laid upon the Table:

Constitutional Affairs Amendment Bill [No 101—85 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning).

To be referred to the appropriate Standing Committee, unless the House decides otherwise within three sitting days.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the hon the Leader of the House I move without notice:

14h30 to 18h45;

20h00 to 22h30.

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, before I participate in this debate, I want to refer to the glorious festival that you, Mr Speaker, and other hon members of Parliament attended this morning. We were there to listen to the story of a language, viz the Afrikaans language. [Interjections.] It again impressed on all of us the precious heritage that is ours to preserve in this country and upon which we must continue to build. It was very interesting that praises were expressed at this festive event across so many dividing lines of population. This is of course understandable as the Afrikaans language gives satisfaction and fulfilment to so many people.

†The hon member for Cape Town Gardens spoke yesterday afternoon and I want to refer briefly to something he said. He again advanced the argument that sound relations among race groups were promoted if they were integrated into a unitary system. I have already pointed out and argued that this supposition is not scientifically founded and that it is in fact incompatible with accepted practice in many multicultural societies. I also referred previously—and I want to draw the hon member’s attention to this again—to the Russification tendency inherent in all Soviet education systems where, in spite of decentralization on the administrative side, the tendency remains to negate the language, culture and identity of minority groups.

I agree with the hon member that a province like Natal is, as far as possible, entitled to its own character and identity, also as far as education is concerned. It is our aim to retain the own character of education and the own traditions of communities, also in Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking communities. Therefore this is another good reason why I reject a unitary education system that sacrifices the education interests of minority groups.

It does not have to.

It does.

*Education is an important matter, and it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate of my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget. I want to remind hon members of the fact that education is not only for today; it is also for tomorrow. That is why no one may be indifferent to education. It is concerned with our children’s development. The educational services as a whole with its officials and teachers and everyone involved are in fact at the service of the child. That is as it should be, because our every expectation for the future is at stake. What we invest in education by way of dedication, diligence, training and finance is an investment for the future.

It is very important that the public should have confidence in the school curriculum; in other words the contents of education. It is in actual fact the principles of life which are opened up to the children. These principles of life are revealed to the children in the form of lessons and subjects by the teacher. The teacher is a very important person because he must unlock that door. Good teaching means, with a view to the future, to prepare the youth in the right way for the complex world which awaits them. There is no doubt that our youth will one day have to be prepared, in the prevailing sociopolitical conditions—which are often stormy—and changing economical times and technological challenges, to carry South Africa forward.

It was Aristotle, the old Greek philosopher, who said: “Learning is an adornment in prosperity, a tent in adversity and provision for old age,” It remains sound advice even today.

†My department and I are fully aware of the great responsibility that rests on our shoulders. That is why I stressed during the discussion of my Vote that we welcomed the fact that finality had been reached about the provincial education dispensation. We can now join hands and establish a rationalized education system and embark on target planning. I have already arranged that a number of committees be established to investigate further those areas about which we require more information. As a first step the control structures for the new dispensation will have to be identified as well as the legislation needed to bring them into being. I also stated that close attention would have to be paid to the cost-effectiveness of education. An in-depth investigation into this aspect will also be undertaken.

I made it quite clear that we aim at further democratizing education along the lines of other Western countries, and to make provision for parent involvement. At present we do not have sufficient suitable structures for parent participation like those that we do have for the organized teaching profession. Therefore I requested that this matter be investigated urgently, with a view to making provision for a well-ordered parent presence.

*I can also report that I have already had discussions with the various interested parties, such as the Committee of Heads of Education, the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations and the South African Education Council, so that we can co-operate to plan education efficiently. Later this afternoon I am also holding a meeting with representatives of the schools for special education as well as the technical colleges.

It is with great appreciation that I can mention the exceptionally positive attitude of all these bodies. I am looking forward to being able to finish off this educational planning to such an extent within the next few months that it will be clear what the future structures will look like, so that we can initiate the necessary legislation. In this process I am of course fully supported by the Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services of my colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget, and I rely completely on the expertise and advice they are rendering to us. What is especially important, is that we want to reassure everyone as soon as possible about the future pattern of education management for the Whites.

When this first phase of the planning has been completed we shall obviously continue with the research and the planning in order to provide ourselves all kinds of resources. We want to institute an investigation into an efficient information system as well as the means of exchanging the information as effectively as possible among the partners in education concerned. Concomitantly, one will have to continue the investigation into the use of media for this purpose, for example the computer which can also be employed for the computer-aided education system.

I am convinced that all these bodies will carry out these assignments as soon as possible and with the greatest dedication and that, at the end of the first year of this department’s existence, we shall be able to make known to all interested parties a clear concept of the nature and scope of the Department of Education and Culture.

Mr Speaker, it is a great privilege for me, as a representative of the most beautiful city in the Republic of South Africa, to have the opportunity to say a few words in this House this afternoon. I want to begin by paying tribute and expressing my gratitude to my predecessor, the late Mr Willem Delport. In life Oom Willie, as we called him, was a lovable and esteemed friend who played a leading role in many spheres of Port Elizabeth’s community life. The Delport family is one of the fine export products of the Eastern Cape and that is why we pay tribute to his memory.

The Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage area has been subjected to tremendous publicity over the past few months. In most cases it was negative and not to the benefit of our area. In some cases it was justified and in many other cases unjustified and unfair. However, the Eastern Cape got caught up in a storm which, at times, nearly made us despair. Now we have sailed into calmer waters again.

I want to state here today that there is no better place in the RSA to invest money, and thereby ensure one’s financial future, than the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage metropolis. The establishment of industries and new growth points has been receiving a great deal of attention lately. This is why I want to touch briefly on the vital aspect of tourism, with specific reference to the Port Elizabeth/ Uitenhage area.

Since the 1950s the world has rapidly become a smaller place, mainly because of the following factors: Firstly the development of transportation including supersonic jets; secondly, of communications, which enable us to make daily contact with the outside world; and thirdly, also as far as internal circumstances are concerned, people’s mobility has improved greatly as a result of infrastructures.

The fact that there has been a more equitable distribution of the world’s riches is a very important facet of our modern society. By comparison, the man in the street is better off than he was before, in spite of periodic recessions in the world economy such as the one we are experiencing at present. This, together with man’s quest for new experiences, plus the fact that, generally speaking, there is more time for holidays and recreation as well as the fact that it is possible to undertake long journeys economically, causes an annual increase in hordes of travellers.

These arguments apply on both national and international levels. The result of these factors is that tourism has developed into an enormous industry—so much so that to some countries it has become their most important source of revenue.

South Africa’s tourism potential is by no means being fully exploited. Apart from the fact that international tourism bring in foreign exchange, it also affords the important possibility of making countries acquainted with one another on the socio-political level. I believe that in order to exploit international tourism properly an overall tourism strategy should be developed in South Africa by asking the following questions: Who do we want to involve? In which way do we want to involve them? When do we want to involve them? And where do we want to involve them? For example, we could give some thought to marine sports such as sailing, surfing, angling, etc. The romantic charm of our game reserves and natural beauty already has a strong appeal for many. Think of the hunter in search of choice hunting grounds. I am convinced that one could add to this list if one considered South Africa as a whole, since each region has its own peculiar fascination.

The Eastern Cape region holds no less a facination. In this respect I may mention the existing infrastructures and facets such as the most moderate climate of all the coastal regions in the country, the culminating point of the Garden Route, the Karoo region as a hinterland, a natural harbour and bay where small boat facilities could be developed, a rich cultural-historical heritage as well as game parks on our doorstep. The advantages that tourism holds for an area such as the Eastern Cape, which is dependent on limited economic activity at the moment, need hardly be emphasized.

†The inhabitants of the land of the Settlers are proud people. We will endeavour to improve the quality of life of all those people who enjoy the fresh air of our region. I am committed to assist all the people and to fight for the development of our area.

I believe that a man with a job, with his own place to live in, with a school to send his children to, with a church to worship in and with a community life, is an investment in the peace of prosperity of his fellowmen. One of the greatest dangers of our region is unemployment. It is therefore of vital importance that as many new job opportunities as possible be created. While I thank the Government and members of the Cabinet for the exceptionally fair and friendly treatment that I received from them, I also want to emphasize once again the desperate need for economic stability in our region. Without economic stability in the Eastern Cape, the whole of South Africa will be affected in a negative way.

In conclusion, I want to appeal to the people of Port Elizabeth to support the city that supports them.

*We should not regard the future as an approaching catastrophe but as a wonderful opportunity to develop South Africa further into a salubrious and peace-loving giant in Africa—this Africa with its many opportunities given to us by God in His mercy as an abode.

Mr Speaker, it is a very great privilege for me to congratulate the hon member for Newton Park on his maiden speech. The hon member is a North-westerner who has settled in the Eastern Cape and who spoke with great compassion of the region he is representing here. We hope he will be happy in representing that region.

We thought the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, who is the NP candidate in Port Natal—and it will go no further than candidacy—would tell us what the Government envisages in respect of own affairs on the second tier in Natal. He was the administrator of this province. The Natal Provincial Council is now to be replaced by a multiracial executive committee which will deal with own and general affairs.

No Jan, you are wrong.

If I am wrong, why does the hon the Minister, as the man responsible, not tell us what the right thing is. That hon the Minister spoke about other things instead of spelling these things out to us. I now want to put a question to the hon the Minister. There are more Indians than Whites in Natal. He says his party is a fair and just party and that is why representation in Parliament is on a 4:2:1 basis. That is why I now want to ask him whether or not they are going to be fair in Natal as well?

Yes.

The hon the Minister says they are. If the Indians in Natal say there are more of them than of the Whites, is the Government going to see to it that they obtain a majority in this executive committee of Natal?

What are you talking about, Jan?

I do not believe the hon the Minister can answer me.

The hon member for Springs said here yesterday that the CP is belittling the Budget and other NP members said we are belittling the White Ministers’ Council and the Whites’ own affairs, and in so doing are belittling the self-determination of the Whites within this constitutional dispensation. I want to say today that it is the NP that has belittled the Whites’ own affairs to make it what it is today. It is the NP which has belittled the Whites’ self-determination to make it what it is today. It is the NP which has restricted the Whites’ freedom to the small amount made available for own affairs by this Budget, for the limited number of own affairs which they qualify as own affairs. It is the NP which has restricted the freedom of the Whites to the insignificant action of the Ministers’ Council as permitted by the Constitution of 1983. It is the NP which has destroyed full White self-determination. It is the NP which has disparaged this House of Assembly which is the sovereign Parliament of the Whites in South Africa, in which I have had the privilege of serving since 1977, a Parliament of the Whites which has granted true freedom to various Black peoples. It was the NP which has transformed this Parliament in such a way that the Whites’ own affairs fall under a Ministers’ Council of five members which falls under one State department today.

You did not even attend your own language festival.

Now that hon member is speaking of a language festival. The hon member for Paarl dragged Afrikaans into the political arena the other day and I said then that if the hon member attended the festival, I would not. [Interjections.] We are speaking now of the self-determination of the Whites which the late Dr Verwoerd, as the leader of that same National Party, described as follows in this House:

All those hon members of the NP apart from the few old Saps who are sitting with them now, applauded Dr Verwoerd.

A Sap is sitting next to you!

That NP destroyed Dr Verwoerd’s self-determination.

I want to say today the CP will fight in this House of Assembly and in public so that we can obtain the majority in this House of Assembly. We shall fight and work towards making this House of Assembly the sovereign Parliament of the Whites in this country once again, in which process we shall then be able to give true freedom to the other peoples. We believe that true freedom and justice can only be obtained if every people governs itself within an own fatherland. That is what we shall do.

We have had the announcement that the Prohibition of Political Interference Act is to be repealed. In this connection I should like to quote from the Financial Mail of 22 March. The report reads as follows:

They were correct. The report continues:

[Interjections.] The man who wrote this report, was correct. Before the end of May the Government announced that the Prohibition of Political Interference Act was to be repealed.

I want to ask the hon the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council the following question. Leading Nationalists say they want to extend the membership of the NP as the PFP and the other parties want to extend their membership to people of colour. If a proposal that the NP extend its membership to other population groups is submitted to the NP congresses, what will his standpoint be?

The congress will have to decide on that.

No, I am asking what your standpoint will be.

And I am saying it will be determined by the congress.

What will the hon the Minister recommend at the congress? [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, I want to tell that hon Minister and those hon members that the liberals in their party will tell them what they must decide. [Interjections.] The liberals together with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning lead those hon members. They have led hon members by the nose to where they are today. They have reduced the self-determination of the Whites to a tiny little chamber of a tricameral Parliament.

May I put a question please?

No, unfortunately I do not have time. [Interjections.] I have only six minutes at my disposal.

