Mr. Speaker, we have now had a debate of some hours, a debate which in my humble opinion could have been much shorter had the Bill and its objects been under stood correctly. In the first place I should like to express my gratitude and appreciation to hon. members on my side of the House who facilitated my task considerably. Their contributions, without exception, were to the point and put the perspective quite correctly, not only as regards the contents of the Bill but also as regards its objects. I must say that, listening to the speeches, it became clear to me that they were people of set purpose who, for many long years, have seen a weakness in our education, and that they not only formed a cordon here against the Opposition, but that in reality they interpreted what has been felt to be a need since 1911 by various commissions appointed to express their views on matters of education. The studied speeches were most heartening to me, and I wish to assure them that they were the mouthpiece not only of a political party, but of people who are interested in education and training.

Turning to the Opposition, I must say that I am exceptionally sorry and wish to express my sincere regret that the Opposition deliberately and of their own choice have adopted an attitude which has really deprived them of an opportunity of sharing in a very fine piece of legislation. I think the Opposition have done themselves a disservice. They were not the mouthpiece of the people outside, or that of their own supporters. It is a pity they did so, otherwise in a matter such as this, they could justly have boasted, once this legislation was on the Statute Book, that they had a share in this very important and constructive piece of work. The debate has proved that. They waxed hot and cold. They said there should be a Council—but then they added a lot of “buts”: Where they did advocate centralization, they did so with suspicious minds, but as the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) particularly was the mouthpiece, we have here a moving plea for decentralization, with reference to many countries where decentralization fitted in better. I am sorry for them, about what has happened to them.

What exactly has happened? On two occasions, last year and this year, on the introduction of this Bill, even before it had been referred to the Select Committees, the Opposition fought the introduction of this Bill from the very first stage; i.e. they opposed the first reading. They did so with a very keen sense of responsibility, I think, but they tested the responsibility by reference to their own views. They thought they were interpreting the sentiments of a large section of the population. Then the Select Committees came, and I refer particularly to the Select Committee of this year, and there was a general scramble to get bodies and individuals to send in memoranda and to come and testify before the Select Committee. There were the existing associations, and new associations were established, and then the evidence was received, which, in the words of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) last night, could really be divided into six groups, three groups of witnesses who represented his point of view, and three groups of witnesses representing our attitude. Thereby he himself eliminated a good deal of the evidence in this Blue Book as really representative evidence. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy) analysed the nature of the evidence and its contents last night and I wish to congratulate him on what he did, for it is a true reflection of what exactly happened, and the conclusion he came to is that the thin evidence against this Bill—I am now referring to the principle and not to the details—really proved to emanate from the Black Sash and her satellites. That was all that remained that really was opposed to the legislation. The Blue Book has been abused. The hon. members for Potchefstroom (Dr. J. H. Steyn) and Kensington stated very clearly that this Blue Book will be used for many years in the way many people use the Bible. There are hundreds of creeds and all of them base their right to existence on the Bible. Here sentences will frequently be taken out of their context and reproduced in such a way that this or that one was opposed to it. But I should like to say that will not take us much further. What is really the great criterion when so-called contentious legislation comes before this House? The criterion is the reaction outside. Since the second reading started here, and I gave an exposition of the Bill, there was no reaction except 21 telegrams I received from the National Council of Women, a body that knows absolutely nothing about education, save that they profess to be mothers of children, a body which has now associated itself so fully with politics. They were actually worded in four different ways so as to provide some variation, and from the smallest towns telegrams also arrived, from small towns such as Tzaneen and others.

What now remained for the Opposition in this debate was the last trench, and the stand they took was one of suspicion and the sowing of suspicion. The Minister will do this and he will do that. The Minister will appoint a Nationalist Council consisting of only his supporters. Christian National Education will come and goodness knows what else. I should like to say at once that I reject that kind of insinuation with the contempt it deserves. I must say the hon. member for Kensington last night spoke like a true educationist, probably out of despondency and desperation, and adopted an attitude that had much substance in it. The hon. member eventually also said that he would like to help me. The words he used there were proof that the hon. member is not completely opposed to the principle of having an advisory council. The hon. member, with his knowledge as an ex-inspector of schools who had visited many schools, knows that a very great need exists for such a Council. His offer was admittedly pretty thin, for he really wanted to offer me only two things to help me, but it does mean a lot to me that he wished to help me. The one is: Why do I not want to exclude from the operation of the law the remaining 25 private schools as well? Here I must say at once, in reply also to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman), who concentrated mainly upon the private schools, that I regret that the members on my side have made that concession in having excluded some of the private schools, and do you know why I am sorry? I think they should have retained all the private schools. According to the hon. member there are only 25 left, and they are being deprived of any privilege they may have, in the first place, and in the second place, where the private schools are providing good and thorough training, they could also learn much about general education through the medium of this Council. We can learn from them, but they will miss a great deal, as it is now requested that they be excluded. I think an injustice is being perpetrated upon those schools by separating them now. Those hon. members are always so concerned about any form of apartheid, but here they now wish to apply apartheid, for they are scared that this cruel Minister, with his Nazi claws, will get a grip on the neck of those people. What an accusation! I hope that the private schools, the few remaining ones, will see themselves what is done under this Act and that the rest in due course will come along of their own accord and say: We should also like to have a more active share in this Advisory Council than the Opposition were prepared to grant us.

What was the evidence?

The hon. member should rather remain quiet about the evidence now, for we shall now come to the practical aspect. Forget about the evidence, for as I said just now, as a result of the fact that there are many kinds of interpretations of the evidence, it also results in the hon. member and myself belonging to two different churches.

The next bit of assistance the hon. member for Kensington wished to give me is whether I would not be a little more fair and nominate some members of the Council and have the other nominated by representative bodies. I shall reply to this in the course of my further reply.

The best method I can think of to cut this reply down as much as possible is not to reply to every individual in regard to what he has said, but to mention briefly the clauses and the objections raised to the clauses.

The first clause is Clause 2. On Clause 1 all I got was really only the standpoint on the private schools, and my attitude there is that I am definitely not going to make any further concessions in that regard. My hon. colleagues on the Select Committee did much for the sake of good co-operation. I am not blaming them for that, but I am not going to concede one further inch, for I believe that after I have said what I intend saying, it will be clear to everybody, and to the private schools too, that it will be to their advantage that this Council should come into being as soon as possible.

Leave it to them.

We have left everything to the educational bodies for the last 50 years, and nothing has happened. We talk and we talk and we do not get a yard further.

On the part of the Opposition, as I summarized it, there were three main objections to Clause 2. The first is that the Council is not what it pretends to be, namely a national council, because it is intended only for Whites and because the non-Whites are excluded. The second objection, and that is the biggest defect they see in Clause 2, is that the Minister himself appoints the Council, and he excludes direct representation of teachers’ associations, universities, the army, agriculture, industry, mining, private schools, Indian schools, Bantu schools and Coloured schools, etc. And the last one is a very unfortunate objection, but I have to mention it, and that came particularly from the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) and the hon. member for Durban (Berea), and that is that there is no assurance in this legislation that the Council will consist of an equal number of English- and Afrikaans-speaking persons. I shall deal with them, but the essence of the council is really contained in Clause 7, so I shall leave over some of these objections until I reach Clause 7.

