I move—

This Bill is the logical consequence of the agreement entered into between the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in terms of which the Prohibition of Improper Interference Bill was referred to a Select Committee. This Select Committee should have the opportunity to go into the whole matter, and the Select Committee will then submit its report and perhaps bring up an amended Bill. In the meantime it is necessary to extend the term of office of the Coloured Representatives in this House. This Bill consists of only two clauses. The first clause provides that the term of office of the present Coloured Representatives in this House, which expires on 3rd October, shall be extended to not later than 27th October next year. The second clause provides that in case a vacancy should occur in the ranks of the Coloured Representatives, such vacancy shall not be filled until such time as the Select Committee has submitted its report and other provision has been made. Accordingly, if a vacancy occurs between 3rd October this year and 27th October next year, such vacancy will, in terms of Clause 2 of this Bill, not be filled. This is also in accordance with and proceeds from the clear statement that the Government does not intend to allow one population group to interfere with the political affairs of another. I have no other explanations to give; I think it is clear what this Bill is all about, and what principles are involved in this measure. I therefore have pleasure in moving the Second Reading, all the more since this is an agreed measure between this side of the House and the official Opposition.

We on this side of the House support this Bill. It is in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into between the hon. the Prime Minister and ourselves. We appreciate very fully the necessity for time to consider this matter in all its aspects, and we appreciate also the necessity of Clause 2 of the Bill which, I think, flows from the fact that there is dissatisfaction in respect of the manner in which registration is being conducted and in respect of the state of the roll at the present time. In those circumstances I support the motion of the hon. the Minister.

It really goes without question, as everybody in this House knows, that I do not intend to support this measure. Sir, last year when a very similar measure was introduced in this House with the same object in view, and that is the postponement of the election for the Coloured Representatives in this House, we had a long explanation from the then Minister of Coloured Affairs. He then gave us his reasons for postponing the elections for the Coloured Representatives. He said that he did not think that the Coloured people should be affected by the contingencies which may arise as the result of clashes between political parties which, amongst other things, are involved in a struggle to get into power. That was the explanation which the then Minister of Coloured Affairs gave this House when he postponed the elections. I do not imagine that anybody was really deceived by this rather specious nonsense, not even the hon. member for Peninsula. The hon. member refrained from voting for that Bill last year but he did in fact speak in support of it. He thought that perhaps he could improve a little on the hon. the Minister’s explanation; in fact he did not come up with anything much better, but he warned us at that stage that it would be quite wrong for us to look for “hidden ulterior motives which may never materialize”. Apparently he took the Bill that was presented by the then Minister of Coloured Affairs at its face value, and that is that it was simply an effort to postpone the elections because the Coloured people should be divorced from the general trend of the general elections in South Africa. He then told us that he thought in any case that it would be in the interests of the Coloured people because—I quote his own words—

That is what the hon. member told us last year when the elections which were due last October were put forward a year. Well, Sir, if ever there was an example of the elections for Coloured Representatives and the term of office of the Coloured Representatives being at the whim of the Government I should say that this Bill which the hon. the Minister has now introduced is such an example. I should hope, therefore, that the hon. member for Peninsula will vote with me against the second reading of this Bill to show his disapproval of the Coloured election being at the whim of the Government. After all, the term of five years has now gone by the board. The five years comes to an end this year and there is no reason therefore, in terms of the hon. member’s own words, not to stick to the fixed term, and therefore he ought to vote against this Bill.

I want to say also that last year the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was also not taken in by the specious excuses and explanations given to this House by the then Minister of Coloured Affairs. His spokesman at that time took the strongest possible line against the Bill, which had a similar effect to this one, being introduced into the House. His spokesman, who was the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, moved an amendment that the Bill be read this day six months, the strongest possible form of Parliamentary objection, and in moving that amendment to the Bill introduced last year and which postponed the elections then, he said—

And he went on to say that “it constitutes a further tampering with the political position of the Coloured man which the Coloured man is bound to resent”. In moving his amendment which, as I said, is the strongest form of parliamentary objection, he said:

“We consider it a piece of political manipulation.” Well, I think he was right. I think the hon. member for Bezuidenhout who spoke on behalf of the official Opposition last year was absolutely right in his summing up of that Bill as being a “piece of political manipulation”. It was that. All the dark suspicions we had at that time that the Bill was not simply being introduced to divorce the Coloured man from the major political issues of the day, and that it was not simply to fix the term of office for a fixed period of five years for the Coloured Representatives, but that there was another motive behind it, were in fact justified when we saw the Bill that finally emerged from the extension of time which the Government gave itself to consider the further measures it was going to take in connection with the limitation of the rights of the Coloured people to choose their own representatives in this House. I, of course, continue to have the same dark suspicions of the motives behind this Bill, but this time they are no longer even suspicions; they are in fact positive convictions and I might say that the introductory speech by the hon. the Minister this afternoon has confirmed those convictions. We know the objectives behind this Bill and we know precisely what the Government is up to, in spite of the specious excuses.

The real purpose of this Bill is of course the same as that of last year’s Bill, and that is to try to give the Government sufficient time to find a formula whereby it can restrict the rights of the Coloured people to choose the representatives they want in this House, to the sort of people of whom the Government approves. That is the object and the motive. It is to give the Government time to find a formula, and I should warn the sitting representatives that if the Government is unable to come up with a formula, in terms of all the dire warnings we have had about the road the Government intends to take, from the Prime Minister and other hon. members on that side, I have no doubt that the Government will scrap the representation that the Coloured people have in this House and out they will go, these sitting members, preserved in their own jelly. In the meantime the “poor Coloured people”, to use the words of the hon. member for Peninsula, will be saddled with the same representatives whom they elected way back in 1961 when, I might add, they did not have very much choice. They had to choose between one political party which was presenting a policy of modified race discrimination or between so-called independent Coloured members who also did not express themselves very strongly on the issue of the removal of all the difficulties, political and otherwise, of the Coloured people, and the so-called independent National Party candidates who stood in that election.

Why did your party not put up candidates then?

That is quite irrelevant, but if the hon. member really wants to know, my party did not stand because at that time the Coloured people were so disgusted at the way in which they were being treated, that they wished us to have no part in it. But since then, Coloured leaders themselves have told us and the country through their public utterances that they want our party to fight the seats. [Interjections.] Even if hon. members do not believe me, I do not really think that this is relevant, and I will tell hon. members why not. I believe it is not relevant because I believe that if the Coloured people did not want to put Progressive Party candidates into office they simply would not vote for them.

By whom were they nominated?

They were nominated by Coloured voters on the voters’ roll, just as the hon. member was nominated by two voters on the White voters’ roll. [Interjections.] And the hon. member very nearly was not nominated at all, but I will not go into that now. The point is that I think it is the gravest insult to the Coloured people to assume, as the Government assumes and as the Opposition assumes and as the sitting representatives of the Coloured people assume, that the Coloured people do not have the intelligence to decide for themselves who their real friends are. What a piece of impertinence from members of this House to decide that Coloured voters do not have the intelligence to know where their real friends are and to know whether or not they are being politically exploited! But the real trouble is that very few hon. members have ever troubled to talk to an educated Coloured person. The only relationship that most of them have had with Coloured people is on the master and servant basis and they do not believe that there are Coloured people who are intelligent enough to be able to decide for themselves, as indeed is the right that was given to them in 1951 when they were taken off the Common Roll, when they were told that they would have the same right to elect whomever they wished to elect to represent them in this House. The Coloured people have sufficient intelligence to know who their real friends are. Anyway, these “poor Coloured people” are stuck with the hon. members whom they elected in 1961. They are virtually wedded to them, for richer or poorer, in sickness or in health, for better or for worse, and so I could go on, using all sorts of analogies including some that do not come into the marriage lines. But here they are stuck with these hon. members whether they want them or not.

Now I must say that the Government is taking the most extraordinary precautions, even to seeing that a by-election is not held. It is so worried, so terrified, at the prospect of having a few more Progressives sitting in this House that it takes the most elaborate precautions to see to it that not even within the period of one year …

No, we want to protect some people from their lack of responsibility.

I do not think the hon. the Minister is entitled to worry about that. People who are on the voters’ roll are entitled to exercise their democratic rights. If we are going to protect people from their irresponsibility, we should disfranchise all the voters who voted the Nationalist Government into power. That does not interest me. What interests me is Clause 2 of this funny little Bill, which takes the precaution of seeing to it that there will not even be a by-election, even in the unlikely event of a vacancy occurring by resignation, not to talk about anything else. But one of these hon. members might take it into his head to resign and then there could have been a by-election and for a few months there would have been a Progressive sitting in this House. At one stage I might even have thought …

That is a sweeping statement.

Well, if it is a sweeping statement, why do we not put it to the test and go to an election, and we will see whether it is a sweeping allegation or not. A few weeks ago I might even have thought that the hon. member for Peninsula, my stable-mate, as he calls himself, might have intended to resign.

I can’t bear to leave you.

Well, I can understand that, but he is going to leave me because he has told this House several times that it is not his intention to stand for re-election. I do not know whether he has changed his mind about that, but anyway he has told the House that it is not his intention to stand again for election. But, Sir, a few weeks ago I thought he was on the point of resigning, because just listen to what he said only a few weeks ago in this House, on 25th August, just over a month ago, speaking in the Budget debate—(Col. 1413).

That would have been the forthcoming month. The hon. member went on …

Why don’t you read the rest too?

Yes, I am going to read what the hon. member said. Sir. his deathless phrases should be repeated in this House. He went on to say that he fully sympathized with the Government in all their objections to people exploiting the Coloured people for their own ends. He said that he fully understood that the Government wanted to do something to prevent this exploitation of these people, of the “poor Coloured people”, and so on. He gave us a lot about that, and I cannot emphasize strongly enough that he said that he fully sympathized with the Government’s efforts to prevent the Progressive Party from fighting the forthcoming elections. But how did he conclude? Perhaps the hon. member has forgotten. He said—-(Col. 1415).

that is, having said all that stuff about sympathizing with the Government—

That is what the hon. member said on 25th August of this year, that even though he sympathized, and even though he wanted to keep the Progressives out, he felt that the Government rather than risk the besmirching of the good name of South Africa, should take the risk of holding the elections. And here he even thought that the Coloured people might have sufficient intelligence to put him back into Parliament, or his fellow representatives who are sitting here to-day. I thought, therefore, that the hon. member who wanted to have the election at the proper time, might even as a gallant gesture, have resigned. Perhaps he told the hon. the Minister of the Interior and that is why the hon. the Minister has put this clause into the Bill. It is just possible.

Is this a private war?

Sir, anyone can join in. I doubt whether the hon. member will. There was one member who possibly might have resigned. and I want to give him credit for that. The only Coloured Representative who voted against the Government last year when a Bill to postpone the election was before the House, was the hon. member for Karoo. I think it is only fair that I should give him credit for the fact, and that this possibility might have crossed his mind.

Why don’t you have a little bet on it?

Well, I do not take little bets on members in this House any more. Too many strange things have happened, such as seeing the hon. the Minister of Sport sitting there.

Last year we were asked to extend the term of office of the Coloured Representatives until October this year. This October we are asked to extend the term of office for a further period of 13 months. Why 13 months? Could the hon. the Minister of the Interior tell us? Is it because it is the Prime Minister’s lucky number? It may turn out not to be quite so lucky for the hon. the Prime Minister. As far as I am concerned, it is the principle I am against. I could not care whether it is three months or six months or 13 months.

Sir, we have in fact no guarantee whatever that next year we will not be asked once again to postpone the election still further. If the Select Committee which is to be appointed in terms of this agreement between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior, and the hon. Leader of the Independent Coloured Representatives, has not found the magic formula by then to make the Progressive Party candidates disappear into thin air, then I think there is a considerable possibility that once again the hon. the Minister will come to this House and ask us for a further postponement. Indeed, judging by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs’s statement that appears in the Press to-day, the Coloured Council is unlikely to be set up until 1968 at the very earliest, and if that Coloured Council is to figure in any way in the nomination of Coloured Representatives, then there is of course a very definite possibility that once again we will have the Minister of the Interior coming to this House and asking for a further postponement so as to have more time to put up this formula, this magic formula. We are going to have a sort of Long Parliament such as Charles I created, inside this Parliament, just perpetuating the sitting members. Well, we know what happened to Charles I at the time when he established this Long Parliament. Sir, we have had one postponement, the Minister is coming along to-day with another postponement, and there is a considerable danger that we will have a further postponement. It will be a simple little Bill. It will simply extend the date from this year to next year. We have had other examples of that sort of legislation in this House. We have got the famous Section 4 of the General Laws Amendment Act of 1963 that is extended year by year. There is one clause put on the Order Paper and the effect is that the operation of the section is extended for a further year. That is the famous Sobukwe Clause. What shall we call this? The Bloomberg Clause? The Sobukwe Clause prevents a man from leaving Robben Island. The Bloomberg Clause is going to prevent four men from being removed from Parliament by the Coloured voters.

To Helen gone.

The Government is capable of doing extraordinary things to prevent four Progressives coming to Parliament. I suppose I should be flattered and my party should be flattered. I never thought we could strike such terror into the breasts of the hon. gentlemen opposite, and into the breasts of the Opposition too. Who would have thought it? All these elaborate precautions just to prevent four more Progressives from coming into Parliament.

You are talking tripe.

Maybe. Maybe it is not terror of having four more Progressives here Then it is something even more important What it is then, I put it to this House, is that it means that the Government cannot face, and the Opposition cannot face, the ineluctable conclusion that would be drawn from the Coloured people putting four Progressives into Parliament. It would not be that they are irresponsible and unable to decide for themselves. What it would mean, quite flatly, is that the Coloured people have rejected race discrimination, that the Coloured people have rejected separate development, that the Coloured people have rejected separate freedoms, or whatever euphonic title one wants to give the policy of the Government. That is all conclusion that can be drawn from this.

Hear, hear!

I am sure hon. members are glad that I am going to sit down. They never like what I say to them. Well, let them stop introducing Bills like this and I will be delighted to keep quiet for ever. I say again that it is the grossest impertinence for hon. members on both sides of the House, to presume to judge for themselves what is best or not best for the Coloured people, and not to give the Coloured people the benefit of having the intelligence to decide that for themselves. This Bill is the grossest example of improper interference in the political affairs of another population group, without any consultation of that other population group, that one could possibly imagine. I might say that the whole business disgusts me. That is the best way in which I could describe it. I believe that it will disgust every fair-minded person in South Africa. For those reasons, Sir, I wish to move the strongest parliamentary objection to this Bill. I wish to move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make it clear at the outset that following the same lines that my colleagues and I adopted last year when the Separate Representation of Voters Act was amended, we do not intend to vote on this Bill. It has been suggested by the hon. member for Houghton that we had a personal interest in the subject matter of the Bill and it was for that reason last year and again to-day that we have decided that we would not vote in this matter.

At the same time I feel that I am in duty bound to let this House, the country, and more particularly the Coloured people of this country whom we represent in this House, know our views in regard to this Bill. With your permission, Sir, I propose to express those views as strongly as I possibly can.

I think it is necessary for me to say immediately, because this is the basis of my speech here this afternoon, that I attribute the entire responsibility for this Bill and for its predecessor, the Interference Bill, to the Progressive Party and the actions that they have taken in regard to the Coloured people. They are solely responsible for this Bill and its predecessor. I hope to be able to show to the House that in the circumstances which I am going to relate in this House it was not possible for any government to take any course other than to extend the parliamentary life of the present Coloured representatives for a limited period until such time as the future political status and suffrage rights of our Coloured people can be determined.

I am very hopeful that there will emerge from the Select Committee which the hon. the Minister referred to this afternoon and which is to be appointed, recommendations which will deal fairly and justly with the future political rights and status of our Coloured people, particularly with the suffrage rights. But until that happens I feel it is in the interests of the Coloured people of South Africa that the status quo should continue and that the Coloured people should continue to be represented in this House. In other words, until the report is forthcoming from the Select Committee, the status quo should continue.

The hon. member for Houghton was at pains to refer to a speech which I made in this House during the Budget debate when I made an appeal to the Government at that time to proceed in the ordinary normal course with the elections. But conditions have changed since then, in the sense that the Government has found it necessary, for reasons which I am going to advance presently, to introduce the Interference Bill which is one of the most drastic Bills ever to have been introduced in the Parliament of South Africa. It was necessary for them to have done this in order to stop the exploitation, or further exploitation, of Coloured people by the Progressive Party. They were finally responsible for that Bill having to be introduced. Conditions have now changed in the sense that we have prevailed upon the Government and the Opposition to agree to allow that Bill to go to a Select Committee, and therefore it is for that reason that I feel that the status quo of Coloured representation in this House should continue until the report of that Select Committee is available.

I say that in view of the activities of the Progressive Party it is incumbent upon the Government to do something to prevent the further exploitation of our Coloured people in South Africa, and particularly to prevent their exploitation by the Progressive Party for its own peculiar political ends.

I think it is necessary for me to trace briefly the circumstances which, to my mind, justify the action now taken by the Government. The House will remember that the first Coloured election held under the separate voters’ roll took place in 1958. At that time, of course, there was no Progressive Party. The Progressive Party came into being in 1959, and it will be recalled that it consisted then of a number of members of this House who had broken away from the United Party, the official Opposition. These members did not resign their seats and resubmit themselves to their constituents for election under the banner of the Progressive Party. The Progressive lady —the hon. member sitting next to me—and the Progressive gentlemen who remained in this House did not do what they previously had urged others to do in similar circumstances, that is, after having left the United Party under whose banner they had been elected to this House, to resubmit themselves to their constituents for re-election under their own banner. They remained in this House. They sat pretty and made a tremendous amount of political propaganda for themselves. However, their hands were forced by the late Prime Minister, the late Dr. Verwoerd, who decided that this intolerable position could not continue.

It will be remembered that he accordingly decided to call for a general election in 1961 to test what public support there was for the Progressive Party in this country. Well, the door was then opened for the Progressive Party to contest the Coloured seats as well as the White seats in South Africa. Dr. Verwoerd opened the door for them to do this by calling the election in 1961. But what happened? The Progressive Party, through its leader, Dr. Jannie Steytler, supported by other leading members of the Party, such as Colin Eglin and Zac de Beer, publicly announced that the Progressive Party—and here I am quoting their own words —would not touch the Coloured constituencies because they were discriminatory and segregatory. They went on to say this, and I am quoting again the words of Dr. Steytler:

“The Progressive Party does not believe in the policy of discrimination and segregation and would have nothing whatsoever to do with the Separate Representation of Voters Act.” I am quoting from the speech made by Dr. Steytler on the 22nd August, 1961, when he, as the leader of the Progressive Party, publicly declared—

This is what the hon. member’s leader said. I have no doubt that the hon. member for Houghton concocted this speech. I continue—

At that time, and during the provincial council elections which took place at about that time, the leaders of the Progressive Party, again consisting of the same coterie, namely Dr. Steytler, Mr. Eglin, Dr. Zac de Beer, Dr. Wollheim, and the hon. member, urged the Coloured people to have nothing whatsoever to do with the separate Coloured elections. They publicly urged the Coloureds to boycott these elections.

Would you quote something to substantiate your last statement?

Please do not interrupt me. I only have limited time.

Would you quote something to substantiate your last statement? You have quoted everything else.

I have a batch of things I still want to get through and I ask the hon. member please to behave herself. Now, Sir, what was the reason for the Progressive Party adopting this attitude at the time? Quite obviously they felt that by adopting this altruistic attitude against segregation and discrimination they would get overwhelming support from the White electorate of the country. But what did we find? In every constituency, except one, namely Houghton, the Progressive Party candidates were ignominiously rejected by the White electorate and most of them forfeited their deposits. When these disastrous results became evident, when they realized that they were making no headway whatsoever with the White constituencies, then, and only then, as a last resort did they begin to take an interest in Coloured affairs.

It was then, almost as a gambler’s last plunge, that they decided to make a determined onslaught on the Coloured electorate. They determined at all costs—and I use those words deliberately—and when I say “costs”, I mean even the sky was the limit in that regard— to gain some of the Coloured seats in this House to give them a platform in Parliament, which was denied to them by the White electorate. It was obvious to them that this was the only way in which they could obtain a platform in Parliament. The Progressive Party then and only then launched an intensive campaign in the Coloured constituencies with a determination and with an expenditure of money which I suggest has never been equalled in the political history of South Africa.

From information which has come to the knowledge of my colleagues and myself it would appear that considerable funds were expended by the Progressive Party to bolster up the Coloured Voters’ Roll. But the spending of money was not the only factor in this onslaught. The Progressive Party leaders virtually stopped at nothing in order to increase the Coloured Voters’ Roll and to gain the support of the Coloured people for their party.

My colleagues and I have received testimony from various sources, from hitherto prominent Coloured men with regard to these Progressive Party activities.

Are they not prominent any more?

No, because you have dragged them down. You and your party have been responsible for having them prosecuted and fined, and thrown out of employment. That is why I said they were “hitherto” prominent, until they were interfered with by the Progressive Party.

With the limited time at my disposal it is obviously not possible for me to read all the letters which we have received or to give the entire testimony. I want to read to this House one letter; it is a lengthy one but I want to read it. It is a letter which we received from a man who opened his heart as to the sordid manner in which he was drawn by the Progressive Party leaders into conflict with the law. I am not going to give this man’s name, but I am going to give a photostat copy of this letter to the hon. the Prime Minister and to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Because, Sir, I know it is safe in their hands and this man will not be victimized. This is what he says—

I say it is a pack of lies.

I continue—

That man I believe has since died. I continue—

Then this letter is signed, Mr. Speaker.

But that is not all. My colleagues managed to get into their possession some of the voter’s cards which the Progressive Party organizers got these unfortunate Coloured commissioners of oaths to sign. I am going to exhibit them. [Interjection.]

On a point of order, Sir, are we entitled to ask what the hon. member for Houghton meant when she asked who dictated this letter?

Mr. Speaker, I do not take notice of these interjections. I am going to exhibit these cards to the House. These are cards that my colleagues managed to obtain from Coloured commissioners of oaths who on receipt of payment from the Progressive Party have signed these cards in blank and gave them back to the leaders of the party to fill in.

What proof have you that there has been any payment?

Order!

Then why did you not accept the challenge of the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs?

Why should I?

The hon. member for Houghton has got to learn to take it.

I will take it.

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must stop interjecting now.

My colleagues have sufficient numbers of these cards signed in blank to distribute amongst each member of the House. However, I do not want to victimize these people. They have already suffered enough because of the actions of the Progressive Party. I propose just to give one of these cards to the hon. the Prime Minister and one to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition so that they can keep them. I am afraid that I cannot extend the same facility to the hon. member for Houghton. What I have cited here is a typical example of many similar occurrences that have taken place since 1964. The authorities had to make an example of these unfortunate Coloured men who fell to this enormous temptation. These men were convicted and were substantially fined. I understand that there were eight prosecutions involving 91 charges. Most of them have lost their jobs and their positions. The men concerned were professional men such as teachers and principals of schools. Some were sergeants in the Police and were dismissed from the Force through the actions of the Progressive Party.