I want to tell those hon members what my standpoint will be if proposals of that kind are submitted to my congress. [Interjections.] I shall be here when that hon Minister is no longer here and when Graaff-Reinet has a CP representative. [Interjections.] If a decision of that nature is submitted to my congress, as far as the membership and a White political party are concerned, my standpoint will be that membership may not be extended. That will be my standpoint but I am sorry to hear that those hon members are not going to take the same stand. [Interjections.]

I also want to put a question to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. What will his standpoint be?

Complete your speech first.

Sir, I find it so amusing! I want to put this question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Is he satisfied for people of colour to become members of his party?

Yes.

The hon the Leader says yes. The hon members of the NP, however, will hide until it is a reality. Then they will say: The times have changed. The times may have changed, but here at the southern tip of Africa we have a variety of peoples, and because there is going to be power-sharing amongst Whites, Coloureds and Indians—and Blacks are also being involved in this—there will be conflict, clashes and bloodshed in the country. The only recipe for peace lies along the road of separate freedom so that each people can govern itself within an own fatherland. This party will fight so that this House of Assembly can once again become the sovereign Parliament of the Whites in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Kuruman did not use the six minutes at his disposal to propagate or promote a single facet of own affairs in the interests of the Whites.

The hon member for Kuruman launched an attack on the hon the Minister by saying a multiracial executive committee is going to govern Whites in Natal. It is obvious, however—and the hon member knows this—that politically sensitive matters will not be dealt with on that second tier in the future new system. That hon member knows that, after all.

Another statement which is being repeated here ad nauseam—and the hon member himself has done it again—is that the NP has actually depleted or attenuated the Whites’ right to self-determination.

But that is true.

It is not true. It is a reality, and those hon members will have to recognize that reality some time or another. It is a reality that in one geographic area…

Mr Chairman, may I put a question please?

No, Sir, I am not prepared to reply to a question put by that hon member. Absolute self-determination is not attainable in one geographic area. I want to repeat this statement. Self-determination is not attainable in one geographic area. The other possibility, the idea of divided geographic areas, is an ideal the NP pursued and tried to apply for a number of years. It has had to contend with the same problems, however, as those hon members are going to have to contend with. If that absolute geographic separation is not possible either, the only other attainable option is the one applicable at present.

I want to use my time this afternoon to quote what I regard as a very important matter.

The baby or the shawl.

I am not speaking of the hon member for Rissik now for apparently he has never grown up. [Interjections.]

For the first time since the depression in the thirties, Whites in the RSA are experiencing serious social problems as a result of increasing unemployment. This fact is verified by the following newspaper reports. In Rapport of 19 May an article appeared under the following heading: “Honderdduisend Blankes werkloos”. On 16 May a report appeared in Beeld: “Werkloosheid se gevolge: Kinders met leë mae skool toe”. From these reports it is clear that there are White children too who do not have the privilege of enjoying a balanced meal every day. It is true that many White South Africans are being forced to live below the breadline as a result of increasing unemployment. In my opinion no one dare ignore this situation. One also took appreciative cognizance of the founding of a national distress fund to supply hungry school children with food, and one values this highly. It is not quite clear to me, however, who instituted the national distress fund and how it functions. I shall be pleased if the hon the Minister can throw some fight on the subject.

I am aware that one can argue that charity is preeminently the task of the church. Yet I wonder whether it is not desirable under the present circumstances for a distress fund to be established under the leadership of the mayor in each town to which everyone, including churches, can make a contribution. On the recommendation of school principals, for argument’s sake, the fund can render assistance to the children who are identified in co-operation with local welfare services. Johannesburg’s City Council has set a worthy example in this connection by voting R1,5 million for this purpose. I trust that a distress fund of this nature will be launched in every community.

None of these distress funds have much effect if the causes of unemployment are not considered seriously. In this connection I want to associate myself with a standpoint of Donald Gould as presented in the March edition of the South African Journal of Science. He says:

Social problems which emanate from a situation of unemployment cannot be rectified in the long run if the cause of unemployment is not rectified. I think the causes can be rectified on management level in the private as well as the public sectors. Where Sanlam’s latest economic review indicates that employment is going to continue to decline, I want to express the confidence that employers will not choose the policy of dismissal to counter the economic slump. In this connection experts have expressed the opinion that the reason for the dismissal of people is that it is easier to get rid of people than of capital equipment such as machinery. They point out that dismissal may result in the next economic upswing not being utilized fully. Indeed, they are of the opinion that dismissals are proof that the management has failed.

I am inclined to endorse these standpoints and I trust that dismissal will no longer be considered as a method to counter the slump.

One appreciates the Public Service’s standpoint that people should not be dismissed. Yet it is true that a number of posts in the Public Service are being frozen as a result of the current situation. As a result some people in certain departments—I want to refer specifically to the SA Travel Services of which I have knowledge—have been working up to 18 hours per day for months. If the State were to set the example and make further appointments in those cases, I think a climate of employment would be created which would contribute a great deal to combating the problems that arise as a result of unemployment. One was pleased to hear that the police force is to be extended by 40%. Obviously I believe this will include Whites as well.

An important point we must keep in mind, is that the chief objective in the classic free-market philosophy is profit. In the South African situation one should also take note of the social obligation for the very reason that unemployment has a much greater impact in the RSA than in countries abroad. It is calculated that the labour supply will amount to 20 million by the year 2000, whereas the demand will be only 15 million, a shortage therefore of 5 million unemployed. In 1980 it was a shortage of only 1 million. The situation is worsening. If one keeps in mind that it is possible at present to use 10% of the labour force to do 80% of the work if all available technology is utilized, the picture ahead becomes even darker. The eventual solution—it is not my solution but that of labour philosopher Okkie Jager in his book Bevryde tyd: Van Prestatiemaatschappij naar Vrijetijdscultuur—is that the possibility of separating wages from labour will have to be investigated in future. This is a future problem, however. Today’s problem is to ensure that White children and families who are hungry as a result of unemployment are also helped effectively. In my opinion the answer is maximal employment as far as possible.

Mr Speaker, before replying to the questions which hon members have put to me in the course of this debate, it is a pleasure for me to refer to the maiden speech made by the hon member for Newton Park. I take pleasure in welcoming the hon member to this House. The hon member for Kuruman also referred to this. The hon member for Newton Park is not only a namesake of mine, but he also comes from the North Western Cape.

The most important speech ever made about the Louws was made by Dr Malan when he had to propose a toast at the wedding of a member of the Louw family. Dr Malan knew the Louws very well, because he was married to one. As befitted a minister of religion, Dr Malan had three points to make. He said that the Louws had three characteristics; in the first place, they found it easy to adapt themselves; he did not specify whether for better or worse. This happened in the North Western Cape during the years when there was a depression and food was in short supply. Dr Malan said that the second characteristic was that they always had a lot of food. The third characteristic was that they never had any money. [Interjections.] The hon member and I will continue that third tradition. That is why we are in politics, for if one is actually interested in money, politics is not a very good business to be in.

I wish to congratulate the hon member on the speech he made. I think he delivered it in very good style. He showed that he had a balanced insight into the activities and especially the needs of his constituency. He referred to the question of unemployment and to the importance of job creation. He referred to the important tourist industry. When the election was being held there, I also observed that he was sensitive to the needs of his people. I am sure that he will make a positive contribution in this House. I wish him everything of the best. [Interjections.]

†It is a pity that the hon member for Yeoville cannot be here, or is he perhaps coming?

He is tied up.

In the meantime I shall reply to the speech made by the hon member for Gezina. He asked a question about the monitoring function of the Auditor-General with regard to the own affairs accounts. This is not the function of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts, nor is it the function of the White component of that committee. The work in connection with the monitoring function as far as the own affairs accounts are concerned will in fact be done by a Select Committee on Public Accounts of the House of Assembly. We look forward to reporting to that Select Committee on Public Accounts from time to time once it has been established.

The hon member also referred to the downturn in the economy. He referred to the insolvency of businesses and private persons. These things are true and we cannot get away from them. It is a fact that these things are happening today. He also referred to people who were living beyond their means and who were now finding it is impossible to make ends meet. It is an unfortunate fact that no wave of prosperity can be sustained indefinitely. Sooner or later that curve has to come down, and we are experiencing such a downturn right now. He also referred to firms which were going out of business while they were actually still viable. The Government has tremendous sympathy with firms of that nature, and for this reason the Government has made R30 million available to the Small Business Development Corporation for the specific purpose of trying to save those businesses which are still viable.

The hon member also referred to building societies which had increased bond repayments to an extent which was disproportionate to the increase in interest rates. I would assume that these cases are exceptional. In fact, I have been in contact with building societies and I am able to say that the general policy of the building societies is in fact to keep the payments the same and in some cases to extend the period in order not to increase the payments.

We are engaged in an economic fight against inflation. In the situation in which we find ourselves, it is inevitable that there will be a certain number of bankruptcies and liquidations, especially in the case of people who have been overspending. I thank the hon member for having brought these matters to our attention.

†The hon member for Amanzimtoti gave the hon member for Yeoville plenty to think about. He came out strongly in support of strict monetary measures and curbing consumer credit. He also agreed with me that inflation is more dangerous than unemployment. He quoted certain authorities to support his views and I thank him for the support he has given me in this respect.

The hon member for Umbilo accused the Government of being the sole cause of inflation.

The primary cause of inflation.

I remember that hon member saying from the bench in which he is now sitting that people are living above their standards. Am I right?

That is correct. I did not say the Government is the only cause; I said it is the primary cause.

I did not get that impression, because the hon member did not mention anything about any other responsibility than that of the Government. I want to ask him not to take such a onesided view of this particular problem, because it is not such an easy problem.

The hon member also referred to my lack of experience of third tier government. For the hon member’s information, I want to tell him that I was for 17 years head of a component of third tier government. Could I have the hon member’s credentials in that respect?

Yes, I will give you them with pleasure. I was chairman of the Management Committee of Durban, Deputy Mayor of Durban, MEC for local … [Interjections.]

That is enough! Then we both have sufficient experience to know that the problems of local government must not be underestimated. I can agree with the hon member on that.

The hon member also attacked me for being unsympathetic by opposing tax concessions in respect of school fees. That is not true: I am sympathetic. I am, however, against the erosion of our tax base—that is what I said. Once one starts making exceptions, there is no end to all the deserving causes and cases brought forward. I say that, if people are in need of help, one must help them openly. It is no help to a poor man to give him income tax concessions if he does not pay income tax. That is why I say one must rather help a person openly than give him concessions that are not worth anything.

*I wish to thank the hon member for Springs for bringing to the attention of this House, and especially of the public, the extent of the legislation that is already being handled and administered by the Administration responsible for the own affairs of the House of Assembly. He will never prevail upon the CP to stop trying to disparage own affairs. As the hon member indicated, people who live in castles in the air, and who do their planning from there, pay no attention to facts or to the realities with which we are faced. [Interjections.] I thank the hon member for directing our attention to that aspect.

The hon member referred to the slogan politics practised here by the CP. He might just as well have referred to the politics of protest which is practised by that party, because that is equally futile. Slogan politics and the politics of protest are equally futile when it comes to finding a practical alternative. [Interjections.]

There are two points which I should like to discuss. The hon member referred the CP’s book of principles. I have since obtained a copy, and I also wish to refer to two of the principles contained in it. In point 2.3.3 the CP refers to industrial decentralization in the national states and the financial measures which have to be intensified in those states. The CP says that they will spend more on decentralization.

Not on Khayelitsha!

What do we find in practice, however? We find that the impression is being created from every platform that we spend everything on the Blacks and nothing on the Whites.

Not on Khayelitsha!

In its programme of principles, however, the CP says that it will spend even more on that than we are spending.

Not on Khayelitsha! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Kuruman cannot go on shouting “Not on Khayelitsha”. Everyone in this House heard the hon member the first time. The hon member must give the hon the Minister an opportunity to complete his speech.

The hon CP members also refer, in paragraph 2.3.5 of the brochure, to the permanence of the Blacks. There they say that the permanence of those Blacks that have achieved permanence in this country will be terminated. Is that correct? Does the CP say that? Why are the hon members so quiet now? There are approximately four million Black people who have obtained the right of permanence in this country. Now I want to ask the hon CP members: What are they going to do with these Black people? Will the CP terminate their rights?

What rights?

The rights they have acquired in this country. [Interjections.]

If the CP does recognize the rights which they have obtained in this country—they say that they have received their rights—what political dispensation is the CP going to provide for them in this country, because the vast majority of them are citizens of this country? [Interjections.] These are all matters which the CP has raised in this House. It is very easy to present all these matters here in the form of slogan politics and the politics of protest.

