laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Supreme Court Amendment Bill [B 112—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Justice).
2. (2) Taxation Laws Amendment Bill [B 113—87 (GA)]—(Deputy Minister of Finance (Mr K D S Durr)).
3. (3) Financial Institutions Second Amendment Bill [B 114—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Finance).

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Transport and Communications, dated 15 September 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move the motion as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, before the Committee reported progress yesterday afternoon, I was speaking about the national security of the RSA and I tried to provide the Committee with a very brief definition in this regard. I went on to say that an onslaught was being launched on the national security of South Africa. I then said that this onslaught would not succeed because we regarded it as an exceptional challenge to all South Africans and that by adopting a positive spirit we could transform this challenge into a very good opportunity.

However, I added that there were certain prerequisites for success in this regard and one was that we should acquire knowledge of the subject. We must know about the onslaught and how the onslaught is being carried out. Secondly, we must be able to launch a co-ordinated, purposeful operation to oppose it at national level.

Therefore I want to proceed by saying that one of the greatest and most fundamental prerequisites for success is that South Africa’s security force base must be maintained at all times. We must be able to rely on the security forces—I include the SA Defence Force as well as the SA Police—having at its disposal a sufficient number of well-trained, well-motivated men. They must be well-equipped and that is why it is so essential that the funds indicated in this Vote today be voted for the SA Defence Force in particular.

If we can preserve security, stability and order in our country as we have it at present, we shall be capable of carrying on politics as is at present being done in this tricameral system, and this will afford us the opportunity of allowing political reform to continue. Then we shall be able to accommodate such reform, which will be accompanied by economic progress in South Africa.

However, it is important that we understand the alternative as well. If there is no security there will be no South African political progress nor the political opportunity to differ with one another, the economy will be destroyed and this country will be plunged into chaos.

It is therefore important that we put security first and foremost, so that we can differ politically in a peaceful situation, but without security there will be chaos in this country. That is one of the main reasons why I feel very strongly that we must not involve our security forces in petty party politics. We must elevate our security to a higher plane.

At present there are six very important requirements that must be addressed in South Africa in order to ensure national security. If we tackle these requirements effectively, we can overcome the revolutionary onslaught. I should like to state these six requirements to hon members very briefly.

The first requirement for peace, progress and prosperity is that we can only have these things if law and order and stability are established and continue to prevail in South Africa. That is the main reason why the security forces are being utilised internally. The criterion for whether justice and order are being effectively imposed, as far as I am concerned, is whether the individual, the family or the community can lead a normal life and move freely in the workplace, in the home and between the home and the workplace. Consequently it is of cardinal importance that we clamp down on intimidation. I want to compliment the hon member for Krugersdorp on what he said here yesterday. He laid his finger on the problem. Intimidation will have to be destroyed. Therefore I wish to put it to hon members that if this Government were to consider lifting the state of emergency, one of the factors that would have to be addressed would be the situation in regard to intimidation in the RSA.

Over the past two years I have visited many towns across the length and breadth of the RSA. I examined each from the point of view of national security, but the one common reaction I had from the inhabitants was that by far the majority were quite content and happy. They asked that the security forces stay in the township areas, because that ensured their safety and ensured that there was security.

I saw that there was a television programme yesterday about the security forces in certain township areas, and I think it was a very good reflection of the true situation. The security forces are not in the towns to apply force and impose authority through their actions. They are there to maintain order, to promote social services and to create an attitude of goodwill, benevolence and empathy.

The attitude prevailing among South Africans of all population groups is of primary importance for the challenges of the future. I want to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the security forces—members of all population groups are utilised in these towns—for their tolerance, humanity and understanding, because their conduct will be the key to success.

The second requirement concerns structures in the urban Black communities in particular. The third level of government is the basis of South African democracy. If it fails at that level, the cracks will spread upward. I therefore consider it to be of the utmost importance that these third-level structures be established and that they function effectively. From a national security point of view it is a prerequisite that they, too, accept and carry out their authority, responsibility and accountability. I want to make an appeal to everyone, all the various parties, to assist in building these structures and ensuring that they function. The functioning of these structures is a target identified by the enemy.

A third requirement set us is a very practical one and has to do with housing. Give someone the opportunity to own his own piece of land and home, and he has something to lose. He develops a desire to protect what he has, because he then has something to lose. At the same time he becomes committed. This also gives him the opportunity to improve his own quality of life. In addition, it gives him pride. The prompt satisfaction of this need is a matter that directly affects the national security of South Africa. Here again, urban housing is the biggest factor.

I now turn to the fourth requirement for ensuring national security. It has to do with job opportunities. Sanctions and punitive economic measures must be a challenge to all of us. At this stage it is the private sector and the State that are making a praiseworthy effort to create job opportunities. I do feel that in the process we must address the realities, and the main reality is that the issue here is the accommodation of First-World and Third-World people. Without doing violence to First-World standards we must make provision for the needs of the Third-World sector. It is quite clear to all of us that when there is an economic upswing, it will afford relief as far as the creation of job opportunities is concerned.

A fifth requirement is that of education and training. A great deal has been and is already being done in South Africa with regard to education and training for other population groups. I do not think we always fully appreciate what an enormous amount of money, time and effort is being devoted to this sphere. However, one thing is certain: This country cannot afford a “people’s education”. The children must be allowed to find meaning and direction at school level, and they must receive tuition which is to their own benefit, free of intimidation and revolution.

The sixth target in relation to national security is that of strikes. The SACP/ANC alliance entrusted the task of creating and instigating labour unrest in South Africa to one of their chief strategists, Joe Slovo. I appreciate the firm way in which the private sector has dealt with the recent strikes here in South Africa, but in future a joint plan will have to be devised to prevent South Africa being undermined and paralysed in this way.

These, then, are the six requirements the Government is faced with at present. I want to assure hon members that these six requirements are being dealt with at present but I do not want to say that this will be the case tomorrow. The situation may improve or deteriorate, or the intensity of the situation may change. One thing is certain, however: Irrespective of which party is in power in this country, it will have to deal with these six requirements. In fact, I would put it to hon members like this: In its policy and objectives the party in power will have to be able to provide for these requirements, or else they will not be able to overcome the revolutionary onslaught.

These six points I mentioned will also have to be borne in mind when the Government considers lifting the state of emergency. With reference to what the hon member for Durban Central—I think it was he—said yesterday when commenting on the state of emergency, I want to say to him that I in fact prefer to call it not a state of emergency, but rather a state of security, because “state of security” in fact implies that there should be order, as well as the opportunity to transform our situation into a proper life experience.

I think it was the hon member Prof Olivier who referred to the formula. If we examine and analyse the requirements I have mentioned here today we see that in fact they require about 20% security action and 80% political and economic reaction. In my opinion there is nothing sinister about that.

I went on to say that to be able to administer that national security, it was necessary for us to have an efficient and co-ordinated management organisation. Such an organisation exists and that is why we activated the NJMS, the National Joint Management Centre. This is an instrument with which to regulate co-ordinated action at grass-roots level and extend it to the upper levels. In this way the country’s resources are being co-ordinated and all the parties and departments serving in the organisation are accepted in an equal partnership with a common objective.

I wish to state once again that this is certainly not a government within a government. The NJMS is an instrument that serves as coordinator and has no executive authority. This brings me to the end of this section on national security.

With reference to this onslaught on South Africa’s national security, there are certain game rules relating to South Africa that I should like to deal with briefly.

I do so with reference to certain statements made yesterday from the other side of the Committee and with reference to certain questions asked here.

During the discussion of his Vote last month, the hon the State President spelled out certain game rules for us in this Committee in regard to stability, peace and self-interest of the states in Southern Africa. I now wish to present five such game rules relating to security to hon members.

The first is that South Africa accepts the sovereignty of these states, in other words our neighbouring states and the states in this subcontinent. South Africa has no expansionist tendencies. This was said in this Parliament as far back as the late sixties. South Africa has no expansionist urges. However, I wish to say this: If South Africa accepts the sovereignty of our neighbouring states and of the states in this subcontinent, I wish to ask them whether they accept our sovereignty. I am not so sure of that. Why, then, do they allow their territories to be used for the launching of attacks on us? Yesterday and today in the media we saw once again that two terrorists from Botswana had been caught in Northern Transvaal. We saw that three terrorists from Zimbabwe had been shot and killed in the Northern Transvaal.

Moreover, South Africa accepts the ideological convictions of states such as Mozambique and others. We say that we can differ from one another politically, but there is no reason why we should not co-operate in the other spheres. South Africa accepts that neighbouring countries also need one another as regards their own interests and interdependence. Notwithstanding our political differences, we say that for this very reason we must talk to one another. That is why South Africa is always prepared to talk to its neighbours.

However, South Africa finds the exporting of revolution to us unacceptable. I wish to emphasise once again that we will not tolerate it, nor will we accept it, now or in the future. We will not accept our neighbouring countries using their countries as a springboard against South Africa. We will not permit them to be used as points of access for terrorists who oppose us. Mozambique as well as our neighbouring countries and the SACP/ANC alliance must understand this. Revolutionary violence will be fought by South Africa with every means at its disposal. We shall eradicate it, even if it takes us a very long time. I have often said—the hon the State President also said this during the discussion of his Vote—that South Africa would take out terrorists wherever they found them, as long as they were engaged in acts of violence against the people of South Africa.

The second game rule is that while South Africa as a regional power has the First-World capacity to provide assistance by way of its technology and development, all the rest of the subcontinent is systematically sinking into a morass of poverty, misery and hunger. All hon members sitting here realise that this is happening to our neighbouring countries. It is a tragedy, a disaster for this subcontinent.

While South Africa is becoming stronger, the rest of this subcontinent is becoming weaker. Everything possible must be done to check the process of deterioration. Moreover, there is at present no possibility of development among neighbouring states either. South Africa extends its hand of friendship, but time and again it is summarily rejected.

The third game rule has to do with the ensuring of stability, peace and the own interests of the states of Southern Africa. If the so-called frontline states continue to export revolution to South Africa, South Africa will have to reconsider its position in principle. The future of the Republic of South Africa is at stake, and this is a matter of our interests. It is important that steps to counteract this may not only imply action against terrorists, but could also mean that the leaders of the countries from which the terrorists operate will have to account for their share of the murder and destruction in our country. Those leaders will have to begin to accept responsibility. Leaders such as Dr Kaunda, Mr Mugabe, President Chissano and President Dos Santos must appreciate that through their condoning of such terrorist action against South Africa they hold the future of their countries in the palms of their hands.

If compelled to do so, and if it regards it as being in its interest, South Africa can take action in terms of that right that is recognised in international law and that South Africa reserves to itself.

The fourth game rule is that at present, conflict occurs fairly widely in the subcontinent of Africa. Russia specialises in the incitement of regional conflicts, and the SA Communist Party and ANC alliance are its chief instrument, as I told hon members yesterday. South Africa can deal with its own situation and look after itself. It is the conviction of the South African Government that all groups have a role to play in the political future of this country. That is why the Government has stated time and again that an organisation such as the ANC is welcome to return provided it renounces violence or rejects it as a means to obtain political power.

The South African Government wishes to broaden the political process while the ANC, with its “people’s democracy”, seeks to narrow political participation. “People’s democracy” is nothing but government through force, centralisation of authority, a controlling clique and dictatorship in sheep’s clothing. As far as the South African Government is concerned the door is open for participation and participants in a democracy that implies greater participation; the door is closed to a “people’s democracy”, because as I said yesterday, that is a one-party state.