The first objection is that no direct representation is given and that the Minister himself appoints the members, with all the frills added, so that it will be a body of “stooges”, Nationalists and I do not know what all, and I should not claim this right for myself. Now, I have four reasons why I refuse to accept the views of the Opposition, even the modified view of the hon. member for Kensington. My first reason is that there is such a multitude of organizations that are concerned with education directly or indirectly, that I shall require a Council of some hundreds of persons if I wanted to do justice to all these organizations. I have made a summary of all those organizations and I should like to mention it here for the record. Just to give an idea, there are the following organizations: There are 11 teachers’ associations, seven inspectors’ associations, there are nine universities with faculties of education. All those are people who are interested in education. There are 21 church denominations. Then we have the Home and School Council, the Afrikaanse Calvinistiese Beweging, the Vereeniging vir Christelike Onderwys, The Christian Education Movement of South Africa, the Education League of South Africa, the Education Panel, the Education Vigilance Association, the South African Council for English Education, the Conference of Headmasters and Headmistresses of Private Schools, the Associated Chambers of Commerce, Die Handelsinstituut, the S.A. Federated Chambers of Industries, etc. When we begin to think of representation for the employers, then we have various trade unions that are combined into five federations, who also can claim representation, for if the employers’ organizations can have it, then they also are entitled to have it. Then there are the S.A. Agricultural Union, the Chamber of Mines, the Army, the Post Office, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the Railway Administration and the Public Service Commission, all of which are training institutions and are interested in the education of people. Then come the Indian schools, the Bantu schools and the Coloured schools, and finally there are more than 100 parent-teacher associations, scientific and cultural societies, all of which in one way or another are concerned with education. Surely it would create a senseless situation to give representation to all these bodies. Do hon. members think they have a monopoly of all the knowledge to be able to nominate all the bodies that should have representation? They think that the bodies they have referred to in the report of the Select Committee are the proper bodies, but they are excluding all the other bodies. Now I should like to ask the hon. members a fair question: Who has to advise the Minister in regard to the bodies to whom he should give representation to advise him? For surely somebody has to advise me. Surely I cannot give all those people representation.

How are you going to decide who is to serve on that Council?

That the hon. member will hear at the end of my speech. If he is not careful, he might even get the right to nominate one himself. I think it is a ridiculous request; it is an ill-considered idea, and I cannot help calling it a mischievous idea. If the hon. members of the Select Committee want to see an improvement brought about, and if they were to say to the Minister: You should not appoint the people, but you should give representation in this and that manner, then they should have acquainted themselves with what the consequences of such a step will be. As regards that matter, I can only say it is an impossible matter. Now I should like to ask the next question in this connection. Hon. members have unanimously decided that this council should consist of high-ranking, prominent educationists and educated men who are acquainted with education. They are very much afraid that I shall do something wrong, and here I am completely at one with them. But if representation were to be accorded to these bodies, who is going to say that it will be high-ranking educationists who will be members of this council? What assurance have hon. members opposite that they are going to be educationists? I do not want to pick out names here, but I know of many of these persons, and I can imagine already who will be on that council. It will be some popular person who might have been some good in his association, but who knows nothing at all about education. Where the Opposition have pleaded that the members should be above suspicion, I should like to tell them that I agree, and that the Bill provides for that. Clause 2 (3) (a) and (b) binds the Minister and any member of this House can call me to account if I have failed to observe the provision of Clause 2 (3) (a) and (b). Clause 2 (3) (a) provides—

Sub-clause (3) (b) provides—

Surely it cannot be put more clearly; it is quite clear from this that the Minister is bound. Mr. Speaker, the conclusion to which I have come on this senseless proposal, on the objection to the appointment of members by the Minister, is that it cannot be seen in any other light than as mere sowing of suspicion against this council, even before it has been constituted, and even before it has begun to function, particularly when regard is had to the fact that there are numerous other councils or boards, the members of which are appointed by the State President or by the Minister, and to which reference as a rule is made in terms of praise, even by the Opposition. I am thinking, for instance, of bodies such as the following: In the first place there is the Board of Trade and Industries. Section 2 of Act 19 of 1944, which is a United Party Act, provides that the State President shall appoint the chairman, a deputy-chairman, and not more than three other members. The period of office, not more than five years, is determined by the State President. Is there any member opposite who will say that the Board of Trade and Industries consists of a lot of stooges of the Minister of Economic Affairs? Then I should like to mention the C.S.I.R., to which hon. members have referred here in terms of great praise. If the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) will refer to the language groups represented here, she might also perhaps get an eye-opener. Section 5 of Act 32 of 1962 provides—

The members are appointed by the State President. This is a professional council, the same kind of council I have in mind. Is there any member opposite who will say that the C.S.I.R. consists of a lot of people who benefit only the National Party; that they are a lot of stooges of this Government? Let anyone stand up there and say that Dr. S. Meiring Naude is such a man; and can they say that of persons such as Prof. Straszaker, Mr. P. E. Rousseau, Dr. H. J. van Eck, Dr. P. J. du Toit, Prof. Dr. S. F. Oosthuizen, etc.? There are 11 of them. The State President appoints the chairman for the period he determines. Then there is a Wage Board consisting of five members appointed by the Minister. The five members sitting there at present have been appointed by me. Will any member opposite get up and tell me that the members of the Wage Board are there only to benefit the National Party? Not even all those people are Nationalists; I know them.

Who are they?

The members are Prof. Steenkamp, Col. P. R. Viviers, Mr. H. W. Tindale, Adv. J. Marais and Mr. A. Juyn. I myself nominated these members. Now I come to an educational council, the National Council for Social Research that consists of 19 members appointed by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science. All of them are prominent people. Is there any person who has spoken otherwise than in terms of praise of the research work conducted by this Council in the field of education? I think I have given hon. members opposite enough rope to hang themselves with it. If that is the position regarding these high-ranking councils, what right have other hon. members opposite to say that I or any member of this Government will set about things in such an indiscreet manner as to go and limit this extremely necessary and important council by merely appointing people who will carry out their own policy? We have had many opportunities with all these Boards I have mentioned—and there are numerous others—to do something like that but it has never been done, No, it is not only an attempt to sow suspicion, but I have come to the conclusion that a pathetic sense of inferiority has gripped hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Dr. J. H. Steyn) has already referred to that. Their conduct can be attributed to a feeling of inferiority that has emerged from the Opposition, and I should like to tell them that they need not be concerned about the constitution of the Council. At the conclusion of my speech I shall tell the House and the country how I propose to constitute the council.

But, Mr. Speaker, what is particularly amusing is that the Opposition in one breath pleads for an equal number of Afrikaans- and English-speaking members on this Council. That is really amusing to me. In one breath the Opposition pleads that only high-ranking educationists should be appointed to the council, and then again they urge an artificial classification in language groups. Let me now put this question to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North): Suppose the Council were to consist of 20 members, and that there are 15 outstanding English-speaking educationists and only five outstanding Afrikaans-speaking educationists; do the Opposition then want the Minister to appoint only ten of the outstanding English-speaking persons, the five outstanding Afrikans-speaking persons and a further five Afrikaans-speaking persons of average capability? Is that the view of the hon. member? Then I am sorry for the poor children that are to be taught by her, if she wishes to constitute the Council in such an artificial manner, and I am sorry for her if the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) get her alone and pull her ears until they are red for having said “Yes”.

May I put a question to you?

No, l am not going to reply to questions now. The hon. member should put that amendment in the Committee Stage, that the Council shall be constituted in such a manner and then she can say her say if she wishes to do so. Mr. Speaker, I wish to state my point of view unequivocably, I am going to appoint the best people to that council—the very best—and I am going to appoint the most prominent educationists to that council. I am not going to be an accomplice to placing artificial impediments on the road; I am not trying to bind myself to appoint so many English- and so many Afrikaans-speaking people. The time for that has passed on. The hon. members for Johannesburg (North) and Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) are living in a time that is long past. I am giving hon. members the right and the opportunity, when the council has been appointed, to come and tell me which of those people are no good on the council and ought not to be appointed. They will then have an opportunity of taking me to task.

As in the case of the Broadcasting Corporation.

I do not even want to use the argument—one of the hon. members on this side has pointed out that he is sorry that this is so—that the English-speaking people have not thrown their whole weight into education matters. That is a very great pity. I have here figures for the Transvaal that may be very interesting. In 1961 there were, in the Transvaal English-medium schools, 673 Afrikaans-speaking teachers as against 2,079 English-speaking ones; there were 172 that were proficient in both languages and 31 speakers of other languages. I think the English-speaking people are leaving their own country and South Africa in the lurch, and the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has admitted it. Permit us merely to issue the warning that we consider that everyone should pull his weight. Then it should also be borne in mind that the English-speaking White national group comprises approximately only 43 per cent of the total White population. But I am not trying to suggest that I am going to appoint the members of the Council on that basis; I am not going to do so on any fixed basis, and I am not going to have myself bound by anybody in any way whatsoever. I am going to confine myself to one principle only, and that is to appointing the best and only the best man to that council.