I now wish to refer to the speech made by the hon member for De Aar. He has apologized for not being able to attend this debate. I just want to refer to one remark which he made here. He said that interest rates were causing people to go bankrupt. He referred to the very high interest rates which farmers had to pay and he also said that they had to pay a levy on top of that if, for example, the co-operative paid their electricity accounts. This is an absolutely ridiculous statement which was made here. We immediately asked the hon member why these people had not applied in terms of the financial scheme for six years or for 22 years which is in existence. It then appeared that he had actually referred to only one person whom he knew about. It is typical CP politics to take a single isolated case and then to suggest that the whole of South Africa is suffering in this way. The hon member could simply have given this one particular person the correct advice if he was his representative. [Interjections.] The hon member also said that there should not be any further restrictive monetary measures in this country. I wonder what would become of the inflation problem with which we are faced at the moment if there were to be no further restructure measures.

†The hon member for Cape Town Gardens went out of his way to belittle own affairs. I want to pose the question to him which the hon member for Yeoville put to the Americans.

To the Americans?

Yes, to the Americans. He quoted it here himself. He asked the following question: “Once you have destroyed the dispensation in South Africa as it is, what do you want to put in its place?” That is what I want to ask the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. [Interjections.] He said that his party would agree to negotiate a solution based on free political association, is that correct?

Among other things.

In practice that means majority rule.

It depends how you define majority rule. [Interjections.]

It is all very well simply to make a statement, but the hon member for Cape Town gardens only succeeded in advancing a lot of negative ideas. In the interests of South Africa I advise him to be a little more positive. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he can tell us why White parents who would like their children to go to multiracial or non-racial schools should not be given every opportunity to do so?

Sir, this Government’s policy is known to the hon member and this concerns one of the important own affairs. That policy is what is making this whole dispensation manageable. [Interjections.]

*The hon member for Barberton said that the own affairs administration had no source of revenue of its own.

Who said so?

No, Sir, the hon member said that we had nothing. I want to point out to him that this not correct. This administration is entitled to impose levies. Only the other day the hon member for Lichtenburg complained that we would kill the taxpayer with these levies. Every department in this country has always received its funds from the Minister of Finance. The same is happening now. All the general departments also get their funds from the hon the Minister of Finance.

In my case, in the first place, I negotiate on behalf of five departments. Secondly, I serve as the equal of the hon the Minister of Finance on those committees which determine priorities with regard to expenditure and revenue.

Surely not the Cabinet.

We advise the Cabinet [Interjections.] Thirdly, section 84(A) provides that a certain amount has to be paid to this administration and to the other administrations according to a formula. This is obligatory, and is a first charge on the Treasury. [Interjections.] The hon member for Barberton should get rid of that tunnel vision which he employs. [Interjections.] He should consider these matters in the light of the reality with which we are faced. In adopting this attitude, after all, the hon member is not discrediting the dispensation; he is only discrediting himself, and surely that is not necessary. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Randfontein referred to the increasing unemployment among the population. He said that people were living under the breadline and were even going hungry. He also referred to the fund-raising. As far as I know, this is a voluntary relief organisation which can of course be established in terms of the law. However, I want to tell the hon member that when the crisis arose in the Eastern Cape, the Ministers’ Council immediately ordered an investigation in the Eastern Cape. In fact, we also made money available to the Department of Social Welfare in that area to enable it to provide additional assistance. The investigation revealed that problems were in fact being experienced there, but that a lot of the publicity which had been given to those problems had to some extent been exaggerated. There may be isolated cases of children going hungry—we do not know about that—but the responsible people such as school principals whom we consulted there told us that the position was not as critical at the moment as it was made out to be. However, I fully agree with the hon member that the solution to the whole problem does not lie in the rendering of aid or, as lie put it, in relief measures. He is quite right; the solution lies in job creation. That is why the Government is devoting not only a great deal of energy, but also a great deal of money to the decentralization of industries and the training of our labour forces. This is extremely important, for as hon members know, we have a great deal of unemployment, but at the same time, we have a serious shortage of trained people who are necessary in order to provide other people with employment. As the hon member knows, we are giving attention to the informal sector in order to help those people to earn their own livelihood in such a way. The hon member is also aware of the Small Business Corporation, which is doing a great deal to establish small businessmen, because many of them are actually the best employers.

†I want to turn now to the hon member for Yeoville. I am afraid I have to reply to him here, otherwise he will not get the reply. [Interjections.] Yes, he sent me a note to inform me that he could not be here. [Interjections.] The hon member complained that I failed to reply to his major question: How will provincial functions be divided? Evidently the hon member did not read my speech, a copy of which I supplied to him. In it I told him that this would be our most important function for the coming months and that two working groups were working on just that to make recommendations about division of functions, manpower, funds and assets. If the hon member refers to the Constitution he will find that it is the prerogative of the State President to decide on own and general affairs. The Ministers’ Council can only assist on the guidelines that were suggested, but the Ministers’ Council cannot and will not try to do the job of the State President.

*I am by no means underestimating the seriousness of unemployment in this country. I have a great deal of sympathy for the unemployed, but what I said here—the hon member attacked me once again on this—was that inflation was more dangerous than unemployment. I said that inflation undermined the economy, and when that happens, one cannot compete in the marketplace. When one cannot compete in the marketplace, one cannot produce. The hon member for Yeoville specifically said that we should have higher production. This leads to mass unemployment. The difference between me and the hon member is that his approach to unemployment is emotional while my approach, and that of this side of the House, is based on common sense. The hon member is exaggerating unemployment and depression. Last year, for example, in this very same House, the hon member referred to the depression which allegedly existed even then as being worse than that of the 1930s and all of us who are sitting here know what happened in the 1930s. In actual fact, we had a growth rate of 4,5% last year.

The hon member referred to unemployment, as did the hon member for Walmer. In January 1985, for example, there were 60 458 registered Black unemployed. According to the current census, there were 505 000 Black unemployed in November 1984, i.e. approximately half a million. According to Sanlam’s calculation, which has also been mentioned in this House, there were approximately 505 000 unemployed in December 1984—their statistics correspond to those of the census, therefore. However, the hon member says that there are 3 million unemployed. I asked the hon member in this House what role the informal sector played in this, because it is clear to anyone who takes any interest in this matter that a large percentage of Blacks depend on this informal section for their living. That is why I wish to say here today that we should give this sector a boost to enable people to earn their living in a way which is very characteristic of Africa. I myself have said on occasion that we should think of exempting from all regulations employers in subeconomic areas who have fewer than five people in their service.

However, the hon member for Yeoville still wants to lay a wager with me about the question of positive or negative growth. I have made it clear that I expect negative growth this year—even as much as 2%. The hon member said that this was the worst economic period, the deepest depression we had for the past 50 years. I shall not go back so far into the past, because hon members know what happened in the thirties. We need only go back two years, to 1983, when there was an economic growth of minus 3%. In other words, what the hon member is actually saying is that our growth rate this year will be less than minus 3%. We shall simply have to wait and see which one of us is closest to the truth.

*I want to refer to two very important observations that the hon member made. Firstly he said that he was optimistic about South Africa, and in the second place he said that we should stop setting preconditions for negotiation in South Africa. I think the last observation is a statement of tremendous magnitude. That is a major move away from his party’s declaration of intent. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is here, and he can say whether he agrees with that or not. [Interjections.]

South Africa needs people who will not talk themselves into misery, like the hon member for Cape Town Gardens. [Interjections.] Certainly we have numerous obstacles in this country, but they are there to be overcome, and a good starting point is to start talking to one another and find out what we can agree upon.

*For this reason, I find it a pity that the hon member for Waterberg is not prepared to take part in those discussions. The question is whether that hon member has nothing beneficial in mind which he can suggest to Black people when he negotiates with them.

I think I have referred to almost everyone. Finally I want to refer to the hon member for Kuruman. [Interjections.] He said that we had destroyed the own affairs of the Whites. I want to tell him: No, this is the only way in which we can protect the own affairs of the Whites. [Interjections.]

You are bluffing the people outside.

If that hon member were as enthusiastic about keeping quiet as he is about making a noise, he could perhaps make a contribution. [Interjections.] It is all very well talking about a separate territory for every population group when one never specifies where those population groups that are being accommodated in this country at the moment will be accommodated then. [Interjections.]

Finally, I want to convey my sincere thanks to my hon colleagues for their participation in the debate.

Mr Chairman, the incident in which two South Africans were killed and one captured in Angola last week made newspaper headlines and reverberated around the world. In opening the debate on my Vote I wish to make a statement to put these incidents in perspective. I shall devote attention later to more general affairs.

First of all I wish to tender my sincere condolences to the relatives of Louis van Breda and Rowland Liebenberg. I believe I am speaking on behalf of the entire South Africa in wishing them strength and guidance. My sympathies are also with Wynand du Toit, wounded and a captive in Luanda.

I assure you we are doing everything in our power to recover the bodies and also to bring about Wynand’s repatriation. This will be a slow, difficult process because it has already become obvious that the Angolan government is going to abuse his detention for maximum propaganda purposes. Marxists are masters of the art of forcing their captives to make so-called confessions to promote their propoganda and lies.

Wynand’s relatives and those of the deceased deserve to be remembered in our prayers.

We may be justifiably proud of these men; they risked their lives for the sake of our country and our security. Lightly armed they went to reconnoitre a suspected ANC base to confirm intelligence. They and people like them indicate the metal of which South Africans are made. That is why we are proud of them; that is why prayers and tributes should emanate from everyone in this Parliament to these people and their families.

As regards Wynand, he will be exploited for cheap fantasy and propaganda. May he receive exceptional grace and strength in his circumstances.

In association with the statement made by my colleague the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I now wish to describe the events briefly in perspective. These men went to Angola as a reconnaissance team with specific orders. On Tuesday, 21 May, they were surprised at their temporary day base, en route for the reconnaissance target, by soldiers presumed to be Angolan. A confrontation followed; hon members are aware of the rest.

This brings me to certain fundamental aspects of the incidents. Firstly I wish to state that the principle of collecting intelligence and investigative action regarding hostile plans, concentrations and so on is an accepted military practice. Hon members of the committee who have military experience will know what I am talking about. Any state prizing its security conducts these activities. It is obviously a risky operation. In modern campaigns, where there is no defined front, our enemies abuse the hospitality of the territory of neighbouring states to hatch their often fiendish plans. These bases are a source of intelligence essential to our own security planning. The most important intelligence is to be found at the deepest bases.

This incident was immediately held against South Africa. Three principal accusations are now being made by the media in particular. They are that the RSA is destabilizing Angola and that we are violating the 1984 Lusaka Agreement. It is further alleged that the SA Defence Force has plunged South Africa into a credibility problem. Various insinuations are made concerning these three matters which come down to our being dishonest, aggressive imperialists and that our word is not to be trusted. Consequently I wish to reply on all three matters.

Firstly there is the accusation of destabilization. To start with I wish to state it clearly that an operation to acquire intelligence and to pin-point hostile terrorist bases cannot be equated with an attacking operation. They are poles apart. The indignation of recent years—and again now in consequence of this incident—about South Africa’s so-called destabilization of neighbouring states actually implies the demand that the RSA should sit back with folded arms and observe how others act against it. The country has to assume a defensive posture while others may continue building up arsenals, planning actions and deeds of terror and/or condoning such actions. And who, apart from us, is ever accused of destabilization? Surely this is transparent double talk.

It should be remembered that the ANC and its Soviet supporters, the SACP and a multitude of other organizations like the UN, church and anti-SA groups—irrespective of whether they co-operate—have one overriding goal which is to replace the democratic dispensation here.

Our purposeful path of political and social reform and friendly relations with neighbouring states simply does not suit their books. They have lost the initiative; our initiatives and actions are bearing fruit.

As regards the ANC, it is common knowledge that it wishes increasingly to direct its actions at soft, civilian targets. It is therefore in our own interest to continue anticipating its plans and thwarting them at source.

It is RSA policy to put its case and to defend and safeguard itself offensively with all the might at its disposal against any form of foreign aggression or internal revolution—whatever the nature or source. In addition it is our policy to prevent the build-up of any hostile terrorists—or of conventional forces in neighbouring states which may pose a threat to the RSA. Concerning this incident, there was no destabilization of Angola nor was there any interference in Angolan internal affairs. Our target was not and is not the state of Angola; our target was and is the ANC and Swapo just as Mozambique and Lesotho were not our targets when we flushed the ANC out of their nests in Maputo and Maseru. Those countries realized this because they closed their doors to the vipers in their bosoms. The terrorists were removed and had to seek safer havens. It has been clear for some time that they are beginning to seek sanctuary in Northern Angola. We are aware of this but we also have to know more about their training and planning and who their associates are.

Those who are chiming in so lustily in the destabilization chorus should draw a simple distinction. Destabilization is aimed at a target state with the purpose of disrupting and even paralysing the economic, political and social infrastructures of that state. We do not do this anywhere—not the RSA, not the SA Defence Force and also not in Angola. Let me state it plainly: It is in the interests of the RSA to have stable and developing neighbours. There are neighbouring states which realize this and realize increasingly that respect for RSA security requirements is a prerequisite for their own security. Angola knows this too. It has been warned repeatedly of the risk of accommodating elements which hatch plans against the RSA there.