Because the RSA is concerned with its own internal situation it is of great importance to note how the conflicts in our neighbouring states such as Angola, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe are developing, precisely because the process of democratic representation by the population is declining there. I think Zimbabwe bears eloquent testimony to what is happening in our immediate vicinity.

This brings me to the fifth game rule. Over the past number of years South Africa has learnt a great deal, particularly since the USA instituted penal economic steps against us. The hon the State President has stated time and again that a country has no friends. He said that a country only has its own interests. Therefore there is no friendship between countries. South Africa has a pro-Western orientation, but has to move where its interests demand. From its vantage point in Southern Africa, the Republic of South Africa sees its position on this subcontinent against the background of the realities of Africa. The great powers must bear in mind that the Africa of today is not the Africa of 27 years ago. The optimism of the Africa of 27 years ago, in the sixties, has become a deadly pessimism as far as the future and the decline in the quality of life of people is concerned.

The Republic of South Africa has an interest in the improvement of conditions on this subcontinent. The people of Africa must be afforded the opportunity for growth—not enslavement. That is why we have an interest in stability and in the eradication of conflict on this subcontinent. It is in our interest to have stable and economically developing neighbours in this subcontinent.

That is why our country’s path through the world does not pass through the United States of America—nor through Europe nor Africa—it goes where the region in which it is a regional power, can prosper and grow. Owing to a low military profile and punitive measures I wish to put it to hon members that the USA is no longer such a significant factor in Southern Africa. The Soviet Union is indeed a factor. The two states that can make or break this subcontinent of ours are South Africa and the Soviet Union. South Africa sees no point in destabilising this subcontinent of ours. Therefore we have a direct interest in counteracting the process of Russian destabilisation—whether this is done to the east or the west of this subcontinent.

Mr Chairman, I have wondered whether I am a victim of fate, because if I do not speak after the hon member for Brakpan, I have to speak after my former boss. In all seriousness, however, I want to say that because of that, but also because I was sitting in the officials’ bay during the previous discussion of this Vote, it is an exceptional privilege to speak after this hon Minister today.

That’s it, Kobus, have a go at him!

This is your chance! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister referred to the good spirit in which the debate was conducted. It was an exceptionally serious debate, but there were lighter moments here and there. In this respect I am referring to the hon member for Durban Central’s warning to the hon the Minister and to the threat of the hon member’s friend, Mr Graham McIntosh. I was watching the hon the Minister, but I saw no sign of fear in him.

In all seriousness, Sir, I find this warning by an opposition party’s chief spokesman on defence presumptuous in a certain sense. What right does this shadow Minister of the PFP have to warn the hon the Minister against the politicising of the Defence Force, whereas he was quite happy to go and speak to the greatest enemies of all moderates in this country in Dakar?

A second aspect that ensued from this, was the fact that yesterday the PFP sat glued to their seats, and kept quiet when they were challenged to give their standpoint in respect of the ECC. Dr Van Zyl Slabbert’s standpoint in respect of their policy was presented by the hon member for Constantia.

That’s not true; our next speaker will reply to that.

That is what I said, Sir.

I wonder if they still agree with him, because I have a number of reports here from which it appears that he is relatively sympathetic towards the ECC. He has even taken part in some of their meetings. Does the PFP still agree with him on that?

Look at the Hansard that was referred to.

Yes, I also looked at newspaper reports in which reference was made to his present actions in this regard. [Interjections.]

*In addition, the hon member for Claremont told me openly in this House that he supported the ECC. We easily forget, however, that the hon member was the PFP monitor in Black residential areas for some time, and that he was not kicked out by the PFP as a result of his left-wing activities; he resigned of his own accord. [Interjections.] With one exception—I am referring to the hon member for Yeoville—this party and its hon leader have not yet dissociated themselves from its left-wing activities. Nor do I believe that they are going to do so, Sir.

In the few minutes at my disposal today, I should like to pay attention once again to the propaganda campaign, or the disinformation campaign, that the SA Defence Force has to contend with.

In which you are an expert.

Yes, and the hon member for Green Point is an expert in losing elections; next time he is going to lose. [Interjections.]

Shortly after the attack on ANC targets at Livingstone in April this year, a report from which I should like to summarise a few paragraphs appeared in Die Burger of 28 April. The representative of the Washington Post visited the scene of the attacks in Zambia in person. He reported yesterday that reporters had found a number of ANC pamphlets and newspapers when they made a clandestine visit to one of the buildings on Saturday night. When the journalists returned to the building on a guided tour on the Sunday, the ANC material was no longer there. Somewhere else, where a Zambian woman had presumably been shot dead, they also found ANC pamphlets, but their escort quickly snatched and crumpled them up and put them in his pocket, according to a report in the Washington Post.

I mentioned this to illustrate the kind of stage setting that occurs in our neighbouring states every time the SADF has made a successful attack on ANC targets.

I recollect the words of the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs when he said the other day that he shuddered at the thought of the kind of propaganda we would have had against us if the Machel aircraft had crashed only 200 meters to the other side of the border.

The six so-called frontline states each have their own news agencies, viz Angop, Zana, Ziana, Shihata, AIM and Bopa. With the exception of Botswana, all these news agencies are subject to the provisions of their respective governments. [Interjections.]

Yet there are people who say the SA Government is manipulating the news, and I have just heard that said again.

Were you listening during question time? Were you here then?

I was, Sir.

From the analyses made of propaganda thus far, it appears that a co-ordinated propaganda campaign is being conducted against South Africa by the neighbouring states. Similar or identical anti-RSA propaganda themes are propagated almost simultaneously by all the news agencies and radio stations—those to which I referred—as well as the foreign service of Russian radio. The attempt to brand South Africa, and more specifically the SA Defence Force, as the destabilising factor has been one of the more carefully orchestrated attempts against South Africa thus far.

It is interesting that the OAU’s news agency, Pana, with its headquarters in Dakar, is the co-ordinating newsgathering agency which collects propaganda against South Africa from 35 member countries and then distributes this information throughout the rest of the world.

They also collect other people there, who are even more interesting than the news. A lot of this disinformation is published in certain SA newspapers, and I do not blame them for that. I also want to make the assertion that certain hon members of the PFP are victims of the disinformation campaign against South Africa. Only the other day, when I was referring to this campaign, the hon member for Greytown indicated in an interjection that he had information that South Africa, and the SA Defence Force in particular, was also involved in disinformation. I hope I understood him correctly.

You are involved in disinformation right now.

Thank you! [Interjections.] By mentioning his name, I probably was involved in disinformation, Sir. That hon member not only assisted in promoting the ANC’s image in Dakar, but in addition is trying to foul his own nest even further by accusing his own country and Defence Force of disinformation, while giving Black Power salutes at elections, Sir. [Interjections.]

Another propaganda attempt that has recently been used to an increasing extent to influence people against the SA Defence Force, is the use of graffiti in public and forbidden places. I do not want to dwell on this for long. I merely want to refer to one category, viz political graffiti. As part of the so-called alternative media, attempts are being made to create a revolutionary climate with emoinformation against their own country and its Defence Force.

Mr Chairman, we listened with interest to the hon the Minister, and to a large extent we agree with what he said, particularly with reference to Pres Savimbi and his fight against communism. We should also like to inform the hon the Minister that we have no problems about the assistance South Africa grants to Unita. We agree with his statement that the Cubans should leave Angola. That goes without saying, Mr Chairman. We also agree with him when he says that one does not negotiate with the ANC. Furthermore, we agree with him about the fact that we should elevate the security of this country above the plane of petty party politics.

We do not agree with him about the militarisation of the third tier of government. Let him know that we do not agree with him about this, just as we do not agree with his accentuation of certain aspects of reform. We differ with him about that.

I nevertheless want to congratulate the hon the Minister and thank him for not having resorted to petty party politicking, as did many of his fellow party members. I must also point out to hon members opposite, the hon the Minister’s fellow party members, that we, in our capacity of Official Opposition, decide for ourselves about the kind of debate we are going to conduct, and we also make our own decisions about certain other matters. I want to say that I believe that hon members of the NP were foolish to rake up the visit to the border again, a matter we have already taken exception to. I think their strategy in this connection was a very poor one.

Are you ashamed of it now?

Yesterday the hon member for Boksburg himself said it was a slip on their part to have mentioned that matter of the visit to the border here. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I believe that Barbara Jooste and the SABC, the television service and the newspapers, that had so much to say about the matter today, should say this, too, in all fairness to us. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is an unwritten rule of this House that one does not speak about visits to the border, just as during the Second World War one did not speak about ships, and will possibly not be allowed to speak about ships in the near future either. Whoever is responsible for security, a rule involving security has been broken in this House, and as far as we are concerned, thirteen of the members of my party—more than half of our party caucus—would have been on that aircraft. This, by the way, emphasises and confirms our seriousness and sympathetic attitude towards this matter. [Interjections.]

Something else that was a poor reflection on their strategy was the fact that in raking up this matter, the inconsiderateness of one of their junior members was re-emphasised. This is reflected in the fact of his ill-considered outburst, telling the world what he had been told or instructed to say; not to mention the person who told him to do it. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister made strongly-worded statements yesterday. He can do it, of course, from his position of power in his department. He also made strongly-worded statements, in contrast to the tone of the statements made by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs a week ago. Comparing their statements ideologically, let me say that the statements of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs were more pink, ie leftist, while those made by the hon the Minister of Defence were more grey, ie right-wing. [Interjections.] I have the following problem, however, Mr Chairman. Does this hon Minister, when he acts in the context of the Cabinet or his party’s caucus, speak from the same position of strength as that which he has in his own department? I want to tell him, in all honesty, that if he carries on saying the things he said today, in a year or two he will not be an unlikely contender for a higher position than the one he holds at present. If this is the kind of thing he is saying, as far as we are concerned he will be an acceptable contender in the direction in which he seems to be moving.

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

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I only have ten minutes. I really cannot answer a question now.

With reference to the hon the Minister’s strong stand on the ANC and the Communist onslaught, I should like to ask him how he views the possible release of Nelson Mandela and the effects this would have on the internal security situation. Secondly, I should like to ask him the following: We say that the UDF is the brainchild of the ANC, and practices violence just as actively as the ANC does. The ANC itself accepts responsibility for the creation of the UDF. Yet the Government has invited the UDF to hold discussions on the restructuring of the President’s Council. What is the standpoint of the hon the Minister on negotiations with the UDF? You see, the hon the Minister does not want to see the red flag flying in Windhoek, but the UDF is waving that very flag in South Africa. I ask these questions. They are difficult questions. I am not doing so to create embarrassment, but it is very important for us to obtain clarification about the NP’s views on this matter.

The last question I want to ask deals with the announcement by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, during the election campaign, about the presence of 250 terrorists who were going to launch an attack on South Africa. Does the hon the Minister think it was a wise thing to do, if they were about to launch an attack? Would it not have been better to allow them to assemble so that we could send a squad over the Limpopo to blast them out of there?

We have referred to many components of the Defence Force in this debate, but as a father I want to say to our “troops”, our national servicemen: “Boys, do you know how proud your parents are once your basic camp passing out parade is over? Boys, do you know how proud we are when you receive your pro patria medals on completion of your border duty? And boys, do you know how proud we are once you have completed your national service?” We also say this about those chaps who are never going to return.

