also to ask ourselves whether in fact we are voting sufficient money in order to enable the Defence Force to carry out the task that we are asking it to do. I am not in a position in terms of the rules of this House to move for an increase of expenditure; only the Government has that authority; but I believe that there is inadequate provision in this budget for the military hardware that the Defence Force needs. This matter needs our attention and it needs it urgently.

The third matter I want to deal with is the manpower situation. Again I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that from a cost-effective point of view we are not recruiting enough personnel to the Permanent Force. This is the time to do it. The country is in a recessionary situation. The country is in a position where there is an increasing number of unemployed persons. I do not associate myself—and I want to stress this point—with any of the remarks about having a different army or defence force for every so-called nation in South Africa, and I shall come back to that in a moment. There are Black, Coloured, Indian and White persons who are unemployed whom I believe could be recruited to the Defence Force on a permanent basis. I believe that the Permanent Force—and at last, after so many years, the authorities have finally acknowledged that—is not there only to deal with training and with leadership. It is also not only there to deal with sophisticated equipment. It is there to provide fighting units, highly mobile to deal with the threat on a border, which is an extremely long one. If we accept that we must indeed recruit more people for the Permanent Force, it will make the task of the Citizen Force, of the Commandos and of the national servicemen much easier. It will relieve the burden on those people, and it will be far more cost-effective too. I want to make that plea again.

I also believe the remark made here today that “elke volk moet sy eie weermag hê” to be completely contrary to what is the motto of this country of ours. I believe that out of unity comes strength. If there is anything that the enemies of the Republic would want to see it is a division of the defence effort of this country. There is nothing more calculated to help the enemies of South Africa than to seek to divide the Defence Force into little categories. When people say they do not want to see integration in the Defence Force, and that they do not want to see people fighting together, I would ask them how it will be possible to segregate a patrol consisting of men of all races defending our borders. I have never heard anything more nonsensical in my life. [Interjections.] If, in the reality of the South African situation, Mr. Chairman, we do not keep people together, giving them something to fight for in order to solve the political problems of South Africa, while providing them with a shield, which is a multiracial shield, I believe, we are playing into the hands of the enemies of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to be able to participate in this debate after the hon. member for Yeoville. I must say one thing about him. We may perhaps disagree with him, but today he once again proved his loyalty and his positive attitude with regard to Defence Force matters. I agree with the hon. member that it is very important to note that our actions, our motivation and our approach determine the public’s attitude. Therefore, if we do not have the will to defend ourselves, no one else will defend us. That is why it is so important to spell out clearly to ourselves, as well as to the public, what the dangers threatening us are. That is why the attitude of each hon. member of this House is so important too.

For example, if one considers the attitude of the hon. member for Yeoville—a very positive attitude—one realizes that different factions or groups exist in the ranks of the official Opposition. Then, of course, there is also the attitude of the official Opposition’s chief spokesman on defence, the hon. member for Wynberg. The hon. member is a very moderate man, but apparently he is not so sure of his true attitude. Of course, we are absolutely sure about the attitudue of the hon. member for Yeoville. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Wynberg does not attack the Defence Force directly. However, his actions give rise to some doubt in one’s mind. For example, he questions the validity of the decision to set aside the De Hoop area for Defence Force purposes. However, then he neglects to suggest which area in South Africa is, in fact, suitable for that purpose. I do not know whether the hon. member realizes that if we are unable to motivate people, or his people, to repulse this onslaught, we are in any case done for, nature conservation and all. Nature conservation would be done for as well. [Interjections.] We must try to reassure people so that they have no doubt in their minds.

Of course, the actions of another hon. member of the PFP, the hon. member for Constantia, have given rise to a great deal of doubt in my mind. On the basis of his participation in debates in this House I am really unable to fathom him. I really cannot determine whether his actions and those of his kindred spirits are having a positive effect on the defence of our fatherland. I really cannot say. For example, last year the hon. member for Constantia claimed in this House, in respect of legislation on defence, that we were over-reacting when we said that our defence should be improved and extended. He also claimed here, on one occasion, that there were thousands of South Africans who were not prepared to go and defend apartheid. The public also becomes confused by this kind of attitude, since we should all be unanimous about the fact that this onslaught is not the result of apartheid. Those forces want to conquer this country of ours.

It is my contention that we should know who the international communists are and who their fellow-travellers are. The general public must understand this clearly. What confuses the public even more is the absolutely disgraceful behaviour of the hon. member for Jeppe here today. That party has the right to criticize the Defence Force, but I want to give them a word of advice. They must please remove that hon. member as their chief spokesman on defence as soon as possible. He has done our defence campaign a great deal of harm in his frantic search for publicity. He levelled accusations at us with regard to the Seychelles affair and destabilization. The hon. member is aware that as soon as he accuses South Africa of destabilization in this House, there are many newspapers that are going to give publicity to that kind of remark. Worst of all is the fact that during this time the hon. the Minister of Defence has proved that he is the person who has enabled this country of ours to defend itself. He has taken every possible step in that regard, and yet the hon. member for Jeppe tried to disparage him. This is the kind of behaviour that suits the enemies of South Africa—that one insults and disparages its leaders. I think the hon. member’s behaviour in this Committee today was disgraceful, and I think we all agree on that score.