Then I come to Clause 5. The main complaint of the Opposition against this clause is that the Minister may misuse the committees by their acting “as inquisitors” (to use the words of the hon. member for Hillbrow) at schools of the provinces. Then the positive idea was expressed, in addition, that the inspectors of schools will then surely go and do this work instead of investigating things. What are the motives of this inquisition I shall then, as alleged, launch? Here, too, sinister motives are attributed to the Minister for which there are no grounds. The hon. member wishes to know more than we have already said. May I just remind hon. members of what I said in my introduction to my second reading speech—

And then I stressed the following words—

I stress the last four words, “need not be argued”. I used those words because I assumed that, among the members of the Opposition, there are those who understand pedagogic language. The reaction, however, indicates that they did not understand it, and therefore I should like to illustrate it with one example. Suppose the committee has to inquire—and it is requested that there should be an inquiry—or that the council itself decides that there should be an inquiry into the education of the deaf. Surely it is obvious that the council cannot produce a report if there is no proper investigation on the spot. Surely it is obvious that you can only acquire the required knowledge if you send people there to get the data and so I could mention a number of other specialized kinds of work. The inspector of education, the principal, is not concerned with that kind of work. He just cannot do it. Just ask the hon. member for Kensington how, in the normal course, he had to run around so as to carry out an inspection at a school. An inspector will then have to be appointed to every school, and he will have to be a specialist to be able to do the work properly. The hon. member for Kensington will tell you how, during the period he was an inspector of schools, he took five or six of his colleagues along with him when he visited big schools because he did not consider himself competent to have an inspection in regard to all those subjects. What nonsense to see sinister motives here!

The most important clause is Clause 7. Here the Opposition had three main objections in particular, namely (a) that the council will be able to interfere with provincial education matters, and so violate Sections 84 and 114 of the Constitution, and the Bill ought to prohibit such interference. The second objection is that there should rather be reference to “cooperation” than to “co-ordination”, and the third objection is that the duties of the council ought to be specified. Mr. Speaker, what strikes one immediately about all these objections is that they prove that the Opposition have not read Clause 7 properly, or are not willing to read it properly, for I do not wish to charge them with an inability to read the clause. Let us take them seriatim. Subclause (1) makes it very clear that the council will be merely an advisory body that will advise the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, and through him other Ministers and the Administrators. The merely advisory and co-ordinating functions of the council are reaffirmed in sub-clause (4). In the case of the Minister of Education, Arts and Science—and only in his case (and hon. members should listen very carefully to this for it is cardinal)—the council may take the initiative with its advice. In all the other cases, in the case of the Administrators and the other Ministers, the council advises only at the request of the parties concerned. [Interjection.] It seems to me as if hon. members opposite are now acquiring new knowledge. Nowhere in Clause 7 is there a provision that the advice must be accepted. Whether or not the advice is accepted will depend on the body that receives it. I should like to state clearly here that if the Minister considers the advice to be so important that it will require legislation, this House will be approached for the introduction of legislation, and hon. members need not raise ghosts now already. Let me mention an example. Supposing it is felt that Christian National Education should be enforced in all schools, from Natal right up to the Zambezi, it cannot be done without the introduction of legislation, and that legislation will have to be introduced here, and then hon. members will be able to refer to Christian National Education and to the so-called sinister motives behind the constitution of this council. Then the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) may attack the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) regarding the question of parental choice which, according to the hon. member for Vryheid, is not being exercised properly in Natal.

He will never be here at that time.

I am now dealing with Clause 7 and the powers I have, which hon. members opposite have exaggerated. The only lawyer on that side who dealt with this was the hon. member for Durban (North). The other lawyers opposite felt that this was dangerous territory. The hon. members said that the Council does not have a national character, but any other Minister—the Minister of Coloured Affairs, the Minister of Bantu Education, the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, the Public Service Commission and all the bodies I referred to just now—may come to the Council and say: We should like to have advice. Is that then not a Council with a national character? The Minister of Education, Arts and Science has a say only in White education, but the road is open for any Minister to ask the Council for advice. How can hon. members then say that the Council does not have a national character? I hope my colleagues and other bodies will avail themselves of this.

A further objection is the co-ordinating function the Council will have. The question was asked time and again, what does co-ordination mean and the reply was: Refer to your dictionaries, then you will see what co-ordination means. It merely means co-ordination. But how are things going to be co-ordinated? Subclause (2) of Clause 7 provides unequivocally that the Council will perform its function of coordination in consultation with and not after consultation with the Department of Education, Arts and Science, the Provincial Departments of Education, education bodies and organizations and persons interested in education. Surely hon. members know the difference. If it said “after” consultation there shall be co-ordination, then it would mean that you are required only to ask the people for their views, and if they say they will have nothing to do with the thing, then you simply say: “I am now going to co-ordinate; I am going to do as I please.” But if you say it shall be done “in” consultation—and that is legal language, not my language—then those people have to agree. You cannot come from above and perform coordinating functions when those people say they will have nothing to do with the whole thing. I should now like to ask this question: Who can now compel whom to do what? There is no such thing.

Only the Minister.

Just listen to that fatuous remark. Is this provision regarding co-ordination in consultation with these bodies not really a compliance with the request of the Opposition who have pleaded for co-operation? Is that not really the basis on which you achieve co-operation, namely by means of work of persuasion? Mr. Speaker, the members of this Council will not be a lot of politicians who will adjudicate upon these matters. It will be one educationist against another educationist. They will not be people who are always looking for sinister motives.

The final objection to this clause is that the functions of the Council ought to be specified. That is a shortsighted approach. It is quite shortsighted to do anything of that nature with any new undertaking. Legal principles demand that once you start mentioning duties or functions, you have to mention the lot. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) knows that. You cannot get away with merely mentioning some functions and then adding a little covering one, as you usually do in the terms of reference of a commission of inquiry. If you specify the duties, you must mention the lot from A to Z, otherwise the Council is bound and confined to the functions you have specifically mentioned, and the interpretation of a clause which contains only a general principle is equally bad for hon. members opposite, for if we are going to generalize in that way, then I shall still be able to do everything of which hon. members are accusing me, now of doing with this Council. I could mention the main ones, but if only a general provision is included in the Bill, then I shall still be able to do all those sinister things hon. members are accusing me of wanting to do. What purpose will it serve then? My view, and the view of the members on this side who served in the Select Committee, is that this is a new body and should therefore not be restricted or bound; it has to develop by itself and what should be defined more clearly will become clear soon so that it can do its work more effectively. We must build this Council up together.

I should like to deal with Clause 8 briefly. I do not want to say much about this, particularly in view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Your ruling was—and I agree with it—that the contention that there is a violation of the Constitution here is without substance. Nor is the autonomy of the provinces affected, but the provinces are retaining their autonomy, notwithstanding this legislation. However there is one danger which has been pointed out by the provincial authorities, namely that the present provision will have the effect that the provinces will also have to submit their draft estimates to this Parliament. So it is my intention to move an amendment in the Committee Stage, which will have the effect that draft ordinances of the provinces in regard to their budgets will be excluded from the provisions of this clause. It would be senseless to require anything of that nature from the provinces.

Now I should like to deal briefly with a few of the general objections raised to this Bill. We have been charged with having disregarded the majority view of the evidence given before the Select Committee in drafting this Bill. In this connection reference has been made particularly to the evidence of the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations. I do not wish to take up the time of the House by again quoting from the evidence of that body, but I should like, however, to quote only one thing to indicate that such an allegation renders a disservice to this important body. On page 2 of the report of the Select Committee the following is to be found in the memorandum of that body—

On page 3, this appears—

All the evidence given by that body before the Select Committee is interspersed with propositions of this nature. The fact of the matter is that hon. members opposite are reading this evidence through dark glasses on the assumption that members of the Council will not be independent and will not be people of outstanding educational ability, but that it will be a Council that will be used by the Minister. For the record I should like to say that the Federal Council has done its share.