They did nothing under our instructions.

The hon. member for Houghton must keep her peace now.

I am sorry, Sir, but I am being provoked.

The hon. member must stop interjecting.

We have proof of the fact that the Progressive Party even paid for the defence of some of these men, and paid in certain instances their fines. Let the hon. member and the leaders of the Party deny that. The Police could have prosecuted hundreds more of these men, but they realized that the wrong people would be prosecuted.

The work involved in getting these prosecutions to the light of day was enormous. Obviously these facts came to the knowledge of the Government. The late Dr. Verwoerd knew of this. He was astounded at what was going on. The hon. the Minister for Defence, in his capacity then as Minister of Coloured Affairs, was aware of this. There was nothing that we could do to stop this terrific expenditure of money illegally spent on cooking up the voters’ rolls. The hon. Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister of Justice knew of this. He knew what was going on and was responsible for initiating these prosecutions in the hope that that would stop these activities. In the light of these facts which came to the knowledge of the Government, I ask: “What would you expect any responsible Government to do in these circumstances?” Could any responsible Government allow this terrible exploitation to continue without taking some drastic action? The Government would have been failing in its duty to the Coloured people if they did not take some form of drastic action to prohibit by law the exploitation of our Coloured people by political opportunists who were exploiting them merely for their own political gain. These therefore are some of the reasons which made it necessary for the Government to take a firm line and stop once and for all the continuance of this reprehensible conduct and exploitation. It was in these circumstances that the Government found it necessary to come forward with this Interference Bill.

I am very glad that wiser counsel prevailed and that the Government in conjunction with the Leader of the Opposition agreed to allow this Bill to go to a select committee without any commitment so that the select committee can deliberate on all issues involved in this matter. I fervently hope and pray most sincerely that there will emerge from this select committee proposals which will prevent any political party exploiting our Coloured people in the manner in which they were exploited by these political opportunists under the guise of the Progressive Party. This party has been ignominiously rejected by the White population of the country. In all seriousness I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton: What can a party rejected by the White population of South Africa do for the Coloured people of this country other than to stir them up, excite them and exacerbate the feelings between White people and Coloured people in this country. [Interjections.] At the same time I hope that there will be forthcoming from this select committee some just and equitable recommendations which will settle for the foreseeable future at any rate the political rights of our Coloured people. Until that report is forthcoming it is only right that during this hiatus the Coloured people should continue to be represented in this House and it is for that reason that the Government has come forward with this Bill to-day. The hon. member for Houghton in her opening remarks spoke about the fact that in a speech that I made last year on the amendment of this same Act, I said that it was the correct thing that the Coloured people should not have to go to elections at the whim of the Government. The hon. member has taken me to task for what I said then. Does it not appear to the hon. member to be obvious that what is taking place now is not at the whim of the Government, but at the will of the whole House except for the hon. member for Houghton. Everyone who knew what was going on with the Coloured people realized that they could not sit by and allow this state of affairs to continue and that something had to be done.

Rubbish.

The hon. member says: “Rubbish”. Last year when the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs challenged her and said: “Ask for a commission of judicial inquiry and I will immediately appoint one”, she funked the issue, and so did her party. It must be obvious that there must be something rotten in the State of Denmark, when despite the fact that the Opposition last year opposed the amendment to this Bill, despite the very strong representations made by the mouthpiece of the Opposition at that time, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, as quoted by the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon, despite all this, this House unanimously has decided and will decide that the time has come when we must put an end to this form of exploitation. Mr. Speaker, I think I have said sufficient to convince the House that there is absolute justification for the Government’s action in proceeding with this Bill. Whilst I have given my views on this matter on behalf of my colleagues and myself I want to conclude by saying that because of the fact that it might be suggested that we have some interest in the matter we will not vote on it. I feel however that this Bill will have the support of every well-disposed citizen in this country.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion, and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

House in Committee:

Clauses of the Bill put and agreed to. (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting.)

Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I move as an amendment—

“this day six months”.

I have given my reasons for my objections to this Bill.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion, and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

I want to refer to the Bill as it is now before us at the Third reading with certain amendments and to draw attention to the fact that the provisions of this Bill will have a direct effect upon a large section of our population, that is to say, all owners of motor vehicles. Sir, ignorance of the provisions of this Bill and particularly of the amendments might have disastrous financial consequences upon innocent people who may not have become aware of the strict time limits which are now imposed under these amendments. I am sure that the hon. the Minister is aware of the somewhat lax procedure, if I might use that phrase, which is followed when tokens of insurance are issued to the general public with a document which is merely a declaration of insurance. I am sure that if one were to take at random a cross-section of the motorists of this country and if one were to ask them when they should report accidents, one would find that they are quite ignorant of any provisions under their insurance cover which requires reporting within a limited time. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot, with the aid of the Press and with the aid of the consortium, ensure that the maximum publicity is given to this requirement of reporting accidents promptly and in any event within the 14 day limit. Perhaps the hon. the Minister might even be good enough to consider with the consortium the possibility of attaching to the disc when it is issued, a slip or a small notification drawing attention to the necessity of reporting accidents promptly. I think this is something which is desirable both in the interests of the motorists and of the insurance companies, and now that these amendments have been inserted and these strict time limits have been provided for, I think it would be as well if the maximum effort were made to give this notice to the public at large.

I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion made by the hon. member that publicity be given to this new provision in the Bill with regard to the time limit. The hon. member says that there are many people who will suffer as the result of ignorance of the provisions of the Bill but that, of course, is the position in the case of all laws passed by Parliament. The law says that ignorance is no excuse. The hon. member knows that. I think this will improve the administration of the Act and I can give the hon. member the assurance that the objects of the Act are mainly to assist those innocent people who, through no fault of their own, are involved in accidents so that they can get compensation, but at the same time certain precautions have to be taken against exploitation or unnecessary delays. I will see to it that the necessary publicity is given.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

We on this side of the House have no objection to the third reading of this Bill, and indeed we have welcomed its provisions at all stages. However, there is one particular aspect in regard to the Bill on which perhaps the hon. the Minister can give us some further information at this stage. The Bill is mainly one whereby a pension scheme for Government non-White employees will be instituted by regulation and the Minister, during the course of the second reading debate, gave us some indication as to what form these regulations will take. He also mentioned that it was the intention of the Government, when instituting this scheme, that it will be applicable to new non-White employees and that it will require a minimum period of ten years of pensionable service before persons will qualify for this pension. Therefore we hope that this Bill, which is an enabling Bill, will not be delayed in its implementation by any undue delay in the promulgation of those regulations. We know that in certain cases Acts have been placed on the Statute Book but did not in fact become effective until the regulations were promulgated. This matter has received consideration over the past few years. An interdepartmental committee appointed as far back as 1963 has, I understand, investigated the idea of the scheme and therefore, due to the fact that it will be at least ten years before any of the new employees will be able to qualify for a pension, it is hoped that the Minister will give an assurance at this stage that these regulations will be promulgated with the least possible delay in order that people might be able to receive the benefits to which they will become entitled in terms of this Bill.

I can only assure the hon. member that my Department is already preparing the necessary regulations under this Bill and that they will be promulgated with the least possible delay.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move the following amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

During the discussion of the Bill in the second reading and as the result of the Minister’s reply, it is just possible that there is some misunderstanding about the attitude of the Opposition to the compulsory deduction of trade union dues from the wages of trade union members by the employers. In order to clarify and to put beyond any doubt the differences that do obtain between us and the Government, I wish to move the following amendment—

1. (b) No notice shall be issued under paragraph (a) unless the Minister is satisfied—
   1. (i) that not less than one half of the number of persons in the area or portion of an area in question employed in the relevant undertaking, industry, trade or occupation who are eligible for membership of the trade union concerned are members thereof and have signed such request as is contemplated in subsection (IB); and
   2. (ii) that negotiations in respect of the matter referred to in sub-section (IB) (a) have taken place between an employer and an employee not more than three months prior to the date of the application referred to in sub-section (1A) (a) and that such negotiations have failed or that an employer has wilfully refused or failed to negotiate with an employee in respect of such matter.

This is consistent with the attitude of the Opposition, because we moved a similar amendment before the Select Committee at the time the Bill was discussed by it. The effect of this amendment is that in the first place it will make it perfectly clear that where a trade union is representative the employers can be compelled to deduct trade union dues from the wages of a member if he requests the employer to do so. That is what has been said to be the main principle of the Bill; this amendment will make it the main principle of the Bill. We had some arguments in regard to whether the main principle of the Bill is the compulsory deduction of trade union dues, or whether it is the power of the Minister by indirect means to facilitate internecine struggles between trade unions of different classes. This amendment will remove any doubt about that. It will be to the advantage of the Minister, because he will now have to administer a simple matter in the interests of the trade union, which will help the trade union to recover dues from its members. And all ideological undercurrents will be removed from the Bill entirely.

The second part of the amendment is to ensure that deductions will only be made compulsory where negotiations between the employers and the employees have failed. That too is in accordance with the policy of this side of the House. We want to see that at all times industrial democracy will be given a full opportunity to operate, and only where for some reason it fails to operate in the interests of people concerned, either employers or employees, should the Government be forced to act, or when negotiations are suggested and an employer refuses to negotiate on this issue, similar powers shall be conferred upon the Minister. I think this would simplify the Bill. It would remove any suggestion that this is a matter whereby the Government is advancing ideological objects without having the courage to do it directly—doing it indirectly by placing mixed trade unions at a disadvantage. In view of the fact that we want clarity on this matter and the Government wants clarity on it, and because I am sure, the Government wants to attain the main object of the Bill, I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment. If he wants to act against the particular type of trade union which the Government does not like, let him do so directly. Let him have the courage to come to Parliament and ask for powers to deal with those people, but not to do it indirectly by refusing some unions which are fully representative privileges, and granting privileges to others who are not representative at all. Because that is what will happen under this Bill, unless the hon. the Minister accepts this amendment.

I do not think the conclusion of the argument of the hon. member for Yeoville holds any water. The hon. member says that the proposal made by him will eliminate the possibility of the hon. the Minister making a concession, in respect of these deduction facilities, to trade unions that are not representative. Surely that is not so. The fact of the matter is that in terms of the hon. member’s proposal the Minister will still have the power to refuse it to a trade union that is representative. In other words, the Minister will not be compelled to give it to such a trade union under all circumstances. The empowering aspect is therefore retained in the Opposition’s proposal. I want to make that quite clear.

The only thing the proposal of the hon. member does not do, is to meet those trade unions in respect of which evidence was adduced before the Select Committee, and those are the trade unions of which, due to the nature of their work or due to the fact that the industry’s activities are distributed throughout the country, the headquarters or the offices of the trade union organization cannot keep contact with their members, or of which the members themselves find it difficult to keep contact with their trade unions. I want to refer you once again to the two examples I mentioned earlier, one being that of the Building Workers’ Trade Union, in which there are people who move not only from one building to another or from one construction job to another, but from one district to another and even from one Province to another, and with regard to which the Minister of Labour has already expressed I his concern in respect of all the trade unions in that industry, not only some of them, all of them, whether mixed or not, because the Minister has to approve agreements entered into by such trade unions although they are not representative. The figure mentioned before the Select Committee was that all the trade unions in the building industry represented only 24 per cent of all the workers. In other words, not one of the trade unions was really representative. I further mention the example of the Boilermakers’ Trade Union, with regard to which Mr. T. P. Murray said that his trade union had 10,000 members, that the stop-order system applied to 5,000 members and that of the 5,000 remaining members,3,000 were not in good financial standing, in other words, their membership fees were not paid-up. The last mentioned group therefore represented 60 per cent of all the members that did not have stop-order facilities, and the Boilermakers’ Trade Union is a countrywide organization, and those people are in the position that their membership fees are not paid-up. To surmount this difficulty, and not so much for ideological reasons, but in the interests of those trade unions with regard to which there is concern and which cannot put their affairs in order, not with the best will in the world, this measure is being taken. Mr. Murray confirmed that they could not manage. He stated that they performed miracles with their organization, compared with overseas standards, but of the 10,000 members there were nevertheless 3,000 who had forfeited their benefits. If they and their dependants went to the offices to fetch the benefits to which they were entitled, those benefits were simply not there.

Now it is true that where the Minister is empowered to grant this facility where the representation is less than 50 per cent, we on this side want to grant it only to the uni-racial trade unions. The reason is that we do not want to help the mixed trade unions to become strong. That is our policy and our Party makes no apology for that. But if we accept the proposal of the Opposition, we face one of the major problems with regard to which the trade unions approached the Select Committee. I want to say that there is not a vast number of trade unions experiencing that problem, but there are particular trade unions that are facing that problem, and we are trying to meet those.

In the Select Committee we made certain concessions to the employers. Firstly, the way is still open to the employers to grant these facilities if they have not yet granted them. There is still an opportunity for negotiation.

The object of the second leg of the hon. member’s amendment is provided for in the legislation. All we are doing now is to tell the employers that they have an opportunity to negotiate. There is no reason why they cannot grant this concession voluntarily to their trade union. There is no reason why the employers cannot feel, for example:

Well, we would rather make it a matter for negotiation. The opportunity is still there. It is only where an employer refuses obstinately and where discrimination can be proved that this proviso can be invoked. I therefore think we would in actual fact not be achieving our object with this legislation if it did not contain that proviso.

Of course the hon. member for Yeoville and members on his side are being quite logical in their attitude because, as they intimated during the Second Reading, they want to obviate the discretion of the Minister in this case. But, Mr. Chairman, they behave as though a new principle is being introduced in our industrial legislation because the Minister may apply his discretion with regard to important matters. In this regard I just want to refer to De Kock’s “Industrial Laws of South Africa”, the 1956 edition. On page 115 he says the following under “Settlement of Disputes”—

and so forth. He then mentions quite a few important matters, and then he continues—

Why not simply abolish trade unions and leave everything to the Minister?

Mr. Chairman, in this regard we have left matters in the discretion of the Minister, and hon. members on the opposite side of the House have also testified that we have had industrial peace. Why the sudden objection? I think hon. members on the opposite side should be honest. They suggested that the Minister wanted to become a dictator. Nothing could be left in the Minister’s discretion. I think they should be honest and come and say:

Nothing can be left in the discretion of a National Party Minister (because that is what they are trying to suggest), because a National Party Minister will not exercise his discretion properly; it would not have mattered if it had been a United Party Minister.

I want to say that there is a certain type of worker in our country with whom I have a tremendous deal of sympathy. I refer to the building workers in our country, who are widely distributed and who are difficult to organize, and I want the building workers in the country to know that the United Party will cause infinite harm to their interests through this amendment it is now proposing.

I have listened to the two previous speakers with some surprise. We are talking here of trade union matters. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) was chairman of the Select Committee, and he was extremely good. We had no suggestions that there was to be any discrimination in our deliberations. I was rather astonished last night to listen to the arguments that were advanced in dealing with this particular question of the stop order principle. This side of the House is quite in favour of stop orders and of making it compulsory. The hon. Minister chose to ignore many of the remarks that were made by speakers on this side, but I still say, as I said last night, that stop order facilities already exist in over 90 per cent of the industrial agreements in this country, unless I am misinformed.

That is so.

That is the position. What we cannot follow is why we have this entrenched again, shall I say, by law? If the Minister thinks that it would be a good thing to have it entrenched by law for the reasons advanced by the hon. member for Pretoria (West), namely that 3,000 boilermakers do not pay their dues, then surely that is a matter for the trade unions to regulate with their employers. It is just as simple as that. The whole basis of trade union organization—we do not want to go over that ground again—is of employers and employees sitting round a table and coming to an agreement. They have agreed over the years to have these conditions embodied in agreements whereby the employers undertake to deduct trade union dues and to pay them to the industrial council. With that we have no quarrel. What I cannot understand is why hon. members on that side are so persistent in their argument that they want to protect the White workers. When we had our discussions in the Select Committee no evidence was led in regard to the position of the White worker as distinct from the position of the Coloured worker. So why are we getting away from the fundamental principle of trade unionism that a worker is a worker; he has a skill, and his skill is worth a particular wage. If he joins a trade union, and they nearly all do, then that trade union gets certain benefits for him, because it acts for him, irrespective of the colour of his skin. That is the part of this debate that I quite frankly cannot understand. The hon. member for Uitenhage referred in somewhat impassioned terms to General Motors, Samad, Ford, General Tire, and Firestone at Port Elizabeth, and he said that trade union officials were not permitted on the premises, and so on. My information is that these employers have since agreed to the deduction of trade union dues at the source of payment.

Mr. Chairman, I have had the experience of working in assembly plant, many years ago, and I can assure you, Sir, that the American assembly plant system is totally different from the system here. One cannot have trade union personnel roaming around a mass production plant. So I do not understand why the hon. the Minister is reluctant to accept this amendment. We simply say: Let the trade union negotiate to this particular stage with the employers:

If the employer is a recalcitrant type, or intransigent, or he does not want to do it, and there is a deadlock, then let the Minister intervene. That I think is not unreasonable. But I cannot see the value of the argument that because the boilermakers do not pay their dues, the whole of the industrial council setup in this country must be made subject to a law by way of this type of amendment to the Act.

Finally, we find ourselves with the plea being made on behalf of the building workers. The building workers in the Transvaal are the only ones who do not enjoy these facilities. Surely that is a matter of negotiation between the building workers in the Transvaal and the employers in the Transvaal. There you have a predominantly White union involved. The building workers union of the Transvaal is White. Surely these people are able to negotiate for themselves without having to have it discussed in Parliament and to have the Minister intervening. They are a strong union, a very strong union, and most capable officials work for them. So I do ask the Minister to appreciate that in approaching this matter I have avoided referring to Coloured workers as distinct from White workers. Members on the Government side insist on referring to the protection of the White worker. There is no question of protecting the White worker. The only way to protect people is to make sure that any competition is regulated by way of a fair wage. That is the only yardstick by which any worker is protected. He must be protected from unfair competition, undercutting of wages, restrictive hours and things of that kind, various other fringe benefits. These are things which make up industrial agreements. That is how to protect the workers. It does not matter what the colour of their skin is. I do ask the Minister to consider seriously the amendment put forward by my hon. colleague which is part of the amendment which was submitted to the Select Committee by the minority group.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the amendment of the hon. gentleman is not interfering with the principle of the Bill, i.e. the principle of compulsory deductions. To me that seems to be the case, Mr. Chairman, but if you hold a different view, then I want to comment on their proposal and on their argument. The hon. member who has just spoken requested that the matter be left in the hands of the employers and the employees in order that they may negotiate with one another. Not all the employers in the country are responsible for this measure, but only those who adopt this attitude. They are the cause of this measure. You will find one of the objections of those employers on page 4 of the evidence of the Select Committee of 1965, and it reads as follows: “It will deprive employers of the privilege of being particular in respect of the trade unions with whom they prefer to negotiate.” Hon. members on the opposite side are pleading for this kind of employer, who refuses obstinately to meet his employees by performing this simple task for them, a task which most of the employers in the country are already performing for their employees. They fear that membership dues will have to be deducted for employees who are not viewed in a favourable light by their employers. They will do that, however, if they are, in trade union terms, “boss unions”, “company unions”. Then they will be quite contented to do it. But let me tell the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side that this is a very dangerous attitude. The hon. member for Yeoville said something a moment ago, and I wonder whether he appreciates the meaning of his remark. He asked by way of interjection why we did not abolish all trade unions and leave everything to the Minister.

But that is what an hon. member behind you said.

That is exactly what these employers want. They do not want a trade union that represents the true interests of the employer. On the contrary, they want puppets planted there by themselves. You know that that is a very dangerous thing. Fortunately that has not broken out in South Africa yet, but it has already broken out in America. There one finds employers who bribe trade union leaders to organize a strike. Have the hon. gentlemen considered that? Do they want something like that in this country too? Do they want to see trade unions that are merely puppets of the employers? Do you know what a dangerous situation can develop if the spokesmen of the trade unions are not representative of the true interests of the employees? That is when the emotions of the workers sometimes take free rein and illegal strikes occur. There need not necessarily be a dispute between the employer and the employee, but the employee notices that his interests are simply not served by his trade union, because the spokesmen of his trade union are dancing to the tune of the employers. Instead of a conciliatory spirit between employer and employee, what else can one have under such circumstances than incessant animosity? All negotiations are then of such a kind that they must be rejected by the common ranks of employees. There have already been indications in this country that that may happen, and we must therefore be very chary of this kind of thing. But now the hon. member for Yeoville comes along and asks why we I do not leave everything to the discretion of the Minister? Has there ever been one case in the history of the Industrial Conciliation Act, an Act in terms of which the Minister already has exceptionally great powers, where the Minister exercised his discretion in error or detrimentally? No, Mr. Chairman, hon. members of the Opposition cannot point out such a case. But if necessary I can prove the opposite, namely cases where the Minister could not exercise his discretion and where the trade unions concerned were the spokesmen of the employers rather than the employees. In that respect there have been remarkable, grave and dangerous eruptions in the ranks of our workers in South Africa.

The tightening-up done by this measure is a step forward. This measure fills a gap, a gap that has to be seen in the context of the sound recognition afforded by the Government to trade unions in the past. But there was still this gap, particularly in respect of trade unions for employees who are widely distributed throughout the country, trade unions that have to function in times of unemployment in order to assist the Department of Labour with the administration of unemployment benefits.

Take the building workers, for example. They are always the first to be hit by any unemployment. Despite that, they are the ones who are experiencing most difficulties at present in the proper operation of a trade union organization throughout the country. There are many reasons for that, but I do not have the time to tell you how physically impossible it is from time to time for a secretary of such a trade union to keep his organization in full operation so that it may serve as the true mouthpiece of the employees, and so that they may prove in black and white that that trade union is representative of all the workers in that particular industry.

This is a simple measure which will be invoked only where there is an incalcitrant type of employer who would rather not see his employees in a position where their trade unions can also function normally in the way a trade union should function if it wants the recognition of the Government and of its members.

First of all I want to reply to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Karoo. He made reproachful reference to me because I supposedly did not reply last night to his reference to industrial councils that have no system of compulsory deductions. He spoke of 90 per cent. I covered this aspect in my second-reading speech. I assumed that he had then taken note of it and that there was therefore no need for me to elaborate on the same thing once again. I then said that there were 60 industrial council agreements with regard to which no system of compulsory stop orders applied. In the case of 51 of those 60 it is done on a voluntary basis. But what does that mean? It means that if those employers want to cancel that concession, they can do so.

They cannot.

Oh yes, they can if it is made in terms of a voluntary agreement. We felt that this was a sword suspended over the heads of the employees by their employers. The employees now have to comply with all kinds of requests in order to retain that concession of voluntary stop orders. That, as I described it in my second-reading speech, is an immoral action. It is an immoral action, and this Government is not prepared to deliver the employee into the hands of employers who want to use that weapon as a sword over the heads of their workers. This measure is therefore essential, and therefore I cannot accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member said that they had to be consistent. Granted, that is United Party policy. They are opposed to separate trade unions.