In these troubled days the South African Defence Force is one of the rays of hope. In human terms, it is our guarantee against aggression from outside and subversion from within. It is a Defence force which is the envy of our friends and which is feared by our enemies. As far as armaments are concerned—I have seen the Armscor report—with our own initiative we are making fantastic strides locally to cater for our own needs and ensure our own survival. Those of us who have had experience of this development over a long period, feel a sense of pride which we gladly share with the South African Defence Force and Armscor. To the others we say that we are not doing it to attack or conquer, but rather to defend and retain what we have.

To the hon the Minister we say that we support his Vote, because what matters to us is that which is most important—South Africa’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

We have recently heard on the news that the UN Secretary-General was apparently not successful in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. This is disturbing to us. The war in the Persian Gulf is literally and figuratively an explosive oil-keg as far as the rest of the world is concerned. If a spark were to touch it, the world could go up in flames. Involvement of the major powers is unavoidable in that part of the world. Russia’s longing for warm oceans and ice-free harbours has been common knowledge for more than a century. In addition to that, if it were to achieve access to the Indian Ocean, Africa and the North-Indian Ocean areas would be just about on its doorstep. Add to that the fact that if it had control over the flow of oil to Western Europe, it would have both its hands on the throat of the Western allies.

As a result of those factors, it goes without saying that Britain, the USA and France must make their presence felt there. Because of that, there are a minimum of approximately 53 warships, of which two are aircraft-carriers, in that area at the moment. Theoretically it can be said that unless something happens in Suez, South Africa’s involvement will not yet be a relevant issue. I do not, however, think any high command echelons can reason in this way. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to come back to the hon member Comdt Clive Derby-Lewis. I want to tell him that I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt until he can prove that he is not a commandant in the AWB. I am not all that sure that he did not have that in mind when he told the Secretary he was a commandant. [Interjections.]

If I can come back to the two “stay-away” parties in this House with reference to a recent visit to the border, viz the PFP and the CP, I should like to say that I am the last person who would say the CP was afraid. I know the hon member for Overvaal.

Yes, you ran away from him. [Interjections.]

He is not a frightened person, but he has very little heart. I have seen him run away from an old man who was 85 years old. [Interjections.]

That is not their reason for not taking part in the visit to the border, however. I saw what happened here that afternoon. The hon member for Yeoville immediately saw a gap and went to sit next to the hon member for Overvaal. Naturally he was looking for an ally. [Interjections.] The CP allowed themselves to be caught so easily by that clever hon member for Yeoville.

See how he is laughing.

The hon member for Yeoville is not a lawyer for nothing.

But there are honest lawyers too.

There are honest lawyers, yes. The hon member applied some very fancy footwork.

Your Minister is ashamed of you. Look, he has left.

His Deputy is still here.

The hon member for Yeoville could immediately go out and state in public that his party was not the only one that was boycotting the visit.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I am not prepared to allow a general conversation like this across the floor of the House.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

I do not have the time. [Interjections.]

Order! If an hon member wants to put a question and the hon member who is speaking is not prepared to reply to the question, that hon member may not proceed to ask the question in any case. The hon member for George may proceed.

Sir, that is the most ill-considered and foolish thing the Official Opposition has ever done. After that episode I was in contact with national servicemen who asked me how it could be possible for politicians to be concerned about their own safety whereas everyone knows when national servicemen leave for the border and where their bases are and that they are constantly in the firing line. They wanted to know how the so-called leaders of our country could be too afraid to go up to the border. [Interjections.]

Order!

This reminded me of an event just after the NP took office in 1948 when the Minister of Defence held a meeting. He spoke about Simonstown and the possible withdrawal of Britain. A tiny little man got up and asked who would protect him if the British did withdraw. A robust woman got up behind him and said: “Sit down, you little runt, I’ll protect you!” [Interjections.]

That is an old joke. No one is laughing at your joke.

Order! Even if the hon member for Soutpansberg knows the joke, it is not necessary to say that. [Interjections.]

The only thing I want to tell hon members of the CP, therefore, is that there will be other people to protect them.

I want to pay tribute to the SA Defence Force this afternoon, not only because of what they have done in respect of arms manufacture, but also because of what they have done in respect of the conservation of our fauna and flora. In the process they have assisted in producing more well-balanced people in South Africa. In this way they have sent more well-balanced soldiers into the world. I think it is appropriate that we pay tribute to the SA Defence Force this year, since it is 10 years since they accepted the function of preserving nature and the environment. A special commemorative envelope will be issued by the Defence Force on 25 September this year. When one considers the Defence Force’s total involvement in respect of territory, one sees that approximately 500 000 ha of land in respect of 50 bases is under the control of the Defence Force. If we analyse Armscor, we find that there is a further 250 000 ha under their control. It is interesting that the SA Defence Force employs 60 national servicemen in a professional capacity for special activities in respect of conservation aspects. It is also interesting that every sphere of the Defence Force is controlled according to a specific ecological plan. It is no wonder, therefore, that approximately 10 000 wild animals are found in Defence Force areas. I understand that during the past two years, approximately 3 000 of these wild animals have been transferred to other areas.

During the past two years the SA Defence Force has also planted 10 000 trees on Defence Force grounds. As far as the Keep South Africa Beautiful Campaign is concerned, the Defence Force liaises very closely with the organisation responsible for this campaign. The Defence Force also has an important function to fulfil in another sphere of its conservation campaign in that it has succeeded in assisting farmers, specifically those in our drought-stricken areas. Since 1982 the Defence Force has made a number of its training areas available to our farming community. The total surface area at the disposal of these farmers at present is 105 000 ha. As regards big game, there are at present approximately 7 000 animals in the Defence Force areas in these drought-stricken areas. None of this would have been possible if the Defence Force had not had an effective plan in respect of conservation. I want to make so bold as to say that there are few departments that have done more in respect of conservation in South Africa than the Defence Force.

It is also good to mention that the SA Defence Force’s policy is to manage its areas in such a way that the natural environment is preserved as far as possible, to plan its military activities in such a way that there is minimal disruption of the environment, and if this is not possible, to restore the environment as soon as possible.

In conclusion I am pleased that I can say that the vast majority of people in our top command structure and our officers’ corps display profound desire to apply conservation. I want to mention one point of concern, however, viz the poaching that takes place specifically in the Eastern Caprivi from the neighbouring states. We think we shall have to give serious attention to this matter. The SA Defence Force has a proud history, and we honour the Force for what it is doing in this sphere. Any person who loves the soil of his country is a well-balanced person. Since many soldiers come from the cities, who often have had little contact with the environment, it is a good thing that the Defence Force is cultivating this love of nature. We may not neglect it; it is our best investment for the future.

Mr Chairman, in the tranquility of this debate it is a pleasure to follow on after my good friend the hon member for George, particularly since he had such fine things to say and spoke with such feeling about the conservation activities of the SADF. I want to associate myself with him by praising the Defence Force for the really outstanding service that it provides in this regard. At the same time I also want to wish my colleague everything of the best with his efforts to get back the elephants of Knysna as well as the two little mammals, the hippopotamuses, which he regards as pets, there in the wetlands of George. My best wishes accompany him.

Yesterday the hon member for Yeoville quite rightly referred to the hon member for Claremont and took him to task for the fact that he was encouraging people to break the law when he referred to certain activities here in the Western Cape. I want to ask the hon member for Yeoville what his standpoint is on what the former member for Pietermaritzburg North, Mr Graham McIntosh, who is still a member of the PFP, said yesterday—viz that he does not want to do national service. I have a great deal of confidence in the hon member for Yeoville. He is someone who speaks his mind and sometimes has to take his medicine because of it, and I should like to hear what he has to say about that.

In the short time available to me I should like to state that as long as I can make a contribution to the development of civilisation and the RSA I shall endeavour to try to involve every man and woman, girl and boy, regardless of race or colour, in a fighting man’s army to form a bulwark against the oppression and the dogma of international communism.

The biggest investment that the White people in South Africa can make is to govern, live and act in such a way that through their example they can get the greatest majority of Coloured and Black people on their side. I am proud of the outstanding contributions being made by Coloureds, Bushmen and Blacks in the SADF and I want to congratulate the Defence Force on the way in which they involve members of other population groups in the defence structures of our country.

I know what is happening in the Defence Force. Today there are thousands of people of colour who stand proudly under the banner to defend the integrity of the RSA, fight relentlessly to protect the interests of all the inhabitants of our country and to form together with our White sons a bulwark to further capitalism and Christian ideals in the country of our birth.

If the CP views the incorporation of other population groups into the SADF as integration, let me tell the SADF today that they should promote integration. They must involve people of colour to the maximum and increase the capacity so that we can make the RSA even stronger militarily. The Defence Force sets a wonderful example with regard to the promotion of race relations in our country, an example which other departments would do well to emulate with greater enthusiasm.

The SADF proved that it can hold its own. In two decades it has proved itself to be a formidable organisation which continuously adopts its techniques in order to improve its capabilities. This Defence Force did not stop at the ox-wagons and the muzzle-loaders. It learnt something from every lesson. The Defence Force made a challenge of every disappointment, and of every challenge the SADF made a success.

The question that we have to ask in this Committee today is what we are doing behind the back of the SADF. What are we doing in the peacefulness of the good life in the RSA? Do we rejoice if a Coloured soldier wants to attend his comrade’s funeral and the church closes its doors to him, or do we unify people on the basis of Christian principles? Do we object when people of colour are trained to nurse or to care for the sick in our hospitals and homes for the aged, or do we help them to improve their quality of life? Do we promote the elimination of discrimination on grounds of people’s colour or do we gloat when an incident takes place? Do we promote the improvement of the living standards of underprivileged people or do we malign the Government for doing too much for people of colour? Do we promote the elimination of conflict situations in our country and in our society—there are a great many elements of conflict in our country—or do we despise people for their handicaps?

How do we live in this country? Do we unify people’s hearts and minds around ideals, or do we reject people out of greed? Do we reject people because of our so-called refinement, or do we as the more privileged strive to take our fellow South Africans who are less privileged with us and to promote and extend civilisation and Christianity?

The struggle in Southern Africa is not a struggle between Whites and Blacks. The SA Defence Force is the best example of that. The struggle is a colour-blind onslaught on the maintenance and extension of civilised standards and Christian norms, with a view to replacing them with a so-called “people’s democracy”, which amounts to nothing other than the impoverishment and oppression of the masses by a small group of demons or devils under the cloak of justice.

This onslaught cannot be opposed by White people alone. This onslaught shall and must be resisted by all people in South Africa regardless of the colour of their skin. These people believe that a safe and stable future for their children should be worked on and built up—a future in which we, in the words of the poet, can still feel free and believe in God.

I salute the SADF and I also salute their political chief, the hon the Minister of Defence, and I wish them everything of the best. We are proud of them and we stand by them.

Mr Chairman, if I may, I should like to react very briefly to the last two speakers. Insofar as the hon member for George is concerned, I should like to say to him that anybody who says that I told the CP to stay away from the border on the last visit, is a liar. I said no such thing and I think hon members would also be surprised if the CP were to take instructions or advice from me. Therefore, that suggestion is rather a childish and a foolish one.

The hon member for Newton Park wanted to make a very clever debating point about the former member for Pietermaritzburg North and he had a very great smile on his face when he asked me about my attitude in regard to his not reporting for service. The hon the Minister of Defence immediately laughed and wrote quickly, because he thought he had a good point.