Having said that the hon. the Minister of Defence has acted only positively in respect of the defence of this country, I want to refer to what he had to say at the beginning of the year when he introduced the Defence Amendment Bill in this House. He said—

Surely that was a message to worn us that there has been an escalation in the activities of our enemies and that we would have to take certain steps in this regard. He told us that we would have to have guaranteed manpower, that we would have to plan a more even distribution of our defence system and that we would have to improve our system of territorial defence. The hon. the Minister was quite correct. I represent Vryheid, and my constituency has been singled out for the new system of national service that has been introduced. All hon. members who have visited Vryheid can bear witness to the positive action in this regard. As far as the municipality is concerned, more than half of its council members are members of the commandos. That municipality has spent an amount of R10 000 to make that 200-man camp possible. That municipality voted R25 000 for the improvement of the site on which the commando headquarters is situated. The municipality also donated a building to the headquarters, and the mayor is also involved in the commando. The former mayor is involved in the commando as well. Three of the councillors also took part in the one-week training course. This shows a positive attitude.

We are extremely grateful to the hon. the Minister of Defence for taking immediate steps when other organizations and I approached him because there had been an escalation in activities in that area and asked him who was going to defend us. He also received letters about that from a number of municipalities. The hon. the Minister replied to the municipality and to the people of Vryheid personally. He said: “You are going to defend yourselves.” We want to thank him most sincerely for making it possible for us to defend ourselves. The hon. the Minister was responsible for this system being put into operation very successfully within a year. The reports which appeared in the newspapers also mentioned the positive actions of the people who were involved in this. This is proof of the success that has been achieved in this regard in that area. Officers of the Defence Force were on hand on various occasions to ensure the success of this campaign. It has been so successful that my neighbouring constituencies have asked to be shown how to defend themselves as well. The SADF went about this task in a fine spirit and co-operated with the mining industry by asking them which men they could spare. They chose and trained only 200 of a few thousand men who were considered for service under this system. Those 200 men were designated by the mine-workers, as well as by the farmers and businessmen. They were the men who could be spared. No one under the age of 30 or over the age of 52 was chosen. The people also understand that there is a greater need in some areas than in others.

The men involved in this are asking when they will be called upon again. They say that they only realize now that they cannot shoot as well as they thought. The SADF does not come and order us around. They do not come to humiliate us, but from morning to night they give us useful information and lectures and they provide shooting practice, and so on. The men involved in this are the first to admit that they were unable to defend themselves. The SADF does not want to take our men and women away; they want to teach our men how to defend the area. The responsibility for the defence of that area must come from the ranks of the people, all the inhabitants of that specific area, viz. Utrecht, Vryheid and Paulpietersburg. They are all prepared to be taught to do that. All the inhabitants, White and non-White, want to assist in keeping that area safe, since it is true that as a result of its proximity to Mozambique and Swaziland that area is situated in the path of the onslaught against us. Incidents to prove this have already occurred.

We thank the hon. the Minister for his foresight in that he already knew one year in advance that unrest of this nature would occur. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I take pleasure in being able to participate in this debate after the hon. member for Vryheid. I could find no fault with what he had to say. In fact, I think he made a very good speech.

I should like to react to what the hon. member Mr. Vermeulen said earlier this afternoon when he congratulated 1 SSB on their fiftieth anniversary. I underwent my military training at 1 SSB in Tempe in Bloemfontein in 1957.

Look what he looks like now. [Interjections.]

I do not know whether I SSB would be proud of this product of theirs.

This afternoon I should like this Committee to focus the spotlight briefly on some of the many activities and achievements of Armscor. Of course, time does not allow one to mention all of these, but other hon. members will refer to them later this afternoon.

Armaments production in South Africa can be traced back to the Second World War. From 1939 to 1945 an impressive quantity of 303 ammunition, 25-pounder bombs, hand-grenades, as well as armoured cars were manufactured in South Africa. Since that time, from an Advisory Committee on UDF Equipment Requirements in 1948 which became the Defence Resources Board in 1949, Armscor has developed and grown, into one of the largest industrial undertakings in the Republic of South Africa today with assets of more than R1 500 million, and an employer of approximately 26 000 people of all races. I shall come back to this in a moment.