We are not opposed to any trade unions.

Oh yes. Where, then, is the concession that applies to separate trade unions in this Bill? Where does it appear in your amendment? It has been omitted.

If they are representative.

It has been omitted because they are frequently smaller as a result of the course of history and of circumstances. In this Bill we give separate trade unions the opportunity of obtaining the right of compulsory stop orders under special circumstances which are within the discretion of the Minister. The United Party has never liked separate trade unions, least of all White trade unions, and that is why they come here with an amendment that omits that special concession which we included in this Bill. That is supposed to be adequate reason to do so. Was not evidence adduced before the Select Committee, abundant evidence, of discrimination committed by employers against separate trade unions, and specifically against the White separate trade unions? Was there not adequate evidence to strengthen us in taking action such as this? If we accept an amendment such as this, it will actually mean that we shall destroy the object of the entire Bill. I am by no means prepared to do so.

The other leg of the amendment is to present negotiations as the alpha and the omega. But if employers are conversant with the provisions of this Bill, surely they should take the initiative by granting stop order facilities to their employees. Why did they not do that in the past? If they were aware of the facilities that could be granted, why did they not grant them? Why must there first be negotiations with them? Our experience has shown that those employers who have not yet made those facilities available to their employees, are unwilling to do so. Why must we unnecessarily place those employees in the humiliating position of having to go and negotiate with their employers in order to obtain something that the conduct of those employers has shown them to be unwilling to grant? Surely that is unnecessary and senseless. We are not prepared to expose the employees unnecessarily to such humiliation. I therefore submit that this amendment serves no purpose. The workers have nothing to gain by it. If it is accepted, it will only mean that the entire object of this Bill is destroyed. I therefore cannot accept it.

There is only one matter I should like to clear up. The Minister talked about it being “’n vrywillige ooreenkoms”. All these agreements are voluntary agreements, agreements reached by employers and employees sitting around a table. In that way, by voluntary agreement, it is decided on hours of work, scales of pay, leave pay, sick pay, in the case of women on maternity benefits and rest periods, and in some types of industries on tool allowances, protective clothing, etc. These are all voluntary agreements reached by negotiation. I just want to establish one fact and to place it on record, namely that the question of stop-order facilities is just as good an item for an industrial agreement as any other one. It forms part and parcel of the agreement. This is the point I want to make. The Minister seems to suggest that stop-order facilities are something quite apart from the agreement itself. I would agree with him, if the legislation was simply to make that a legislative matter, but my information is different, and it is that nearly every agreement, with the exception of the ones I mentioned the other evening, includes the granting of stop-order facilities.

If a person simply refuses to understand, it is rather difficult to bring something home to him. I said that there were 60 industrial council agreements in terms of which no system of compulsory deductions was in operation, and that such a system was applied voluntarily in the case of 51 agreements. In these cases the employers concerned have the right to cancel that concession when it pleases them to do so. That is the position.

Listening to the hon. member for Krugersdorp I thought of the old Labour Party because he spoke like one of its members. But I should say that he is the only hon. member on the other side of the House who talks like a trade union man. The Minister himself says that the employers have the power and that they can use it against their employees and it is abused. However, I do not think the Minister will be able to quote one case of where that has happened. Representatives of the Minister’s department are present at all negotiations. They do not take part in the negotiations, but they give a lot of advice. Much has been said about the building workers’ union. Now if these workers are organized in a union and they are working with an organized employer organization, then surely they can negotiate facilities for the deduction of these levies. There must be something wrong here. The Minister says that certain unions had not been able to get these facilities but have they ever been refused? Some unions have not even asked for it. There is the A.E.U., for instance, who has not asked for it. That was said in evidence before the Select Committee. They did not require it. Surely a union that is worth its salt would collect its own dues? The basis of the whole organization of unions is for the organization itself to collect its own dues. Surely that is the basis of the operation of a union. The hon. member for Krugersdorp ought to know that. Did any of the unions he belonged to go to their employers and ask them to collect the union’s dues for them? No, Sir. They went along and collected it themselves. In the case of one of the most powerful unions in this country, i.e. the Mineworkers’ Union, it was done on a voluntary basis by the men themselves. What is more, this union has gone from strength to strength. What type of unions are we going to have now? Unions with an assured income? What interest are the men going to take in such a union? You will have an official there, you will have an empire builder there. The money is coming in, so why should he go out to look after the interests of the members of his union? Why should he worry? His salary is assured because the employer is collecting it. The more members paying, perhaps the greater his salary. We are breaking down the whole organization of trade unionism and we are creating a spineless organization because the whole basis of union membership is to work for collective bargaining. It is a collection of workers. But why should the union official worry now. As long as he gets his pay you will find the organizer saying he has his cigars and motor car so why should he worry? But it goes even further than that, as has been quite rightly pointed out by the hon. member for Karoo. Would you say that the unions’ subs are more important than the death levy, or the pension contributions or the medical aid scheme? Would you say his subs are more important? Yet this is all that is going to be collected. What happens to the others? It has been said here that the employers will collect these subs, but they are not allowed to do it. I am sorry the hon. the Minister for Transport as a former Labour Minister is not here. He knows that you cannot just take money out of a worker’s pay packet without his permission. You cannot do it; it is not allowed.

All railwaymen enjoy such facilities.

They cannot do so without stop orders regulated in accordance with Railway regulations. They dare not do it. You cannot take money out of a person’s pay packet except by law. [Interjections.] The member cannot tell me that. He knows nothing about it. What we have here to-day, Mr. Chairman, is that the Minister—and this is not personal—is now putting himself in the position of the employer. He is going to do the negotiations. Could you imagine employees trying to negotiate with the Minister? Not personally. I am not talking about that. That is what the position will be. If you start muddling, altering and amending the Industrial Conciliation legislation as you are doing today, there is no end to what this may lead to. Next year you can say: Well, holiday bonus benefits; the following year medical aid benefits. And then you can go on and on and on. In the end the employer will say; It is over to the Government, let them negotiate agreements. Let us go back to a wage determination. It takes two to make an agreement. An employer may decide not to do this. And when there is no agreement you will have to go back to wage determination. And then what happens? No, Mr. Chairman, the principle of stop-order facilities has been accepted in this House. But I would say to the hon. the Minister: Do not let us amend this law, the Industrial Conciliation Act, to such an extent that it becomes absolutely useless as a labour employer controlling instrument.

I fail to understand the arguments of the hon. members on the opposite side of the House. They admit that the principle has been accepted by both sides of the House. As I see it, there are actually two principles in this Bill that have been accepted by both sides of the House. The first is the discretion we want to confer on the Minister. Their proposal does not seek to take away that discretion. In their proposal they retain the empowering portion of this measure. In other words, it remains in the discretion of the Minister to grant or withhold the stop-order facilities. In other words, there is no dispute about that. Then there is the point that, in general, such a trade union should be 50 per cent representative. It seems to me there is no dispute about that either. How the hon. member for Karoo can therefore argue that we are creating spineless trade unions and that we are forcing the employers to collect membership dues, I fail to see. Surely we are agreed on these two principles. What we are not agreed on, is the proviso, the proviso which provides that in certain cases the Minister may grant the facility if the trade union is not 50 per cent representative. That is the issue between us and members on the other side of the House. That is the issue at the moment. What is at issue is this proviso, in which we say that in certain respects the Minister may disregard the 50 per cent and may grant that facility to a union with a smaller percentage representation. That is at issue. And now, let us recapitulate the arguments. And let us first of all put it this way once again: It is in the interests of our legislation and of sound bargaining in this country that trade unions should be placed on a sound basis, that they should function well. And now the trade unions came to the Select Committee and said: In view of the nature of our industry, of the extensiveness of our industry, it is not possible for us to maintain the sound organization of our trade unions. This occurred to such an extent that the hon. the Minister, in approving agreements in the building industry, had to express his concern about the fact that he had to approve agreements while those agreements had been entered into by only 24 per cent of the workers. That was a case where the majority of the workers were not involved in that agreement, but where a smaller number than 24 per cent could decide, instead of more than half of the workers. And now we want to meet those trade unions. We want to meet them in order to enable them to achieve that 50 per cent representation. The circumstances of those people are such that it is impossible to keep track of them and to reach them. They move to and fro, for example the building workers and the boilermakers. Last night the hon. member for Brakpan mentioned the employees of Stewarts and Lloyds who work in Cape Town. To keep track of those people demands a tremendous organization. The hon. member for Salt River will remember that the motor trade industry told us before the Select Committee that they had granted this facility to the trade union because the trade union had told them that it could not keep track of the movements of its workers. The petrol stations and garages are spread all over the country, and the trade unions said that they could not keep track of the movements of their members. The motor trade industry then granted that. But now there are other employers’ organizations that are not doing the same. And the information of the hon. member for Karoo is quite wrong. It is not only in the Transvaal that the building workers of trade unions do not have this facility. There are also other Provinces where they do not have it. I do not have all the particulars available at the moment, but I remember that it was mentioned in evidence before the Select Committee that it had not been granted in Natal. And you will remember that in my second-reading speech I referred to the building industry and to the fact that a certain section of it had in fact decided to grant it and that they had appealed to employers to do so, but that the latter had not yet granted it. In other words, one arrives at a situation where the employers are recalcitrant and do not even implement their own resolutions. Then, Mr. Chairman, there is this matter to which I attach a great deal of weight. At present trade unions are providing more and more for all kinds of benefits for the workers and the dependants of workers, such as sick benefits, leave benefits, certain insurance benefits and death benefits. And if a member is not in good standing, he and his dependants lose all those benefits. If one just considers the figure I mentioned a moment ago. that there are 3,000 people in the boiler making industry who are not in good standing, then it means that there are 3.000 people who are members of a trade union and whose dependants and they themselves lose all their benefits. It is money that those people lose. One therefore wants to meet them in order that they may tighten up their organization and bring it to the stage where they will be well organized and where they will be able to achieve the best for their own workers. And that is what is at issue. That is the only point of dispute. But we should like to have it, because it is an important part of our Industrial Conciliation Act that a trade union should be well-organized and because a large number of members and their dependants are suffering damages all the time. I may bring it to your notice that the Botha Commission, which inquired into our industrial legislation, mentioned numerous cases of people losing their benefits, and the damages suffered by members and their dependants as a result of that. We want to prevent it happening that a woman goes to a trade union office only to find out that her husband’s dues have lapsed, that he is therefore not in good financial standing, and that she has to turn back. She cannot get workers’ benefits, she cannot get sick benefits or anything of that nature. Because we want to meet the people in that respect, the trade unions that find it hard to organize their affairs are in fact the ones we want to meet. And, Mr. Chairman, I feel so strongly about that, particularly about this last point, that I hope we shall adopt this legislation and place it on the Statute Book.

The hon. members are repeating themselves ad nauseam, not only in yesterday’s second-reading debate but also in this Committee Stage. I shall not allow any further repetition.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

I rise merely to complete my speech of last night. I put some questions to the hon. the Minister last night, and should like to put one more to him. There have been recent reports, or should I say, rumours in the Press to the effect that the Government is planning to buy certain new types of aircraft. France was mentioned in this regard. There has as yet been no official announcement in this connection. I wonder whether it will not be possible for the hon. the Minister to make an official announcement to this House or whether for some reason or other the matter is still being regarded as confidential. I hope it will be possible for the hon. the Minister to take us into his confidence as regards this matter.

Are these aircraft for Ministers?

May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? Sir, last night the hon. the Minister made a statement in regard to the British navy in Simonstown. I merely want now to ask him to take this Committee into his confidence at the earliest possible moment so that South Africa may know the full consequences which flow from the Press announcement made yesterday about the withdrawal of British forces. I feel that in the interests of the country this Committee and the country are entitled to know, as soon as it is possible and as soon as the negotiations have been completed, what has transpired and what the final picture is. As I say I do not intend to pursue the matter at all in this debate other than to make this request to the Minister.

During the Budget debate we on this side of the House stated our views very clearly in regard to Defence. We stated our attitude and we made an offer to the Government, an offer which the Government has rejected. That being so, we must pursue the Defence debate across the floor of the House on the terms which the Government itself has chosen to select. We would have preferred machinery where certain matters could have been discussed privately, but in the circumstances we as the official Opposition must carry out our duty as we see it. This does not change our attitude at all in regard to the four basic heads under which we have considered Defence; firstly, that we support all necessary expenditure for the creation of a strong and a well-trained Defence Force, and here the emphasis is on “necessary”. Secondly, we see it as our task and our duty to act as watchdogs on behalf of the country over the expenditure of the vast amount of R255,000,000 which is being voted under this Vote, and we see ourselves, thirdly, as the watchdog over the welfare of the men. But in carrying out these tasks we hope, fourthly, that we will be able to keep Defence out of politics. Those are the four basic points that we set out in the Budget debate, and it is in this spirit that we approach the debate ahead of us, trying to carry out our duty, difficult as it often is as far as these matters are concerned. We have often in the past expressed misgivings, doubts and criticism in regard to many aspects of defence policy. In particular have we emphasized year after year our serious concern over the shortage of manpower in the Permanent Force. This is a matter which this side of the House has raised on every possible occasion as a matter of the gravest concern to us. We have emphasized and pleaded for radical revisions in the pay structure of the Defence Force. We have pointed out the training weaknesses and we have emphasized what we believed to be weaknesses in the field of human relations, particularly in respect of trainees. Unfortunately I feel that in the past the Minister’s predecessor has tended to play down many of these criticisms. He has tended to say that the things which have happened are inevitable in the Defence Force and flow largely from the expansion of the Forces, and it was only last year that the Minister’s predecessor finally appointed a committee to investigate, inter alia, the points we had raised. Now that that committee has reported and we have its report before us, I must strike one note here which may be slightly jarring. That is to point out to the hon. the Minister that this report, despite the notice attached to it, has been issued only in one official language, and as a matter of principle I feel that this should be drawn to the attention of the hon. the Minister. It is a very brief report of 14 pages, mostly in double spacing; anybody could have translated it within a matter of a couple of hours. As a matter of principle I feel that it is wrong that something as important as this should not be available in both official languages. However, I say that in passing. What I want to deal with is what has come out of the summary of the report before us and I must say that on reading it one comes to the conclusion that there is almost as much left unsaid as has been said in regard to many of these matters. I accept that the findings of the committee in regard to secret equipment could not be published in a public document, but reading between the lines I suspect that what is quite clear from the report was put in somewhat stronger terms in regard to its over-all effect on training. What is also clear is that the criticisms which we have voiced from this side of the House in debate after debate have been more than justified. In almost every page of the report there is reference to one or other of those four fundamental problems which face the Defence Force, that of manpower shortage, that of the pay structure and its effect on the quality of instructors, the availability of persons of the right type and the effect of the shortage of these instructors particularly on the training programme of the Defence Force. The committee recommends that this is a matter of such great urgency and importance that it should be taken up “at the highest level”. It emphasizes this by quoting these words in inverted commas, “op die hoogste vlak”. Unless the problem of the manpower shortage can be resolved, then many, if not all, of the committee’s recommendations are going to be meaningless. I do not intend to deal with them in the order in which they have been set out in the report, but rather to relate them to the appreciation which we on this side of the House have tried to make of the position as it faces us now. We have tried to work out for ourselves, as far as an Opposition can do so, without all the information at its disposal, the basic objectives for the defence of South Africa: what resources we have: whether they are sufficient; whether they are correctly trained for the purposes for which they are required, or whether in some respects money is being spent in the wrong direction or unnecessarily. We feel that the aspect which has been so strongly emphasized in the Groenewoud report, is one which will require more attention by the hon. the Minister i.e. the aspect of human resources rather than material resources of the Defence Force. We recognize the limitations which face us. There is a shortage of manpower in all fields in South Africa. It is extremely difficult for any Department of State to compete with private enterprise in drawing the personnel it requires, and we realize that there are difficulties in getting all the supplies and equipment that we require. Because of these problems it is all the more important that what manpower we do have should have the greatest degree of attention paid to welfare, to their conditions of service and to their training, because it is on our limited human resources that the effectiveness of our Defence Force is going to depend. I do not intend to deal with this in detail but rather to set out the headings under which we will analyse the problems which we see. Turning to the resources which we have, firstly, there is the Permanent Force which we and, I am sure, the Department see essentially as an administrative and training branch of Defence. We see the Permanent Force not as the fighting forces, not as the field forces as such but as the administrative, directing, guiding and training section. As such they are the people who set the tone to the whole army. I believe that they have done a very good job in those fields, but in doing so they have been hamstrung by their small numbers and the load which is being placed on them. What is more, they have been hamstrung by red tape. I was particularly pleased to see that the Groenewoud Committee recommends an investigation into the extent to which the secretariat is functioning smoothly or should be reviewed or amended so as to obtain the smoothest possible functioning of the Department. I see that that has been referred to a committee for investigation and I hope that we will shortly have that committee’s findings. The whole question of a Department like Defence being regarded in the same light and subject to the same control and restrictions as the Public Service, is one of those problems which we believe leads to the shortage of manpower. I hope therefore that this recommendation is not simply one which is being considered and which will float around from one pigeon hole to another year after year, but is one which will be considered as an urgent matter, so that the basic problem of manpower shortage and improvements to the conditions in the Permanent Force can be tackled immediately, both in order to keep the men we have to-day and to draw others into the Service. We feel that there is scope for the use of women in many of the clerical and administrative posts and that greater use could be made of women in this field. Sir, in time of war women have played a part not only in the administration but in many branches of the army, in driving vehicles, in radar particularly, and in all fields of communications. In many fields which are to-day the strict preserve of men women have been proved even better at the job in time of war than the average man. I ask the hon. the Minister to tell us to what extent he is considering the question of relieving the manpower shortage by bringing women into these jobs.

Then we have next the Citizen Force which we regard as the field force, as the fighting force of our army, and here again the Groenewoud Committee has made some important recommendations. The first of these is one with which we on this side of the House disagree. The committee by implication, although it does not say so, recommends or stands by the continued nine-months’ training period. We want to qualify this by saying that under present conditions, with the present number of instructors and the present facilities for training we feel that as good effect can be obtained by a six-month’s training period as by a nine-months’ training period. Despite having raised this matter over and over again in this House we can see no evidence that the third three months of a trainee’s training is being usefully occupied. We raised this matter a year ago and we were told that it was due to teething troubles, to a shortage of instructors, and that in time that would be corrected. I do not believe that it has been corrected, because I believe that the manpower and the equipment are simply not available to make proper use of nine months’ training. The first six months can be usefully and is largely usefully occupied. We want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider the question of having two intakes and instead giving six months’ training to a larger number of trainees. We refer to the position under present circumstances. The position may have to change when circumstances change. You could have the same total but divide it into two or three groups. I know the argument that your third group of men who have had basic training and who to-day spend their time on guard duty and kicking their heels and—make no mistake about it— getting into mischief because they are not fully occupied, is in fact a pool which can be called upon at a moment’s notice. I believe that that difficulty could be eliminated by a simple adjustment. We do not want the standard of training to be lowered, but we feel that with the manpower shortage as it is both in Defence and outside, the time has come to consider whether we cannot more usefully employ our young men rather than having them stand guard duty for three months.

Another aspect of the recommendations of the Groenewoud Committee with which we disagree, is the emphasis on and particularly the use of the word “indoctrination” in regard to trainees. The declared object is to instil a spirit of interest and enthusiasm for training. Sir, it is tradition and pride in units and pride in the Force which will give that enthusiasm. There has never been a lack of enthusiasm in any of the regiments which have a long tradition behind them, and we do not believe that we should risk subjecting the youth to indoctrination which will depend on the individual indoctrinators. Let me say that there have been reports with regard to the attitude of some people who give instruction being far from healthy when it comes to what they try to teach these trainees, and when this becomes official and carries the approval of the Department, then we would like an assurance from the Minister that this indoctrination, as it is called, will not be either political or sectional or racial.

You are seeing bogeys.

No, I am not. I have heard of one instructor who, when giving instructions on the handling of crowds, said to the class that he was instructing:

“Julie sal moet leer hoe om ’n kaffer dood te skiet.” Sir, I was not going to say this because I believe it was an isolated incident, but when hon. members make interjections of this kind, then they must face the truth and they must swallow it and take it. [Interjections.] I am not looking for ghosts; I am seeking an assurance from the Minister that there will be the closest possible control over the indoctrination which is advocated in respect of our trainees. We feel, also, that in regard to students, where the Groenewoud Committee recommends that they should do their nine months’ training after their university studies, that a much more fruitful ground for investigation would be that students who are going to university should do three months’ basic infantry training at the beginning of the year and that there should then be established at the universities specialist units in engineering, signalling and allied subjects, where students studying those subjects can then for the rest of their time at university receive training in the military field with camps during their vacations. Whichever way you do it, if you have the nine months’ training before a student goes to university, you find that many of those youngsters when they come back, although potentially much better students and much better suited for university after their training, no longer want to attend university. In that way we are losing potential specialist manpower. Others who do come back to university prove the value of the training, but we believe that you could achieve a compromise by giving them three months’ training at the beginning of the year and then complete the rest of their training while they are at university. To expect them to return to the army for nine months when they have a Master’s degree or a doctorate in a specialist subject and then to do the normal military training, is to my mind unrealistic.

Sir, there are other matters dealing with pay, dependants, cadets and so on which will be dealt with in the course of the debate but which I cannot go into in detail now. All I want to say is that the effect of this on the Citizen Force depends on three things: It depends on the officers who are a fine body of men and who set a fine example; it depends on their instruction which is dependent on the manpower problem of the Permanent Force; and it depends on the morale, the interests and the traditions which are built up in the different units. The other sections of the Defence Force are fields which I will not deal with at any length. The Air Force has a multiple role in all fields of operation. Here I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why the Department has done away with the Citizen Force training scheme whereby pupil pilots could train over a period spread over 18 months. It seemed an excellent scheme to provide trained pilots for the Air Force which is crying out for recruits, and yet it was arbitrarily stopped. In fact, it was stopped in the middle of one batch of applications for training under that scheme.

The Navy will be dealt with by other speakers in detail. The position of the Navy is, of course, affected quite considerably by the statement made last night and I do not want to go into that field. These then are the resources which we have. However, if one is to go further into the expenditure for which we are being asked to vote the money, then it is not sufficient merely to look at the broad pattern and to say: “We want to defend South Africa; what have we got?” We must also look at the specific fields of operation in which they are likely to be required. I have no time to deal with that this afternoon other than to give very briefly the heads, as we see them, of what is required.