Let there be no mistake about this matter. I said it yesterday and I say it today that there is a duty on every citizen to obey the law. That applies to everyone, whether it is Mr McIntosh, the hon the Minister of Defence or Harry Schwarz. That is what I believe in, that is what I have practised and that is what I think should be carried out. One cannot be a member of this House and advocate the breaking of the law by any individual whatsoever. That is why I am here and that is why I believe in peaceful change.

While the issue of national service has arisen, let me in passing draw attention to what I think is a very important thing. We have a citizens’ army in South Africa. The Permanent Force in South Africa is very small. When one compares that situation with the situation in other countries of the world, it is clear that one of the reasons why we have a safeguard against a coup d’etat, the misuse of a full defence force for a political purpose and abuse by the Defence Force is because we are a citizens’ army. It is a safeguard for the people of South Africa that we are not in the same category as other countries where one can have a major professional army which can become a political instrument in the hands of politicians and the leaders of that army. That is why a citizens’ army offers a major safeguard for South Africa.

Before I go on to the other topic that I wanted to deal with, I should also like to add my congratulations on the 75th anniversary of the Defence Force. The hon the State President has shown an appreciation for it in that he has given an amnesty to certain prisoners who have, in fact, benefited from his amnesty.

I should like to make an appeal to him and the hon the Minister of Defence. I should like to see something else happen in regard to this anniversary and that is that we should remember the veterans of the other wars which have taken place. It would be an appropriate occasion, for instance in regard to the veterans of the First World War virtually every one of whom is 85 years and older, if we made some kind of gesture to them to show them how we appreciate how they fought in very different circumstances.

There are many suggestions that can be made in that regard, but I remember receiving what was called an “Ouma’s parcel” in the desert. I wonder if we cannot send an “Ouma’s parcel” to those old soldiers on this occasion.

I want to make another suggestion in regard to the veterans of the Second World War.

We have this, what I consider, unfortunate means test in relation to professional qualifications. Would it not be a wonderful gesture to say to those people—there are people in my constituency who have lost limbs but who did not have the opportunity of being educated and who now receive a lesser pension as a result—we are sorry that they did not have the opportunity of being educated, and that we will deal with their pension problem. In exactly the same way I would like to see some gesture of this kind made on this occasion of the anniversary of the SADF in regard to the people who fought in the First World War, the Second World War and in Korea.

I should like to turn now to what to my mind is perhaps the most important question we need to deal with. It is said that we have the SA Defence Force to deal with the internal order situation and to defend the external territorial integrity of the country. The question I want to ask is: Who is the actual enemy we have to deal with? The enemy are not the South African people or the people who have a different political view in South Africa. The enemy are those who actually wish to use violence in order to achieve a political objective, and who have a completely ulterior end-objective in mind. If I may I should like to put the situation this way: I do not believe one can speak in the same breath about being committed to peaceful negotiation and being committed to an armed struggle. One has to choose between the two. If one is committed to an armed struggle, one has to accept that people have to deal with one by means of another armed force. One cannot have it both ways. One cannot have a situation as could well develop in South Africa with political groupings each having its own private army. That is what it really boils down to. If I come to the negotiating table representing a political movement, while I have my own private army in the background in case I do not succeed at the negotiating table, how can any negotiations be meaningful or end up in any kind of success?

To my mind this is one of the fundamental issues that we have to face. If one is going to be at the negotiating table, one has to be there having accepted that negotiation is what one believes in and that that is what has to take place. Then one has to renounce the concept of an armed struggle.

The danger for South Africa is that if one political movement can have a private army, other political movements can have private armies as well. There are already signs of private armies; not only on the left, but also on the right. We cannot allow South Africa to deteriorate into a situation where a political process is being dictated by politicians who have private armies that they can call on. To my mind that is one of the major issues we have to deal with.

The other issue which I think we need to face is that if we ever have to go into political competition with people who think differently from us, we have to define the battle lines on the political field. If, for example, we talk of the ANC, I wish to point out that I regard the ANC to be in political competition with everything I believe in. Let me state clearly that we really need to do this in South Africa in that because of some kind of romanticism, because the “liberation struggle” is on, what is believed is that only the ANC is the leader of the liberation struggle. The ANC and the people who believe in violence have achieved nothing so far concerning change in South Africa. Change has been achieved as a result of negotiation, talk, pressure, argument and convincing people. The tragedy is that those who are involved in the negotiating process are not getting the credit for it in the eyes of the people the ANC is wooing.

I want to put it to hon members that we need to have a political confrontation on the basis that we believe in democracy and not in one-party authoritarianism, and on the basis that we have Western values and standards and not an Eastern Bloc ideology. We believe in free enterprise and a mixed economy, or economic democracy, as we care to call it, as opposed to communism and socialism. We believe in private ownership as opposed to nationalisation. We believe in the creation of new wealth instead of distributing existing wealth.

This is what we have to sell in order to win the political struggle. If we do not sell that, we will not win the political struggle in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, as a mother whose son has been a national serviceman, I would like to pay a personal tribute to the SA Defence Force. The SA Defence Force has achieved for itself recognition as one of the finest and most disciplined armed forces in the world. It has established South Africa as a major military power in sub-Saharan Africa and proudly fulfils its role to protect our country and our borders from the external threat to South Africa which we know is mainly a revolutionary onslaught co-ordinated by the dogmatic left-wing ideologies to further the aims of Soviet expansion in this region.

Having been privileged to witness the impressive military parade at Green Point of men and women representing the military veterans’ organisations of past wars right through to the present day, of battalions of Citizen Forces, of the South African Cape Corps, of volunteers of men and women, and of our national servicemen—a kaleidoscope of thousands of people, young and old, of many races, religions and colours, forming a tapestry woven with integrated colourful threads representing the multinational people of South Africa, I was as appalled as the hon nominated member Dr Geldenhuys was by the reprehensible and unforgivable statement made by the hon member for Green Point who referred to this military parade as an orgy.

Disgraceful!

Where is he now?

This was a most grievous insult to the hon the State President, a man who will be remembered when history is written as one of the greatest statesmen of this country, a man who had the courage to lead this country onto the road of reform and change. It was also a grievous insult to every man and woman in uniform.

As if that were not enough, to crown it all, during his election campaign culminating in his victorious election speech he implied that the Nazis would have been proud of the NP. As a Jewish South African I am shattered by the hon member’s ignorance.

He said that night that it was appropriate for all of us as South Africans to study the history of Nazi Germany and other countries, and in the way we study truth and respect for decent standards, we should study the history of Nazi Germany. I assure the hon member for Green Point that I have indeed studied the history of Nazi Germany.

The hon member for Green Point owes an apology to the hon the State President, to the hon the Minister of Defence and to the electorate of South Africa of whom some have indeed suffered at the hands of Nazi Germany. He owes an apology for these irresponsible and unfounded statements.

Since 1984 our country, and all of our people, have experienced an alarming escalation in terrorist atrocities perpetrated in the name of freedom by the ANC—violence and intimidation that has resulted not only in untold suffering and misery, but also in death to loved ones of so many innocent people—men, women and children—across the entire broad spectrum of our communities.

We know that this has not been a Black-White confrontation as some would want us to believe. We know that our armed forces are dealing with a small but vicious minority that is determined to try to destabilise this country and make it ungovernable. But they will not succeed.

Of considerable sadness to me as a mother during this time has been the abuse of children for political, especially revolutionary purposes, which has become a feature of the 20th century. The indoctrination of children is a pillar of the policy of fascist and Marxist governments. Terrorist groups such as the PLO, the IRA, Zanu and Swapo have actively abducted, recruited and trained child soldiers, some as young as five years old, manipulating untrained minds to think that violence is the only method by which one can solve problems. It has been confirmed that Swapo kidnapped 1 839 children between 1979 and 1987. This figure could be twice as high, because not all cases are reported.

It is not surprising, Sir, that South Africa has not been spared this revolutionary abuse of children for political ends. In a speech on the 75th anniversary of the ANC, Oliver Tambo repeatedly referred to the “teenage vanguard of the revolution”. Indeed, we know that many of the depraved necklace murderers have been under the age of 16.

The spread of revolutionary ideologies from Europe to the Third World has given rise to new and unimaginable forms of violence and brutality. Revolution aims to make societies ungovernable and, in promoting anarchy, seeks to create an atmosphere in which violence becomes an everyday occurrence. In our own country the recruitment of children by alleged “people’s movements” through the so-called youth organisations has all too often assumed the character of exploitation and abuse. South Africans have been perturbed and perplexed by the indisputable fact that the country’s security forces were arresting and detaining children, mainly teenagers. How, it was argued, could mere children threaten national security? We now know from evidence given of the large numbers of children, especially teenagers, who have indeed been involved in many acts of violence, murder and vandalism which were intended by their revolutionary masters to create anarchy and so disrupt every facet of life in our country. In this they have been both openly incited and praised by the ANC-SACP Alliance.

We now realise more than ever, therefore, the great sacrifice that our men in uniform have been called upon to perform. Let us today, as South Africans, resolutely reaffirm, with dedication, with pride and with determination, to stand loyally and proudly behind them, seeking recognition for them in the task that is ever present to bring back not only security and peace, but also stability to this treasured land for all our people.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure to react to the hon member Mrs Chait. I shall not pursue her arguments but will quite probably refer to them in the course of my speech.

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I should like to say a few things about the whole issue of the attitudes of the population groups, more specifically the attitude of some White groups towards the SA Defence Force.

It is true that the SA Defence Force—indeed, any defence force—can only act effectively if the attitude of the population it serves to the task it has to perform is positive. Currently the SA Defence Force consists of four components, namely a small percentage of Permanent Force members, who consist of members of various ethnic groups; citizen force units; the Commandos; and the national service system, as well as the voluntary corps of the Indians, Coloureds and Blacks.

Each of the political parties in this House has a specific attitude to the SA Defence Force. The attitude of the NP to the Defence Force was very well summarised by the previous hon speaker, and I thank her for doing so. As far as the CP is concerned, I shall leave them at that for the time being, except to say in passing that I do want to take up the cudgels for the CP, the Official Opposition, today.

You know, Sir, one has to recognise and take cognisance of the fact that fear is a human phenomenon, and that it is not fair to send people who are frightened on what in their view is a dangerous mission. Therefore I have real understanding for the attitude of the CP. [Interjections.]

†Before I turn to the PFP, Mr Chairman, I must do something that I neglected to do during the speech in which I first spoke in English in this Chamber.

In that speech I neglected to apologise in advance for my broken English. However, I find it necessary to apologise, because I would like to turn to the speech of the hon member for Groote Schuur last week in this House. Although the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has already chastised him properly, I must follow up on two words he used which really tested my temper. This is where my broken English comes in. The hon member referred to the so-called “horse manure” that is sold to his son in the army. The hon member for Langlaagte also touched on this subject. I would like to proceed in Afrikaans, but this is where my problem with my broken English comes in. I cannot properly translate the words “horse manure” into Afrikaans. [Interjections.]

*In fact I want to give it to hon members in a specific context…

Just call it Dakar! [Interjections.]