Peace, security and prosperity in South Africa are inseparable and above all in our own interests. Should we therefore disrupt and destabilize other states like a regional ruffian, we would prejudice our own interests.

I wish to make a last comment on destabilization. Those who wish to discuss destabilization significantly and responsibly should take serious note of what is happening in South Africa. They should take serious note of Russian stockpiling and the foothold gained by 53 000 Cubans in 18 African states. These people are alien to Africa. What are they after here? It is they who are not leaving Africa in peace to decide on its own course and direction itself. Those who speak about destabilizers should look elsewhere—not at South Africa.

This brings me to the Lusaka Agreement of 1984. To allege we are violating this agreement by sending a team to collect intelligence on ANC concentrations is farfetched—to say the least of it. The Lusaka Agreement is between Angola and us. It relates to Swapo and Swapo activities in a specific area, the so-called “area in question”. It deals further with our withdrawal from the area providing certain conditions are fulfilled. In terms of this agreement we withdrew our forces from this area of Angola. The events of last week had nothing to do with the Lusaka Agreement; anyone linking the two matters does so to be unreasonable.

This brings me to the third matter, namely the so-called credibility gap which was supposedly confirmed by the action taken last week. Accusations are being hurled at the Defence Force in this regard. Those proffering such arguments are not maintaining a sense of balance. They should remember we have an orderly system of government in the RSA. We do not have politics on the one hand and the military on the other; we are dealing with a symbiotic process. The government of the day makes decisions and tasks the Defence Force, as it does any of its other instruments. As regards the Defence Force, it is overjoyed when peace and stability thrive because it is its task to create a climate, an environment, in which peace and prosperity can flourish. That is why the Defence Force is a force for peace in the first place. Its task is to promote peace, stability and order. That is why the Defence Force has stated it repeatedly that it ranges itself foursquare in support of the peace initiatives. Meanwhile it is conscientious in carrying out the policy of the Government to act offensively against terrorist activities wherever they may take place. In this regard the Nkomati Accord, the Lusaka Agreement, the agreement with Swaziland and our discussions with Lesotho on the provision of water, for instance, are milestones of the SA Defence Force contribution up to the present. We live in an imperfect world, however, and that is why circumstances demand vigilance and preparedness of us. The collecting of intelligence and tracking down of bases form part of this. This is primarily aimed at achieving peace. There is also a balance of power to be preserved in Southern Africa under the overall guideline of the search for and maintenance of peace. Whoever seeks peace and wishes to preserve it, however, has to be in the vanguard, has to take the initiative and retain it. Consequently our Defence Force is a pro-active force. We owe it to our country and the security of our people.

The threat against us, especially from Kremlin-inspired terrorist circles, is not child’s play or fireside chat. It is a reality which demands that we should be ahead and remain in the lead. We cannot sit back while plans are hatched and executed against us.

Two young men have lost their lives and a third is in Luanda precisely because we are in the van and have to know what is happening. May each of us who wishes to participate in the debate on this matter temper what he wishes to say in such a way that we do not further complicate the issue.

Permit me in conclusion to express my thanks to the mass media in South Africa which have strengthened the hand of their country in a positive way by means of editorials and reporting. The public notes this. Nevertheless there is also a minority which has not only ranged itself on the side of hostile criticism but drawn inappropriate comparisons with the history of South Africa.

Let this statement suffice on a very sensitive matter. It contains all the elements for use against us by misrepresentations.

Mr Chairman, I had hoped to devote the whole of my speech in the debate on this Vote to a calm and objective discussion of the standpoint of my party on the application of the Defence Force in Black residential areas, and also on our standpoint on the gradual phasing out of compulsory military service. I hope there will still be an opportunity of doing so. In this connection I gave evidence before the Geldenhuys Commission, and I was hoping we would be able to debate that matter.

That was one of the reasons why I asked the hon the Minister for an interview so that we could discuss the problem of credibility to which the hon the Minister had referred. The Chief of the Defence Force knows that he and I discussed that too. I held the same discussion with the hon the Minister of Defence.

Two incidents, however, have led to my being unable to devote my entire speech to that matter. One is the incident to which the hon the Minister has just referred, and the other is the statement made by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs during the discussion of his Vote, when reference was made to support for Renamo by the Defence Force.

I cannot allow these two incidents to pass without adopting a clear stand in this regard. I felt quite pleased when I learned the hon the Minister was going to be the first speaker in the debate today because I thought that would perhaps obviate the need for me to pose the questions I am in fact going to pose now. I must put it briefly and clearly to the hon the Minister—and this gives me no joy—that his explanation this afternoon simply was not good enough. [Interjections.]

†I wish to start by also expressing my regret at the loss of life and to extend on behalf of myself and my party our sympathy to the families who are bereaved as a result of the latest incident involving the SA Defence Force in Angola. These men were soldiers doing their duty as commanded. It was not their or their comrades’ responsibility to answer why they were doing what they were doing and when they were doing it. This reponsibility lies ultimately with the hon the Minister who is the accountable person for Government policy and strategy. It is from the hon the Minister that we have to expect and hear the answers. I must say quite frankly that those answer simply have not been forthcoming this afternoon.

The first observation I have to make is that when it comes to matters of international relations, foreign policy, regional cooperation or even domestic initiatives of South Africa, the hon the Minister of Defence and his department appear to have their own time-table and totally independent and unaccountable agenda and basis of operation. It almost appears as if the hon the Minister and his department claim the right to decide what is best for South Africa and everybody else, irrespective of what any other department, any other organization or any other individual may feel about this.

The second observation I have to make despite what the hon the Minister said this afternoon, is that the average intelligent and concerned South African must find himself in a state of complete confusion and disbelief when he hears the official statements of the hon the Minister and the Defence Force. In other words—I say this with no great pleasure at all—the hon the Minister and his department are creating for themselves and for South Africa a major crisis of credibility. We cannot bluff ourselves about this. For any country such a situation is an unhappy one but I believe for South Africa it is not only an unhappy one; it is also a dangerous one.

Let me say at the outset that it is not a matter of dispute or controversy that surveillance, espionage or clandestine intelligence operations are accepted as part of any modern society’s method of looking after its own interests or anticipating any threat to those interests. That—I want to make it quite clear—is not the issue. That is not what we are talking about. The hon the Minister went to great lengths to explain that this was part of a modern nation’s armoury, but that is not the issue. However, the manner and timing of and the necessity for a particular operation most certainly should always be an issue of considerable concern because if it is not, the operation itself can become a threat to the very interests it is intended to protect. That decision is not a military decision but a political decision. That is a decision for which the hon the Minister and the Government must be accountable.

Against this background let us look at the latest incident. Firstly when does a problem of political credibility arise.? It is when the official position on any issue appears to be contradicted by the actions of those who claim to uphold that position. There is no doubt—the SABC said it this morning in their official editorial—that in this particular case the SA Defence Force and the hon the Minister have handed a major propaganda coup to the Angolan Government. Whatever the specific nature of the operation has been, I find it inconceivable that the hon the Minister could not have been aware of the propaganda disadvantages with which we now have to contend.

Secondly, it is well known that a Namibian settlement is being bedevilled by the presence of Cubans in Angola. Everybody knows it. The United States of America introduced this issue the first time and it was seized upon as a matter of dispute in trying to find an internationally acceptable settlement in Namibia. If anything is going to be used to justify the continued presence of Cubans in Angola, this issue is going to be used. There is no question about it, and it is already being used.

Thirdly, we have just been seen by the international community to have concluded—I know that the hon the Minister has referred to it—a lengthy and mutually co-operative exercise with Angola in ending the Joint Monitoring Commission. Part of this conclusion was the complete military withdrawal of South Africa from Angolan territory. It was seen by everybody that this was the case. It was within a week of that having happened that this incident took place.

Fourthly, the disinvestment campaign is approaching fever pitch in the United States of America. At a time when we should be giving ammunition to our friends and supporters in efforts to counter that campaign, we are, whether we like it or not, seen by those who are hostile to us and who are pushing that campaign to be reinforcing the image of a regional destabilizer, an image I, for one, thought we were moving away from.

Fifthly, nobody will deny that the signing of the Nkomati Accord last year captured the imagination of the international community. For a brief, wonderful spell South Africa was seen as a force for regional cooperation and stability. The signing of that accord opened doors for the then Prime Minister all over Europe. Since then, the hon the Minister of Defence has said that we were helping Renamo before the accord and would, if necessary, do so again. Now, a week after the dissolution of the Joint Monitoring Commission, we have this incident. Who is going to believe what the Minister and his department are saying, and can anyone be blamed for not believing them? That is the dilemma.

Do you believe them?

That is of no consequence whatsoever. I have to go outside and defend my country against exactly this dilemma I am pointing out to the hon the Minister.

The worst thing that can happen to any government and any country is not that its policies are rejected, that it becomes bankrupt, or that its leaders are disliked, but that it enjoys no honour for its word and that its credibility is destroyed. When it brings that about by its own hand, it defines itself as a vagabond amongst nations.

Surely, these dangers could not have been unknown to this hon Minister? In the light of all the considerations to which I have referred I have to ask the hon the Minister what the incredible urgency was of a surveillance operation that led to the death of two of our men while a third is now being paraded like a wounded animal by the propaganda machine of the Angolan government. What was the incredible urgency for that?

Last week, the day after the incident, we read in the Financial Mail an interview given by Gen Jannie Geldenhuys, Officer Commanding the SA Army. He spoke to the Financial Mail at the very moment when the Joint Monitoring Commission of Angola and South Africa was being disbanded. He was asked:

His reply was:

There is therefore a decline in their activities.

And what about the ANC?

In Die Burger of this morning a report was published under the title “ANC bespreek nuwe planne”. For the benefit of the hon member I am going to quote from it, in case he has not had the time yet to read Die Burger himself. This information was obtained from Major Craig Williamson of the Security Police and Brigadier Herman Stadler, also of the Security Police. I quote from the report, as follows:

Where did you get that information?

Well, I cannot ask the security services where they get their information from. [Interjections.] Exactly! This information had already been obtained when we were busy with surveillance in northern Angola.

That is correct.

Then we should not blame the international community for asking what is actually happening here at this time. That is the point I am making here.

†At this most delicate stage of events for South Africa internationally, this hon Minister finds reasons so compelling and urgent as to engage in this kind of operation in the face of all the dangers I have mentioned. Quite frankly, I have not heard any of those reasons from the hon the Minister today. That is why I say I have to conclude that this hon Minister and his department work to their own timetable and agenda while the rest of us have no choice but simply to be satisfied with whatever they wish to tell us whenever they feel like telling us. If the hon the Minister and his department tell us they are acting in our interests, we simply have the choice of either accepting their word or disbelieving them, but we are given no opportunity to understand why anything is happening. They are, in a sense, a law unto themselves.

So much for this incident. Let me go further. The problem of credibility is not one I am fabricating or one that has arisen right now. The problem of credibility in general becomes particularly acute when one looks at the relationship between the SADF and the hon the Minister of Defence and this Parliament. I wish to speak from personal experience in this regard. Two examples come to mind. They concern the SADF’s role in the Angolan War and its support for Renamo.

The Angolan War of 1974-75 was my first experience of how Parliament and the rest of the country can be the victims of systematic deception. What was public and open knowledge internationally was officially denied to be the truth in South Africa and in Parliament as well. The then Prime Minister and his Cabinet simply deliberately did not tell the truth to that Parliament. It is a fact and we know it. One could pick up Time and Newsweek at that time and they would tell one exactly what was happening. Here in our own Parliament it was denied. It was not as though it was a secret or some kind of surveillance action and as if we would be embarrassing our own Defence Force by obtaining that information. Internationally it was public information, but it was denied in South Africa.

In the No-confidence Debate of 1983—the hon the Minister can look it up in Hansard of 31 January—I cautiously raised the issue of destabilization in Mozambique and the role of the SA Defence Force. I mentioned respectable international Western sources making those allegations. They are all there. One of them was the USA State Department under the Reagan Administration. There were also international experts in strategic studies. I mentioned all of those to the hon the Minister.

Just as he did today, the hon the Minister responded with a long diatribe about the lack of patriotism of hon members of the Official Opposition and myself in particular singing in Radio Moscow’s choir. There were official denials from the SADF and the hon the Minister daily. It is quite clear now that the whole world knew, and with good reason, that those denials at that time were obvious lies. The whole world knew, with the exception of the Parliament of South Africa; we were not told the truth.

What is important about these examples? Firstly, they did not involve instances of terrorism or infiltration against South Africa. Secondly, they did not relate to intelligence gathering or surveillance or a confidential nature. Thirdly, they involved widely reported instances of South Africa deliberately intervening in the internal affairs of another country. When we in Parliament tried as responsibly as possible to inquire about them, we were fobbed off with lies and made to look unpatriotic, and as people aiding and abetting the enemies of South Africa. That is all that was done.