In regard to attacks from outside, we see as the most likely source the field of infiltration, sporadic raids, loosely termed guerrilla raids. I do not think that is the correct term, but let us accept “guerrilla” as an over-all term. I am thinking more of sporadic raids operating from a base, striking and withdrawing. This requires tremendous mobility in counterattack. When one looks at the Budget and sees a mere R500.000 allocated to military intelligence, one wonders whether we are paying sufficient attention to this vital factor in guerrilla warfare, which is finding out as much as you can of what the enemy is doing, what he is planning and where his hideouts are. Then you must try to ensure that he does not have the second necessity for an active guerrilla fight, which is the co-operation of the local population. I want to ask the Minister whether he has considered this field and whether planning is taking place with non-White leaders who could be the potential victims of terrorist intimidation or even voluntary collaborators should this sort of attack become widespread. It must not be simply the Army fighting in a vacuum but we will have to have the necessary contacts throughout the country in the areas where they are likely to be needed. I also want to ask the Minister whether there has been an improvement in the relationship between military and police intelligence. There seems to have been a weakness in the liaison between the two Departments, and I hope he can tell us that that weakness has been eliminated. Finally, under this head of possibilities I would like to ask the Minister why the Mobile Watch has been changed. Surely the availability of a strong, highly trained and mobile force, available at all times, comprising full-time soldiers, not on a large scale but a small force, would be a most important asset in coping with sporadic raids and the hit-and-run type of attack which, I say, is one of the fields of most likely involvement.

Then there is the question of an invasion, which we see as a most unlikely operation. Unless there were a world force, a UN force, we cannot see any country with the resources to carry out a normal invasion of South Africa. Nevertheless we see our Defence Forces as a major deterrent and therefore it is essential that we should have what we need to act as a deterrent in this field. There is the field of possible blockades, which I do not have time to handle, and the question of our possible participation in a third world war. We do not feel, however, that it is necessary to concentrate in this debate on those two fields.

Finally, there is the need for the Army to play its part, as in any country, as an aid to the civil power in time of national disaster or civil riots or insurrection. I am not suggesting that we should use our Army to take students to school as some countries have had to do, but training to be an aid to the civil powers in times of local insurrection is essential for securing our harbours and industrial areas, etc. I emphasize that I do not visualize this as training for subjugation but as preparedness for national disaster or trouble. In this field I think there is room for improvement in regard to training, to crowd control, and the equipment for it, and training in the maintenance of essential services. Instead of walking on guard beat, would it not be better to put engineer trainees into a power station and teach’ them how to run a power station in the event of an emergency, or a signaller into a radio station, or other essential services, where those trainees would be prepared to take over and to maintain essential services should the need arise? I think we can be proud of what is being done, but there is a lot more to do. I believe we could face any normal attack on South Africa. But we must be realistic. Let us not talk about spitting in the face of the rest of the world. We cannot fight a nuclear war and it would be ridiculous to plan for one. If we had to fight world forces with nuclear weapons, missiles, nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, it would be ridiculous to think of training any sort of force to deal with that. Let us train for what is realistic, but let us realize that what is realistic in the security of South Africa is the building up of a force dedicated to defend this country at any price.

It is an encouraging sign that in the midst of world tension, and as South Africa’s own security is brought more to the fore, a more unified opinion in regard to the task of the Defence Force in South Africa is to be noticed. This fact has also been apparent from debates in this House recently, debates which, while of a calmer nature than ever before, have nevertheless been of a more serious nature. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Durban (Point) on the speech which he has made here to-day in the vein which I have just mentioned, but I must express my disappointment at the few points of criticism which he raised and in regard to which he did not live up to the expectations and traditions of the past. While I deprecate his oblique reference to the fact that the summary of the report of the Groenewoud Commission is as yet only available in Afrikaans, I must draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that we should really be grateful that in the short time available it has been possible to table an Afrikaans copy of that report. The hon. member has been assured that the English translation of the report will be available to him shortly. Nor is this the first occasion on which a report has been tabled in the one official language only. Reports have previously been tabled only in English, followed at a later stage by the Afrikaans translation. I do not think that it was necessary for the hon. member to make an issue of this matter at this stage.

It is a matter of principle.

The hon. member referred to the question of training and said that his side of the House was in favour of a six-month period of training—that, under present-day circumstances, they considered the nine-month period of training too long. Neither I nor hon. members on this side wish to venture an opinion in regard to the merit of six-or nine-or twelve-month training, because I think that this is something in connection with which the experts should express an opinion. I do not think that either this side of the House or that side of the House is expert enough to be able to pass judgment in this regard. Allow me to point out to the hon. member that if. as he advocates, a system of six-month training were to be introduced—two groups per annum—there would be an important period twice in the year when one would have virtually no trained Citizen Force men in camp. As the system is at present, where they follow one another up, one is always assured of a continuous large number of Citizen Force men under arms who can, if necessary, be put into the field.

The hon. member advanced another unfortunate argument which was not in conformity with the general spirit of his speech. I refer to his remarks in regard to so-called indoctrination. I really think that we have passed this stage. In recent weeks hon. members there have also made a strong appeal for a feeling of patriotism. We must understand that the Defence Force also has the function of building up patriotism. Do not let us concern ourselves with trivialities of this nature. I could quote both the hon. member and an ex-colleague of his, the ex-member for Drakensberg, 20 times over as having used expressions to the effect of “shooting Kaffirs”. Let us get away from this sort of thing because I do not think remarks of this nature are at all fitting.

I say that we are grateful for the new approach in this House in regard to defence matters. I am sure that I can say to-day without fear of contradiction that we all see the task of the Defence Force as the protection and safeguarding—to the extent of making the supreme sacrifice—of the country we love and of the Western way of life which we here at the southern point of Africa represent. I am sure that I can say without fear of contradiction that we all have the fullest confidence in the ability and devotion of the Supreme Command of our Defence Force, as well as in their opinion as to the most important strategic tasks of the Defence Force; that we all share in the pride in the defensibility and striking power of our military forces, and that we all agree as to the necessity for giving the greatest financial priority to the building up of our armed forces. In 1961, when we were discussing the Defence Further Amendment Bill to make provision for the extension of Citizen Force training, I said, inter alia, the following—

If this were true at that stage, it is twice as true nowadays. We are a country with a tradition of particular resourcefulness, especially in time of need. This is true in the military sphere as well. I may remind hon. members of the fact that the commando system is one which is peculiar to South Africa and which was developed out of South Africa’s need and resourcefulness, a system which, with the necessary adaptations, is still of very great value to us in the defence of our country. I may also mention that guerrilla warfare actually had its origin in this country on the part of the Boer forces. This is a system which has been adapted to the particular needs and circumstances of this country and it is a system which is just as important to-day in the circumstances which threaten us. I believe that our Defence Force and our Department of Defence have the necessary resourcefulness at this stage to make the necessary adjustments from time to time according to prevailing conditions, and more specifically in regard to training which was the matter raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point). I should also like to confine myself to this matter. I want to say that no matter what we are able, with the means at our disposal, to obtain and purchase in the form of weapons in order to increase the striking power of our Defence Force, in the long run it is the human material which has to handle those weapons which will determine whether the Defence Force is successful or not. I also believe that the circumstances prevailing at the moment make it essential for us to adjust our entire attitude towards our Defence Force. We no longer dare regard our Defence Force as that particular section of our society which has been placed there, armed, to defend us. As I have stated on a previous occasion in this House, the time has come for us to follow the example of Switzerland, a country which has, in various world wars, succeeded in remaining neutral while nevertheless maintaining peak striking power, training and mobilization; Switzerland which is able within 48 hours to put 1,000,000 armed men into the field. They hold the view—and this must also be our aim in this country under present conditions—that the Defence Force is the nation. All male members of the population between the ages of 20 and 60 years are members of their Defence Force. While carrying out their civilian duties they are trained men in mufti, but the next moment, when they have to perform military service, they become uniformed soldiers, each making use in that defence force of his own particular professional knowledge practised in his civilian profession, and allocated his duties accordingly. I say that the time has come for us to adopt the same approach in respect of our Defence Force and training as is the case in Switzerland. Our nation will have to regard itself as being involved in all respects in the defence of our country. When we consider the situation, we realize that South Africa is a great and rich country, a country which must of necessity run the gauntlet of covetous eyes, a country and a nation forming the bastion of Western civilization here in Africa; a country with a long coastline and extensive borders to be defended, but a country which does not have at its disposal a large population to enable it to maintain a large, full-time military force. For this reason the nation as a whole must regard itself as being involved in the defence of the country. [Time limit.]

I am going to respond to points made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch, but I want to do so in a given context. To begin with, we agree with him that if there is one issue on which all South Africans should seek agreement, it is on the question of the defence of our country. I think it is true to say that a considerable degree of agreement has been reached. I think the principle in this case is clearly established. In the difficult times in which we live no country dare be without a strong and effective Defence Force, and in South Africa’s case it is probably doubly necessary. That is the principle on which we are agreed. We might well differ on detail and method sometimes, but that is a healthy sign. Certainly when we enter into these discussions —I want to reinforce the point made by the hon. member for Durban (Point)—it is not in a spirit of earning criticism that we do so but because we believe that we can make a contribution.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) mentioned five different eventualities or possibilities that our defence planners must face. For the purposes of my argument I am going to simplify it and refer to two basic problems they should face. The first one is a massive assault on our country by land, sea or air, or a combination of all three of these. This will call for very special procedures on our part. It will involve massive formations of divisional size or even greater. It will call for heavy land armament, for high-speed aircraft of the jet type, and for a considerable degree of centralization of command. The other eventuality we must consider is that of extensive infiltration into our country, and here the requirements are different and in a sense almost mutually exclusive, certainly in so far as basic armaments and approach are concerned. If there is infiltration you think immediately in terms of smaller units, lighter armament, possibly slower aircraft and a greater degree of decentralization in your command.

As the hon. member for Durban (Point) has pointed out, we think that the latter of these two is the more likely eventuality. It gives no defence secrets away to say that the former would involve a massive assault. It would probably involve forces on a scale not much smaller than the Americans have committed in Vietnam. It is also true, as he pointed out, that there are very few countries in the world which have the logistic capacity or the shipping to mount and sustain an operation of that size. It is also true that although our border is a very extensive one, there are not many suitable points of entry and even those there are, are not very convenient to communications networks or to principal targets. We therefore feel that the second situation that I have sketched is the more likely one. Here I want to reinforce another point the hon. member made. We see the key to this situation as mobility. We think therefore in terms of smaller units, possibly of company strength or a little bigger, and we think of training more or less on the lines of the commandos. It has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Stellenbosch that the commando system is traditional to South Africa. This principle was further refined by the British during the last war in their marine commandos and also by the Americans with their Rangers, so that that type of modern commando which is a fast striking unit is probably what we want. To achieve mobility in the difficult terrain in which one would probably have to operate, one would of course think in terms of the helicopter. We know that very considerable costs are involved here, but perhaps the basic type of specialist unit which our defence planners might wish to consider is the development of the “copter commando”.

Beyond that point, and in view of these issues that I have mentioned, we believe that the present organizational structure is the right one for South Africa. I refer here to the structure in which you have a small permanent element, mainly consisting of the staff, in an administrative and training role, and then a larger citizen element constituting the main fighting arm of our services. We believe this is traditionally correct for South Africa and we can see no earthly reason why it should be changed. But from this also stems that the permanent element is a very important one because this element sets the tone and provides the technological advice that is necessary and in a sense even determines the morale of the force, because it is from here that it percolates right through to all the units themselves. It is in this sense that we welcome many of the recommendations of the Groenewoud Report. It is quite clear from the abridged version we have before us that salary scales were not what they should be and that wastage rates were high. The Commission even talked in terms of “drastiese verbetering van loonskale en by voordele”. We support this. We believe also that there should be internal rationalization of salary scales, because at the moment there are all sorts of anomalies that cannot be justified, and we welcome the assurance the Minister has already given us that the O. and M. Division of the force is looking into this at the moment. By the same token then it is clear that as far as the citizen element is concerned —and here again I join forces with the hon. member for Stellenbosch—the requirement is to train as many people as we possibly can to have the greatest possible degree of throughput. This immediately brings us to the nine months’ training period.

We can see why the defence planners are keen on a nine months’ training period because obviously it has many advantages, but we also want to draw attention to some of the other considerations. Obviously if you can reduce this training period your throughput can become commensurably greater. It is known, too, that to-day there are many developments in the field of training that make it possible to train large numbers of people very quickly. I need mention only that in the mining industry, for example, you can take a raw and completely unsophisticated Black man who has probably never seen a spade in his life before and you can teach him to drive an underground locomotive within a week. Obviously, in so far as the technicalities of military work are concerned, and I am referring here primarily to the land forces, as far as these are concerned one can teach them very quickly. It is true that you must do more than that. You must inculcate a certain attitude of mind and we accept that this takes longer. But we are merely drawing attention to the fact that if we can reduce this training period, then we can with the same overhead costs probably train many more people than we do at the moment. I may mention, also, that in Rhodesia, certainly until recently, under conditions which are not dissimilar from our own, their training period was a very much shorter one.

Lastly, we feel that what will happen in the force stems largely from the top. It is the morale of our Permanent Force that is important. It is the rate at which we remunerate them, and it is the general atmosphere in the force which is important. We feel this stems, in a sense, not so much from what the spiritual and welfare advisers will say, but from what actually happens and also, amongst other things, from the way, for example, in which people are advanced. We believe it is in the national interest that there should be no discrimination as far as advancement in the force is concerned. We are not suggesting that there is discrimination; we are merely confirming that there has been discrimination. It certainly happened in my own case. I was in the Permanent Force 15 years ago and I saw it happen to many other people as well, and I saw the morale of that service drain away almost like water flowing through a sieve. There can be no room in our system for the spoils procedure, and least of all in our Defence Force. But we accept the Minister’s assurances on this particular issue. His task is to build up a strong and an effective force which will have a national character. We believe, too, as has been pointed out, that he has excellent human material. The leadership potential in South Africa is probably higher than anywhere else in the world. The ingenuity and the resourcefulness of our people are proverbial. He has excellent material. He must fuse and mould this into a national unit of which we can all be proud, and if he works in this direction he will get from this side of the House all the support he could possibly need.

In the brief period at my disposal I should have liked to reply to the hon. member about the time when he was still in the Permanent Force and to make some observations in that regard, but unfortunately time does not permit that and I want to make my own speech. The military world situation is characterized at the moment by very important developments of the closest concern to South Africa. The war in Vietnam is assuming ever-increasing proportions, and despite an American force of more than 250,000 men already, and despite the employment of mammoth quantities of war material this war is expanding all the time. Should a second situation of a similar nature arise, its results might have an incalculable effect on the possibility of a world war. Britain’s military policy is based on the premise that a war in Europe will be conventional for only a very short time, after which it will turn into a nuclear war.

As a result, they are moving away from military preparedness for conventional warfare and are concentrating more on the Polaris type of submarine vessels and similar weapons. But, in particular, a result of Britain’s economic impotence is their almost complete military withdrawal from east of Suez. This has very far-reaching implications for South Africa. I can summarize it very well in the words of Lord Selkirk, speaking in the Cape Town City Hall as early as 1957. He was First Lord of the Admiralty in the British Navy at that stage, and this is what he said—

I content myself with that remark, without comment. We must therefore determine whether there is in fact a military threat to South Africa, and if there is, from which quarter it will arise and of what nature it will be.

The statements made at UN by the delegates of some African states place it beyond doubt that they cherish a most intense desire to launch a military assault on South Africa. But it is also true that those among them who are restrained by a greater degree of realism, acknowledge candidly that it seems virtually impossible that anything of this nature will emerge from Africa under the present circumstances. Therefore they have to resort to certain other strategic considerations. This is apparent from the Carnegie Report, however deficient it may be from a strategic point of view, and although it reveals patent ignorance about the situation in South Africa, particularly as regards the character of the South African nation. Nevertheless, it is an indication of the line of thought in some quarters.

To indicate the line of thought as regards South Africa in some quarters, I should like to touch on certain points in that report. Among other things, it is said there that the interests of the major powers in Africa, with specific reference to the influence of the Republic of South Africa on Africa and on world stategy, should be one of the main considerations governing military action against South Africa. Another factor that is mentioned is that the internal disturbances which could be brought about here, could justify action by the United Nations. It is stated in the report that there are three possible methods which could be employed against South Africa. The first would be a display of force coupled with naval and air blockades; secondly, a general economic blockage; and thirdly, direct military action. More specifically, it is stated that if the first two methods proved to be unsuccessful, it would be necessary to change the political structure in South Africa by means of direct military action. To my mind another important statement in this report is the following—

The report goes on to say that—

I would say that the compilers of this report failed to avail themselves of the opportunity to make a proper study of these factors, factors which they maintain are influential. I make bold to say that the people of South Africa will endorse the employment of every means in order to maintain our White Western way of life here. When I say “every means”, I do not mean military means only but that every possible reserve of the people, in whichever field, will be harnessed in order to ensure our survival.

I now want to proceed to deal with some practical aspects of our Defence Force. The first of these aspects which I want to advocate is the establishment of a Department of African Studies in the Defence Force. There is no point in mincing matters by pretending that there are no threats to South Africa in Africa. It may assume the form we have experienced in Ovamboland, but whatever form it may assume there is substantial threat to South Africa from Africa. One of the most important tasks of a defence force is to know its enemies, and it is for this reason that I advocate the establishment of a Department of African Studies in our Defence Force. The task of this Department would be to make a geographical study of Africa, to study the economy of the various states, to make a study particularly of the politics and characters of those states and finally, to study the Bantu languages which we encounter. Moreover, I regard it is important that our Defence Force should also have a thorough knowledge of the Bantu languages spoken in South Africa. I say this because the United Nations make no secret of the fact that they rely on a certain amount of assistance on the part of the local population. I maintain, therefore, that we should have a thorough knowledge of the usages, the customs, the religion and the mores of our own Bantu. Our soldiers should therefore study all these aspects thoroughly.

The techniques of warfare have changed over the course of time, and at present the conventional forms of warfare form only one aspect of military science. It has now become necessary for us to concentrate our studies particularly on what the hon. member for Durban (Point) called guerrilla warfare. It was for this reason that I was delighted to notice in the Press this afternoon that we had made certain purchases which to my mind are most suitable for guerrilla warfare. This is my own modest opinion. I do not wish to intrude on the province of the military experts. For that reason I am thankful that this aspect of our defence is apparently receiving attention.

I now want to say something regarding our commandos. [Time limit.]

I am one of those who have at all times maintained in this House that if there was one department about whose affairs we should not quarrel or fight amongst ourselves, that department is the Department of Defence. In the light of the dangerous times in which we are living now, it is more necessary than ever before that we should do nothing to undermine our forces. Instead we should do everything in our power to boost them in every respect. I do not think we should join issue on minor details or try to score debating points. It is in this spirit that I want to make a few observations, offer some criticism and ask the hon. the Minister some questions.

Firstly,. I should like to deal with the Groenewoud Committee's report. The summary we have had of this report is excellent as far as it goes. One is gratified to note from the summary that the High Command has lost no time to commence implementing some of the Committee’s recommendations. I should, however, like to point out that all we have been told in this summary relates to the findings and opinions of the Committee on domestic matters, matters such as administration and training facilities. We have heard nothing about the efficiency or about the general preparedness of our forces as such. No opinion has been expressed on how our Defence Forces will or might be able to cope if called upon to discharge the task it is there for, namely the defence of our country.

The Committee has, quite rightly, drawn attention to certain serious deficiencies and shortcomings although this relates merely to the administrative and training facility side. If there are these deficiencies and shortcomings, one immediately asks oneself the question how efficient and prepared we are on the other side, i.e. on the operational side. The certain aspects brought to light by the Committee’s report have already been raised from time to time in this House by this side and also by some members of the opposite side.

We find that the Committee is concerned about the efficiency of our Permanent Force. As a matter of fact, if there is one theme which runs right throughout the report, that theme is the shortage being experienced in the Permanent Force and, as it is put, the continued wastage in the force. Attention is drawn to the very serious shortage of trained personnel on the training side and also to the very serious shortage on the technical side. As a matter of fact, it is common knowledge that we are terribly short as far as these aspects of our Permanent Force are concerned. The Committee is very concerned about the lack of trained instructors for the training of our Citizen Force. I feel that the findings of this Committee, in any event as far as they go, prove that we can expect of the Minister to take this House more into his confidence and give us more information. As a matter of fact, I think it is essential that he should find or establish some machinery to keep members more informed about what is going on so as to give them the opportunity of being able to assess the workings and degree of efficiency of our Defence Forces as a whole. Time and again we have stated that we are of the opinion that secrecy is being overdone and has been for many years. I do not, of course, expect the hon. the Minister to give us information on, for instance, highly secret equipment, data or intelligence. But in order for us to be able to offer any intelligent criticism and suggestions we should know more about what is going on. I should like to assure the Minister that in these difficult times we all should like to be completely assured with regard to the general efficiency, the fighting efficiency, of our Defence Forces.

It is in this respect that I should like to put a few questions to the Minister on matters which to my mind are of vital concern to our Defence Forces and to his Department as well. One of these matters is the question of the manufacture of munitions. We know that a very large quantity of equipment, material and munitions generally are being manufactured in South Africa to-day. We also know that the Government has established an aircraft factory at Jan Smuts, a factory which is in the process of being built. In due course it is to produce aircraft. What I should like to know is on what basis these munitions, equipment and aircraft are being produced. There have been rumours that the aircraft factory is being built for the Government on a cost-plus basis. Can the Minister tell us if that is correct and, if so, does he consider that to be the most efficient way in which to get a huge concern like this going?

The second question I should like to raise has already been raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point), namely the question of our intelligence organization. Looking through the budget figures we find that there is an intelligence organization in our Defence Force on which R500,000 is being spent; there is another such organization in the Department of Foreign Affairs on which another R500.000 is being spent; there is a secret service in the police on which R312,000 is being spent and also in the Department of Bantu Administration and Development in respect of which a very small amount is spent. I sincerely hope that these various departments are not operating in water-tight compartments but if that is so we can expect more of the sort of thing we had a couple of years ago. Therefore I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that these various intelligence organizations should be placed under one central organization, an organization which will then be able to coordinate all the intelligence that is being gathered from the various sources. As has already been pointed out, it is of no use having a wonderful Defence Force spending large sums of money on equipment, if our intelligence organization does not come up to the mark or is not efficient.

There is a third point upon which I should like to put some questions to the hon. the Minister. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Hillbrow the modern trend in warfare is towards mobility. The days of static warfare, of trench warfare, is a thing of the past. Mobility is now the keynote and in this light I should like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that with the equipment our Defence Force has at its disposal, it can move forces, sometimes quite large forces, over long distances. We are a very large country with very long borders and we must realize that if ever there is trouble it will be essential for us to be able to move our forces quickly over those long distances. What is more, the major part of these movements would have to be by means of mechanical transport. I know that commercial forms of transport can be commandeered in times of war but there are certain areas where specialized equipment is required. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member addressed his question to the hon. the Minister, and he will forgive me if I proceed with my own argument. According to the recommendations of the Groenewoud Commission it would appear that we have come to the end of the Army Gymnasium in its present form. Allow me as a parent who has had a son in this institution to pay tribute to this particular branch for the excellent service it is rendering to our youth. I think the officers and authorities who have managed this part of our army are deserving of the highest praise for what they have accomplished in the Army Gymnasium. But one fundamental shortcoming in the Army Gymnasium was the fact that selection did not take place on the basis of academic achievement and leadership potential. I want to express the hope that the new Army Gymnasium will in fact and in a thorough way allow selection to take place on the basis of these qualities. I also want to offer a plea that the one possibility which was suggested by the Groenewoud Commission, namely that the Army Gymnasium should be used for the training of junior leaders, will be realized. In addition I want to plead that this should not only be for junior leaders who would be required to complete a further period of service with a commission rank after their Army Gymnasium training. I shall find it a great pity if ballotees with excellent qualities who are not prepared to do further service after nine months or a year were to be excluded from these junior leadership courses.