No, hon members must wait a moment, I want to make the meaning of the word relevant to the hon member’s attitude to the Defence Force and to the prevailing attitude of the PFP towards the Defence Force. I want to translate it now, and that is where my broken English comes in. Is it “mistroostigheid” (dejection) or is it “misstrooiery” (manure-spreading)? [Interjections.] I think we could use both words to describe the attitude of that side of the House. The hon member made vague allegations. Without providing facts, without mentioning the place, the time, the date or the circumstances, he bases his story purely on his belief in something his son told him. This belief is devoid of any persuasive evidence to support it. Whatever the case, that attitude has characterised the PFP for the past two years. The attitude of the PFP and the majority of its hon members almost verges on sabotage.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member allowed to allege that the actions of the majority of hon members of the PFP verge on sabotage?

Order! The hon member said that it almost verges on sabotage. All the same the hon member had better withdraw that.

Well, they verge on horse manure anyway!

Perhaps I could define it differently for the hon member. It may satisfy him if I formulate it differently. The attitude of the PFP…

Order! Has the hon member withdrawn his statement?

No, Sir, I have not.

Order! The hon member must first withdraw the statement.

I withdraw the statement.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Nelspruit confirmed what he said; should he not withdraw it as well?

Mr Chairman, I said they verge on horse manure.

No, that is not what he said! [Interjections.]

Order!

Regarding the PFP’s defence policy, they are in favour of the so-called gradual abolition of compulsory military service. Now, how does this gradual abolition work? In this respect I would like to quote a certain Mr George Pressley, the PFP chairman in the Free State and Northern Cape.

Is he related to Elvis?

Yes, I think so. He says:

*I hasten to associate myself with the appeal made by the hon member Mr Danie van Gend to the hon the Minister, namely that an urgent investigation please be undertaken into the activities of the ECC, and that an urgent investigation be instituted into the activities of this organisation and the psychological intimidation that is taking place in the SADF.

Mr Chairman, in the course of the debate the hon members of the NP made many jokes about the CP, the visit to the border, and Dakar. They had great fun discussing these aspects—in a debate in which one had in fact hoped that more would have been said about defence affairs in general. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister specified six requirements for peace and progress in South Africa. He referred to four or five points relating to the maintenance of law and order, and that, of course, I accept, but the point he did not refer to was the political aspirations of the people. What the hon member Mrs Chait said, is correct. There is a small group of people in South Africa, a minority group, that want revolution. Those people who are active revolutionaries must be opposed because we are opposed to a revolution. However there is a large majority of South Africans—including the Blacks—who want their freedom, who are opposed to violence and who have strong political aspirations. What I find interesting is that the hon the Minister did not mention that as an important point on his agenda, as far as his requirements for peace and progress were concerned. [Interjections.]

I am not really surprised, Sir. A report in last year’s Cape Times of 13 September indicates where the hon the Minister’s priorities lie. Of course, one has to accept that he is Minister of Defence and not of Constitutional Development and Planning. According to that report he said that the Blacks were not really all that interested in democracy or in politics, but were more interested in material requirements.

Sir, the hon the Minister of Defence was a good general. As far as priorities are concerned, the responsibility for political progress must not be placed on his shoulders, however, because he appears to deny their importance. They are not taken into account.

How much democracy is there in South Africa?

The hon the Minister also mentioned that there were certain rules of the game that had to be followed in Southern Africa. In the third point he mentioned he referred to action against terrorists in the neighbouring states. What I found interesting—perhaps I did not understand it correctly—is that on this occasion he also warned the leaders, in that he said that they bore personal responsibility I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether that means that he is warning the leaders there that the Defence Force may go further than simply attacking the terrorist basis and units. Is he therefore warning them that other bodies, for example State structures—those States in themselves—may be attacked if they do not abandon the protection they are affording the ANC?

I wonder whether you should not warn them about that!

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer to the contribution made by the hon member Dr Geldenhuys. According to his unrevised Hansard he objects to the fact that we differentiate between the political heads of the Defence Force and the Defence Force itself. He referred as follows to the -

He has also referred to my studies in Political Science. I do not believe that one needs that knowledge to realise that what takes place in the discussion of a Vote is that Parliament evaluates the responsibility of the hon the Minister and his obligations to his department. In that capacity the Minister and for example, the Defence Force are separate entities. What are we doing here, Sir? We are here to call the hon the Minister to account on the work he has done during the past year. Therefore we separate him from the Defence Force itself. That is elementary.

As far as security measures are concerned, the hon member’s attitude has surprised me. I quote what he said from his unrevised Hansard:

I want to tell him that it also elementary that ensuring the security and safety of this country is the duty of each and every one of us; not only that of the Defence Force. It is specifically the duty of members of Parliament, because we have at our disposal certain information that we ought not to divulge, which we should specifically regard as confidential. Therefore his attitude towards that aspect is quite wrong. I should like to hear the hon the Minister’s view on the fact that his chief spokesman dismisses these security measures.

Yesterday I entered into a gentleman’s agreement with the hon the Deputy Minister. I told him that if he could show me where, in Hansard, I had used unbridled and crude language in discussing the Defence Force, I would apologise.

Go and read it, man!

Now he is telling me to go and read it. He must bring me the relevant passages and show them to me; I say this because they do not exist. If he can bring them to me, my offer to him stands—as one gentleman to another.

He is no gentleman. [Interjections.]

Hon members are laughing, Sir. I really cannot comprehend the level to which debates sometimes sink in this House. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that he must look at Hansard; there is no such reference there. He is not prepared to stand up and apologise now because he knows there is no such reference in Hansard. If he were to bring me any such reference, I would apologise. If there is no such reference there, if he cannot prove it, he must apologise to me.

As far as the visit to the border is concerned—the fact that we did not go—he simply dismissed it by saying it was not the NP’s fault. [Interjections.] Oh, keep your mouth shut. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member continually address the hon the Minister or the hon Chief Whip of Parliament by saying: “Keep your mouth shut”?

Order! I took note of what the hon member for Overvaal said. He referred initially to the hon the Deputy Minister, and subsequently referred to him as “him”, and I find nothing wrong with that.

I did not keep saying: “Keep your mouth shut”, but it would be better if the hon Chief Whip of Parliament, who wants to be an example to all of us, tried to get his matric and behaved himself in this House.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must at least give me an opportunity to complete my ruling. I do have some misgivings about the way in which the hon member for Overvaal shouted at the hon Chief Whip of Parliament: “Keep your mouth shut”. Nevertheless, I let it pass as a thoughtless interjection. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, as far as the visit to the border is concerned, I want to say the following to the hon the Deputy Minister. He is dissociating the NP as a whole from this visit. They made no mistake at all. [Interjections.] He says yes. However, the hon member for Boksburg has admitted that it was a mistake, and it was in fact a mistake. The hon the Minister knows that it was a mistake. We particularly wanted to keep it out of Parliament; we did not want to speak about it. In the past we have been told many times in this House, by Brig Bosman and all the others, that these aspects should be kept under wraps. And we are still doing so.

What do I have to do with that? [Interjections.]

I want to refer the hon the Minister to Frontline.

Were you not afraid to go overseas, to Delville Wood?

The hon member for Boksburg made a reference to Delville Wood. How he got onto that aircraft, I do not know, because he is not a soldier, and he never has been. [Interjections.] I just want to refer the hon the Minister to Frontline, vol 7, No 2, of June 1987, in which a terrible story about the ECC was published. On the back page, however, there was a beautiful advertisement for SAA. I do not think that is right; I do not think that the Airways ought to advertise in a publication in which such publicity is given to the ECC.

I should like to address the case of Mr Clive Derby-Lewis. Both the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister advocate the elevation of the Defence Force above petty party politics. The most striking example of this, however, is the intentional humiliation of Mr Clive Derby-Lewis today. Apparently the question was neatly planned for today. The obvious aim was to humiliate Mr Derby-Lewis. On this form completed by him when he first arrived here, he gave his title as commandant. I want to tell hon members, however, that Brig Jack Bester, who was the commander of the Sixth Division in the Second World War, was always known as brigadier, but that he held the substantive rank of captain.

Now I want to put a question about Col Bloomberg, who is sitting over there. In this document it is stated that he is a colonel. Is he a colonel, Sir? Is he a substantive colonel or not?

Yes, of course.

Oh, of course he is! He is an honorary colonel.

Colonel Pik as well.

But he does not use the title. [Interjections.] I just want to say that Mr Clive Derby-Lewis did military service for 19 years. He was a unit commander for five years. He did all of it voluntarily, and the speech that he made here yesterday, was the best speech of all the speeches made in this Defence debate. It was such a positive, such a good speech that I think… [Interjections.] I see hon members are saying “yes”. Now I ask how many NP members can boast of experience to equal that of Mr Derby-Lewis?

I can!

Wonderful! I know that the hon members for Parys and Winburg, and a few others, can boast of such an achievement. That is fine, Sir, but those hon members would not humiliate another hon member as was done here today. Mr Derby-Lewis’ love of the Defence Force is reflected in his 19 years of voluntary service, and also in yesterday’s speech. He received a John Chart medal for loyal service. I want to say that the humiliation he has had to suffer, is an embarrassment to the Defence Force and contributes to a lowering of morale. Now I want to ask what this is leading to? The hon Minister must adopt a standpoint on this issue. He could have stopped that question. I want to ask him what this is leading to. What sort of questions does he want us to start asking? I have information at my disposal, a great deal of information. Should I start asking questions now? Should I start asking embarrassing questions? Should we conduct a Defence debate with one another in this way? We could also do it. We could also ask embarrassing questions.

I want to conclude by saying that Mr Derby-Lewis, who has completed 19 years of voluntary service, and who was a unit commander for five years, is a soldier with inner strength who will come to terms with this humiliating experience. [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.] Order!

Mr Chairman, I would like to refer to the propaganda onslaught on South Africa, which is gaining in momentum and which is intensifying. Only the naive would deny this war of words and perceptions. The propaganda campaign, which consists of allegations, accusations, associations and disinformation is a continuous process. It is definitely not being conducted on an ad hoc basis. The fact is this is a professional, orchestrated operation, inspired and conducted by some of the best in the game—the Russians and their satellites.

There are numerous examples of their professionalism, of which the Samora Machel aircrash is one of the best examples. This accident is an excellent example of how disinformation was used to accuse South Africa of the deed. If hon members can still recall, first we were accused of shooting down the aircraft; then, secondly, we were accused of erecting a temporary mobile decoy beacon close to the South African/Mozambican border.

Our security forces are a major target in this propaganda campaign, which is in line with the pattern of revolutionary warfare. Its purpose is to demoralise our men, to cast doubt about them and in general to create a climate in which they are perceived as ruffians and destabilisers.

As long ago as 500 BC the Chinese military strategist, Sun Tsu, said, and I quote:

This is the goal of those who conduct propaganda, slander and disinformation campaigns against us.

I wish to assure this Committee, however, that the SADF is aware of the multi-pronged campaign and fully geared to handle and counter it. I wish to lay down a principle very clearly, and I appeal to our media to take note of it. I fully appreciate the media’s job in respect of the free flow of information in society.

There is, however, one facet in regard to which I ask them to carefully weigh interests. The Defence Force is always placed in the dock always has to prove the veracity or the credibility of its statements and, even worse, is expected to prove or disprove other organisations’ statements and claims. This same obligation is never placed on the other side or other outside organisations. Their statements and allegations are accepted at face value and are seemingly seldom questioned.

It is also interesting to note that many of the general media are inclined to play along with this game. The Defence Force refuses to be trapped in the never ending cycle of confirmation or denial of propaganda allegations distributed by neighbouring states and a variety of other organisations and institutions. To get caught up in this cycle is to play directly into the hands of the outside propagandists by assisting them in confirming what they think they know or denying what they are not sure of.