Furthermore it is contended that the provinces were not consulted when this Bill was drafted. That also is an unfounded charge. Last year the then Minister of Education, when the first Bill was drafted, held prolonged discussions with the provinces. As regards the Bill now before the House, I should like to point out that it also was submitted to the provinces. After it had been amended by the Select Committee in the form in which it now stands I received the following telegrams from the various Administrators:

These are Administrators who support the Government and it is immaterial what hon. members may think; they are still the provincial representatives. I shall read Natal’s view too—

We know of course what Natal’s views are and that is not in issue here, but just as in the case of all other important national issues such as the Flag, the Republic, etc., Natal first took a stand and then shortly afterwards followed suit, so too in this case it can be said that Natal will come round to our way of thinking. It is wrong therefore to say that the provinces were not consulted. They were consulted and certain objections to this Bill resulted from that. As I have already said in this connection, I shall move an amendment in the Committee Stage. I shall have the amendment placed on the Order Paper so that hon. members can see it. It will not, of course, affect matters of principle. However, it is being done to make it acceptable to the provinces.

A further objection raised by the other side to this Bill is that I should have held it over until the Schumann Commission of Inquiry into the financial relations between the provinces and the Central Government has reported. These objections were raised inter alia by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). That is sheer nonsense. The Schumann Commission was appointed to inquire into the financial relations between the provinces and the Central Government. Its terms of reference are specifically confined to this point. At the present moment we are not concerned with the financial relations between the provinces and the Central Government, but with the establishment of a more effective system of education. It has no relation at all to the Schumann Commission’s task. But hon. members are obsessed with the suspicion that we are creating institutions here in order to take away certain rights of the provinces.

I wish to say by way of summary that the resistance of the Opposition to this Bill has been a bad blunder, in the same way that its opposition to the General Law Amendment Bill was a blunder. Secondly, it is an exhibition of a hullabaloo without policy and without motive, an exhibition that is amazing its supporters in the country. Supporters of the hon. members opposite are amazed at this, except perhaps in Natal, where they have not all been properly enlightened. Nevertheless hon. members opposite will be astonished at the positive support I have received from people from that province, including the constituents of the hon. member for Durban (North). Once again hon. members have been asked to make the sacrifice—if it is a sacrifice on their part—of forgetting party advantage and to have regard to the interests of the country and of the nation, and particularly the interests of the child. Once again they had the opportunity, if they could do so, to look after the interests of future generations in the sphere of proper education and co-ordination. Just think of the training of technicians—the situation to-day is disquieting. Hon. members opposite have apparently never studied these things deeply. It seems to me that the last time some of them were at school was when they left school; We cannot allow people with their type of speech to advocate a perpetuation of the present neglect.

What is the true position in relation to this legislation? In the first place, an advisory council is being established. The object of this Council is very clearly defined in this Bill, as well as the means it will have at its disposal and the powers it will have. Secondly, the advice it gives can be voluntarily accepted or rejected. It will still be done in public, for the Council will have to Table its reports on its activities. In that way people who approach the matter on the basis of political motives will be exposed, for there will then be an opportunity for discussion. Thirdly, where recommendations have to be accepted and given effect to in the interests of the education of the country, the requisite legislation will be introduced in this House. In the meantime nobody need worry that any ideology or system—whether in respect of private schools or in respect of state schools—will be enforced with the aid of this proposed Council. I say that with a full realization of my responsibilities. The Council will not have that power. Fourthly the advisory council will consist of efficient educationists from both language groups and from both sexes. So there will be English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking members, and there will be men and women. If there is any fear that I will not consult all prominent persons who are capable of rendering outstanding services to education—which is possible since I do not know all of them—I say that everybody will be at liberty, even the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South), to submit names to me with a statement of qualifications and an indication of the reasons why it considered that the proposed person will be a valuable member of the council. Any person will be at liberty to do so. How do hon. members feel about it now? I do not know whether I will receive such letters; indeed, I do not believe I will, because after all they do not believe in this kind of council. Nevertheless, I extend this invitation to them. They may do so without any hesitation. I am not binding myself to anything or anybody. In fact, to this very moment I am not committed to any person. I am looking for the best in the country. I hope too—and I am pleased the Prime Minister is here to hear this—that the five persons on the executive committee will be paid adequate salaries so that we can attract the very best persons.

It is my intention to make a model council of this advisory council, and not a political football. With this object in view, I should like to tell the hon. member for Durban (Central) that what I am staking in this matter is my own political reputation.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—76: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. I. C; Botha, H. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank S.; Greyling, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, J.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—41: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Gorshel, A.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker. H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

I move—

More than two members having objected,

Bill to be read a third time on 18 June.

I should like to avail myself of the half-hour rule. It so happens that this week marks the 50th year of the existence of the Defence Force as we know it. When we look at its history and achievements during these 50 years we feel honoured and proud, and I would be failing in my duty if I did not on this occasion convey the congratulations of this side of the House to the Defence Force on the occasion of its jubilee. There have been times when things have not gone smoothly but generally speaking we can be proud of what the Defence Force of our small country has achieved during these 50 years.

During the past week there have been demonstrations and displays throughout the country. As far as we know everything went off smoothly, and this redounds to the great credit of the Defence Force. I should like, however, to express the sympathy of this side of the House in connection with the fatal accident which took place at Pretoria. As long as there is a Defence Force there will always be accidents, just as there have always been accidents in the past. We should like to extend our sympathy to the next-of-kin of the brave young pilot who lost his life in this accident at Pretoria and say that we are sorry that the accident had to take place after such a fine display.

This type of demonstration or display is a very good thing and I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to hold more displays of this kind so as to bring our Defence Force more to the notice of the public. I do not think that the public knows enough about what is going on. I do not think the public knows what the Defence Force offers to our young men. We should make more propaganda for our Defence Force, therefore, so that the public can get to know what our force is doing and what opportunities it offers to our young men. The Defence Force offers interesting careers to-day to our young men. I can personally testify to that. I served for nearly 30 years in the Defence Force, and if I had to choose again to-day, I would again choose the Defence Force.

Unfortunately I could not attend the main demonstration in Pretoria, but, from what I saw, I am convinced that we have men in our Defence Force to-day who will not leave South Africa in the lurch. Here I am thinking particularly of our young pilots. The flying displays that we saw were excellent, and if we see to it that those men receive the right training, and that they have the right equipment, we shall be able to rely on them just as we have been able to rely on our men in the past against much greater odds and in the face of much bigger problems.

The Defence Force needs the best brains in our country to-day. As big as it is, it is a technical unit, and we must attract our best men to it. What we need is more publicity. We can make our Defence Force attractive by giving greater publicity to the achievements and the heroic deeds of our present-day heroes.

Will you enlarge upon that?

I shall gladly do so. People in this country know only too well about our Voortrekker heroes; we know the heroes of the Anglo-Boer War. We know a great deal about the fine deeds performed in World War I. In connection with World War I, for example, I have in mind the achievements of men like Smuts, Lukin, van Deventer, Proctor and van Ryneveld. But how much do we know about the wonderful things that were done by our people in the last war, in World War II? We had men in this last war who served South Africa particularly well, men of whom South Africa can be proud, but of whom the public knows practically nothing. We can inspire our young men and attract them to the Defence Force by making the deeds of those men known to the public. Mr. Chairman, will you permit me to mention one or two of them? I am thinking of Capt. Ken Driver, who shot down 11 enemies in the Sudan and in the desert. Subsequently he became involved in an air battle and his aircraft was seriously damaged. But what did he do? He had no alternative but to crash deliberately into an enemy plane so as to bring it down. This meant that he himself had to bale out in a parachute and allow himself to be taken prisoner. This was a wonderful deed of heroism, and very few people know about it.

Was he decorated?