As far as the Commandos are concerned I want to say that I do not want to plead here for them to be converted into specialist organizations because we could then just as well do away with the Commandos. In this regard I just want to say that amongst the Commando members in my neighbourhood there is a very strong feeling that a measure of compulsion should be imposed on the younger members at least of the commando and the ballotees who are incorporated with them, which is not the case at present. The fact that that obligation is not at present being imposed on ballotees for example is causing a great deal of frustration to the officers in question.

At present we have a period of compulsory service of nine months. Hon. members on the opposite side are taking a somewhat incorrect view of this period of compulsory service. They see this compulsory service period as a kind of sausage machine which must train recruits for combative purposes as rapidly as possible. I do not think we must let the emphasis fall solely on that. We must also emphasize the fact that these young men have to render the country a service, and if one regards it in that light then this period can be even longer than nine months. But for anyone who, directly or indirectly, has had anything to do with army training, it is a fact that the position at the moment is of such a nature that young men find themselves feeling bored in the army for considerable periods, sometimes as much as three months. And that is a fundamental problem which must be solved. If this period of compulsory service were to be made even longer this problem would most certainly become aggravated.

That is why, Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not high time, since we need these young men for a long period—definitely longer than six months—for any state of emergency which might arise, we found better ways and means of keeping the young men productively busy during the period in which they are not undergoing basic military training? I humbly want to suggest a national conference of different Departments, namely the Department of Education, the Department of Defence, the Departments of Agriculture and other Departments, in order to go into this aspect of the matter. I feel that since the army has the instructors, since they have the expensive installations, and since these young men have been brought together there during this period, it would be an excellent opportunity of affording our young men other essential training as well.

I just want to mention one example in support of my idea. Let us take land service as it exists at present. It is taught mainly at primary schools and in an extremely fragmentary form, and very few children undergo this training. In any case it does not receive very serious attention. Here we have a priceless opportunity of giving every young citizen of the country, where they are gathered together in camps in the country, essential training in land service. All our young men, those from the cities as well, will be able to learn to live close to the soil and to serve our country in other fields as well. It is not so far-fetched. It is precisely the principle which one finds in Israel to-day. There one has an ideal integration of cultural, military and land service activities. One finds for example the so-called Nahal Organization in Israel. It is a cultural organization such as the Boy Scouts or the Voortrekkers in our country. That movement serves them and serves the children while they are at school. When they are 18 years of age the members of that organization pass automatically into the military organization. They then do compulsory military service for their country, the young men for 2½ years and the young women for two years. They first receive their basic military training as they are compelled to do military service for their country for the full 2½ years or two years, whichever the case may be. But after they have received their basic military training they go to the rural areas and receive agricultural and other essential training there. In view of Israel’s particular requirements they also then go to established settlements. I feel that we can begin thinking in the same direction, although it might perhaps be on completely different lines. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to give his attention to the matter in this regard as well.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to react to the speech of the hon. member for Kroonstad, except to say that I am with him where he pleads for the most efficient use to be made of available manpower in the Defence Force.

When my time expired I was dealing with the question of mechanical transport. I wish to say that to my way of thinking it is very important for the members of the Defence Force to have training, and plenty of training, in the handling of large convoys on our present congested roads. It is quite conceivable that it will be necessary in time of emergency, and we know that it is no easy task. We have seen the chaos sometimes occasioned on our roads by these large convoys of new motor vehicles. I should like to suggest to the Minister that he cannot give his commanders and even his junior staff officers enough practice in the handling of these large convoys.

Now, talking about transport, I think I would be failing in my duty if I too did not join in congratulating the Defence Force on the excellent parade in Pretoria on the 31st May. I was very proud of them and I bragged no end to my friends about that show. But when I say this I do want to point out that the Defence Force had quite a period of time to arrange that. As I say, they did a very good job of work. But in time of emergency they will not always have the time to do that very rapid organization. Here, too, I think it is only right that one should congratulate the Defence Force on the show they put up at the funeral of the late Prime Minister. They had very short notice there and they performed very well indeed.

Talking about transport, we immediately think of the question of air transportation. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Hillbrow, we will have to transport certain self-contained units to inaccessible places at short notice, and we know that the Department has certain aircraft at its disposal to do just that sort of job, aircraft that can operate from advanced landing grounds. We also know that aeroplanes of the hon. the Minister of Railways will be chartered and put into use. But they cannot be used under those circumstances. Therefore, Sir, we are dependent on this type of aircraft, and it is no secret when I say that I refer to the Hercules type of aircraft. My question to the Minister is whether he is satisfied that he has enough of those in view of the difficulties that we are experiencing as regards the source of supply. If so, has he any hope of getting additional aircraft of that type in the near future?

I should also like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that his air defence system, which is the very latest air defence system of its kind, is properly manned. Are the men employed on that system well-trained? Because it is very well-known that the modern interceptor aircraft is absolutely useless without an efficient ground-control system and early warning system. We must remember that this equipment is of a very highly specialized and a very intricate nature. Therefore one needs highly trained men and men with a very high degree of intelligence to handle that equipment.

Reference has been made to a recent happening as regards Simonstown. I do not wish to pursue that matter, except to say that we all know that the role of our navy is the defence of the sea route around the Cape. That is their principal role. And to do that they have to be trained and equipped for anti-submarine and mine-sweeping work.

Not only must they be trained for anti-submarine work but they also need something else very desperately and that is maritime reconnaissance aircraft. We know that we have had our maritime reconnaissance aircraft for a long time. They are obsolescent at the present time and we must find replacements for that type of aircraft. One knows that there are certain difficulties as far as certain countries are concerned, and I would very much like to hear from the hon. the Minister, if it is possible for him to tell us, whether any other substitutes can be found. He need not tell us where. We would like to know, however, that those very essential types of aeroplanes can be acquired because without them our navy would be completely blind and would not be able to function.

Talking about the navy one is rather perturbed by the fact that the Capex exercises are no longer being held. As I have said, the role of our ships, of our frigates, is to hunt submarines, and in order to hunt submarines our men have to be trained and we must have submarines for their training. We had submarines in the past and I would very much like to learn from the hon. the Minister whether a way has been found to overcome that shortcoming as far as submarine training is concerned.

The Capex exercises have not been discontinued.

I am very glad to hear that. Not much publicity has been given to these exercises.

Then there is another matter in regard to which I would like to hear something from the Minister and that is the question of training facilities for our anti-aircraft guns. The last time we went to Strandfontein, unfortunately, the weather was such that we could not see the demonstrations, but the year before last they were doing their practice and firing at targets towed by old Dakota aircraft. Quite frankly, I do not think that is good enough. The old Dakota is far too slow if we want to give our people training in dealing with modern fast aircraft. There are also these radar-controlled targets and I am just wondering whether they are available.

Then I want to come back to something which is referred to in the report of the Groenewoud Committee and that is the question of the image of the Defence Department. I think it is most important that the status of all in the Defence Force should be safeguarded; that we should see to it that a man in uniform is not ridiculed, especially people in the higher positions. Just lately we have heard a certain amount of criticism from various sources about the promotions made by the Minister to so very many high ranks. I know the Minister’s difficulties. These officers who have been promoted to high ranks by him have all served for many years and they certainly deserve some recognition. I think the Minister created these higher posts with that in view, but I think it is only fair to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that it has led to quite a lot of criticism, criticism to the effect that the Army, Air Force and Navy are top-heavy and that while there is a serious shortage amongst other ranks, there are all these high ranks in the army. [Time limit.]

I should like to refer briefly to what the hon. member for Durban (Point) has said. He referred to the amount of R255,000,000 which is being requested for the defence of our country. It is a well-known fact that one cannot at a certain stage purchase all one’s requirements for one’s defence force, because that equipment which one purchases remains suitable for a certain time only; it subsequently becomes obsolete and one then has to purchase new equipment again. The same applies to the Defence Force in South Africa. After the Second World War we had to begin from scratch and build up a new Defence Force. Our Defence Force gradually improved and we are to-day being asked to vote the colossal amount of R255,000,000 under the Defence Vote. That amount is not being requested just because we are fond of spending the taxpayer’s money on defence. World circumstances require that we have to be prepared, and that is why this amount is being requested.

I do not want to say much about the strategic aspect of our Defence Force. I have every confidence in the hon. the Minister of Defence and his supreme command to undertake that part of our defence. I want to confine myself more specifically to the Force as such and its relationship to the nation. Each nation has its defence force and the task of that defence force is to protect the country and the people physically, and in order to be able to do so one’s defence force must be ready for action. One’s defence force must be modernized in order to adapt to the new developments as well as to science. In former times the defence forces usually consisted of mercenaries, but in the era in which we are living and in particular here in South Africa our defence force consists of the sons of our nation, and that is why the defence force, in my opinion, must also be the pride of the nation; it must have a tradition of its own. Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to make an appeal in this House to our nation to bury once and for all now that stigma which has over the years adhered to the soldier. I have many times in my life been forced to listen to the insulting language which is used against our soldiers. Is that right? Which one of us has the right to use that kind of language against our soldiers while we know that it is they who are prepared to offer up their lives for the sake of your safety and mine? It hurts us a great deal and we honestly feel it to be our task now to remove that stigma and to give our soldiers the honour which is their due. Can we not give our soldiers, who are usually young men, the same freedom we give our sons at our universities? Can we not allow them, now and again, to be high-spirited and cheerful, and to relax? When something unpleasant happens, why must the expression always be used that one is behaving one’s self just like a bad soldier? Mr. Chairman. I feel this deeply and I think there are many hon. members who also feel it, and I am really making a very earnest appeal to our nation to renounce once and for all that attitude and to regard the soldier as the pride of our nation. I am pleading for the good name of the soldier.

You must have mixed with the wrong company.

It is our task to nurture love for our defence force amongst our people. So many times I have heard mothers say, “I am not going to let my son join the Defence Force because all they are going to do there is make him into a so-and-so.” I do not want to repeat the word but what it amounts to is that they imply that the last thing it is going to make of them is a civilized person. I feel that it is our duty, who perhaps know better, to ensure that those people are better informed so that that part of our nation are able to give up their children to our Defence Force freely. This has always been my attitude, seeing that our Defence Force consists of our own sons—and I am also to-day a proud father with a son in the Defence Force. Our Defence Force is born out of our nation and for our nation and for nobody else. In order to keep pace with new complications and with the present day tendency towards guerrilla warfare, our Defence Force must be properly trained and we must be prepared. When there is another war one day I expect it will be another blitzkrieg; where it will come from I do not know, and I do not want to venture into those waters because they are unfathomable. None of us knows what form a future war is going to take, and it would be a very stupid enemy who would inform South Africa now already in what way they were going to attack us; we cannot therefore rely on that happening. We must be prepared, however, and I have every confidence, in view of the re-organization of our Defence Force, that everything is being done to make our country defensible against any possible enemy and that the people of South Africa can rest assured that our defence is in good hands. I shall go further and say this: We all know that it costs a great deal of money to build up a defence force and to purchase the necessary equipment, the necessary arms, but we as a nation must be prepared to pay that amount of money for the safety of hearth and home. We in South Africa, as has already been mentioned here, have a limited man-power. That is why I believe—we are able to do so because we have the materials and we have good men—that every South African soldier must be trained so well that he is the equal of ten soldiers of any possible enemy who should dare to attack us. We can do so; we have the material.

I notice in the Budget that an amount of R23,300,500 is being requested for ammunition. We are not involved in a hot war, and I have to deduce therefore that that amount is being requested in order to supply ammunition for proper training. That is in my opinion the essence of the success of our Defence Force; we must be well trained. It is absolutely essential that every soldier in South Africa must be a marksman, no matter what weapon he is handling. It is interesting to know that the art of marksmanship has been practised since the days of Simon van der Stel; that is where the interesting name “Pappegaaiberg” here in Stellenbosch comes from. The first organized shooting practices were held in those days already, and so the tradition was handed over to our Voortrekker sons, to the sons of our frontier farmers, to our immigrant sons and to the sons of the 1820 settlers. They grew up weapon in hand, but in this era in which we are now living our sons are not afforded the opportunity of becoming familiar with firearms. I think it is imperative that they should be afforded the opportunity of learning to handle fire-arms under all circumstances so that they can destroy the enemy, because that is the primary task of our soldiers. It is no good our telling our soldiers that his rifle is his best friend during the time of war; we must teach that soldier to be able to use that weapon so that it can be his best friend. I do not want to say much more about marksmanship, except this: I feel that there is a great deficiency in the organization as far as marksmanship is concerned. Taking our country as a whole I see our schools as the places where our sons can be taught to shoot, but the necessary shooting ranges are lacking. I want to plead here for shooting ranges to be erected wherever possible. If our sons can learn to play rugby at school, something which is not really so very positive, except for the fact that our sons acquire a little physical development, then we may as well let them learn to shoot because the ability to be able to shoot may later on perhaps be extremely valuable in the defence of their country. [Time limit.]

I entirely agree with the hon. member for Lydenburg that the Defence Force should be near to our hearts and that we should be very proud of our men in the Defence Force. Indeed I think we have a fine military tradition in South Africa, stretching back over many, many decades, which entitles us to adopt that attitude. I was sorry to hear that the hon. member had experienced a contrary attitude. I can give him the comfort of saying that I personally have not found that lack of pride in our force or in our soldiers, and I sincerely hope, as he does, that this experience of mine will become quite general.

Sir, much thought has rightly been given to the training of our Citizen Force and of the new recruits coming into the army. I have no special qualification to tackle the subject that I should like to tackle this afternoon, but I should like to give a little attention to the training of our top commanders, because the life and future of even the new recruits lie very much in the hands of our top commanders.

I think there is a danger that our top commanders, quite naturally, are concentrating on the expansion of our forces and therefore on the training of the beginner, and it is necessary for us not to forget the men who will be leading our troops on the field of battle in the event of war. Two possibilities have been stressed here to-day as likely situations that we may have to face, firstly, that of infiltration, leading perhaps to the building up of incursions in the hope of enlisting the support of well-wishers in this country. Doubtless for that type of situation, which is probably the most likely, we will need a very skilful high command and skilful generalship. But I particularly want to address myself to the other aspect mentioned, namely, the possibility of an invasion, which the hon. member for Middelburg has touched upon. He quoted from reports which mentioned the type of force that would be needed. We must bear in mind that in fact there are on record reports indicating that it has been calculated to quite a fine point, the size of the force that will be needed to secure the destruction of our military forces. There is no doubt that if our forces are prepared, this would act as an appreciable deterrent. And when I say “prepared” I do not simply mean that we must have the men and the material, but that it should be known that our High Command is ready for every eventuality. I want to say immediately that I am not in any way imputing that that is not the case. I am not suggesting for a moment that our High Command does not consist of the very people who might make a great name for themselves if a situation of this kind should ever occur. I only wish to be assured by the hon. the Minister that full attention is being given to this aspect.

I think we have been well served in the past by our field commanders; I think as well served as any country, but we have had our disappointments too. Possibly some of our disappointments could have been eliminated if the whole art of high command was practised and so sharpened that it will not fail when faced with the acid test. This is something which is common to all countries. It has been said by an acute military observer that among the British generals of the last war there were only three who were truly fine commanders, namely, Generals Montgomery, Slim and Alexander. Well, among so many that is not a great number.

We therefore must spare no effort to ensure that our men who will have that command should be fully trained. I may say that it is conceded that General Montgomery was one of the very few high commanders, certainly on the British side, who particularly concentrated on making a study of high command and in a sense, therefore, was doubly prepared for it when it came his way. I therefore hope that those who will be entrusted with those top commands, in even the next decade, are duly studying this whole aspect so as to be prepared. They say that—

I sincerely trust that there are men, and I well believe that there could be, in that sort of position who are spurred in this way, scorning delights and living laborious days. I would therefore like to ask where are our top commanders receiving training in this art? One knows that in Britain they have merely the Imperial Defence College for this purpose, as a kind of, you might say, theoretical school. One wonders, naturally, whether we have as much as that, or whether it is not possible to enlist the help of friendly powers to ensure that our top men in this theoretical field are able to get the benefit of rubbing shoulders and matching wits with other leading commanders elsewhere. Have we the syllabus, as it were, which is appropriate to the situation, and is it good enough? It has been said, rightly, that the Parade on Republic Day, with 20,000 troops taking part, was extremely well executed, and we are very glad about this. I would ask whether it is possible for manoeuvres to be planned on the sort of scale on which our troops would have to operate if in fact there was any sort of invasion of the kind that has been mentioned here. I think it is most important that our field commanders and others should have an opportunity of testing themselves in command of forces of the approximate size that ours would have to be. I spoke of the 20,000 men who were on that parade. One realizes that this is a complicated matter, but one would like to know that there will be opportunities for our leading commanders to undertake manoeuvres in command of large bodies of men, and not merely small technical exercises (which have their part indeed); but we would need to build up to the situation where they have training in command of large bodies of men. I think when those opportunities are created we want to be careful to avoid that some of our best commanders merely become directors of the exercise. They should be there conducting the exercise as often as possible, and as infrequently as possible merely doing the directing or the marking of them. It is essential that they should have that experience. Even if they make mistakes there, this is the time when mistakes should be made, and not later.

In the little time left to me I should like to touch upon the matter raised by the Minister in his reply in the Budget debate. He mentioned the establishment of the Defence Advisory and Research Council. We welcome the combining of the three bodies to form that Council, and we have taken note of the various functions. If we as an Opposition are going to be able to comment usefully upon some of those functions, we should know more about it. For example, one of the functions is to see which topic should receive priority in this Committee. It is essential for us to know what the Minister’s view is of defence priorities, as far as he can tell us. We would like to know what the likelihood is of the employment of our forces, again as far as he can tell us, because naturally one will be better able to test the priorities that are accepted by this Committee against the pattern he foresees, and indeed it will give us an opportunity to express opinions on the general picture he sees. So I hope that when the Minister replies he will, as far as possible, take us into his confidence in that regard. [Time limit.]

While the hon. member for Pinelands was talking about the Republic Day parade, he asked the question whether there have ever been similar large exercises in the field. I still remember the very large Operation Oranje which was held in the Free State on the General De Wet practice ground. I am not certain how many troops there were, but it was really a major exercise and it was also under the command of the late Brigadier Burger. I also call to mind Operation Outeniqua, which was precisely concerned with the other matters which he mentioned, sabotage and guerrilla warfare, and which was really a masterpiece to watch. One hon. member spoke about mobility which is still the directing principle of our Defence Force. In that connection I thought of the importance of this aircraft factory which we are now building, because the aeroplane is really the mobile unit of the air, the winged fist of our Defence Force. I thought of the importance of that factory. But at the same time we have a very long coastline and a small fleet which has to protect it. The emphasis here is also on the mobility of ships which have to travel fast. In these times when the submarine is playing such an important part and where it is one of the most dangerous weapons to-day, with the Polaris projectile which can strike its targets over a distance of 3,000 miles and the Regulus which has a striking distance of 1,150 miles and which travels through the air at an altitude of 60,000 feet, I wondered whether it is not time we integrated the submarine into our Defence Force in the same way as the fighter aircraft in the air form a branch of our defence. Our Naval budget has already progressed so far that it is only taking R2,000,000 less than the Army with its R22,000,000, but it may perhaps be a very good investment at this early stage to consider incorporating the submarine actively into our Naval organization and if need be, make a start with a shipyard where special attention will be paid to the manufacture of submarines on a large scale. But behind the submarine, the aircraft and the tank there is still the man behind the weapon, and particularly the young man, and in my constituency there is in particular the young aircraft mechanic. Here in Naval Headquarters at Simonstown there is in particular the young seaman serving on our frigates and our coastal minesweepers. The work those young men do is hard and tiring and I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that he should perhaps institute an investigation into the recreational facilities of those young men in particular who have just returned from sea. What I have in mind is such matters as good library facilities and cinema halls where they can see good films, and a good turntable on which they can play good music. I think this is really needed at Simonstown at the moment, and in order to keep the morale of these young men high, such recreational facilities are really necessary. I am also thinking of the civics education of those young men. At election times and in normal times one becomes very aware and concerned about the ignorance prevailing amongst these young men in regard to such matters as parliamentary and provincial representation, how the State machinery works and how it actually fits into the Defence Force, which in turn is a sub-division of the State. I think there is a large field for exploitation in teaching those young men these basic facts about civics.

I should like to pay special tribute to the Army Chaplains’ Corps of our Defence Force. I want to refer specifically to a message delivered by Commandant G. J. J. Boshoff at the passing-out parade of the Army Gymnasium trainees last year. I just want to read to you his charge to the young men and you will then realize what wonderful work this corps is doing. His message to them was: “Do not let your back be bent, your honour violated, your word broken, your courage dissolved, your soul bought, your nation cursed and your God mocked.” In conclusion I should very much like to pay great tribute to this Army Chaplains’ Corps. It so happened that I was able to serve as a deacon in the Air Force Camp at Waterkloof, and I can testify to the fact that amongst those young men, who are subject to all kinds of tensions, this corps is doing work which makes their salaries worth their weight in gold to the Defence Force.

The last speaker has made some interesting observations in regard to our Citizen Force and our Defence Force, and I am sure the Minister will reply to the various points he has raised. The position of the Citizen Force is one which has received particular attention, more particularly in recent months, with the tabling of the Groenewoud Committee Report. The hon. member for Durban (Point) has made various suggestions in his speech this afternoon and he has also indicated the various points where we are in agreement with the recommendations contained in the report and also certain points where we disagree with those recommendations.