International pressure against the supply of arms to South Africa since the Second World War culminated in the acceptance of a compulsory arms embargo against the Republic on 4 November 1977, a ban which is being effectively implemented and which could very easily have brought us to our knees. However, the foresight and vision of consecutive Ministers of Defence, and the present hon. Prime Minister in particular, together with the various chiefs of the Defence Force over the years, and the present the hon. the Minister of Defence as well, has saved South Africa from—what I would call—a humiliating and bloody downfall.

We on this side of the Committee, as well as hon. members of the Opposition had the opportunity last year of taking a closer look at this organization. Without exception, we were all tremendously impressed with what Armscor has achieved and with what is still being done. Under the competent leadership of Comdt. Piet Marais, the chairman of Armscor—and those of us who know him, can only shy that he is truly a remarkable man—as well as the former and present general managers of Armscor, Mr. John Maree and Mr. Fred Bell, this organization has grown into a giant among the industrial giants of South Africa, an organization which, although it is run on public funds, realizes that the private sector is of the utmost importance to us and it therefore allows 70% of its requirements, its arms orders, to be manufactured by the private sector today. Together with a management team, financial and other experts, they have turned Armscor into a credit to our fatherland. This is an organization that captures the imagination with the technological and other marvels it has accomplished, but it is also an organization of which the hon. the Prime Minister once said that the development of people was perhaps Armscor’s greatest achievement. Armscor’s products are proof of the success that has been achieved with this and of the extraordinary display of managerial skill with which they were launched. We are all extremely proud of Armscor, and it is time we told them so in this House.

As proud as we were to see the achievements of Armscor, we found it just as perturbing to see that the factories were working at half capacity last year, that work benches were empty and that people even had to be laid off. We know that that state of affairs was unavoidable in view of the decreasing requirements of the S.A. Defence Force and the absolute necessity for keeping the prices of products as low as possible. We are also aware of the fact that the retrenchment of staff was carried out in a very sympathetic and responsible way. In each case, people’s circumstances were taken into account—I was personally involved in some of these cases. This was done without affecting the preparedness of Armscor in any way. We dare not allow Armscor’s vigilance to be relaxed for a moment. As we heard here once again this afternoon, we in South Africa are living in a time of a false peace.

In order to overcome the problem of sufficient markets for Armscor’s products effectively, it has become an extremely important priority to enter the foreign arms market on a much larger scale, a market with an enormous annual turnover of R400 000 million. However, this market is tremendously competitive, and the prices of products are of vital importance. In order to be able to market successfully in the foreign arena, Armscor has to increase its productivity to the extent that the prices of its products compare favourably with others internationally. Excellent progress has been made in the sphere of the improvement of productivity during the past year. Conclusive evidence of this lies in the fact that many of the prices of Armscor products showed little or no increases during the 1983-’84 financial year, despite large increases in input costs and the cost of spare capacity. This situation is the result of continued managerial campaigns, and often a great deal of sacrifice on the part of staff members of the corporation.

I want to mention the most important campaigns which have been carried out. Staff numbers in the manufacturing subsidiaries of Armscor were reduced during the 1982-’83 financial year. I want to emphasize that this reduction was brought about by not filling posts which became vacant in the normal course of events. The structure of the Armscor group of companies was also rationalized and made as streamlined as possible. Sound progress was made in the field of quality control, as well as the active involvement of staff at all levels in solving problems at work. For example, principles of management which were refined very successfully, inter alia, in Japan, were used.

There is another very important point. In contrast with certain other industries in our country, Armscor is able to boast of a record of harmonious labour relations in its factories. So often this state of affairs is the result of sound communication between management and workers, of effective procedures to deal with grievances and disciplinary matters, as well as of sound conditions of employment and circumstances which exist in Armscor’s places of work. I believe that since we have done everything possible to be able to be competitive, we ask Armscor, as well as the hon. the Minister today please to continue purposefully with an intensified marketing campaign to enter the world arms markets. Armscor’s products are the best in the world. They have been tested under operational conditions and there is more than enough evidence to prove this. Armscor is a reliable supplier. We do not believe in embargoes and things like that. Wherever and whenever we are able, we must sell to friendly countries. This is in the best interests of everyone in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the Conservative Party fully associates itself with everything the hon. member for Verwoerdburg said in respect of Armscor. However, I want to come back to the subject the hon. member for Vryheid dealt with, viz. the first week-long commando camp that was held.

It was my pleasure and privilege to have been able to visit a commando in a rural area, together with a few hon. colleagues, including the hon. the Minister of Defence, at the friendly invitation of Gen. Viljoen, Chief of the S.A. Defence Force. I am very pleased that three members of the PFP were also present on that occasion. Since we debated this new system of military service last year, I wondered whether they were not a little ashamed of the standpoints they had adopted then in respect of compulsory military service. In Vryheid we saw that this was absolutely the right thing for South Africa. There we saw how the provisions of the new Defence Act were being implemented in practice. I am pleased that we had that opportunity. The message we were able to take back to our rural areas, was that this system works; in fact, it works extremely well. If it works well in the Vryheid commando, there is no reason why it should not work well in any country commando in any place in South Africa.