Oh yes, he was decorated. But my point is that our own people know very little about it. Then turning to Korea, for example, I think of Major Blaauw who was on patrol together with a colleague. His colleague was shot down and he (Blaauw) continued to fly above him and he kept the communists away with his machine-gun. He remained there until his fuel was finished, until he himself was forced to land. Fortunately for them a helicopter arrived by that time. This is the sort of deed that we ought to publicize. That is the sort of thing that we should tell our people. We should build up these people. Similarly I can tell of many other young men of ours who did excellent work in the last war, who were wonderful leaders, and I think that the members of the public know too little about them. These things could not be publicized in war-time. But the whole of this wide field is open to our writers and journalists. Unfortunately many of those people are no longer with us to-day. Many of them had to make the supreme sacrifice. But there are still many of them who are with us and who could help us to make these deeds known to our people. I do feel that we should do more to present those people to the public of South Africa.

In regard to this I think that the Minister can also make his contribution by seeing to it that our official war history is properly written. We dare not allow these deeds to become lost to us in the future.

Mr. Chairman, it has been said before from this side of the House that we all agree that we must have a strong Defence Force. The Defence Vote that we are discussing here is the biggest sum that we have ever voted in the history of our country out of our revenue account, even in comparison with the war years. Sir, I have certain points of criticism and I hope that my criticism will be accepted in the spirit in which I should like to offer it, that is to say, as constructive criticism.

We cannot build up our Defence Force on sound lines unless we have criticism.*

Quite correct. I want to emphasize, however, that in this connection we should forget about politics. Politically I do not agree with the Government, but that does not mean to say that I harbour a grudge against the Defence Force and that I want to try to destroy the Defence Force. That is not my purpose at all.

In the first place I want to say that we all realize that the primary task of our Defence Force is internal security. I think we are all agreed that with the steps which the Government has taken so far, we can rest reasonably assured that we shall be able to maintain internal security. But the time may come when we shall also have to use our Defence Force in a greater struggle against Communism. I think that when we talk about a struggle against Communism, we must accept for the purpose of our discussion that South Africa cannot participate in a nuclear war. We do not have the means and we do not have the manpower and equipment. But if there is a war that is waged with conventional weapons, South Africa can make an enormous contribution.

We have the manpower; we have the workshops; we have the technicians and we can make a great and a fine contribution. With this colossal sum that we are voting for Defence, we have to buy a great deal of new equipment The Minister has not yet given us full details of the new equipment, but we learn from sources such as newspapers and others that new weapons have been bought for the Army. For the Air Force we are buying fighters, transport aircraft and helicopters; for the Navy we are buying helicopters and modernizing our torpedo-destroyers. These are all things that we cannot criticize.

But I am particularly concerned about the position in our Air Force as far as maritime aircraft are concerned. We know that some time ago the Government purchased a small number of these big long-distance reconnaissance aircraft. We also know that in the event of trouble we will not have enough of those aircraft to carry out the task that they have to carry out. We simply do not have enough of them. In the last war we had along our own coasts four squadrons of 16 aircraft each to do this work, and it was difficult for us to cope with it. What I should like to urge upon the hon. the Minister is this: In the event of war breaking out between the East and the West, he cannot expect assistance along those lines from the Western States. They are going to have their hands full with their own troubles. In addition to that we must remember that if we need more aircraft of this type, they cannot be sold off the shelf. It takes years to build these things.

There we agree hundred per cent.

Well, if we agree, then I shall be very pleased to hear from the hon. the Minister that he is going to place an order at once for at least one additional squadron of these aircraft.

We are doing so.

We need them very much, and I am very pleased to hear that from the Minister. Another matter about which I am a little concerned is this question of our military and naval representation outside South Africa. The Minister told us some time ago in reply to a question who our military representatives were abroad. I find from his reply that in London, for example, we have a fairly strong team. We have Brig. Martin there, Commander Cousins of the Navy, Major Peddie of the Army and Capt. Cloete of the Air Force. But I am very perturbed about our representation in the United States. These are the people with whom we have to co-operate, to whom we have to look for assistance, for additional equipment, etc., and who have to pass on to us the new technique and help us to develop it in the event of any future struggle. I find that there we have one Air Force officer, namely Col. Theron. I find that in Lisbon we have a captain of the Navy. To me that seems to be all wrong. If this captain of the Navy were in Washington, for example, he would be able to render much better service for South Africa than he can in Lisbon. We know for what purpose the Minister’s predecessor sent him to Lisbon, but that is something of the past. I think we should make the best of things now and make better use of his services. In Paris we have Brig. Robertse temporarily. In Salisbury in Southern Rhodesia we have a colonel. I feel that we need more representation in the Federation. We definitely need representation at this level in Mozambique and Angola. Those territories are of the utmost importance to us …

We cannot have representatives in Mozambique and Angola because they form part of Portugal.

I am sure that the hon. the Minister with his ingenuity will able to devise some plan. Then there is another matter on which I should very much like to have a reply from the hon. the Minister. Before the last war, and during the last war, we had strong garrison artillery batteries and radar stations along our coasts. We should like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether his General Staff thinks that those installations and weapons are still necessary and, if so, whether they have been modernized, and if they have been modernized, whether men are being trained to handle those installations. It is a lengthy process to train men for that purpose. It is highly technical. The men handling that equipment must be of very high calibre.

We are also very pleased to see that at long last the hon. the Minister has given promotion to the men in the Defence Force who really deserve it. We are very pleased about it. Then I should like to hear from the Minister what the position is to-day with regard to our privates and our non-commissioned officers. It will be of no avail to have an army consisting of a number of high-ranking officers if we do not have the men below them to do the work. I should like to hear from the Minister what the position is in that connection.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage I want to express my displeasure once again at the Minister’s reference to English-speaking commandos. I do feel that that is not the right thing to do. I would be happier if there was no such thing as a unilingual unit in the Defence Force. It is not conducive to co-operation and training to have unilingual units. We are a bilingual country and here we have an opportunity now. The men in our Defence Force and in our Permanent Force are all trained in both languages. Let us try to carry on with that process and let us forget about English-speaking commandos and units. I realize that the Minister cannot rectify all this overnight. This is a process that will take time. But let us make a start with it, and in the Defence Force at any rate let us forget about Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people. They will all serve South Africa well in the event of an emergency.

That is why I am using them.

Mr. Chairman, then there is one further matter that I should like to raise with the Minister and that is the pension scales of the men in the Defence Force. As you know, Sir, men holding certain ranks are required to retire at 45 years of age, 46 years and 50 years. The highest age is 55 years. If the person is fortunate and continues to receive promotion until he reaches 55 years of age, then his pension is adequate. But the person who has to retire at 45 or 46 is in an unfortunate position. Sometimes it is not his fault that he is unable to make headway, and then his pension and gratuity are so meagre that he can hardly do anything with that money. I was wondering whether the Minister could not consider the question of placing these people who have to retire at that early age on a different scale of pension.

Then there is just one further matter, which is less pleasant, that I have to touch upon. I refer to the scandalous treatment meted out to a certain Capt. Campbell in the Permanent Force.

Is that the man who was going to go overseas for a course?

The position is that this person was chosen to attend a course overseas. All the necessary arrangements were made; he himself incurred great expense and just one day before he had to leave he was told that he could not go. Well, there may have been good reasons for it. I do not know what the reasons were. But to this day he has not been told why he was not sent overseas, except that he had an interview with his divisional head, who refused to tell him why he could not go but who did say to him, “I would advise you rather not to try to find out the reasons.” Mr. Chairman, that reminds me very much of what happened in the days of the hon. the Minister’s predecessor. In those days this sort of thing frequently occurred. If the person concerned is not suitable, if he has made a mess of things, if he is not reliable enough to go, very well do not send him then, but tell him why. Say to him, “This is what you did and that is why you cannot go.” This individual has now left the Permanent Force. If my information is correct he resigned. I can tell you, Sir, that he was worth more to the Defence Force than those men who told tales about him and who manoeuvred him out of the Force, I am very sorry about this and I hope that the Minister will give us an explanation of this case.