I wish to deal mainly with the Citizen Force and the intake and the system that is presently being practised as far as intake to the Citizen Force is concerned. This is a point which has often been discussed in recent times and the hon. member for Point this afternoon mentioned the fact that we would like to see the period of training reduced from nine to six months. The whole question of the intake and the benefits which could be derived from reducing the period of training is of the utmost importance, in my opinion. If we look at the present system, which is the ballot system, it unfortunately appears that while there is a shortage of instructors and of facilities, it is perhaps the only method which can still be maintained, but I feel that the Minister should give serious consideration to making his ultimate aim the abolition of the ballot system, whereby all persons attaining the necessary age should be required to undergo continuous training.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned for dinner I was dealing with the question of the intake and the policy of the hon. the Minister in regard to military training. I suggested that the ultimate aim and policy of the hon. the Minister should be to work towards the eventual abolition of the ballot system of call-up and that it should be replaced by a system whereby all who are liable to undergo their full-time military training should be called upon to do so. I realize, Sir, that there are practical difficulties involved as far as instructors are concerned and facilities at the various camps. However, I do hope that the hon. the Minister can give an assurance that this is indeed his aim and his policy as there are numerous shortcomings in our present system. There are a number of persons who in missing the ballot do obtain an unfair advantage in many respects in respect of employment and the commencement of their careers, when compared with those who have to undergo nine months military training. I know that the Juvenile Affairs Board of the Department of Labour often has difficulty in placing in employment the young person who has left school but has been balloted and has been advised that he is required to commence his nine months training on the 1st of July or the 1st of October. Unfortunately many employers are loath to employ such a young person and thereby that person can lose up to two years in his career due to the fact that he has been balloted whereas some other person who has not been balloted gains an advantage of, in some instances, two years in the particular career which he wishes to follow. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note that in reply to a question put to him on the 23rd August the hon. the Minister gave us certain figures in this regard. In 1966 the number of persons who could be required to undergo military training was 56,663 and the number of trainees balloted was 43,301 which meant that 13,362 persons missed the ballot and will therefore not have any military training whatsoever. Of the 43,301 who were balloted, 6,090 were granted exemptions, 15,406 were granted deferments and 3,084 ballotees were found to be medically unfit. This means that of the number balloted half could not be required to undergo military training during 1966 for these various reasons. It appears therefore that a system could be devised for more selective training for the persons required to undergo the nine months military training. I think that this would also dispel the attitude adopted by some of these young people when they find that they have not been balloted. There are cases where many of these young persons constitute manpower which requires training and they would be of great benefit to the Defence Force and indeed to the community and they would benefit from their nine months training.

Another aspect which is dealt with in the report of the Groenewoud Committee concerns gymnasia and in this regard we on this side of the House feel that perhaps there had not been sufficient evidence placed before that Committee, since the report itself does not put forward sufficient grounds for its recommendation for the abolishment of the system according to which the gymnasia have been used in the past. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is common knowledge that the three gymnasia have proved extremely popular amongst a certain group of persons who believe that the additional training obtained there over the period of 11 months is of great benefit and we know that in many instances only approximately 40 per cent of the applicants have been able to be accommodated at these gymnasia. The trainees who have received instruction over a period of 11 months at these gymnasia have been found to provide excellent material as potential officers in the Citizen Force and we feel, Mr. Chairman, that this is an important aspect of the overall programme of training, since the gymnasia can be utilized as training centres for potential officers in the Citizen Force. We feel that the system that has been adopted in the past, namely one of selection, has brought about a higher standard in the gymnasia, a standard which is perhaps higher than the standard appertaining to the Citizen Force training scheme. We feel that the system which has worked in the past should be retained and that the recommendation of the Committee is perhaps not substantiated sufficiently to justify the virtual abolition of the gymnasium system. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give very serious consideration to this matter before accepting the recommendation of the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umbilo has spoken about the ballot system which is perhaps not the most effective way of getting our young men into the Defence Force. I think we all agree with that because we believe that every able-bodied man would very much like to contribute his share to the defence of our country and would also like to undergo training. However, I think we can leave the matter in the capable hands of our hon. Minister and I believe that he will be able to find a solution to that problem. In regard to the question of the gymnasiums I want to differ from the hon. member, however, because we believe that since this is the position in regard to our training system at the moment and since the Groenewoud Committee has recommended that the Army Gymnasium should only be used for more extensive training in leadership, it should be led in that direction and I hope that the hon. the Minister will also accept and carry into effect that recommendation.

Mr. Chairman, the ultimate responsibility for the future of our youth rests squarely on the shoulders of each one of our young people and we may not remove that responsibility from their shoulders. Those young people must realize that the responsibility for the creation, the survival and the safeguarding of a future for South Africa rests on their shoulders. Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to our cadet corps at schools. I note that according to the Government Gazette of 19th August, 1966, the hon. the Minister has decided to award a cadet corps medal to those cadet officers who have been rendering faithful and valuable service for 20 years or more. I should like to congratulate and thank the hon. the Minister for the decision to accord acknowledgement, through the award of that medal, to those men who have made so many sacrifices without any remuneration. I say sacrifices because much of the work which they do for the cadet corps is done after school hours and because those men give up some of their holidays to attend courses in order to qualify themselves better. However, ] want to raise a plea with the hon. the Minister in respect of a few minor matters regarding our cadet corps. In the first place I want to plead for the appointment of officers in the various commands who will be specifically entrusted with the functioning of those cadet corps. Those people must be appointed on the grounds of their academic and professional qualifications, background and experience. Perhaps it would also be the ideal thing if a teacher who knows the problems and circumstances of the children in the school were to be that person. At the moment the officer in charge of a command is responsible for the cadet corps in his particular command, but with all his many and varied duties it is true that it cannot be expected of him to give the necessary attention to that branch of the Defence Force. Mr. Chairman, it also depends of course on his personal interest and his love for this work and it can easily happen that the interest and the attention which is being given to our cadet corps may vary from one commander to another. Furthermore, I want to plead that the training of our cadets be more purposeful. Viewed against the background of our military training in general and with a more purposeful programme of action, much more can be done with our young men in order to ensure that, physically and spiritually, they will be citizens capable of defending themselves. Our cadet corps programmes should entail more than the mere keeping clean of a uniform, the weekly repetition of the same movements and the training of a select group of boys so that most of the cadets do not derive any benefits there from. Mr. Chairman, should we not plan in the direction of a more intensive training of our cadets? This could perhaps be done by means of subsidiary subjects and regular courses for student officers and junior officers. In this way much more could be made of that spirit of adventure which each boy possesses. How well those boys receiving cadet training could also fit into the emergency planning! After the boys have left school and are called up as ballotees their training and correct attitude towards military matters, which have all been taken care of during their school years, will be of great benefit. But it will also be of value to that boy who has been deprived of the privilege of being balloted and who will never receive further military training. I am aware of the problems in respect of the manpower shortage as far as the carrying out of such a programme is concerned, as well as of the funds which will be required, but when we think of the safety and survival of our country we must, after all, think and act on a grand scale. The idea is most certainly not to make professional soldiers of our boys while they are still at school, but I say let us attempt to discipline them from an early age and—now I do not know whether the hon. member for Durban (Point) is going to disagree with me when I say this—indoctrinate them in such a way in respect of their attitude and their love for their fatherland and its defence so that they may from an early age shoulder arms for the survival of our White civilization. When we consider what is at stake the 40 hours per week during which a school boy receives cadet training is not enough. The schools might object that there is insufficient time for that, but I honestly think that some of the time spent on sport can be given up for a matter which is near to the heart of every man and woman. I should also like to ask that the training of cadet officers no longer take place at the teachers’ colleges, as is also recommended by the Groenewoud Committee, and that instead there should be military units at universities and colleges because, as is quite rightly stated in that recommendation, many of those men are appointed as teachers at primary schools and not at high schools where cadet training takes place. Unfortunately it is also the case that many of our young men try to escape that military training which is so necessary to them by going to teachers’ colleges in the knowledge that they will in that way evade being balloted. I should also like to plead for the promotion of cadet officers. You know, Mr. Chairman, at the moment a man has to wait a certain number of years after he has completed the required course before he receives promotion to the next rank. And I wonder now, with the proviso that the person must have completed the required course, whether promotion should not simply take place on merit so that a man does not for example have to wait a certain number of years before being promoted to the next rank.

Mr. Chairman, I am standing up in the calm waters in which this debate is being conducted just to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister. They are in connection with the planning for the immediate future in respect of the important defence complex along the West coast. There are the three aspects, namely the project at Langebaan, the Naval Gymnasium and the military academy. I just want to point out that this area is standing on the threshold of important possibilities for expansion and that in this entire complex we are at the moment engaged in general planning for the area. In the Press I have learnt sporadically of the possibility that the …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The discussion being held at the moment by the colleague of the hon. member who is speaking is making it very difficult for us to follow the hon. member’s speech.

I must ask hon. members, if they want to talk, to talk softer.

Mr. Chairman, in the area in question we are also engaged in … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban (Point) is the first to make interjections after having addressed an appeal to the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, in the lower Berg River area we are also at the moment engaged in planning and working out the details in respect of the water distribution in the entire area. I have learnt from sporadic reports in the Press of the possibility of the transfer of the flying school from Dunnottar to Langebaan Road and I want to ask the hon. the Minister in a very friendly way whether it is not possible at this stage, since these three aspects are a very important factor in the future planning for this entire complex, to furnish more details in regard to the exact extent of this transfer which will take place to this part of our country. Secondly, in respect of the Naval Gymnasium at Saldanha:

At a certain stage last year the entire matter was as yet in the air and we did not know for certain whether the Naval Gymnasium would be rebuilt there or not. In the interim the decision to rebuild the Naval Gymnasium at Saldanha became very emphatically known. I am glad because the same applies in respect of the Saldanha area where we are engaged in important planning and where we must take into account the future planning in respect of the Naval Gymnasium in that region. I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could at this stage perhaps throw more light on the following questions: In the first place whether the Naval Gymnasium will be rebuilt on the present premises where the old buildings are standing, and in the second, if it is perhaps the intention to move it, where will it be moved to? Mr. Chairman, with a view to future planning it is important that we have this information at this stage. Lastly, I want to put a further question to the hon. the Minister. At Langebaan beach there is still the small remaining project of the Navy which affects, to a great extent, the future planning in that region—and this is a beautiful beach which is situated on what is probably one of the most beautiful lagoons in the world—because here too we are engaged in planning for the future and I should like very much to learn from the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to transfer or remove that small project to the harbour in Saldanha itself to link up with the activities of the Naval Gymnasium there?

Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Moorreesburg, who has spoken about naval matters, I should like to deal exclusively with the South African Navy in Simonstown. I want to refer in the first instance to the heavy loss of personnel in the Navy at Simonstown, in many cases after four to five years of service, which is having a serious effect on the operational efficiency of our naval forces. My belief is that this results from dissatisfaction with the conditions of service in the Navy.

I want to remind hon. members that I have just asked them not to converse aloud. They must not disregard the Chair. If they do so, I shall have to take other steps.

There are certain reasons why there should be dissatisfaction. I think the first reason is that there is no recognition of the difference between the duties and the responsibilities of the naval and the civil departments of the Public Service. For example, no compensatory allowance is paid to naval families in respect of the time spent by the naval man at sea, his long absences from home and the disruption of his family life. I believe this is the practice in other navies elsewhere in the world.

Secondly, in recent months there have been special assignments for both commissioned and non-commissioned officers with experience in the Navy. For the long hours that they had to work they have received no overtime compensation. Furthermore, such allowances and fringe benefits as exist do not compare with those outside the Navy. As a result, commerce and industry, local authorities and other bodies are attracting those who have enlisted in our fleet.

Fourthly, there are quite inadequate and expensive transport facilities available to the Navy in Simonstown. My plea to-night is for the restoration of the traditional serviceman’s free pass on the South African Railways. I do hope that the hon. Minister will give his attention to this request. I am referring not only to servicemen, but also to trainees. As hon. members know, trainees are in receipt of 50 cents per day, while to take a train from Simonstown to Cape Town and back costs something like 31 cents. What is there left to spend?

Fifthly and lastly there is a quite appalling housing shortage in Simonstown. All these factors have resulted in frequent changes of personnel and unfortunately, the employment of a thoroughly undesirable element in our fleet; an undesirable element that is neither a credit to our Navy nor an asset to the Southern Peninsula. It is creating in its wake the most unwelcome social problem.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with certain specific problems apart from the general ones. I should like to refer to 233 families who live in Da Gama Park. They live in good houses and they pay reasonable rentals for those houses. But, Sir, there are no pavements in the streets, and the dust flies in Da Gama Park. There are no trees whatsoever and it is very hot in Da Gama Park. There is a shortage of water owing to completely inadequate storage tanks which have been erected by the defence authorities. There is no community hall, no school, and no church. Da Gama Park is 2.3 miles from Glen-cairn and 3.3 miles from Simonstown. Of necessity the families living in Da Gama Park have to utilize the bus services. There is a service bus for the naval men themselves, but it has a bad timetable and it does not operate as efficiently as it should. There is in addition a provincial subsidy for the transport of school children from Da Gama Park to Fish Hoek and to Simonstown, but there are no conductors on those buses at all and there is lawlessness. In addition the general bus service operated by the Simonstown Bus Company is a “mixed” bus service which gives offence to a number of the naval families using these buses and living in the Da Gama Park township. There have been recent fare increases which have affected not only the servicemen using the general bus service, but also their families. Mr. Chairman, some people may say that if we have established a naval township at Da Gama Park, there is little need to leave Da Gama Park. Well, there is. Not only do the families—the wives and the adult children —have to travel to work, but they also have to go for their entertainment to Simonstown, Fish Hoek and other parts of the Peninsula. There are no recreational amenities whatsoever in Da Gama Park. Some weeks ago I asked the Minister of Defence how much had been spent on the provision of recreational amenities since 1956 when we acquired Da Gama Park. The answer was R80. There are no shops, sports grounds, playing fields, and there is no swimming bath.

Mr. Chairman, let me now deal with the other naval families living in Simonstown itself and not in Da Gama Park. There are 126 of them. 68 of them live in defence residences. 58 of them live in flats. I am sure the hon. the Minister during his recent tour of inspection has seen the condition in which the two blocks of flats, Hamoaze and Solent, are at the present moment. I think they could almost be described from their outside appearance as a white slum. There is no upkeep in respect of those flats in which 48 families are living. There are no playing grounds for the children who live in those flats. There are not even swings for the children. It is small wonder then that the children have streamed across the parking area in front of those two flats and desecrated a part of the historic cemetery of Simonstown.

Sir, there are no service buses for the families in Simonstown other than the Da Gama Park bus service which only some can use. There is a “mixed” general bus service which again causes much offence to families and women travelling home late at night from work. What recreational facilities are there in the town? There are three tennis courts, one squash court, three badminton courts and two rugby fields, all of them inherited from the British Admiralty. Not one of those facilities were provided in the ten years that we have had the use of the Simonstown base. There are also naval families living outside Simonstown and outside Da Gama Park because of the shortage of defence housing. There is no “housing allowance” for them. Those who live in Simonstown and in Da Gama Park enjoy the benefit of cheap rentals. Those who live outside receive no “housing allowance” at all. In the Southern Peninsula they are subject to changing seasonal rentals. They are exploited unscrupulously by landlords in certain areas who are aided and abetted by the laxity of a certain local authority. Unfortunately, Sir, those living outside Simonstown include the undesirable elements. Their presence in other areas is resulting in a deterioration of standards in the Southern Peninsula. What is worse, from the point of view of morale, those who are living in defence houses are regarded with the utmost jealousy by those who are living outside and who do not enjoy the benefits of cheaper housing. The result of dissatisfaction is that there is a loss of much needed manpower in the Navy. There is an exodus from the service and an acceptance, of necessity, of those not necessarily the most suited for our naval forces.

I do not believe in making criticisms without making proposals. My proposals are that the Minister should give his attention to an immediate crash programme of housing for the Simonstown area. There is plenty of defence land available at Da Gama Park, above the High Level Road, at the Noahs Ark Batteries and above Rhodesia-by-the-Sea. All of these areas have been set aside for defence housing for the last sixty years. I believe that he should call a conference immediately with the Simonstown Municipality to discuss a planned future for our naval base. Secondly, he should see to the provision of more adequate transport arrangements. Furthermore, he should see to the provision of essential recreational amenities not only for the existing defence townships, namely Da Gama Park and in Simonstown itself, but also for the benefit of all those who are serving in our Navy and living in the Southern Peninsula.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my thanks to hon. members for the spirit in which this debate has been conducted so far. I think that it has been on a reasonably high level. With one or two minor exceptions, I do not think that the complaint can be made that any harm has been done to the Defence Force as a result of what was said here to-day. I thank hon. members on both sides of the House for that. Many weaknesses were pointed out and I am fully aware of them. I also want to avail myself of the opportunity of extending my hearty thanks to those hon. members—especially those on this side of the House, who were so friendly as to congratulate me personally and to wish me success—for their goodwill. I did not seek this position. The last thought that crossed my mind was that I should ever be in this position. Because I did not seek it, I am thoroughly aware of the tremendous responsibility which is coupled with this position. On a previous occasion I told this House that I regarded the South African Defence Force as being representative of the people of South Africa as a whole, and in that spirit I want to administer the Defence Force. Therefore, when complaints are made here about discrimination or even about some or other aspect of the Defence Force being neglected, I want to give you the assurance that, in so far as I am dealing with those matters, an attempt will be made to make the Defence Force the pride of the whole of South Africa. I need not repeat what I said here on a previous occasion.

In the third place I want to say that since I took over this portfolio, I have made it my business to give personal attention to the various benches of and installations in the Defence Force. That is why I have carried out a very severe programme since the beginning of April. But for three or four places, I can confidently say that I have conducted a personal tour of all of them. I think that there is very little of importance that I have not seen personally. That is why I say that when hon. members are talking about shortcomings and difficulties, they are not telling me anything new. In respect of the shortcomings and the defects which exist there, I may say that in the past few months I have inspected them in person, in the presence of those people who have to share the responsibility with me.

In the fourth place I want to say that, in spite of the shortcomings which may exist, I do not think that there has ever been a time in South Africa during which a better atmosphere prevailed in the supreme command and in the South African Defence Force, than is the case at present. I think that we should avail ourselves of this fine atmosphere which exists in the supreme command and throughout the Defence Force in order to render to South Africa the best in this regard.

I cannot refrain from thanking the members of the supreme command very heartily for this atmosphere. I am doing this in respect of the Commandant-General, the three chiefs, namely the chief of the Army, the chief of the Air Force and the chief of the Navy, as well as those people who share the responsibility with them. It is a pleasure to attend a meeting of the supreme command. In the past few months I have attended quite a number of them, and I want to give the country the assurance that an atmosphere of determination, proper planning and devotion prevails amongst those men. I want to express my thanks towards them for this atmosphere of co-operation, and I want to do so in public.

Hon. members will forgive me if I should not altogether succeed in replying to every point raised here. If I have to reply to all these matters, it will take too much time. However, I want to give hon. members the assurance that where I fail to reply to certain points raised here, a note has been made of them. In due course, therefore, we shall try to furnish those members with replies, should I fail to do so now.

Last night the hon. member for Durban (Point) asked me certain questions which I briefly want to dispose of first. The hon. member began by saying that he thought that too little military information was being furnished. He said, “There is too much secrecy about the South African Defence Force”. I disagree with the hon. member. I think that we have gone out of our way in the recent past to afford the Defence Force an opportunity of appearing before the South African public. We are doing that in various ways. To start with, in spite of the fact that the Groenewoud Committee itself recommended that its report should be classified as secret, I nevertheless proceeded to make available a summary of that report, not as a result of pressure, but of my own free will. In the second place, series of articles on the Defence Force, with photographs, have been appearing in numerous newspapers in South Africa in the recent past In the third place we have in the recent past started with a system of parents’ days on the occasion of which we invited the parents of ballotees to be present and to see for themselves what their sons are doing. Those parents’ days are a very great success. In the fourth place we had the splendid military parade on 31st May. That military parade revealed a great deal to the public of South Africa as well as to other possible inquisitive people outside South Africa. I do not think that the accusation can be made that we are concealing too much. If the hon. member meant that we had to furnish certain information about the purchase of equipment, namely heavy equipment such as aeroplanes and so forth, I want to tell the hon. member that in most cases where contracts are entered into with overseas firms for the delivery of requirements to the Defence Force, such contracts usually have a restrictive clause which stipulates that we should give as little publicity to the matter as possible. We are bound by such clauses. That is why I have from time to time, since I took over—and my predecessor also did this—appealed to the Press, the radio and everybody who makes public appearances not to publish or make known matters which may implicate South Africa, because we also have to take into account other partners, other elements in these transactions which are entered into. It is therefore not only us who want to veil certain matters. Both in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of the good relations we have with certain people who still supply us with equipment, we are sometimes obliged to draw a veil over such matters. We are therefore not acting irresponsibly or extremely secretively when we are holding back these matters. It is in the interests of the safety of South Africa and in the interests of good relations. I think hon. members will understand that we cannot break contracts. Unfortunately some information slips out occasionally, which is embarrassing to us as well as to those people from whom we buy. I want to express my strongest disapproval of such wilful releases which may cause embarrassment to us or to those people with whom we do business. The hon. member will agree with me that he probably does not expect me to publish the battle order of the Defence Force, or to publish the readiness of the Defence Force, or to publish the sources from which South Africa obtains assistance. But what is important to us, is not the publication of these things; what is important to us is that South Africa should be enabled to retain its battle order and to develop its readiness. I can assure hon. members that in spite of many things that are being said, South Africa is still successful in developing its Defence Force, to a large extent according to planning.

The hon. member also referred to the late Brig. Burger again. I would readily agree with him that we have suffered a great loss, and immediately after the death of Brig. Burger I paid homage to him, but I also want to place it on record here.

Then the hon. member for Pretoria (West) said that one heard rumours from time to time about aeroplanes which are being purchased or which have been ordered, and he asked whether I would say something about that. I want to tell the hon. member that it is correct that South Africa re-inforces its Air Force from time to time, and it is also correct that South Africa has ordered cargo planes, by means of which we hope to increase the mobility of the Defence Force, but owing to the reasons I mentioned a few minutes ago, I am not prepared to reveal the sources and to say how many, except to give the assurance that we do in fact succeed in obtaining these means.

I want to make a few general statements before I reply in greater detail. The first statement I want to make is that in the world in which we live the dividing line between war and peace is generally no longer a clear one, and the South African Defence Force, as indeed the defence force of every free country in the world, must take that situation into account. In a recently published article somebody put it as follows—

This is the situation which has developed in the world, and we must take it into account, and that is why we are making provision for the conventional task with our task force and the rest of our Defence Force in the sense that we are preparing for the unconventional task. That is why this preparation in regard to the task of one’s Defence Force has facets to-day which it may perhaps not have had previously; that is why the demands made upon one’s instructors, one’s commanders and those who are being trained are so much greater than ever before. In this regard I just want to repeat, because these points have been raised here, what the hon. the Prime Minister had to say in this House some time ago. I just want to tell those people who are sending terrorists or guerrillas to our country from outside, who are training terrorists or guerrillas and directing them at our country, in small or in large numbers, and who think that they will be successful in doing so, that they are underestimating our determination and our military power; such attempts can only lead to the death of those people. That is why we are hoping that for the sake of those people who are involved, these attempts from outside will not be intensified.