Now the Government quite blatantly admits that we were correct then and that, if necessary, they would lie to us again and the whole miserable affair would be repeated. This is what they say. Then they say I must not raise the issue of credibility. [Interjections.] I ask: What is Parliament expected to believe as officially true from this hon Minister and his department? I am not raising sensitive secrets of any kind; I am raising issues that one can find in any responsible newspaper and magazine.

I want to state some matters of principle on these issues as far as I am concerned. If the hon the Minister and his department do not trust me or my party let them say so clearly and not inform me confidentially about anything. I will learn to live with that, but I prefer that to being lied to. Secondly, if the hon the Minister wishes to convey a confidential matter to me, I will honour it—he can test me on that—but two points have to be made very clear. Firstly, the hon the Minister must confide in me because he believes that my actions based on ignorance could prejudice the safety of my country. I will honour the confidence. Secondly, the hon the Minister must not confide in me in order to make me part of a secret conspiracy or to assist in perpetrating a public lie. There is no point in dis informing one’s own public.

I can also tell the hon the Minister that I will not publicly probe and expose issues which I believe could harm the interests of the country. However, if a matter is widely accepted as public knowledge inside or outside South Africa, I am damned if I am going to allow the Parliament of my own country to be kept in ignorance of such a matter or be the very last to know about it. What is the function of Parliament then? It is ridiculous!

Given what I have said before, I would like to know what the hon the Minister of Defence is prepared to say about certain matters. Was, or is, destabilization an accepted strategy, as the hon the Minister himself defined it, in the South African regional diplomacy as far as the SADF is concerned? Let me give an example. Given our position in the Angolan War, our acknowledged assistance to Renamo, our alleged complicity in the Seychelles coup, where do we stand on opposition movements in, for example, Lesotho and Zimbabwe? Are we assisting in arming and training people? If so, what do we hope to achieve? What exactly has the SADF achieved by assisting and now opposing Renamo?

I ask these questions not to embarrass anyone or to reveal any secrets, but to make the point that, if we do become unilaterally involved in the internal affairs of another country, why should the whole world know the truth but not the South African Parliament? It is impossible to destabilize for a period of time without anybody finding out about it. America does it in Nicaragua, Israel in Lebanon, and the fact that their governments do so is a matter of public debate and controversy. They argue in those countries about whether it should or should not be done and what the advantages and disadvantages involved are. It is a public debate. I find it intolerable that I must read and hear from foreign sources—and this is the reality—what our Defence Department is doing and not from the hon the Minister himself in Parliament. It does not help to accuse us of being victims of propaganda and being naïve when later we are actually faced with the impudence of a confession that what we initially suspected was true in any case. The question is very simple, and I put it in all seriousness: Do this hon Minister and his department genuinely hold Parliament in greater contempt than the outside world, or not? Must the average European and American, or even a neighbouring African, be better informed than the average South African? That is the real question.

Nothing I have said affects any State secret or is in any way a question of putting the South African Government in an embarrassing position. These are simple, obvious facts. Yet, we have the example, as I have given it now, that we have been deliberately misled on these issues.

*I had hoped we would be able to conduct a calm, objective debate on other Defence Force issues. This is, however, an important matter about which we cannot deceive each other. It is no use our doing so. It is no good our entering into confidential discussions with each other while obvious contradictions come to light in public, which no one understands, for in the long run we are all going to suffer as a result, since we will have a public that will not understand what is going on and a Parliament which will be ridiculed by the whole world.

†I must say that the hon the Minister has always impressed me as a military man and I have always had great respect for him in that capacity. However, I feel that he is not doing his job as a politician. The hon the Minister is in this regard not trying to cope with the political implications of incidents such as we have just had. I believe it would be a good thing if the hon the Minister went back to the military career which he once had, so that we can have the advantages of his military experience, because here in the political field, I believe, we find ourselves increasingly in an embarrassing situation. Therefore, I wish to move as an amendment:

Perhaps this will encourage the hon the Minister to become Chief of the Defence Force again.

Mr Chairman, I shall presently get to a few matters touched upon by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

I wish to direct something personal from this side of the House at the Chief of our Defence Force, Gen Constand Viljoen. After the House had risen last year, Standerton conferred the freedom of the city on Gen Viljoen. This is an exceptional award to an outstanding militarist who has done brilliant work for our country. It testifies to recognition of the services of a boy born there, who received his education there and progressed further from there. We wish to congratulate him most heartily on this award. Interjections.] From this side of the House we also wish to express our exceptional thanks and appreciation to the South African Defence Force for another year of duty fulfilled in the service of our country and in safeguarding South Africa and all its people. I also wish to express my sympathies to the families of those who lost their fives in the operational area in the course of the year as well as those of the two men who were killed last week. Once again we have been made aware of the price exacted by the freedom which we may experience in this House as well today.

Now I get to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition who said unequivocally that he was not satisfied with the hon the Minister’s statement. That is his privilege. His primary question was actually: What are we doing in Angola at all under the specific circumstances we are now experiencing while delicate consultations are in progress? We have just received a report that a bomb has exploded in the Nedbank Building which was the headquarters of the Witwatersrand Command. The sick-bay of the command is on the first floor. Suffice it to say that people were injured in this explosion. If we do not see that as an urgent indication that we require intelligence, that we have to be prepared and that our Defence Force is dealing with an enemy which remains concealed in a variety of terrains in the midst of a diversity of activities, we are very, very naive.

The collection of information should be a continuous process; one cannot interrupt it. The motivation of one’s young people is a continuous process so that those people may be kept fully informed. I say frankly today we have lost two boys under heart-rending circumstances but there are boys now—there are many young men present in the House today whom the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition can see and I am sad that he, as a young leader who was such a fine young captain of a team which accompanied us to Durban and could motivate young men, did not inspire them today—who are going to join the ranks to bring us the intelligence this country requires so urgently for safeguarding all our people. [Interjections.]

If one were to analyse the matter, one would see that above and beyond the great task of this Parliament as an instrument to direct the State machinery and State planning, that is to say political planning, toward stability as the chief undertone and foundation for the functioning of other activities, the Defence Force functions basically in three spheres.

The first is the training of its manpower in the provision and handling of weaponry. We can only take pride in the training and the same applies to the weaponry made available by Armscor as a member of the security family. Mr Basil Landau once said that if each undertaking in the private sector were as actively productive as Armscor, we would be a country with brilliant industries. That was his comment on Armscor.

The second sphere is the collection of intelligence concerning one’s enemy’s strategy, his planning and the forces at his disposal. Surely we cannot be naive. Nevertheless it demands energy and capital and requires incredible daring of our people. I think we should raise our hats to those young men prepared to occupy those ranks. Our history is sprinkled with the deeds of those heroes—not only today and in this war because our young men fell in previous wars as well. Here in my drawer I have a list of the names of young boys who fell in Green Point during the Anglo-Boer War. The romanticism of that era is not involved. Examine the ages of those young men; examine the ages of the young men who took part in the First and Second World Wars and then take another look at these boys. They are young men prepared to obtain the intelligence we require so urgently so that we may adapt our planning and strategy accordingly. We regret that it occurred but it is essential for us to have this intelligence for our total strategy.

The third component is the motivation of our people, of our entire people, including the other population groups which support this effort. This includes the taxpayer who is prepared to contribute so that there may be a budgetary allocation to the Defence Force.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke about the “major crisis of credibility”. Surely our deeds have shown that we are prepared to co-operate with people. There are the agreements which have been concluded—the hon the Minister referred to them. They should not deprive us of the capability and emasculate us to the extent that we cannot prepare ourselves to execute an urgent task. They should not deny us the opportunity of collecting intelligence. We should be prepared for this otherwise we are inhabiting a world of will-o’-the-wisps—a dreamworld.

May the contributions of all participating in the debate we are now embarking upon result in our taking a firmer stand and produce motivated people to fulfil the fine task of the South African Defence Force—its great duty of safeguarding our country and all its people.

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

The discussion of the Defence Vote in Parliament is certainly the most important annual event as regards national security. On this great occasion the CP wishes to present a number of bouquets at the outset. We thank all members of the Defence Force and Armscor for the important and weighty task they fulfil in our fatherland and we congratulate them on their outstanding achievements. No one in our country could look forward to a meaningful future without the vital contributions of the Defence Force and Armscor. In particular we congratulate all soldiers and Armscor officials who were promoted or commended or performed well in their occupations in some way or other. We thank those who retired on pension—our thanks to them for a lifetime of service to our country. We extend our sympathy to those who made sacrifices and in particular our sincere condolences to those who paid the highest price by laying down their lives for their country. Lastly our gratitude and tribute to the Unknown Soldier—he who quietly and sometimes inevitably without public appreciation fulfils his calling. The Unknown Soldier is actually the kingpin of the Defence Force and we pay respectful tribute today to the Unknown Soldier of South Africa.

As far as the CP is concerned, the Defence Force does a good job and we do not have much to say about the action of the Defence Force itself. We are satisfied with the way in which the Chief of the Defence Force carries out his duty. We wish to thank him for the fact that his doors are open to us 24 hours a day.

On this occasion, which is actually a political forum, we wish to address the political heads of the Defence Force. I should like to start by referring to the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I was hurt today by the blows he administered; nevertheless I have to admit that much of what he said was justified. In referring to credibility, he was speaking the absolute truth. During the Information scandal the hon the Minister supported the present State President in telling untruths in this House to obtain further funds. This lack of credibility runs throughout. It is a crying shame that this lack of credibility should be cast in his teeth in this way.

I believe the hon member for Standerton has missed the point about credibility; he did not even address the point adequately. In fact, at one stage I gained the impression that he was excusing it because he spoke of the motivation of the young man and confused it. I hope he was not implying by this that it was possible to motivate people with a presentation lacking credibility.

As regards the hon the Deputy Minister, we should like to congratulate him on his appointment. We wish to express the hope that he will do good work. We shall spare him during the discussion of this Vote, which is his initiation, and therefore not deal with him further if he promises not to spray us with hoses again at three o’clock in the morning on the border. [Interjections.]

Concerning the hon the Minister, I think he has many problems—not only this but he will have even more after today. I wish to thank him for inviting all members of Parliament to the operational area this year and that he did not again, as in the past, invite only members of the NP after telling us there was no money for operational tours and then taking his own people regardless. That favouring of the members of the caucus of his own people was contrary to parliamentary tradition and it is therefore the hon the Minister’s own fault that he has damaged his reputation through this. He aggravates this by not standing up here and telling us he will not repeat it. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister is laughing. I wish to say to him he may well laugh; his time as the Minister of Defence is shorter than he thinks. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister’s ignoring of parliamentary tradition goes even further, however. He continues to evade his parliamentary responsibility by not replying in full to questions put to him in the national interest. I wish to say to him the CP will not neglect to continue asking questions in the interests of the country. We shall also persist in our demand for replies from him.

I am referring to the well-known Seychelles scandal for instance. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister has been covering up that scandal for three years already. For three years we have been demanding that it should be exposed. Nevertheless the Seychelles scandal has now assumed a new dimension in that Col Hoare has served his sentence and been released. Col Hoare and those who took part in that abortive coup d’ètat were duly tried, found guilty, sentenced and have served their sentence. Col Hoare himself—he is almost 70—spent nearly three years in jail.

Now I ask: What about the man behind the scandal? What about the man who granted political authorization for it? What about the one who gave permission? I wish to state that there are indications that the State President was not only aware of that operation but that he also gave the final consent to it.

Man, that is untrue.

If that is not so, why is the case being covered up?

Nothing is being covered up.

Then why is the case not brought into the open? I request today that the Seychelles scandal be brought into the open and, if it is true that the State President consented to it, that he be charged as well; and, if he is found guilty and sentenced, he should serve his sentence just like Mike Hoare. [Interjections.]

I ask today: What is the difference? There is no difference between Mike Hoare and Pieter Willem Botha in the eyes of the law. I request that the role of the State President in the Seychelles scandal be investigated to clear the air and that we may know what the position is after a three-year cover-up. [Interjections.]

I next wish to refer to the Gerhardt scandal. The case of Dieter Gerhardt also reflects the hon the Minister’s ignoring of parliamentary tradition. The country is still waiting anxiously for true reassurance regarding the fact that a communist viper was discovered in our bosom but this very important case is also being covered up. Holding a departmental inquiry is inadequate although the Defence Force fulfilled its duty in doing so. The political head of the Defence Force, that is to say the hon the Minister, continues to ignore the country and the voters of South Africa by refusing to order a judicial or parliamentary inquiry into this case. We request again that this case be brought into the open so that opposition parties and South African voters may be satisfied on it. The hon the Minister’s ignoring of the traditions of parliamentary government could hardly be better reflected than by his refusal to give this Parliament the assurance that military transport, and helicopters in particular, would not be made available again to NP politicians for hunting trips and party-political activities. We request the hon the Minister to give this Parliament the assurance this year, especially in view of the poor economic conditions, that no military transport will be supplied for ministerial hunting trips and NP functions again.