We visited this commando just after the conclusion of first week-long camp under the new system. A certain number of able-bodied men under the age of 42 years were called up in Vryheid, and a certain number of men up to the age of 52 years in Paul-pietersburg and Utrecht. At that stage the competent commanders were able to provide feedback on the problems which had arisen. This information will be of great value to other commando’s as well.

What was the experience of this commando? Within three days of the despatch of almost 3 000 registration forms, including an information manual, 50% had been returned. The manual contained all the information about arrangements for transport, leave, and so on; everything a person who has been called up should know. It was drawn up in very concise, military language, so that the men would realize that they would be subject to military discipline. As far as the forms were concerned, there were eventually only four men absent from among those who had received call-up papers. Each one of those cases was investigated and those men all had valid reasons. What was also interesting, was that many inquiries were received from people who had not been called up on that occasion, to ask why they had not been called up. What does this prove? Precisely what we envisaged with the introduction of that particular legislation. Because the burden is now being spread more evenly, and voluntary service is, in fact, being done away with, the public has changed its attitude completely, and at this stage we are therefore rapidly on the way to achieving the ideal of a people’s defence force. This will be the most effective situation in the particular circumstances in which we find ourselves. We have no doubt about that.

In addition, experience taught us that thorough planning and timeous evaluation must be carried out by experienced training instructors and commanders, including refresher courses in advance for instructors. For example, an effective marketing campaign must be launched in advance. Information on the forms has to be accurate and complete. The intake and dismissal procedures, i.e. issues and medical examinations, must run smoothly. In this particular case, they were able to carry out all these procedures within two hours, both at the beginning and at the end of the camp. There must be closer liaison with organized agriculture, with local authorities—as the hon. member for Vryheid justifiably pointed out—and with large undertakings such as the mines, whose positive co-operation and sound attitude contributed to a large extent to the success of this particular camp.

During the course of their training, these men learnt to carry out a number of tasks, such as for example, the protection of national key points, assistance and information to civil defence campaigns, follow-up operations, the patrolling of areas, dealing with bomb threats and assisting the S.A. Police with road blocks, etc. When we consider that this commando operates in one of the most strategic areas under Northern Natal Command, where four incidents of terrorism and three cases of sabotage have already taken place, and where two arms caches have already been found, I want to say this afternoon that the results of this one-week camp were such that the protection of that area and coverage of information were already vastly improved in that particular area.

Since we are on the threshold of this kind of organization of our commandos throughout South Africa, it is imperative that the hon. the Minister should give us a decisive answer concerning the practical implementation and organization of the S.A. Defence Force, and the commandos in particular, as a joint department in the new dispensation. I find it reprehensible in the extreme that the hon. member for Kroonstad—I regret that he is not present here now—this afternoon accused the hon. member for Jeppe of seeking to politicize the Defence Force. The hon. member for Jeppe repeated three times that he was criticizing the political head, who should be the target of political criticism, and not the S.A. Defence Force. The hon. member for Kroonstad accused the hon. member for Jeppe of wanting to drag politics into the debate. The reply the hon. the Minister promised us earlier this year must be given now. The decision which voters have to make is not a decision on the S.A. Defence Force—they have no problem on that score—but they want to know whether there is going to be integration of Whites, Coloureds and Indians in the S.A. Defence Force, and in the commandos in particular. That is why it is imperative that clarity be furnished on that score.

The principle of the new constitution was approved by this Parliament only last night. Therefore the hon. the Minister must now tell us honestly and clearly, firstly, whether compulsory military service is also going to be extended to Coloureds and Indians in South Africa. We must know this in order to be able to make the other decision. Secondly, we must know whether the S.A. Defence Force, and the commandos in particular, are going to operate on a fully integrated basis. I want to repeat the standpoint I adopted last year, as well as the standpoint of the CP in this regard, particularly in respect of the commando system of the Defence Force. A commando develops into a rightly-knit unit. A great deal of pride and cameraderie develops among members of the commando. They develop that team spirit and sense of belonging which is closely linked to a feeling of “own” national pride and “own” freedom. Surely that is true. To the members of the commando, the special badges they wear on their sleeves, as well as the shoulder flashes, are symbolic of this. They cannot share this with others enthusiastically—it is impossible—just as the lack of enthusiasm about the new constitution of hon. members on the other side of the House has been clearly illustrated over the past three days. [Interjections.] Surely one cannot be enthusiastic about one’s own funeral, as the hon. member for Lichtenburg said. The reply we want from the hon. the Minister today is whether Whites, Coloureds and Indians are going to be accommodated in the same way in one commando, from the command structure to the ordinary members of the commando, in the same way as these population groups are going to be accommodated in the new dispensation in one Sate hierarchy. The hon. the Minister owes the public this one political reply in respect of the S.A. Defence Force. Everyone should know what they are letting themselves in for in the new dispensation, in respect of the Defence Force as well. Hon. members on that side of the House have on occasion said in public that there could, in fact, be an Indian Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall not be following up on the point made in the hon. member for Pietersburg’s speech. The hon. the Minister will give him a satisfactory reply.