But I want to make a second statement, a statement which is not at all new but which cannot be repeated often enough and that is that we in South Africa are not seeking war. I can assure the Committee that I, as the Minister concerned, am not seeking war. We prefer peace because there is a great deal of construction and development work which has to be done in South Africa, but the price of peace will be too high if it has to be maintained at the expense of our self-respect and our freedom, and that which we demand for ourselves we neither begrudge neighbouring states nor other states—that is my reply to the hon. member for Durban (Point) who asked me last night what our military strategy was in respect of our neighbouring states and states at present gaining independence. I do not know what I can add to what the hon. the Prime Minister said here only a few days ago, namely that we shall not allow South Africa to be used as a basis or a starting point to cause unrest in our neighbouring states, and all we expect of others is that they will not try to create unrest in South Africa and that we shall try to preserve the good relationship between us in a spirit of self-respect and mutual respect. South Africa is at present furnishing proof of this in our neighbouring states by the presence of our Minister of Foreign Affairs at their festivities. That is my reply to the hon. member; I do not know what else I can tell him. Our military strategy is built on the basis of neighbourliness and peace and friendship with our neighbouring states.

Do we have any agreements?

There are no agreements. The third statement I want to make, is this: South Africa, as a country belonging to the free world, is on the side of the free world owing to the nature of our way of life and ideals, and in the military sphere we are also seeking the co-operation of the free world in matters of common interest, but I want to add this: If the free world needs us when they have to fight for their lives, they also have obligations towards us who are prepared to side with them, and then they should not wait until their hour of need has arrived and expect us to help them when we are unprepared. The fourth statement I want to make, is that we regard South Africa as a stable state as well as the strategic guardian of the sea routes around the Cape which we consider to be of the utmost importance to the free world, and owing to this position we are not only an important factor to the free world and to the West in time of war, but in regard to our military requirements we can also be an important economic asset to countries which want to understand our position and want to take it into account. Perhaps that is not sufficiently taken into account by some countries which should in fact be fully aware of the contingencies which may arise in respect of the two entrances to the Red Sea and further contingencies in South-Eastern Asia. You will permit me. Mr. Chairman, to refer in this regard to a very interesting article which appeared recently in a publication by Sir Peter Gretton, Vice-Admiral, Royal Navy (retired): “Maritime Strategy of Great Britain.” He deals with the entire position which is arising owing to present-day events, and then he says this; he deals with the most extreme possibilities in regard to Simonstown, with which we have not yet been faced and with which we hope we shall never be faced—

I am quoting this as a result of certain questions raised by hon. members on the other side. I do not want to add anything to what I said last night, except that I hope Western countries belonging to the free world along with us, will soon realize the strategic value Simonstown and South Africa has to the free world. I hope they will consider these matters, and that they will not argue that, for the sake of expediency they may in the meantime simply collude with everybody with the idea that when the bell rings eventually, they will be able to rely on us. One cannot rely on a country in the hour of death if one has not assisted that country to prepare for the hour of death and that is why I hope that common-sense will penetrate to those people who are playing with a basis which is of so much importance to the free world. In that sense I think I can state here to-night that we are a united Parliament as far as this point is concerned. I think that I can say on behalf of both the Government and the Opposition that we are making an appeal to the free world to realize this truth as soon as possible.

To be able to ensure these things—and this is the last statement I want to make—to enable South Africa to play its role as part of the free world, we do not only need our economic strength, although it is of extreme importance; we do not only need order in South Africa— that is very necessary—but, to be able to play our role along with the rest of the free world, we also need the highest degree of mobility for our South African Defence Force, and that is why one of the basic principles I, as the Minister concerned, and the supreme command have accepted and made our object, is the development, to the fullest extent, of the mobility of the Defence Force. It is interesting to note that when the danger of war threatens, everybody is concerned about the efficiency of the Defence Force and its readiness for battle; then everybody wants to know why this or that has not been done, and when the danger of war abates a little, our interest also flags and then we complain about the high expenditure which is attended with defence; that characteristic is only human. But there is in fact one task of the S.A. Defence Force, apart from its task in war, I want to emphasize for a moment to-night, and that is a very important task; I want to describe it as the peace-time task of the S.A. Defence Force, because apart from its task in war, apart from the fact that it has to prepare itself for conventional war, apart from the fact that it has to direct its training and its methods at being able to cope with the unconventional as well, it also has a peace-time task. In this regard it is interesting to quote what a military author recently said—

That is one of the tasks I have resolved to set myself. Whether I shall achieve that, the future will have to show. None of us have ever achieved everything we have set ourselves in life, but I nevertheless want to point out that without my assistance progress has already been made in this field. Let us take only the question of the training of officers. In 1948, only 7 per cent of our Permanent Force officers had university degrees; by 13th June, 1966, the percentage had increased to 20.4 per cent. On 31st May, 1966, the number of students at the military academy was 135, and 66 B.Sc. engineering students were being trained elsewhere for the Defence Force; in addition 19 medical and dental students were being trained at one of our universities. In other words, progress has been made in this field, and in spite of all the complaints and outcries about the present system of ballotees, I want to tell hon. members that I wish I could show them the letters of appreciation we are receiving from parents in regard to the work which is being done in the Defence Force for our youth. A few weeks ago I received a letter from an English lady in Natal, in which that English-speaking lady wrote the following: “Sir, I sent you a weakling and you are sending me back a man.” That is what the Defence Force is doing to many of South Africa’s sons. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, if hon. members have now finished their little skirmish, I should like to make this statement, namely that there are great opportunities for young men who want to become combatant officers or administrative and supply officers. Perhaps our publicity is not good enough; perhaps our propaganda is not good enough, but there are great opportunities. In the technical branch, too, there are great opportunities. At present we are already training a large number of people in the technical field. Great opportunities are afforded in the Air Force. Recently, when I opened the air show at Heidelberg in the Transvaal, I made the appeal that our young men should apply now for receiving training as pilots and in the technical branch, and for joining the Defence Force. Those opportunities exist and we hope hon. members will also assist in this matter by encouraging young boys in their respective constituencies to join the Army.

And now, to be more practical, I shall deal with the question of the compulsory-service system about which a great deal has been said here to-night in pursuance of the report made by the Groenewoud Committee. Mr. Chairman, there is one error we should not make: we have compulsory military service in South Africa. In terms of Act No. 44 of 1957, we have compulsory military training for all medically fit citizens between the ages of 17 and 65. In principle compulsory military service has therefore already been introduced, but in the past there have been various methods by which these young people were enabled to carry out their compulsory military service. One attempt after the other was made. Before the ballot system there was another system which did not give satisfaction and subsequently the ballot system was introduced. The Groenewoud Committee, as hon. members have seen from the report, expressed its view in this regard; I need not repeat what the Committee’s view is. The most important disadvantages of this system, as the Groenewoud Committee stated and as we are all experiencing, are as follows: that only part of the country’s youth are enjoying the advantages of military training; that the impression of unfair discrimination is being created because some boys are called up for military training and not others; that those who are admitted in the latter two terms of the year, have to wait up to six and nine months after leaving school before they can commence their military training, and that the academic progress of prospective university and other students subsequent to their leaving school is interrupted by a year. So I can mention other disadvantages arising from the present system. After the Groenewoud Committee had issued this report, the matter was referred to a representative council of officers who devoted their attention to this matter and tried to design a system. There was a proper staff study in regard to this matter, and that staff study is now nearing completion. I want to tell hon. members that I am in favour of our abolishing the ballot system. I am personally in favour of that, and I accept the principle that, with the exception of persons joining the Permanent Force, the S.A. Police and the Prisons Department, the privilege of military training and preparation for good citizenship should be extended to all medically fit young citizens. In addition to that, I want to say that I am not in favour of a shortening of the period of training, but that in some cases it should rather be extended. In the second place I want to say that that system should be flexible; that although every conscript’s over-all period of compulsory military service will be the same, the system must be of such a nature that it will permit of this obligation being met in various ways, for instance, a single, continuous period of 12 months without further obligations, or shorter initially intermittent periods with the rest of the obligations spread over a number of years, which may differ between service in the Citizen Force and service in the Commandos. In the third place, to bring Citizen Force units up to full strength and to keep the numbers of those who are being trained within the ability of the Permanent Force to cope with them, it will be necessary to extend the existing compulsory military training in the Citizen Force to approximately ten years. In order to make provision for the number of officers and non-commissioned officers needed in the Citizen Force, the period of compulsory training in the leadership corps will have to be extended beyond 12 months. To keep the numbers of those who are being trained within the ability of the Permanent Force to cope with them, compulsory training in the Commandos for those people who are not drafted into the Citizen Force, will have to be extended over a longer period (over 20 years, perhaps), with a large number of shorter obligations per year. As far as prospective university and other students are concerned, their military training will be postponed until after the completion of their academic studies. In respect of qualifications obtained by them, they will merit a generous reduction of their military training in terms of a sliding system which will vary according to the duration of their studies. For the rest of their military training, they will be drafted into the commandos, except where their services can be put to good use in the Citizen Force. In other words, the ballot system is to be abolished and the system of all-round compulsory military training is to be introduced, a system which makes provision for permission to students to postpone their training and for recognition in respect of their achievements at university. I want to tell hon. members that we made a calculation and found that this system can be introduced without entailing any appreciable additional financial burden, and for that reason I decided to make a recommendation to the Cabinet and to ask leave for the drafting of legislation which I hope to introduce next year, subject to the approval of the Cabinet. My recommendation to the Cabinet will be that this system should be accepted. Should the Cabinet consent to this, I hope to introduce legislation in this regard next year, and should such legislation be introduced next year, I am giving the undertaking even at this early stage that I shall submit it to a select committee for the consideration of the entire House.

In the second place, Mr. Chairman, the question of commandos is of the utmost importance. The Groenewoud Committee expressed its views in this regard. I should like to inform hon. members that I have agreed to a proper reorganization of the commandos being commenced by the chief of the Army, namely the extension of military service in the commando organization, a reinforcement of the sentry element, a clearer definition and distribution of duties between rural and urban commandos and the establishment of affiliated groups to make provision for members who are over the age limit for compulsory training or who are medically unfit for normal military service, but who would like to continue with artillery practice on a voluntary basis. That will be done with a view to having a more efficient commando system. It is also my intention to submit to this House on a later occasion a recommendation made by the Groenewoud Committee, namely that the present system of appointing commando officers should be terminated and that they should be appointed directly, as it ought to be done. I may just mention that as a first step the commandos have been placed under the command of a special officer with the rank of brigadier, and it is receiving their particular attention from here. So much for the points raised here in regard to this matter.

The question of the Permanent Force has still to be dealt with. Complaints were made here about the salaries of members of the Permanent Force; complaints were made here about bad housing conditions prevailing in all three branches of the Defence Force. Hon. members cannot tell me a thing about that; they merely read about it; I have seen the housing conditions of the entire country. Let me admit frankly that if somebody were to ask me whether I am satisfied with the housing conditions in the Defence Force, my reply would be in the negative. I think that improvements must be effected, and in as far as I am able to make a contribution, I shall try to induce the Cabinet, having regard to the available funds, to take those steps to improve the housing position in the Defence Force over a number of years. It cannot be done overnight. A great deal of progress has been made at certain places, and I want to pay homage to my precedessors for that progress. Progress has been made at Voortrekkerhoogte. Some of the camps which have been established are very neat, but owing to the fact that we are saddled with out-dated wartime buildings, the position is still unsatisfactory, and that applies to all the branches of the Defence Force. I admit that openly. But if we act according to a programme, I think we shall have a perfect command of the position, and it is my intention to give attention to this matter.

Reference was made to salaries. Let me tell hon. members that a great deal of improvement has been effected in respect of salaries. In some of the higher ranks, such as brigadier and commandant, the salary increases introduced this year amount to 25 per cent and more, and those for certain junior officers, such as a field cornet in the medical service, and an assistant field cornet in the Army, amount to no less than 38 per cent. The new classification of technician in the place of specialist has been created, and this has led to an improvement of more than 52 per cent in the salaries of adjutant specialist officers. Even the lower specialist ranks are now getting approximately 31 per cent more. Non-artisans such as instructors, clerks, supply assistants and so forth, received increases varying between 10 and 11.8 per cent. In the military nursing service a Grade II sister now receives 18.3 per cent more than previously. Improvements have been effected. I do not want to say that there is satisfaction everywhere, but since the completion of the Groenewoud Report, tremendous improvements have been effected in respect of salaries, and where bottle-necks are still to be found, we are giving attention to them; however, Rome was not built in a day.

Now I want to deal with a few more particular aspects raised by hon. members. The hon. member for Durban (Point) raised a point to which I want to return, and that is the question of indoctrination. Let me state emphatically to-night that with the establishment of the section for the use of leisure of our young people in the Army, the intention is not that there will be party-political indoctrination. Nor has it ever been the intention. The hon. member made the point that one had to build up the morale of an army and then they themselves would make provision for those things, but that is no longer the case. I should like to furnish the hon. member with an article which has recently come to my notice, and which deals with what is happening in this field in the Swedish army, for instance, as well as in numerous other defence forces where people are going out of their way to inspire young men with a spirit of such great patriotism that it is said in one instance that even where they have communistic tendencies, they owe their loyalty to their defence force in the first place and to Communism in the second place. That is what we must have in South Africa, enthusiasm, not only for physical fitness, but one must inculcate in them a mental fitness so that they may rise and deal with the methods which will be used against them, the young people, in this world in which we are living. There should not only be physical discipline, but also mental discipline, and that is not coupled with party-political indoctrination, but indeed with civics and knowledge in regard to world trends, and knowledge of the dangers threatening them, and knowledge of the cunning methods used by those people who want to subvert the free world. That is the object. I am making no secret of that, and if the hon. member wants to call it indoctrination, he may do so, but it is not the kind of indoctrination he had in mind.

Another point raised here concerned “the weakness between the Military and the Police in regard to intelligence”. Let me say that there is at the moment satisfactory co-operation between the intelligence services of the S.A. Police and those of the Defence Force. I am satisfied with the basis of co-operation and I am satisfied with the co-operation itself. The hon. member for North Rand asked whether co-ordination could not be effected between these services. Such co-ordination already exists on a very high level. The hon. member can rest assured that there is no prolixity as regards these services. For various reasons, Sir, you will understand that I do not wish to discuss this matter further.

The hon. member for Hillbrow, who made a good speech, spoke of “quick training”. I disagree with that. There are certain directions in which one can give quick training. The example the hon. member used here, was that one could train a Bantu in a short space of time to drive a locomotive in the mine, but there is a difference between training a Bantu to drive such a locomotive and training a man to operate heavy artillery or a projectile or a jet aircraft by means of electronic equipment.

I think hon. members opposite will bear out what I say here, namely that one cannot compare that with the sort of “quick training” the hon. member had in mind. That is why it is not so easy to talk about training people within a very short time.

The hon. member for Middelburg asked that there should be a foundation for African Studies. In regard to the principle, I have no quarrel with him. We have so many other obligations and duties to carry out that I do not think that we can do it now, but I may tell the hon. member that at the moment we are obtaining our information from the African Studies branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and that we have the closest co-operation.

The hon. member for North Rand asked me certain questions. He said, “The Groenewoud Committee did not refer to the general efficiency and operational side.” They did. This abridged summary does not contain that information. The hon. member will realize that it cannot form part of this summary. Apart from that, it is a matter for the supreme command which makes its assessment and on the basis of that assessment it subsequently gives its information to the Cabinet Committee, which is the body which shares with the Minister the responsibility in that field. If the hon. member is asking me whether I am satisfied, I shall say that I am not. What country in the world can feel satisfied? But we must continue to ensure our safety even further. The hon. member asked about the production of ammunition. It is doing well. In this regard I want to pay homage to the contribution made by our South African scientists in this field. We owe them a debt of gratitude. The hon. member asked me about Atlas. He should kindly put that question to the Minister of Economic Affairs. It is a contract between his Department and Atlas. We are merely buying the final product. The hon. member also asked about manoeuvres on thoroughfares with a greater volume of traffic. That is one of the matters which should receive our attention, as well as other matters coupled with that in regard to grand formation manoeuvres. Air defence: Is there a shortage of technicians? Of course, and there is a shortage of technicians all over the world, but we are trying to meet the shortage. Anti-aircraft artillery: In this regard I may tell the hon. member that the target planes to which he referred, are on order.

The hon. member for Kroonstad referred to the Commandos and I am grateful to him for that. I want to tell the hon. member that I do not think that the Defence Force should try to do the work of the Land Service and of the Voortrekkers or the Boy Scouts. We should rather leave it to them, but I am in full agreement with the idea that we should inspire our youth.

The hon. member for Lydenburg asked for more shooting ranges. We are working out a programme in this regard. The hon. member for Pinelands spoke of the “top Commandos”, and wanted to know whether we were giving them the opportunity of exchanging ideas with “top Commandos” abroad. Yes, we are giving them the opportunity of going on courses abroad. Even our highest officers are being given the opportunity from time to time to visit places where they may exchange ideas with other military leaders, and in the circumstances I think it is satisfactory.

I also asked about the handling of large numbers of troops.

I replied to that a few minutes ago. That is something to which we shall aspire more and more in the future. The sort of thing we had on the 31st May, cannot be repeated every day, but it can be done on a smaller scale.

The hon. member for Pretoria (District) spoke of the reinforcement of the Navy. All I can say is that we are at the moment engaged in planning to reinforce our Navy as well, and to increase its readiness for battle, to modernize it and to expand it. The hon. member for Umbilo spoke of the gymnasiums. The idea not to abolish the gymnasiums, but, as the Groenewoud Committee indicated, we shall use the Naval Gymnasium as the place where our youth will receive basic training for the Navy and it will remain a naval gymnasium. The Air Force Gymnasium will carry out a similar function. The idea is that the Army Gymnasium will be used for the training of junior leaders. The gymnasium will not disappear, but we cannot cling to old ideas simply because they are old ideas. If they can be improved upon, we must do so.

Since when?

Once this new system has been introduced, or once we are able to do this where we are not bound by legislation. I cannot give a definite date. It is a question of planning.

Then the hon. member for Boksburg spoke about cadets. I just want to tell him that the Inspector of Army Services is responsible for the cadets as well now. Such an Inspector of Army Services has been appointed under the new set-up that has been established. While I am speaking of that, I also want to refer to the hon. member for North Rand who said that too many generals and brigadiers had been appointed. I disagree with him, since the new set-up has not only brought satisfaction to a large extent, but has also enabled the chiefs of the Defence Force to free themselves from their desks in order that they may give more attention to the work; and in the third place this new structure has enabled us to establish an organization which will enable us to be prepared in the event of mobilization. That was said by military experts over the radio, shortly after it was announced. I think that in that respect we have taken a very great forward step.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg referred to Saldanha. We hope that the Academy will be expanded. Should the hon. member look at the Loan Votes, he will see that provision has already been made this year. The Academy must still be expanded further as a result of a long programme we have there. The Naval Gymnasium will have to get new buildings. They are already being planned. They will not be built on the very same spot, but only a short distance away, on the slope of a small hill so that it may command a slightly better view of the sea. I think the hon. member knows what I am talking about. As far as Langebaan Road is concerned, it is true that the flying school at Dunnottar is being transferred for various technical and practical reasons. A new runway has been built or is under construction, and quite a number of additional houses, a few dozen at least, will have to be provided with a view to that transfer. The hon. member for Simonstad said, “There was no recognition of the difference between the Naval staff and Civil Service departments.” That is a complaint you often hear. The hon. member should not expect me to reply to that to-night, because I cannot make promises only; I must also look at the financial implications, because I am still a member of the Cabinet. Then the hon. member said that there was no pay for overtime. A soldier does not take pay for overtime. It is the motto throughout the Defence Force that a soldier does not accept pay for overtime. Then the hon. member referred to facilities which must be improved, and I agree with him. Improvements must also be effected at Da Gama Park and planning in that regard is in progress. Should the hon. member look at the Loan Votes, he will see that provision for further improvements has already been made this year. I have been there, and I know about the conditions and the problems at Simonstown, but on the other hand the hon. member will agree with me that something is at least being done at Simonstown. I visited it recently and quite a number of new places are under construction. A beginning has already been made.

I want to conclude. I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) asked me about the Secretariat. A committee has been appointed to inquire into the possible rationalization between the Defence Force and the Secretariat and the elimination of duplication where possible. The hon. member referred to “red tape”. Without compromising myself, because I have only just received that report and have not yet read it, I want to tell the hon. member that I do not like “red tape” and I shall try to reduce it as quickly as possible. I think I have now replied to most hon. members. Should I have omitted anybody, I beg his pardon and promise that at a later stage I shall try to furnish him personally with a reply.

I want to conclude with this one request. I want to ask this House of Assembly that each of us should do a few things; in the first place that we should, by means of our actions, try to assist in developing the discipline in the Defence Force by refraining from unnecessary interference; and in the second place, that we should try to oppose malicious gossip and idle rumours about the S.A. Defence Force, and in the third place, that we should make the Defence Force feel that the public of South Africa is interested in it. I am making this appeal since the times in which we are living are of such a nature that the task of ensuring the country’s safety is no longer that of the Police or the Defence Force only, but also that of every State Department and the entire public and the entire citizenry, to enable the security services of the country to carry out their task so much better.

The hon. the Minister has dealt comprehensively for the last hour with the points raised by this side of the House. I must say that it is something like bowling at a batsman with oversized pads and no lbw rule when you bowl at this Minister. The one pad is secrecy and the other pad is an appeal to the emotional sentiments we all share. Whether you bowl a googli or a leg-break, you just hit one or other of these pads. So I think that for this debate the Minister is probably going to get away with some of these rather too glib references to secrecy and resource to platitudes which frankly did not get to the core of the issues raised. There were a number of issues raised on which we on this side of the House are not satisfied. I will deal immediately with the most vital of them, and one which I said was the fundamental issue facing the Defence Force. That was the question of the manpower shortage in the Permanent Force. The Minister’s answer was not to say that things would be put right, but to say that there had been increases, and that was that; these increases in certain specialized posts went up to 50 per cent, but in other positions were 10 per cent. Sir, these increases have been made for some time. The Minister will have to admit that they have not achieved the results at which they were aimed. I think the Minister will admit that there is still a manpower shortage which is critical.

One of the main reasons is the shortage of housing. That is the reason why people leave.

That may well be, but the simple fact remains that the problem has not been solved. I could deal, but I do not intend to deal, with a number of other problems. I want to say to the Minister that he now has the opportunity to test the steps he has taken in various fields, and we have the opportunity, in five months’ time, to come back for a re-examination; I can assure him that we will re-examine the issues we have raised in this debate and that we will then put the Minister to the test as to whether the solution and the answers he has given to-night have in fact solved those problems.

In five months?