In the past we also asked the hon the Minister to clear the air concerning the question of compulsory military services for Coloureds and Indians. It remains our standpoint that, as Coloureds and Indians are the constitutional equals of the Whites now, serve in the same Parliament and Cabinet and share the political power in the country, it is only fair and right that they should also be compelled to do military service.

Will you accept the Constitution in that case?

I may accept the Constitution when I am dead but not while I am alive. [Interjections.] Whites have no choice; they are obliged to do military service and hon members can laugh if they like but I can assure them that great dissatisfaction prevails in the country about this. White boys are compelled to fight for South Africa; they alone run the risk of being killed, maimed or taken prisoner. They are deprived of the presence of their loved ones for months on end and in many cases drop out of their civil occupations.

There are those of colour too.

Those of colour who are there—for that hon member’s information—are there voluntarily. My people have no choice but are compelled—if the hon member cannot see the difference, I cannot help that. [Interjections.] While the White boy is compelled to go to the border, the Coloured and Indian remain at home and batten on the prosperity of the country and do not run the same risks as the White boy. I now want to know what the standpoint of the political head of the Defence Force is on this. We challenged him to inform the Coloureds and Indians that they had no choice in the matter and that they would have to do compulsory military service just like the Whites.

What did the hon the Minister do then? He appeared in the House of Representatives and told them he would leave that decision to them. Consequently that hon Minister has now turned a general affair, Defence, into an own affair for Coloureds. That is the biggest constitutional joke I have ever heard. The truth is that this hon Minister capitulated to the Coloureds and Indians and what he does not realize is that in so doing he left the White national serviceman in the lurch.

It has been said that facilities are inadequate for accommodating Coloured and Indian national servicemen. My reply is: All right, abolish compulsory military service for Whites and institute a system of lots. Lots are then drawn proportionally from the three groups but the military burden is evenly spread over the three groups and not the sole responsibility of the Whites.

I wish to refer to the matter of Angola; there are two facets. Firstly it is the CP standpoint that it does not begrudge the Defence Force the right to responsible covert operations. The CP also wishes to associate itself with the hon the Minister and express its condolences on the death of the two soldiers and we pray for comfort to their families in this difficult time. We also hope the prisoner or war will be released as soon as possible and we wish the Government and the hon the Minister every success in their efforts to accomplish the release of that soldier.

The second facet of the Angola incidents is that the impression was created that all South African troops had been withdrawn from Angola. I think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s major attack on credibility arose from this. At the invitation of Gen Viljoen my hon leader and I discussed the matter very frankly with him yesterday because we were unhappy about the impression created. In consequence of our discussion with Gen Viljoen we decided to leave the matter there for the present. It is a most unfortunate case and, if there is to be any blame, we say it is political blame. As regards the Defence Force, whether it shares the blame or not, we want to say the CP is with it.

With me too?

I am not with the hon the Minister. If he has signed a white card, he is with me.

As regards Gen Viljoen, we are aware that at this stage—I am not referring to the hon the Leader of the Opposition now—reflections are being cast on his credibility. The CP accepts Gen Viljoen’s credibility and assures him and the Defence Force of our understanding and support in these murky times.

We wish to direct a friendly request to the President of Angola who is threatening to refer the matter to the UNO. Would he be so good as to inform the UNO and the world as well what ANC bases are doing in Angola and why he accommodates Swapo in his country, enabling them to carry out deeds of terror from there against innocent people in South West Africa.

As regards South West Africa, we are concerned about the action of politicians and how these influence the region militarily. During our recent visit to the operational area it emerged clearly once more that the Defence Force was winning and would win the military struggle and had really become a great friend to the local population owing to its social upliftment work. Nevertheless the problem of South West Africa is not a military but a political one. We are concerned that the Defence Force had to surrender valuable territory in the south of Angola at the insistence of politicians. Where the Defence Force in the past occupied an area of approximately 280 kilometres into Angola to combat Swapo’s deeds of terrorism, that territory has now been surrendered. What are politicians achieving? It appears that little has been achieved and the enemy can now move 280 kilometres nearer to the innocent people of South West Africa. Concerning this matter, we wish the Government every success in its efforts to find political solutions in South West Africa. If it is seeking party political solutions along the model it is developing for South Africa, that area is doomed to conflict. The Government model in South Africa is based on the principle of consociative democracy whereas the State President said in Parliament in 1981 that consociation would not work in South Africa because struggle and conflict were a built-in component.

Is the model currently being put forward as regards the political situation in South West Africa not also basically consociative democracy?

Naturally it is. Mr Cleary spelt out the entire model to us. That is why I am warning the NP in the light of the pronouncement of its State President who said that model embodied struggle and conflict and could not work. Now they are attempting something which cannot work; this is so ludicrous. The hon member for Bloemfontein North once wrote that power-sharing would destroy the White. He said power-sharing was political poison but today he says power-sharing is milk and honey. If he bids me good morning, I check the position of the sun.

As regards internal riots, we should appreciate the hon the Minister’s expanding on the role of the Defence Force in them and in particular on the command and control structure. We have also been informed that a video film was made during the riots and we should very much like to see it.

In closing I want to wish the Defence Force and Armscor a very successful year.

We are of the opinion concerning the hon the Minister that it has become essential in the national interest that he vacate the Defence portfolio because he has unfortunately become an embarrassment to South Africa and the Defence Force.

Mr Chairman, in opening I wish to associate myself fully, like all of us on this side, with the statement issued this afternoon by the hon the Minister on the events that occurred in Angola.

Up to this point we have listened to two hon members on the other side and it struck me how the hon member for Jeppe and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition vied with each other to get at the political head of the SADF. The hon member for Jeppe almost landed in the mire again but just succeeded in keeping out of it.

You are still in the mire.

My thanks to the hon member for his standpoint on the hon the Minister’s statement but unfortunately that is about all I can thank him for. I listened to him attentively to try to glean points on which we could hold a significant debate on defence matters but it was just impossible. He darted here and darted there and reminded me of the legendary Walter Mitty. He was the man who often had daydreams on what he believed was reality. At one moment he was one great figure and the next someone else. We are informed that the hon member for Jeppe visited America recently where he told reporters he did not know whether he wished to be Magnus Malan or Pik Botha. He was undecided and sometimes believed he was both. [Interjections.] I find yet another comparison—this time in Africa.

In Africa itself we also had a cock of the walk who cherished a very high opinion of himself. He built a model in his front garden and gave his children a catapult. They then explained how they would obliterate the Republic of South Africa. That was Idi Amin. I think there is a basis for comparison as regards stature—only a difference in colour.

Interjections.]

Order!

I think we can call the hon member for Jeppe the Idi Amin of the CP in future.

This afternoon the hon member for Jeppe also addressed some words of thanks to members of the SA Defence Force. In the same breath he dredged up the Seychelles case again and asked that this matter be laid bare to the bone. I should like to point out how inconsistent the hon member for Jeppe can sometimes be. Let us see what the hon member for Jeppe, who today adopted the holy guise of friend and apologist for members of our Defence Force, had to say in the House of 2 February 1983. This arose from the involvement of certain brigadiers in the Seychelles affair. Listen to this (Hansard, 1983, col 268):

That is a fine testimonial to the brigadier but the following year, on 17 May, the hon member vilified that same brigadier for whom he had such a paean of praise placed on record the previous year. He did it with the following statement (Hansard, 1984, col 6767):

I request members of the SA Defence Force to note that the commendations of the hon member of Jeppe may be the kiss of Judas most of the time.

I still stand by what I said.

The hon member is the very last person in this House who can talk of credibility at all. The hon member makes a practice whenever he rises in the House, whether it is on a Defence matter or any other, to cast doubts upon the credibility of the State President and especially that of the hon the Minister of Defence as well. We are growing tired of this. It reminds me of the case when an appetizing plate of food is set before one and it includes pumpkin. Because one does not care for pumpkin, one throws out the entire plateful and is subsequently in a bad mood all day. That is what the hon member for Jeppe wants to do as regards Defence affairs because the hon the Minister as the political head is closely allied to the person who in fact shoulders the responsibility. He has never evaded his responsibility; neither will he do so now.

The hon Leader of the Official Opposition encroached to a great extent on the terrain of the hon member for Jeppe this afternoon. There was a remarkable similarity in the attack of these two hon members.

Far too often we have to do with the view of some hon members, for instance the hon member for Jeppe and the hon Leader of the Official Opposition this afternoon as well, that the application or the action of the SA Defence Force takes place on an ad hoc basis.

When are you starting your speech?

I am busy with it. If the hon member would open his ears, he would hear what it was about. I do not hold it against the hon member for putting that question to me because he is usually not very bright in that respect.

The SA Defence Force does not act in isolation as and when it wishes. It acts only within the parameters of political decision making in the country.

That is precisely the point.

I concede that to the hon member but, when it comes to this political decision-making, is it not true that the hon the Minister of Defence shoulders the responsibility alone? It is the joint responsibility of the entire Cabinet and the hon member ought to know that. If the hon member had any knowledge whatsoever of the defence and security chain of command in this country, I think he would have a better appreciation and understanding of why certain acts and excursions take place in Angola as in the present case. They occur to enable us to acquire the desired intelligence. Surely we know about the State Security Council which was instituted precisely to acquire intelligence through various bodies. The State Security Council also carries out the necessary co-ordination between the various State departments concerning this matter.

In consequence, when political decision making has to take place, it does not occur in a haphazard fashion, nor are decisions snatched out of thin air, but it is done with due cognizance of all the available facts. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Jeppe pay no attention whatsoever to these facts—they totally negate them.

I am most disappointed in the hon Leader of the Official Opposition today. Seeing that he is the chief PFP spokesman on Defence matters now, we expected calm to descend. But what did the hon Leader do this afternoon? He was entirely derogatory to the extent that I do not believe the hon member can be proud of the speech he made here this afternoon. I really think he sank somewhat beneath his dignity. He complained about credibility; now he cannot go and state his case out there. They are the first people to praise the Defence Force when great success is achieved but, the moment a little misfortune strikes, we run into difficulties with hon members opposite and have one slanging session after the other directed at the hon the Minister of Defence.

I wish to close by saying that we on this side of the House have the greatest confidence in the SA Defence Force; the political head of this Force also has our entire trust; we have the utmost faith in the entire Cabinet which has to make decisions in conjunction with the hon the Minister of Defence.

Rev Hendrickse as well?

Yes, Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi too. That is quite right. I wish it placed on record that I am speaking about the entire Cabinet. We are proud of the decisions reached by them. In contrast to hon members of the CP, those two hon Ministers are at least prepared to assume responsibility for South Africa, something hon members of the CP in particular are not prepared to do.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I just want to say that since we paid tribute to one of our official languages this morning, we have the opportunity this afternoon also to pay tribute to those who make it possible for us to use both official languages freely in this House. If there had been no security and stability in South Africa and if we were not able to argue and debate safely and without restriction in this House, there would have been no democracy and no future for this country.

I want to associate this party with the tribute that other speakers have paid to all the men and women who ensure the safety and freedom of our country.

†I also want to associate this Party, as I have already done in regard to the Angola incident, with the condolences extended to those who have been bereaved. That applies not only to the latest two to die in Angola, but to all who have lost loved ones throughout the past year and to all those who have been wounded or injured while serving South Africa.

I want to come to the Cabinda incident. Let me say immediately, as I did in my initial reaction when the news broke, that we recognize the need for any country to gather and evaluate secret information, the military intelligence and other intelligence necessary for the security of the country. So, we accept the principle that every country must gather military and other information by covert, clandestine means.

There are various means of gathering information and I want to ask the hon the Minister clearly and unequivocally whether the basis for the gathering of information laid down after the Potgieter Commission’s report has been changed. As I understood and still understand the position, following that investigation into our security family it was established that the gathering of foreign information was the task of the National Intelligence Service, then still the Bureau, and that military intelligence would be gathered by military forces, by the Department of Defence through its military intelligence and other forces, in operational areas, in connection with operations and in matters affecting the task of the military forces of South Africa. There was a clear distinction drawn between the work of the National Intelligence Service, which was responsible for over-border gathering of information, and military intelligence which was responsible for operational intelligence gathering. I want to know whether that has changed and whether we are moving back to those sad days when inter-intelligence rivalry led the different members of the intelligence family to compete with one another in gathering information.

I want to tie to that question the question the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition asked, namely: What was the specific urgency in regard to this particular information we required in connection with this particular matter? What was the urgency that made it impossible to gather that information in the normal way through our National Intelligence Service and made it essential to take what was a calculated risk at a time when nothing could have done South Africa’s cause more harm than the collapse of this operation? Nothing could have done us more harm at this particular moment. I believe this House and South Africa are entitled to a full and frank answer from the hon the Minister on how it came about that this high-risk operation was undertaken at this particular moment when so much is at stake in the movement towards peace in Africa.