Today I want to speak about the invalidity of the destabilization claim being made against the Republic of South Africa. The idea of apartheid no longer elicits the same emotional reaction against the Republic of South Africa in the United Nations. That is why it has been replaced by the term “destabilization”. Destabilization can take various forms, including economic and military destabilization, and South Africa’s neighbours are accusing it, amongst other things, of destabilization. The Republic of South Africa is the strongest State in Southern Africa, with the strongest economy and the strongest Defence Force. I want to make the point that the Republic of South Africa has the greatest possible interest in stability here on the Southern tip of the continent. Internal conditions in neighbouring countries very easily waft across the borders and are therefore of great importance in South Africa where neighbouring States are economically interdependent. Stability in the area can only promote peace, security and prosperity. It would also create conditions in which we could promote the system of free enterprise. It would also facilitate the combating of communism in Southern Africa.

We regard the accusation levelled at us as an excuse or justification for Soviet involvement in the area. Soviet-inspired destabilization in the area is conveniently forgotten. A question that must be considered when the charge of destabilization is considered, is whether South Africa has any reason to destabilize its neighbouring States. In the past few years we have chiefly received complaints of destabilization from four neighbouring countries, i.e. Angola, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Lesotho. A striking characteristic of the Governments of all four of these countries is that they have extensive internal political and economic problems.

Let me refer briefly to the problems they are faced with. Firstly Angola. In Angola the MPLA regime, as we know, is being challenged by Unita. Unita is engaged in guerilla warfare in the southern area of Angola. In order to retain political power, the MPLA is largely dependent on the 30 000 Cuban troups in the country, as well as troups from other countries. Angola’s economy, in particular its agriculture, is suffering a great deal at the moment as a result of this civil war that is dragging on. As far as Mozambique is concerned, the Portuguese handed over power to Frelimo without properly having tested the political climate at the time. Since then the Government of President Samora Machel has been trying to convert Mozambican society into a marxist-socialist society. In this period thousands of trained Portuguese have left the area. In the last few years the MNR has been fighting a low-intensity war against Frelimo in many parts of the territory.

What is happening in Lesotho? There Prime Minister Jonathan launched a coup d’état in 1970 that put him in power. Subsequently he held a general election, but lost that election, but instead of handing over power to the Opposition Party that won the election, he had the election declared invalid, suspended the constitution and declared a kind of political holiday. That political holiday has lasted right up to the present day. The leaders of the official Opposition, the Basutoland Congress Party, have fled, and they have a military wing, the Basuto Liberation Army, which has since been involved in a struggle with the Government.

In Zimbabwe Mr. Mugabe’s Government is continually involved in riots and violence, particularly in Matabeleland. A positive point, however, is that Mr. Mugabe’s government has banned ANC bases in Zimbabwe. As far as we in the Republic of South Africa are concerned, Mr. Mugabe, as the ruler in Zimbabwe, is perhaps to be preferred to another unknown ruler, who would perhaps allow ANC bases to be established there. We therefore really have no reason to destabilize Zimbabwe.

Marxist countries use the charge of destabilization against South Africa to hide their own efforts at enslavement. South Africa’s policy is one of peaceful co-existence, and since 1970 we have been extending invitations to our neighbouring countries to conclude non-aggression treaties with us. Our present discussions with Angola, which hon. members are thoroughly familiar with, and our discussions with other neighbouring countries, are indicative of our desire for constructive co-operation between States on this southern tip of the continent.

South Africa is the stabilizing force in Southern Africa, and we have many examples to illustrate this. I am going to name a few. From those examples, it will be obvious that we do not play a negative or destructive role, but indeed a positive and constructive one for the promotion of stability on this continent.

Let me give my first example. We have always been prepared to furnish our neighbouring countries with large quantities of grain and other foodstuffs, whether they have been politically hostile to us or not. For example, South Africa began with a ploughing-and-planting programme in Lesotho, backed up at the time by loan financing from South Africa. South Africa’s highly developed transport infrastructure is the development artery of this continent. This infrastructure is used by all our immediate neighbours, and even by far-off countries such as Zaire and Zambia. I have figures here that indicate what quantities of imports and exports from our neighbouring countries are handled in our harbours. In this connection I want to refer to statistics for the period 1 April 1981 to 31 March 1982. As far as imports through our harbours are concerned, the figure for Zimbabwe is more than 264 000 metric tons, that for Zambia more than 59 000 metric tons, that for Zaire more than 4 000 metric tons, and the figure for Botswana more than 3 000 metric tons.