We will then be able to see the trend. Obviously you cannot get a final answer then but you can get a trend in five months. But there are one or two matters I wish to deal with in particular. The first is that I disagree with the Minister on one fundamental issue, one of the basic points he raised this evening, and that is that I do not believe that our South African youth needs to have patriotism indoctrinated into them. I believe that patriotism is in the hearts of our youth and that it is not something you can teach them like history or geography. If our youth have not got that inner patriotism within themselves, no amount of lecturing or indoctrination will give it to them. I agree with the Minister that they should be warned of the dangers, the traps and the pitfalls that face them, but to try to deal [interjections] and here perhaps the Minister and I are much closer than I am to those who made so much noise behind me when the Minister was speaking. Some of the interjections shocked me as a South African. I hope that one of the tasks the Minister will add to his other tasks is to try to teach his followers that patriotism is something we all share and something that we do not use for making political gibes when the Minister is trying to make a serious speech. I took the strongest exception to some of the remarks made and I want to say in particular to a Deputy Minister who asked why we did not go and get some indoctrination in patriotism, that as we sit here all of us had that indoctrination, by bullets, 25 years ago. [Interjection.] I am not beating a war drum, but that is one of the hon, members who makes these stupid interjections. It is time the Nationalist Party, and particularly their backbenchers, stopped trying to teach us how to be patriots. As long as they try to teach us, so long will I continue to rub the salt into the wounds of their own guilty consciences, their guilt complex arising from the time they left us to fight … [Interjections.] When they stop trying to teach us to be patriots we will stop rubbing the salt into their wounds. I said it deliberately, Sir, because we are getting tired on this side of the House of the sort of comment from that hon. member and others which we hear from that side of the House. We are trying to deal here with serious issues and I am trying to give the assurance of this side of the House that we are behind the Minister in his endeavour to build up the Defence Force, but we have to do it despite the apparently deliberate efforts of some of his supporters to make it very difficult to swallow some of the things they say. Fortunately we are big enough to keep our support on the side of the Minister in his endeavours to build up the Defence Force. I accept his assurance. Naturally we hear what goes on from the boys who come back and I am sure that the Minister realizes that. I hope that perhaps the Minister’s undertaking tonight will have an effect on some of those who I regret to say have not regarded “indoctrination” in the same light as the Minister regards it. I hope they will take the tip from the Minister and that they will in future do their indoctrinating along the lines which the Minister indicated, and not some of the lines which they have in the past followed.

There is no time to go into detail this evening on other points which the Minister raised, like the question of the length of training. I made it clear that our recommendations for six months’ training were based on the present shortages of manpower. We are all agreed that it would be the ideal if every man could do training. We have said that before. I specifically qualified our recommendation in the light of the present shortage of instructors, and that is one of the serious issues on which the Minister did not reply to-night.

In the minute or two that I have left I wish to raise two points. One is why have the Mystere aircraft for carting V.I.P.s around South Africa been loaded on to the Department of Defence? I feel it is incorrect that the Department of Defence should have to order aircraft to act as taxis for Cabinet Ministers and V.I.P.s.

You are wrong there.

I hope the Minister will correct it, but that is the report that has been published. The other point is that I hope that the question which has been under investigation for two years, the payment to the dependants of ballotees, will finally reach conclusion. One last point is an appeal on behalf of the rifle clubs of South Africa to use them as an adjunct to encourage weapon training among the people of our country.

Mr. Chairman, before replying to what the hon. member for Durban (Point) said, I want to join the ranks of those hon. members who congratulated the hon. the Minister before he made his speech to-night. The Minister inspired confidence to-night and we feel good after having listened to what the Minister has already done in that short period and to the plans he has announced. He made important announcements to-night and we are full of confidence.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) said he wanted to put the Minister to the test during the next five months. Now, I feel that we should make another test. We should put this spirit of patriotism, about which the member for Durban (Point) boasts, to some test. We shall keep an eye on him too during the next five months and we shall see what his reactions are.

That is something which you may have done with the greatest of pleasure for the past 35 years.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) spoke of indoctrination and said that it was unnecessary, that we were all patriots. I want to suggest that that is not so. We have to be taught from an early age. If we as older people look at our youth we complain that they no longer are like we used to be. For that reason we have to see to it that they receive the correct training.

Our Defence Force should be more interested not only in our youth entering the Defence Force, but also in what I want to call the pre-military training of our youth. I am pleased that mention was made here this afternoon of our cadets and of the land service movement. The Minister said here that we did not want to interfere with the land service movement, the Boy Scouts and the Voortrekkers. I nevertheless feel that in order to inspire our youth once again with the right spirit, the pioneering spirit, we and the Defence Force should show a positive interest. Only then shall we succeed in inspiring love for our country and a desire to serve our country which are such essential things. If the youth show an interest from an early age they themselves will ask to enter the Defence Force and will undergo that training with pleasure.

Many other important tasks remain to be done amongst the youth. I am referring to the selection of our youth leaders. I feel that that aspect cannot be left until such time as a person must enter the army. If we have close links between the Defence Force and our youth we may even make use of the Voortrekkers and our cadets for selecting our youth leaders at that stage already. They can arrange camps and they can practise there and by the time the man enters the Defence Force he should be a marked man already.

I have a suggestion to make in this connection which I want the hon. the Minister to consider. My suggestion is that a board should be established for the training of the premilitary youth—as I call them—consisting of educationists, principals of schools or perhaps inspectors, a number of men from the Defence Force as well as a number of people with special knowledge of our youth movements. In referring to youth movements I also want to include the youth who no longer are at school. There are so many of them who leave our schools after Std. 6 and Std. 8. They too, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) said, should be indoctrinated but with the desire of rendering service to our country. For that reason I should like to see that persons who have knowledge of that aspect, who can organize clubs, etc., should also be appointed to such a board which will then be able to prescribe to the cadets and youth clubs and organizations the best manner of preparing our youth for military service.

I feel that if we do so we shall be rendering a service to our children and we shall be rendering a service to our Defence Force.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to address a single word of congratulations to the hon. the Minister. When the hon. the Minister was designated to take over the portfolio of Defence, I personally felt very sorry for him because he was succeeding a man who had gained a very special place in our hearts, a man who had also gained a special place in the hearts of our men in the Defence Force. They held him in high esteem. But his conduct in the past as well as here tonight showed us once again of what calibre he was made, and we know with the utmost confidence that the Defence Force is in good hands.

If we listen to radio reports and we learn what plots are being devised against the Republic, we realize that we must be ready for battle. We must keep ourselves ready for battle in order to be able to defend ourselves. We must keep ourselves ready for battle not as aggressors but solely for defending ourselves against people who threaten our country. We are building a defence force exclusively and primarily, as a deterrent for our aggressors. Because our Defence Force has the most modern armaments in the world at present, our enemies and our opponents must take that into due consideration so as not to smash themselves against the iron fist of our Defence Force. For that reason we are experiencing peace and quiet in our country at present.

The head of our Government has been reproached from various sides for the large amounts we spend in respect of Defence. But we have to regard that as being no more than a premium we have to pay for the safety of our country. We are grateful that the efficiency of our Defence Force is improving continually and that it is the pride of the Republic at present. We realize that our modern armaments are very important, but we also realize that the human material determines whether we can utilize those modern armaments effectively. For that reason we want to pay the highest tribute to our men who are performing that task for us to-day. When we think about that we are very pleased about what the hon. the Minister said in connection with our housing facilities. We want to tell him that we are extremely grateful that that matter is receiving his attention and that he gave us the assurance to-night that he will give attention to housing, which is urgently required. We know and we rely on it and we believe that those men in the Defence Force who have been experiencing housing problems for many years will in fact be helped in future.

But I want to raise another matter here. We realize that compulsory military training has been of great service to our nation during the past number of years. We know that a number of years ago there were complaints about ducktails and people who were roaming the streets, young boys who were frustrated. At present these men have been trained as useful, serviceable citizens—the pride of our country. Now I want to plead for a particular thing, and it is one of the main reasons why I am on my feet to-night. There are numerous young men who have not had the privilege of undergoing that training. At present they are unemployed at various places. I want to plead that we create facilities and make room for those unemployed young men between the ages of 18 and 25 years. They are mostly people who have not found their feet in society. Once they have received that military training we know that they will be serviceable citizens of our country. I want to appeal that special attention should be given to them and that we give them the necessary training in our Defence Force.

I am really grateful for the announcement which was made here to-night, because in my constituency there are numerous young boys who are very keen to be balloted. They are the unfortunate ones who have not been balloted. As a parent I can testify to-night that my son who is being released from the army, is emerging from the army as a man who has found his feet, as a man to whom that training will surely be of very great value for the rest of his life. I want to pay the highest tribute to the ballotees who are being trained at present.

I want to stress another matter. We realize that recruiting is already taking place at our high schools. But we believe that more guidance should be provided to our matriculates. But what I want to stress—and it has already been said in different words—is that a soldier without an ideal is not a soldier in the real sense of the word. They should not only receive military training but also that cultural and spiritual moulding which is equally essential for making them mature people. This is something which cannot be stressed too much and I am really grateful that special attention will now also be given to that aspect. We are grateful and we realize that a great deal is being done. For that reason we want to express our gratitude.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow up his thoughts. The points I wish to make come under three headings. The first one is in connection with drivers’ licences issued to ballotees undergoing military training. In reply to a question recently the hon. the Minister gave the following figures concerning accidents in which military vehicles were involved over the past two or three years. In 1964 775 military vehicles were involved in accidents, in 1965 953 were involved, and for the first six months of this year 466 vehicles were involved. This shows that there is an increasing number of accidents involving military vehicles. This is in common with accidents involving all types of vehicles. The military vehicles are placed in a different category, in so far that a driver can obtain a military drivers’ licence at the age of 17 or the moment he is balloted into the army, whereas in civilian life he cannot obtain a driver’s licence until he reaches the age of 18. I know that this does create difficulties in that ballotees are, generally speaking, in the army before they are 18. But since these vehicles use the public roads of South Africa and since the drivers of these vehicles endanger the lives of everybody who uses those roads, I should like to suggest that the military vehicles are not driven on public roads unless the drivers have obtained, or can obtain, a civilian drivers’ licence.

We are not at war and I do not see any reason why this should not apply. I do know that in terms of the Defence Act the army can issue a drivers’ licence. That is so. But I should like to suggest that drivers who are given military licences also undergo a civilian test at the same time, and that if they fail that test they do not drive on civilian roads. The point here is that it is not only their own lives that they are endangering, but they are also endangering the lives of all of us. Another point is that they do not drive the ordinary light type of vehicle which most of us drive but some of them drive very heavy types of vehicles. I suggest that some consideration should be given to this matter.

The second point concerns something which I am sure can easily be overcome by the Minister, and that is the question of the medical examination of ballotees. In reply to a question the Minister told me that doctors are paid 50 cents per recruit they examine. I know of a case where a doctor in a town I will not mention examined 87 recruits in the space of one hour. It meant that each recruit was examined in something like 40 seconds. I know, Sir, that you will agree with me that no doctor can undertake a medical examination in such a short time. I discussed this matter with the medical profession and they tell me that no doctor can reasonably examine a recruit in under ten or 12 minutes. This is what the doctors tell me. The point here is that they certainly cannot be examined properly in 40 seconds. There is a case that has been reported to me of a youngster who was medically examined and found to be 100 per cent fit— although he had a crippled arm. When he turned up on parade at his first camp and was ordered to stand to attention by the sergeant, he replied, “I cannot—my arm is bent this way.” It was only then they discovered that this youngster should never have bæn balloted in the first place. They returned him home. But the expenses involved would have been entirely avoided if the doctor who had examined him had done so properly. So I should like to suggest that these medical examinations only be done by experienced medical men and that they be paid per session and not per recruit. This will be the only way in which this can be stopped. I discussed this question as well with the medical profession, and they tell me that a doctor should not examine recruits for a longer period than 2½ hours without having a break. This is something which I believe must be attended to immediately. It may well account for the high number of injuries suffered by these young chaps when they undergo their army training. I believe it is totally unnecessary and is something which can very easily be alleviated.

The third point I want to turn to concerns hitch-hiking by military trainees. This particular aspect has caused some concern, I believe, to every family in South Africa who has a youngster on military training. Naturally, no blame whatsoever can be attached to the military authorities for this. But one wonders whether there was something in the resolution of the Federation of Women’s Institutes recently which was to the effect that military trainees should be given a week’s leave and a free rail pass after each three months’ service. This resolution was passed unanimously. It might sound a little too liberal. It was a privilege which we never enjoyed. But I should like to ask the Minister whether the military authorities are doing their utmost to stamp out hitchhiking by young men undergoing training. We are told that if they had an accident while hitch-hiking they would not be covered and no compensation would be received. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will deal with this point.

Mr. Chairman, it is the task of our Defence Force and of every defence force of every country in the world to defend the soil of the fatherland, the home and the hearth, the life and the possessions of its people to the utmost if circumstances require such action or if such circumstances should arise. Now, as far as I am concerned, I am quite satisfied and I think I find myself in good company when I say that our Defence Force in this country will be capable of defending this sanctuary and the soil of the fatherland when it has to use its striking force. This I believe. We find ourselves in good company when we say that we felt our hearts beating faster at the Republic Festival when we saw our men marching by, when we saw our armoured units passing by, and when we heard our aircraft thundering through the air. That display revealed the mobility and the physical defensibility we have achieved.

I believe that our Government has proved that it has developed the physical and the military defensibility of our country to a very high level. It has proved that it has also contributed its share and that it has developed our economic defensibility under its administration to such an extent that if we combine the two we as a country will be able to hold our own in a possible crisis which may await us.

But at times the spiritual defensibility of our nation gives me concern. The question arises to what extent is our nation as a whole intent on and attuned to adapting itself to and complying with the great demands which are already and which will in future be made on it in moments of crisis.

Now, I am aware and we know that it is a psychological fact that spiritual defensibility is strengthened—it is a psychological fact—by putting trust in something. If the question is asked in what trust in this connection should be put, the reply is in the efficiency of the management of our Defence Force, in the men in charge of our Defence Force. I am referring to the hon. the Minister, to the people who have to advise him, the people who have to take action, who have to do the preparatory work and who have to strike when it is required to do so. Now, I believe, and I want to give credit in this respect to those men to whom it is due, that the nation’s trust is increasing gradually. This trust is being awakened by a speech such as the one we heard here to-night, by the military displays we have witnessed and by the contribution being made by the Government. But surely it is no more than fitting that we in this House should make an appeal to the nation to contribute its share, to show that it realizes the seriousness of the times in which we are living. The nation has to show that it realizes that merely a thin line divides war and peace in the world, that we are being threatened from outside, that we have to attune ourselves spiritually in order to play our full parts, and that each must contribute his share to what is expected of him now and will be expected of him in future.

Now, Sir, having said that, I as a layman want to risk drawing the attention of the Minister and the Defence Force to a section of the boundaries of our country which I regard as being particularly important and which fits into the general defence girdle of the entire country. I am referring to the western region of the Transvaal. I do not believe that we need ever expect an attack from one of our neighbouring states, Botswana for instance, now or in the future. But if I am interpreting the signs of the times correctly, and when I read how trained bands of terrorists and persons who have received their training in countries abroad and who now want to infiltrate, want to make use of the territories of our neighbouring states, if I listen to the threats emanating from the chambers of the UN who want to use these territories for infiltration purposes and as bases for attacks against South Africa, and if I consider how this western border adjoins a state which is a link with the hinterland of Africa, and if I consider what use has already been made of these borders which naturally lend themselves to infiltration from both sides, both for refugees from this side and for saboteurs who want to infiltrate from outside, it may be necessary to give a great deal of attention to those borders. It is perhaps being done, but I nevertheless want to risk asking whether it may not be possible to extend the points of defence in the district of Marico, those points of defence situated opposite these borders. I want to ask whether the armoured squadron receiving its training at Zeerust may not perhaps be doubled to the strength of a regiment, and whether a reconnaissance unit of the Air Force may not be established there. From these points, which are situated close to the border, reconnaissance flights may be executed more economically than in the case of points situated further away. It will never be possible to place sufficient emphasis on the importance of this section of the borde.

I want to conclude by expressing my gratitude for the manner in which the men receiving their training at Zeerust. as well as the staff at the radar station close by, are accommodated. The accommodation is of the best and the men are happy there. The grounds and the men’s recreation facilities are of such a nature that the men are really happy. They can spend their free time on their own grounds. That being so the highest demands may be made on them as regards the execution of their duties. I want to tell the Supreme Command of the Defence Force that the men there are highly appreciative of the facilities which have been placed at their disposal. If the things which have been done there are typical of things which have been done at all training camps we shall always have satisfaction and our men will be happy. All these things will be to the credit of our Defence Force.

At the outset I first want to pay tribute to the late Secretary for Defence, Mr. De Villiers, and at the same time congratulate the new Secretary, Mr. Steyn, on his appointment and wish him success in his work.

When I read the report of the Groenewoud Committee and noticed the words “indoctrination course”, I saw in my mind’s eye the hair of the hon. member for Durban (Point) standing on end and chills running all the way down his spine. I think the hon. the Minister has replied cully to the objections raised by the hon. member, but I also think that we will have to go further and should concentrate particularly on psychological warfare. That is the term that is used in military writings. Psychological warfare not only includes the mental and psychological preparation of young soldiers, but has become a refined technique in the game of war among the major powers. It is also directed at mentally undermining the soldier on the other side, at breaking down his morale, at destroying his fighting spirit and at inducing him to throw down his arms at some stage or other and go home. Therefore I should very much like to see some time being devoted in our army training to preparing our young men for what they may expect from the other side, that is to say, as far as the negative aspect of psychological warfare is concerned. If they know what to expect from the enemy they can prepare themselves for it. That, coupled with the positive aspect, namely encouragement and stimulation of patriotism, will make our young soldiers properly prepared for war.

It is also a heartfelt need on my part to dwell for a moment on the role played in our Defence Force by our Citizen Force. I want to pay tribute to members of the Citizen Force for the fact that they make use of their leisure time to perform a duty to the country. The professional soldier will admit that without the Citizen Force the defence of South Africa is an impossible task. The persons who are particularly deserving of mention are those members of the Citizen Force who decide to stay on after their training has been completed. We find there men mainly in the officers’ and non-commissioned officers’ corps of our Citizen Force. They are the people who sacrifice their leisure time, even their holidays, to make themselves available for the defence of their country. And they get very little thanks for that, although they do sometimes get some reward for their sacrifices if they, on a day like 31st May, are able to take part in a magnificent display such as that we were able to see on that day. There is one little matter as far as members of our Citizen Force are concerned in regard to which I want to plead for a little sympathy in their behalf. Here I am referring in particular to members of our Citizen Force units. The pay received by these men—because it cannot be called remuneration—for the services rendered by them is, with all due respect, not realistic. I understand, however, that improvements are contemplated in this regard; such improvements, however small, will be welcome. Moreover, improvements in this respect are necessary, because there are members of the Citizen Force who even make financial sacrifices and who cannot really afford to continue to be officers. After all, we need first-rate men and because that is the position I want to plead that we should try to improve their pay as soon as possible.

The hon. member for Waterkloof made an interesting speech here. I agree with him about most of the statements made by him. At the same time I want to give him the assurance that most of those aspects are receiving attention. In this way, for instance, the question of the remuneration of members of the Citizen Force is receiving attention. However, this is not something which can readily be corrected if one does not have the necessary funds at one’s disposal.

For how many years has this matter been receiving attention?

The hon. member should not hold me responsible for things dating back to Noah’s Ark.

This matter has been under consideration since that very time.

The hon. member should not look back too much otherwise he may turn into a pillar of salt. I agree with the hon. member for Waterkloof that tribute should be paid to members of the Citizen Force and of our Commandos for the time sacrificed by them. I think they are doing wonderful work and I believe that we do not thank them enough for it. I also agree with the hon. member as regards preparations for psychological warfare.

There are a few points to which I have given no reply in my previous reply to the debate. The hon. member for Durban (Point) asked me for instance why we abandoned the training of Citizen Force pilots. Well, we are continuing with the training of those who are already in the pipeline. It is expected that their training will be completed by March, 1967. But for the present we have to give our full attention to the requirements of our Air Force itself. As the chief of the Air Force and I myself have already said we are experiencing a major shortage of pilots and for this reason it is essential that this matter receives priority. This, of course, does not mean that we shall suspend the training of Citizen Force pilots for all times. For the present, however, we have to do so in order to fulfil a need.

Can the training not be given simultaneously?

The requirements of the Permanent Force must be met first. We have expensive aircraft and expensive apparatus. This apparatus must be used and the aircraft must be kept in the air. Therefore that is the first thing we must take care of. As a matter of fact, it would be foolish not to do so. Our shortage of man-power was the very thing about which the hon. member had such a great deal to say. He held it against me for not having replied to that. But I did reply. I said that salaries had been improved and that certain facets, such as housing for instance would have to receive attention. I also dealt with the question of compulsory military service and the larger number of admissions. If we can succeed in introducing the system which I mentioned to-night, our shortage of man-power will be alleviated as a matter of course. That will come about with the admission of more young men who can be used for certain work. I think the hon. member was only trying to raise some dust in an attempt to arrive at a climax. After all, I know how his mind works. The hon. member also asked me about the Mystères. It is the practice throughout the world that the air forces of countries convey their V.I.P.s’. That is the case in America. As a matter of fact, that is the case everywhere.

Why can Ministers not make use of the ordinary aircraft?

I am not speaking of Ministers only. Who does the hon. member think should convey the State President?

He has a special aircraft.

And if it is not possible to place that aircraft at his disposal? Or if it is possible for one to convey him more cheaply and more quickly?

Every Minister already has a Cadillac and a small Cadillac and now, in addition, they must also have an aircraft.

If the hon. member should perhaps become a Minister some day he would need something larger than a Cadillac. The hon. member also spoke about the employment of women. There has been a report on that matter but as yet I have not had an opportunity to study that report. In view of all the things in which we are engaged at present and in view of the problems which may be involved, I am not prepared to say at this stage that we should employ women. We can in fact employ them in a civilian capacity. But as yet we have not reached the stage where we can go beyond that.

The hon. member for Port Natal raised the question of medical examinations and of licences. If he had read the Defence Act he would not have spoken about licences here. As regards the question of medical examinations, I ask the hon. member in consequence of a question he placed on the Order Paper on a previous occasion, to let me have particulars about the doctor concerned, but he refused to do so. Now, however he comes along and sneaks about it in public. He maintains that there are abuses but yet he is not prepared to furnish us with the necessary information. For that reason I am saying the hon. member is merely talking nonsense. He should not raise dust here about alleged abuses and then not be prepared to produce the facts. The position is of course that we are engaged in training our own doctors so as to have a larger number of them available. The plan suggested by the hon. member will not succeed just as his attempt here to-night has not succeeded either.

To the hon. member for Humansdorp I want to say that we do subsidize youth movements. If the hon. member consults the Estimates he will see that provision is made for subsidies to the Voortrekkers and to the Boy Scouts. At the moment discussions are being held with the National Education Council in connection with cadets. We want to see whether it will not be possible for us to improve the position in this connection as well. Here I just want to say that principals who are really interested in the cadet movement can do a great deal for making a success of it. As a matter of fact, it depends on the principal for the most part and for that reason I hope that principals will give special attention to it.

Vote put and agreed to.

Progress reported.