I want to thank the hon. member for North-East Rand for the trend of his speech. I am glad of the way in which he made his speech. I want to associate myself with what was said about the jubilee of our Defence Force. The fact is that members of our Defence Force have performed glorious deeds in the past which form part of our history, exploits of which we as a small nation in South Africa can really be proud. I am glad that both language groups are co-operating as they are in the Defence Force. Therefore I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for North-East Rand in extending our congratulations to the Defence Force on this occasion. We also wish them all success with the present training scheme. They are preparing themselves for great tasks in order to safeguard South Africa in case of need. The hon. member referred to some of the deeds in Korea; we know what those men did and what decorations they earned. We also know what our Defence Force men achieved in past wars. I want to say that we can be proud of those men. During recent weeks still we obtained a report from America in regard to the achievements of one of our officers there. There was a report in the Star of 2 June in regard to Maj. Philip Pretorius, who was stationed at the Military College at Voortrekkerhoogte. According to this report, he took a course known as the United States Army Special Warfare School Course in North Carolina. He achieved outstanding success. According to the report, 80 United States and Allied officers took this course and Maj. Philip Pretorius was the top student. South Africa was one of 11 countries which sent men there, and Maj. Pretorius earned those laurels for our country. It is gratifying to know that we send such men overseas for training, because it is of great interest that we should have contact with the other forces. The hon. member pleaded for greater military representation on the diplomatic level, but we are glad that our men do so well when they undertake courses. Whilst this debate is being waged at such a high level to-day, I also want to plead for something connected with the Defence Force. I want to start with housing. I want to express my thanks for the new points system which has been introduced and which will be used in allotting houses to members of the Defence Force. I hope that men with large families and senior officers will benefit from it. I have seen this list of points and I am sure that it will be to the benefit of the people who really have many years of service and who have comparatively large families. I want to express my thanks and I hope that there will be greater satisfaction as the result of this system by which houses will be allotted to members of the Force.

One realizes that much of the capital available for Defence to-day must be used to make provision for the expansion of our Defence Force, to erect buildings, to establish new camps, to have greater decentralization and to provide housing in those parts of the country where there is none. I realize, Sir, that that is necessary, but I want to point out that as the result of this more intensive training, some of these people have lost their houses. Many people had to vacate their houses because those quarters were required for this greater expansion. At Voortrekkerhoogte, in my constituency alone, 32 families had to vacate their quarters to make room for camps and other institutions as the result of the extended training. It is true that they were given other quarters, but the fact remains that the available accommodation was actually reduced. Although in recent times much has been done in regard to housing, there is still a shortage. I wish to express my thanks for the houses which were built. I am thinking, e.g., of the large number of houses built at Simonstown. A reasonably large number of houses were also built in Pretoria. In the last few years 89 of the wood and iron houses were replaced by new houses, for which we are very grateful, and that process is still continuing. At the moment, I understand, there are 26 houses which are in various stages of planning or construction. But there are still 178 of the old wood and iron houses dating from the period just after the Anglo-Boer War, the Milner period, at Voortrekkerhoogte. These wood and iron houses are no longer being repaired to-day; the costs are too great. They stand there and deteriorate and our people have to live in them as best they can. I want to say clearly that we are grateful for those houses, but many of them are no longer a credit to our Defence Force. They derogate from the status of our people, and I think we should, if possible, build houses more speedily. At Voortrekkerhoogte alone there are still 199 families living in these wood and iron houses to-day. Then I understand that there are still quite a number of them spread over the country. Furthermore, there are also a large number of families living in the so-called “voetstoots” quarters, the old military house used for the accommodation of soldiers during the last year. I should like to learn what the Minister’s policy is in regard to this matter. These huts were allotted to members of the force, and they had to repair them themselves in order to live in them. They had to put up partitions; some had to install their own baths and stoves. Many of these quarters are also very dilapidated to-day. They are not being repaired and people sometimes live in them under the most undersirable conditions. This type of house is not good for the morale of our Defence Force. I hope that in view of the fact that a larger amount of money has been made available for the expansion of the Defence Force and for more training, the possibility of replacing these wood and iron houses will not be lost sight of and that an attempt will be made to provide a large number of houses for the Defence Force.

In this regard I also want to refer to an anomaly which I regard as being a serious one. It is that in the Defence Force the members of the force pay rentals on a scale different from, e.g., the police or the staff of the Prisons Department. I cannot understand why a common basis cannot be found for the payment of rentals by members of these three services. In the case of the Defence Force, they pay rental on the basis of their salary. In the case of the Police Force they pay according to the size of the house. I want to point out that this leads to a great anomaly. I want to give you a few facts, Sir, to show what a large difference there is. Take the case of a major. A major in the Defence Force pays R20 per month, irrespective of what type of house he gets. In the Police Force they do not pay according to rank or salary, but according to the size of the house. The highest rental paid in the Police Force for a ten-roomed house with kitchen, pantry and bathroom is R13.37. A major in the Defence Force pays R20 for his house. It goes up to R41. The policeman, for an eight-roomed house, pays from R10, and then it is a brick house. If this eight-roomed house is a wood and iron house, he pays only R7.57. As I understand it, that distinction is not made in the Defence Force. I think that is unjust and I cannot understand why there is this difference in the basis on which rentals are paid. It gives rise to dissatisfaction. The members of the Defence Force cannot understand why they have to pay rental on a different basis from the basis applied to the police and the prisons officials. [Time limit.]

On this occasion, when we are celebrating 50 years of the existence of our Defence Force, it is fitting that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) should have drawn attention to what I believe is one of the underlying ideals which has made that Defence Force what it is, and that is the co-operation between the two language groups. On this occassion one’s mind turns inevitably to those who served in the forces and the ideals they served. I think that now that we are starting a new half-century this is perhaps the appropriate occasion for the hon. the Minister of Defence to consider what lies ahead and whether the policy which we have always stood for, of ridding the Defence Force of politics completely by giving it a Defence Council, would not be one of the ways in which this Defence Force of ours could be made a truly national matter completely divorced from politics.

The same old story.

It is not the same old story. I think that we are well on the way to getting a non-partisan and non-political approach to defence. It was not so before, but it is becoming so, and I want to ask the Minister to consider whether this is not the time to cement what has been done. I would also like to appeal to the Minister that in regard to the traditions of our Defence Force, he should go even further than he has gone now in preserving the essential traditions which are part of the morale of any army. I refer, e.g., to the right of a person to choose the unit in which he wishes to serve. I know that when individual cases are brought to the Minister’s attention, more often than not those cases are met, but on the whole I am sure the Minister will find that if a freer choice of unit were allowed, if the traditional membership of a regiment passes on from father to son as it used to do, he will have even higher morale and an even better spirit amongst our regiments, because obviously a man who has gone to a unit of his own choice will be happier than a man who has been drafted to a unit, irrespective of his wishes. I do not want to go into details of what makes our traditions. The Minister will know. He will know the approaches that have been made to him by various regiments and the extent to which he has met them, and the extent to which he has not been able to meet them. I would like to say that the traditions of a regiment are something which do not carry with them any stigma. In other words, even though circumstances may change and conditions may change, and even though the approach of a country may change, a tradition does not lose its value to a unit because the attitude of people towards a name or a symbol has changed. I refer, e.g., to the names of certain regiments. “Imperial” forms part of some of those titles. “Imperial” to many people in South Africa has an unpleasant connotation, and for years the word has not been used. It has dropped away. The Empire became the Commonwealth, and yet that title attached to a regiment is part of the history and tradition of such a regiment, and it does seem unnecessary and petty to try to apply to things which are essential to the traditions of a unit the political connotation which those things have in other fields and in other circumstances. So I ask the Minister in his approach to these things not to look at a word or a symbol and say it has a political connotation, but to look at it in relation to its meaning to the regiment to which it applies, and to the people who for generations have served in that regiment, and to preserve those things as part of our military, as well as our South African, history. I am sure the Minister agrees with me, but he has drawn a line which often does not go far enough. He has left some things, but he has done away with others. I hope he will take the bigger view, which will enable our Defence Force always, in the minds of all people, to be part of the history which we look up to and respect. Dealing with traditions brings me to the question of morale in our units, and here I would like to ask one or two question. Can the Minister tell us what has happened in regard to the reopening of the officers’ messes and canteens, in regard to the change-over from dry messes back to allowing liquor?