Was there consultation with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs? Was this a Cabinet decision? I feel we are entitled to know that too. Was this decision taken in the light of the needs of the military or was it decided upon by Cabinet or through consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs? They have to sort this matter out and carry the can.

I can only hope that our potential friends in the balanced countries of the West will, when they get over the immediate reaction to this, think again and say: “There but for the grace of God go we”. One knows that this is something which takes place in every country. What we want to know is why we should have put our country so much at risk when it was so critical not to make a slip.

It is a proud record to be able to say, as far as I know, that this is only the second occasion in all the years that our special forces have been caught or discovered. It is in any case the only time that they have ever been exposed. I want to say that I believe that those special forces are the best forces that any country could have for that sort of work. We are proud of them and I believe that no country can produce better than our recce forces. [Interjections.] We are proud of them, we sympathize with them in the difficult task they have, and we are particularly sorry about this incident. I will leave the matter at that until we get further answers from the hon the Minister.

I have only a few minutes left today. Tomorrow I will come back to some important administrative matters in the department, but in the few minutes at my disposal I want to say a few words in regard to the townships. We in this party have made it quite clear that we accept and support the use of the Defence Force as a back-up to Police activity in restoring law and order in those townships. This is in terms of the Defence Act.

I sat in the House in 1963 as the hon member for Houghton and other hon members of that party did when this House unanimously amended the Defence Act so that section 3(2)(ii) reads that forces can be used “in the suppression of internal disorder”, and section 3(2)(b) reads “on such police duties as may be prescribed”. That we accepted at the time and we accept now that where life or property is at stake it is accepted as one of the tasks of the Defence Force. We do not like it, but where it is necessary we will go along with it. One of my colleagues will deal with how it is applied. I do not intend to deal with that, but he will deal with the actual operations on the ground where we believe a number of improvements can be made.

Finally, I would like to ask a few questions. Has the Geldenhuys Commission reported? Is there an interim report? Will the hon the Minister give us an indication whether the recent administrative changes are pointing in the direction of some interim proposals by the Geldenhuys Commission? My time has expired and I will stop there.

Mr Chairman, there is not much I want to argue about with the hon member for Durban Point. It seems to me as if it is my lot always to speak after him. At least he is positive in his approach, and I want to quote to him the old saying “Old soldiers never die, they just fade away”.

†However, the hon member must not fade away yet; we might still need him in the future. [Interjections.]

*I thank him for the reasonable questions he asked. I am sure the Minister will reply to them.

I should just like to say the following to the hon member for Jeppe, and he would do well to write it down. [Interjections.] No, the hon member might as well remember that one cannot make a small man big by trying to make a big man small. [Interjections.] He must also bear in mind that a good soldier never suffers from narcissism. The hon member must not allow that to destroy him. [Interjections.]

However I want to take this opportunity to convey our congratulations to two commanders, viz Commandant Marriner of the Cape Town Highlanders and Commandant Jacobs of the Ermelo Commando. Both these two units are celebrating their centenaries; both were established in 1885—the one loyal to the aspirations and endeavours of the British Crown; the other determined to fight for the freedom of the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek. During the Anglo-Boer War, in the drive to Kimberley, the Highlanders suffered a crushing blow at Magersfontein. They also lost one of their most colourful generals, General Wauchope, there. At approximately the same period the Ermelo Commando took part in the fighting at Spioenkop, Colenso and Donkerhoek, where they won major victories. Although these two commandos were opponents, one will find accounts in history books of the heroic deeds and daring of the members of both these commandos. Today, under the same colours and names they had before, these two units are rendering valuable service in the operational area as proud units of the SA Defence Force, loyal to South Africa. There are other English-speaking regiments, too, like the Dukes, the Natal Carbineers and the Witwatersrand Rifles, and they are proud of their military traditions, but are also proud to serve in the SA Defence Force. [Interjections.] In additions to these congratulations we also want to thank those in command of these commandos. We are convinced that this fine and colourful tradition will be carried on.

Accordingly it is a heartfelt need for me to make the statement today that the SA Defence Force is one of the most important contributors to sound attitudes among people of all language groups in the RSA. There is no other body which, through its training, has contributed so much to the development of pride, self-respect, loyalty and a healthy spirit among its people. This applies not only in respect of the Whites but also in respect of the people of colour.

The SA Defence Force also deserves every credit for the task of upliftment they are engaged in and for the considerable success they are achieving thereby. In this regard I just wish to mention two examples. Thanks to the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister, who were instrumental in our visiting the operational area together with members of the other parties, we were able to attend a very colourful occasion in the course of the visit, viz a rhythmic military display by members of the Okavango group. I think we were all impressed by the way they gave us this demonstration, particularly during the singing of their national anthem. These are people—there are about 20 000 of them—who had to flee, and who must have been profoundly impressed by the fact that they who had no future, had now been taken under the wing of the SA Defence Force. It was a moving scene. They also went on to sing to us in Afrikaans the beautiful traditional song “Die berggans het ‘n veer laat val”. One of the traditions of these people is that it is a special honour and privilege to possess such a feather, and they feel that the South African Defence Force gave them that feather. By concluding with that song 20 000 Okavangos thanked the South African Defence Force.

There is another task of upliftment to which I should like to refer. I have just sent the hon the Minister a paper cutting—he probably did not know where it came from—but it deals with the Bushmen. In history books written at the turn of the century people speculated about the character of the Bushman. One said he was an animal, but another maintained: No, an animal does not keep dogs, nor does it make fire it was then decided that he must be a person. The history book entitled Die Geskiedenis van ons Land in die Taal van ons Volk was written in 1895 by S J du Toit. In the operational area the Bushmen are today for the first time undergoing an upliftment programme under the protection of the SA Defence Force. For the first time they now have a roof over their heads, they have become acquainted with soap and hygienic conditions. For the first time there is a school building in which 400 pupils can attend school at Omega. A Christianization process is also taking place, and today thousands of Bushmen are Christians. Bushmen have also been trained as clergymen and have already built their own church. As soldiers the Bushman battalion has also done exceptionally good work.

There are also other deserving cases, but I believe that there is no other defence force in the world which is engaged in such a comprehensive socio-economic programme. One must note that this is also partly in an operational area. Therefore we owe a debt of gratitude to the SA Defence Force and all its branches, the Citizen Force and commando national servicemen who are engaged in this praiseworthy task of upliftment and are making such a resounding success of it. Nor can I omit to convey a special word of thanks to an exceptional person, General Naude, and his chaplains for preaching the Gospel to these people.

Hear, hear!

Closer to home the Defence Force also performs another task—and now I want to address the De Hoop prophets of doom within and outside this House—and is acknowledged as one of the leaders in the field of nature and environmental conservation. I have seen some of the films and listened to talks and there is a whole series of things that are being done in this regard. However, I shall confine myself to quoting an authority in this sphere. Prof Botha said the following:

Let me conclude by saying that we can all take off our hats to the SA Defence Force because it is a dynamic organization with outstanding leaders who are not only doing brilliantly well in the military sphere but are also providing praiseworthy services to the community in innumerable spheres, particularly with regard to culture, religion, education, medical services, sport, etc. We thank the hon the Minister, General Viljoen and their staff for their contribution to a better, finer, safer and more prosperous RSA.

Mr Chairman, with reference to what the hon member Mr Vermeulen said I should like to invite him to Natal this weekend where he will be able to watch one of the Bushmen from Omega Camp take part in the Comrades Marathon. He will probably know that the Comrades Marathon originated during the First World War when some of the men who had fought together in that war decided to introduce the Comrades Marathon. It is, therefore, not inappropriate that one of those Bushmen is going to take part and we hope that he will do very well.

†It has been a source of amazement to me that, as far as my knowledge goes, there have been no official functions to remember VE-day in South Africa. The hon the Minister must kindly explain in his reply to this debate why there has been no commemoration by our Defence Force of this historic event to which many South Africans and our Defence Force in particular made such an important contribution.

We wore our medals.

Well, if I had been old enough, I might have worn mine.

The Cabinda incident, which we just heard about and which we are all extremely concerned about, should not really surprise South Africans because any informed observer will see it as typical of a deliberate policy applied since the late seventies.

Since South Africa illegally invaded Angola, parts of our Defence Force have been involved in destabilization which has involved sabotage, terrorism, covert operations and insurgency, and this has been covered up for most South Africans by lies, empty denials, Black propaganda, disinformation and the cynical use of the Defence and Internal Security Acts. There has been military support of genuine political movements by training them in insurgency, movements such as Unita and the Lesotho Liberation Army, and the creation of insurgency groups with no political base such as Renamo. The Defence Force calls them “surrogate forces”. There have also been acts of war against sovereign independent countries. The Gingles incident when he was shot while sabotaging the Beira/Mpadi pipeline, the so-called “unauthorized” mission when two White former Rhodesian members of our Defence Force were shot in Southern Zimbabwe, and the shooting of two and the capture of a third saboteur—all, incidentally, from the photographs, Fidel Castro lookalikes—are all part of a pattern. [Interjections.]

Easily fitted into that pattern are the Seychelles incident, and sabotaging of the Zimbabwe Air Force’s aircraft, the blowing up of an ammunition dump near Harare, the attack on Luanda’s fuel installations and attacks on bridges and transport links to Zimbabwe within Mozambique.

Regular reports of the activities of our aircraft and naval strikecraft operating in foreign airspace and seas to supply insurgent forces, as well as to land and/or fetch commando forces, perfectly fit this pattern.

Taxpayers’ money has, for the last decade, been used to train and supply our own and foreign forces in the techniques and execution of subversion and sabotage. [Interjections.]

We have become a major aggressor in Southern Africa. We have trained people to bomb, to kill innocent people—in simple words, to terrorize. [Interjections.]

Ordinary, decent South Africans have seen the Defence Force use public money to do things against countries and innocent people which can only horrify and disgust them. People who have been brought up, and themselves bring their children up, not to tell lies in the simple Biblical belief that Satan is the Father of lies, discover that the furious denials of support for Renamo or of the occupation of Southern Angola were nothing but lies. [Interjections.]

Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that this hon Minister almost always allows the Chief of the Defence Force to issue the now seldom believed denials and pathetically unconvincing explanations. The chief of the Defence Force and other members of the Defence Force, such as those who died in Cabinda, give loyal and obedient service to South Africa. This hon Minister then abuses that loyalty by making our serving men do what they have to do and then, when the milk spills, he runs away like a frightened cat and leaves the non-political career man to take the flak. [Interjections.]

The SADF reached a nadir of credibility because of the incompetence and the weakness of this hon Minister when on 30 January 1985 the Chief of the Defence Force was forced to have to write a letter to The Cape Times to assure the South African public of the SADF’s loyalty to the State President. What an admission the implications of that letter are and what a shameful day for South Africa that the Chief of our Defence Force has to write such a letter because his Minister is a man of straw, frightened to shoulder his responsibilities, let alone his duty!

On 27 September 1984 a 25-year-old South African university graduate and national serviceman, whose ancestors have worked for at least a century towards building up South Africa, was sentenced under section 118(4) of the Defence Act to five years’ imprisonment. This intelligent, sensitive young man had obtained a post lecturing in development studies at the University of Bophuthatswana when he had completed his national service. He asked for non-combatant status, he got a security clearance and he was posted to Intelligence and the Department of Special Operations or Tasks. There he was assigned to a section where his tasks were linked to paying and supplying the MNR or Renamo instructors and insurgents.

I have not met this man, but from local and overseas Press reports it is not difficult to imagine that he found himself in an agonizing moral dilemma, caused on the one hand by his love, loyalty and family background of support for South Africa and the integrity of its Defence Force, and on the other hand by his sense of outrage, revulsion, horror, despair and disgust when he realized that the DSO was nothing more than a department of destabilization and terrorism involved with much more than just Renamo.

Roland Hunter must have felt the same quality of moral agony that a decent German must have felt when he realized that the SS was gassing Jews, Slavs and Gypsies. [Interjections.] He probably felt that he could not keep silent without abusing his conscience. So he thoughtlessly—indeed stupidly—decided to pass on information about Renamo activities to the ANC, who in turn passed it on to the Mozambican Government.

The sad fact is that Roland Hunter is basically a decent, honest, moral, if unwise, young South African. In fact, he is a patriot who now has to spend five years in gaol when it is really this hon Minister who caused this man’s imprisonment and who is the person who carries the real guilt.

After the admission of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs that we have supported Renamo, the least this hon Minister can do is ask his colleague the hon the Minister of Justice to release Roland Hunter as soon as possible. I want to support the appeal of my hon leader that the hon the Minister must explain where he is going with this policy of destabilization. This hon Minister has become the Gaddafi of Southern Africa in his wild and unethical use of parts of our Defence Force for covert operations, destabilization and terrorism. [Interjections.] Even more deplorable is the hon the Minister’s evasion of his proper duties. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman on a point of order: Is that hon member allowed to say that this hon the Minister has become the Gaddafi of South Africa?