On the other hand, as far as exports from our harbours are concerned, the figure for Zimbabwe is more than 468 000 metric tons, for Zambia more than 78 000 metric tons, for Zaire more than 312 000 metric tons and for Botswana more than 1 000 metric tons.

The South African economy also offers large-scale job opportunities for the citizens of nearby Black States, amongst others Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique and Swaziland. As an example of this, let me refer to Lesotho, an enclave, completely surrounded by South Africa. 141 000 workers from Lesotho are working in South Africa. This figure represents more than half of the adult Black people in that country. The money they take home represents more than 40% of Lesotho’s gross national product.

There is another example I should like to refer to, and that is the hospital facilities of the Republic, facilities which are utilized by our neighbouring countries, on a large-scale, for specialized medical treatment. In the year ended 30 September 1982 the following numbers of patients visited our hospitals from neighbouring States for specialized treatment: Botswana 91; Swaziland 114; Lesotho 735; Mauritius 156, etc. We also offer a special nurses’ training programme for nursing staff from Malawi. Then we also have special groups of doctors, for example, who furnish specialized medical services in Lesotho. Annually Onderstepoort provides millions of doses of vaccine to Africa.

In conclusion I want to point out that Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland are all signatories of the Customs Union Agreement signed in 1910. Some of them receive more money from that customs pool than from any other single source of revenue at their disposal.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria East actually raised a very interesting subject, the subject of South Africa’s relations with neighbouring States. It is, however, not my intention to react directly to that because I want to raise a similar point towards the end of my speech. The point I want to debate today in this House is the question of revolutionary warfare because I think there is a tendency in this House for the official Opposition and the governming party not to talk to one another but actually to talk past one another. I gain the impression sometimes that hon. members on that side of the House feel that we in the PFP are oblivious or unaware of the threat that South Africa is facing from internal and external agitators. That is not correct because if one is an MP and one lives in a constituency where there are young people, one is very much aware of the fact that South Africa is involved in a war because it is one’s own constituents who are often being injured in that war. The PFP is aware that there is such a threat and what I would like to do is to define how we see that threat.

Are you referring to a just or an unjust war?

That is totally irrelevant. We believe that South Africa is involved in a revolutionary war. We believe that in this type of war we are dealing with political subversion. It actually starts with political subversion and usually in areas where Government influence is weak; in other words, in rural areas or among population groups where the link between the Government and that group is not all that good. It then proceeds by both peaceful and violent persuasion to the political organization of the area until such time as the inhabitants of that particular area support the cause of those terrorists. These pockets are then used for further subversion and for the development of military activity that normally takes the form of guerrilla warfare. We believe that the intention is then to move from guerrilla warfare to regular warfare either in order to defeat the South African armed forces or to wear out our capacity to resist. We can also be defeated by an unsatisfactory negotiation at a political negotiating table. We believe that one of the critical problems facing South Africa today is how successfully to overcome this threat of revolutionary war that has been posed against us. How do we do this? We have to consider the conditions that are necessary for this type of subversion to be successful and in this regard I should like to consider four factors.

Firstly, if terrorism in South Africa is going to be successful then it needs a cause, it needs popular support. It seems obvious but it is true. T. E. Lawrence who waged a very successful guerrilla war himself wrote an article in Encyclopaedia Britannica on guerrilla warfare in which he said that the active support of only 2% of the population was needed. Therefore, we are not talking about widespread support. We are talking about the support of a small group.

One of the leading exponents of the theory of modern revolutionary warfare, S. P. Huntington, has said that—

One can look at this almost as a bloody election campaign. Instead of fighting one another at the hustings we actually fight one another in a war.

Secondly, the guerrilla needs an effective organization with established bases. Thirdly, he needs a suitable environment, an environment in which he can move around fairly easily and often for the purpose of guerrilla warfare as was the case in Algeria. An urban environment can be a very satisfactory one but he also needs an environment which hopefully on his part will make it very difficult for the counter-revolutionary force to move about. Fourthly—and it is in this regard that I found the point raised by the hon. member for Pretoria East so interesting—he needs secure internal or external bases. I want to come back to this particular point at a later stage in my speech.

To counteract revolutionary warfare successfully I believe that we must do the following: Firstly, we must show that we have the determination to fight the threat even though it takes time. Communist theory is that a democracy or a government that relies on electoral support will not have the will to withstand a long drawn out threat. That is the one thing we have to show. Secondly, looking at it from a military point of view, I believe that we need a combination of static or area defence together with highly mobile units similar to the Scout Rangers in the Philippines. I think the British were also very successful in Malaya with that. One needs such units so that one can quickly counter any terrorist incursion. Thirdly, we need an effective intelligence system and fourthly we need to nullify the terrorists’ appeal to certain key groups in South Africa.