There appear to be two leaders in the propaganda campaign against us, namely the two news agencies AIM in Mozambique, and ANGOP in Angola. I appeal to our journalists to judge carefully the propaganda allegations put out by these and other agencies and to weigh them in the context of the revolutionary onslaught on or against South Africa.

Armscor has a very precise policy on arms deals. Comdt Marais once explained to a journalist, and I quote:

I grant that it is not possible to apply this healthy and tested Armscor policy fully to media enquiries on propaganda. However, in view of the circumstances we live in and the orchestrated campaign against it, the SADF is justified in exploring this guideline further and following the principle it contains.

There is really no reason for the SADF to be expected to deny, confirm or comment on wild and unfounded allegations on an almost daily basis when dealing with propaganda. The hon member for Germiston District referred to the Livingstone incident. I appreciate the trouble he took to research this matter because it is a classical example of the propaganda process against South Africa and more specifically against the SADF. That was an excellent opportunity for our media to expose the propaganda campaign and to use the disappearance of the ANC documents in a positive way to serve South Africa. There are numerous similar examples. I wish to refer to only one.

At the end of July this year a landmine was planted on Mr Danie Hough’s farm in the Messina area. It was detonated by an American visitor. The tracks of those who laid the mine were shown to the Botswana Defence Force and to their police. They accepted that those responsible had left South Africa and gone into Botswana. There has been no Press coverage of this.

The fact is that most neighbouring states deny that they harbour terrorists. This is automatically believed by many media circles and extra-parliamentary groups. When the SADF acts against terrorists in these territories, however, only so-called “refugees” are killed and never terrorists, despite evidence to the contrary.

I wish to state the following general principle: The SADF refuses to be permanently placed in the dock, and also refuses to be pressured into helping our enemies wage a propaganda war against it and our country. I appeal to our media to assist the SADF in this task.

I now come to comments and contributions by hon members.

*Looking back on the debate I should like to thank hon members for their contributions. Members on this side of the Committee spoke with conviction about the role of the defence family. The hon member for Krugersdorp replied in his customary outstanding way to the hon member for Durban Central in regard to the presence of the SADF in township areas. The hon member Dr Geldenhuys very effectively exposed the way the PFP and the Official Opposition are courting individual members of the SA Defence Force and the SA Police and provided a good outline of this issue. I thank the hon member for Langlaagte for his praise of the SA Medical Services. The hon member for False Bay dealt concisely with the revolutionary display aimed at driving a wedge between the authorities and the population. That is why I made mention today of the six matters that must be dealt with before we can return to normality. When I speak about “authorities” that must not be taken as referring only to the Government of the day, but to everyone who participates in the process. In other words, all hon members in this House are part of that concept.

The hon member for Walvis Bay advocated that Defence Force funds should not be scaled down. I think this is an important matter, and I am very pleased that the hon member for Primrose—he apologised for not being able to be present—also raised the matter. We really cannot cut expenditure now in regard to our planning, evaluation and preparation. The hon member for Primrose also requested that Armscor be more active in the export market. I assure him that Armscor is certainly not letting the grass grow under its feet, but is working very hard in this regard. However, it is a matter of quality, and that is what Armscor offers.

I also assure the hon member for Walvis Bay that better housing for members of the Permanent Force is always a matter of deep concern to the SA Defence Force. In this regard I have referred the request he put to me to the SA Defence Force. The hon member for Umlazi put his finger on the fact that the PFP is soft on security. The hon member for Greytown almost bit the dust in regard to his salute. I thank the hon member for Umlazi for his fine words about the Navy. The hon member for Boksburg asked a question about the detention camp in his constituency. We have discussed this matter before and the hon member knows that the SA Defence Force is not indifferent to justified requests.

The hon member Mr Van Gend spoke with considerable authority about a matter of great current importance, and I want to compliment him on the way he did so. He devoted his entire speech to the ECC. It was clear to all of us that he had made a very thorough study of the matter. I assure him that the ECC is being watched very carefully. In this regard I just wish to say that I have a lot of confidence in our South African youth, who have proved themselves time and time again. I believe that our youth have the capacity to render this festering canker harmless. That organisation is not making much progress.

I think I have replied adequately to the question the hon member for Constantia asked about Unita and South West Africa. The Government’s policy is clear: South West Africa/Namibia cannot be left to the mercy of terrorists, the Russians and the Cubans. I am very pleased to see that the hon member is present. He has given me many problems in my life. It was he who at a certain stage during the discussion of the Defence Vote tackled me about nature conservation and gave me a hard time about what we were going to do in the Overberg in regard to the missile testing base. I am really sorry that he was not present when the hon member for George furnished the statistical data relating to the attitude of the SA Defence Force and Armscor to nature conservation. As far as the missile testing range is concerned I just want to tell him that the conservationists who have been there have been tremendously impressed by the work being done in regard to the ecology. Therefore I can now set the hon member’s mind at rest as regards the question he asked at the time.

The hon member Prof Olivier is clearly a friend of the SA Defence Force, and I appreciate his efforts to acquire more knowledge in this connection. I have replied to his remarks on the lifting of the ban on the ANC, but I just want to add that I always find it a pleasure to listen to him because he always comes up with positive criticism and makes a contribution. I am very grateful to him for doing so.

The hon member for Overvaal spoke about a shortage of leadership elements. I believe that there will always be a shortage of these elements, and this is a matter to which the Defence Force must give constant attention. I also want to assure him that the Defence Force is always amenable, and will always receive written proposals by the hon member with pleasure and will consider them, because in that way one can only improve an organisation.

Planning is already in progress with reference to the utilisation of the active Citizen Force Reserve, the first allocation to which will take place from January 1988. The question of availability for the Citizen Force and the Commandos is also considered on an ongoing basis in this way, depending on the situation and on the evaluation and appreciation that is made. The hon member has sufficient background to know exactly what I mean when I use that terminology. For example, permanent posts are created at the commando and group headquarters and manned on a full-time basis to reduce the administrative burden on part-time members of the commando. They now really have a tremendous task with this new “Buttermilk” operation that is taking shape as well as the activities that are occurring in the rural areas in particular.

I now wish to make a further brief reference to two matters raised by the hon member for Overvaal. He referred to a report in The Sunday Star of 13 September concerning Major Du Toit’s mission. I want to add to that that the hon member acted in a very responsible way yesterday, and that is why I now want to give him some very good advice. He should take care that he too does not unwittingly become a victim of this kind of propaganda and efforts to create a climate to which I referred here earlier. On 28 May 1985 in the House of Assembly (Hansard: Assembly, vol 4, col 6560 et seq) I made a statement on Major Du Toit’s mission, and I shall let that suffice.

The second matter concerns action to counteract the propaganda onslaught to which the hon member referred yesterday. On 26 June 1987 the Defence Force gave a full explanation and made a statement about the dissemination of information against the ANC and about terrorists. I shall let that principle, as stated there, suffice. The Defence Force has been instructed to combat terrorism and it is doing so with all the means at its disposal. There is no irregularity involved here, and the Defence Force acts in the service of South Africa and in the service of the truth.

I now come to the hon member for Soutpansberg. The Government’s standpoint on Mandela was very clear. On 13 August 1987 the hon the State President stated his standpoint in respect of security prisoners, and I have nothing to add to that.

I note that the hon member for Pietersburg opposite reads my Hansard quite regularly. I also made this statement at the time, and he can give it to the hon member for Soutpansberg to read.

I think the hon member for Soutpansberg asked a very important question about the UDF, and I want to say something about that. People who propagate a “people’s democracy” cannot make a significant contribution to the meaningful broadening of democracy. It is a general principle applicable to all that there is no place for perpetrators of violence and revolutionaries in our political process. The issue is one of violence and the laying aside of violence.

†The hon member for Yeoville made a tremendous contribution in this connection this afternoon.

*I want to thank him for that. That is also the reason why we do not speak to the ANC.

This brings me to the hon member’s remark about the third tier of government. It was not my aim this afternoon to spell out the six requirements for hon members and to say that there was no criticism or pointing of fingers. I tried to say to hon members that it would have to be efficiently managed. I am fully aware that the hon member for Yeoville does not regard that as such an important facet. In fact, that is why I tried to put across to him that the political objectives of this country would have to take those six requirements into account. If one does not take them into account one will encounter many problems in a revolutionary war.

Third tier government in particular is of cardinal importance. One will not get the better of the revolutionary onslaught against us if one does not regard it as being of cardinal importance. I am not trying to score political debating points off anyone now, but I should be much obliged if the hon member would take that into account, because that, in essence, is the threat that we are faced with.

The hon member for Yeoville referred to my colleague who at a certain stage supposedly spoke about 200 terrorists who were on their way to South Africa. That is quite correct. Hon members will recall that in December 1986 the hon the State President issued a warning to the people in regard to terrorists who were engaged in certain efforts. We subsequently made certain inputs and undertook certain actions in order to prevent that. That onslaught that began in December is an ongoing one. I personally gave the information about the 200 terrorists who were on their way, to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The reason I gave it to him to use, was to instil a sense of responsibility in the leaders of the neighbouring states. They must appreciate that we know about these things.

One of the greatest limiting factors we were faced with was the election. Hon members will recall that certain parties said we were using the terrorist onslaught as an election ploy. I however want to assure you that one of the reasons why we were not so successful in checking them was the fact that we had to postpone certain actions until after the election, specifically because we did not want this type of action and discussion to be involved in the election. I want to appeal to all parties please to dissociate security force actions and elections, because they impose a tremendous limitation. People’s lives are at stake when we speak about these actions. [Interjections.] I replied to the hon member yesterday and said that my colleague, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and I co-operated extremely closely. We have a common goal and he must not think there is a gulf between us or that he can drive a wedge between us; on the contrary, we are working for one thing only and that is the interests of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Once again I want to thank the hon member for George for his very positive contribution on nature conservation. I also wish to thank the hon member for Newton Park on the comments he made about the utilisation of people of colour. I want to tell the hon member that I appreciate the remarks he made in that regard. The defence of our country is indivisible. Hon members have seen how these people fight shoulder to shoulder in the operational area. This is one of the reasons why I invite all the hon members of all three Houses to the operational area so that they can see that all South Africans are involved in the physical onslaught on South Africa.

†I wish to thank the hon member for Yeoville very much for his very positive contribution. I can assure him that the SA Defence Force and Armscor always appreciate what he says about them. I always consider that hon member a truly loyal South African. [Interjections.]

I wish to thank the hon member Mrs Chait for her very positive contribution. She spoke with the understanding of a woman. The defence family welcomes her as a friend and as a supporter, and they thank her very much for what she is doing for the Southern Cross Fund.

*The hon member for Bloemfontein North is also a newcomer here. I am pleased he was able to discuss this subject. It is a very important one. For the Defence Force, attitudes are of vital importance, and we welcome him as a friend in our family.

The hon member for Durban Central added nothing. Therefore I shall let what I said about him suffice.

I shall conclude by just thanking all hon members for the contributions they have made…

What about the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis?

There are certain golden rules that always enjoy attention in the discussion of this Vote. The first is that the national security of South Africa—hon members will have noticed this—is a serious matter for all of us.

The second factor is that we believe that the Security Forces should not be dragged into party politics, neither for political nor for personal gain. [Interjections.]