As far as I know, you can have a drink anywhere in our messes.

Yes, but certain restrictions were placed on it, and I would like to know whether it is working smoothly. The Minister will remember that first of all liquor was abolished entirely, and then it was brought back under very stringent conditions, and was allowed only during certain hours, and strict conditions were laid down in regard to guests, etc.

It was very necessary.

Yes, it may have been necessary, but our officers are surely responsible people, and I am asking the Minister whether the relaxation has been satisfactory, and, if so, whether he is prepared to consider any further return to the old system which made of the officers’ mess a club, the place where the officers got together and felt at home, instead of forcing them out. [Interjections.] I know there were abuses, but I say those abuses could be controlled, and it is better that the officers’ messes and the canteens should be the clubs of the forces than that the men should be forced to go and drink in hotels.

Another point I wish to deal with is one which partly affects the Minister and partly the Minister of Justice, and that is the question of civil defence. The Department of Justice appointed Gen. George Brink some years ago to investigate and report on civil defence. Approaches were made to Defence and to the various municipalities, but it seems to have fizzled out into nothing. Our local authorities have not been advised of the outcome of the investigation. They have not been advised of the reception of the report by the Government, and I would like to ask the Minister whether, in view of the changing circumstances in the world to-day, he does not feel that civil defence should play a bigger part in the Department of Defence, rather than being merely an adjunct of Justice. I realize that it must cover both fields, the military and the civil, but, under modern conditions, war is total war, and, therefore, civil defence is as much part of a country’s defences as its military defence. I would like to ask the Minister whether he will make a statement in regard to this question. [Time limit.]*

Before making a few remarks on certain matters which the hon. member who has just spoken has discussed. I want to associate myself with those who have congratulated the Defence Force on its jubilee, but I want to go further than they have. I want to convey my congratulations to the Burger on the magnificent supplement which it published two days ago. I know that the staff of the Defence Force had to assist in the preparatory work and did not even have 14 days in which to collect all those facts and information. I think it is necessary that we should not only congratulate them, but that we should say that there should be more such supplements which will gain the interest of the public so that they will regard our Defence Force with greater goodwill but particularly also with the necessary pride, as a Defence Force of the Republic of South Africa. I am saying this because we now have a completely new phenomenon in our Defence Force, and I think it is evident because in all spheres there is far greater rapprochement and far greater confidence and co-operation in South Africa. In the past we often had the position that people were sceptical. They thought they were going to fight for another country because, rightly or wrongly, they regarded themselves as appendages to another country, but at the moment we have this phenomenon in South Africa, and for this reason I cannot agree with the hon. member for Durban Point (Mr. Raw) who has asked the Minister to put the Defence Force outside politics and to establish a Defence Council, because the Defence Force is outside politics. It is not in the service of any political party, but in the service of the Republic. I think we often see samples of this, in view of the fact that there has been a vast increase in the applications by young persons for admission to the gymnasiums and the fact that we now have a period where balloting is being applied and there are practically no complaints. We see that our young people are realizing fully that they are not a political factor or section, but that they are preparing themselves, under the present Government, under the present administrative control and in this defence pattern, to provide the necessary striking power for the defence of the Republic and not to serve a political party. I therefore cannot agree with the hon. member when he asks that we should place our Defence Force above politics and when by implication he wants to create the impression that the morale of the Defence Force is not what it should be. He has asked that we should go back to the old dual, watered-down division in the Defence Force, and he tried to link this to his allegation that the morale is not what it should be. I think that the morale of the Defence Force, not only now, but also in years past, and even when a different Government was in power, has been amongst the highest in the world. It has been recognized throughout the world wherever it has been used, as a force consisting of men of the necessary integrity and courage, and this is the position to-day as well.

I want to deal with another matter. I want to point out to the Minister that on the East Coast we have a vast area which is lying completely open. Portuguese East Africa has built a coastal defence road from Lourenço Marques to Oro Point, four miles from our border, so that they can patrol that whole East Coast with all necessary speed and can reach every point along that East Coast if necessary. When one sees what has happened with the Indonesian troops in New Guinea, one asks oneself what plans the hon. the Minister has regarding that area because here we have part of the Republic of South Africa which lies to the back of Swaziland and which is separated from the Portuguese area by the Usutu River. But downwards from Kosi Bay, four miles from Oro Point, almost to Matubatuba, that area is for the major part practically inaccessible …

But it is becoming a Bantustan.

No, it is not becoming a Bantustan. A commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. de Villiers, Undersecretary of Lands, was appointed to recommend how that area should be apportioned. This is a coastal area which we must take into account, and while we already have a national road which runs from Matubatuba up to Candover and later to Gollel, and while a tarred road is being built from this national road to the new dam wall being constructed there, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not think it is essential that the Department of Defence should make the necessary representations to the Transport Commission to lengthen that road in the first instance to provide access to Sordwana Bay and in the second instance so that the road will be extended from Sordwana Bay to Kosi Bay to join up in effect with the Portuguese road at Oro Point. The nearest areas from which lorries, etc., will have to be sent if they are required there are Piet Retief on the one hand and Vryheid on the other, but we still have the position that a certain area is completely inaccessible. I think that it is essential for defence purposes that our coasts should be accessible to the required road transport from the interior. I think we should go further; I think that somewhere in that area we should also mark out and prepare an airfield so that we can establish an airfield there if necessary, because we must bear in mind that we can have trouble from the East. I often ask myself whether we are not preparing ourselves at the moment exclusively to strike in Africa, to strike exclusively to the North, and whether we are not in this preparation possibly forgetting these other areas. At the same time I want to ask whether the necessary steps are being taken by the Defence Force to map every individual area, apart from the photographic map of South Africa as a whole, so that one can know when one goes to such an area what the topography is—whether the soil is sandy, where there are rivers to be crossed—so that it will not be necessary, when men have to be sent to a certain area, first to make the necessary preparations and to ascertain what steps must be taken so that the required force can be sent to a certain area with the utmost speed. I think we have not yet done enough to map South Africa properly. [Time limit.]

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) about our Defence Force over the last 50 years. Over that period we met triumph and disaster but never were we disgraced. There are no troops in the world whose name stands higher than the name of our troops.

In regard to the speech of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) I have only two remarks to make. One is that I do not think he has given any consideration to the effect of the Bantustan policy on our defences, and secondly he does not seem to realize that under this Minister’s predecessor morale in the Defence Force was almost non-existent.

I wish to get away from that and I want to appeal to the Minister in regard to Commdt. G K. Söderlund, ex-O.C., Kimberley Regiment. Commdt. Söderlund is an English-speaking officer with a very distinguished record in the war.

Why is it necessary to say that he is English-speaking?

In this case I must point out that he is English-speaking, my reason for mentioning this fact will become clear to the hon. the Minister when I read out his letter. He joined up while at the University of Cape Town; during World War II he was an

S.A.A.F. pilot in the Middle East and with the R.A.F. in Burma. After the war he joined the Sixth Battalion of the S.A.R. & H. Brigade and in 1957 became second I.C. Kimberley Regiment and in 1959 was made O.C. of that Regiment, altogether a very distinguished career. Sir, I want to read something out of the Springbok, the official journal of the South African branch of the B.E.S.L. with regard to this man. I quote from the issue of April 1962—

Now I want to read some extracts from a letter that I received from the officer in question—

Who is “Jim Fouché”?

The letter goes on to say—

On 5 April 1962, the Minister sent this letter to Commdt. Söderlund—

Sir, I suggest that those facts speak for themselves. Here is an honourable man with a distinguished record who was sacked; no reasons were given. He is put in this position that his whole future is clouded. Sir, I am proud to say that I know this man personally. He has been on the national executive of the S.A. Legion of the B.C.E.S.L. for many, many years. In this magazine, the Springbok of December 1957, there is a photograph of Ken Söderlund delivering the unveiling address at the War Memorial in De Aar, which was erected “In memory of all men who fought for their country”. That is the calibre of this man, Sir. He is good enough to be asked by his comrades to perform a duty, a great and well-deserved privilege to a fine South African. To me it appears that in this matter the Minister has the choice of three courses. He can reinstate Söderlund, he can institute a public court of inquiry into whatever allegations were made against him or he can refuse to do anything further. Sir, if the things which are said about the Minister’s sense of fairness are correct and if it is true that it is his earnest desire to remove from the minds of the English-speaking people the conviction that U.D.F. is the preserve of Nationalist Afrikaners and under Broederbond control …

Nonsense.