I want to quote something that Mao Tse tung said—I believe this is very important—

I was very interested in what the hon. the Minister said when he opened the debate. I believe that if we look at the military aspects of the problem we can say that the military have achieved their objectives. By that I do not mean that they must become complacent because the threat is going to evaporate, but I believe that militarily we have achieved our objective. We have shown that we are not going to abdicate. I think to that extent we have broken the military staying power of our enemy. We have ensured the safety of population and territory.

I spent part of my childhood in Kenya during the Mau Mau emergency, and there one got to know the feeling of fear. We do not have that feeling in South Africa. We have, I believe, a combination of area-bound defence and mobile striking forces to counteract.

Although we have achieved our military objectives, we must not be complacent because I think we have only solved 20% of the problem. I come back to the hon. the Minister’s statement that the problem is 20% military and 80% social, political and economic. Military might on its own is not enough; we shall not win the war merely by military might. In this connection one can look at what happened to the USA in Vietnam and one can look at what is happening to Israel at the present moment. It is a regional super power without any shadow of doubt. It most probably has the best equipped, the best trained and the best motivated army in the Middle East, but instead of its military might bringing it peace, it is bringing it escalating confrontation.

In South Africa we can only win the war totally, I believe, if we create the social, political and economic conditions also which will make it difficult for terrorists to get large-scale support. This is a sine qua non. It goes with military activity. We must remember that our objective is not only to defeat the enemy, but also to win the support of the total population and that includes the Black population. This is critical.

Let us look at Rhodesia. I think the tragedy of Rhodesia is that they never came to terms with the subtle battle against their fellow Black Rhodesians. One has to be sophisticated in this sort of thing. The policy of White “baasskap”, apartheid and so forth will no longer work. The Rhodesians saw the solution as a military one, because it was easier to measure success in terms of military victories, rather than coming to terms with the need to progress towards a political solution.

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to afford the hon. member for Edenvale the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip on the opposite side for affording me the opportunity to complete my speech.

†We have reached a situation of military stalemate in South Africa. I believe that the States on our borders, whether they like it or not, must acknowledge that we are not going to be easily defeated. They must realize that the battle is going to be a long drawn-out one and they must realize that continuing conflict will drain their economy.

You must put it the other way. You must say that they must realize that we are going to win.

I shall come back to that. Likewise, although we may be able to defeat them militarily—and there is no doubt about it that we can—we know that, while they continue to allow their countries to be used as bases for terrorist incursion, the resources we can use in developing the whole of the country are going to be drained. That is an important point. Eventually the situation will emerge that nobody in Southern Africa will emerge as the winner. I think we will all emerge as losers. If this is so, I believe we must now make every effort to reach some sort of modus vivendi with our neighbours. That is why I found the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria East interesting. It is not because we like our neighbours or do not like our neighbours, or because we believe we have a mission to fulfil in South Africa: We must reach a modus vivendi with them because it is in our own naked self-interest to do so. That is really the only thing we as South Africans should be concerned about.

I believe we have achieved our military objective. I believe that the Defence Force has won us time. We should be thankful for that. The critical question for South Africa is what the politicians, what we in this House, will do with the time we have been granted. Others were successful militarily but failed politically and paid the price. I believe we must not squander the time the Defence Force has won for us.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by expressing hearty congratulations to Krygkor for the fine arms exhibition held in Athens at the end of last year. The success South Africa achieved there is of incalculable value.

South Africa is a fine country and has many wonderful possibilities that will never be realized if we do not succeed in preserving peace and warding off the potential revolutionary onslaught. There are those who, from a moral point of view, regard a revolutionary onslaught as a way in which oppressed peoples can right the grievances they have against their oppressors. There are also those who see it as nothing but a communist ploy to achieve world domination, and therefore also domination of the RSA.

There are various approaches. One of the chief approaches is that although revolutionary wars were perhaps not originally inspired, organized and directed by communists, the revolutionaries will indeed obtain moral support and encouragement from international communism and, where circumstances allow, also specialist advice and material support. The revolutionary leader, communist or national, tends to adopt communist tactics and welcomes support. It is clear that southern Africa offers revolutionaries a singular opportunity because nationalism, and the struggle against so-called colonialism and racism, at present the mortal sin of the international world, offer the revolutionary effort and its communist aids a tag of respectability, quite apart from any expansionist motives.

As far as the Republic of South Africa is concerned, it is unnecessary to say that we are experiencing a revolutionary onslaught. The Rivonia case, as far back as 1963, the advent of the ANC and the PAC and a myriad other Black Power organizations, news reports of terrorist onslaughts, the discovery of arms-caches and bombings all emphasize this fact. Communist involvement in this onslaught is also a fact. This is borne out by the origin of the arms and the places where the revolutionaries are trained. During a visit to Southern Africa in 1977 President Podgorny said—

The total onslaught has, in a simplified form, political, economic, psychological and military components. It is, however, an indirect onslaught in which military force plays a scant role. The various components, seen as a whole, reveal themselves in three forms of conflict.