Thirdly, we believe that criticism must be expressed. We ask the hon members not to express their criticism here. My office is always open to any hon member. They are always welcome to approach me in my office if they feel that there is something in the functioning of the SA Defence or of Armscor that could be made more efficient.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 9—“Administration: House of Assembly”, Vote No 24—“Administration: House of Representatives”, and Vote No 25—“Administration: House of Delegates” agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Votes Nos 9, 17 and 18.

Mr Chairman, I move the amendments on the Votes—they are in my name on the Order Paper—as follows:

1. 1. To substitute the amounts indicated below for the corresponding amounts in Columns 1 and 2 of Schedule 1:

Amendment to Vote No 9—“Administration: House of Assembly”:

Mr Chairman, this amendment deals with the R400 million that was announced to save farmers from sequestration.

Order! Is the hon member discussing the correct Vote? Agriculture is No 17.

No, Sir, Agriculture is another one. This one is the Administration: House of Assembly.

Order! This schedule has actually been discussed, but if the hon member wants to say something further about it, I shall give him an opportunity to do so. I just want to make sure that the discussion takes place under the correct head.

This is a supplementary amount that has to be approved. [Interjections.] Is that not so?

Order! The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, let us just make sure whether we are right. Are these the amounts of the Supplementary Appropriation that are mentioned here?

Yes, these are the amounts of the Supplementary Appropriation.

It concerns the R400 million that has already been agreed to under the Vote Administration: House of Assembly and that now has to be approved here in the Supplementary Appropriation. This is so due to the system in which we find ourselves these days.

Order! The Secretary has drawn my attention to the fact that that supplementary amount to be added to the Vote has already been agreed to by the House of Assembly.

No, Sir, not the supplementary amount. That has already been agreed to by the Administration: House of Assembly, but it still has to be agreed to again by the general Parliament. We were speaking in our capacity as House of Assembly on own affairs then.

Order! As an own affair this House has…

As an own affair, yes.

… already agreed to it.

Now the Supplementary Appropriation must be agreed to, and that is a general affair. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to suggest that the hon member for Lichtenburg is correct in discussing it under this Vote because that amount was mentioned in the Budget speech, but it did not appear in the original Vote documents that were put before the House. For that reason that amount together with the R134 million and the amount to the SBDC—this will be dealt with by my hon colleague sitting next to me—has to be dealt with in the Supplementary Appropriation. My point of order is therefore that the hon member must rise the point under this specific amount.

Order! The hon member for Lichtenburg may continue.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: This matter has taken up quite a bit of time and I ask that the period in which the hon member for Lichtenburg’s turn to speak only begins now.

Order! The hon member for Lichtenburg may now commence his speech.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

It deals with the R400 million and the fact that this amount was used, or that it was intended to use it to save farmers from sequestration. It is also concerned with the fact that it was adjusted and that it has already been announced that it is also going to be used for other purposes.

Please excuse me, Sir, but I just want to make sure who I have to address. Does the hon the Minister of Finance say I must address the hon the Minister of Agriculture?

Yes.

Yes, but the hon Minister of Finance has to approve this amount of money. Besides there are other representations that I want to address to him, because those people do not listen. It is pointless my speaking to them, because it seems to me that they do not speak to the hon Minister of Finance when I speak to them. [Interjections.]

It has been announced that this money is going to be rescheduled and used for other purposes, precisely because the scheme did not get off the ground and is in reality a failure. I should also like to tell the hon the Minister that at this stage it is clear that very few farmers who are staring sequestration in the face are being helped by this scheme and are being safeguarded against sequestration. Apparently there are various categories of farmers who cannot get out of their difficulties, and a very small percentage who can in fact be helped. What is very clear at this stage, however, is that one of the groups who cannot be helped at all is that group of farmers who have an economic unit or something slightly larger than an economic unit and who have already borrowed the full economic value of their unit from either the Land Bank or the Directorate: Financial Assistance. I am therefore referring to those farmers who have borrowed the full agricultural value of their units from one of those two institutions. Those farmers do not qualify at all for a settlement in terms of this because they have nothing additional as they no longer have an economic unit that can be converted into money. The State also cannot grant any additional loans to them either because they have already fully utilised the agricultural economic value of their units by way of consolidation agreements entered into previously.

That entire category of farmers—the farmers who have an economic or a slightly more than economic unit, is by far in the majority—is therefore excluded completely. In their case a settlement proposal is not even being made, and the matter is not even receiving attention. In that respect therefore this scheme is a total failure.

The reason why this scheme cannot get off the ground is because it was introduced too late. The hon the Minister will recall that three or four years ago when we came to the House with a private member’s motion the hon member for Barberton said that every individual farmer’s case should be examined and an analysis made of it. Steps should have been taken at that stage already.

I now want to tell the hon the Minister that next year there is again going to be a number of farmers who will find themselves in exactly the same position due to the enormous burden of debt which in some cases can no longer be paid. Regardless of whether they have record crops and of how well they farm, the burden of debt is just too great for those farmers to pay. Next year we will find ourselves in that same position and that is why I now want to tell the hon the Minister that he should be looking three or four years ahead now already and dealing with the problems that are going to crop up in such a way that it would lead to a solution.

In the presence of the hon Minister of Finance I want to tell the hon the Minister of Agriculture that there is one way—I do not say that this is the only way—in which we can cope with this problem and that is to freeze the interest of those farmers who are already fully burdened up to and beyond their ability to pay. We have asked for this before, but we want to ask it again. If the interest is not frozen those farmers could perhaps still carry on for a little while and then be sequestrated, as is now happening here, and the creditors are going to lose. I therefore ask the hon the Minister to freeze the interest of those people who are being burdened beyond their ability to pay. I ask the hon the Minister to amend the Agricultural Credit Act so that the interest could be frozen by means of the decision of the board. Allow that farmer to use everything that he brings in and produces under management so that he can pay his debt until he once again reaches a stage where he is able to pay. After that the matter can be restored to normal and he can pay interest again.

I think that deals with this Vote that has now been put and I shall let what I have said suffice. I ask that the Government will consider freezing the interest so that people can pay their debt themselves as far as they are able and to unfreeze it afterwards so that they can then start paying back their interest and their debt.

Mr Chairman, I have one objection to the hon member’s accusation. It is very easy to be clever after the event. None of us—that includes the hon member—were in a position to establish with precision what the real requirements were after we had applied a whole series of schemes relating to the financial position of the majority of farmers. We made various efforts. I made efforts inter alia to ask the co-operatives to encourage their members to ask those who could fall under the scheme—such as the six or the ten year scheme—to apply in terms of the scheme. At least there was still the hope that there was still an additional margin of security, although those accounts were not open to our inspection.

When these requests began to stream in, however, we found, as that hon member said, that there was no further margin of security. We then extended these programmes as soon as possible under the R400 million aid schemes by inter alia introducing a system called an assistance settlement scheme. We did this after we had consulted as widely as possible. I think the hon member knows what we mean by assistance settlements, and I could mention to him that those programmes are currently being processed.

As I mentioned in the debate on my Vote we expect that from the co-operatives alone, according to the latest information, applications under the ten year scheme will be made to the Agricultural Credit Board totalling between R200 million and R300 million. We have heard—we trust that this is so—that there will be additional security. If there is no additional security we shall consider the possibility of approaching certain creditors with an assistance settlement. The effect of that will be that some of the creditors will have to write off some of the debt.

As regards the issue of the instrument relating to interest, that is something we can look into. I shall consider that situation to see what the possibilities are and whether we could not also have this additional action. However hon members are aware that we are limited under the Agricultural Credit Act, but if necessary we shall look into that.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment to Vote No 17—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing”:

Mr Chairman, the matter under discussion here is the amount of R134 million which is a subsidy to support the losses on the price of maize that has to be exported. This matter has also been announced often before and much has been said about it already. Now it is being proposed that it be agreed to.

When this amount and the price of maize was announced earlier this year, it was estimated that the harvest would yield 7,6 million tons. Until this morning 6,46 million tons have been received. Small, almost insignificant quantities of maize are still being produced. It is therefore expected that the harvest will not yield more than 6,5 million tons. It is therefore 1,1 million tons less than the estimate on which the price was based.

This means a number of things. Firstly, the farmers are losing more than R200 million in income. They are going to receive R200 million less than was estimated when the price was determined. Furthermore, more than 1 million tons less are going to be exported and the export loss is going to be less than the expected estimate was at that stage.

When the price was announced it was said that a final payment (agterskot) would be made if the harvest was smaller. The loss on maize that is being exported is R200 per ton. Now we have to export 1 million tons less. The estimated loss is therefore going to be R200 million less. [Interjections.] I therefore ask the hon the Minister once again to give consideration to making that final payment. The rains have fallen now and there are positive signs. We all firmly believe that the drought is behind us now and with the fantastic beginning that we have made this season this promises to be a wonderful year.

After six years people are exhausted. They no longer have any liquid assets; they no longer have the funds. I therefore ask that the matter should now receive urgent attention and that this final payment should be made. It is going to play an important role in the next harvest which we hope will be a record harvest that will help get all of us and South Africa out of trouble.

The second point that I want to mention is that this subsidy is actually applied at the end to subsidise the loss on export maize. If this R134 million is applied at the beginning, the production point, it will have a much greater effect. After all the high inputs and price increases—even abroad—the subsidy is now being applied at the end. If this subsidy were to be applied at the beginning, the effect this process will have is that the maize price will drop, while at the same time the profit margins of the farmers can be increased. I therefore ask the Government to carry out an urgent investigation into the question of subsidies at the beginning so that we can use them to increase the profit margins of the farmers, can counteract the prices, and can attain the most important goal, ie to combat inflation in South Africa. I think the real place where we should begin to combat inflation is food, tobacco and liquor which constitutes 35% of the consumer price index. If we can contain that component then we shall have progressed by 35% in breaking inflation and will have created the climate in South Africa to keep it totally under control.

Mr Chairman, I just want to point out to the hon member that we no longer fix a maize price. The scheme was amended in such a way that we make a price scenario available at the beginning of the sowing season which depends on the different factors influencing it.

The R134 million is an ad hoc additional payment based on the fact that there has been a total collapse of the price on the foreign market. When one looks at the prices one sees that in 1986 it was $102 per ton, as opposed to $76 per ton in April 1987. This therefore represents a decline—when these price scenarios had to come into operation—of 25%, which is a drastic decline. In the meantime the rand has also firmed and this has caused the situation to deteriorate even further.

The result of this was that—and one surely makes one’s calculations annually, when one receives the third and final estimate—that at that stage we would have had a loss of R216 per ton on exports. This means that if it is compared to the price of the previous year, there is a decrease of 20% which in the circumstances is too drastic. The Government therefore decided at that stage to plough in an additional R134 million on an ad hoc basis, so as not to permit the drastic decline.

However, the fact is that if one subsidises the price so that it is at least the same as that of the previous year, one has to have an additional R201 million. This would mean a total of R335 million just to keep the price the same in conditions other than droughts which cannot be determined. If one also takes into account that one spends approximately R80 million per year just on handling and storage costs—that is over and above the additional amount of approximately R80 million which one has to use to service the loan necessary for the deficit on the stabilisation fund of the Maize Board—it then means that in one year the Treasury would have to spend R415 million on the maize industry. I should now like to put a question to the hon member. My problem in South Africa is not confined to the maize farmers. There are other farmers in South Africa who are also struggling and who also have problems. Honestly, we really cannot hand over the total amount—the small amount of money that I am trying to negotiate from the hon the Minister of Finance—to the maize farmers. I myself am a maize farmer, just like the hon member. Truly, Sir, I think we have done our duty in this regard.