… then he must not refuse to do anything further in this matter. Here is a man who left college to enter his country’s service and finished with a fine record. He has an equally fine record in peace-time. He is removed from his command in the most humiliating manner that one can conceive. Sir, to me it smacks of another Dreyfus case. I hope the hon. the Minister will reconsider his position. This does not sound like the hon. the Minister. Many extraordinary things happened in the Defence Force under his predecessor; we all know about that and we all know that morale in the Defence Force was then at its lowest ebb. But that sort of thing has not happened under this hon. the Minister. Sir, this matter has now had great publicity and it has had a great effect on the morale of the men in this country. The story has appeared in full in the Springbok, in the Sunday Times, in the Cape Argus and in newspapers all over the country. Here is a man whose future happiness is tied up with the clearing of his name, a fine man with a fine record. Surely the Minister must see that and he must act in this matter. I always find it difficult to plead, but knowing Ken Söderlund as I do I plead with the Minister to re-open this matter and to give Commdt. Söderlund the right to know the reasons for his dismissal and the right to disprove them if they are false.

How times have changed! There was a time that hon. members opposite sat on the Government benches of this House. At that time the then Opposition also submitted complaints by members of our Defence Force to this House. The change to which I am referring is this: To-day hon. members opposite can air fully the grievance of a member of our Defence Force in this House and I guarantee that we who sit on the Government side to-day will not do what they did at that time and describe such a person as a “skunk in uniform”. [Interjections.] I give the House the assurance that anyone can come to-day with complaints and proper attention will be given to such matters. But we shall not describe a member of the Defence Force who asks a member of the Opposition to air his grievances here as a “skunk in uniform”. That is the change which has taken place, namely the change in the approach of this House towards complaints by members of the Defence Force. If a person approached the then Opposition and asked that his complaint should be aired in Parliament, he was abused.

The hon. member is referring to one single instance when those words were used. He knows that those words were later withdrawn and an apology made.*

No apology was made. Hon. members wanted to apologize afterwards, but never did so. Hon. members know I am referring to Blackwell when he sat here. And it upset the hon. member so much that he still feels it to-day.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order! Is the hon. member entitled to repeat something which has been withdrawn and for which an apology was made?

I say it was not withdrawn. It is for the hon. member to prove it. In any case, I just wanted to refer to the change which has come about in the attitude adopted in this House towards complaints by members of the Defence Force, namely that while such complaints can be freely discussed to-day, persons who approached the then Opposition were vilified as “skunks in uniform”. It deterred the members of the Defence Force very greatly to hear that they were called “skunks in uniform” when they approached the then Opposition, namely the National Party, with complaints.

What I have actually risen to do is to tell the Minister that I wholeheartedly support his two speeches, namely the one at Pretoria and the other at Bloemfontein. The language he used there was the language which a Minister of Defence must use in the times in which we are living. If ever there was a time when the Minister of Defence has inspired and given the nation an infusion, then it was on the occasion of those two speeches. I have had few opportunities to congratulate a Minister on a speech he has made, but I cannot let this opportunity pass. I listened attentively to what the hon. the Minister said and my reaction was that this was the language and these the sentiments which give a nation self-respect and keep the morale of the man in uniform at the highest possible level. While I am now referring to morale, I want to warn the hon. member for Durban (Point) and his colleagues. A former member of the Opposition in this House, namely Mr. Horak, also referred disparagingly on a certain occasion to the morale of our Army and do hon. members know where he is now? He is no longer in this House!

And where is the former Minister of Defence?

He has been given promotion. The hon. member over there is the last person to point a finger at that Minister. The former Minister of Defence is a person who stands higher in the estimation of the people than the hon. member can ever hope to do. Hon. members opposite are careful—they feel that something is coming and therefore I shall not castigate them. I do not want to castigate them because I see a great change in the attitude of the Opposition. This is the first time that a main Opposition speaker has spoken in such moderate terms as he has to-day. I actually ask myself whether the Opposition have been milked, they are so harmless—just as an adder is harmless after it has been milked, that is to say after its poison has been removed. Similarly the main speaker of the Opposition looked to-day as though he had been “milked” because in the past he did not speak in such moderate tones. I want to congratulate him. I like to see, when we discuss defence affairs, that we should reveal greater responsibility than on any other Vote. The hon. member has once again asked the Minister for certain information to-day. The Minister will answer but I thought that while the questions he has asked are of importance to him, he as a former military man should realize that when certain information is given it is not only being given to him, but also to the greatest potential enemies to our country. Consequently, when we ask the Minister for information, we must do so with the utmost discretion, particularly when we ask questions relating to certain strategic matters such as the topography of our country with its coasts, rivers, mountains, etc. We must then be extremely careful because what is said here will go directly to our enemies. As a matter of fact, by so doing we give them a map setting out all our circumstances. Why is this necessary? What is said here after all does not stay here, and hon. members must realize that.

Don’t be naïve.

I am not being naïve. What is naïve is that hon. members opposite claim that when information is given to them, it will remain in this House. I cannot forgive them for that and the country cannot forgive them when they discuss such matters here. I want to make an appeal to the Opposition to continue during the coming year to show the improvement which they have shown to-day and even to go further in this direction. But I want to make another appeal to hon. members opposite, namely that when their main speaker has adopted a moderate attitude, the remainder of the debate should not be left to a bunch of hotheads (malkoppe).

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “malkop”.*

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman. There is just one other point to which I want to refer. The hon. member for Durban (Point) has referred to a tradition in our Defence Force, but the tradition to which he referred does not apply to the Army in general, but only to certain military units or commands. Now that we are a Republic and stand on the threshold of a completely new set-up in our military life, now that it will for the first time take a completely new character based on a South African model, we must try to get away from the tradition to which the hon. member, has referred and which has always been so deeply rooted in certain units. It has after all never been anything but exaggerated sentiment. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I, too, should like to congratulate our Defence Forces most sincerely on the occasion of their 50th anniversary. This is of special interest to me because I am the only person alive of those who attended the first staff course at Bloemfontein 50 years ago which started the Permanent Force. There I attended the course with five Boer generals, including Generals Maritz, Kemp and Brand; and two English generals, namely Generals Tanner and Dawson. There all of us studied for six months as comrades. General Smuts, as the then Minister of Defence, opened that course and told us that the Defence Act was a most complicated measure—so complicated, in fact, that he was sure not half the Members of Parliament understood it. That was the only reason why he could get it through Parliament! You see, Members of Parliament were not as sophisticated then as they are now! The Commandant-General of the citizen army was General Beyers and the G.O.C. of the Permanent Forces was Sir. Henry Lukin. The tragedy of the matter is this, that those who were then comrades, were fighting each other within a short while in the most tragic thing which has ever occurred in this country—namely the rebellion officers who knew each other by their Christian or nicknames were fighting each other. My advice to our army, therefore, on their 50th anniversary, it to think only of the esprit de corps and to forget politics. Personally I never even voted during the period I was a professional soldier. Had anyone then told me I would one day become a politician I would have been horrified.

In conclusion I should like to say this. I wonder how many hon. members in this House today remember that at the time that staff course was instituted, South Africa had within its borders a British army of occupation whose professional experts were teaching us modem warfare, and that within a few years afterwards that army and our gallant soldiers were fighting shoulder to shoulder for the freedom of the world—not only in France, not only in East Africa, not only in South West Africa, but throughout the world? As the last remaining member of the staff course at the start of our Defence Force, I should like most sincerely to congratulate the baby which in 50 years has growned into the magnificent Defence Force it is to-day.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.