Mr Chairman, I can indeed. Col Gaddafi is perhaps just a little better-looking than the hon the Minister. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

As I was saying, what is perhaps even more deplorable in respect of this policy, is the hon the Minister’s evasion of his proper duties by hiding away behind the Chief of the SADF. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I cannot believe that an hon member of this House can make a speech of the kind that the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North has just made. I want to tell that hon member and the hon the leader of the PFP as well that this side of the House objects in the strongest possible terms to a comparison being drawn between two members of the Defence Force who died and one who was captured, and the adjutants of Fidel Castro. [Interjections.] This side of the House objects in the strongest possible terms to Defence Force units being linked to acts of terror, and to a comparison of the hon the Minister of Defence with Gadaffi.

I believe it is impossible to refer within a space of 10 minutes to the dangers posed to the free world, but specifically the RSA, by disinformation as part of a carefully planned Russian strategy to establish a worldwide federation of communist states. However, I just want to make a few remarks. No military force can function effectively if, in the first place, it is unable to obtain information, and, secondly, it is unable to evaluate correctly the information that it obtains. With that in mind I am also astonished this afternoon at the tirade that has been unleashed in connection with South Africa’s efforts to obtain first-hand information, in the north of Angola as well, in regard to the movements of revolutionary organizations. I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition bluntly that if the Defence Force does not obtain this information by way of its reconnaissance commandos, then within a short time there will no longer be a free South Africa in which opposition parties, too, can function undisturbed. Questions are asked about the extreme urgency surrounding this action. The answer must be sought in the Nkomati Accord. The Leader of the Official Opposition himself quoted a report here to the effect that the ANC had been compelled to change its strategy. Owing to that change in strategy it is vital to obtain information about it as well.

As regards the evaluation of information, over the years the Soviet Union has developed a carefully planned strategy geared to disseminating selective information with a view to promoting their own aims. In this connection an authoritative work has just appeared written by a former member of the KGB who was concerned with the disinformation programme. The title of the work is New Lies for Old. I believe that everyone concerned with the evaluation of information in South Africa will have to take urgent cognizance of the contents of this work. In this book disinformation is described as follows:

In order to expedite this disinformation campaign, ten to fifteen thousand KGB members are involved in it daily. Three to four thousand dollars are voted for this purpose annually. All this is with the exclusive aim of disseminating information to promote the objectives of the Soviet Union. I just want to mention two examples of disinformation disseminated recently—both of a non-military nature. I shall deal in a moment with the specific disinformation onslaught on the RSA.

The Soviet Union wished to obtain support in the countries of the Third World for its boycott campaign against the Olympic Games. It sent letters on the letterhead of the Ku Klux Klan to the Olympic Committees of the Third World stating: “The Olympics are for human beings, not for monkeys.”

The other example concerns the RSA. IN Die Vaderland of 4 April a brief report appeared entitled “SA kiem moor net Swartes.” According to a Russian newspaper, South African scientists are developing a germ which will only kill people of colour. Unfortunately British newspapers took up this report and disseminated it.

In the light of this it must be pointed out that the manipulation of the public media in the Free World is an important facet of the disinformation strategy. The Press is used to disseminate this selective information. A classic example is Der Spiegel, which was involved in a court case in London recently because it had published a series of articles in 1962 which were tantamount to character assassination of Franz Josef Strauss, the then Minister of Defence in West Germany. These articles were in fact planted by the KGB.

In their defence their legal representatives said the following:

It goes without saying that an on-going responsibility rests on the news media to ensure that they do not become the bearers of planted information to promote the interests of the communist bloc.

I now turn to the specific disinformation onslaught on the RSA. Various Sovietologists have recently expressed the opinion that Russia has far more important priorities than the RSA and that not too much should be made of the concept of a total onslaught. This opinion is being seized on and announced with excitement.

However, we must beware of falling into the trap of disinformation as a result of this. No-one has ever contended that South Africa is a high priority target for a direct onslaught by the Soviet Union. However South Africa is a target of no little importance for take-over by surrogate forces.

In this regard, cognizance must be taken of the long-term objective of the Soviet Union, which is also published in the book New Lies for Old. I quote as follows in regard to this long-term policy:

Therefore those who contend that there is no total onslaught on the RSA have already fallen victim to disinformation.

Another prime example of disinformation is the very fact that it is now being contended that the reconaissance unit or commando was on its way to blow up certain oil installations. This is clearly aimed at bringing South Africa into discredit.

I shall let one final example of disinformation against the RSA suffice. The aim is exclusively to undermine the system of national service. This afternoon we had an outstanding example from the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. [Interjections.] Reports are being disseminated to the effect that South Africa is engaged in an immoral war and that it is using the Defence Force internally, too, to support the policy of apartheid. This allegation is made with only one aim: The undermining of the SA Defence Force. This is being done because it is realized that the SA Defence Force is the most important bulwark against the eventual expansionism of the Soviet Union.

I want to conclude with one final remark by the author of New Lies for Old, and hope that this will never happen in South Africa. I quote:

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by dissociating myself and my party in toto from what the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North had to say about South African soldiers when he inter alia referred to them as saboteurs. I wonder whether the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Yeoville agree with their hon colleague. Did the hon member speak on behalf of his caucus?

We ought to have saboteurs in the South African Defence Force, man.

Does the hon member therefore call them saboteurs?

He says we ought to have saboteurs.

We ought to have them, but then they must not be sent there. [Interjections.]

I shall leave the matter at that but I dissociate myself one hundred per cent from what that member said.

We are proud of our soldiers and grateful for what they are doing for the security of South Africa as a state. Some of us motivate our children from an early age to perform their national service one day. [Interjections.] If the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North wants to address the Government, he may do so, but I am no longer addressing him. In preparation for their military preparedness we motivate our children to set aside time in there precious young lives by making themselves available for the defence of their fatherland so that they, like others, may run the risk of paying the highest price. Whereas some of them are doing their national service every day in this country, while voluntary professional soldiers are undergoing their preparation, there are others who are sabotaging this effort of theirs, and as far as I am concerned they are committing treason by doing so.

I refer to a report which appeared in The Cape Times this morning in which mention is made of some organization called End Conscription Campaign, or the ECC. They climb onto the bandwagon with all the other criticasters “and deeply condemn the actions of South African Defence Force troops in Angola”. This is one of the aspects they criticise. According to this newspaper report they appear to do so without being specific. I do not know who this ECC is, but a pamphlet has made its way to me, too. A chain is printed at the top of the page, three of the links of which have been broken to form the letters ECC. At the bottom of this pamphlet there is a framed footnote which calls attention to:

I want to ask the hon the Minister who these people are. I also want to ask him whether he is having their activities investigated because one need not set off a bomb to commit sabotage in the country. To be guilty of treasonable action one need not commit an act of treason. [Interjections.] I also want to find out from this hon Minister what the standpoint of his Government and of all Government members are in regard to the national service of the young men of their two coloured partners in Government. I refer to the Coloureds and Indians. The words of the hon member for Standerton would have been far more weighty and meaningful if he had touched on these matters. [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon the Minister what his standpoint is in this regard because the hon members of the other two Houses also visit the borders. They, too, go and see what our national servicemen are doing. They vote on the money spent on defence in this country. They have a say in respect of our sons and they sit in the standing committees—there are more of them than there are Whites in the standing committees.

You have never been on the border. [Interjections.]

Answer not a fool according to his folly. If that hon member had devoted as many days to the Defence Force of this country as I have devoted years to it then he would be entitled to say something of that kind to me. [Interjections.] People must stop uttering fine words about defence in order to make an impression whereas in practice we are being sent around and pushed around by people—I refer to the Government’s partners—who do not give two pins for the national servicemen and the defence of the country. They must take that to heart, because they have said that they do not want their people there. I think we must have the standpoint of the Government in this regard.

Are there no sons from the other Houses there?

Those hon members are so confused. Apparently on that side of the House they are unaware that there is any such thing as national service which is only compulsory for Whites and that there are also professional soldiers, people who may join voluntarily and make it their profession and who are paid for it. [Interjections.]

But you are talking about the border.

Order!

I want to ask the hon the Minister to ensure that two matters are considered: in the first place, the remuneration of the national servicemen. Serious consideration must be given to increasing the pay of the ordinary national serviceman, even in these times, because a 12% increase on R1 or R1,50 is not substantial. I seriously want to ask that attention be given to these matters in view of the economic burden these people have to bear and the obligations they have to meet. Here I refer in particular to those who are single. In the second place, I think serious consideration must be given to the length of national service. It could be cut by six months or a year.

Mr Chairman, I must guard against the temptation to react directly to the last part of the speech by the hon member for Soutpansberg—I hope that the hon the Minister will reply to it—because there is a subject to which I should like to draw the attention of this House, viz, the issue of cadet training in our schools.

To begin with I want to pay glowing tribute to cadet officers and headmasters for the tremendous contribution they have made over the years in motivating our young boys to prepare themselves to tackle the task they will be expected to perform at a latter stage. The objectives specified in both the military documents and the relevant part of the programme of action of education, involve military skills and the instilling of a personal pride in and love of his mother country in the young boy’s life and the acceptance of a common responsibility for the security of the community in which he grows up, and arming him with knowledge in regard to the nature and extent of the threat to the RSA and everything it entails.

The cadet division has had a very interesting history in our Defence Force. It came into being in the year 1869 at a mission school at Hermansburg in the Greytown district, where a start was made with preparing 14 to 18 year old boys for military life. It is very interesting that the name of this movement appeared in the roll of honour of the Cetshwayo Wars of 1870 to 1873 and in the roll of honour of the Second War of Liberation, in which they made a direct contribution. However, their name also appears on the roll of honour of the First World War. In terms of the South Africa Defence Act of 1912 this fine organization became part of our educational curriculum per se.

In 1967, chiefly as a result of manpower problems, a problem arose with the cadet organization, which resulted in the appointment of the Loots Commission, which issued its report in 1974. Today’s cadet system is largely based on the proposals presented in the report of the Loots Commission of 1974. The essential problem as far as cadets are concerned today runs on manpower, in the first instance but there is a second matter to which I want to draw the attention of this House, viz that we see the cadet movement as standing on two autonomous legs. The first is the SADF, which has to provide the movement with financial support and give it everything it needs, including the bivouacs, cadet competitions and everything that that entails. The administration of the cadet movement and everything that entails, together with the implementation of the entire organization, is a matter for another autonomous department, viz the Department of Education.

It is clear to me from the reports at my disposal and from discussions I have conducted both with the Defence Force and the education department that these two bodies have the utmost regard for one another. It became clear from the troubled waters of the past—and there was such a thing—that it was necessary to deal with the problems of the cadet organization with great circumspection. It is here, in my opinion, that tremendous problems arise. The Defence Force has considerable appreciation for the autonomous handling of the cadet organization by the education department, on a budget of R6,5 million utilized for this purpose. The education department in turn has to deal with all the onslaughts to which the hon members for Soutpansberg and Randfontein referred. Education does not wish to be militarized or politicized, and then we still get circulars of this kind in the hands of young boys and girls, that absolutely poison them against this system which prepares them to make a contribution for the defence of our country.

Between these two poles a system such as that of the cadet organization has to function. There is mutual respect but if we investigate the content of the programme which has to motivate the young boy and girl the major problem comes to the fore. I want the hon the Minister to give attention to this, viz: How does one motivate this cadet if the system has no content? The Defence Force will not easily come forward to provide information as to exactly what the onslaught on South Africa entails. Education, on the other hand, is extremely cautious not to be militarized or politicized. It is evident from the reports of the SICC that there is outstanding co-operation between the top levels of the Defence force and the education authority. When I read the reports of the advisory boards, I note a lack of content, whereas content has become essential for the motivation of the cadet. At this point I can at most spell out this problem. I want to use this forum to say to the education department that the Defence Force has high regard for what they are doing. They are prepared to give the education department everything. Does the education department not wish to make use of the forum I offer them to ask the Defence Force to be fully informed as to what is going on in the country? I put it to the hon the Minister in all earnest: If that request is made by education, then in Heaven’s name open up the books of South Africa and put the total situation to them. I ask that this contact be at a lower level than that of the SICC, and lower than the directoral level of education. At least the inspectors of education must be included in this. They must be fully informed as to the seriousness of the situation. I have sufficient confidence in the sense of responsibility, loyalty and patriotism of the members of our educational profession to believe that they will deal appropriately with that information as a whole in giving the essential content to the basis of this fine movement which in my opinion we cannot simply leave as it stands but which ought to be extended further.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

as Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, relative to the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill [No 97—85 (GA)], as follows:

In the circumstances your Committee requests the House to allow it, notwithstanding the provisions of the Joint rule, to continue its deliberations on the Bill on 4 and 5 June 1985.

C H W SIMKIN,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

28 May 1985.

Report to be considered.