As far as the figures are concerned, I think the hon member is correct—that we have received far less maize. We suspect that a far greater percentage of maize has been held back on the farms, but we also suspect that instead of the maize flowing into the agents, it was also disposed of in other ways. This is one of our basic problems, because the difference between the producer’s price and the internal selling price has become very large. The consumer contributes approximately R80 per ton. I have not even added that to this R415 million. This is causing the internal price to drop. This is another problem with which one is saddled. We suspect that this is why our calculation was slightly out. The hon member is acquainted with the calculation of the Board which is based on the surveys carried out by the agents. These calculations are fairly accurate and I do not think our estimate was all that incorrect if this problem which caused it is taken into consideration.

So far, I have received no submission from the Maize Board about a final payment. The Maize Board will have to consider seeing how much money is available. The Government will have to take into consideration that the deficit on the stabilisation fund rose last year to almost R500 million and the loan for that has to be serviced. If there were now to be a surplus of R20 per ton, one would of course have to consider all these different factors. We shall also have to take into account the R400 million, the additional schemes and the additional actions we shall be launching in connection with the conversion programme. The latter actions include the following: If a member converts his lands into planted pastures we pay him R130 per hectare—R80 establishment costs plus R50 rent. We are launching all these actions to help the farmer with his cash flow problems, etc. However, as soon as I receive a submission from the Maize Board in this connection, we shall consider it, taking into account all the factors that I have briefly tried to sketch here.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment to Vote No 18—“Trade and Industry”:

Mr Chairman, this deals with the Small Business Development Corporation. I think there are a few things that need to be said about this money which is being allocated even though it was motivated in the Budget Speech some considerable time ago. To my mind, there are the following principles that I think we should seek to apply.

Firstly, the function of the Small Business Development Corporation should not be to retain viable businesses which can stand on their own feet, or to finance them once they have them on their feet. They should then turn over those assets and use the money to get somebody else onto their feet. It is pointless for a portfolio to be built up of viable businesses. If that happens we will have a repetition of some of the problems we had with the IDC. One then actually has a situation where Parliament keeps voting more and more money, whereas what we should in fact be doing is disposing of the assets and using them so that Parliament need not vote more money.

When one looks at the accounts of the Small Business Development Corporation, one will see that in a number of instances there are businesses there that could be sold off. However, the argument we are given as to why this is not being done is that we have to balance the accounts, show a profit and in fact demonstrate that one can have good investments as well as investments in a developing stage.

To my mind that is a wrong principle. If I may say so here, perhaps the hon the Minister of Finance is to some extent to blame in this context, because what Barend gives with the one hand, he takes away with the other. Let me give him an example. While he was so kind as to give money to the SBDC he took away from it almost R4½ million in tax in the 1987 financial year. In the previous year he took away R6½ million in tax, and then, having taken it away, he very nobly says that he is now giving it to the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology so that he can use it. So what Barend gives with the one hand, he takes away with the other. Therefore I would rather he did not have to give the money. The actual shareholders are not looking for dividends. I think we should in fact look at this as a section 21-type company, which is a non-profit company. That is what it should be, but it is not. If it were, we could deal with the tax situation and overcome it.

Let me, however, ask the hon the Minister of Finance some interesting questions, since through this he is involved in some fascinating businesses. There is one which is called “Secontimelucky Investments (Pty) (Ltd)”. Is he “second time lucky”? What does this company do? What are we doing here? We have R320 000 invested in it. Then there is a better one, which I really would like to hear about. The hon the Minister is in a business called “Chick’n’Run (Pty) (Ltd)”. What is he financing in Chick’n’Run (Pty) (Ltd)?

It is a PFP company. [Interjections.]

No, Sir, that is a Nat company run by the Government, and it is called Chick’n’Run (Pty) (Ltd).

He should tell me what business the Government has with Chick’n’Run (Pty) Ltd.

Where do you find that?

The hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology wants to know where I find this. I find it in the annual report of the Small Business Development Corporation on p 24 under “List of Subsidiaries”. I am always helpful to the hon the Minister. He is a very nice fellow. [Interjections.] If he looks there he will see “Chick ’n’Run”.

What about “Secontimelucky”?

Well, I do not know who is second time lucky.

Let me say in all seriousness that this is the only real instrument we have to encourage small business. It is the only real instrument we have to deal with what we call the informal sector. Sir, whereas we welcome this money and support its allocation, we think the principle should be applied in the same way as that in which the hon member for Lichtenburg appealed for aid to farmers.

I make an appeal for the ordinary businessman. Let us keep people solvent who are viable and let us keep jobs in existence and not allow them to be destroyed. Let us help businesses, but, for goodness sake, let us not hold on to businesses which can be sold and turned into cash where the cash can be used to help other deserving causes.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon member for Yeoville that most certainly it should not be the aim of any development organisation to retain established businesses because that would defeat the whole object of such a development corporation. However, the Small Business Development Corporation is facing several problems in respect of its financing with which I shall deal in the course of my speech.

The hon member put some interesting questions to the hon the Minister with regard to certain companies, which I am sure the hon the Minister will answer. It would indeed be quite interesting to know who the other shareholders in Chick’n’Run (Pty) Ltd are. [Interjections.]

*The R15 million in the Supplementary Appropriation has to do with two specific programmes of the Small Business Development Corporation which I want to deal with briefly in a moment.

Small businesses in South Africa have enjoyed Government interest and support since the sixties, but it has only been since the Carleton Conference and the founding of the SBDC in 1981 that real and rapid progress has been made in this very important sphere of job creation and development. In the six years of its existence the SBDC has made dramatic progress, as is reflected in its annual reports. One need only refer to one of its achievements, namely 155 000 job opportunities created at an average cost of only R2 420 per job opportunity.

However, the contribution of the SBDC goes much further than what it has established in physical terms. It has literally acted as a catalyst in creating interest and starting a movement for the promotion of effective small businesses, and thereby made a tremendous contribution towards our efforts to achieve more rapid economic growth. It is specifically as a result of rapid expansion and the diversity of its financial programme that the SBDC has experienced a problem as regards the financing of its activities.

Until recently there were two main sources of financing for the SBDC, namely shareholder funds, which amounted to R212,8 million, and, since 1985, ad hoc allocations, mostly for specific development efforts, through which R155 million has been made available. Since these funds were not adequate for the financing of the SBDC and it has not been able to perform its task of development to the full, the Government has now made a third source of finance available by enabling the SBDC to obtain loan capital by way of annual share issues on the capital market. These share issues will be guaranteed by the State. They have prescribed status and the State pays an interest subsidy of five percentage points. The R10 million which is at present before the Committee to be voted is in respect of this programme. At five percentage points, a total amount of R260 million can be obtained in this way.

While this provides an extremely welcome source of finance, I do not think that this can satisfy the needs of the SBDC, chiefly because the capital base of the SBDC is too limited to carry a growing burden of interest of a growing component of loan capital, even on a subsidised basis. Moreover, the SBDC also operates in the sphere in which loans are granted to persons who would not normally be able to obtain financing, where there is only either a medium or even a very low return, with a very high risk factor. Therefore its yield is very low, measured in terms of the yield that an investor in the private sector can get. The effect is that a subsidy of at least 10% will be required provided a person wants to obtain funds successfully from the private sector in this way. I therefore ask that the size of the subsidies be seriously reconsidered.

The second amount of R5 million is in respect of the Pioneer Projects Fund of the SBDC. This fund was established to make provision for projects that are not profitable or are too risky for the corporation to undertake from its normal funds. This involves, for example, the development of the informal sector by way of mini-loans and property development projects in the independent states. Other projects relating to the utilisation of unutilised buildings, inter alia those of the SADF, are also included here.

The appropriation of this amount will bring the total amount voted under this head for these projects to R9,3 million this year, whereas in the previous four years an amount of R20 million was spent in this way. This type of funding seldom has a net yield of more than 2%. Therefore it can only be financed in this way, namely by direct appropriation of funds. I also want to ask that financing in this regard be effected in terms of a fixed, predetermined and goal-oriented programme that makes provision for annual growth.

The SBDC must necessarily ensure at all times that the money it receives is utilised in the most productive way possible, and I believe that this will in fact be done. However, it would help the corporation a great deal if the allocations it receives were provided on a fixed basis with a built-in growth factor. In this way the corporation would be able to plan and act even more purposefully. This side of the Committee takes pleasure in supporting the appropriation of this supplementary amount.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for East London City for the support and for the very clear explanation of what this R15 million is going to be used for. The first R10 million is meant for the subsidisation of interest at a percentage point of approximately five to give the SBDC the opportunity of developing a third source of capital by using it to negotiate State guaranteed loans. The remaining R5 million is, as we have heard, meant for the Pioneer Projects Fund.

I now come, without further ado, to one of the three points made by the hon member for Yeoville. It is very clear that the hon member supports the granting of this R15 million. He is very pleased that we have given it to the SBDC because the SBDC basically concentrates on the development of the informal sector and of the small business sector that lacks the resources to obtain bank loans and does not fall within the responsibility or the guidelines of the IDC either. There can therefore be no duplication. I think that those boundaries have been drawn very clearly and the co-operation between the SBDC and the IDC have also been very clearly set out. The tax that the SBDC pays to this colleague of mine, the hon the Minister of Finance, he simply pays back to the Pioneer Projects Fund.

The hon member has taken two names from amongst the affiliates to provide us with a little amusement. I must say I quite enjoyed it when he spoke of Chick’n’Run and Secontimelucky. These are the two smallest subsidiaries of the entire lot which he selected. I think the total exposure is something like a share capital of R4 000, while there are subsidiaries, for example one with the name of Newman and Newman with a share capital of R92 000. I think the hon member tried to amuse us and we do not blame him for that. In any event I undertake to see what the activities of Chick’n’Run and Secontimelucky are. I think we should just have clarity on the spelling of the names. It is not “Second Time Lucky”; it is the designation of a specific company.

I agree with the hon member that when the SBDC initiates certain businesses and teaches that business to stand on its own feet on an economic basis, it should continue on its own and the SBDC should withdraw itself from it.

The funds that it then has available to it can be used for other new undertakings. I fully agree with the hon member. I have no quarrel with the hon member about that.

The hon member made a third statement. When we examine the report we find that we have preserved job opportunities for thousands of people thanks to the support which the SBDC gave to small undertakings to keep them in business. When one examines the statistics, I think that when in future, in a few years’s time, we look back on this year, we shall be able to tell the success story of the SBDC with regard to the fact that they kept small businesses, which had a survival potential, in business and in so doing preserved job opportunities. Particularly when we take note of the cluster system with which the SBDC, with the assistance of the Pioneer Projects Fund, functions—the Pioneer Projects Fund which is financed with tax money which in turn is paid out by the Treasury—it is clear that they are doing fine work.

Have you read the hon the Minister of Finance’s budget speech?

We would therefore note that the cluster companies and undertakings that are being supported by the SBDC are creating many thousands of job opportunities. We therefore think that the SBDC should continue with this very, very interesting and praiseworthy undertaking of theirs. I thank the hon members for their positive support, Mr Chairman.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses and Title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.