The first is a psychological conflict by means of propaganda aimed at inciting in the masses and paralysing the Government. The second is revolutionary conflict or terrorism which, in our case, is of current concern. Revolutionary warfare has gripped the imaginations of many non-military intellectuals, thereby assuming the undeserved guise of unassailability. It remains the weapon of those who are weaker and who can only succeed if their opponents, will to resist crumbles. Thus far the RSA has chiefly encountered efforts at urban insurrection. This attracts international attention, which in itself is a revolutionary objective. The rural areas, however, are also potential trouble-spots, particularly where they border on hostile States. As far as the RSA is concerned, the factors contributing to the phenomenon are obvious. It is a total onslaught, because revolutionaries make use of all possible means. It is an indirect onslaught, because in the final instance revolutionaries do not have sufficient material means to undertake a direct onslaught. It is a kind of strategy, because the revolutionary is in conflict with the existing order which he would like to destroy. The struggle is aimed at drastic socio-political changes and is not so much aimed at capturing land area, but rather the spirit of the people. The population must be persuaded to rise up against the existing order and overthrow the Government. The onslaught is normally of low military intensity. In fact, the strategy is aimed at persuasion, whilst in a more orthodox form of warfare, persuasion is used to back up force. The onslaught is also a prolonged one. In order to compensate for their military weakness, the revolutionaries must develop moral power and make the maximum use of time. Revolutionaries also have external ties. Internal revolution has become a handy instrument in power politics, and without foreign support successful revolution is virtually unthinkable. To achieve their revolutionary objectives, revolutionaries firstly endeavour to obtain the support of the population; secondly they strive for self-preservation and expansion; thirdly, they endeavour to destroy the enemy’s will to resist and, fourthly, they endeavour to destroy the existing order and the Government’s physical power. What must a Government do when faced by such an onslaught?

Firstly the threat must be neutralized by way of political initiatives in order to reveal the false image of a racial struggle in the RSA and present the true image of an ideological conflict. This also embodies the elimination of bottle-necks, friction, dissatisfaction and tension. If we do our social and political job correctly in this way, we can avoid having to do the military job.

Secondly there is the maintenance of good relations, on the home front, between White people, Brown people and Black people. This would be the strongest factor in discouraging the enemy. We must also have all population groups involved in this struggle. We must seek to maintain and develop our will to resist. We must also ensure military preparedness as a stabilizing factor to deter potential aggressors, at the same time creating the necessary elbow-room for political initiatives. This means that there is one outstanding necessity, that of maintaining sound attitudes, by word and deed, so as to convince those, who are dissatisfied with the present dispensation, of the possibility of evolutionary change rather than the destruction of the existing order. That is the task of each one of us.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon. member for Middelburg has spoken, because his very positive speech was worthy of this debate.

My subject links up with that of the hon. member for Middelburg. I want to speak about the total onslaught against South Africa, a subject that has received quite a bit of attention and has had quite a few repercussions. When we on this side of the House motivate the people of our country to increase their preparedness in the light of the threat against South Africa, there are people in Opposition ranks who try to disparage this by saying that we are exaggerating it for political gain and that there is no total onslaught against South Africa. This evening I want to make the statement that there is indeed a total onslaught against South Africa. I am going to try to analyse and prove this statement.

When we speak of a total onslaught, this does not mean that South Africa does not have friends. On the contrary, South Africa has many friends. During a recent tour abroad we again experienced the fact that South Africa has many good friends in France and the United Kingdom who stand by us. When we speak about a total onslaught, however, we are speaking of it in the sense of a comprehensive onslaught. It is an onslaught that is complete in its scope. It is an onslaught which gives South Africa no respite in any sphere. The total onslaught against South Africa is nothing new. Nor is it a new strategy. It has been going on for many years. We all know how long a campaign has been waged against us to boycott our products. It has been far longer than a decade that our sportsmen have been banned from international sports meetings. The arms boycott against us has been in force for much longer than is generally known. The pressure on companies to withdraw their investments from South Africa is not a recent development.

In no other sphere, however, does this onslaught manifest itself more clearly than specifically in the security field. The terrorist struggle against South Africa is gaining increasingly more teeth. The proof of this lies in the presence of more than 28 000 Marxist military experts in hostile neighbouring states, the build-up of Soviet missile systems and of reasonably advanced air defence systems in these neighbouring states. For the past five years there has also been an increase of more than 200% in the number of tanks and fighter aircraft in the neighbouring states around us. The Russians are off-loading tons and tons of weapons in Africa. In Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Zambia there are more than 700 tanks.